From mrsewp at earthlink.net Wed Feb 1 01:20:43 2006 From: mrsewp at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Catherine) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:20:43 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147391 Besty wrote in an interesting post that I snipped: Just to list it all out: > PS/SS: red herring, Snape; villain, Quirrell > CoS: red herring, Draco; villain, Ginny/Tom Riddle > PoA: red herring, Sirius; villain, Peter Pettigrew > GoF: red herring, Karkaroff; villain, Moody/Barty Crouch, Jr. > OotP: red herring, Snape; villain, Kreacher > If we take HBP as one book in and of itself I guess we'd have to say that the red herring was Draco and the villain was Snape (though that sounds neater than it actually fell out). Mainly because Harry expected Draco to kill Dumbledore and instead (dun-dun-DAH) Snape did it. But if we take HBP as part one of a two parter I think it's safer to put both Snape and Draco as the red herring since they've been so neatly handed to us as the villains. Or maybe Snape as the red herring and Draco as the secondary mystery. Either way, the real villain has yet to be revealed. (DUN-DUN-*DAAHH*!) Betsy Hp EC here: I've been struggling since my initial readings of HBP with the deceptively neat and sweet explanation for Tonks. All her behavior was out of love for Lupin? Although I did take some pleasure in seeing some romance for both of them, especially Lupin, her behavior, the change in her patronus, etc. are starting to look like the same sort of stuff we read now with that knowing eye about Quirrell, Moody, Karkaroff, etc. My gut tells me that somehow both Draco and Snape will be somewhat vindicated in Book 7, requiring an immense amount of mindset shifting from our Harry. Betsy, this follows your 'red herring' idea for book 6. Whom do you see as the potential ESE character? I believe that part of the struggle in Book 7 will deal with this adjustment of loyalties/ rethinking of Snape and Draco, because Harry will have to sort it out before finishing/ being finished by Voldemort. I further believe that Dumbledore's statement to Draco on the tower will be equally telling for Book 7, the idea that he knows there is some good in him. Elizabeth Catherine From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Feb 1 01:52:41 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:52:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E01469.4010901@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147392 Sherry wrote: > If anything, I expect that Neville's personal "warning system" is at > high alert against any contact from Voldemort's supporters. He showed > in OOtP, and in the battle at the end of HBP, that he may be a much > stronger opponent than first impressions may suggest. Bart: "We're really sorry about what happened to your parents. And that your friends have gone off, and haven't considered inviting you. WE are loyal to our friends. Become our friend, and we'll cure your parents. And we'll teach you to become a REALLY effective magician. And when you're with us, NOBODY will dare make fun of you!" Bart From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Feb 1 02:15:05 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:15:05 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: <43E01469.4010901@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <8F5CB426-92C8-11DA-9C1D-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147393 > Sherry wrote: > > If anything, I expect that Neville's personal "warning system" is at > > high alert against any contact from Voldemort's supporters. He showed > > in OOtP, and in the battle at the end of HBP, that he may be a much > > stronger opponent than first impressions may suggest. > > Bart: > ????? "We're really sorry about what happened to your parents. And > that your > friends have gone off, and haven't considered inviting you. WE are > loyal > to our friends. Become our friend, and we'll cure your parents. And > we'll teach you to become a REALLY effective magician. And when you're > with us, NOBODY will dare make fun of you!" > kchuplis: Nah, Neville is low on self esteem, not brains. You are falling for Snape's insinuations too! I really think he'd eat nails before he'd switch sides. I think we see that in his efforts with the DA. If we didn't see him keep that bit of wrapper from his mum, I might be able to go along with that, but it shows he deeply cares about his parents and their state. Nope, I don't think he could be bribed into it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 02:21:27 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:21:27 -0000 Subject: Regulus Black / Significance of DD & Sirius having In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147394 Alla wrote: > > Right, I can imagine all sorts of possibilities with Aberworth storyline, but what is his role as brother of great Albus Dumbledore? That is what bugs me at the moment. :-) > > > Potioncat responded: > Another thought about the significance of the brothers. There is a huge section of HP fans who have no idea that the barman is Aberforth Dumbledore. Harry doesn't know. I don't think anything in canon tells us this. I'm sure there's a smaller, but still significant number of fans who don't particularly remember that Sirius's brother was named Regulus. > > The impact of Regulus's role and Aberforth's role will be more intense for those fans who are expecting nothing than it will be for us. It would be easier for us to say, "Is that it?" > > Potioncat, still dosed up on cold medicine, and hoping this post isn't too foggy. Carol adds: There's a contrasting brothers motif, or more accurately a contrasting same-sex siblings motif (aargh! I hate "siblings," but "same-sex brothers and sisters" doesn't make sense, much less alliterat) throughout the HP books. We see it most clearly, I think, in Petunia and Lily, Bellatrix and Narcissa, and Percy and any other Weasley boy, but there are other pairs as well: Parvati and Padma Patil or Colin and Dennis Creevey, for example, and most subtly, perhaps, with Fred and George, who are physically identical and very similar in their personalities, but are not interchangeable. (The pair I can't figure out is Rodolphus and Rabastan Lestrange. Why is Rabastan in the books at all?) I imagine that we'll see something of the same pattern with Albus and Aberforth on the one hand and Sirius and Regulus on the other (with the interesting twist that in both cases, the brother we already know is dead, and so--unless JKR is pulling a fast one on us--is one of the brothers that we know only by name. Whether there's any thematic significance to these pairings is unclear at the moment, at least to me. They may simply reflect JKR's relationship with her own sister, who is apparently very different from JKR and yet on good terms with her. I hope that the Albus/Aberforth and Sirius/Regulus pairings are used in markedly different ways. For example, I'd like to see Aberforth providing us with much-needed information on his brother and on Snape (what really happened when the Prophecy was revealed, for starters!), but I don't want Resurrected!Regulus (aka Stubby Boardman) to perform a similar role. (Please, JKR. Enough faked deaths--unless it's Emmeline Vance's death faked by Snape). But I do want to discover that Sirius was wrong about Regulus. (Too bad he won't be around to see the locket Horcrux that Regulus stole opened and destroyed, which I expect Harry will see happen in Book 7.) I'm guessing that Aberforth will be primarily a source of information (it would be nice if he added a little humor, as well, but we seems like a dour old codger, so probably not). Regulus, I'm guessing, is chiefly a plot device to get the locket Horcrux into Harry's hands. Maybe we'll get some backstory on him from Kreacher, but it would be nice to have a less biased and more coherent witness. At any rate, the contrasting brothers (and sisters) seem tied to the importance of "blood" in the sense of family or shared ancestry. I'm remembering Hagrid'sdrunken and tearful remark about blood being important in OoP--no doubt in connection with the injuries he had received from his attentions to dear little half-brother Grawp. Does anyone else think that these pairings may have some thematic significance and, if so, any ideas on what that significance might be (or why the heck Rabastan is in the books)? Carol, who also is very different from her sister despite the same "blood" From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 01:09:33 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:09:33 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147395 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > In short, could you elaborate on why do you think the other scenes > of Harry's grief were poorly handled? > > Thanks, > > Alla I would say those are not examples of JKR dealing with Harry's grief. Rather they are throwaway lines here and there, almost as if she was thinking "oh, yeah, I better say something or another about Sirius here." I don't see any real evidence that Sirius' death has really affected Harry or anybody else very much or very deeply, or that JKR has tried very hard to integrate the complex emotional issues she presented in OOTP into the further story of Harry. Rather, she dusted off her hands, shoved them under the rug, and got on with the plot. Harry was furious with Kreacher at the end of OOTP. Three weeks later, he becomes Kreacher's master and his response is "uhhhh, okay." Harry was angry and furious with Dumbledore at the end of OOTP. At the beginning of HBP all those emotions are completely forgotten and the issues shoved firmly under the rug. Harry was deeply distraught over Cedric's death, but he loses his father-figure and three weeks later its "I'm not going to grieve for his sake, now let's go get Voldemort!" Oh, please, eaaaaaaasy stomach, easy their boy. Lupinlore From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Feb 1 02:51:26 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:51:26 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147396 On Tuesday, January 31, 2006, at 07:09 PM, lupinlore wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > > > In short, could you elaborate on why do you think the other scenes > > of Harry's grief were poorly handled? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alla > > > I would say those are not examples of JKR dealing with Harry's grief.? > Rather they are throwaway lines here and there, almost as if she was > thinking "oh, yeah, I better say something or another about Sirius > here."? I don't see any real evidence that Sirius' death has really > affected Harry or anybody else very much or very deeply, or that JKR > has tried very hard to integrate the complex emotional issues she > presented in OOTP into the further story of Harry.? Rather, she dusted > off her hands, shoved them under the rug, and got on with the plot.? > > Harry was furious with Kreacher at the end of OOTP.? Three weeks > later, he becomes Kreacher's master and his response is "uhhhh, > okay."? Harry was angry and furious with Dumbledore at the end of > OOTP.? At the beginning of HBP all those emotions are completely > forgotten and the issues shoved firmly under the rug.? Harry was > deeply distraught over Cedric's death, but he loses his father-figure > and three weeks later its "I'm not going to grieve for his sake, now > let's go get Voldemort!"? Oh, please, eaaaaaaasy stomach, easy their > boy. > > Lupinlore > Well, obviously nothing anyone says is going to enlighten you on this score. None of these instances is are throw away lines. For some reason you wanted to be told about Harry's grief rather than shown it. I know for me that would have been MUCH more "please, eeeeasy stomach". Like some second rate mellerdrama to be put on a summer stage and throw popcorn at. I guess I prefer subtly to spectacle in this case. kchuplis From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Wed Feb 1 03:11:48 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:11:48 -0000 Subject: lupin, werewolves & "wagga wagga" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147397 > ... > > So whatever he's doing with the werewolves in OoP and HBP, it's not > offering them Wolfsbane Potion (or "curing" them with the Homorphus > Charm). He *may* be setting an example of civilized behavior, but as > the other werewolves are uneducated and would resent his ability to > use a wand legally if they know about it, I can't see him making much > of an impression. > > What I don't understand is how parents whose children were bitten > during Dumbledore's tenure as headmaster could allow the children to > be uneducated, simply discarding them and letting them fend for > themselves eating scraps from rubbish bins and endangering others by > transforming once a month. What parent, short of the fortunately > childless Bellatrix Lestrange, would do that? Maybe the parents didn't > know that Dumbledore would tolerate and protect the werewolf children > if the parents asked his help, but surely they would educate them at > home and provide a safe place for them to transform even if they > didn't send them to school? And wouldn't the children get Hogwarts > letters like all other magical children in Britain, as Remus obviously > did? Why would DD go to the trouble of helping one child, even > planting the Whomping Willow so he could hide in the Shrieking Shack > each month and not help other children in the same position? It seems > like a giant plot hole or plot flaw to me. > > Carol, wondering if Lupin spent those twelve lost years tutoring > werewolf children > La Gatta Lucianese: The more I read about the situation of werewolves in the WW, the more I am reminded, not of AIDS, but of leprosy. In the centuries before a cure was found for the disease, the only alternative was to send infected individuals to a leper colony, many of which were anarchic hell-holes not unlike the werewolf community in the WW. The disease was contagious through casual contact (though not nearly as contagious as people thought it was) and incurable, and the only safety was in isolating those who suffered from it, horrible as that must have been for their families. I see Lupin as a sort of lycantropic Father Damien, trying to bring a measure of order, education, and humanity to those infected with this terrible and incurable disease. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Feb 1 03:40:59 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:40:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's dealing with emotions (was Re: The importance of death /Harry and Cedric) References: Message-ID: <00aa01c626e1$522177e0$2560400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 147398 Lupinlore: > Chuckle. It truly is amazing how people read totally different books, > isn't it? I find her dealing with Harry's grief (or amazing lack > thereof) to be incredibly poor writing and completely unbelievable, > especially after that blow up over Cedric. Magpie: Just to add a different perspective, while I do think Harry's reaction to both deaths is completely plot-based I had no problem with the grieving over Sirius since they just didn't really have a relationship while he was alive. There was always this idea of a relationship that they both seemed very fond of, but given a chance to spend time together and hang out...not so much. So Sirius being dead was a loss to me because I thought he was an interesting character, but I didn't feel any big hole in Harry's life, though I could believe him reacting to it when he did. With Cedric it seemed like Harry was dealing with a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with this one kid particularly dying. He said Cedric in his sleep because he was perhaps reliving the whole experience (and he had to say something to remind *us* of the big tragedy etc.) Not that I'm complaining, because Dudley's line is so 15-year-old!Dudley. In general, I just really do expect most emotions to tie into the plot. If Sirius had died at the end of GoF I've no doubt Harry's CAPSLOCK would be attributed to that and described as just the right way to grieve for Sirius by some while still annoying others. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Feb 1 03:56:54 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:56:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? References: Message-ID: <00d701c626e3$8c5796e0$2560400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 147399 lupinlore: > Harry was furious with Kreacher at the end of OOTP. Three weeks later, he > becomes Kreacher's master and his response is "uhhhh, okay." Magpie: I must say I found it very funny that Harry is now a slaveowner and Hermione says nothing about it that I remember, after two books of non-stop SPEW. Harry finds himself in the hospital wing, remembers Dobby, is inspired to get elves to trail Malfoy and calls...his slave. As opposed to Dobby himself. I just find it fascinating. You know Kreacher's going to try to work against you. You know you've got a self-proclaimed friend of a House Elf who would love to do it for you. You'd think it would be weird ordering someone to do something as your slave.and that asking Kreacher might be particularly hard given his past. I guess the main reason was so that JKR could have the two elves fighting but still, who would have thought after everything we'd seen that Harry would become a House Elf owner and actually take advantage of it. Did he just feel bad imposing on his friend so thought he'd get his slave to do it against his will? Karen: Well, obviously nothing anyone says is going to enlighten you on this score. None of these instances is are throw away lines. For some reason you wanted to be told about Harry's grief rather than shown it. I know for me that would have been MUCH more "please, eeeeasy stomach". Like some second rate mellerdrama to be put on a summer stage and throw popcorn at. I guess I prefer subtly to spectacle in this case. Magpie: Not to speak for Lupinlore but the sense I get is not that she wants lots of melodrama but that she didn't feel like a subtle handling of grief was worked in throughout the books. Thus these throwaway lines just stood apart from everything else instead of seeming like small signs of something that was going on all along within Harry when we were inside his head the whole book. -m From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Feb 1 05:18:09 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:18:09 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's dealing with emotions (was Re: The importance of death /Harry and Cedric) In-Reply-To: <00aa01c626e1$522177e0$2560400c@Spot> References: <00aa01c626e1$522177e0$2560400c@Spot> Message-ID: <1871840135.20060131211809@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147400 Tuesday, January 31, 2006, 7:40:59 PM, Magpie wrote: M> Not that I'm complaining, because Dudley's line is M> so 15-year-old!Dudley. And it rang true for me, at least... When I was in Junior High School, I once came to class bearing the book version of Carl Sagan's astronomy series _Cosmos_, and one guy pointed at Sagan's photo on the back cover and said to me, "Who's that, your boyfriend?" -- Dave From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 02:19:31 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:19:31 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147401 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Catherine" wrote: > > > EC here: > I've been struggling since my initial readings of HBP with the > deceptively neat and sweet explanation for Tonks. All her behavior > was out of love for Lupin? Although I did take some pleasure in > seeing some romance for both of them, especially Lupin, her > behavior, the change in her patronus, etc. are starting to look like > the same sort of stuff we read now with that knowing eye about > Quirrell, Moody, Karkaroff, etc. In what way is Tonks similar to these others? I agree that her change in behavior is very odd. However, that is readily explained by her feelings for Lupin. I acknowledge that that is a cheesy explanation, and not really convincing. But the fact is that JKR, bless her heart, just doesn't write romance very well. In fact, she she shouldn't be let near the romance section of a bookstore, much less be trying to write it. Just as I doubt we'll find out that there was a love potion involved with Ginny and Harry, I doubt we'll discover anything behind Tonks' behavior but love. > My gut tells me that somehow both Draco and Snape will be somewhat > vindicated in Book 7, requiring an immense amount of mindset > shifting from our Harry. That would be reprehensible beyond belief and render the books good for nothing but compost, as it would amount to making a hero out of a child abuser. Having said that, I think it is true that Snape and Draco both have roles to play, and both are in for tremendous backlashes of fate. But then, so are all the major characters. Lupinlore From mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 04:36:56 2006 From: mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com (Jutika Gehani) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:36:56 -0000 Subject: Underage Magic.... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147402 Hi, I have a question...... How does the MOM detect underage magic....? Why can't they differentiate between an underage wizard doing magic (like Harry) and magic done by a house elf (Dobby)?? Take care, Jutika. From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Feb 1 06:08:56 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 00:08:56 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: <00d701c626e3$8c5796e0$2560400c@Spot> Message-ID: <3AA1F56E-92E9-11DA-8414-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147403 On Tuesday, January 31, 2006, at 09:56 PM, Magpie wrote: > Karen: > > Well, obviously nothing anyone says is going to enlighten you on this > score. None of these instances is are throw away lines. For some reason > you wanted to be told about Harry's grief rather than shown it. I know > for me that would have been MUCH more "please, eeeeasy stomach". Like > some second rate mellerdrama to be put on a summer stage and throw > popcorn at. I guess I prefer subtly to spectacle in this case. > > Magpie: > > Not to speak for Lupinlore but the sense I get is not that she wants > lots of > melodrama but that she didn't feel like a subtle handling of grief was > worked in throughout the books. Thus these throwaway lines just stood > apart > from everything else instead of seeming like small signs of something > that > was going on all along within Harry when we were inside his head the > whole > book. > > Karen: I understand that is Lupinlore's take, I'm just saying that it rings true with a lot of us so it really can't be that badly done. I really don't think we are squeezing our life experience around to fit the book. The book portrayal fits what we know. Lupinlore's experience of grief is obviously different. I'm just saying if I saw a lot of moaning and agonizing with Sirius death (after the initial angry DD office scene) I would have found that *highly* melodramatic and it would have put me off and I would feel it was ooc for Harry. I'm just not seeing what it is Lupinlore expected of Harry after Sirius' death. I still don't get the references to Kreacher, as I don't think Harry *wants* Kreacher in any way shape of form, but he can't free him because of everything he's been privvy to. It isn't even something Harry thought about previously. What was Harry supposed to do? Just looking for what Lupinlore was expecting now as obviously it is not what was written ( I really think the character is written well. I'm beginning to feel that those of us who are saying the grief works are being thought of as being "fanboys".) From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Wed Feb 1 06:14:22 2006 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:14:22 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's secrets about Snape and Hagrid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E051BE.7090200@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147404 lagattalucianese wrote: > > { > Hagrid = Lily + polyjuice; > Snape = James + polyjuice; > Harry = Hagrid * Snape; > } > > > > You really want people to believe someone can not only change their gender with polyjuice potion, but also get pregnant and carry a child to term while having to take a sip of polyjuice potion EVERY HOUR for 9 months? What's in that cough medicine? Jazmyn From juli17 at aol.com Wed Feb 1 06:27:22 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:27:22 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147405 Lupinlore wrote: > Harry was furious with Kreacher at the end of OOTP. Three weeks later, he becomes Kreacher's master and his response is "uhhhh, okay." Harry was angry and furious with Dumbledore at the end of OOTP. At the beginning of HBP all those emotions are completely forgotten and the issues shoved firmly under the rug. Harry was deeply distraught over Cedric's death, but he loses his father-figure and three weeks later its "I'm not going to grieve for his sake, now let's go get Voldemort!" Oh, please, eaaaaaaasy stomach, easy their boy. > Julie now: Actually, Harry looked at Kreacher with disgust and said he didn't want him. It was only when Dumbledore reminded him that Kreacher would pass to Bellatrix, and that Kreacher had lived at the OOTP headquarters for the past year (and thus might reveal many important secrets) that Harry said, in essence, "uhhhh, okay." He didn't take Kreacher because was indifferent to him or had forgiven or forgotten his role in Sirius's death, but because he had to protect the OOTP. He certainly sent Kreacher away as soon as Dumbledore pointed out the opportunity, so I don't think his acceptance of Kreacher as his "property" has any bearing on his grief over Sirius (or lack thereof, depending on your POV). BTW, you're a she? Here I've always assumed you were a he, Lupinlore! I'm now thinking about why I made that assumption... Julie From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 06:35:56 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:35:56 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? (was:How to contstruct an ESE!plot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147406 > Betsy Hp: > I'm curious, how many people on this list think a character will be > revealed as ESE in book 7? I've always assumed that JKR will throw in > an all mighty twist and have someone that Harry trusted turn out to be > ESE. This is a cool topic, and I've read everyone's replies, but going back to the basic question, I'm going to hazard that there ISN'T going to be an ESE!character at all, barring Voldemort. I think that the last book will be a sort of reverse-mystery, where the world isn't full of hidden evil to be cast out, but full of hidden good to be drawn in. Snape, obviously; Draco, less obviously; and Regulus with the huge backstory; the life-debt thing with (ugh) Pettigrew; the off-stage Slytherin kids in general; the strange contradiction between the history teacher's version of the Slytherin split and the Sorting Hat's... to me there seems an overwhelming pattern of the unresolved issues leading into the last book. I enjoy mystery stories, but there's a reason the genre isn't known for producing great works of literature. Fiction at it's best, IMO, is about acknowleding our common humanity, and characters growing (or not) by coming to terms (or not!) with all sides of their nature, the good and the bad. The central drive of a classic detective story is the separating and casting out of a scapegoat, and that's just antithetical to really.. what's the word? nutritious? literature. There's an Edmund Wilson essay (not online unfortunately), "Why do people read detective stories?": "Everybody is suspected in turn, and the streets are full of lurking agents whose allegiances we cannot know. Nobody seems guiltless, nobody seems safe; and then, suddenly, the murderer is spotted, and-- relief!-- he is not, after all, a person like you or me. He is a villain.." Lord, I hate villain-driven plots.. anyways, I think the classic mystery structure is particularily inappropriate for the conclusion of a children's book with a lot of spiritual themes like Harry Potter,with it's hinted denoument in the Room of Love, and I don't see it heading in an ESE! direction for anyone, really. I think the streets will be full of hidden allies rather than hidden threats, and a good thing too! because boy is Harry going to need them. -- Sydney, who has no problem with hard-bitten cynical stories but really doesn't think this is one of them. From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 06:12:01 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:12:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's brother Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147407 Aberforth Dumbledore is only mentioned briefly in The Goblet of Fire. The chapter he is mentioned in is Rita Skeeter's Scoop and then only as an example of what bad relatives are like. Dumbledore and the trio are trying to cheer up Hagrid after Rita publishes an unfounde expose on Hagrid being half-giant. "Hagrid look at what I have for relatives!" Harry said furiously, "look at the Dursley's!" "An excellent point," said Professor Dumbledore. My own brother Aberforth was prosecuted for practicing inappropraite charms on a goat. It was all over the papers, but did Aberforth hide? No, he did not! He held his head high and went about business as usual! Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that might not have been bravery......."(The Goblet of Fire, Rita Skeeter's Scoop pg 454 US) Could anyone think that a man that gets into trouble for using anything inappropriate help Harry? I mean it sounds to me like all Aberforth is good for is trouble, so why bring out as a possible source of help for Harry? What else does anyone else know about him except for this passage on him to help Hagrid get through his troublesome times? If anyone else has info let me know. Fuzz876i From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 06:23:05 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:23:05 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? -- peers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147408 > Betsy Hp > wrote: > The only peer betrayal that I've seen any sort of > foreshadowing for myself is the twins. fuzz876i: Fred and George Weasley cannot possibly be traitors or even go over to Lord Voldemort's side. In Half-Blood Prince Ron states clearly that his family are blood traitors. With this being known about the Weasleys it is hard for me to believe that the twins will turn to Voldemort. I think the traitor will be Dean Thomas because when Ginny broke up with Dean she went out with Harry. This could lead to him wanting revenge against Harry and Ginny both. So why not Dean? He was the first to jump to the conclusion that Harry was the heir of Slytherin in Chamber of Secrets. I think that he will go to Voldemort as revenge. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 06:56:17 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:56:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147409 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fuzz876i" wrote: > > Aberforth Dumbledore is only mentioned briefly in The Goblet of Fire. > The chapter he is mentioned in is Rita Skeeter's Scoop and then only > as an example of what bad relatives are like. Dumbledore and the trio > are trying to cheer up Hagrid after Rita publishes an unfounde expose > on Hagrid being half-giant. "Hagrid look at what I have for > relatives!" Harry said furiously, "look at the Dursley's!" > "An excellent point," said Professor Dumbledore. My own brother > Aberforth was prosecuted for practicing inappropraite charms on a > goat. It was all over the papers, but did Aberforth hide? No, he did > not! He held his head high and went about business as usual! Of > course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that might not have been > bravery......."(The Goblet of Fire, Rita Skeeter's Scoop pg 454 US) > Could anyone think that a man that gets into trouble for using > anything inappropriate help Harry? I mean it sounds to me like all > Aberforth is good for is trouble, so why bring out as a possible > source of help for Harry? What else does anyone else know about him > except for this passage on him to help Hagrid get through his > troublesome times? If anyone else has info let me know. > > > Fuzz876i zgirnius: The barman at the Hog's Head smells of goat, and has a vague resemblance to someone Harry knows. It has been speculated that he is in fact Aberforth. In an interview, Rowling was asked about the barman and stated that she was proud of the goat clue. Which would seem to confirm this fan theory. In which case, Aberforth was the man who apprehended Snape as he eavesdropped on the Prophecy, and was havign soem dealings with Mundungus Fletcher in HBP. Both points suggest he has some involvement in the affairs of his brother Albus and the Order. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Wed Feb 1 07:00:26 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 07:00:26 -0000 Subject: JKR's secrets about Snape and Hagrid In-Reply-To: <43E051BE.7090200@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147410 > > You really want people to believe someone can not only change their > gender with polyjuice potion, but also get pregnant and carry a child to > term while having to take a sip of polyjuice potion EVERY HOUR for 9 > months? What's in that cough medicine? > > Jazmyn > La Gatta Lucianese: No, no, no...all this is post-GH. They're hiding out at Hogwarts, and Lily/Hagrid is going all broody because...well, it would explain Hagrid's rather overdeveloped maternal instinct. Wouldn't it? And James is all frustrated because Lily's new look doesn't do a thing for him... From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 07:18:44 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 07:18:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147411 > zgirnius: > The barman at the Hog's Head smells of goat, and has a vague > resemblance to someone Harry knows. It has been speculated that he is > in fact Aberforth. In an interview, Rowling was asked about the > barman and stated that she was proud of the goat clue. Which would > seem to confirm this fan theory. > > In which case, Aberforth was the man who apprehended Snape as he > eavesdropped on the Prophecy, and was havign soem dealings with > Mundungus Fletcher in HBP. Both points suggest he has some > involvement in the affairs of his brother Albus and the Order. Finwitch: Aberforth *does* have something to do with the order. In OOP, Moody shows Harry an old photo ... "and that's Abeforth, Dumbledore's brother. Only time I ever saw him - odd bloke, that" (as close as I can remember as to what he said). I'd also like to remind you of Albus' Heart's desire (per PS): I see myself holding a pair of thick socks. Another year gone and I didn't get a single pair. People keep insisting on giving me books. Set that against the not-entirely-certain-he-can-read-brother of his. What did Aberforth give him then? The Invisible Book of Invisibility, perhaps? Personally, I find it curious that Aberforth's brother doesn't know if he can read... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 08:55:16 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:55:16 -0000 Subject: Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147412 > Jutika: > > How does the MOM detect underage magic....? > Why can't they differentiate between an underage wizard doing magic > (like Harry) and magic done by a house elf (Dobby)?? Finwitch: They can tell which spell is cast and where, but not who did it. As Harry is the only registered wizard in the neighbourhood, any magic there would be presumed as Harry's doing. Guess they have a big map and different spells give out different colours? (I think Dark Magic doesn't show, though...) Another question: *registered* wizard... will we see an *unregistered* wizard or witch somewhere? Finwitch From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Feb 1 11:04:53 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:04:53 -0000 Subject: Regulus Black / Significance of DD & Sirius having In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147413 Carol: > Does anyone else think that these pairings may have some thematic > significance and, if so, any ideas on what that significance might be > (or why the heck Rabastan is in the books)? Ceridwen: Just off the top of my head, and after the revelation about the Gaunt family which made Tom Riddle seem doomed to become an Evil Overlord by genetics, maybe they are there to show that blood, or nature, doesn't play as great a part as people think? That each person has independent choices? Sirius never became a DE, and never went along with his family's views on blood purity. Regulus did, but then he repented. No one would suspect, let alone accuse, Albus of strange spells on goats, but Aberforth was so charged. Lily and Petunia couldn't be any more different if they were not related - from magic to personality to looks. Rodolfus got married while it seems that Rabastan remained single. Or was it the other way around? I mix them up terribly! And while both Black sisters married - I see why Narcissa did, but I have to wonder about Bellatrix, she is completely and fanatically devoted to LV, even over her husband - could they be there to show familial expectations and trying to fit two different sizes of feet into the same pair of shoes? Even Harry and Dudley can be seen as a brother pair. They were raised together. One was favored, and fed well (I think Petunia equates food with having and lack of food with not having, or with love), one was in disfavor and not fed well. Harry's life with the Dursleys has a Cinderella, or a Wart (Arthur) flavor to it. And in his case, as with Cinderella or the young Arthur, the 'have-not' gets the goods, becomes the hero of the story, while the 'have' is belittled by the story. Could all of this be about family expectations? Sirius didn't meet his family's expectations, while Regulus did, to disastrous consequences. Lily was doted on, according to Petunia, while Petunia was, at least in her view, shoved aside. If I'm right about the Black family's expectations for their daughters, then they expected each of them to marry well whether or not the girl wanted to marry. If we find out about Albus's early life, we might find him the favored brother over Aberforth, who is now taciturn and sullen and in trouble over a goat. But again, siblings play a part in mythologies. There always seem to be pairs, even if they're not really related. Like Haman and Mordecai in the story of Esther. Not related, but very much related in the storyline. Now I'm interested in the three Black sisters. There are triple goddesses in some mythologies. Most are for the phases of the moon, and at least in modern Celtic Paganism are Maiden, Mother and Crone. Youth, maturity and wisdom? Or whatever else can be attributed to those ages. I'm pegging Narcissa for the Maiden aspect, and Bellatrix for the crone (a very negative plug for the spot, she's supposed to have the wisdom of age and experience). But, I could be wrong. Bellatrix may be a negative view of the maiden, someone who has no life experience and no wisdom. I don't know if JKR had this in mind, but it's prevalent enough, at least in modern practice, that it may have its roots in some archetypal sort of role. Maybe I ought to look into that? Ceridwen. From olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org Wed Feb 1 12:54:19 2006 From: olivier.fouquet+harry at m4x.org (olivierfouquet2000) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:54:19 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147414 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "starjackson1" wrote: > > Here is an abstract from an interesting article published on the > Social Science Research Network about Government in the Harry Potter > universe: > > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=830765 > > Author: Ben Barton I found the article poor on HP and poor on political science (or on whatever academic thinking it purports to be part of). Not only does it ignore Tonks, Shacklebolt, Bones, Ogden, and Arthur Weasley (all working for the Ministry and all worthy of praise, at least in Harry's opinion), it also concentrates almost solely on the Ministry law-enforcement role, completely ignoring every other form of collective action. Most curiously, it completely ignores the eminently positive institution that is Hogwarts. While it is not clear what the exact nature of Hogwarts is, and especially how it is funded, it is not a private institution (or else of a very peculiar kind, since "everyone who shows magical ability before their eleventh birthday will automatically gain a place at Hogwarts" and with a fund to help them to boot) and has a monopoly status on education that is not disputed. So it is not exactly your emblematic libertarian institution. In fact, how could one deduce from HP that it "makes exceptionnaly well the points that a) that government is best which governs least and b) self-reliance and respect for individual rights should be paramount" when we have Dumbledore saying he designed a fair number of wizarding laws himself (or so I recall, I can't find the quote) or begging Fudge to act at the end of GoF? Moving on to JKR personality, the author makes much of her poverty but disregards (or ignores) the fact that when asked who she would impersonate with Polyjuice Potion, she answered she would be Tony Blair for one hour and implement all the policies she favors. Again, not your typical libertarian fantasy. Not to mention her involvment in Romania, or the fact that she wrote to the scottish members of the European parliament about it (thereby making the point that there at least some sort of government she favours). Finally, about political science, the author doesn't even try to link JKR criticism of the Ministry to libertarianism specifically. Indeed, I don't see what JKR wrote that could not be fully endorsed by any person with a minimum commitment to democracy and rule of law. So a bad article all in all, the Patronus Potter series is far better. Olivier From mudblood68 at yahoo.de Wed Feb 1 11:58:57 2006 From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:58:57 -0000 Subject: Tonks' behaviour (WAS: Re: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147415 > > EC here: > > I've been struggling since my initial readings of HBP with the > > deceptively neat and sweet explanation for Tonks. All her behavior > > was out of love for Lupin? Lupinlore: > In what way is Tonks similar to these others? I agree that her > change in behavior is very odd. However, that is readily explained > by her feelings for Lupin. Claudia: I see Tonks' storyline as the reverse to Ginny's in CoS: There we think all the time that Ginny's odd behaviour is due to her interest in Harry, but in fact she's being possessed by Tom Riddle. With Tonks it's the other way round: we suspect something sinister there, but in fact it's "only" love. Claudia From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 11:50:49 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:50:49 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: <3AA1F56E-92E9-11DA-8414-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147416 > Karen: > > I understand that is Lupinlore's take, I'm just saying that it rings > true with a lot of us so it really can't be that badly done. I really > don't think we are squeezing our life experience around to fit the > book. The book portrayal fits what we know. Lupinlore's experience of > grief is obviously different. I'm just saying if I saw a lot of moaning > and agonizing with Sirius death (after the initial angry DD office > scene) I would have found that *highly* melodramatic and it would have > put me off and I would feel it was ooc for Harry. After OOTP you would have found it OOC? I would have found it very in character at that point. Nor do I think "moaning and agonizing" would have been in the slightest bit melodramatic or unrealistic, in and of themselves. ONLY moaning and agonizing would not have been a good way of handling it, just as ONLY "being strong for Sirius' sake" was a terrible way of handling it. I expected a GREAT deal more complexity and sophistication on JKR's part in dealing with this issue. I must say I lost 90% of my respect for her as a writer when she came out with that remark about not grieving for Sirius' sake. It seems clear to me that she forced her characters to comply with the demands of her plot schedule, no matter how unrealistic, and frankly silly, those demands were. As Magpie points out, a better handling would have shown grief, perhaps subtle, overshadowing Harry throughout HBP, just as trauma overshadowed him throughout OOTP. There would have been a much deeper and more sophisticated look at what that grief meant for Harry and how it related to his relationships and his goals. Instead we get a few throwaway lines and a couple of stock catchphrases so she can get on with fighting Voldemort. There is NO WAY that Harry's relationship with Dumbledore should have settled down into a harmonious and completely trusting and respectful pattern after all the revelations in OOTP, despite the blow up in DD's office as a "pressure valve." Far too many revelations were made and issues opened for that. Not the least of these is Dumbledore's claim to have been responsible for Sirius' death. A more sophisticated, and realistic, way of dealing with the issue would have been to deal with the re-development of the relationship slowly over the course of the book. Instead, "all is forgiven, now let's fight Voldemort!" Excuse me while I guffaw in derision. Harry's response to Kreacher was not repressed, it was catatonic. The being who betrayed his beloved godfather presented to him and what does he do? Protest that how dare Dumbledore bring Kreacher into his presence? Demand that the villain be punished? Explode in anger? No. He goes, "uhhhh, okay." Yeah, right. Another guffaw of derision. (And it is interesting that Hermione forgets all about SPEW for the time being, isn't it?) The bits with Lupin were deeply disappointing, but actually believable if somewhat underdeveloped. Lupin is such a therapy-case himself I could see him reacting with near apathy (in terms of any changes in his relationship with Harry) to Sirius' demise. Harry believes Snape is responsible for Sirius' death and he still speaks with the man, school rules or no school rules? He does NOT demand a greater explanation from Dumbledore, whether the man is reluctant or not? He does NOT recall that Dumbledore dodged his question about whether it was "all right" for Snape to hate James? Excuse me, a third guffaw of derision. Oh, Harry does NOT ask about some kind of memorial service for Sirius, even when the subject of the will comes up? And the supposedly kind and wise Dumbledore doesn't seem to even think of that, either? Oh, and we know from the end of HBP that such things do indeed happen in the WW. A fourth guffaw of derision. Harry has lost his beloved godfather, there is no body, and he doesn't demand to know something about the veil? A fifth guffaw. Harry has nightmares about Cedric, but his sleep in HBP, at least after his stay at the Dursleys, seems quite untroubled? A sixth guffaw. Harry gets a book scrawled with comments that sound remarkably like something a young Sirius might have said (not saying that Harry should have thought of Sirius as the HBP, since he knew Sirius was pureblood). Does this fact resonate in any way with him? Nope. A seventh guffaw. Harry knows his failure at Occlumency (granted it was Snape's fault) led to Sirius' death. But he accepts DDs explanation that there is no need for Occlumency now, that what happened with Sirius won't happen again, at face value and never seems to feel a twinge of worry or unease about it. An eighth guffaw. The ministry has acknowledged that Sirius was innocent. Yet during a pitched argument with the former head of the auror office Harry never brings this fact up. You can read it in between the lines if you like when he's thinking about Stan Shunpike, but I think you'd be reading in something that isn't there. A ninth guffaw. I have several other guffaws, but those serve to illustrate. Lupinlore, who is a "he" by the way > From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Wed Feb 1 13:14:41 2006 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:14:41 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147417 nrenka wrote: >(snipped) > > I don't believe in the necessity of ESE!ness, to get that one out of > the way. We've done the 'unknown and unsuspected traitor within the > Order' thing the first time around, and if Dumbledore has made a > mistake in trusting Snape it's an entirely different setup, > thematically and mechanically. > > That said, I don't find the 'red herrings' in OotP or HBP to be like > the red herrings in the earlier books. The first four feel very > different than the past two, partly because of their self-contained > nature and their more standard framework behind the plot (the school > structure). Things seem to change pretty profoundly when Voldemort > comes onto the scene. (Coincidentally, it's probably not surprising > that many of the very upset fans this time around claim to have begun > their disillusionment after OotP.) > (snipped) lucianam: Funny, when I logged in today I was thinking of posting a new message but after I read Nora's post, I figured it'd work better as a reply to it. I find it interesting that, in spite of each book's individuality, Harry Potter can only be read as a series; in vulgar words, Harry Potter is more like Desperate Housewives than Everybody Loves Raymond (now that was tasteful :) ). There's no guarantee the same 'Red Herring/Unsuspected Bad Guy Unmasked in the End' pattern will happen again in Book 7, Book 7 being not just another brick in the wall but the actual end of the series. It is possible that its role will be that of conveying the end of the Harry Potter series/Big Plot ONLY, and not to work as an individual plot also as the other books have. Perhaps book 7 won't be even long enough to fullfil both roles. But: > nrenka said: > Personally, I don't understand why people are wanting to shove all of > the BANG over onto book 7. It seems a perpetual delaying tactic to > dispute the solving of mysteries that one would rather see continued, > or thought the solution had holes. Alas, holes to us are often not > holes to another reader. > > I'll give half odds on some revision/BANG, but half odds on book 7 > dealing with the ramifications of the very real and devastating BANG- > y events of book 6, rather than it reconning or profoundly respinning > them. It's a good option to keep open, at least. lucianam: Well that would be a solution. Not to mention JKR might have left already structured, semi-ready solutions througout the previous books and all she has to do in Book 7 is deliver a couple of sentences to close them. So about the series again... From what JKR's always said about having figured out the HP story's ending before she started writing the books, don't we all expect Book 7 to provide a satisfactory view of the Big Plot's development and outcome? That's where ESE! comes in, I suppose, in spite of any reasoning concerning book size or possible hopes that the end of the Big Plot will be 'a surprise in the sense that it will be a different surprise' from the ones we've seen in each separate book. I wonder if ANY outcome will be satisfactory to readers and, why not, to JKR herself, if the old 'Nooo! It can't be yoooouuuu!!!' thing is not envolved. If she had written one or two of the other books without such a pattern (and why didn't she, I ask), I would have no problem imagining Book 7 withoutits unmasking of an unknown villain, and what's more serious, I wouldn't suspect that if it does happen, JKR will be forced to make it a thousand times more horrible than before. Book 7 will be the Last Harry Potter Book. We've already seen stuff such as Snape Kill Dumbledore. So trivial little villains would be disappointing. That's why I buy ESE!Lupin, btw. If she pulls another Unmasking of a bad guy, it's got to be something big, big, big. lucianam From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Feb 1 13:36:08 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:36:08 -0000 Subject: Why Rabastan was Re: Regulus Black / Significance of DD & Sirius having In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147418 Carol: The pair I can't figure out is Rodolphus and Rabastan Lestrange. Why is Rabastan in the books at all?) Pippin: Rabastan is another duplicate name clue, IMO. Remember how we all sweated over the mysterious fourth man in the pensieve? We knew it was the trial of the Lestranges and Barty Crouch Jr, but who was that other fellow? Then we find out that we knew his name all along. He was *another* Lestrange. Like the significantly named but otherwise completely unimportant Mark Evans, IMO, he is a clue that JKR is not finished with the duplicate names plot device under which she concealed the identity of the burglar in GoF. We also have found out, via the website, that someone "sent" the Longbottom Four, so the delay in identifying Rabastan served as a hint to keep thinking about who could have been involved in the attack. Rabastan's first name can also be a red herring for the mysterious RAB. Pippin From rkdas at charter.net Wed Feb 1 13:54:31 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:54:31 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147419 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: >snipped > > After OOTP you would have found it OOC? I would have found it very > in character at that point. Nor do I think "moaning and agonizing" > would have been in the slightest bit melodramatic or unrealistic, in > and of themselves. ONLY moaning and agonizing would not have been a > good way of handling it, just as ONLY "being strong for Sirius' sake" > was a terrible way of handling it. > > I expected a GREAT deal more complexity and sophistication on JKR's > part in dealing with this issue. I must say I lost 90% of my respect > for her as a writer when she came out with that remark about not > grieving for Sirius' sake. It seems clear to me that she forced her > characters to comply with the demands of her plot schedule, no matter > how unrealistic, and frankly silly, those demands were.> snipped again I have several other guffaws, but those serve to illustrate. > > > Lupinlore, who is a "he" by the way L, Given that your problems with how JKR handles a lot of issues, the question that begs to be answered is: What keeps you reading HP? I think that would be a far more illuminating discussion since none of us is going to be able to change the things that are lacking (in your view!). Jen D. > > > > > > > > > From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Feb 1 14:07:25 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:07:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E0C09D.9030104@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147420 Jutika Gehani wrote: > I have a question...... > How does the MOM detect underage magic....? > Why can't they differentiate between an underage wizard doing magic > (like Harry) and magic done by a house elf (Dobby)?? Bart: I recall Harry asking the same question, and being told that all they can tell is if magic is being practiced or not, and normally leave it up to the parents to control it (note that Ron and his brothers played Quidditch in their backyard while underage). In Harry's case, any magic that takes place in Harry's house is just assumed to be Harry's doing, with the burden of proof on Harry to show otherwise. In the case of Dobby, he never had the opportunity to prove that it wasn't him. Bart From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Feb 1 14:34:24 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:34:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147421 > Finwitch: > > Aberforth *does* have something to do with the order. In OOP, Moody > shows Harry an old photo ... "and that's Abeforth, Dumbledore's > brother. Only time I ever saw him - odd bloke, that" (as close as I > can remember as to what he said). Potioncat: Oh, I'd forgotten about that. Why then, do you think, does Harry think of him as the barkeeper from the Hogs Head instead of as DD's brother? At DD's funeral Harry doesn't notice that DD's brother is there, but that the barkeeper is there. Of course, Harry isn't very good at remembering people. I snipped the part about not knowing if Aberforth can read. It sounds just like something Fred and George would say. No, I'm not proposing DD and AD are really F and G...just thinking it's a brotherly thing to do. Potioncat, now on new-and-improved cold meds. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 1 15:03:52 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:03:52 -0000 Subject: Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147422 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: Finwitch: > They can tell which spell is cast and where, but not who did it. As > Harry is the only registered wizard in the neighbourhood, any magic > there would be presumed as Harry's doing. Guess they have a big map > and different spells give out different colours? (I think Dark Magic > doesn't show, though...) > > Another question: *registered* wizard... will we see an *unregistered* > wizard or witch somewhere? Geoff: I wonder whether Hagrid might fit into this category? He may have been expelled from Hogwarts and had his wand broken but he is still a wizard..... From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Feb 1 15:14:41 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:14:41 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? /Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147423 Sydney: > Lord, I hate villain-driven plots.. anyways, I think the classic > mystery structure is particularily inappropriate for the conclusion of > a children's book with a lot of spiritual themes like Harry > Potter,with it's hinted denoument in the Room of Love, and I don't see > it heading in an ESE! direction for anyone, really. I think the > streets will be full of hidden allies rather than hidden threats, and > a good thing too! because boy is Harry going to need them. Magpie: I hadn't thought of it in those terms but that's exactly my mindset in going into the last book. The challenge to Harry personally is in seeing the good, and if he's seeing the bad having it more be about accepting bad parts of the previously good, if that comes into it. I don't think it will be as clear as the flipside, of course, with Fake! Moody revealed to really be an insane DE in disguise. So it won't be a case of Snape really being a polyjuiced angel whose every bad action was really good as Moody's was bad. Nrenka: Personally, I don't understand why people are wanting to shove all of the BANG over onto book 7. It seems a perpetual delaying tactic to dispute the solving of mysteries that one would rather see continued, or thought the solution had holes. Alas, holes to us are often not holes to another reader. Magpie: Heh--the funny thing about that is if the BANG was Snape it didn't work very well. JKR set it off and half the audience is like, "Was that a bang? I didn't hear anything. Of course it wasn't a bang, we just haven't found out what it really was yet. Well I think it's a bang! But then, I've always thought Snape was a bang..." If it's revealed that Snape really was evil all the time it will almost come in dribs and drabs because we know so little about the why's of Snape's actions in HBP we need a lot of explanation to really get that he's a villain despite his killing Dumbledore. There's the shock of his action, of course, but I don't think it really sinks in until you get it in context. Like if Moody had just stuck Harry's name in the Goblet because he thought he needed the practice fighting evil it would like, "Huh, so Moody put his name in the Goblet. Weird." As opposed to the real horror at what Crouch Jr. was doing. I mean, unlike many other mysteries that people want to see continued long past their solution, this one really didn't have a solution because we didn't get the villain's confession either through his own mouth or through someone else explaining what was going on with him. Cerridwen: Bellatrix may be a negative view of the maiden, someone who has no life experience and no wisdom. I don't know if JKR had this in mind, but it's prevalent enough, at least in modern practice, that it may have its roots in some archetypal sort of role. Maybe I ought to look into that? Magpie: The Black sisters are interesting that way, aren't they? In some ways Narcissa seems like such a maiden physically, but her actions in the text have been because she's a mother. And Bellatrix I do see as less of a Crone and more of a maiden. Her marriage doesn't seem to have really "taken" somehow--maybe she got married to produce children for the Dark Lord and that didn't happen. But her claim that she'd be glad to sacrifice her son, to me, sounds less like the harsh wisdom of a Crone saying that sacrifices must be made than the naivite of a Maiden (it's easy to say you'll sacrifice children when you don't really know what it's like to have one). Now I'm suddenly thinking about Draco with regards to these sisters. He's got no connection to Andromeda we know about, but he seems to start with the same naive, childish fanaticism that Bellatrix has, but later find what's really important to him is protecting his family, like Narcissa. -m From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Feb 1 15:26:11 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:26:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? References: Message-ID: <003601c62743$d4fa1890$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 147424 ----- Original Message ----- From: susanbones2003 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 7:54 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: >snipped > > After OOTP you would have found it OOC? I would have found it very > in character at that point. Nor do I think "moaning and agonizing" > would have been in the slightest bit melodramatic or unrealistic, in > and of themselves. ONLY moaning and agonizing would not have been a > good way of handling it, just as ONLY "being strong for Sirius' sake" > was a terrible way of handling it. > > I expected a GREAT deal more complexity and sophistication on JKR's > part in dealing with this issue. I must say I lost 90% of my respect > for her as a writer when she came out with that remark about not > grieving for Sirius' sake. It seems clear to me that she forced her > characters to comply with the demands of her plot schedule, no matter > how unrealistic, and frankly silly, those demands were.> snipped again I have several other guffaws, but those serve to illustrate. > > > Lupinlore, who is a "he" by the way Jen: L, Given that your problems with how JKR handles a lot of issues, the question that begs to be answered is: What keeps you reading HP? I think that would be a far more illuminating discussion since none of us is going to be able to change the things that are lacking (in your view!). kchuplis: I have to wonder this too. I will go over lupinlore's post more thoroughly, but it will take me more time than I have at the moment. To be honest, HP has the level of sophistication and complexity I expect from IT; not from some other book. No, honestly, I really am answering the post at length but it will be this evening before I can. I have to admit though that I was pretty bowled over at the bitter disappointment Lupinlore is experiencing for HBP! I feel very badly that he finds it this laughable. Apparently many of us are just simple enough to be happy with what drivel is handed us. I'm really sorry Lupinlore. I'm of two minds about going through your post detail by detail. I want to do it (damn this job anyway) but then again, given the explosion of anger that courses through this post, I'm not sure I should spend the time because I don't think anything I or anyone else could say will make you feel better about it. None of us can convince you that there are more ways to grieve than you have experienced even though we've detailed out paralell realistic grief that echos what is found in HBP. I have to admit, it's hard for me to imagine HP soaking into a grieving mess over Sirius throughout, because it isn't Harry of Calcutta but Harry of Britain. And if Harry stayed capslock!Harry I would have felt that your accusations are warranted because, well, people do shift emotional gears now and again, particularly when there are big changes and traumas going on. No, Harry Potter isn't Tolstoy but my goodness, it's not a Harlequin Romance either. From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Wed Feb 1 16:34:11 2006 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:34:11 -0000 Subject: Some thoughts on ESE!Lupin in HBP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147425 lucianam: I've been looking for ESE!Lupin threads concerning HBP (I've asked people to link me, even, in my message http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147301 but I haven't got replies so I guess there aren't many. (I found threads concerning Lupin/Tonks and Tonks's Patronus, though). 1. Lupin/Tonks: I think Tonks/Lupin is a double bluff: we suspect something's not right, we find out it's allright, but in fact it is NOT allright because Lupin is very wicked and he's got Tonks on Amortentia. Of course I know this is neither a new theory, nor something most list members seem to agree with, but here are some thoughts anyway. It's odd that Tonks never is around when Lupin visits the Weasleys. Did he tell her not to come, so people would definitely NOT suspect him as the person who was slipping her Amortentia? BTW I find it incredible that none of the characters thought of that possibility (Tonks being under the effect of a love potion). And actually Lupin preventing Tonks from attending both Harry's birthday and Christmas at the burrow could mean he doesn't want people to notice her behavior around him. Hermione is `the cleverest witch her age', after all. Wouldn't she notice Tonks was under Amortentia's effects if she was drooling all over Lupin's feet at The Burrow? 2. Ollivander Lupin is supposed to be clever, sensitive, well-mannered kind of guy. I find it extremely Out of Character behavior that he chose to spoil everybody's fun at Harry's birthday. `To Mrs.Weasley's displeasure, Harry's sixteenth birthday celebrations were marred by grisly tidings brought to the party by Remus Lupin, ' What possessed him to start talking about Dementors attacks and Karkaroff's and Regulus's murders? I tell you, I'm not British and therefore cannot swear by British manners but unless I had the completely wrong idea so far, that's not what I'd call appropriate conversation for a party. What I think Lupin's doing is set a trap for the other people in the party, in which they promptly fall, following his lead and talking about the latest Death-Eater related incidents. I can't really see why Voldemort would be interested in info about the ice-cream man, but Ollivander is another story altogether. Suppose Ollivander packed his bags and ran for it as soon as he saw the news of Voldemort's return in the Daily Prophet. Voldemort probably wants to know if the Order of the Phoenix knows where Ollivander is, and that is the information Lupin was trying to get. 3. The Montgomery kid: Rumours say Greyback was the werewolf who attacked the 5-year-old Montgomery boy, but that's not what Tonks seem to think, and that has goes either for Genuinely in love!Tonks and for Amortentia!Tonks. `I've heard rumours people getting hurt ' `Yeah, I know, it's all been in the papers,' said Harry. `That little kid trying to kill his_' `The Prophet's often behind the times,' said Tonks, Tonks's words imply that while Harry was thinking about the boy who was put under Imperius, she was thinking about something (people getting hurt) that had not made it to the Daily Prophet yet. Next chapter, we hear about the Montgomery boy who was attacked by a werewolf and died in St.Mungus. If that was what Tonks was worried about, regardless of ESE!Lupin being the werewolf who did it or not, she believed he was capable of attacking a five-year-old boy. 4. The Dark Mark I've posted a message on this http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147301 Is it too much of a coincidence that we only have Lupin's word on Gibbon being the one who cast the Dark Mark. And that's all I can think of for now. Of course, everything I pointed above could have a perfectly innocent explanation, but if JKR pulls ESE!Lupin in the end, well, it does add credibility to the plot. Currently interested in ESE!Lupin, obviously, Lucianam From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Feb 1 17:00:02 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:00:02 -0000 Subject: FILK: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147426 Muggle Ducky To the tune of the Sesame Street song Rubber Ducky http://www.walkthroughlife.com/midis/kidsmidis/rubberducky.htm THE SCENE: A ward on St. Mungo's ? Healers try (unsuccessfully) to repair the Dark Arts damage done against Junior Minister Herbert Chorley. HERBERT CHORLEY: Oh! Muggle Ducky I'm the flack Who Lord Voldy Taught to quack Muggle Ducky I'm awfully bird-brained, too! (bobobodeo) Muggle Ducky I'll attack When I strangle, I'll still quack Muggle Ducky Far away all my reason flew Since the day that they Cast that curse rather poorly I'm quackin' like a birdy who's Mean and dirty But sorely Herbert J. Chorley! Muggle Ducky I must go To a back ward at Mungo Muggle Ducky, now locked up with Lockhart, too! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Feb 1 17:03:36 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:03:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147427 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fuzz876i" wrote: > ) > Could anyone think that a man that gets into trouble for using > anything inappropriate help Harry? Harry has also been helped in the past by Sirius, Lupin, Ron, the twins, Hermione, and even Snape, all of whom have done "inappropriate" things on occasion (or in the last-named example, frequently). Besides - all innuendo aside - we don't know the exact nature of the "inappropriate" charms. - CMC From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 17:14:22 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:14:22 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? /Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147428 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Nora: > Personally, I don't understand why people are wanting to shove all > of the BANG over onto book 7. It seems a perpetual delaying tactic > to dispute the solving of mysteries that one would rather see > continued, or thought the solution had holes. Alas, holes to us are > often not holes to another reader. > > Magpie: > > Heh--the funny thing about that is if the BANG was Snape it didn't > work very well. JKR set it off and half the audience is like, "Was > that a bang? I didn't hear anything. Of course it wasn't a bang, > we just haven't found out what it really was yet. Well I think > it's a bang! But then, I've always thought Snape was a bang..." I thought it was quite BANG-y, but then I suspect I got into the pattern of reading which I *think* was quite deliberate, and the one which I would guess (as I can't know this unless it's confirmed much later) she was out to make, which her mental 'ideal reader' would catch onto. We get Spinner's End, with all these explanations which seem to point to ESE!, but we the readers know better than that, right? And there's Harry, continuing to doubt and have suspicions, but he's just biased and unfair. After all, Dumbledore believes in Snape and we believe in Dumbledore because he's the epitome of goodness and is wiser than us and knows more. And then Snape ups and kills him. And we-the-readers are left either to go "Wow, that was totally BANGy", or to start spinning more explanations as to why it wasn't actually a genuine BANG (it wasn't an AK curse, they had a plan, Dumbledore isn't actually dead, etc.). But then again, since when does anything with Snape actually work the way that JKR seems to have intended it? Others may be skeptical, but I get the impression that she's genuinely a little befuddled at the way that people tend to read the character when she thinks that she's made some things ("horrible person") rather clear. Lesson for the author is that you can't control the responses of the reader. Lesson for the reader is that the author in a WiP can make manifest the threads and implications that aren't the ones you liked. > I mean, unlike many other mysteries that people want to see > continued long past their solution, this one really didn't have a > solution because we didn't get the villain's confession either > through his own mouth or through someone else explaining what was > going on with him. I agree that the why is totally up in the air. What I'd suggest is that it's an open possibility that the event was genuinely BANG-y in a way that's not going to be mitigated by the explanations, as many listies want. That's what all the "It wasn't actually an AK" theories aim for, for instance. I find that theory distasteful because it's a cop-out from the dramatic and stunning connotations of Snape using the AK on Dumbledore, but YMMV. -Nora equates it to the original end of the Ring, where everyone lives happily ever after in Valhalla From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 17:16:58 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:16:58 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40602010916t86f6997kdd3f56ccb419992a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147429 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > > Chuckle. It truly is amazing how people read totally different > > books, isn't it? I find her dealing with Harry's grief ... to > > be incredibly poor writing > > > > ...edited... > > > > Perhaps it does have to do with emotional styles. I really > > don't know. But it certainly is true that, surveying a number > > of different boards and forums ..., those three instances in > > particular bring a storm of dissent and objection. What do > > other people think is the source of this? > > > > > > Lupinlore > > > > bboyminn: > > I think perhaps the problem is that you are looking for 'movie' > solutions to grief, where actors engage in long soliloquies filled > with pseudo-emotion and thick Shakespearian accents. > > But is that how it happens in real-life? Do we really want to 'talk > about it'? ...snip life goes on stuff... > > In real-life the best comfort is the silent company of our loved ones > who are going through the same thing. Our pain is the measure of their > grief. So, we sit in silence, and maybe if we are feeling brave, we > engage in a reminiscence or two, then fall into silent grief again. No > long soliloquies, no thick Shakespearian accents, no satisfing > eulogies; just grief and time and silence. > > Because I really don't see real-life as supportive as TV life where > everything is resolved to satisfaction in a half hour or so, I find > Harry's silent grief very understandable. > ...snip... > I find this very realistic writing. The beauty of Harry and his story > is that I can see real-life in them, and that makes the story far more > believable and far more powerful than grand satisfying speeches. .. . Kemper now: As much as I disagree with Lupinlore which is frequently, I agree with Steve even more. Except this time. . The problem with Harry's coping of Sirius' death isn't that long, Shakespearean soliloquies are absent from the text, it's that Harry isn't shown waking with a tear-soaked pillow or something similar to show the reader the depth of Harry's loss and how he was hurting silently. All JKR had to write was a short, simple sentence and it would have been clear. But we didn't get that, we got some movie version of macho man-child, stiff upper-lip, "Sirius wouldn't want blahblah..." soliloquy that left the reader emotionally unsatisfied. . Also lame, the Order's lack of a ritual goodbye for if not for them. Or maybe they had one and Harry wasn't invited. The books aren't 1 hour dramas. For many of us, it took much more than that to finish one of the books let alone 3, the amount of books that involve Sirius life (excluding the brief mention in the first ever chapter). The reader has developed a relationship with Sirius that is hours long in the reading and even more so upon our ponderings of the text. Harry had 2 years with Sirius and saw him as a mentor if not a father figure. But after the death.... not much. Not even silent lamenting. --Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From inyia at yahoo.es Wed Feb 1 07:27:35 2006 From: inyia at yahoo.es (inyia) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 07:27:35 -0000 Subject: Order of Siblings (was: The ancient and most noble house of Black) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147430 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Re the Potters, mentioned by others in this thread: I think that harlus Potter and his wife are too young to be James Potter's parents, who died of old age per JKR's website (How could a witch die of old age at 57 when DD is over 150?), but I'm wondering if the "s" and "d" under Callidora and Harfang Longbottom might be Neville's Great Uncle Algie and his "gran," Augusta. They could have been born in the 1930s. Not all *that* old by wizarding standards, though, so probably not, unless the "old" used to describe them reflects Harry's perspective. Maybe Harfang is Augusta and Algie's cousin (or a deceased brother) rather than their father. (?) The point is probably to show the interconnectedness of the families rather than the specific family members. --- Hi Carol That is imposible Augusta is a woman so of Neville is Longbottom it have to be a Man-Longbotom in order to mantain the surname. I draw it because it's to early to be good at words Man Longbottom --- Augusta "Surname" | Frank Longbottom --- Alice "Surname" | Neville Longbottom inyia From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 15:51:27 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:51:27 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? (was:How to contstruct an ESE!plot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147431 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > > I think that the last book will be a sort of reverse-mystery, where > the world isn't full of hidden evil to be cast out, but full of hidden > good to be drawn in. Snape, obviously; Draco, less obviously; and > Regulus with the huge backstory; the life-debt thing with (ugh) > Pettigrew; the off-stage Slytherin kids in general; the strange > contradiction between the history teacher's version of the Slytherin > split and the Sorting Hat's... to me there seems an overwhelming > pattern of the unresolved issues leading into the last book. > Well, that would make, IMO, for an incredibly insipid and poor ending. "Oh, guess what, all these people aren't really bad after all! Let's all join hands and defeat Voldemort, the only true evil!" Talk about unsatisfying, cheesy, and badly written! Now, there are of course shades of grey that may be drawn out, but hidden good? Snape is a child abuser, and JKR must punish him for that to right the karmic balance. Draco is an attempted murderer. Pettigrew, as many point out, an actual murderer. All have their roles to play, true. Some will fit in one way, some another. But redemption and common humanity? That would just be plain -- silly, IMO. Lupinlore From starjackson1 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 16:11:56 2006 From: starjackson1 at yahoo.com (starjackson1) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:11:56 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy! In-Reply-To: <1963992324.20060131144241@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147432 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > I read the full article and was "with" the author up until he hinted > that Jo is a confirmed _Laissez-Faire_ "pull-yourself-up-by-your- > bootstraps" libertarian. Of course I don't know, but I would hope > that Jo understands that there are millions of other men, women and > children currently suffering in poverty, as she once was, who are > *not* going to be lucky enough to become multi-millionaires by > writing the most famous children's book series in recent years. If you read some of the responses to my post, you will see that most people disagree with the author of this scholarly article regarding JKR's "libertarianism". I personally think JRK is far, far way from being a libertarian! She is a very socially minded person who cares greatly about the less fortunate of this world. And that is why she is a great author and is able to write such a wonderful series as HP. starjackson1 From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 16:37:43 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:37:43 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147433 Jen D.: > L, > Given that your problems with how JKR handles a lot of issues, the > question that begs to be answered is: What keeps you reading HP? I > think that would be a far more illuminating discussion since none > of us is going to be able to change the things that are lacking (in > your view!). Well, why wouldn't I read it? Will they be damaging to me just because I may decide I don't like a lot about them? Will they hurt me if I find JKR's attempt at dealing with complex emotional issues ham-fisted and unbelievable? Will they damage me if, for instance, I determine that they speak approvingly of child abuse? Will my world quake and shatter because JKR displeases me? For goodness sake, it's only a series of books! A series of books that vary widely in quality, with flashes of true brilliance in the early books that get betrayed by the self-indulgent, neurotic mess that was OOTP followed by the laughable HBP -- which essentially featured JKR running away from OOTP as fast as her typing fingers could carry her, shoving issues under the rug as fast as she could so that she wouldn't have to bend her plot schedule to deal with them. It's a series of books with a morality that goes from the sublime to the truly puzzling and occasionally (and I'm certain inadvertantly) the reprehensible and near-monstrous. It's a set of books that won't make one smidgen of difference in my life one way or the other, or change the Earth's rotation by one nanosecond however they come out. If I like the ending I like the ending. If, as I think is possible but unlikely, I find the ending uninspired and even morally reprehensible, so be it. I'll put them in the wood chipper and use them for compost. There will be one more set of books that didn't live up to their early promise and one more celebrity author for whom I have little respect. I'll be out a few dollars and a few minutes here and there. Even in the worst case, it beats drinking the money away (the HP series may induce nausea from time to time, but never a hangover). Lupinlore From mandorino222 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 17:28:51 2006 From: mandorino222 at yahoo.com (mandorino222) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:28:51 -0000 Subject: Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147435 finwitch said: > Harry is the only registered wizard in the neighbourhood, any magic > there would be presumed as Harry's doing. This actually bothers me a lot. If they could detect magic, but did not know what the source of the magic was (see Dobby in book 2), then how can Tonks use magic to pack Harry's trunk in OotP without the ministry detecting it and attributing it to Harry? mandorino222 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 18:04:44 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:04:44 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <700201d40602010916t86f6997kdd3f56ccb419992a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147436 > Kemper now: > The problem with Harry's coping of Sirius' death isn't that long, > Shakespearean soliloquies are absent from the text, it's that Harry isn't > shown waking with a tear-soaked pillow or something similar to show the > reader the depth of Harry's loss and how he was hurting silently. All JKR > had to write was a short, simple sentence and it would have been > clear. But we didn't get that, we got some movie version of macho > man-child, stiff upper-lip, "Sirius wouldn't want blahblah..." soliloquy > that left the reader emotionally unsatisfied. Alla: Right, as I said I agree that if Harry's grief would have been only shown in that one scene, I would have completely agreed that it was lame. I mean, I understand Harry's bravado, but IMO even if person tries one can barely be completely in control of one's grief. The flashes of pain will show up here and there, IMO only of course. I also want to wave at Lupinlore and thank him for more detailed explanation, since I definitely understand where he is coming from now. Some of the possibilities LL was talking about and what you just suggested are GREAT. I would not mind seeing them in the text AT ALL. I guess all I am saying that I was OK with how it was portrayed as is. Not that I would have minded seeing more. Kemper: > Also lame, the Order's lack of a ritual goodbye for if not for them. Or > maybe they had one and Harry wasn't invited. The reader has developed a > relationship with Sirius that is hours long in the reading and even more so > upon our ponderings of the text. Harry had 2 years with Sirius and saw him > as a mentor if not a father figure. But after the death.... not much. > Not even silent lamenting. Alla: Agreed. I found the lack of goodbye for Sirius to be strange and rather annoying, but I keep hoping that it will somehow tie in with the that mysterious reason for Sirius' death, although I am unable to figure out how. JMO, Alla From nonnymouse_X at hotmail.com Wed Feb 1 18:27:38 2006 From: nonnymouse_X at hotmail.com (ereshkigal_doom) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:27:38 -0000 Subject: Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147437 mandorino222said: > This actually bothers me a lot. If they could detect magic, but did > not know what the source of the magic was (see Dobby in book 2), then > how can Tonks use magic to pack Harry's trunk in OotP without the > ministry detecting it and attributing it to Harry? > I suspect that underage magic detection works rather like unlicensed TV detector vans. In the UK we have to pay a license fee to watch TV, and there are supposed to be special vans that go around detecting whether you are using a TV without a license or not. Popular wisdom maintains that the license authority only owns one or two vans, so you are unlikely to be caught that way. In other words, the ministry can probably only detect magic use if someone is actually watching your location on the underaged-magic crystal ball (or whatever), so you would have to be unlucky or specially targetted to be caught. It's mostly an empty threat. The ministry only got Harry for it because they really wanted to get him for something at that point, and so assigned someone to watch him at all times. Jan From chnc1024 at earthlink.net Wed Feb 1 18:37:32 2006 From: chnc1024 at earthlink.net (chnc1024 at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 10:37:32 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Underage Magic.... Message-ID: <410-22006231183732188@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147438 > finwitch said: > > Harry is the only registered wizard in the neighbourhood, any magic > > there would be presumed as Harry's doing. > > > > This actually bothers me a lot. If they could detect magic, but did > not know what the source of the magic was (see Dobby in book 2), then > how can Tonks use magic to pack Harry's trunk in OotP without the > ministry detecting it and attributing it to Harry? > > mandorino222 > ****************************************** Chancie: Hmm... That's a good point. Author Weasley also used magic there in (GOF), as did Dumbledore (HBP), and neither of these instances caused Harry to receive letters from the ministry. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that both Author and Tonks are ministry officials?? And Dumbledore is well Dumbledore... Hard to say really. Does anyone have ideas on this? Chancie~back after a LONG stint as lurker, and being away... From chnc1024 at earthlink.net Wed Feb 1 19:00:45 2006 From: chnc1024 at earthlink.net (chnc1024 at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:00:45 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Underage Magic.... Message-ID: <410-2200623119045141@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147439 > mandorino222said: > > > This actually bothers me a lot. If they could detect magic, but did > > not know what the source of the magic was (see Dobby in book 2), > then > > how can Tonks use magic to pack Harry's trunk in OotP without the > > ministry detecting it and attributing it to Harry? > > > > I suspect that underage magic detection works rather like unlicensed > TV detector vans. , so you > are unlikely to be caught that way. > > In other words, the ministry can probably only detect magic use if > someone is actually watching your location on the under aged-magic > crystal ball (or whatever), so you would have to be unlucky or > specially targeted to be caught. It's mostly an empty threat. The > ministry only got Harry for it because they really wanted to get him > for something at that point, and so assigned someone to watch him at > all times. > > Jan ************************************************** Chancie: While I understand your thinking Jan, I must say, I disagree. Not until the OOP, was the ministry "wanting to get him for something". Before that time he was "The Boy Who Lived" and the ministry was certainly not out to get him, remember what happened to him after he blew up Aunt Marge Fudge, was just happy Sirius hadn't killed him at that point, and it was barely mentioned that he had used underage magic despite the fact that the accidental magic reversal squad was currently at Privet drive resolving the situation. So in short 2 of the 3 times he was "caught" using underage magic no one was looking to catch him for anything. Chancie From Sherry at PebTech.net Wed Feb 1 19:24:46 2006 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:24:46 -0000 Subject: Some counter-thoughts on ESE!Lupin in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147440 One can also look at these from another point of view: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" wrote: > > lucianam: > 1. Lupin/Tonks: > > It's odd that Tonks never is around when Lupin visits the Weasleys. > Did he tell her not to come, so people would definitely NOT suspect > him as the person who was slipping her Amortentia? BTW I find it > incredible that none of the characters thought of that possibility > (Tonks being under the effect of a love potion). > ... Hermione is `the cleverest witch > her age', after all. Wouldn't she notice Tonks was under Amortentia's > effects if she was drooling all over Lupin's feet at The Burrow? > But we don't know precisely what the effects of Amortentia are--i.e. whether they're obvious to an observer or not. In HBP, Ch. 29, Tonks is the one who argues that Lupin should welcome her love; she seems rather tart, hardly swooning over him. We aren't told exactly how long they've been drawn to each other, but Molly Weasley reminds Lupin that she's been encouraging their relationship for some time. There's another possible explanation for Tonks absenting herself when Lupin visits: she doesn't want to let other people realize that she loves him. This is an obvious explanation, but one that rings true to me; I can think of other cases (in life and in fiction) of people trying to hide their true feelings. > 2. Ollivander > > Lupin is supposed to be clever, sensitive, well-mannered kind of guy. > I find it extremely Out of Character behavior that he chose to spoil > everybody's fun at Harry's birthday. > > `To Mrs.Weasley's displeasure, Harry's sixteenth birthday celebrations > were marred by grisly tidings brought to the party by Remus Lupin, ' > > What possessed him to start talking about Dementors attacks and > Karkaroff's and Regulus's murders? I tell you, I'm not British and > therefore cannot swear by British manners but unless I had the > completely wrong idea so far, that's not what I'd call appropriate > conversation for a party. > It's not appropriate in normal--i.e. peacetime--circumstances, but there is a war going on with Voldemort and his supporters. Lupin feels that he has to let the other Phoenix members know as soon as possible what has happened. Molly tends to be overprotective of Ron, Harry, and the other youngsters: in OOtP, she and Sirius clashed over how much information Harry should get about recent events. > > 3. The Montgomery kid: > > Rumours say Greyback was the werewolf who attacked the 5-year-old > Montgomery boy, but that's not what Tonks seem to think.... > If that was what Tonks was worried > about, regardless of ESE!Lupin being the werewolf who did it or not, > she believed he was capable of attacking a five-year-old boy. > Amontillada: I don't see the evidence that she thinks Lupin, rather than Greyback, attacked the child. Yes, a transformed werewolf can be capable of attacking people whom his/her human self would never hurt! Lupin takes Wolfsbane Potion in order to avoid that very danger. Greyback, on the other hand, takes satisfaction from attacking children even when he's not transformed. In any case, as we've learned in PoA, it's quite common for other wizards to assume that ALL werewolves are dangerous, even though there is now a potion that helps to control this peril. It's all too common to take action against minorities (witness, for example, Dolores Umbridge). > 4. The Dark Mark > > I've posted a message on this > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147301 > Is it too much of a coincidence that we only have Lupin's word on > Gibbon being the one who cast the Dark Mark. > Amontillada: Good question! Is it too much of a coincidence? This took place during a crisis: the attack on and defense of Hogwarts. I'd be more suspicious if several people all claimed to have seen Gibbon cast the Dark Mark; in that case, I might suspect that one of them had cast a spell on the others for corroborating evidence. Speaking out in loyalty and sympathy for Lupin, Amontillada From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Feb 1 19:43:38 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 13:43:38 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death References: Message-ID: <001901c62767$cc210a70$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 147441 Alla: Right, as I said I agree that if Harry's grief would have been only shown in that one scene, I would have completely agreed that it was lame. I mean, I understand Harry's bravado, but IMO even if person tries one can barely be completely in control of one's grief. The flashes of pain will show up here and there, IMO only of course. I also want to wave at Lupinlore and thank him for more detailed explanation, since I definitely understand where he is coming from now. kchuplis: I can see it to. I don't really agree with a lot of it (some, but not a lot) but it is nice to see a more detailed version of the thought process. Perhaps the irritation and sweeping pronouncements of inferiority just look stronger in eprint than they actually are upon reading the books for Lupinlore. I did want to add one thought (and maybe I have missed the suggestion in earlier posts, if so, pardon me) about the difference in capslock!Harry and HBP!Harry..... how much background interference is going on in his mind with that open connection to LV (who we all admit is at least 4 cans short of a 6-pack, especially when it comes to appropriate emotional behaviour?) ? Kemper: > Also lame, the Order's lack of a ritual goodbye for if not for them. Or > maybe they had one and Harry wasn't invited. The reader has developed a > relationship with Sirius that is hours long in the reading and even more so > upon our ponderings of the text. Harry had 2 years with Sirius and saw him > as a mentor if not a father figure. But after the death.... not much. > Not even silent lamenting. Alla: Agreed. I found the lack of goodbye for Sirius to be strange and rather annoying, but I keep hoping that it will somehow tie in with the that mysterious reason for Sirius' death, although I am unable to figure out how. kchuplis: Now, this is something I think many of us are tying in to our cultures (and, indeed, many culture's) need for ceremonial acknowledgement of passing. For one thing, at the time of his death, Sirius is largely still considered to be a heinous criminal by most people. I don't think that on a large scale the political element is going to want to have a big public acknowledgement of what a huge mistake they had made. And we *certainly* have enough canon availbable on Ministry positions for that to be a pretty accurate guess. So, any memorial for Sirius would be quite private. For another, we have no idea what the Order did or did not do pertaining to a memorial for Sirius, or what traditions they had for the Order members that were killed in the line of duty in the past war. DD had a big memorial yes, but he is a rather important figure in the WW and well respected by many, many people. Also, at the time of his death, there is no mystery or question whether or not LV is active and dangerous and there is really no big error of perception of DD's place in the WW society as with Sirius. I am sure that once again, I am somehow "reading in" to the situation what works for me, but there it is, some questions or suggestions as to what is "normal" in particular, for the Order as regards memorials. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 19:54:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:54:41 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147442 Lupinlore wrote: Nor do I think "moaning and agonizing" would have been in the slightest bit melodramatic or unrealistic, in and of themselves. ONLY moaning and agonizing would not have been a good way of handling it, just as ONLY "being strong for Sirius' sake" was a terrible way of handling it. > > I expected a GREAT deal more complexity and sophistication on JKR's part in dealing with this issue. I must say I lost 90% of my respect for her as a writer when she came out with that remark about not grieving for Sirius' sake. It seems clear to me that she forced her characters to comply with the demands of her plot schedule, no matter how unrealistic, and frankly silly, those demands were. > > There is NO WAY that Harry's relationship with Dumbledore should have settled down into a harmonious and completely trusting and respectful pattern after all the revelations in OOTP, despite the blow up in DD's office as a "pressure valve." Far too many revelations were made and issues opened for that. Not the least of these is Dumbledore's claim to have been responsible for Sirius' death. A more sophisticated, and realistic, way of dealing with the issue would have been to deal with the re-development of the relationship slowly over the course of the book. Instead, "all is forgiven, now let's fight Voldemort!" Excuse me while I guffaw in derision. > Harry believes Snape is responsible for Sirius' death and he still speaks with the man, school rules or no school rules? He does NOT demand a greater explanation from Dumbledore, whether the man is reluctant or not? He does NOT recall that Dumbledore dodged his question about whether it was "all right" for Snape to hate James? Excuse me, a third guffaw of derision. > Harry has nightmares about Cedric, but his sleep in HBP, at least > after his stay at the Dursleys, seems quite untroubled? A sixth > guffaw. > > Harry knows his failure at Occlumency led to Sirius' death. But he accepts DDs explanation that there is no need for Occlumency now, that what happened with Sirius won't happen again, at face value and never seems to feel a twinge of worry or unease about it. An eighth guffaw. Carol responds: As you never agree with anything I say, and will no doubt respond with further guffaws of derision, I'm probably wasting my time in asking you to look at the books a wee bit more objectively without imposing your own expectations on them. It seems to me (note that I am not presenting my own opinions as fact) that Harry's reaction to the death of Cedric, which you seem to think is exaggerated in contrast to the underplayed reaction to Sirius Black's death, resulted in nightmares for at least three reasons: It was the completely unexpected murder of an innocent boy close to his own age, the circumstances surrounding the murder were traumatic, and Harry blamed himself for asking Cedric to share the TWT cu with him. Had he not done so, Cedric would not have died. (I'm not saying that Cedric's death is in any way Harry's fault, only that he thinks it is.) For this reason, he doesn't want to talk about Cedric's death to Cho or the DA or anyone else. Oddly, he doesn't blame Wormtail at all that I can see. He simply says that *Voldemort* murdered Cedric and lets it go at that. (Granted, explaining that PP wasn't really dead would complicate matters, but he could at least have said that Voldemort ordered a DE to kill Cedric.) Can it be that Cedric's death is so mixed up with other traumatic and scarcely believable incidents that he suppresses the details, reliving them but not sharing them with anyone else? And there's the added guilt that he, Harry, persuaded Lupin and Black not to murder Pettigrew. DD tells him that he's not responsible for what Wormtail does after his escape, but does Harry fully believe him? I think not. And he can't even blame Snape for Cedric's death. No outlet, no scapegoat, no release until Hermione finally persuades him to reveal the details to Rita Skeeter for publication in the Quibbler. In the case of Sirius Black, Harry also blames himself (for believing LV's "vision" and causing Black to leave the safety of 12 GP). Earlier, when Black gives him the mirror, he resolves that "it would not be he, Harry, who lured Sirius from safety" (quoted from memory, sorry). And yet that's exactly what happened. And again, Harry doesn't blame the actual murderer, Bellatrix, or the mastermind behind the Prophecy theft, Voldemort. Or if he blames them, we never see him doing so. He takes out some of his anger on Dumbledore by shouting and smashing his possessions in OoP, but since DD accepts the lion's share of the blame, and Harry finally understands why DD has refused to look at him all year, it's completely unsatisfying to place the blame on him. Instead, Harry finds a scapegoat who is neither the real murderer nor his mentor: Snape. So rather than grieving as you think he ought to grieve (surely he considers himself too old to cry and it hurts too much to talk about it), he projects his grief and guilt in the form of hatred onto Snape, whom he already hates for other reasons. And that disguised and unreleased grief intensifies throughout HBP as he finds still more reasons to hate Snape. I don't think he's forgotten his godfather or ceased to mourn him, but the grief and repressed guilt are pushed to the back of his mind, replaced in his conscious mind by the suspicion that Malfoy is up to something and later by the comforting certainty that Snape is helping him. In other words, IMO, most if not all of Harry's grief and half-acknowledged guilt is transmuted into near-pathological hatred and rage at Severus Snape. You may see that as a healthy and normal reaction. I see it as very dangerous for his true mission, to destroy Voldemort through the power of Love. But wrong-headed as the rage and hatred are (IMO), they are at least understandable as a way of dealing with grief for a boy who has been taught not to express his emotions and who feels responsible for the death of the man who came to rescue him at the MoM. BTW, Harry said nothing about "not *grieving* for Sirius's sake." He only said that he needed to be strong, to keep on fighting Voldemort, for Sirius's sake. And that makes sense, considering that Voldemort is ultimately responsible for Black's death. Unfortunately, IMO, Harry could only be "strong" (not lie around moping, or "moaning and agonizing") by projecting his grief in the form of rage onto Snape. I really wonder, given your derision and your view that JKR is a bad writer, why you're still reading the books. I also wonder why, given your apparent unwillingness to consider your own views as anything other than established fact, why you bother to participate in a group whose opinions you so firmly reject. Carol, politely asking you to refrain from guffaws of derision and from taking your deeply held convictions for granted if you answer this post From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 19:54:05 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:54:05 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147443 lupinlore > Harry was furious with Kreacher at the end of OOTP. Three weeks >later, he becomes Kreacher's master and his response is "uhhhh, >okay."...all those emotions are completely forgotten and the issues >shoved firmly under the rug I am in perfect agreement with LupinLore here. Harry was furious and then suddenly he seems more annoyed with being Kreacher's master. It is quite frustrating to go from hating Kreacher to using him to spy. If it were me I wouldn't ever speak to the animal again and I would find a way to make him as miserable as possible. He betrayed someone Harry loved and the only person Harry has really been able to relate to as a parent. At least during the part where Kreacher and Dobby are fighting Harry could have stunned Kreacher and let Dobby get a few free hits in :) I think JKR has gotten to the point where she needs to advance the story to get it resolved by the end of book 7 but in the process has taken certain "liberties" and has sacrificed emotion some key subplots. michelle From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Feb 1 20:07:50 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:07:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147444 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > Oh, I'd forgotten about that. Why then, do you think, does Harry > think of him as the barkeeper from the Hogs Head instead of as DD's > brother? At DD's funeral Harry doesn't notice that DD's brother is > there, but that the barkeeper is there. Of course, Harry isn't very > good at remembering people. > We all know (or think we know) that the barkeeper is Aberforth. Harry doesn't know that. In fact I don't think Harry ever ascribes the bartender a name. (I don't think he reads JKR's intervies in the Prophet either.) Allie From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Feb 1 20:16:36 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:16:36 -0000 Subject: Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: <410-22006231183732188@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147445 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chnc1024 at ..." wrote: > > Chancie: > > Hmm... That's a good point. Author Weasley also used magic there in (GOF), > as did Dumbledore (HBP), and neither of these instances caused Harry to > receive letters from the ministry. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that > both > Author and Tonks are ministry officials?? And Dumbledore is well > Dumbledore... > Hard to say really. Does anyone have ideas on this? > Allie: I don't have any great ideas for Arthur, but Dumbledore did contact Fudge after the Dementor incident to tell him that Fudge did not have the right to expel Hogwarts students. I suspect that letter also included, "Several of my acquaintances are going to Harry's home to remove him." From sstraub at mail.utexas.edu Wed Feb 1 20:46:13 2006 From: sstraub at mail.utexas.edu (orzchis) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:46:13 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147446 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mmmwintersteiger" wrote: > Harry was furious and > then suddenly he seems more annoyed with being Kreacher's master. Dursleys are watching when Kreacher is summoned. Harry has learned to "pretend he doesn't exist" when they're around; moreover, awful things tend to happen when Dursleys and magic co-exist in the same room. Of course his emotional reactions will be suppressed in this scene. (He doesn't blow up when Uncle Vernon casually refers to Sirius' death either, no matter how much that bothers him.) sandy From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Feb 1 21:05:07 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:05:07 -0000 Subject: Draco's punishment (was: Will there be an ESE!charactrer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147447 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Snape is a child abuser, and JKR must punish him for > that to right the karmic balance. Draco is an attempted murderer. > Pettigrew, as many point out, an actual murderer. All have their > roles to play, true. Some will fit in one way, some another. But > redemption and common humanity? That would just be plain -- silly, > IMO. Renee: If you mention karmic balance, I'd like to point out that Draco's failed murder attempts were already balanced in HBP. Draco almost kills - and almost gets killed himself - I don't think it's a coincidendce that the effects of the Sectumsempra curse were so drastic. This may have given Draco just the pause he needed to refrain from killing Dumbledore. Renee From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 21:36:02 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:36:02 -0000 Subject: Some counter-thoughts on ESE!Lupin in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147448 Amontillada wrote: Yes, a transformed werewolf can be capable of attacking people whom his/her human self would never hurt! Lupin takes Wolfsbane Potion in order to avoid that very danger. > > In any case, as we've learned in PoA, it's quite common for other wizards to assume that ALL werewolves are dangerous, even though there > is now a potion that helps to control this peril. > Carol responds: Not that I believe in ESE!Lupin, but from what I understand, Wolfsbane Potion is not readily available. Lupin states in PoA that it's a tricky potion that only a few wizards can make, which is why he relies on Snape to make it for him rather than attempting to make it himself. (He also states that he was never good at Potions; Snape, we know, is a genius at making them.) As I stated in another post or two, Lupin's hair is greyer and his face more lined each time Harry sees him (most notably at the beginning of OoP and again near the beginning of HBP). He is clearly suffering (IMO) from the ravages of transforming without the Wolfsbane Potion, which Snape is no longer under DD's orders to provide since Lupin is no longer at Hogwarts, and which Lupin, by his own confession, is unable to make for himself. That Snape is not still making the potion is evident from Lupin's statement that Snape "made the potion, and made it perfectly" (note the past tense verbs), for which Lupin will be eternally grateful, or something to that effect. The question for me now is, how is Lupin controlling himself, i.e., preventing himself from attacking people when he transforms, throughout Books 4 through 6? And, as I mentioned in another post, how did he manage to do so between his years at Hogwarts, when he transformed in the Shrieking Shack and roamed Hosmeade with his Animagus friends, and his appointment as DADA teacher at Hogwarts, some sixteen years later, the one period during which the Wolfsbane Potion was available to him? More important, what is he doing about it in HBP when he's fraternizing with the werewolves and has no access to the Wolfsbane Potion because Snape is no longer making it? Re Tonks: We first see her behaving very differently from her goofy, pink-haired personality in OoP, when she metamorphs into a steely, grey-haired woman who threatens to curse Stan Shunpike into oblivion if he mentions Harry's name again. Stan later calls her "that bossy woman." (IIRC, this incident occurs in the "Occlumency" chapter.) So Tonks in Auror mode is rather a different person from Tonks socializing with her friends in 12 GP. And despite her depression in HBP, she shifts back into Auror mode when she rescues Harry from the mess he's brought on himself by recklessly spying on Draco in the Slytherin fifth-year carriage. So while I don't think that the Tonks/Lupin subplot is particularly well-handled, I don't think there's any unsolved mystery attached to it. (To be frank, I think the subplot is just a set-up to show that Patronuses can change and perhaps a variation on the theme of obsessive love having detrimental effects, also demonstrated through Merope and earlier through Barty Jr.'s mother's love for her son.) Carol, wondering if Lupin's need for the Wolfsbane Potion will lead to some sort of reconciliation with Snape, who IMO is *the* unsolved mystery in the series From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 21:41:21 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:41:21 -0000 Subject: Some observations on "The" Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147449 Goddlefrood: > I propose that Fawkes somehow has a link to his feathers. We have > seen the feathers used as a warning that he can control (in OotP) > and it does not seem unlikely that he is aware of the tail feathers > in the wands in which they have been used and also the status of his > companion / owner....> This would explain why Fawkes did not >intervene to swallow the AK curse as he had previously managed in >the Ministry. I don't think Fawkes has a connection to his feathers in the way that you describe-at least not when they are used in wands. Then Fawkes would have been feeling every single spell ever cast by each wand and I think that would be enough to drive anyone, animal or wizard, crazy. I do however think Fawkes has a connection to DD that would cause him to feel the AK curse that hit him. This is one reason I think DD's death was planned, maybe not at that particular time, but I do think Fawkes was expecting it and had been earlier directed not to intervene. michelle From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Feb 1 22:41:59 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:41:59 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147450 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: Sydney: I'm going to hazard that there ISN'T going to > be an ESE!character at all, barring Voldemort. > > > I enjoy mystery stories, but there's a reason the genre isn't known > for producing great works of literature. Fiction at it's best, IMO, > is about acknowleding our common humanity, and characters growing (or > not) by coming to terms (or not!) with all sides of their nature, the > good and the bad. The central drive of a classic detective story is > the separating and casting out of a scapegoat, and that's just > antithetical to really.. what's the word? nutritious? literature. > Lord, I hate villain-driven plots.. Renee: But... isn't that precisely what the Potter books have been so far: a series of villain-driven plots? It seems to me that, detective story or no, you do identify Voldemort as a (or *the*) scapegoat if he's the exception to your claim there won't be an ESE! character in book 7. Of course, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this. In a way, Voldemort represents all that is rotten in the Wizarding World, and Book 7 will show how he's going to be cast out, or so we're led to believe. If this will be the case, wouldn't that make the Potter series antithetical to "nutritious" literature? Sidney: > anyways, I think the classic > mystery structure is particularily inappropriate for the conclusion of > a children's book with a lot of spiritual themes like Harry > Potter,with it's hinted denoument in the Room of Love, and I don't see > it heading in an ESE! direction for anyone, really. Renee: Are you still barring Voldemort here, or do you include him in the "anyone"? If this is not a story about a scapegoat (and like you, I tend to think it isn't), will even he be redeemed? Renee From sopraniste at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 23:09:09 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 15:09:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060201230909.54523.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147451 > zgirnius: (Brutal snipping) > Both points suggest he > has some > involvement in the affairs of his brother Albus and > the Order. Now me: Also remember that in Order of the Phoenix (and I apologize, as always, for not having my references with me) when Moody shows Harry a picture of the original Order, Aberforth is in it. Moody says something to effect that that was the only time he ever met the man, but CLEARLY he was involved with the order! Flop __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 23:09:57 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:09:57 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? (was:How to contstruct an ESE!plot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147452 > >>Sydney: > This is a cool topic, and I've read everyone's replies, but going > back to the basic question, I'm going to hazard that there ISN'T > going to be an ESE!character at all, barring Voldemort. > I think that the last book will be a sort of reverse-mystery, where > the world isn't full of hidden evil to be cast out, but full of > hidden good to be drawn in. > Betsy Hp: Well, now you've got me thinking about why I think there will be, why I'd *like* there to be, an ESE!character . What good would such a character serve, beyond the initial thrill of discovery? (And the thrill *has to* last beyond the first reveal if these books have a hope of becoming classics, I think.) Because I love, love, *love* the idea of Harry *finally* seeing the "hidden good" in characters he's written off so easily. (Part of the reason I loved HBP was how JKR treated Draco. It was like she wrote a little note: "Dear Draco Fans, I love you! Hugs and kisses, Jo.") It'd be so very sweet if book 7 presented a similar little note to Snape fans. And Slytherin fans, for that matter. But in the middle of all of this love, does there need to be a bit of bad? > >>Sydney: > The central drive of a classic detective story is the separating > and casting out of a scapegoat, and that's just antithetical to > really.. what's the word? nutritious? literature. > Betsy Hp: The thing is, I don't think JKR hates the idea of a scapegoat. Quirrell was one in PS/SS. Pettigrew was another in PoA. And Barty, Jr. was yet another in GoF. The interesting thing is that all three men were written as completely pathetic. And I think JKR expected the reader to feel a bit of sympathy for both Quirrell and Barty when they died. (It's interesting that both deaths went against the "good guys" wishes.) I do think JKR is against the idea of an easily identifiable scapegoat, i.e. one predetermined by house or blood. And I think she's against a group being designated scapegoat status. But I'm not sure she's against an example of someone choosing the easy rather than the right path, as I think all three men do. (Does that still fit within the scapegoat definition?) Therefore I do think there will be an ESE!character for Harry to confront. I do think that part and parcel with figuring out who his true allies are Harry will have to figure who his real enemies are. Or at least, who of his current allies are not stong enough to continue in the fight. Does that make sense? For example *if* one of the twins is ESE (and I'm saying if, because I'm by no means saying I honestly think this will happen -- it's more of a wish than anything else) I think it'll be something where say George made a deal with a shady character to keep the Death Eaters from attacking their store for either money or product. So, not that George is *really* evil and loves Voldemort oh so much, but that he was weak when it came to making a successful run of his business. > >>Magpie: > I hadn't thought of it in those terms but that's exactly my > mindset in going into the last book. The challenge to Harry > personally is in seeing the good, and if he's seeing the bad > having it more be about accepting bad parts of the previously > good, if that comes into it. > Betsy Hp: See, I wonder if it isn't about Harry seeing *clearly*. That is, seeing the good for what it is, and the bad for what it is. Because Harry has had a tendency to see those who treat him well as good, and those who treat him badly as bad. Which isn't a clear or wise way of seeing. It would go with Dumbledore trying to help Harry get a clear view of Tom Riddle, of Voldemort. > >>Nrenka: > Personally, I don't understand why people are wanting to shove all > of the BANG over onto book 7. > Betsy Hp: Classic story structure I guess. Not that *all* the bang needs to be in book 7. But the biggest bang should be there. And towards the end too. I mean, even if Snape is DDM, killing Dumbledore is still pretty darn bang-y, IMO. Betsy Hp From juli17 at aol.com Wed Feb 1 23:25:11 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:25:11 -0500 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic In-Reply-To: <1138818998.2825.40002.m23@yahoogroups.com> References: <1138818998.2825.40002.m23@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C7F59DE18982C3-13E4-12620@FWM-R18.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147453 Jen D.: > L, > Given that your problems with how JKR handles a lot of issues, the > question that begs to be answered is: What keeps you reading HP? I > think that would be a far more illuminating discussion since none > of us is going to be able to change the things that are lacking (in > your view!). Lupinlore: Well, why wouldn't I read it? Will they be damaging to me just because I may decide I don't like a lot about them? Will they hurt me if I find JKR's attempt at dealing with complex emotional issues ham-fisted and unbelievable? Will they damage me if, for instance, I determine that they speak approvingly of child abuse? Will my world quake and shatter because JKR displeases me? For goodness sake, it's only a series of books! A series of books that vary widely in quality, with flashes of true brilliance in the early books that get betrayed by the self-indulgent, neurotic mess that was OOTP followed by the laughable HBP -- which essentially featured JKR running away from OOTP as fast as her typing fingers could carry her, shoving issues under the rug as fast as she could so that she wouldn't have to bend her plot schedule to deal with them. It's a series of books with a morality that goes from the sublime to the truly puzzling and occasionally (and I'm certain inadvertantly) the reprehensible and near-monstrous. It's a set of books that won't make one smidgen of difference in my life one way or the other, or change the Earth's rotation by one nanosecond however they come out. If I like the ending I like the ending. If, as I think is possible but unlikely, I find the ending uninspired and even morally reprehensible, so be it. I'll put them in the wood chipper and use them for compost. There will be one more set of books that didn't live up to their early promise and one more celebrity author for whom I have little respect. I'll be out a few dollars and a few minutes here and there. Even in the worst case, it beats drinking the money away (the HP series may induce nausea from time to time, but never a hangover). Julie: It's not so much that you continue to read the books in case the final book unexpectedly meets your high standards, it's that you spend so much time discussing a serires which makes no smidgen of difference in your life. Seems like it already has made a huge difference, because think of the many things you could be doing during the time you're posting here and reading all the various HP forums (from you references to such). That's what I wonder about. Thanks for clarifying that you're male. I thought so but someone else refered to you as "she." I guess I assumed male because you have a tendency to see things in very black and white, morally speaking, which I've experienced more from males than females, who tend to see more shades of gray. (And, yes, that is a stereotypical observation, and by no means speaks for the whole, but I'm not perfect either!) You also tend to foist your moral expectations on others, especially JKR, with statements like "If she doesn't punish Snape karmically, then she will have reprehensively failed her readers."--(paraphrased) It comes off as a bit pompous and unfair to me, and I feel a bit defensive of JKR. But that may just be my perspective. I'm sure JKR isn't bothered ;-) BTW, I hope you really won't throw your HP books in the chipper. There are many people in the world who likely won't share your disgust, even if the series ends in a way you dislike, so at least drop them at your local charity or library! Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 23:52:37 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:52:37 -0000 Subject: Slaveowner Harry (was:Re: JKR's dealing with emotions...) In-Reply-To: <00d701c626e3$8c5796e0$2560400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147454 > >>Magpie: > I must say I found it very funny that Harry is now a slaveowner > and Hermione says nothing about it that I remember, after two > books of non-stop SPEW. Betsy Hp: Yeah, Hermione dropped SPEW cold, didn't she? The meta reason would be, I presume, that JKR didn't really plan on Hermione getting so caught up in SPEW in the first place, and now it's time to reel her character back in. The non-meta (what's the word for that?) would be.... Well, I'm not sure there is one stated within the books. I would guess that Kreacher's betrayal would effect Hermione in some way, but I can't find her reaction to it in the books. (Does anyone recall her having one on page?) Preparing for her NEWTS could be another reason. And pretty true to character, I think. Harry does purposefully keep that he's given Kreacher and Dobby a task from Hermione, but I couldn't find him telling her about out and out owning Kreacher now. Though Hermione does react to Dobby saying he's gone without sleep, and she also makes sure to praise Kreacher for a job well done when he reports to Harry. So there's still a hint of the former SPEW founder there. > >>Magpie: > Harry finds himself in the hospital wing, remembers Dobby, is > inspired to get elves to trail Malfoy and calls...his slave. As > opposed to Dobby himself. > I just find it fascinating. You know Kreacher's going to try to > work against you. You know you've got a self-proclaimed friend of > a House Elf who would love to do it for you. You'd think it would > be weird ordering someone to do something as your slave.and that > asking Kreacher might be particularly hard given his past. I > guess the main reason was so that JKR could have the two elves > fighting but still, who would have thought after everything we'd > seen that Harry would become a House Elf owner and actually > take advantage of it. Did he just feel bad imposing on his friend > so thought he'd get his slave to do it against his will? Betsy Hp: Part of it was, I'm sure, to have Dobby avoid the drudge work involved in following Draco night and day. Plus, Harry is aware (he anticipates Dobby's breakdown at one point) of Dobby's hang-ups when it comes to the Malfoys. I'm not sure he'd have felt Dobby capable of spying on a member of the family. Also, Harry is fairly practical when it comes to the magical world. And he seems very comfortable with the idea of house-elves as slaves. (SPEW seemed to strike him as either amusing or annoying depending on the circumstances.) So, since he has this slave, annoying though he is, may as well use him. And Harry did do his best (and succeeded it seems) to cut off any roads of rebellion for Kreacher. It *is* strange, however, that JKR seems to have okay'd this form of slavery by having Harry so comfortable with it. It's an interesting direction for her to take. I did enjoy Kreacher's ode to Draco's beauty and grace, but was that (and the fighting elves) the only reason she set this up? Huh, here's an idea: Did Harry ever *stop* Kreacher and Dobby from following Draco? Could those house-elves know where Draco is now? Maybe they will be hold an important piece of information in book 7. Betsy Hp From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 2 00:00:36 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:00:36 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147455 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Jen D.: > > L, > > Given that your problems with how JKR handles a lot of issues, the > > question that begs to be answered is: What keeps you reading HP? I > > think that would be a far more illuminating discussion since none > > of us is going to be able to change the things that are lacking (in > > your view!). Lupinlore: > Well, why wouldn't I read it? Will they be damaging to me just > because I may decide I don't like a lot about them? Will they hurt > me if I find JKR's attempt at dealing with complex emotional issues > ham-fisted and unbelievable? Will they damage me if, for instance, I > determine that they speak approvingly of child abuse? Will my world > quake and shatter because JKR displeases me? For goodness sake, it's > only a series of books! Geoff: I think that one of the problems is that you appear to be expecting that every other member of the group will take your comments as ex- cathedra and hence infallible and not negotiable. I am quite willing to accept that you hold the position which you have expressed but I am not personally joining in the eight guffaws as a result and am not persuaded to your point of view. On the subject of handling grief etc., several different views have been put forward by contributors and that, I think, would reflect the view of any sample in an opinion poll. If I might speak personally, I grew up in a period when "boys didn't cry" and we were encouraged to keep our distress under wraps when we were feeling hurt. Neither of my parents, although caring and loving, were particularly demonstrative, so, at stressful times, I have often tended to appear rather unemotional and to suppress outward evidence of what I was feeling inside. When my mother - and later my father - died, I found it extremely difficult to express any feelings openly and initially even found it embarrassing to talk about it because I felt I was being hypocritical as I wasn't feeling overwhelmed by their loss. After several months, I managed to talk about my mother's death and my lack of deep feeling with a close (female) colleague at school which helped me to reach a closure but I can certainly see how Harry might not have openly shown his sense of grief and loss. After all, as a child he had similarly learned to keep his head below the parapet with the Dursleys and internalise his feelings rather than be shouted at by Vernon or be mocked and bullied by Dudley. In his later years at Hogwarts Umbridge - and also Snape - have tried to hit him where it hurt emotionally and this has also increased his resolve not to let them see that they might be winning. Hence we have a Harry who wipes away a quiet tear when no one is around and tries his utmost to hold tears at bay even at the most stressful times. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 00:33:14 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:33:14 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? (was:How to contstruct an ESE!plot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147456 > Betsy Hp: > I'm curious, how many people on this list think a character will be > revealed as ESE in book 7? I've always assumed that JKR will throw in > an all mighty twist and have someone that Harry trusted turn out to be > ESE. Whether it's a Weasley (a twin!), or a member of the Hogwarts > teaching staff (McGonagall?), or a Gryffindor he'd always thought was > decent (erm... Collin?), I'm expecting some sort of dun-dun-DAH moment > complete with "I've always despised you!" and "No, it can't be!". > > But, following this thread it seems like most of you all (not Pippin, > obviously ) think the masks have all been removed and we know who's > on what team. That book 7 will consist of a scavenger hunt broken up > by a melee or two and a final showdown between Harry and Voldemort. > (Oh, a bit on Snape.) Am I right about this, or are there others > still expecting a few more twists? > Neri: Why, *of course* a big ESE is going to be revealed in Book 7. The biggest ESE of them all, in fact. No, not Lupin, because frankly ESE!Lupin wouldn't be such a big deal at all. I mean, how could ESE!Lupin reveal himself in Book 7 that would be more shattering than AK'ing Dumbledore off the astronomy tower? Nope, there is only *one* ESE that would be even more shattering than that. The person most close to Harry. The character we trust more than any other in the series. I'm talking, of course, about ESE!Harry. Because Harry has the seventh part of Voldemort's soul in him. You know this is true. It has been foreshadowed since the first book, when he was chosen by the brother of Voldemort's wand, and throughout the series since then. All the clues are there, and the scene of the crime was the most critical and mysterious scene of the series ? the fateful night in GH. In Book 7, the biggest mask of them all will come off. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 00:49:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:49:45 -0000 Subject: Was HPB's ending BANG-y? (Was: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147457 Nora wrote: > I thought it [the ending of HBP] was quite BANG-y, but then I suspect I got into the pattern of reading which I *think* was quite deliberate, and the one which I would guess (as I can't know this unless it's confirmed much later) she was out to make, which her mental 'ideal reader' would catch onto. We get Spinner's End, with all these explanations which seem to point to ESE!, but we the readers know better than that, right? And there's Harry, continuing to doubt and have suspicions, but he's just biased and unfair. After all, Dumbledore believes in Snape and we believe in Dumbledore because he's the epitome of goodness and is wiser than us and knows more. > > And then Snape ups and kills him. And we-the-readers are left either to go "Wow, that was totally BANGy", or to start spinning more > explanations as to why it wasn't actually a genuine BANG (it wasn't > an AK curse, they had a plan, Dumbledore isn't actually dead, etc.). > > But then again, since when does anything with Snape actually work the way that JKR seems to have intended it? Others may be skeptical, but I get the impression that she's genuinely a little befuddled at the way that people tend to read the character when she thinks that she's made some things ("horrible person") rather clear. > > I agree that the why is totally up in the air. What I'd suggest is that it's an open possibility that the event was genuinely BANG-y in a way that's not going to be mitigated by the explanations, as many listies want. Carol responds: I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that JKR calls Snape a "horrible teacher," not a "horrible person" (there's a big difference--Crouch!Moody is in some respects a "good" teacher but in all respects a horrible person), and many of her responses regarding Snape (notably that Snape wouldn't be caught dead wearing a turban and that there's more to him than meets the eye) are less than helpful in characterizing him. Note her response to the question about whether Snape is evil, asked after HBP, which amounts to "You read the book. What do *you* think?" She wants to keep Snape mysterious. She wants us to keep on speculating, as she states in the same interview. She has clamped down on speculations that lead nowhere (Snape is a vampire, for example). But clearly what happened on the tower doesn't fall into that category. There's more to come in the Harry-Snape subplot, and at least one interview, as well as some canonical evidence, points at redemption. I *do* think the events on the tower will be "mitigated by explanation," but as neither of us has any way to convince the other, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. As for BANG-y endings, certainly the events on the tower came as a shock to most readers, if that's what you mean by a BANG. Many of us expected Dumbledore to die--but not *that* way. And I, at any rate, expected something terrible to happen to Snape (fiery ropes binding his hands in "Spinner's End"? This can't be good. Snape taking the DADA class? What kind of triumph is that? Has he forgotten what happened to Lupin and Lockhart and all the others?). But kill his mentor, the only man who trusted him? Noooooo! PoA and GoF had fantastic, fireworks-style BANGs in which both Harry and the reader kept thinking, "It can't be," but when you went back and reread the books, all the clues were in place, clearly distinguishable from the red herrings. On a second reading (unless you're Pippin ;-) ), everything fell into place. And of course, as someone pointed, you have the villain or someone else putting the pieces together at the end of the story, so you know what clues to look for. That, of course, doesn't happen in HBP. No explanation from the seeming villain, who behaves in ways completely inconsistent with villainy like expressing concern for Draco ("Run, Draco! Run!"), rescuing Harry from a Crucio, and deflecting his hexes instead of injuring or kidnapping him. And this time, the reader and Harry are not sharing a reaction. While the reader is going "It can't be!" with regard to Snape, Harry's disbelief extends only to Dumbledore's death. Snape, he has no doubt, is a villain. But this time, he's the one who's interpreting the events without a mentor or the villain to explain them. He's on his own, and the reader is not necessarily with him. And a rereading of all six books brings us no closer to understanding Snape. The clues that he's DDM! (especially in SS/PS and GoF but also in the other books) are as solid-seeming as ever (Note that I said "solid-seeming," not "solid." I'm not claiming my opinion as fact), and no amount of sarcasm to his students or unfair point-taking on his part can make them go away. Not even the revelation that he was the eavesdropper can do that. It's still Dumbledore's judgment against Harry's. And in a bildungsroman, where the child protagonist has not yet acquired wisdom, it's unlikely that the child is right. As for the heroic quest, I could be wrong, but I don't think that the hero's judgment of who is or is not a villain is an essential element of the genre. And since JKR has presented DD as the epitome of wisdom despite such emotional mistakes as overprotecting Harry, I'm betting that DD, not Harry, was right. To return to the ending of HBP: it may be BANG-y by your definition, but unlike the spectacular BANGs of PoA and GoF, which go off like a Weasley-built firecracker, this one has all the beauty and cleverness of a pistol shot to the gut. Far from solving the mystery, it complicates it. And it's painful, excruciatingly painful, giving no satisfaction, no sense of resolution at all (unless it's an "I told you so" from the ESE!Snape faction). Carol, whose first reaction to HBP was grief for *Snape* and anger at JKR for betraying both him and the reader, but who now hopes after multiple rereadings that JKR will redeem herself by giving us a plausible and courageous (but still sarcastic) DDM!Snape in Book 7 From mrsewp at earthlink.net Thu Feb 2 00:52:02 2006 From: mrsewp at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Catherine) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:52:02 -0000 Subject: the newly named post: IsTonks the ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote in response to my post wondering if Tonks would turn out to be the ESE character based on weird behavior neatly explained as love: In what way is Tonks similar to these others? I agree that her change in behavior is very odd. However, that is readily explained by her feelings for Lupin. I acknowledge that that is a cheesy explanation, and not really convincing. But the fact is that JKR, bless her heart, just doesn't write romance very well. In fact, she she shouldn't be let near the romance section of a bookstore, much less be trying to write it. Just as I doubt we'll find out that there was a love potion involved with Ginny and Harry, I doubt we'll discover anything behind Tonks' behavior but love. My reply: Even acting completely berserk and morose over men myself, I still question Tonks's odd appearances. Just today I was listening to the the chapter in HBP when Harry waits outside the Room of Requirement and is so frustrated he kicks the wall. Out of nowhere comes Tonks, apparently looking for DD, whose office is on the other side of the castle, and he is not on grounds. She then, as mysteriously, walks off. The fact that JK can't really write a good romance well... I never thought there was a love potion with Harry and Ginny. I actually I believe the wild kiss he gives her after the match was quite romantic. I concede your points with a smile... I then wrote that: My gut tells me that somehow both Draco and Snape will be somewhat vindicated in Book 7, requiring an immense amount of mindset shifting from our Harry. Lupinlore replied: That would be reprehensible beyond belief and render the books good for nothing but compost, as it would amount to making a hero out of a child abuser. Having said that, I think it is true that Snape and Draco both have roles to play, and both are in for tremendous backlashes of fate. But then, so are all the major characters. My reply: Yes, I do agree that it would be reprehensible to have a complete vindication for Draco and Snape. I did not mean to suggest that. I wondered in they would be "somewhat vindicated" ie. we readers and Harry find out what some of the list posts have suggested: that Snape was acting on DD's 'orders or wishes,' to kill him. Particularly since the Unbreakable Vow means death to the breaker, Snape bound himself to Narcissa, promising to 'do what Draco fails if he fails.' To break the Vow would have been death, as well as the undoing of countless secrets that could ultimately help Harry be triumphant. As far as dear Draco is considered, nothing erases the bullying, lying, racist actions he has done over the last 6 years. However, I wonder if the suggestion by DD that there is 'some good' in him, preventing him from completing the task and killing DD will be part of a key for a 'partial' conversion/ absolution. Perhaps again, my choice of the word 'vindication' reflected my tired middle school English teacher brain on too many averages due in the computer for the end of second quarter. After all, St. Paul was one of the fiercest Christian persecuters and after a 'flash of light,' look what happened to him... A final question: does your statement alluding to Snape and Draco's 'vindication' as material for the compost extend to the idea that if JK decides to kill Harry off, the books will ultimately send a message that evil can win in the end? At this point, killing Harry would make it hard for me to keep enjoying the rereads I love... Liz/ Elizabeth Catherine,completely obsessed with HP according to her students bless their hearts. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 01:34:23 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:34:23 -0000 Subject: Some observations on "The" Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147459 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > One argument that has been used in favour of Dumbledore's making > a pact with Severus to be killed or otherwise disguise his > killing (I am firmly of the view that Dumbledore is dead) is > that Fawkes never stepped in to prevent the AK. > > ...edited... > > If, as I say, Fawkes somehow has a connection with his tail > feathers in the wands then it makes perfect sense to me that > during the fight in the Ministry between Dumbledore and Voldemort > that Fawkes would be aware of the danger to his master through > both connections. > ...edited... > > Goddlefrood > bboyminn: That's an interesting theory, and I can't say you are right or wrong, I can only say that I see it differently. This is how I explain this to myself. In the battle at the Ministry of Magic, Dumbledore had every reason to expect trouble, and he would have likely gather every powerful resource he had available to him. So, I suspect he either had Fawkes with him (remember when he escaped the castle by using Fawkes as an apparation medium), or he summoned Fawkes to him before going to the Ministry. So, in this instance, Fawkes was there, out of sight, guarding Dumbledore and waiting to come to his aid. In the scene at the top of the tower, Fawkes was unaware of the danger to Dumbledore because Dumbledore didn't anticipate danger and have Fawkes lurking out if sight waiting to jump in to the rescue. By the time Fawkes became aware of mortal danger to Dumbledore, it was too late. On another aspect, I'm not sure Fawkes is out of the picture yet. I can foresee everyone assume with Dumbledore's death, Fawkes has fled back to the wild. Yet I suspect that when we least expect it, Fawkes will appear from no where and come to Harry's aid. Back to the main subject. I suspect in the first circumstance, Dumbledore anticipated trouble and had Fawkes available to act as an ally and a defensive resource. In the second instance, Dumbledore did not anticipate trouble that would require Fawkes and therefore Fawkes was not standing by. Just a guess. Steve/bboyminn From kjones at telus.net Thu Feb 2 02:19:23 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:19:23 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E16C2B.8020309@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147460 > > I'll be out a few dollars and a few minutes here and there. Even > in > > the worst case, it beats drinking the money away (the HP series > may > > induce nausea from time to time, but never a hangover). > > > > Lupinlore > Jen here, > Alls I can say is "How do you get up in the morning?" > Jen D. KJ writes: I might suggest that this is confirmation that Snape is on the side of good. Not even his character is this difficult.:) KJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 02:29:23 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:29:23 -0000 Subject: Was HPB's ending BANG-y? (Was: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147461 > Nora wrote: > > And then Snape ups and kills him. And we-the-readers are left > either to go "Wow, that was totally BANGy", or to start spinning more > > explanations as to why it wasn't actually a genuine BANG (it wasn't > > an AK curse, they had a plan, Dumbledore isn't actually dead, etc.). > > > > But then again, since when does anything with Snape actually work > the way that JKR seems to have intended it? Others may be skeptical, > but I get the impression that she's genuinely a little befuddled at > the way that people tend to read the character when she thinks that > she's made some things ("horrible person") rather clear. >> Carol responds: > I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that JKR calls Snape a > "horrible teacher," not a "horrible person"... Alla: No, Nora is right. JKR calls him deeply horrible person. ( not that this is somehow goes against canon the way I read it) "Summer 1999 Harry Potter Author Works Her Magic by Katy Abel Q: Who's your favorite character besides Harry Potter? A: It's very hard to choose. It's fun to write about Snape because he's a deeply horrible person. Hagrid is someone I'd love to meet. " Carol: >And in a bildungsroman, where the child protagonist has not > yet acquired wisdom, it's unlikely that the child is right. As for the > heroic quest, I could be wrong, but I don't think that the hero's > judgment of who is or is not a villain is an essential element of the > genre. Alla: It IS one of the essential elements of heroic quest as far as I know - to know what are you looking for and who are your enemies and I agree with Nora, book 7 IS very likely to have many features of heroic quest. I mean, hero gets help along the way, but certainly he has to know whom to trust. Of course book 7 is unlikely to play ONLY by the rules of quest, so we shall see. > Carol, whose first reaction to HBP was grief for *Snape* and anger at > JKR for betraying both him and the reader, but who now hopes after > multiple rereadings that JKR will redeem herself by giving us a > plausible and courageous (but still sarcastic) DDM!Snape in Book 7 > Alla, who thinks that JKR does not need to redeem herself for the spectacular ending of HBP and who hopes that Snape will get what he deserves at the end, whatever that may be. From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 22:24:54 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:24:54 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147462 lucianam: >We've already seen stuff such as Snape Kill Dumbledore. So trivial >little villains would be disappointing. That's why I buy ESE!Lupin, >btw. If she pulls another Unmasking of a bad guy, it's got to be >something big, big, big. While I agree with lucianam here in theory I disagree on the ESE!. If there is an ESE! it has to be HUGE. My money is actually on Tonks though, she just seems to be everywhere at the "right time" in HBP. Most of the wizards and witches in her family tree are already considered Dark Wizards, if not full fledged DE's. Why wouldn't LV have a spy working for him in the OOtP? If it is Tonks she must be really torn because I truely believes she loves Lupin. I could be totally off here but I don't believe Lupin is the ESE!, it would be too obvious. michelle From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 23:15:46 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:15:46 -0000 Subject: Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147463 Geoff: >I wonder whether Hagrid might fit into this category? He may have >been expelled from Hogwarts and had his wand broken but he is still >a wizard..... Of course Hagrid qualifies. Since most of the magic he performs is at Hogwarts or in the prescence of other wizards I don't think he has be suspected of doing the magic he actually does. michelle From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 02:29:04 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:29:04 -0000 Subject: Survivor's guilt and the 5 stages of grief as they relate to Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147464 In The Goblet of Fire, The Order of the Pheonix, and The Half-Blood Prince we see Harry deal with the loss of three different people 2 he was close to and one he only knew from Quidditch and the Triwizard tournament. Let's deal with the survivor's guilt first. In all three deaths Harry is present and thinks that if he had done things differently then that person would still be alive. In Goblet of Fire he tells Cedric to take the cup with him thus putting them both in the Graveyard where Voldemort kills Cedric. In The Order of the Pheonix Harry is fighting with Bellatrix LeStrange and thinks if he had finished her off then Sirius would not have died. In the Half-Blood Prince Dumbledore uses the full body bind to keep Harry still and Harry thinks that if he had not been in the bind he could have saved Dumbledore. There are five stages of grief that are widely accepted by Psychiatrists throughout the world. They are denial, blame, bargaining, anger, and finally acceptance. Denial to think that what has happened although it has actually happened being to stunned to believe that this is real. Harry does this in The Goblet of Fire with Cedric's death. He is in shock when he gets back to Hogwarts with Cedric's body. He is not the only one that shows this stage either Fudge does when he says he is hurt and needs to go the hospital wing before his parents arrive at the maze with Harry clutching the corpse. Blame and bargaining can be classed together. These are the stages where the if only's shoulda would coulda and I'll do anything to make things better. In these stages Harry thinks about what he did and what he should have done to keep the event from happening. All three books demonstrate these two stages of grief quite well. Anger the emotion to show that you are really upset about things. This stage is demonstrated quite well in The Order of the Pheonix. In Dumbledore's office Harry throws things and yells quite a bit. Dumbledore tells hom what he is feeling is normal. Harry shouts don't tell me what I am feeling you know nothing about the way I feel. The final stage of grief is acceptance. In this stage you come to terms with the fact the person who has died is not and will not come back. Harry actually looked for a possible chance the Sirius would come back as a ghost he even asked Sir Nick about this. Eventually over the summer Harry realized he could not shut himself away from the world and time would not stop just because Sirius was gone. By doing this and coming to this conclusion Harry had finally processed one death and possibly 2. The other being Cedric's. Even though Cedric's was harder to process because Harry felt himself directly responsible. Dumbledore's death will be much harder to process because Harry now knows that Lord Voldemort utilizes and uses the ones that are close to him. In the Half-Blood Prince Harry breaks up with Ginny because he is afraid for her safety. This is a realization he made after Dumbledore's death. fuzz876i From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 03:41:40 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 03:41:40 -0000 Subject: Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147465 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mandorino222" wrote: > > finwitch said: > > Harry is the only registered wizard in the neighbourhood, any magic > > there would be presumed as Harry's doing. Mandorino said: > > This actually bothers me a lot. If they could detect magic, but did > not know what the source of the magic was (see Dobby in book 2), then > how can Tonks use magic to pack Harry's trunk in OotP without the > ministry detecting it and attributing it to Harry? > > mandorino222 Doddie here: When I first read this in HBP. I simply thought this was a way to discriminate against muggleborns. The enforcement of this law is unfair to many more besides Harry.. Although the ministry may keep closer tabs on privet drive than say Hermione's home(although a wizard may live in Hermione's neighborhood). The ministry may not have detected Tonks packing Harry's trunk, or the disillusionment spell by mad-eye due to other stealth spells that may have been cast by order members that night--or, once harry was in trouble, the ministry felt there was no longer a need to keep a close a watch on privet drive.(perhaps one of the rescue party was on duty for the ministry that night(shaklebolt) hence it was not reported. Doddie From foodiedb at optonline.net Thu Feb 2 04:00:26 2006 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (foodiedb) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 04:00:26 -0000 Subject: Spoken vs. Non-spoken spell Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147466 Hi all, I was thinking about another way that one can get around Snape doing a genuine or effective AK. Let's say that while he spoke the AK correctly, "inside" of him he was doing a wordless spell. Would the wordless spell "take over" the spoken spell? Good night, David It is our choices Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. - Albus Dumbledore From whiggrrl at erols.com Thu Feb 2 01:27:34 2006 From: whiggrrl at erols.com (j. lutz) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:27:34 -0500 Subject: Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: <1138818998.2825.40002.m23@yahoogroups.com> References: <1138818998.2825.40002.m23@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <43E16006.1090508@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147467 ereshkigal_doom : > > >In other words, the ministry can probably only detect magic use if >someone is actually watching your location on the underaged-magic >crystal ball (or whatever), so you would have to be unlucky or >specially targetted to be caught. > Also, even if you've been caught, the Ministry clearly exercises some latitude over whether or not they will prosecute. In /Prisoner of Azkaban/, Fudge smilingly glosses over Harry inflating Aunt Marge. In /Order of the Phoenix/, he drags Harry before the whole Wizengamot. j.lunatic From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Feb 2 04:26:49 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 04:26:49 -0000 Subject: Draco in the Bathroom (was Re: Draco's punishment) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > Renee: > If you mention karmic balance, I'd like to point out that Draco's > failed murder attempts were already balanced in HBP. Draco almost > kills - and almost gets killed himself - I don't think it's a > coincidendce that the effects of the Sectumsempra curse were so > drastic. This may have given Draco just the pause he needed to refrain > from killing Dumbledore. > > Renee > Renee you just said something that I've been thinking about for a while. The bathroom scene was not really about Harry or Snape (who go though their usual motions) but Draco. It forced Draco to look within himself and it brought death and violence home to him. Quick_Silver From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 2 08:28:40 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:28:40 -0000 Subject: Draco in the Bathroom (was Re: Draco's punishment) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: Renee: > > If you mention karmic balance, I'd like to point out that Draco's > > failed murder attempts were already balanced in HBP. Draco almost > > kills - and almost gets killed himself - I don't think it's a > > coincidendce that the effects of the Sectumsempra curse were so > > drastic. This may have given Draco just the pause he needed to > refrain > > from killing Dumbledore. Quick_Silver: > Renee you just said something that I've been thinking about for a > while. The bathroom scene was not really about Harry or Snape (who go > though their usual motions) but Draco. It forced Draco to look within > himself and it brought death and violence home to him. Geoff: But it also brought the same things home to Harry... 'Harry was still watching, horrified by what he had done, barely aware that he too was soaked in blood and water.' (HBP "Sectumsempra" p.489 UK edition) '"I didn't mean it to happen," said Harry at once. His voice echoed in the cold, watery space. "I didn't know what the spell did."' (ibid. p.490) '"I don't believe this," said Hermione. "You're actually defending -" "I'm not defending what I did!" said Harry quickly. "I wish I hadn't done it and not just because I've got about a dozen detentions. You know I wouldn't have used a spell like that, not even on Malfoy but you can't blame the Prince, he hadn't written 'Try this out, it's really good' - he was just making notes for himself, wasn't he, not for anyone else..."' (ibid. pp.495-96) Harry reacted to Malfoy's attempted use of an Unforgiveable on him but instead of using something he knew, such as 'Stupefy' or 'Expelliarmus', without thinking, he subconsciously(?) attempted a spell for which he did not know the outcome - but which had been niggling away in the back of his mind and tempting him. He has had it spelt out to him in no uncertain terms - both through his own conscience and the reactions of Snape and McGonagall - that doing this is highly dangerous; he could easily have found himself accused of manslaughter or even murder had help not been quickly to hand. The name of the spell implies that it is a serious and life-threatening curse to cast and it may underline for Harry the potential danger of finding himself unintentionally on a slippery slope towards the Dark Side. From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Thu Feb 2 08:55:04 2006 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:55:04 -0000 Subject: re Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147471 Olivierfouquet raises the point of how Hogwarts is funded. Presumably it would be in the Ministry's interests to keep it afloat, and the same with St Mungo's. However, the school my son attended might just shed some light. It is about a hundred years old. Compared to Hogwarts, a mere mayfly. Boys only, day pupils and some boarders. Lots of sports, clubs, music and drama ... which means, lots of trips around town and beyond in hired buses. Trips, also, to national drama festivals, cricket and rugby weeks etc. It is funded by the local (provincial) education authority at a flat rate of not very much at all per child, and one pays considerable top-up fees which go to paying additional staff, thereby keeping class sizes down. Now on to Hogwarts! The extras - all the trips, the laboratory equipment, the sport (except for the clothes, bats and balls etc), the library and computer facilities, the duplicated notes - are all paid for out of the school's investments, as are various prizes and awards. These come from Old Boys who have remembered the place in their wills, mostly, or just made bequests of some kind while still alive. Out of gratitude ... So, can we imagine that in a society where a Lucius Malfoy can make himself famous and popular by giving well targeted donations, some more moral people would like to help their old school along? It seems more than likely; and if Pretoria Boys High can look back on the proceeds of a mere century, what might Hogwarts not have in its Gringotts vault after a millennium? Indeed, it could be even better off than expected, as it seems that one way in which the wizarding world is ahead of our own is that witches have had important and well paid jobs for centuries. (Our local girls' school requires payment for extras. Old Girls did not have disposable incomes until recently!) Perhaps, too, deserving cases like the Weasleys might get, not exactly bulk discounts, but some kind of subvention with the fees? Deborah, enjoying the nuts and bolts and wishing we got more little snippets of information here and there. Or that we could read Hogwarts, A History! From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Feb 2 09:29:50 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:29:50 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <700201d40602010916t86f6997kdd3f56ccb419992a@mail.gmail.com> References: Message-ID: <43E26BBE.26521.9531C0@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147472 On 1 Feb 2006 at 9:16, Kemper wrote: > Kemper now: > As much as I disagree with Lupinlore which is frequently, I agree with Steve > even more. Except this time. > . > The problem with Harry's coping of Sirius' death isn't that long, > Shakespearean soliloquies are absent from the text, it's that Harry isn't > shown waking with a tear-soaked pillow or something similar to show the > reader the depth of Harry's loss and how he was hurting silently. All JKR > had to write was a short, simple sentence and it would have been > clear. But we didn't get that, we got some movie version of macho > man-child, stiff upper-lip, "Sirius wouldn't want blahblah..." soliloquy > that left the reader emotionally unsatisfied. But the thing is, that isn't unrealistic. As I have said, I lost my father at a very similar age to Harry losing Sirius - and to be frank, I think my relationship to my father was far closer than Harry's was to Sirius'. But my reaction to my father's death was very similar to that shown by Harry to the death of Sirius. I didn't wake with a tear-soaked pillow, or anything like that. With the exception of the initial shock of losing my father, the only times I cried were when I thought my mother needed me to. And I did adopt the view that my father would not have wanted me to fall apart, he'd have wanted me to get on with my life. And believe me, I wasn't any macho man-child. In fact, I was quite the opposite. This reaction didn't come from being macho, or anything like it. I wasn't in a movie. This was my real life. This is how I reacted. Looking back on it, I wish I hadn't reacted that way - because long term, my lack of reaction hurt me. But it is the way I reacted. And so the way Harry is depicted doesn't leave me unsatisfied. It impresses me that JKR can write grief in a realistic and non- stereoypical way. Would I have minded if she'd written it differently? No, not at all. Would I have minded if she'd written it in a stereotypical way - again, no I wouldn't, because some people *do* react in the stereotypical manner and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. People react to grief and loss differently - and both in real life and in fiction, we shouldn't be expecting them to conform to our view of what is and isn't appropriate and normal. It really does seem to me at times, that some people seem to think that there is something special and correct about the way they see the world - and that JKR gets something 'wrong' when she sees it differently. People are diverse - both JKR and the characters she writes fit that bill. Different people react differently to things, and they see things differently. Different people grieve differently. And there's no right or wrong way to do it. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 2 10:37:18 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:37:18 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: <00d701c626e3$8c5796e0$2560400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147473 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > Not to speak for Lupinlore but the sense I get is not that she wants lots of > melodrama but that she didn't feel like a subtle handling of grief was > worked in throughout the books. Thus these throwaway lines just stood apart > from everything else instead of seeming like small signs of something that > was going on all along within Harry when we were inside his head the whole > book. > For me that was not true. I found them completely believable because they stood apart. I can easily imagine grief working that way. You don't want to think of it, you don't want to feel it and suddenly its there, nothing you can do about it. And to make things clear: that is not how grief is for me. I'm a very different kind of griever, very extrovert, I wish I could keep some things more private, but my face says everything. Gerry From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 2 14:54:34 2006 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:54:34 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147474 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Right, as I said I agree that if Harry's grief would have been only > shown in that one scene, I would have completely agreed that it was > lame. I mean, I understand Harry's bravado, but IMO even if person > tries one can barely be completely in control of one's grief. The > flashes of pain will show up here and there, IMO only of course. > > I also want to wave at Lupinlore and thank him for more detailed > explanation, since I definitely understand where he is coming from > now. > > Some of the possibilities LL was talking about and what you just > suggested are GREAT. I would not mind seeing them in the text AT ALL. > I guess all I am saying that I was OK with how it was portrayed as is. > Not that I would have minded seeing more. > Kemper: > > Also lame, the Order's lack of a ritual goodbye for if not for > them. Or > > maybe they had one and Harry wasn't invited. But after the death.... not > much. > > Not even silent lamenting. > > Alla: > > Agreed. I found the lack of goodbye for Sirius to be strange and > rather annoying, but I keep hoping that it will somehow tie in with > the that mysterious reason for Sirius' death, although I am unable to > figure out how. Marianne: Ditto on all the above. In the matter of the portrayal of grief or loss, the repeated little reactions that Harry has when people mention Sirius are realistic enough for me to convey that Harry is indeed feeling these things. I think it's plausible that this is how Harry grieves. I did a similar thing when I lost my mother at the age of thirteen. I see from Shaun's post below that he also reacted in a similar way. OTOH, the issue I see with Harry (and that I had, although I didn't realize it at the time) is that, other than DD's mention of how Harry's handling Sirius's death, there is no other adult acknowledgement to Harry that he has indeed suffered a great loss. I'm not talking about grand pronouncements or over-the-top orations, just a simple "Harry, I'm sure you still think a lot about Sirius. I'm sorry he's gone. If you need me, I'm here" kind of thing from, well, anyone. Maybe Molly or Arthur. Maybe Lupin. Maybe even McGonagall in a brief moment at the beginning of the school year. I realize my reaction to this is rooted in my personal experiences, but just that little nod from people would have been a great help. Harry doesn't have to bare his soul or burst into a grief-stricken frenzy in response. He doesn't have to do anything. However, the lack of that particular type of contact and understanding from the adults around him left me cold. And, that there was no memorial service, which was a perfect opportunity for people to show their support for Harry, also left me scratching my head. Marianne From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Feb 2 15:26:20 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:26:20 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <700201d40602010916t86f6997kdd3f56ccb419992a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > The problem with Harry's coping of Sirius' death isn't that long, > Shakespearean soliloquies are absent from the text, it's that Harry isn't > shown waking with a tear-soaked pillow or something similar to show the > reader the depth of Harry's loss and how he was hurting silently. All JKR > had to write was a short, simple sentence and it would have been > clear. But we didn't get that, we got some movie version of macho > man-child, stiff upper-lip, "Sirius wouldn't want blahblah..." soliloquy > that left the reader emotionally unsatisfied. Pippin: But immediately before that passage which makes some people feel that Harry's grief is brushed aside, we get this: "He could tell that Dumbledore understood, that he might even suspect that until his letter arrived, Harry had spent nearly all his time at the Dursley's lying on his bed, refusing meals, and staring at the misted window, full of the chill emptiness that he had come to associate with dementors." -HBP ch4 So while Harry was telling himself that Sirius wouldn't want him to shut himself away or crack up, that is exactly what Harry was doing, feeling as if dementors were around and making it even worse by telling himself he was failing Sirius. But it did make a difference, I think, that when Dumbledore came to get him, Harry saw that there were people he needed to be strong for. There was a job he had to do. Of course not everyone is able to be strong just because someone needs them to be, but Harry is. We certainly have characters who failed when someone needed them, so it's not like Rowling is ignoring the possibility. Not only Merope, of course, but Sirius himself --weren't we all a little disappointed in Sirius that he wasn't able to be strong for Harry when Harry needed him in OOP? Perhaps the lack of memorial was another failure on Sirius's part. He was always a rebel, according to JKR. We know that he left a will, so perhaps he instructed that there should not be any ceremony. Maybe he thought his friends did not deserve to mourn him -- they had forgotten him while he was alive in Azkaban, so let them forget him in death. Pippin From sopraniste at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 16:16:07 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 08:16:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Regulus Black / Significance of DD & Sirius having In-Reply-To: <002e01c626aa$f19c5c90$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: <20060202161607.37295.qmail@web35615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147476 > kchuplis: > > You know *I* kept wondering why everyone kept > referring to the barman as > Aberforth and I read the book at least a couple of > times. I'm on it again > and the other night read the meeting section and saw > the one little blurb > where Harry thinks he looks vaguely familiar. I > guess put that together with > the fact we know Albus goes there for mead off and > on and that is the > "cannon" that the barman is Aberforth. Not real > convincing but I can see why > people think that now. In one of her public Q&A sessions, the transcript of which was posted on jkrowling.com (I think it's on the News page), someone asked Jo if the barman at the Hog's Head was Aberforth Dumbledore. Her response neatly tapdanced a straight answer in my opinion. She asked the questioner why they though that, and then said she was proud of the goat question and that was all she was going to say on the subject. For some reason many readers took that as confirmation. I took it as something she WANTED us to think (for whatever reason, either because it was a red herring, which didn't make sense to me, or because he actually WAS Aberforth, but it was supposed to come out in some highly significant way in book 7). Anyways, later when Melissa and Emerson interviewed Jo just after the release of HBP (a transcript of which is available on mugglenet.com if you haven't read it yet), they all spoke as if it was confirmed fact that the barman IS Aberforth, so I would think that counts.... Flop __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 16:46:00 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:46:00 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <700201d40602010916t86f6997kdd3f56ccb419992a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147477 > Kemper now: > The problem with Harry's coping of Sirius' death isn't that long, > Shakespearean soliloquies are absent from the text, it's that > Harry isn't shown waking with a tear-soaked pillow or something > similar to show the reader the depth of Harry's loss and how he > was hurting silently. All JKR had to write was a short, simple > sentence and it would have been clear. Amiable Dorsai: Like maybe: "He had been sitting in a chair beside his bedroom window for the best part of four hours, staring out at the darkening street, and had finally fallen asleep with one side of his face pressed against the cold windowpane, his glasses askew and his mouth wide open." (HBP3) Or: 'He could tell that Dumbledore understood, that he might even suspect that until his letter arrived, Harry had spent nearly all his time at the Dursleys' lying on his bed, refusing meals, and staring at the misted window, full of the chill emptiness that he had come to associate with dementors. "It's just hard," Harry said finally, in a low voice, "to realize he won't write to me again."'(HBP4) Those kinds of sentences? This is not a failure of Rowling to show Harry's anguish, this is characterization. Think of Harry's upbringing--he would have learned not to cry before he learned how to read, and Rowling is showing us just that. "Half-Blood Prince" shows us the effects of the emotional brutality of Harry's early life again and again: He can't cry for the loss of Sirius; he fails to recognize what his feelings for Ginny mean; he isolates himself (or tries to--Ron and Hermione are having none of it) at just the time when he needs his allies the most.... More than any writer I can think of, Rowling makes you read between the lines--and she doesn't make it easy, witness the ongoing debates about Snape's true nature. Amiable Dorsai From sopraniste at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 17:03:40 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 09:03:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060202170341.13912.qmail@web35612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147478 > Potioncat: > Oh, I'd forgotten about that. Why then, do you > think, does Harry > think of him as the barkeeper from the Hogs Head > instead of as DD's > brother? At DD's funeral Harry doesn't notice that > DD's brother is > there, but that the barkeeper is there. Of course, > Harry isn't very > good at remembering people. I think it has more to do with the fact that Harry is not an obsessive HP fan. He's just a kid who often isn't nearly as observant as we'd like him to be. The readers all made the connection as to who the barman is, >Harry< did not. It never occured to him. He still doesn't know. Flop __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 17:29:21 2006 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:29:21 -0000 Subject: Thestrals be the key / Owls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147479 > > Andie: > > If it was really that easy don't you think DD would have used either owls > or thestrals? > > Kelleyaynn: My comment had nothing to do with whether or not DD would have used thestrals or owls. I agree that if he could have, he probably would have. I was only addressing the issue of whether or not an animagus could turn into a magical creature. From morianna at mindspring.com Thu Feb 2 15:13:00 2006 From: morianna at mindspring.com (Morianna X. Smythe) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 07:13:00 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <43E26BBE.26521.9531C0@localhost> Message-ID: <000001c6280b$28bca200$220110ac@morimain> No: HPFGUIDX 147480 Dreadnought : Different people grieve differently. And there's no right or wrong way to do it. Mori: I am a forensic scientist. I work with death every day. Now, I won't go so far as to claim that makes me an expert on grief, but the fact that I lost my father in my early twenties, my sister AND mother in seperate incidences within a six-month window in my early thirties, I think, does qualify me to speak on the subject of grief --at least from my personal perspective . Not only does everyone react to death differently, we all grieve differently--but what some of you good folks may not know (yet...and luckily) is that every death of a loved-one will hit you differently. With my father's death, I had about 5 years of survivor's guilt. My sister died right before Sept 11, and my grief got mixed up in that whole fiasco...So I look at the pictures of NYC's old skyline and think of my sister although we never ever went to NYC. She was in desperate pain for years before her passing, so my grief was also relief in knowing she couldn't hurt anymore. Mom's death hit me like a ton of bricks. I was her caregiver for the last five years of her illness. I knew it was coming. We had five years to "right the wrongs" of growing-up. And DH and I spoiled her rotten. But you never really prepare for it. All these deaths in less than a decade--and each one "felt" completely different. I think Harry's reaction to Cedric's death was right on the money--shock, horror, and guilt. His reaction to Sirius' death was anger and denial followed by acceptance. I personally think he got over it relatively quickly. He and Sirius were having issues. His initial reaction to DD's death appears to be revenge/vengeance. In my experience, that's usually a *bad* way to react to death-- Prof Mori From aceworker at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 14:22:17 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 06:22:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hufflepuff Cup Theory. Message-ID: <20060202142217.3890.qmail@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147481 Just finished reading an in progress fan fic on www.harrypotterfanfiction.com calle Wizard's Chess- by Vloyski, in it the author brings up an interesting theory. In it the Hufflepuff cup turns out to be the Holy Grail with consequences for old Voldy. Here is my question? Is this a valid theory? JKR has mentioned in interviews (I'm sumarising/paraphasing) that she doesn't want people to know how christian she is because then the would know the outcome of the book. Therefore, I'm expecting a very religious signifigant tone or theme for book seven. One obvious theme, is that Harry is a sacrifice for the sins of the wizarding world. That he is a Messisah, and that his love is analogous to Christ's love etc...Could this be another possible theory? Hufflepuff seems to be the most religious house. The members seem to be are humble, very kind, devoted and loyal and have a bravery of the kind. Also JKR seems thoughout the series to be trying to lead the readers to dismiss this house as the other house (where the unspectacular other's are sorted). And then there is the point that the House Ghost is the "Fat Friar", could that be the clue to the religous nature of Hufflepuff? I'm not very religious myself and I love the series, however I expect the final series to turn out to be very Narnia in nature. Also I expect Rufus Scimenogour to turn out to be a hero in book 7. JKr decrbies him to be very lion like in appearance. That usually signifies a hero, or a leader a king among men. Also It could be that he is the "narnia character of 7. I've never read Narnia or seen the movie yet, so I prob don't know what I'm talking about in this point. So what do you think? New poster: call me: D.A. Jones - my favorite part of Harry potter so far is Dunbledore's army. I missed them in HBP. D.A. Jones From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 15:45:53 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:45:53 -0000 Subject: Lack of Memorial for Sirius (was Re: JKR's dealing with emotions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147482 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: > OTOH, the issue I see with Harry (and that I had, although I didn't > realize it at the time) is that, other than DD's mention of how > Harry's handling Sirius's death, there is no other adult > acknowledgement to Harry that he has indeed suffered a great loss. > I'm not talking about grand pronouncements or over-the-top orations, > just a simple "Harry, I'm sure you still think a lot about Sirius. > I'm sorry he's gone. If you need me, I'm here" kind of thing from, > well, anyone. Maybe Molly or Arthur. Maybe Lupin. Maybe even > McGonagall in a brief moment at the beginning of the school year. > > And, that there was no memorial > service, which was a perfect opportunity for people to show their > support for Harry, also left me scratching my head. > Agreed. This omission lies at the heart of the puzzling nature of HBP on this issue, and at the heart of what I, at least, find to be a very large failure on JKR's part when it comes to Harry's grief or lack thereof. A memorial service for Sirius could have introduced these threads and tied them off neatly in a way that would have made Harry's "stiff-upper-lip" attitude more understandable and, as Kemper points out, much more satisfying for the reader. It would have allowed the adults to approach Harry on this matter in a way that would have avoided making them look like stupid and insensitive morons, as they all too often come off to many of us, and as they come off in this instance. The idea that Dumbledore, the supposedly kindly and wise, would not have thought of this, and indeed insisted on it, is to me utterly unbelievable and, as I said before, worthy of a guffaw of derision. It would have even made good literary sense, as it would have provided a neat book-end effect, opening the book with one "funeral" and closing it with another. This seems yet another example of the habit of adults in the WW to behave like absolute idiots, especially where Harry is concerned. I sometimes really do think that magic must take up the genes that in muggles code for intelligence. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 15:30:29 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:30:29 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic In-Reply-To: <8C7F59DE18982C3-13E4-12620@FWM-R18.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147483 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: You also tend to foist your moral expectations on others, > especially JKR, with statements like "If she doesn't punish Snape karmically, > then she will have reprehensively failed her readers."-- (paraphrased) It comes > off as a bit pompous and unfair to me, and I feel a bit defensive of JKR. But > that may just be my perspective. I'm sure JKR isn't bothered ;-) Absolutely I foist my moral expectations on JKR and I make no apology for that whatsoever. I fight tooth and nail for what I am firmly convinced is morally correct and I expect others to do likewise, and to give as good as they get. And absolutely I hold that if Snape is not punished for his child abuse that JKR will have reprehensibly failed, and I think that is a perfectly fair judgment, which, as you say, will not bother her in the least. And you are quite right that I am a very pompous individual, for which once again I make absolutely no apology whatsoever, nor am I going to change. Carol wrote in 147457: >And a rereading of all six books brings us no closer to understanding Snape. The clues that he's DDM! (especially in SS/PS and GoF but also in the other books) are as solid-seeming as ever (Note that I said "solid-seeming," not "solid." I'm not claiming my opinion as fact), and no amount of sarcasm to his students or unfair point-taking on his part can make them go away. Not even the revelation that he was the eavesdropper can do that.< Agreed. Nothing you have cited in any way proves that Snape is not loyal to Dumbledore. However, many of use are not JUST interested in where Snape's loyalties lie. I, personally, am not really interested at all in whether the man is loyal to DD or not. What several of us ARE interested in that he is, based on our values and understanding of common decency, a thoroughly contemptible human being. And I, at least, hold that if he is not specifically and clearly punished for the reprehensible abuse he has inflicted on Harry and Neville, in particular, JKR will have failed spectacularly and unspeakably (pun very much intended) by speaking approvingly of the abuse of children. Snape's loyalties to Dumbledore or not are irrelevent to that issue. Sorry. Lupinlore From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 16:55:44 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:55:44 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? /Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147484 >Magpie: >Now I'm suddenly thinking about Draco with regards to these >sisters...but later find what's really important to him is >protecting his family, like Narcissa. It's very easy to hate Draco but I really think he is a good kid raised in a bad situation. He was raised by dark wizards, he is from a family that has been continually know for it's dark deeds. He is an only child who has "great things" to live up to. He is obviously very loved by his mother but his father is a different story. He is not from a family like the Weasley's who love each other whether or not they accomplish anything. I think he is from a family where L.Malfoy gives love only when accomplishment is achieved. IMO Draco accepted his task from the LV only because he knew that he would be honored and loved by his father when the task was accomplished. I think he didn't really consider the consequences to others, he only saw how proud his father would be. I think Draco starts to realize that his failure is not only going to cause him to lose his father's love but that his failure puts his entire family at risk. We see him as he truely is when he is on the tower with DD, a child. Draco knows right from wrong but is afraid to do anything because he has put himself in the position where he has only 2 choices left. One choice is an unforgiveable curse, he will cause the death of one of the most powerful wizards ever and will have done nothing but evil. The other choice is to take the chance that DD can protect the ones he loves from the most evil person he has ever known. I am sure that Draco has heard every story told about LV, about how he tortures those who betray him and eventually kills them. Draco is frozen he can choose to do evil and have it marked on his soul forever or he can choose to hide and have his entire family marked for death. No wonder Narcissa had Snape take the Unbreakable Vow, she knew her son. IMO She knows Draco has too "good" a heart and that even if he got DD to be vulnerable enough to hit with AK he wouldn't be able to do it. michelle From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 17:46:28 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 17:46:28 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147485 > zgirnius: > The barman at the Hog's Head smells of goat, and has a vague > resemblance to someone Harry knows. It has been speculated that he >is in fact Aberforth...Aberforth was the man who apprehended Snape >as he eavesdropped on the Prophecy, and was havign soem dealings >with Mundungus Fletcher in HBP. Both points suggest he has some > involvement in the affairs of his brother Albus and the Order. Just a quick little aside...DD is the biggest threat to LV and the DE's. If I were DD the fact that I had a brother would be a huge weakness (not weakness as in DD wishes he didn't have a brother but weakness in the sense that LV could use him as bait or could just hurt him as punishment). I would keep him under wraps for his own safety. I would have him in a place that was close and quickly accessable should there be trouble, but far enough away that no one would be suspicious. DD mentions his brother only as comfort to Hagrid, not as common knowledge in a casual conversation. DD is among people he trusts and that he knows are devoted to him, only then does he reveal he may have this link and thus a "weakness". michelle From Sherry at PebTech.net Thu Feb 2 18:08:24 2006 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:08:24 -0000 Subject: re Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147486 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "deborahhbbrd" wrote: - are all paid for out of the > school's investments, as are various prizes and awards. These come > from Old Boys who have remembered the place in their wills, mostly, or > just made bequests of some kind while still alive. Out of gratitude > ... So, can we imagine that in a society where a Lucius Malfoy can > make himself famous and popular by giving well targeted donations, > some more moral people would like to help their old school along? I'm sure that many wizarding folk have donated, or bequeathed, donations to Hogwarts--starting, in all likelihood, with Godric Gryffindor, Helga Hufflepuff, and Rowena Ravenclaw. (Salazar Slytherin broke with his fellow Founders on the question of pure-bloodedness, not private means.) > > Perhaps, too, deserving cases like the Weasleys might get, not exactly > bulk discounts, but some kind of subvention with the fees? > Such financial assistance definitely exists at Hogwarts. According to Dumbledore in HBP, Ch. 13, "There is a fund at Hogwarts for those who require assistance to buy books and robes" (p. 274 Scholastic). He said this while giving a Tom Riddle a pouch of money, including at least one gold Galleon. Tom (in another early sign of manners, or the lack thereof) didn't bother to say "Thank you." > Deborah, enjoying the nuts and bolts and wishing we got more little > snippets of information here and there. Or that we could read > Hogwarts, A History! > Ah, for JK Rowling to make that a post-Potter writing project! Amontillada From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 18:01:31 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:01:31 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? -- peers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147487 > fuzz876i: > think the traitor will be Dean Thomas because when > Ginny broke up with Dean she went out with Harry. This could lead > to him wanting revenge against Harry and Ginny both. So why not > Dean? He was the first to jump to the conclusion that Harry was >the heir of Slytherin in Chamber of Secrets. I think that he will go >to Voldemort as revenge. While this is an excellent point and I can see Dean as turning to LV, I don't think this would be entirely harmful to Harry. How involved with Dean is Harry and his friends? They share the same living space and have the same classes but when it comes down to it I just don't think Dean has the access to Harry that would have a detrimental effect. I can see LV using him but more as bait then as an in to get to Harry. Michelle From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 18:35:42 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 18:35:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147488 > - CMC > Harry has also been helped in the past by Sirius, Lupin, Ron, the > twins, Hermione, and even Snape, all of whom have >done "inappropriate" things on occasion (or in the last-named >example, frequently). Besides - all innuendo aside - we don't know >the exact nature of the "inappropriate" charms. Agreed, "inappropriate" could mean he was making the goat fly or dressed it up and was making it dance for muggles. Inappropriate is very vague. Inappropriate is also all in the eye of the beholder...and sometimes something that seems very inappropriate at time ends up not only being appropriate but also beneficial. Michelle From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 19:12:34 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:12:34 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147489 > Renee: >If this is not a story about a scapegoat (and like you, I > tend to think it isn't), will even he be redeemed? If JKR redeemed LV then I would lose all respect for her and it would ruin the entire series for me. I know it is a "children's" series but that doesn't mean that everything needs to end on a rosy note. What better way to teach our children about life and consequences than by the literature they read. LV is unredeemable. There is nothing he could do to make up for all the damage he has caused, there just isn't. Besides, throughout this series JKR has multiple times reminded us that he cares for no one, he has no friends and no desire to have friends. IMO he is without humanity and therefore unredeemable. michelle From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 20:22:35 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:22:35 -0000 Subject: re Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147490 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "deborahhbbrd" wrote: > > Olivierfouquet raises the point of how Hogwarts is funded. > Presumably it would be in the Ministry's interests to keep it > afloat, ... > > ...edited... > > The extras - all the trips, the laboratory equipment, the sport > (except for the clothes, bats and balls etc), the library and > computer facilities, the duplicated notes - are all paid for out > of the school's investments, as are various prizes and awards. > These come from Old Boys who have remembered the place in their > wills, mostly, or just made bequests of some kind while still > alive. ... So, can we imagine that in a society where a Lucius > Malfoy can make himself famous and popular by giving well targeted > donations, some more moral people would like to help their old > school along? ... > > Deborah,... bboyminn: I have several long essays on how Hogwarts is run and funded, and they are very consistent with your example. I would only add that there was probably an original Founder's Grant that started the school. Since Salazar Slytherin helped found and build the school, even though he left, he still contributed a substantial investment in helping obtain the land, build the buildings, and equip the school. You mentioned Lucius Malfoy as a contributor, and I will point out the Lucius was on the Board of Governors. I have always suspected that the Board of Governors was made up of the largest historical financial contributor to Hogwarts. Note: I say 'largest historical' contributors because I feel that some of the donations were large enough that the decendants of the original contributor continue to hold his seat on the Board. I suspect there may be one or two honorary seats on the board, but again since large contributor have the largest financial stake in Hogwarts, they have the greatest interest in wanting to make sure their money is managed properly. They would be concerned that the money was not wasted or pilfered. In a way, it is like the Board of Directors of a large corporation; they are the people with the largest financial stake in the company, and are allowed on the Board as a way of managing, controlling, and protecting their investments. As far as the Minstry, I don't think Hogwart is a fully publically funded school. It would certainly be in the interest of the government to have some control over Hogwarts, but I think Founders and Alumni funding would be greater. That means the best the Ministry could hope for would be a seat or two on the Board of Governors. Through these seats on the Board, they would try and control how Hogwarts was run. Now, independant of the Board of Governors, the Ministry represents law in the wizard world. Therefore, if they pass laws, people have to obey them, and if they pass laws that regulate the school, the school has to obey them. I think this is what we are seeing happening in OotP. Since the Ministry doesn't have enough power to override the Board of Governors, they choose a legislative approach to trying to take control of the school. Really kind of foolish since it makes a public record of all their attempts to subvert Dumbledore and control the school. Notice that once Dumbledore has won and Voldemort's presences in indisputable, all the legislation affecting the school is withdrawn. I really feel very strongly that this model of a private school funded by the Founders and Alumni with the Ministry being a secondary funder, and the Board of Governor being made up of the people with the largest financial interest in the school is the correct one. It also nicely explains why Tuition has never been mentioned. Note that many of the most famous private (as in privately funded) schools in Britian started out as charity schools. I've yet to see any other model that explained away all the apparent inconsistencies found in the books. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Steve/bboyminn From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 2 20:27:32 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 14:27:32 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <56730184-942A-11DA-BBDB-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147491 On Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 01:12 PM, mmmwintersteiger wrote: > If JKR redeemed LV then I would lose all respect for her and it would > ruin the entire series for me.? I know it is a "children's" series but > that doesn't mean that everything needs to end on a rosy note.? What > better way to teach our children about life and consequences than by > the literature they read.? > > kchuplis: I can't see it either. And I don't think we've seen any indication that such a fate will be written. Even DD says in OoTP to Voldemort "Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit". That's a pretty strong statement. So however it is going to be done, total destruction seems the likely outcome. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 2 20:39:27 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:39:27 -0000 Subject: Slaveowner Harry (was:Re: JKR's dealing with emotions...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147492 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Also, Harry is fairly practical when it comes to the magical world. > And he seems very comfortable with the idea of house-elves as > slaves. (SPEW seemed to strike him as either amusing or annoying > depending on the circumstances.) So, since he has this slave, > annoying though he is, may as well use him. And Harry did do his > best (and succeeded it seems) to cut off any roads of rebellion for > Kreacher. Gerry Another thought: I think Harry uses Kreacher because he extremely dislikes him. Because of the part Kreacher played in Sirius death Harry has no objection to use Kreacher. I get the inpression it gives him a grim kimd of satisfaction to make him obey, a kind of punishment. And that it is a Malfoy he sets him to watch makes it even more "right".He would not dream to ask Dobby, because he knows the task will be boring but also dangerous when caught. But Kreacher? Serves him right. Gerry From rh64643 at appstate.edu Thu Feb 2 20:44:18 2006 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:44:18 -0000 Subject: re Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147493 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "deborahhbbrd" wrote: > > > > Olivierfouquet raises the point of how Hogwarts is funded. > > Presumably it would be in the Ministry's interests to keep it > > afloat, ... I could be wrong, but many instances in the books have led me to believe that there is tuition. When Tom Riddle says he doens't have any money, Dumbledore said there is a fund for students with financial difficulty. I don't believe that this fund is simply for supplies, thought like many scholarshpis, it would cover that as well. I believe that tuition is one of the reasons that the Weasley's are soo poor. Sending 7 children thru private school would upset anyone's bank account. Tuition would also explain why some magical citizens never went to Hogwarts. Stan Shunpike for one, appears to have never gone to school. Maybe he couldnt afford it, and his family was too prideful to accept charity. I am not saying that there aren't large donations that help with the costs, but I just always felt that the students were paying to go. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 20:53:19 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:53:19 -0000 Subject: JKR's... emotions - Talking about Death & Satisfaction In-Reply-To: <700201d40602010916t86f6997kdd3f56ccb419992a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147494 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > > > > Chuckle. It truly is amazing how people read totally different > > > books, isn't it? I find her dealing with Harry's grief ... to > > > be incredibly poor writing > > > > > > ...edited... > > > > > > Perhaps it does have to do with emotional styles. I really > > > don't know. But it certainly is true that, surveying a number > > > of different boards and forums ..., those three instances in > > > particular bring a storm of dissent and objection. What do > > > other people think is the source of this? > > > > > > > > > Lupinlore > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > I think perhaps the problem is that you are looking for 'movie' > > solutions to grief, where actors engage in long soliloquies > > filled with pseudo-emotion and thick Shakespearian accents. > > > > But is that how it happens in real-life? Do we really want to > > 'talk about it'? ...snip life goes on stuff... > > > > > > .. > . > Kemper now: > As much as I disagree with Lupinlore which is frequently, I agree > with Steve even more. Except this time. > . > The problem with Harry's coping of Sirius' death isn't that long, > Shakespearean soliloquies are absent from the text, it's that > Harry isn't shown waking with a tear-soaked pillow or something > similar to show the reader the depth of Harry's loss and how he > was hurting silently. All JKR had to write was a short, simple > sentence and it would have been clear. ...edited... > > Not even silent lamenting. --Kemper bbboyminn: Let us try and look at it this way, and I think this may be in part what Lupinlore was originally trying to say, while I found the books satisfying, I wasn't necessarily satisfied with some aspects of it. So, satisfying on a large scale, but unsatisfying in some details. On the subject of Sirius's death, certainly I found it unsatisfying. He was just gone, and that was that. But until I've read the last book, I can't say there isn't a reason for that. Personally, it wouldn't have taken any great 'thing' in the story to acknowledge Sirius's life and death. A simple heartfelt toast would have done it for me. Just some outward acknowledgement that he existed and that he was important and that he would be sorely missed. One toast and then move on. So, I do agree that Sirius's death was dealt with in a unsatisfying manner; I don't agree that Harry didn't grieve for him properly. I think there are many things that clearly explain and validate Harry's reactions. Further, I think if you add up all the small and subtle references to Harry feelings regarding Sirius and his death, you will have the overwhelming indication that this was very painful to Harry, and that it both hurt him and he felt that pain very deeply. When you are trying to avoid the unbearable pain and deepseated sense of self-guilt, talking about it is the last thing you want to do. Some people can never 'talk about it'. Others need time to pass and for the pain to ease before they are able to express themselves. So, while I find Sirius's death very unresolved and unsatisfing, I find Harry's reaction very believable. But, of course, there may yet be a reason why there hasn't so much as been a fond memorial toast to Sirius. I have my own wild and unlikely theory that Harry will bring Sirius back out from behind the Veil, but that's another post altogether. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 21:23:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:23:45 -0000 Subject: Draco in the Bathroom (was Re: Draco's punishment) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147495 Quick_Silver wrote: > The bathroom scene was not really about Harry or Snape (who go though their usual motions) but Draco. It forced Draco to look within himself and it brought death and violence home to him. Carol responds: I would amend your statement to read that the bathroom scene was not *just* about Harry or Snape but also about Draco. As you say, this first-hand taste of violence and near-death must have given him a clearer idea of what Dark magic and death are all about. Just possibly, that experience, along with his fears for himself and his family (and Dumbledore's words), contributes to his hesitation to kill Dumbledore on the tower. And, as Geoff has pointed out in a fine, canon-supported response, the incident reveals a great deal about Harry, too, notably his defense of the HBP (I'm sure he would not have defended the Prince if he'd known his identity) and his (unconscious) temptation toward the Dark side. (Draco attempts a Crucio on Harry and fails; Harry later attempts a Crucio on Snape and fails. Has Harry learned what he should have learned from the Sectumsempra incident? I don't think he has.) IMO, this is by no means the "usual" Harry/Snape confrontation. It seems to be the first in which Harry knows (rather than suspects) that Snape is performing Legilimency on him (and that he's powerless to block it, having failed to learn Occlumency). It's also one of the first in which Harry feels actual guilt on being confronted by Snape (he accepts his multiple detentions without protest and without talking back to Snape)--and yet he still attempts to conceal information from him, lying (as Snape, the Legilimens, knows full well) about the HBP Potions book and switching covers before presenting Ron's book as his own. More important, Harry has just seen Snape performing a complex healing incantation on Draco, which (IMO) ought to provide an insight into Dumbledore's absolute confidence in Snape's capacity for healing Dark curses (he has already saved Katie Bell's life--I can't recall whether Harry knows that Snape also saved DD from the ring curse at this point), but even though Harry notes that Snape is almost singing to Draco, almost maternal in his gentleness (IIRC), the significance of Snape as healer, Snape as a teacher who genuinely cares about at least one of his students, doesn't register. Neither boy notes that Snape and only Snape happens to be near enough at hand to hear Draco's screams--clearly, he's keeping a close eye on either Draco or Harry, or both. Nor can either boy possibly realize that Snape, the inventor of Sectumsempra, is probably the only person who knows the countercurse as he must have invented it himself. Snape, too, is concealing information, not only from Harry but from Draco--as he has done throughout the series (IMO). The bathroom scene also enables us to glimpse again the relationship between Draco and Snape, which we know from the partially overheard conversation in "The Unbreakable Vow" is going through a shaky period (adolescent rebellion against authority junior-DE style). In contrast to the respect Draco has consistently shown Snape in previous books, in that scene Draco resents Snape's interference, ignoring the danger Snape has placed himself in by taking the Unbreakable Vow and accusing his HOH and former favorite teacher of attempting to steal his "glory." (Surely there's a parallel here with Harry and Dumbledore, whose wisdom Harry is beginning to question?) But in the bathroom scene, Snape saves Draco's life, re-establishing himself as an authority worthy of Draco's respect and gratitude. (Whether Draco acknowledges this debt, at least to himself, is unclear.) Draco does obey Snape unquestionably on the tower and on the grounds after Snape has "done the deed" for him, taking not Draco's "glory" but his sin and crime upon himself. Will Draco understand the magnitude of what Snape has done for him, both in the bathroom scene and on the tower? Will he be properly grateful (especially if Snape also persuades LV not to punish him, as I think he will do even if he is not still bound by the vow)? Will *Harry* understand what Snape has done? He knows about the Unbreakable Vow from the overheard conversation. Surely that topic will come up in his conversations with Hermione or Lupin in Book 7. Otherwise why would JKR have Harry overhear that scene? At any rate, the bathroom scene is crucial on a number of levels, for the individual characters and for their relationships: not only Draco/Harry but Snape/Harry and Draco/Snape. Actions have consequences in the WW as in RL, often unintended and outside the control of the participants. And both the Sectumsempra and Snape's countercurse will, I predict, have consequences far beyond the Saturday detentions that enabled Snape to simultaneously needle Harry and keep an eye on him in HBP. Carol, with apologies for not citing canon on work time From vadwe at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 20:53:55 2006 From: vadwe at yahoo.com (vadwe) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:53:55 -0000 Subject: R.A.B.'s Identity. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147496 Dobbyisdumbledore: > To me its fairly clear who R.A.B. is. > 1.) In Dutch, Black is translated as "Zwarts". The intials R.A.B. > have been changed (in the dutch version of the book) to R.A.Z. > > 2.) In Norweigian, Black is translated as "Svarrt". The intials > R.A.B. have been changed (in the Norweigen version of the book) to > R.A.S. > This is very interesting. If that's the case, then it would be fairly reasonable to at least deduce that R.A.B. is a member of the Black family. But is Regulus the only one we know who has these initials? The recent Black family tree done by JKR for auction reveals that there's someone called Arcturus Black who died in 1959, and there's also Alphard Black who died in 77. So, either of these two characters could have a name beginning with an R, such as Rigel, Rastaban, or Rana or some other similarly named star, constellation or galaxy as seems to be the Black tradition for a lot of their names. JKR has established that she has kept the complete name of a character a secret until it is appropriate, like Nigellus who was finally revealed to be Black. That's my 2cts. worth. TTFN Dreyts From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 21:58:08 2006 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:58:08 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: <56730184-942A-11DA-BBDB-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147497 If you want something BANG-y, a person whose weakness or treachery will shake Harry to his socks, how about the first dead Marauder? James Potter may have led himself and Lily to their deaths. Penned in at Godric's Hollow, having defied Voldemort three times, he may have felt he needed to finally face Voldemort and get the hiding over with, too arrogant to believe he couldn't win. One of the Marauders could have been with him in this plan, subsequently too out of touch and then too ashamed to admit their folly. Perhaps Sirius Black ? Making Pettigrew the secret-keeper might have been a deliberate attempt to force a confrontation with Voldemort, unbeknownst to Pettigrew. Perhaps Black confessed the plan to Lupin the night Black died, noting that Harry was like his father after all, so inflamed to save someone he loved he actually created a danger. All of the Marauders seem to have serious flaws, thus leading to ESE- Lupin theories. What do we know about James? He was good at Quidditch as a chaser, was a troublemaker, hexed many students, "saved" Snape's life -- maybe not altruistically, was infatuated with Lily for a long time, became Head Boy (not a recommendation -- had Draco remained at Hogwarts, he probably would have been Head Boy, and Percy was Head Boy). He hated the Dark Arts, but did he really appreciate what they were? James grew up as the center of his family's attention. He liked to be admired, so much so he let Peter slaver over him far longer than necessary in Snape's Worst Memory, until it got on Sirius' nerves. Considering he offered to stop hexing Snape if Lily went out with him, maybe James attacked Snape in the first place because Lily spared some affection for the greasy misfit. And was Lily's affection for James ill-gotten? After witnessing Snape's Memory, Harry thought James must have forced Lily to marry him. Was Harry wrong? (Well, given that it is Harry ) James deflated his head in 7th year, but still cursed Snape behind Lily's back, so had he really changed? Considering the things he had gotten away with throughout his life, he may have still felt he was above reason, in the form of Dumbledore. The books are filled with flawed father figures. It is possible James may have been flawed in ways we have not seen. Snape has, in a rather pathetic way, been trying to give Harry information about James for some time now. Harry has continued to hold to identification with his father. The revelation of a James who was actually serious flawed, occurring perhaps at Godric's Hollow, might finally be the thing to jolt Harry into trying to understand the motivations of others. An even more Evil idea: perhaps James decided the most important thing was not losing Lily. He may have resented the attention Harry received from Lily. He may have been the one who bargained for Lily's life, only to be killed by Voldemort right away. Well, it's BANG-y, although ESE-Lupin is more plausible in my mind, and more understandable. lealess From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Feb 2 22:22:35 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:22:35 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mmmwintersteiger" wrote: > > > Renee: > >If this is not a story about a scapegoat (and like you, I > > tend to think it isn't), will even he be redeemed? > Michelle: > If JKR redeemed LV then I would lose all respect for her and it would > ruin the entire series for me. > > LV is unredeemable. There is nothing he could do to make up for all > the damage he has caused, there just isn't. Besides, throughout this > series JKR has multiple times reminded us that he cares for no one, he > has no friends and no desire to have friends. IMO he is without > humanity and therefore unredeemable. Renee: Actually, I was addressing Sydney's assumption (in the post I reacted to) that literary books - books with substance, so to speak - avoid the scapegoat mechanism as a central drive: projecting evil onto a villain, who is then cast out to cleanse the community and restore everyone else's good conscience. So far, Voldemort looks suspiciously like such a scapegoat to me. But as I don't like the idea that the HP series lacks substance, I found myself wondering whether casting out the villain would really turn out to be the solution of the riddle. (Pun intended. Sorry.) For Voldemort is a riddle. You say he is without humanity. As he's not literally the devil and was definitely born human, the question is why he lost this humanity. We know how: by murdering and thereby splitting his soul. But that doesn't explain what led to it. JKR tells us he was never loved by anyone (Mugglenet & Leaky Caudron interview). Are we to make a connection between his being unloved, his inabilty to love and his loss of humanity? In that case it would be very unsatisfactory to me if Voldemort would just be done in/cast out/whatever at the end, with no more explanation than: well, what do you want, he was inhuman and irredeemable and the world is better off without him. It's obvious the world *is* better off without Voldemort, and I admit that in his case redemption isn't likely. So far, though, he makes more sense to me as a symbol than as a person, yet HBP goes to great lengths to show him as a person, so we're apparently meant to see him as such. But if his evil boils down to a combination of bad genetics and being unloved as a baby - and that's all the explanation we're given - he remains a caricature, an easy scapegoat whose mere removal won't solve the riddle of evil. It would be too simple. And that would be harmful to my perception of the HP series as books of substance. So I hope there will be more to it. Renee who hopes she's managed to make herself marginally clear From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 23:42:33 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:42:33 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: <56730184-942A-11DA-BBDB-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147499 kchuplis wrote: > I can't see it [Voldemort's redemption] either. And I don't think we've seen any indication that such a fate will be written. Even DD says in OoTP to Voldemort "Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit". That's a pretty strong statement. So however it is going to be done, total destruction seems the likely outcome. > Carol responds: I agree. Unlike Snape, Voldemort has never shown any sign of remorse. He has been a murderer since sixteen and routinely uses the other Unforgiveable curses, even Crucioing his own Death Eaters with a sadistic pleasure akin to Bellatrix's. He cares for no one but himself, cares for nothing except his own power and his own immortality. He has even sacrificed 6/7 of his own soul (pretending that the soul is divisible into exact sevenths regardless of the number of murders committed). I won't go into a litany of his sins: we all know what they are, and they exceed even Wormtail's (some of which were performed in his service). He (LV) has long since ceased to be human, as his snakelike appearance so clearly reflects. Redemption is for the human characters, those who still have some good in them. I would nominate Draco, Snape, and Percy as the most likely candidates, and Snape, at least, will probably earn his redemption through his death. (Not what I *want* to happen, just what I *think* will happen.) But I'm also interested in the Dumbledore quote you cited. On one level, it's an example of the type of half-truth DD tells when the whole truth can't or should not be revealed. (Other instances include the reasons he gives for Snape's saving Harry's life in SS/PS or for "returning to our side" after becoming a DE.) In this instance, DD can hardly say, "Oh, I know I can't kill you, Tom. Only Harry can do that, and he has to destroy the Horcruxes first." Also, (IMO) DD doesn't want to kill anyone, or to cast a soul-corrupting Unforgiveable Curse, and we know that he believes there are things worse than death. There's also, of course, the rather significant detail that LV is possessing Harry at the time, and even if DD had no scruples about killing Voldemort and there weren't any Horcruxes preventing LV's death, DD wouldn't want to kill Harry. Still, I think we can take the statement ("Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit") as true even though it's not the real reason (or the primary reason among many) why he doesn't attempt to kill Voldemort then or at any other time. That being the case, what can he mean by it? What *would* satisfy Dumbledore (if he were alive to see it)? Would merely having *Harry* take LV's life be somehow more satisfactory? Surely he's not expecting LV to beg for mercy or repentance? Or maybe it's not a half-truth at all but an out-and-out lie to cover up his knowledge of the Horcruxes? I can't imagine DD *wanting* to take someone's life, not even Riddle/Voldemort's. What, then, does he mean? Ideas, anyone? Carol, noting that the half-truth tactic seems very Snapelike (not an insult to DD, whom I regard as Snape's mentor) From Ajohnson5 at comcast.net Thu Feb 2 23:25:14 2006 From: Ajohnson5 at comcast.net (April Johnson) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:25:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Underage Magic.... References: Message-ID: <029601c6284f$eb81af30$1502a8c0@april> No: HPFGUIDX 147500 > Finwitch: > > They can tell which spell is cast and where, but not who did it. As > Harry is the only registered wizard in the neighbourhood, any magic > there would be presumed as Harry's doing. April Now: In book 5, other magic was done at Harry's house though. By wizards 'dropping' in to take him to the hideout. The broken dishes were repaired, Tonks helped Harry pack, ect. Why weren't those spells counted against him or at least brought up in court? Those spells weren't for safety like the other one, if they wanted to pin underage magic against him, they could have used those and refused to hear testimony to the contrary. April From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 2 23:58:56 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:58:56 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147501 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: Lupinlore: > Absolutely I foist my moral expectations on JKR and I make no > apology for that whatsoever. Geoff: But you should do. I would be the last person to stop you expressing your views on what is written; that is your free choice and right. But you have no right to foist your views on people willy-nilly. To "foist" is to "impose an unwelcome thing or person on" and if you try to start imposing your will and interpretations on others and expecting them to fall into line, you are overstepping the mark of what is your free choice and right at the expense of others. Lupinlore: > And you are quite right that I am a very pompous individual, for > which once again I make absolutely no apology whatsoever, nor am I > going to change. Geoff: Again, that is your choice. How other people view that statement is /their/ right. And if their interpretation of your pomposity leads them to see you as being fractiously unwilling or unable to consider any other point of view -whether you consider it right in the end or not - so be it. From ms-tamany at rcn.com Fri Feb 3 00:34:22 2006 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:34:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4iore0$60k3h0@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147502 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: Lupinlore: > Absolutely I foist my moral expectations on JKR and I make no > apology for that whatsoever. Geoff: But you should do. I would be the last person to stop you expressing your views on what is written; that is your free choice and right. But you have no right to foist your views on people willy-nilly. To "foist" is to "impose an unwelcome thing or person on" and if you try to start imposing your will and interpretations on others and expecting them to fall into line, you are overstepping the mark of what is your free choice and right at the expense of others. Lupinlore: > And you are quite right that I am a very pompous individual, for > which once again I make absolutely no apology whatsoever, nor am I > going to change. Geoff: Again, that is your choice. How other people view that statement is /their/ right. And if their interpretation of your pomposity leads them to see you as being fractiously unwilling or unable to consider any other point of view -whether you consider it right in the end or not - so be it. Now Tammy says: I've already set my email program to automatically delete ANYTHING that comes through the list from Lupinlore. I feel no need to continue being bombarded by his ridiculous, admittedly and unapologetically pompous, self-righteous obsessions, especially when he refuses to even acknowledge that there might possibly be some point of view beyond his own. I pity you, Lupinlore, in a way, but not enough to bother reading anything else you might ever have to say from now on, on any topic, whatsoever. And that is *MY* choice in how to respond to your attitude. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 3 01:03:05 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:03:05 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147503 On Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 05:42 PM, justcarol67 wrote: > Surely he's not expecting LV to beg for mercy or > repentance? Or maybe it's not a half-truth at all but an out-and-out > lie to cover up his knowledge of the Horcruxes? I can't imagine DD > *wanting* to take someone's life, not even Riddle/Voldemort's. What, > then, does he mean? > > Ideas, anyone? > > kchuplis: Personally, I rather wonder if DD doesn't want LV to die without actually realizing what he and LV have argued about all these years - that there are worse things than outright death - that there IS a power beyond death - love. Which seems a little vindictive, since I really do believe DD is all for ridding the world of this complete evil, but I think that sentiment is there. I also think there is the other affirmation regarding death or redemption when (and it seems to confirm death) when Harry asks (about the prophecy) "so does that mean that...that one of us has got to kill the other... in the end?" and DD answers simply "Yes." I know everyone likes to weave all kinds of things around this as well but I mean, really, it doesn't get too much clearer that that is what it comes down to. From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 3 01:05:38 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:05:38 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: <029601c6284f$eb81af30$1502a8c0@april> Message-ID: <309E3F9C-9451-11DA-8D03-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147504 On Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 05:25 PM, April Johnson wrote: > > Finwitch: > > > > They can tell which spell is cast and where, but not who did it. As > > Harry is the only registered wizard in the neighbourhood, any magic > > there would be presumed as Harry's doing. > > April Now: > > In book 5, other magic was done at Harry's house though.? By wizards > 'dropping' in to take him to the hideout.? The broken dishes were > repaired, > Tonks helped Harry pack, ect.? Why weren't those spells counted > against him > or at least brought up in court?? Those spells weren't for safety like > the > other one, if they wanted to pin underage magic against him, they > could have > used those and refused to hear testimony to the contrary. > kchuplis: It isn't canon, but I wouldn't have a hard time believing that considering the number of ministry workers involved with the Order that whoever, or whatever it is that keeps track of these things were fixed not to notice the magic that night. They were able to plan for that. There was no way to hide the unplanned magic at Harry's. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 01:33:22 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 17:33:22 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40602010916t86f6997kdd3f56ccb419992a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40602021733u264f974fm2c43ad68c0acfed9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147505 On 2/2/06, amiabledorsai wrote: > > > Kemper now: > > > The problem with Harry's coping of Sirius' death isn't that long, > > Shakespearean soliloquies are absent from the text, it's that > > Harry isn't shown waking with a tear-soaked pillow or something > > similar to show the reader the depth of Harry's loss and how he > > was hurting silently. All JKR had to write was a short, simple > > sentence and it would have been clear. > > Amiable Dorsai: > > Like maybe: > > "He had been sitting in a chair beside his bedroom window for the best > part of four hours, staring out at the darkening street, and had > finally fallen asleep with one side of his face pressed against the > cold windowpane, his glasses askew and his mouth wide open." (HBP3) > > Or: > > 'He could tell that Dumbledore understood, that he might even suspect > that until his letter arrived, Harry had spent nearly all his time at > the Dursleys' lying on his bed, refusing meals, and staring at the > misted window, full of the chill emptiness that he had come to > associate with dementors. > > "It's just hard," Harry said finally, in a low voice, "to realize > he won't write to me again."'(HBP4) > > Those kinds of sentences? > > This is not a failure of Rowling to show Harry's anguish, this is > characterization. Think of Harry's upbringing--he would have learned > not to cry before he learned how to read, and Rowling is showing us > just that. > > "Half-Blood Prince" shows us the effects of the emotional brutality of > Harry's early life again and again: He can't cry for the loss of > Sirius... .. . Kemper now: Your first quote from HBP3 "He had been sitting in a chair beside his bedroom window for the best part of four hours, staring out at the darkening street, and had finally fallen asleep with one side of his face pressed against the cold windowpane, his glasses askew and his mouth wide open." while good canon support for proof that Harry was anxiously waiting for the arrival of Dumbledore, has absolutely nothing to do with Harry's grief of Sirius. However, your second canonical support has won me over. Mostly. I still don't find this quote from Harry, a few weeks out from Sirius' death, emotionally satisfying. But then, I, too, didn't weep at Sirius' death, so why should I hold Harry to different emotional standards? But a question to those who've expressed similar losses at similar ages: isn't Harry supposed to have this great depth of Love, more so than any other Witch or Wizard and presumably much more then any of us Muggles and Squibs. I don't mean to discount anyone's loss. I, too, have suffered. But Harry is not one of us, he's not an Everyman (Ron is), Harry is a Hero. With so much Love, you'd think Harry would experience loss to a heightened degree. -Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 01:41:08 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 01:41:08 -0000 Subject: Draco in the Bathroom -What Next for Draco/Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147506 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Quick_Silver wrote: > > The bathroom scene was not really about Harry or Snape > (who go though their usual motions) but Draco. It forced Draco to > look within himself and it brought death and violence home to him. > bboyminn: Brilliant observation on Quick_Silver's part with respect to Draco. Despite numerous other thoughts about Draco, I was blinded by Harry's POV in this case. But once Quick_Silver mentioned it, Draco's point of view hit me like a ton of bricks. > Carol responds (to Quick_Silver): > I would amend your statement to read that the bathroom scene was not > *just* about Harry or Snape but also about Draco. As you say, this > first-hand taste of violence and near-death must have given him a > clearer idea of what Dark magic and death are all about. ... > bboyminn: Poor Draco, he is already overwhelmed to the point of tears on more than one occassion. Things aren't going right, and he fears for his own life as well as the lives of his family. Yet, typical Death Eater, he is bound and determined NOT to share glory with anyone. I think this reflects that way in which Voldemort is a master manipulator. He has pitted all the Death Eaters against each other. Each determined to be 'honored above all others'. Rather brilliant on Voldemort's part as long as the DE are plotting against each other, they are not plotting against him. Even though Draco fears death, he is still determined to be 'honored above all others'. He would rather die than lose his chance at 'favored' status. I have always imagined Draco's Death Eater fantasies going something like this. He and his father are standing on a high balcony with Voldemort, waving triumphantly as the wizard world bows and cowers at their feet. Draco see himself standing as a near equal to Voldemort. He fancies himself the Crown Prince to the Emperor. Next in line to the throne (after his father, of course). Reality not living up to your dreams Draco? I should say not; no glory, no power, no status, no admiring crowds, near collapse, near death. The one thing that was excluded from Draco's fanciful dreams was the bowing and scraping, the punishment, manipulation, and backstabbing that goes on. Now Draco is on the verge of collapes. Crushed by his new reality. Given a task that he neither wanted nor is capable of doing. And to top it all off, in his most vulnerable moment, who should walk in but Harry. The ensuing duel nearly kills him, and in that moment, when Draco is lying on the floor bleeding, I can't help wonder whether he feared death or embraced it? Given the mood he was in, it's difficult to tell. > Carol continues: > ...edited... > > The bathroom scene also enables us to glimpse again the > relationship between Draco and Snape, ... > At any rate, the bathroom scene is crucial on a number of > levels, forthe individual characters and for their relationships: > not only Draco/Harry but Snape/Harry and Draco/Snape. ... > > Carol,... bboyminn: I admit I never considered Draco's reaction to the bathroom scene. Now that it has been brought up, it must have been devastating; very, very close to the straw that broke the camel's back for Draco. My thoughts immediately went to 'what next' in the Draco/Snape relationship. Snape is still clearly protecting Draco. In the scenario I foresee; Draco and his family are not killed. Snape intercedes with Voldemort, explaining that Draco never had what it took to kill Dumbledore, and to think so, was expecting too much. On the other hand, Draco was instrumental in getting the DE's into the castle, and in utterly and completely defeating Dumbledore, so he should be given credit for that. Snape then offers to take Draco under his wing and whip him into first class Death Eaters. Now we have Snape and Draco living together. Each very strongly suspects the other has or wants to turn against Voldemort, but how to broach the subject? If either are wrong, then the other will turn them in to Voldemort and that will surely be death. But still, what hope is there? How can Draco get out without trusting Snape? How can he even hint at a subject, in which if he is wrong, he is dead? I don't know how JKR will work it into the story, but I find this 'what next' aspect of Snape and Draco's relationship fascinating, and it is one of the more eagerly awaited parts of the next book. Will they save each other? Will they betray each other? Who will be the first to dare to speak? Enquiring minds want to know. Just a few thoughts. STeve/bboyminn From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Feb 3 02:09:45 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:09:45 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <700201d40602021733u264f974fm2c43ad68c0acfed9@mail.gmail.com> References: Message-ID: <43E35619.7182.1444931@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147507 On 2 Feb 2006 at 17:33, Kemper wrote: > But a question to those who've expressed similar losses at similar ages: isn't > Harry supposed to have this great depth of Love, more so than any other > Witch or Wizard and presumably much more then any of us Muggles and Squibs. > I don't mean to discount anyone's loss. I, too, have suffered. But Harry > is not one of us, he's not an Everyman (Ron is), Harry is a Hero. With so > much Love, you'd think Harry would experience loss to a > heightened degree. Shaun: Seriously, I don't see any evidence in the novels that Harry has a great 'depth of love' in the sense that he himself is somehow unusually capable of love. "'"Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good.'" (PS, ) Note - "that love as powerful as your mother's for you." "to have been loved so deeply." What is special in Harry Potter isn't his capacity for love, isn't his expression of love, isn't his feelings of love. What is special in Harry Potter isn't the fact that he loves. It is the fact that he was loved - and that's very different. There's no reason to suppose that I can see that Harry loves at all unusually deeply or intensely, or anything like that. I think he has about the same capacity for love as any normal person. I know you say you don't mean to discount anyone's loss - and I believe that - but I would like to say that as one of those people who experienced loss at a similar age to Harry, that I loved my father with an incredible intensity. http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/fifteenyears.html is a tribute I wrote to him about two months ago on the fifteenth anniversary of his death and I submit it as evidence of my love. Not that love is something you should have to provide evidence for, but as I have it available, I mention it. I loved my father intensely - he was my hero. He was everything to me. And he gave his life for me. The way I reacted to his death, not falling apart, not showing much emotion, not showing much signs of my grief, and indeed suppressing it in some ways, was in no way a sign that my love for him was less. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 3 02:13:58 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:13:58 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <700201d40602021733u264f974fm2c43ad68c0acfed9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147508 On Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 07:33 PM, Kemper wrote: > But a question to those who've expressed similar losses at similar > ages:? isn't > Harry supposed to have this great depth of Love, more so than any other > Witch or Wizard and presumably much more then any of us Muggles and > Squibs. > I don't mean to discount anyone's loss.? I, too, have suffered.? But > Harry > is not one of us, he's not an Everyman (Ron is), Harry is a Hero.? > With so > much Love, you'd think Harry would experience loss to a heightened > degree. > > kchuplis: Personally, I think Harry has a greater sense of others. He can't seem to not care what happens even to people he doesn't know. This seems to be the heightened ability Harry has. He "saving others" deal. We see that impulse again and again. It is not that there aren't personal feelings involved, but for instance, the water task in GoF, there was just no way that he could stand to let anyone stay. It doesn't matter that they *wouldn't* have died but that it was THEM and not the contest that was foremost. When he finds out about Neville's parents, that night he realizes how many people's lives have been ruined and that it was due to LV and resolves that it can't continue. Love encompasses more than just love. But I don't think it is so much personal love that is being referred to. Plus, I don't think that his grieving indicates "less" love. Rather, perhaps that he became attached so quickly to Sirius show heightened love. Grief is for us, not for the one who died. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 02:18:54 2006 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 02:18:54 -0000 Subject: Lack of Memorial for Sirius (was Re: JKR's dealing with emotions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147509 Harry doesn't want to talk about Sirius, his pain is so hard he can't even stand when someone mentions his name. How would he feel if every single person starts saying "I'm sorry Harry that Sirius is dead, are you ok?" That's very annoying. No he's not ok, and no, there's nothing anyone can do about it. Hermione and Ron who know him best are aware that Harry doesn't want to talk about Sirius, so they stand by him and support him in a non-verbal way. Words just aren't needed. Remus wants to write to Harry, but his current condition doesn't allow him to. He knows he's the only link Harry has left to his past, the one person who knew his parents and his godfather better than anyone. I can see Remus taking a more active role in Harry's life. Perhaps even Harry will be the BestMan at his wedding? That would be nice. I agree that there should have been some sort of memorial service for Sirius, but I think it would have been unwise to do so speaking from the security side of the whole thing: A memorial would include all (or most) members of the OotP, people who are targeted by Voldemort, and Harry would also be there. It would be a perfect ocassion for an attack. The only safe place would have been 12 GP, but then it wasn't sure whether it belonged to Harry or to Bellatrix. Any other location would have meant a sure attack by Voldemort and his DEs. So what's better, to keep Harry and Co And the OoP alive, or to give Harry a chance to say goodbye? JMO of course Juli From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 01:16:54 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 01:16:54 -0000 Subject: DD's wishes for Voldy and Harry (was Re: Will there be ....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147510 > kchuplis: > > Personally, I rather wonder if DD doesn't want LV to die without > actually realizing what he and LV have argued about all these years - > that there are worse things than outright death - that there IS a > power beyond death - love. Which seems a little vindictive, since I > really do believe DD is all for ridding the world of this complete > evil, but I think that sentiment is there. I also think there is the > other affirmation regarding death or redemption when (and it seems to > confirm death) when Harry asks (about the prophecy) "so does that mean > that...that one of us has got to kill the other... in the end?" and DD > answers simply "Yes." I know everyone likes to weave all kinds of > things around this as well but I mean, really, it doesn't get too much > clearer that that is what it comes down to. > I think we tend to forget something very important about Dumbledore. He wasn't always the 150-odd-year-old Headmaster of Hogwarts. There was a time when he faced a Dark Wizard called Grindlewald. And, we are told, he killed said dark wizard. It may be that he managed to destroy Grindlewald without technically "killing" him, but if so we have no evidence for that. Dumbledore's speech to Draco implies that he knows what killing is about. I think this is further evidence that he literally killed Grindlewald. And this lends power to his simple "yes" in answer to Harry's question. I think this means that DD believes, rightly or wrongly, that Harry must literally kill Voldemort. Perhaps this is the key to DD's feelings about Voldemort. He evidently felt concern about Draco becoming a murderer. How must he feel about Harry having to kill -- if not actually committing murder in the technical sense? Is this the chief source of his antipathy to Voldemort? Perhaps the thing he cannot forgive Voldemort for is that Voldemort is going to force Harry to kill? If this is so, then his speech to Voldy about wishing much worse for him has a double meaning. He DOES wish much worse for Voldemort. But he wishes much better for Harry than Voldy's death would mean. Lupinlore From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Feb 3 02:21:54 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:21:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco in the Bathroom -What Next for Draco/Snape? References: Message-ID: <00d201c62868$9cf3a1c0$0860400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 147511 > bboyminn: > I think this reflects that way in which Voldemort is a master > manipulator. He has pitted all the Death Eaters against each other. > Each determined to be 'honored above all others'. Rather brilliant on > Voldemort's part as long as the DE are plotting against each other, > they are not plotting against him. Even though Draco fears death, he > is still determined to be 'honored above all others'. He would rather > die than lose his chance at 'favored' status. Magpie: I can't help but see it as also something bigger than that. Going to Snape is more than giving up his glory, it's not becoming a man. Thematically it just makes every bit of sense that Draco feels he has to do this and not go to a teacher to do it for him. I always remember the talk with Snape that Harry overhears. Draco is able to talk about Snape stealing his glory etc. It's when Snape says he knows his father's imprisonment has upset him, *that's* when Draco storms out. I think the glory is a superficial thing next to what's really going on, which is more of a personal test. If he fails to be the one who protects his family so that Snape has to do it, he fails to be a man. I think Harry instinctively gets this when he talks about Draco taking his father's place, and many of the boys in canon seem driven by similar concerns--Harry and Neville also seem to feel an inner conviction that they must do something to avenge their parents. Ironically, the last scene with Draco has him in a child's position. He's on the very edge of solving the situation himself and taking Dumbledore's offer after disarming him, then the DEs come in and Snape has to take care of things. When Snape leaves, he picks Draco up by the scruff of the neck like a kitten. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 02:39:10 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 02:39:10 -0000 Subject: Lack of Memorial for Sirius (was Re: JKR's dealing with emotions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147512 Juli: I can see Remus taking a more active role in Harry's > life. Perhaps even Harry will be the BestMan at his wedding? That > would be nice. Alla: That would be nice, woudn't it? Another fond fantasy of mine is to see at least briefly in the epilogue Harry babysitting Remus and Tonks kids. You know many little cubs who can change colours at will :-) Seriously though, I know that the odds of Harry's survival are 50/50, but if he does survive ( keeping my fingers crossed), I don't think that he necessarily would be Frodo Potter. Basically, if we get alive Harry, I do see happy Harry eventually. :) Juli: > I agree that there should have been some sort of memorial service > for Sirius, but I think it would have been unwise to do so speaking > from the security side of the whole thing: A memorial would include > all (or most) members of the OotP, people who are targeted by > Voldemort, and Harry would also be there. It would be a perfect > ocassion for an attack. Alla: See, I don't think that security was the reason, because if it was I see Dumbledore saying something to this effect to Harry in HBP. I hate to think that JKR simply did not think about it, so I keep believing that there was some reason for not doing it. Of course maybe you are right and it was for security reasons and JKR simply implied it. But I just don't see how that would be security breach for Order Members simply to get together and raise a fond toast to Sirius, as Steve said. You know, nothing formal, just group of friends acknowledging the passing of another friend and fellow soldier. No, I hope that there was a reason for not doing it, otherwise it is annoying to me. IMO of course. Juli: So what's better, to keep Harry and Co And > the OoP alive, or to give Harry a chance to say goodbye? > Alla: Right, I don't think both tasks are necessarily mutually exclusive. JMO of course, Alla From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 3 02:44:15 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:44:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD's wishes for Voldy and Harry (was Re: Will there be ....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147513 On Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 07:16 PM, lupinlore wrote: > I think we tend to forget something very important about Dumbledore.? > He wasn't always the 150-odd-year-old Headmaster of Hogwarts.? There > was a time when he faced a Dark Wizard called Grindlewald.? And, we > are told, he killed said dark wizard.? It may be that he managed to > destroy Grindlewald without technically "killing" him, but if so we > have no evidence for that. > > Dumbledore's speech to Draco implies that he knows what killing is > about.? I think this is further evidence that he literally killed > Grindlewald.? And this lends power to his simple "yes" in answer to > Harry's question.? I think this means that DD believes, rightly or > wrongly, that Harry must literally kill Voldemort. > > Perhaps this is the key to DD's feelings about Voldemort.? He > evidently felt concern about Draco becoming a murderer.? How must he > feel about Harry having to kill -- if not actually committing murder > in the technical sense?? Is this the chief source of his antipathy to > Voldemort?? Perhaps the thing he cannot forgive Voldemort for is that > Voldemort is going to force Harry to kill?? > > If this is so, then his speech to Voldy about wishing much worse for > him has a double meaning.? He DOES wish much worse for Voldemort.? > But he wishes much better for Harry than Voldy's death would mean. > kchuplis: I agree. I think DD feels absolutely a great deal of hate towards LV that it is this way. I think that that was what the whole "you were to young at 12, 13, 14, etc." was all about. He just wanted to put off that realization forever. To have Harry be a boy. To not burden him but also to put off the reality of Harry having the realization and worse, the act of destroying LV. Because there is a definite conundrum here in that killing kills the soul or damages it. It *will* change Harry. From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Feb 3 03:11:40 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 03:11:40 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147514 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > Not that I believe in ESE!Lupin, but from what I understand, Wolfsbane > Potion is not readily available. Lupin states in PoA that it's a > tricky potion that only a few wizards can make, which is why he relies > on Snape to make it for him rather than attempting to make it himself. > (He also states that he was never good at Potions; Snape, we know, is > a genius at making them.) > The question for me now is, how is Lupin controlling himself Allie: Isn't it VERY unusual that Lupin has *not* mastered the Wolfsbane potion? Okay, even if it's very complicated and requires a lot of hard to find ingredients, what else does Lupin have to do? He barely works because of his condition. The Order didn't re-form until recently. Seems to me like he might have had some spare time on his hands. I would think that he would make learning to brew Wolfsbane his primary goal. The man has had OVER 20 YEARS to learn how to make it! We're seriously supposed to believe that in all that time, he could not have learned??? For crying out loud, Hermione learned how to make Polyjuice Potion at 12 years old, and that's also described as immensely complicated! I don't think he's ESE!, but this particular aspect of his story requires a little suspension-of-belief for me. From fhsulisa at yahoo.com Thu Feb 2 15:02:28 2006 From: fhsulisa at yahoo.com (parcelmouthks) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:02:28 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147515 lupinlore Harry was furious with Kreacher at the end of OOTP. Three weeks later, he becomes Kreacher's master and his response is "uhhhh, okay."...all those emotions are completely forgotten and the issues shoved firmly under the rug michelle I am in perfect agreement with LupinLore here. Harry was furious and then suddenly he seems more annoyed with being Kreacher's master. Lisa: Having raised three male children and survived their teenage years (whew), I don't struggle with this inconsistency. I never could figure out why some situations ignited strong emotional responses in my sons and others did not. Lisa From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Feb 3 03:15:29 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 03:15:29 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <700201d40602021733u264f974fm2c43ad68c0acfed9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147516 Kemper: > But a question to those who've expressed similar losses at similar ages: isn't > Harry supposed to have this great depth of Love, more so than any other > Witch or Wizard and presumably much more then any of us Muggles and Squibs. > I don't mean to discount anyone's loss. I, too, have suffered. But Harry > is not one of us, he's not an Everyman (Ron is), Harry is a Hero. With so > much Love, you'd think Harry would experience loss to a heightened degree. Ceridwen: He does. Harry feels a heightened loss compared to mine at the same age because I had nearly sixteen years of being with my father. Harry only knew Sirius for a couple of years. During more than half of the first year, he believed that Sirius betrayed his parents and was out to get him, too. Then he didn't see much of Sirius, so he really didn't have an actual, personal relationship with him other than the one he planned on for the future. He liked Sirius, he was attatched to him, but he did not have his entire life of knowing him. Now, maybe the newness of the relationship caused the deeper grief. Harry had made plans, imagined all sorts of things of a father-son nature with Sirius. As an orphan who had never known this sort of relationship, his idealism may be showing. Also, the relationship is *supposed* to be more than it really was. Again, expectations, which he didn't have for Cedric. Or, it could be the sense of connection with his father, a living 'artifact' of his parents, a human Pensieve or a movie player who could tell him things and make him feel them, about his parents. Someone who knew them, who was a link to them, as well as having been chosen by his parents to take their place should anything happen to them. Their Chosen One. Which is understandable for a child who has not known his parents. More idealism. But, he shows deep concern for others that seems, at least, to leave some scratching their heads. Like Cedric, for one. A rival in both sport and love, a boy he hardly knew for more than a few months. Yet he grieves as if this was his life-long friend. A lot of people have explained it, but I do believe that this is also a demonstration of Harry's giving heart and the strength of his positive nature (love). So, IMO, Harry does show a greater depth of feeling for others. Not just Sirius, but Cedric, too. Ceridwen. From ms-tamany at rcn.com Fri Feb 3 03:19:31 2006 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:19:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4iore0$60lcfh@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147517 Allie writes : Isn't it VERY unusual that Lupin has *not* mastered the Wolfsbane potion? Okay, even if it's very complicated and requires a lot of hard to find ingredients, what else does Lupin have to do? He barely works because of his condition. The Order didn't re-form until recently. Seems to me like he might have had some spare time on his hands. I would think that he would make learning to brew Wolfsbane his primary goal. The man has had OVER 20 YEARS to learn how to make it! We're seriously supposed to believe that in all that time, he could not have learned??? For crying out loud, Hermione learned how to make Polyjuice Potion at 12 years old, and that's also described as immensely complicated! I don't think he's ESE!, but this particular aspect of his story requires a little suspension-of-belief for me. Now Tammy writes: Oh, I don't know. Some otherwise extremely intelligent people have a very hard time learing certain subjects. For example, I've been studying for ten years to learn a very simple programming language, and I *STILL* can't program in it. So Lupin not having mastered a delicate, complicated potion, one that he tells us not many wizards CAN handle, doesn't seem at all far-fetched to me, even after twenty years. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Feb 3 03:29:48 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:29:48 -0500 Subject: ESEDDM!Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E2CE2C.1020907@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147518 Alla: > No, Nora is right. JKR calls him deeply horrible person. ( not that > this is somehow goes against canon the way I read it) > > "Summer 1999 > Harry Potter Author Works Her Magic by Katy Abel > > Q: Who's your favorite character besides Harry Potter? > > A: It's very hard to choose. It's fun to write about Snape because > he's a deeply horrible person. Hagrid is someone I'd love to meet. " Bart: This goes to what is becoming my favorite theory about Snape; he IS evil, but considers Voldemort such a major menace that he is willing to ally himself with the Order. Consider, for example, a con artist who takes advantage of the greed of others falling upon a den of terrorists. If he helps out the government, he is no less evil; it's just that he is willing to help stop an even greater evil. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 03:58:09 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 03:58:09 -0000 Subject: ESEDDM!Snape In-Reply-To: <43E2CE2C.1020907@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147519 > Alla: > > No, Nora is right. JKR calls him deeply horrible person. ( not that > > this is somehow goes against canon the way I read it) > > > > "Summer 1999 > > Harry Potter Author Works Her Magic by Katy Abel > > > > Q: Who's your favorite character besides Harry Potter? > > > > A: It's very hard to choose. It's fun to write about Snape because > > he's a deeply horrible person. Hagrid is someone I'd love to meet. " > > Bart: > This goes to what is becoming my favorite theory about Snape; he IS > evil, but considers Voldemort such a major menace that he is willing to > ally himself with the Order. Consider, for example, a con artist who > takes advantage of the greed of others falling upon a den of terrorists. > If he helps out the government, he is no less evil; it's just that he is > willing to help stop an even greater evil. Alla: Absolutely. I have absolutely no problem buying this type of Snape. You see, despite me having very serious reservations of calling the man who killed Dumbledore "loyal to Dumbledore", I can see all those clues discussed multiple times actually turning to be clues in support of DD!M Snape. So, yes, to me Snape loyalty is not a given and I can buy that he can turn out DD!M Snape ( don't want to, but what I want to is not really relevant to analysing the story, IMO). What I DO think of as a "given", as an "established" in canon ( and I realise that not everybody thinks that way, but this is my opinion and with one book left, I doubt that something can sway me from that opinion) is Snape's general character and that indeed goes back to "deeply horrible person" I like JKR's interviews, I consider them to be very very helpful in trying to predict what happened, but even if she would not call Snape "deeply horrible person", that is exactly how I would think about him, the question of his loyalties notwithstanding. Now, I can even buy Snape being a bastard in general, but having SOME nobility of the character and realising that Voldemort is evil OR what you said - Snape being a person of really BAD character, but understanding that Voldemort would be very bad choice to gamble upon. ( Isn't your Snape in essense some kind of OFH!Snape? Just trying to clarify.) So, yes, I can buy Snape who is complete bastard, but loyal to Dumbledore's bastard. Hoping that JKR will go for genuine betrayal, but can absolutely see this variety of Snapey as reasonable and supported by canon. :-) What I am NOT buying ever and this is of course JMO is "Saint Severus". You know, the one who after leaving DE did not do ANYTHING really bad, and even while he was being DE, he did not do anything REALLY bad , after all he was most likely just preparing potions for Voldemort and never used any unforgivables. Oh,and of course Harry should be REALLY grateful for that type of Severus, after all Saint Severus just protects Harry and/or toughens him for Voldemort. That variety of Snape makes me laugh. Alla, still hopes for Snape who betrayed Dumbledore, but thanking Bart for very reasonable alternate. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 05:38:45 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:38:45 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <43E35619.7182.1444931@localhost> References: <700201d40602021733u264f974fm2c43ad68c0acfed9@mail.gmail.com> <43E35619.7182.1444931@localhost> Message-ID: <700201d40602022138x25d638fref30fcc82267f93c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147520 On 2/2/06, Shaun Hately wrote: > > On 2 Feb 2006 at 17:33, Kemper wrote: > > > But a question to those who've expressed similar losses at similar > ages: isn't > > Harry supposed to have this great depth of Love, more so than any other > > Witch or Wizard and presumably much more then any of us Muggles and > Squibs. > > I don't mean to discount anyone's loss. I, too, have suffered. But > Harry > > is not one of us, he's not an Everyman (Ron is), Harry is a Hero. With > so > > much Love, you'd think Harry would experience loss to a > > heightened degree. > > Shaun: > > Seriously, I don't see any evidence in the novels that Harry has > a great 'depth of love' in the sense that he himself is somehow > unusually capable of love. > > "'"Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort > cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as > powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a > scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even > though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some > protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of > hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, > could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a > person marked by something so good.'" > > (PS, ) > > Note - "that love as powerful as your mother's for you." > > "to have been loved so deeply." > > What is special in Harry Potter isn't his capacity for love, > isn't his expression of love, isn't his feelings of love. > > What is special in Harry Potter isn't the fact that he loves. It > is the fact that he was loved - and that's very different. > > There's no reason to suppose that I can see that Harry loves at > all unusually deeply or intensely, or anything like that. I think > he has about the same capacity for love as any normal person. ... .. Kemper now: >From HBP23 Harry: But I haven't got uncommon skill or power Dumbledore: Yes, you have. You have a power Voldemort has never had. You can? Harry: I know! I can love! (refraining from saying Big Deal!) Dumbledore: Yes Harry, you can love. Which, given everything that has happened to you, is a great and remarkable thing. Your are still too young to understand how unusual you are, Harry. Harry: So, when the prophecy says that I'll have 'power the Dark Lord know not,' it just means ? love? Dumbledore: Yes ? just love. Dumbledore seems to believe Harry's love is uncommon, in a great and remarkable way. Much more so than all others. So if we are to see Harry as Dumbledore sees him then it would seem that Harry is 'somehow unusually capable of love.' What do you mean when you say Harry was loved? I'm assuming you are suggesting that his Love power comes from Lily's death, but I could be wrong. However, if not? Lily's love protection seemed to have lost a bit of its potency after the Dark Lord's resurrection. -Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Feb 3 06:02:29 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:02:29 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <700201d40602022138x25d638fref30fcc82267f93c@mail.gmail.com> References: <43E35619.7182.1444931@localhost> Message-ID: <43E38CA5.13926.494BAC@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147521 On 2 Feb 2006 at 21:38, Kemper wrote: > Dumbledore: Yes ? just love. > > Dumbledore seems to believe Harry's love is uncommon, in a great and > remarkable way. Much more so than all others. So if we are to see Harry as > Dumbledore sees him then it would seem that Harry is 'somehow unusually > capable of love.' Shaun: Well, from my reading of that passage. Dumbledore is not saying that Harry's amount of love is unusal or the degree of love that Harry is capable of is at all unusual. What he is saying is that given Harry's experiences it is surprising he still has this the normal love that other people have. And while that's a good point, it seems to me that for Harry's reaction to Sirius' death to be unusual given his experiences, based on his love, then the amount of love, or its form would have to be unusual - not just the fact he has it. Personally, I feel that Dumbledore overstates the case. Yes, Harry has had a hard life in many ways, but except for the magical aspect, it really isn't *that* unusual. Quite a lot of kids grow up in homes that lack love, with neglectful parents (or in Harry's case, his aunt and uncle in a parental role). Lots of kids lose their parents very young, and even losing them to violence isn't that uncommon. I would never claim Harry hasn't had a very hard time - but honestly, his experiences do not seem to me to have been so bad that Dumbledore should be surprised he can still love. At the same time, I also wouldn't be surprised if someone in Harry's position had become less capable of loving. I just don't see it as that rare that it hasn't happened. My own childhood was pretty hellish at times. It really was. And some people have said over the years that they are surprised at how I got through that with certain characteristics - and maybe they are even right to be surprised, I don't know... but what Dumbledore seems to be suggesting isn't that Harry is just a little unusual, but that he's extremely unusual - and honestly, personally, I find that hard to see. *Unless* there's still something else Dumbledore isn't saying. Even so, even if Dumbledore is right though, I still don't see any signs that Harry is any more loving than the next person in the novels. He seems to simply be a fairly normal boy capable of fairly normal love. That's just my opinion, but I really don't see Harry as different in that regard. I think he has a heightened sense of justice, and perhaps in some ways a heightened sense of duty - this to me is his 'saving people thing' and that may have some link to a form of love. But I don't see much reason to suppose that Harry loved Sirius anymore than any normal person would have loved a parent, or pseudo-parent figure. Kemper: > What do you mean when you say Harry was loved? I'm assuming you are > suggesting that his Love power comes from Lily's death, but I could be > wrong. However, if not Lily's love protection seemed to have lost a bit of > its potency after the Dark Lord's resurrection. Shaun: That's more or less what I mean, yes. Harry *was* loved by his mother and that got into his skin. And, yes, his protection from that does seem diminished, but that protection may well have been only part of what she gave him, and I think the text suggests that it is only part of it. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 06:06:18 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:06:18 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: <4iore0$60lcfh@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147522 >> > Now Tammy writes: > So Lupin not having mastered a delicate, complicated potion, > one that he tells us not many wizards CAN handle, doesn't seem at all > far-fetched to me, even after twenty years. Finwitch: And, IIRC, in the polyjuice potion there was at least one ingredient that had to be harvested or something during full moon. We don't know the recipe for Wolfsbane, but I think it's possible that there IS an ingredient that requires something done during Full Moon. Which Lupin simply cannot do. Maybe Tonks can brew it, or learn to...? If I were her, I certainly would have devoted my free time to it. She wants to marry a werewolf - why wouldn't she learn it? Wonder if Fleur can brew it? Finwitch From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 06:15:01 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:15:01 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147523 michelle wrote: > I am in perfect agreement with LupinLore here. Harry was furious and then suddenly he seems more annoyed with being Kreacher's master. Carol responds: Perhaps there's a reasonable explanation: Harry's rage at Kreacher has been transferred to a different target. Certainly Harry had good reason to place a large share of the blame for Sirius Black's death on Kreacher, who plotted with the Malfoys to injure Kreacher and make sure that Black was out of sight if Harry tried to check on him. He has even more reason to blame Kreacher's beloved "Miss Bellatrix," who actually murdered "the Animagus Black," and he feels guilty because Black would not have died at all if he, Harry, had not been lured to the MoM though he seems to have trouble admitting this fact to himself. (I can find quotes to support this assertion if needed.) By the time Kreacher is "conjured" or summoned by Dumbledore to the Dursleys, Harry has transferred all of this rage and his own repressed guilt onto a convenient scapegoat, Snape, as we see in OoP and again in "Snape Triumphant." So Kreacher, for better or worse, is off the hook--at least for now. Harry doesn't like him, and the feeling is mutual (Kreacher's loyalty is to Harry's godfather's murderer), but Harry, IMO, has no hatred to spare for a house-elf. He's too busy hating Snape. He's annoyed at first at being Kreacher's master, but he understands the necessity of keeping Kreacher at Hogwarts, away from Grimmauld Place and from the Malfoy manor. As for Harry's willingness to have a house-elf as his slave, mentioned earlier in this thread, I suppose he's so used to Dobby's servile obedience and doting adoration that he doesn't give a second thought to ordering a fellow being to do his will, especially one as dangerous and devious as Kreacher, who is still capable of doing great harm to a hated master. And neither Harry nor Ron (nor I) ever had much use for SPEW. Carol, expecting to see more of Kreacher in Book 7, perhaps in connection with the locket Horcrux From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 06:52:25 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:52:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147524 > > Potioncat: >Why then, do you think, does Harry > think of him as the barkeeper from the Hogs Head instead of as DD's > brother? At DD's funeral Harry doesn't notice that DD's brother is > there, but that the barkeeper is there. Of course, Harry isn't very > good at remembering people. Finwitch: Simple. Harry's not reading a book, Harry's not reading interviews with an author writing a book ... he's living it. We, as readers, have the benefit, because: 1) things mentioned in the book are bound to be clues, or otherwise important, particularly if Harry forgets/ignores them. 2) We have the leisure of going over and over every detail we read whereas Harry doesn't - he doesn't have a pensieve, nor the time to ponder his life. He's too busy living it, you know. Seeing the photo, Harry concentrated on his parents, Peter Pettigrew and his godfather. I'd have been surprised if he had recalled Aberforth. Hermione/Ginny/Ron/Luna might see it in book 7, and ask "What's the Hog's Head bartender doing in this?" and Harry (or Moody) would tell her it's Aberforth... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 07:09:52 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 07:09:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147525 CMC: > ... we don't know the exact nature of > the "inappropriate" charms. Finwitch: Quite right. We don't even know if Aberforth was guilty of it. My favourite theory is that the charm Aberforth was casting was getting a bezoar out of the goat's stomach without causing the goat any pain/death as would be if you used a cutting spell/knife to get it. Finwitch From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 07:17:03 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 07:17:03 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > > Allie: > > Isn't it VERY unusual that Lupin has *not* mastered the Wolfsbane > potion? Okay, even if it's very complicated and requires a lot > of hard to find ingredients, what else does Lupin have to do? > He barely works because of his condition. .... The man has had > OVER 20 YEARS to learn how to make it! ... > I don't think he's ESE!, but this particular aspect of his story > requires a little suspension-of-belief for me. > bboyminn: One small factor that you are overlooking Allie,...MONEY. You said it yourself, Lupin doesn't work. Where is he going to get the money to brew the potion. Not only the ingredients, but he must have a suitable place to brew it. Not likely in a one room flat. Also, Wolfsbane Potion is relatively recent. I was invented by by Damocles who is the Uncle of the current Hogwarts student Marcus Belby. Damocles was taugh by Slughorn when he was teaching at Hogwarts. We do know that Slughorn was likely the Potions teacher before Snape, and Snape has been at the school for about 15 years; just slightly less time than Harry has been alive. So, if the Wolfbane Potion was only invented 20 to 25 years ago, that probably implies it took a certain amount of time for the information to spread and for the general public to become aware of the potion and exactly how it was brewed. So, based on this assumption, Lupin really hasn't had 20 years to learn how to make it. Regardless, it still comes down to money. He can barely feed himself, and he dresses in near rags, I don't see him as having the spare cash to gather the ingredients. Especially when the first few batches are likely not to be successful. That represents wasted money that could a have otherwised fed, clothed, and housed him. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From duckyslilangel_2 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 04:30:40 2006 From: duckyslilangel_2 at yahoo.com (Amber) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:30:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060203043040.91138.qmail@web52110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147527 Carol: > (He also states that he was never good at Potions; Snape, we > know, is a genius at making them.) Allie: > Okay, even if it's very complicated and requires a lot > of hard to find ingredients, what else does Lupin have to do? > For crying out loud, Hermione learned how to make Polyjuice > Potion at 12 years old, and that's also described as immensely > complicated! Amber: Yes, Hermione did learn how to make the polyjuice postion at 12, but it has been stated many times that she is a very gifted student. This is not something that most 12 yr olds would be able to do. Slughorn even said that it was not expected of them to do until Newt level because of its difficulty. Also, Lupin has said, he is not good at potions, others have said this as well. While I do acknowledge that he does have a lot of free time to attempt it, the full moon does come once a month. This would make it very hard to do if it takes awhile to make. As JKR hasn't said exactly what must be done to make this, we have no way of knowing if there are certain steps to take at different times. Just thought I would put my two cents into the mix! From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Feb 3 08:12:42 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 00:12:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lack of Memorial for Sirius (was Re: JKR's dealing with emotions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00b401c62899$9be7e0d0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 147528 Juli: So what's better, to keep Harry and Co And > the OoP alive, or to give Harry a chance to say goodbye? > Alla: Right, I don't think both tasks are necessarily mutually exclusive. Sherry now: Once Dumbledore was assured Grimauld place was Harry's there could have been something. or at the Burrow. A memorial service is really a necessary part in the grieving process, the kind of first step. people who say they don't want any type of services when they die, are usually not thinking about the needs of the people left behind. The wake, or memorial service, gives people the chance to tell stories, share memories, cry, even laugh, with others who are experiencing the same loss. I hated having to plan my Dad's memorial service, and yet, it was one of the last things I was ever able to do for him. it didn't give me closure, because nothing will ever give closure to such a loss, but it was the connection to his family, friends and colleagues. it was the transition between the shock of his death, and the beginning of the real agony of the grief, the reality. i hope there is a plot reason for there to have been no service, because Harry deserved to have one, if nothing else. no, everyone around him didn't even need to talk about it, but just the being together, the unspoken surrounding and support from whoever would have attended could have been important to Harry. It isn't really even a matter of comfort, because nothing and no words can comfort, but it is a matter of feeling the love and support of others. and that does help, a tiny bit. maybe, when Harry goes to Godric's hollow, he can do his own private memorial for his parents, for Sirius and for Dumbledore. Sherry From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Feb 3 08:16:43 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 00:16:43 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00b501c6289a$2b6e6e90$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 147529 lealess An even more Evil idea: perhaps James decided the most important thing was not losing Lily. He may have resented the attention Harry received from Lily. He may have been the one who bargained for Lily's life, only to be killed by Voldemort right away. Sherry now: ok, now you've done it. You've come up with the absolute worst possible scenario for the final book. I think that would be cruelty beyond belief, for Harry, to find that his father arranged his death. in fact, i think it would make me throw up and give me nightmares for weeks. i don't think it would cause Harry to rethink his feelings toward others, at all, unless it was to make him truly hate and distrust everyone. it could turn Harry into the next dark lord. I've never been too thrilled with the roles of flawed fathers and sainted mothers as shown in the books, but that's because of personal experience. But I think it would be a tragedy that Harry could not bear. Sherry From darkmatter30 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 08:29:50 2006 From: darkmatter30 at yahoo.com (Richard) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:29:50 -0000 Subject: JKR's secrets about Snape and Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147530 > La Gatta Lucianese: > No, no, no...all this is post-GH. They're hiding out at > Hogwarts, and Lily/Hagrid is going all broody because...well, it > would explain Hagrid's rather overdeveloped maternal instinct. > Wouldn't it? And James is all frustrated because Lily's new look > doesn't do a thing for him... Richard here: It is definitely silliness, since both both James and Lily are canonically quite dead. How else would their "shadows" (for lack of a better description) have emerged in the priori incantatum effect during the duel in the graveyard, GoF? We really don't know for certain that the secrets reputedly told to Rickman and Coltrane were single facts or critical sets of information. For example, if JKR told Rickman why Dumbledore trusts him AND WHY HE IS WRONG, or simply that he is wrong (or that he is right to trust Snape), it really isn't a single, discrete fact. In fact, I think this would be a very likely pair of closely related facts for JKR to tell Rickman. Depending on precisely what that reason is, there might well be several related pieces that would be self-evident. It would certainly also explain why JKR would regard the material as secret enough not to share with a director, but only with actors she may trust more than, or see as too critical to the "noumena" of the Potterverse NOT to tell. As for Hagrid, "Hagrid is half-giant, and giants are bitterly hated," sounds entirely right for the sum total of what she might have said to Coltrane. Still, you never know ... JKR has been known to keep the better part of a deck up her sleeve. Richard From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 10:44:06 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 10:44:06 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: <20060203043040.91138.qmail@web52110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147531 > Allie: > > Okay, even if it's very complicated and requires a lot > > of hard to find ingredients, what else does Lupin have to do? It's possible that the Wolfsbane potion could be poisonous if not made exactly right-- the main ingredient being wolfsbane or aconitum luparia, which like most aconites is fatally toxic. It would explain why Lupin would be hesitant to experiment-- and why other werewolves are wary of trying it. Only a real master could be trusted to handle it-- like fugu! -- Sydney, picturing sushichef!Snape From kking0731 at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 11:40:20 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 06:40:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147532 Steve/bboyminn snipped: Also, Wolfsbane Potion is relatively recent. I was invented by by Damocles who is the Uncle of the current Hogwarts student Marcus Belby. Damocles was taugh by Slughorn when he was teaching at Hogwarts. We do know that Slughorn was likely the Potions teacher before Snape, and Snape has been at the school for about 15 years; just slightly less time than Harry has been alive. So, if the Wolfbane Potion was only invented 20 to 25 years ago, that probably implies it took a certain amount of time for the information to spread and for the general public to become aware of the potion and exactly how it was brewed. So, based on this assumption, Lupin really hasn't had 20 years to learn how to make it. Snow: I would think the real question that begs to be answered here is why did Uncle Damocles attempt to find a cure for lycanthropy and who was his first experiments with or on? Is Damocles' nephew a jr. werewolf? I doubt he was attempting to find a cure for Lupin's sake. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Feb 3 12:12:38 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:12:38 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147533 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathy King wrote: > > Steve/bboyminn snipped: snip So, based on this assumption, Lupin really hasn't had 20 years > to learn how to make it. Potioncat: I can agree with everyone who has come up with a reason why Lupin can't make Wolfsbane. It seems in the WW, just like in RL, different people have different skills. Also, if you ask me, Lupin also has a great lack of confidence. He's always (at least twice) telling Harry something along the line of it taking an exceptional wizard to do something. (conjure a Patronus, make Wolfsbane) > > > Snow: > I would think the real question that begs to be answered here is why did > Uncle Damocles attempt to find a cure for lycanthropy and who was his first > experiments with or on? Is Damocles' nephew a jr. werewolf? I doubt he was > attempting to find a cure for Lupin's sake. Potioncat: Good question. I assumed he was a Healer at St. Mungo's. BTW, do we know that Lupin isn't taking Wolfsbane now? Seems I've seen that suggested, but you'd think he'd be able to get it somewhere. Let me rephrase that. After he left Hogwarts, I would think he could get Wolfsbane from St. Mungo's. And if it cost money, I'd think the Order would provide it. But, do you suppose as part of his contact with the werewolves, that he's had to howl with the moon? From laura_k_gilmour at yahoo.co.uk Fri Feb 3 12:27:49 2006 From: laura_k_gilmour at yahoo.co.uk (laura) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:27:49 -0000 Subject: Parsel tongue (has this been asked?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147534 I apologise if this has already been discussed and answered.... ....Can Dumbledore speak Parsel Tongue? I was re-reading HBP (again) and when DD and HP go into Bob Ogden's memory DD asks Harry if he can understand Marvolo and Morfin...he doesn't ask for a translation, nor does he indicate that he doesn't understand!! Can Parsel Tongue be learned? If so..then why in CoS was it such a big deal the HP could speak it(besides the obvious!!) Sorry again if this has already been covered!!! Laura From sopraniste at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 13:44:07 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 05:44:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: <410-22006231183732188@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20060203134407.5671.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147535 > Chancie: > > Hmm... That's a good point. Author Weasley also > used magic there in (GOF), > as did Dumbledore (HBP), and neither of these > instances caused Harry to > receive letters from the ministry. Perhaps it has > to do with the fact that > both > Author and Tonks are ministry officials?? And > Dumbledore is well > Dumbledore... > Hard to say really. Does anyone have ideas on this? > I would think it has something to do with the fact that on ALL of those occasions, he was LEAVING Privet Drive in the company of an adult wizard. Considering the way the Hogwarts letters followed Harry in PS, I would think that the MoM would find it fairly easy to find that out. Flop __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Feb 3 16:53:13 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:53:13 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? /Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147536 Nora earlier: > > > Personally, I don't understand why people are wanting to shove > > > all of the BANG over onto book 7. It seems a perpetual delaying > > > tactic to dispute the solving of mysteries that one would > > > rather see continued, or thought the solution had holes. Alas, > > > holes to us are often not holes to another reader. Magpie: > > Heh--the funny thing about that is if the BANG was Snape it > > didn't work very well. JKR set it off and half the audience is > > like, "Was that a bang? I didn't hear anything. Of course it > > wasn't a bang, we just haven't found out what it really was yet. > > Well I think it's a bang! But then, I've always thought Snape > > was a bang..." Nora responded: > I thought it was quite BANG-y, but then I suspect I got into the > pattern of reading which I *think* was quite deliberate, and the > one which I would guess (as I can't know this unless it's confirmed > much later) she was out to make, which her mental 'ideal reader' > would catch onto. We get Spinner's End, with all these > explanations which seem to point to ESE!, but we the readers know > better than that, right? And there's Harry, continuing to doubt > and have suspicions, but he's just biased and unfair. After all, > Dumbledore believes in Snape and we believe in Dumbledore because > he's the epitome of goodness and is wiser than us and knows more. > > And then Snape ups and kills him. And we-the-readers are left > either to go "Wow, that was totally BANGy", or to start spinning > more explanations as to why it wasn't actually a genuine BANG (it > wasn't an AK curse, they had a plan, Dumbledore isn't actually > dead, etc.). SSSusan: And *I* always find it amusing that we who believe in DDM!Snape are often supposed to have had to "spin" a whole mess of explanations upon *re*-reads & porings-over of HBP... explanations which involve relatively "outlandish" possibilities such as fake AKs, DD not actually being dead, etc. For, imo, NOT every explanation of a DDM! Snape involves a whole lotta outlandish! It's true that I wondered (aloud, here on the list, early on) about the possibility of a verbalized AK masking some other NVS. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/134493 Didn't believe it myself, but wondered about it & asked about it for a friend. I've never been into the notion that DD's not dead. I also don't think a *specific, detailed* plan to kill DD on the Tower that night was involved either. Yet when I read the book for the first time, I still came away with DDM!Snape. And I *didn't* feel I had to look back to spin convoluted explanations to get there. YES, I gasped when Snape cast the AK (and at this point I do still believe it was a real AK and that it resulted in DD's death), but my explanation of the events doesn't, imo, rely upon a convoluted or forced "spin" of the events. Rather, I simply think that DD & Snape had talked some before -- about what was happening in VWII, about what Snape's taking the DADA position would mean (that he'd be leaving for *one* reason or another at the end of the year), about DD's belief that his (DD's) time was coming to an end, and about the possibility that he believed (& expressed to Snape) that he (Snape) might need to complete the deed someday, sometime, under some circumstances. I'll grant that I'd not thought about ALL that I expressed in that last sentence during the 1st read. ;-) But for me, when I read the Tower scene, I gasped, I was horrified, but I then thought about that pleading and what it might mean... and about what was happening to DD ever since the cave... and about Snape's behavior on the grounds afterwards towards Harry... and I saw the possibility that DD *asked* Snape to kill him in that moment -- to save Draco, to ensure Snape's "in" position with Voldy, & because DD knew he was done-for anyhow. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135537 Maybe it's just me, but I don't see that as a desperate grasping at any straws or a forcing of events or facts to fit something I simply longed to see. It just "fit." Even down to the look of revulsion & hatred on Snape's face: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135418 Magpie: > > I mean, unlike many other mysteries that people want to see > > continued long past their solution, this one really didn't have a > > solution because we didn't get the villain's confession either > > through his own mouth or through someone else explaining what was > > going on with him. Nora: > I agree that the why is totally up in the air. What I'd suggest is > that it's an open possibility that the event was genuinely BANG-y > in a way that's not going to be mitigated by the explanations, as > many listies want. SSSusan: Yep. I think what Magpie has noted is a big part of it. I'll grant (and Nora knows this about me) that I'm prepared for whichever way JKR goes with Snape -- and it *is* all still open because we're lacking that "confession" and we're lacking insight into Snape's thoughts & motivations. So it's possible that what happened on the tower *was* supposed to be BANG-y and I'll have to say, "Shoot. Too bad for me that I didn't feel the bang, because I thought DDM!Snape-acting-on-DD's-request was very possible." It's also possible that that BANG is yet to come, when we find out for sure that Snape is DDM. I just don't think that people who read Snape as having a DDM!-ish motivation for his actions on the tower necessarily are deluding themselves or working super hard, post facto, to create a scenario out of desperation to not let go of a loyal Snape. I don't think that scene takes that much "reading into" to get to DDM!Snape myself. Siriusly Snapey Susan, not a St. Snaper but convinced her DDM!Snape reading makes sense, too. Reminder of the Snape poll! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1916317 From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Feb 3 17:22:38 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:22:38 -0500 Subject: House Elves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E3915E.1000609@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147537 justcarol67 wrote: > As for Harry's willingness to have a house-elf as his slave, mentioned > earlier in this thread, I suppose he's so used to Dobby's servile > obedience and doting adoration that he doesn't give a second thought > to ordering a fellow being to do his will, especially one as dangerous > and devious as Kreacher, who is still capable of doing great harm to a > hated master. And neither Harry nor Ron (nor I) ever had much use for > SPEW. Bart: Once again, I think we need to go to Dumbledore for inspiration. Note that Dumbledore had no problem employing house elves as slaves, nor does he have any problem recognizing Dobby's freedom. Hermoine is prejudiced from a human perspective; normally, when enslaved humans claim to love their slavery, it is due to, at best, ignorance; they know no other life, and are afraid of what it might bring, and, at worst, for fear of reprisal. The psychology of house elves seems to be different. Even Dobby, who is proud of his freedom, finds it hard to break away from his slave mentality, while Winky, who, if she wanted, could just pretend she wasn't free, finds the concept of freedom to be so onerous that she is driven to taking mind-numbing substances. It is pretty clear that the minds of house elves are simply wired differently than the minds of humans. Even Kreacher finds it preferable to serve someone he despises than to be free. In the American Southwest, as an experiment, mongooses (I checked the plural in the dictionary) were imported from India to deal with rattlesnakes. It turned out that their ability to kill snakes had to do specifically with hardwired reactions to the behavior of cobras; against rattlesnakes, they proved to be disastrously ineffective. One of the reasons why Hagrid gets along so well with magical creatures is because he understands them (his major weakness is not realizing that such understanding doesn't come instinctively to other humans; that's one reason he has trouble explaining to others how he does it). Hermoine needs to understand that just because creatures can talk and look human doesn't mean that they think like humans. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Feb 3 17:40:22 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:40:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's brother In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E39586.3070905@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147538 Finwitch: > Quite right. We don't even know if Aberforth was guilty of it. My > favourite theory is that the charm Aberforth was casting was getting a > bezoar out of the goat's stomach without causing the goat any > pain/death as would be if you used a cutting spell/knife to get it. Bart: I have mentioned before, and will mention again, my belief that it is a tribute to the late Marion Zimmer Bradley, referring to her work, "Lythande". For those who are not aware, Marion Zimmer Bradley (aka MZB) was a strong proponent of getting women to write in the science fiction and fantasy field, without having to use male-sounding pseudonyms. Bart From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 3 17:40:46 2006 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:40:46 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? /Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147539 > > SSSusan: > And *I* always find it amusing that we who believe in DDM!Snape are > often supposed to have had to "spin" a whole mess of explanations > upon *re*-reads & porings-over of HBP... explanations which involve > relatively "outlandish" possibilities such as fake AKs, DD not > actually being dead, etc. For, imo, NOT every explanation of a DDM! > Snape involves a whole lotta outlandish! > (snipped) > > Yet when I read the book for the first time, I still came away with > DDM!Snape. And I *didn't* feel I had to look back to spin convoluted > explanations to get there. YES, I gasped when Snape cast the AK (and > at this point I do still believe it was a real AK and that it > resulted in DD's death), but my explanation of the events doesn't, > imo, rely upon a convoluted or forced "spin" of the events. (much snipped) > Siriusly Snapey Susan, not a St. Snaper but convinced her DDM!Snape > reading makes sense, too. > > Reminder of the Snape poll! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1916317 > lucianam: Well, I almost never join Snape discussions because they've been so many and so deep I always feel I'm barely scratching the surface whenever I reply, which is btw the case. I believe Snape is innocent (voted for 'I have always believed Snape was on the side of Good, and after reading HBP, I am SURE of it' on the poll) even if I don't think canon is absolute on it, so far. Well anyway, I'm here to ask you guys who frequently discuss ESE! versus DDM! Snape, what do you think are the implications of Snape knowing Harry is 'The Chosen One'? I was thinking about the old idea of Snape's Animagus form being a spider. How easy for him, then, to have heard Dumbledore and Harry talking in the Weasleys' broom shed. (I did a yahoo!search and found a previous message on this, by finwitch: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139841). Being a believer in DDM!Snape I'm biased and think that was why he protected Harry from the other DE when he escaped, for instance. I suppose this could have been discussed before. Lucianam From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Feb 3 17:42:15 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 17:42:15 -0000 Subject: House Elves In-Reply-To: <43E3915E.1000609@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147540 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > justcarol67 wrote: > > As for Harry's willingness to have a house-elf as his slave, mentioned > > earlier in this thread, I suppose he's so used to Dobby's servile > > obedience and doting adoration that he doesn't give a second thought > > to ordering a fellow being to do his will, especially one as dangerous > > and devious as Kreacher, who is still capable of doing great harm to a > > hated master. And neither Harry nor Ron (nor I) ever had much use for > > SPEW. > > Bart: > Once again, I think we need to go to Dumbledore for inspiration. Note > that Dumbledore had no problem employing house elves as slaves, nor does > he have any problem recognizing Dobby's freedom. Hermoine is prejudiced > from a human perspective; normally, when enslaved humans claim to love > their slavery, it is due to, at best, ignorance; they know no other > life, and are afraid of what it might bring, and, at worst, for fear of > reprisal. The psychology of house elves seems to be different. Magpie: I basically agree with this, though I now feel compelled to just throw out that Kreacher himself may be a house elf but he is anything but servile. He didn't want to do anything for Harry and expressed that his own wish would be to work for the Malfoys. So there's a slight difference here. Kreacher is a slave bound to obey Harry only because of ancient magic and because Harry is his property. -m From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 16:56:13 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:56:13 -0000 Subject: ESEDDM!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > Absolutely. I have absolutely no problem buying this type of Snape. > You see, despite me having very serious reservations of calling the > man who killed Dumbledore "loyal to Dumbledore", I can see all those > clues discussed multiple times actually turning to be clues in > support of DD!M Snape. Particularly if being "loyal to Dumbledore" involves DD asking Snape to commit murder -- or at least killing. This does seem to clash with the emphasis on how murder tears the soul. Of course, this might help explain part of Snape's constant bitterness. He feels himself to be second in DD's affections to Harry. If DD indeed asked Snape to kill him, knowing what the consequences to Snape would be in terms of soul-ripping or whatever, Snape's anger takes on a new twist. That is, he sees Dumbledore as being perfectly willing to sacrifice him, Severus, to bring about the salvation of Harry Potter. Once again, as with the case of the prank and PoA, Dumbledore shows, in Snape's view, that he holds Snape's life and well-being in little regard, compared with that of first James and now Harry. To use a chess analogy, Severus has become used to being the most powerful piece on Dumbledore's board. But even though he is Queen (not making any sexual references at all, here), Harry is Dumbledore's King in both strategy and affection. Severus has reaped the reward of being the Queen, but in HBP, under this scenario, he learns the bitter truth, that in the end the Queen is just another piece, but the King is everything. Without his Queen Dumbledore would be crippled, strategically and perhaps emotionally if he feels affection for Severus, but without his King he would be strategically and emotionally destroyed. And in the end Severus suffers the fate of many a Queen -- to be sacrificed to save his King. > > Now, I can even buy Snape being a bastard in general, but having > SOME nobility of the character and realising that Voldemort is evil > OR what you said - Snape being a person of really BAD character, but > understanding that Voldemort would be very bad choice to gamble > upon. ( Isn't your Snape in essense some kind of OFH!Snape? Just > trying to clarify.) Is this not where Gray!Snape (my own favorite version) emerges? A Snape who is complex and whose evil side is quite genuine and really evil, but who for any number of reasons is loyal to Dumbledore? LID provides a very good explanation for that. So we have a Snape who really is evil when he does evil things, but who is loyal enough to Dumbledore to do what DD asks. This is a version of Snape who, perhaps in contrast to the version I set out above, is not so much destroyed from without as destroyed from within. His dark tendencies subborn him at critical moments, such as during Occlumency or taking the UV, leading him down paths from which his only redemption can come at fearful cost and probably death. > What I am NOT buying ever and this is of course JMO is "Saint > Severus". You know, the one who after leaving DE did not do ANYTHING > really bad, and even while he was being DE, he did not do anything > REALLY bad , after all he was most likely just preparing potions for > Voldemort and never used any unforgivables. Oh,and of course Harry > should be REALLY grateful for that type of Severus, after all Saint > Severus just protects Harry and/or toughens him for Voldemort. That > variety of Snape makes me laugh. Yes, Saint Severus of Hogwarts really is, IMO, a rather comic figure. As much as his opposite, Eternal Death Eater Severus, he smooths out everything about Snape into one dimension -- which would be dirty pool on JKR's part. In the same vein, for JKR to say, "Oh guess what, Harry has been ever so wrong about all these things -- Draco, the Slytherins, Severus -- the boy really needs to gain wisdom and grow up" would, IMO, be a rather desperate act of cheating and hand-waving on JKR's part. Lupinlore From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 14:37:52 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewijck) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 06:37:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060203143752.31237.qmail@web53208.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147542 bboyminn: >>> In real-life the best comfort is the silent company of our loved ones who are going through the same thing. Our pain is the measure of their grief. So, we sit in silence, and maybe if we are feeling brave, we engage in a reminiscence or two, then fall into silent grief again. They say talking about it makes you feel better, but it doesn't, at least not in the short run. In the short run, talking about it bring up an unbearable pain that no one would willingly face, and we see this with Harry. He can maintain as long as he doesn't talk about it, but as soon as the subject comes up, so does the unbearable pain. So he avoids the subject, and makes peace with the death in question in his own way and in his own time. Perhaps even in the long run, the grief never truly subsides. I've seen World War II veterans in their 70's who have stoically beared their grief in silence for many decades to then be moved to tears by talking about their war experiences. I find this very realistic writing. The beauty of Harry and his story is that I can see real-life in them, and that makes the story far more believable and far more powerful than grand satisfying speeches. <<< maria8162001: I agree with you about Harry's grief. I also could understand him well as I do grieved like Harry. I'm amazed at people who said that Harry's grief wasn't enough, how much more do they want? Everybody grieves differently. I have 6 siblings and I grieve differently from all of them. My siblings and the rest of my relatives likes to talk about it when they are grieving. I, on the otherhand do not want to talk about it because it hurt so much and it makes me cry whenever I start talking about the death of our love ones, so I just want them to leave me alone and deal with it on my own. My siblings and my relatives can talk with ease without really crying, just teary eyes (the tears doesn't actually fall and it stays in their eyes). I cannot talk the way they do when grieving. They often think as well that the death of those close to us/me doesn't affect me, but I don't mind whatever they say because I know better than them. I do not parade/show my grief. I grieve in private, when I'm alone, when nobody sees me. I just want to be left alone. Which in my experience is not really good for the long run as it takes much longer to subsides or to lessen than if you talk about it or show it, I guess. The last death of the person close to me was in 1995 (my grandfather with whom I grew up). During the first 2 years of his death I never talked about it, not even to my husband. My husband and my children saw me cry on my grandfather's death only once and that's when the news of his death reached us. When the tears stops, I do not know what to do or how I felt. It's only then that the shocking truth came to me that my grandfather whom I look up to as a father is gone. The emotion I felt was overwhelming and so I never wanted to talk about it to anybody. After 3 years I could talk about him a little bit but it still make me cry and until now almost 11 years after, it still hurt me and make me cry whenever I talk about him. My siblings and my aunts think I am too emotional. But it has nothing to do with being emotional. It has something to do with the death of my loved ones that still hurt me. With this kind of grief it takes longer to heal than the usual grief which others refer/expeienced (you can plainly see or read it on the postings, most prefer the other kind of grief). Grieving quietly or on your own take longer to subside than the usual as it is burried so deeply. But every individual's grief is different. Those who grieve quietly/silently appear to be fine outside but inside they are hurting so much just the same like the rest, only we cannot show our grief the way others do. I've been seeing a lot of this postings about Harry's grief and it really shows that a lot of people do not understand how individuals' grief is different from person to person. Is it perhaps that there are not much silent griever? That there are not much people who doesn't want to talk about the lost of the person close to them? Maybe JKR's grief is the same like Harry's that is why she expresses Harry's grief the way it is. If I would write a book I would write the grief of my characters the way I do as well. Well, am just glad that I found somebody's posting who understand Harry's grief well. Thanks bboyminn. I'm actually quite fed up reading the same opinion, criticizing Harry's grief over and over. maria8162001 From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Feb 3 18:30:48 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:30:48 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? /Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147543 > Nora responded: > > I thought it was quite BANG-y, but then I suspect I got into the > > pattern of reading which I *think* was quite deliberate, and the > > one which I would guess (as I can't know this unless it's confirmed > > much later) she was out to make, which her mental 'ideal reader' > > would catch onto. We get Spinner's End, with all these > > explanations which seem to point to ESE!, but we the readers know > > better than that, right? And there's Harry, continuing to doubt > > and have suspicions, but he's just biased and unfair. After all, > > Dumbledore believes in Snape and we believe in Dumbledore because > > he's the epitome of goodness and is wiser than us and knows more. > > > > And then Snape ups and kills him. And we-the-readers are left > > either to go "Wow, that was totally BANGy", or to start spinning > > more explanations as to why it wasn't actually a genuine BANG (it > > wasn't an AK curse, they had a plan, Dumbledore isn't actually > > dead, etc.). > Pippin: It was a bang for me, though I am DDM!Snape through and through. Although I'm not clear on who Nora thinks JKR's ideal reader is -- if it's someone who's accepting Harry's evaluation of events without much analysis, Dumbledore's death would be bangy because it never occurred to Harry that Dumbledore might die, much less be murdered. It certainly wouldn't be bangy because Snape dunnit. Harry has considered Snape capable of murder ever since the first Quidditch match way back when. I was stunned, myself, because when I read the books the first time, it doesn't take me long to forget all about theories and get caught up in Harry's POV. I think it was maybe an hour or two after finishing the book that I said to myself, wait a minute, that was the "It's going to look like Snape betrayed Dumbledore" scene that we've been predicting all along. There must be a clue" and then I thought I remembered something about blood on Dumbledore's body. I think my hands were actually shaking as I opened the book again, and there it was: "wiped a trickle of blood from the mouth with his own sleeve." That trickle of blood needs to be accounted for, IMO: it's there for a reason. It's the ESE/OfH!Snaper's who have to invent meta reasons for it to exist or force events to fit the facts, while fake deaths, spell words that have no effect, non-verbal spells, and Dumbledore's ingestion of an unhealthy drink, though they sound "outlandish" are all established canon and perfectly well-accounted for. I didn't have to work super hard to remember them. I do have a good memory for detail, but these are all things that are not only mentioned but mentioned repeatedly. The only thing I had to "research" was whether Dumbledore had the symptoms of poisoning (as he obviously does) and whether that could cause convulsions (it can). There is, then, nothing in canon that death by poisoning cannot account for, which can't be said of death by AK or falling from the tower. Dumbledore has a full beard, as we've been told many times. Have you ever tried to wipe dried blood off someone's hair? Doesn't work. Yet there was plenty of time for a trickle of blood to dry. I don't think there was a specific detailed plan, but I do think DD and Snape discussed at length the possible circumstances under which Snape might be forced to fulfill his vow, and what the alternatives might be. I also think Snape had promised to obey such instructions as "leave me and save yourself." We know that DD did discuss something with Snape and that he was capable of giving such instructions. Harry's demonization of Snape *can't* be right. Even Voldemort, who has literally demonized himself, is not the way he is because he's got "bad character" whatever that is. His evil has natural causes (in the context of the WW). It's what he does, not what he is. > Siriusly Snapey Susan, not a St. Snaper but convinced her DDM!Snape > reading makes sense, too. Pippin: I don't think Snape is a saint either, but I resist the demonization argument. I think Snape believes, deep down, that children must be trained with cruelty -- it wasn't an uncommon belief in the past, and Snape was probably raised with it. IMO, it makes him a poorer teacher and a "deeply horrible person." It doesn't make him a murderer, any more than all the people in the past who acted on such beliefs were murderers. It's interesting that the context of that quote was how much JKR enjoys writing about Snape. C.S. Lewis said that his devils, who were of course demonic, weren't much fun to write. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 18:42:20 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:42:20 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147544 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > > Allie: > > > Okay, even if it's very complicated and requires a lot > > > of hard to find ingredients, what else does Lupin have to do? > > > It's possible that the Wolfsbane potion could be poisonous if not made > exactly right-- the main ingredient being wolfsbane or aconitum > luparia, which like most aconites is fatally toxic. It would explain > why Lupin would be hesitant to experiment-- ... > > -- Sydney, picturing sushichef!Snape > bboyminn: Sadly, I'm going to add very little beyond 'me too'. From American Heritage Dictionary - wolfs?bane n. 1. See monkshood. 2. Any of several poisonous perennial herbs of the genus Aconitum, especially A. lycoctonum, having broad, rounded leaves, elongate racemes, and purple-lilac flowers Perhaps, there is a trade off with Wolfbane potion, true, you do get relief in the short term, but in the long term, the toxic effects of the Wolfsbane build up until they eventually kill you. There are many muggle medications like this that are extremely toxic but when weighed against the disease, they are preferable. So, we really have two possibilities, there may be something in the Wolfsbane Potion that neutralizes the poison, but it must be brewed with extreme care for that to take place. The other option, is that while the Potion will save you in the short term, it will kill you in the long run. Either explanation is sufficient to explain why Remus with his limited resources and limited skills was not able to brew himself a constant supply. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 3 18:40:23 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 12:40:23 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House Elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <893CE2A8-94E4-11DA-80B1-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147545 On Friday, February 3, 2006, at 11:42 AM, sistermagpie wrote: > Magpie: > > I basically agree with this, though I now feel compelled to just > throw out that Kreacher himself may be a house elf but he is > anything but servile.? He didn't want to do anything for Harry and > expressed that his own wish would be to work for the Malfoys.? So > there's a slight difference here.? Kreacher is a slave bound to obey > Harry only because of ancient magic and because Harry is his > property.? > > -m kchuplis: I also get the feeling that there is something about house elves we don't yet know. Also, on Harry's so called "bland" acceptance of Kreacher at the Dursley's, I was rereading that scene last night and Harry is described as viewing Kreacher with words like "repugnant" and "aghast"; so even if he wasn't screaming bloody murder about Kreacher being there, I wouldn't exactly call his response "bland". I would say that Harry and Kreacher have about the same opinion of each other. However, the only alternative would be to kill Kreacher and can we really see Harry doing this? (This in reference to comments up thread.) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Feb 3 18:54:57 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:54:57 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147546 > > Allie: > > > Okay, even if it's very complicated and requires a lot > > > of hard to find ingredients, what else does Lupin have to do? > Sydney > It's possible that the Wolfsbane potion could be poisonous if not made > exactly right-- the main ingredient being wolfsbane or aconitum > luparia, which like most aconites is fatally toxic. It would explain > why Lupin would be hesitant to experiment-- and why other werewolves > are wary of trying it. Only a real master could be trusted to handle > it-- like fugu! Pippin: The ingredients may be too expensive for Lupin to afford, or they might be controlled substances that Lupin couldn't get permission to buy even if he could afford them. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Feb 3 18:55:15 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:55:15 -0000 Subject: ESEDDM!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147547 Alla: > > Absolutely. I have absolutely no problem buying this type of > > Snape. You see, despite me having very serious reservations of > > calling the man who killed Dumbledore "loyal to Dumbledore", I > > can see all those clues discussed multiple times actually turning > > to be clues in support of DD!M Snape. Lupinlore: > Particularly if being "loyal to Dumbledore" involves DD asking > Snape to commit murder -- or at least killing. This does seem to > clash with the emphasis on how murder tears the soul. Of course, > this might help explain part of Snape's constant bitterness. He > feels himself to be second in DD's affections to Harry. If DD > indeed asked Snape to kill him, knowing what the consequences to > Snape would be in terms of soul-ripping or whatever, Snape's anger > takes on a new twist. That is, he sees Dumbledore as being > perfectly willing to sacrifice him, Severus, to bring about the > salvation of Harry Potter. Once again, as with the case of the > prank and PoA, Dumbledore shows, in Snape's view, that he holds > Snape's life and well-being in little regard, compared with that of > first James and now Harry. > > To use a chess analogy, Severus has become used to being the most > powerful piece on Dumbledore's board. But even though he is Queen > (not making any sexual references at all, here), Harry is > Dumbledore's King in both strategy and affection. SSSusan: YES YES YES! In these comments, I agree with you wholeheartedly!! I understand why many listees can't reconcile DD asking Snape to kill him with the DD they feel they know, knowing that such a request would (or might, if sacrificial killing is different than cold- blooded murder) tear Snape's soul. But I believe that DD *did* make this HUGE request of Snape, KNOWING that it was a tremendously awful thing to ask of him. And not only is it an awful thing to ask of Snape -- possibly tearing his soul, causing the Order members to disbelieve his loyalty, asking him to return to behaviors he perhaps engaged in as a DE and wanted to leave wholly behind -- but, as you say, in the process it would also reinforce, to Snape, that HARRY MATTERS MORE to DD. All of these factors could easily lead to a look of revulsion and hatred on Snape's face, no? Snape would do it, because DD wanted him to and because it's for the good of many things in the long run, but he could still be royally ticked that he "has" to and that DD apparently cares more about Harry Potter than him. Alla: > > Now, I can even buy Snape being a bastard in general, but having > > SOME nobility of the character and realising that Voldemort is > > evil.... Lupinlore: > Is this not where Gray!Snape (my own favorite version) emerges? A > Snape who is complex and whose evil side is quite genuine and > really evil, but who for any number of reasons is loyal to > Dumbledore? So we have a Snape who really is evil when he > does evil things, but who is loyal enough to Dumbledore to do what > DD asks. This is a version of Snape who, perhaps in contrast to > the version I set out above, is not so much destroyed from without > as destroyed from within. His dark tendencies subborn him at > critical moments, such as during Occlumency or taking the UV, > leading him down paths from which his only redemption can come at > fearful cost and probably death. Alla: > > What I am NOT buying ever and this is of course JMO is "Saint > > Severus". You know, the one who after leaving DE did not do > > ANYTHING really bad, and even while he was being DE, he did not > > do anything REALLY bad.... SSSusan: Again, yes! These comments capture many of my thoughts & beliefs exactly. It also points out, I think, that sometimes we're arguing semantics, not actually the different CONTENT we may be *assuming* about people's arguments here. By way of explanation, what Lupinlore calls Grey!Snape, I call DDM! Snape. It's just that *my* version of DDM!Snape is no saint and no "Never was a TRUE Death Eater" and no "But he's TOTALLY good underneath it all." In assigning him a label, I focus on where the *loyalty* lies, hence the DDM!Snape label; but loyalty to DD doesn't = "overall goodness," so he's NO Saint Snape. Siriusly Snapey Susan, thinking perhaps there's more common ground between DDM!Snape and Grey!Snape than many believe. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 18:56:14 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 18:56:14 -0000 Subject: Parsel tongue (has this been asked?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147548 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "laura" wrote: > > I apologise if this has already been discussed and answered.... > > ....Can Dumbledore speak Parsel Tongue? I was re-reading HBP > (again) and when DD and HP go into Bob Ogden's memory DD asks > Harry if he can understand Marvolo and Morfin...he doesn't ask > for a translation, nor does he indicate that he doesn't > understand!! > > Can Parsel Tongue be learned? If so..then why in CoS was it such > a big deal the HP could speak it(besides the obvious!!) > > Sorry again if this has already been covered!!! > > Laura > bboyminn: Well, this has been touched on before, but never with any clear resolution. The best I can do is give you my opinion. I don't think Dumbledore speaks or understands Parsletongue, but I think he knows it when he hears it. Although I'm very much out of practice now, I used to be able to identify the various Asian languages when I heard them even though I hardly speak a word of any of them. I think Dumbledore is doing the same thing. He knows he is dealing with the Heirs of Slytherin, and he knows that it is likely that they speak Parsletongue. So, when they start 'hissing' at each other he knows what they are doing. Further, I think Dumbledore can divine a great deal of the nature of what is being said by body language and demeanor. When Dumbledore asks Harry if he understands what they are saying, I think he is simply giving him a clue. In a sense, he is helping Harry understand for himself who these people are and why they are there. As far as learning Snake language like any other language, I don't think so. I don't think Snake language has the clear ridged syntax and structure that normal language has. When Harry hears the Snake speak in what he preceives to be sturctured language, I think that is a translation between his intuition which understands what is being said, and his logical mind which gives it it's structure. So, I think that understanding Snake language is very intuitive and is a gift that few people have. If you aren't naturally skilled at picking up the language on an intutive level, then it would be next to impossible to learn. Again, that's just my opinion on the matter. Steve/bboyminn From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 3 19:01:06 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:01:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <20060203143752.31237.qmail@web53208.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6E4645C0-94E7-11DA-80B1-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147549 On Friday, February 3, 2006, at 08:37 AM, Maria Vaerewijck wrote: > Maybe JKR's grief is the same like Harry's that is why she expresses > Harry's grief the way it is. If I would write a book I would write > the grief of my characters the way I do as well. > > Well, am just glad that I found somebody's posting who understand > Harry's grief well. Thanks bboyminn. > > I'm actually quite fed up reading the same opinion, criticizing > Harry's grief over and over. > > maria8162001 > > > kchuplis: I think many of us feel this way. I think it's perfectly written, myself. But on a tangent, I was thinking last night, about Harry and Sirius in relation to what Sirius meant to Harry, brief though their association was. I know that when I lost my father, at least half of my grief was fro my mother and the other half was for my lost "safety net". I was 28 and certainly pretty independent at that point and yet, if there was ever going to be some trouble I needed help with, I *knew* my father was there and when he died, in less than a minute my world completely changed and I felt really vulnerable for the first time in my life. I'm sure all of us who have lost a parent can identify with this. Now, the last two years, I've become quite afraid of when I lose my mother. Sometimes after a conversation with her I kind of "pre-grieve" which is just awful and I just tell myself not to go there, but I know that when my mother dies, I will feel alone. Completely alone; no matter that I have friends and siblings, it isn't the same thing. The last vestiges of my feeling safe, the thing our parents give us (whether true in reality or not) will be gone. Now, what is it like for someone who has grown up in an environment where you don't feel that way? Obviously, Harry never had that at all before entering the WW. The Dursley's simply didn't provide that kind of environment. Even tough love parents, or strict parents (or guardians) still provide the feeling that they are THERE in a capacity for you. So, enter Sirius who immediately, once the real reason for his presence in PoA is found, represents a figure, who was connected to his parents and broke out of a prison, swam a sea, lived on rats and in deploring conditions, basically to protect Harry. For someone who was deprived of this growing up, I don't think it would take long at all to welcome that feeling of not being alone of having someone who would always back you up (whether you need that or not). This isn't an answer to anything about the Harry/grief for Sirius prospect, but it really is interesting to think about. Harry actually spent more "me" time with Sirius than he did with Dumbledore. As indicated in the first scene with him in HBP, Harry is uncomfortable with DD. He has never had an outside of Hogwarts conversation with him. DD has been much more involved with Harry than Harry with DD. So, in truth, despite the limited time with Sirius, it was still more "family" time than Harry had ever experienced before. It's just another something to think about in the whole scheme of things. I don't know if JKR ever thought that far into the subject and yet, I feel that really is part of the whole character relationship with Harry and Sirius. From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 19:10:56 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:10:56 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147550 Sydney: > > It's possible that the Wolfsbane potion could be poisonous if not made > > exactly right-- the main ingredient being wolfsbane or aconitum > > luparia, which like most aconites is fatally toxic. > > bboyminn: > there may be something in the > Wolfsbane Potion that neutralizes the poison, but it must be brewed > with extreme care for that to take place. Sydney: >From the every-useful Wikipedia: "Aconitine is a potent neurotoxin that blocks tetrodotoxin-sensitive sodium channels. Pretreatment with barakol (10 mg/kg i.v. - that is intravenously - the compound is isolated from the leaves of Cassia siamea Lam) reduces the incidence of aconitine-induced ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia, as well as mortality." Always good to reduce that mortality! In PoA, when Snape brings Lupin his potion it is described as 'steaming', and Snape tells Lupin he had better drink it immediately. Of course Snape will say anything if can be annoying, but I think there's an indication that the potion isn't stable-- perhaps it's held in an emulsion, or needs to reach a certain temperature and not cool down. That would explain why you can't just buy it bottled-- or surely Sirius would have provided some cash for that? If you need to be physically at the same place the potion is made (flooing or apparating being too disruptive to the potion), the difficulties of obtaining it would be compounded. Altogether, I think the reason Lupin doesn't make his own potion, or has another Order member do it at Grimmauld Place, is that it really IS that hard, and failure would be a little more serious than a collapsed souffle. -- Sydney, who IS going to reply to the ESE! thread but was at work till ungodly hours last night and needs to wake up a little first From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Feb 3 19:25:21 2006 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:25:21 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion References: Message-ID: <007601c628f7$94d10fc0$c9340152@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 147551 ----- Original Message ----- From: "pippin_999" Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion > The ingredients may be too expensive for Lupin to afford, or they > might be controlled substances that Lupin couldn't get permission > to buy even if he could afford them. Or perhaps one of them has to be picked at the full moon by the hand of the potion maker, which would automatically make it impossible for Remus. hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 19:36:42 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:36:42 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147552 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > It was a bang for me, though I am DDM!Snape through and through. > Although I'm not clear on who Nora thinks JKR's ideal reader is -- > if it's someone who's accepting Harry's evaluation of events > without much analysis, Dumbledore's death would be bangy because it > never occurred to Harry that Dumbledore might die, much less be > murdered. I think (and this is a guess) that her ideal reader is someone whose fundamental sympathies and inclinations lie with Harry. She certainly doesn't understand people who read the books and don't find him to be the hero and the sympathetic character. But she is playing a game with us-the-reader in HBP because of the inclusion of these chapters where we aren't riding on Harry's shoulder, so she's playing our inclinations against each other. One strong one is that we've seen things Harry hasn't, so we say "Snape? Nah. Too obvious, and we trust Dumbledore." But there is always a strong pull to feel what Harry does, because we're put into his head and thus know him in a way that we don't any of the other characters. Harry is by far the most real and detailed person in the series. > while fake deaths, spell words that have no effect, non-verbal > spells, and Dumbledore's ingestion of an unhealthy drink, though > they sound "outlandish" are all established canon and perfectly > well-accounted for. We've argued this before, but not in this forum, so I'll throw it out there again: what's gained by your "It wasn't an AK curse that Snape used, but he threw a poisoned Dumbledore off the parapets" explanation? (Let's leave aside the general amusement that I have on thinking about how this would have to be explained in the next book.) It's *just* to save Snape from having used AK, right? I think that's a cop-out. One can still believe in DDM!Snape who used the curse, as I know SSSusan does. Then it's a case of embracing and appreciating the horror and profound pathos of Snape's actions, forced to use an Unforgivable in a situation where he doesn't want to, ripping his soul in Dumbledore's service and committing a sacrifice of himself. Is your Snape somehow profoundly morally improved by this explanation? Does it keep his soul clean so that when all is revealed, it turns out that no, he's innocent, and it's that much easier to accept him as good? I don't see the thematic payoff for this amelioration of a horrific action. If the theme is meant to be that it's horrible and BANGy, it works. But if the theme is meant to be that it's a horrifying decision for Snape and it's very difficult for him, then coming up with a reason for why oh, it's actually not so bad, defangs it in a way that just seems, well, cheap to me. I know you disagree, so I'd love to hear from other listies here. > Harry's demonization of Snape *can't* be right. Even Voldemort, who > has literally demonized himself, is not the way he is because he's > got "bad character" whatever that is. His evil has natural causes > (in the context of the WW). It's what he does, not what he is. "Our choices show who we are" not your thing? :) There's an excluded middle here. Harry's *demonization* of Snape is something I think he has to deal with, because it's distracting and crippling and limits his vision. You can't understand what you demonize. This does not, however, mean that Snape is not potentially evil in a profound way. It's still an open possibility amongst many. -Nora curses at the rain From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Feb 3 19:40:44 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:40:44 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005201c628f9$b9ff93a0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 147553 Sydney: > > It's possible that the Wolfsbane potion could be poisonous if not made > > exactly right-- the main ingredient being wolfsbane or aconitum > > luparia, which like most aconites is fatally toxic. > Sherry now: I think of potions as being similar to chemistry, or even in the case of something like Wolf's bane, pharmacology. Some people, including me, are no good at Chemistry and would not dare create my own medications. and it wouldn't be legal anyway. i have to take meds for arthritis, that can be very harmful to the rest of my body over time. Even if I had a recipe, I wouldn't dare make them for fear of poisoning myself or causing some other problem. I think it's as simple as that for Lupin. Sherry From newbrigid at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 15:29:33 2006 From: newbrigid at yahoo.com (Lia) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 07:29:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060203152933.69869.qmail@web31714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147554 bboyminn wrote: >> But is that how it happens in real-life? Do we really want to 'talk about it'? In real-life there is no satisfaction in death. Mostly we suffer in silence. In real-life the best comfort is the silent company of our loved ones who are going through the same thing. Our pain is the measure of their grief. So, we sit in silence, and maybe if we are feeling brave, we engage in a reminiscence or two, then fall into silent grief again. No long soliloquies, no thick Shakespearian accents, no satisfing eulogies; just grief and time and silence. They say talking about it makes you feel better, but it doesn't, at least not in the short run. In the short run, talking about it bring up an unbearable pain that no one would willingly face, and we see this with Harry. He can maintain as long as he doesn't talk about it, but as soon as the subject comes up, so does the unbearable pain. So he avoids the subject, and makes peace with the death in question in his own way and in his own time. << Lia says: At the risk of sounding like I am posting a "yeah, what he said" post, I still must state that you are right on the money as far as expressions of grief. Here's why I believe that: My father, to whom I was very close and whose personality and temperament and eyes I possess, passed away in the summer of 1994. It was an unexpected passing. Now, I am an extremely loquacious, expressive and emotional individual. However, not once have I shown outward signs of grief in public since he died...not even at his service! Moreover, I haven't ever really cried in front of my mother (the only one who really would understand why), and haven't even wept much in general. Understand, this is VERY out of character for me. Sometimes I've wondered why I don't seem to feel more. I've just gone about my business, and only occasionally will get a little "tripped" up, usually when someone says or does something that reminds me of my father. I've come to realize that this is just my way of dealing with death. In short, instead of talking, I have been silent. Perhaps it's the same with Harry. He strikes me as having the potential to display lots of emotion (and has done so in certain instances throughtout the books), but even though that's part of his nature, he may deal with death in a seemingly "out of character" way. In addition, I think that young men often feel that it isn't appropriate for them to weep, even though they may have a darned good reason for doing so. On a semi-related note: perhaps one reason why Cedric's death seems, at least at face value, to be more disturbing to him, is that it hit too close to home. Cedric was YOUNG, like Harry, whereas Sirius (and Dumbledore) were not. Also, Cedric was more innocent than Sirius or Dumbledore (although I think that they were both good men), which also makes his death more troubling. Just my two cents (or two Knuts, if you prefer)... Lia, who hopes she was rambling on TOO much From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Feb 3 18:31:10 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:31:10 -0500 Subject: Redemption, Child Abuse, and Literary Taste Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147555 Lupinlore: "And what's so great about that? Seriously, I've never understood the whole "Harry must stand on his own," thing. It seems a slavish service to the hackneyed Hero's Journey. I do understand it better, however, now that JKR has discussed her death neurosis. She is attempting, through Harry, to grapple with something she finds terribly important and frightening. Unfortunately, to those of us who don't share her neurosis and are tired of constant harping on the Hero's Journey, the deaths of Dumbledore and Sirius were pointless and annoying." Hey, if you don't like HP, that's fine; not everyone can like everything. But why spend so much time and energy on reading, discussing, and analyzing a body of literature that you obviously dislike? Why not concentrate your energies on something that you do like? There are other books in the world, you know. Lupinlore: "Absolutely I foist my moral expectations on JKR and I make no apology for that whatsoever. I fight tooth and nail for what I am firmly convinced is morally correct and I expect others to do likewise, and to give as good as they get. And absolutely I hold that if Snipe is not punished for his child abuse that JKR will have reprehensibly failed, and I think that is a perfectly fair judgment, which, as you say, will not bother her in the least. And you are quite right that I am a very pompous individual, for which once again I make absolutely no apology whatsoever, nor am I going to change." Your moral values are that--YOURS. To expect that everyone else--especially JKR, whose background, upbringing, and culture are all very different (I'd imagine) from your own--is ludicrous. And how is Snipe a child abuser? He is harsh, unfair, and mean, but those do not rise to child abuse. I've seen real child abuse. Snipe is nowhere in that league. And, for all his harshness, unfairness, and meanness, he is a good teacher--his students LEARN THE MATERIAL. It is not necessary to be cuddly to be a good teacher, and in a subject like Potions where a mistake might get one killed, a harsh, unforgiving teacher may well be better than a sweet understanding one. Michelle: "LV is unredeemable. There is nothing he could do to make up for all the damage he has caused, there just isn't. Besides, throughout this series JKR has multiple times reminded us that he cares for no one, he has no friends and no desire to have friends. IMO he is without humanity and therefore unredeemable." JKR has stated that she is a Christian and that anyone who knows this should be able to figure out the ending. Christianity is all about redemption. A central teaching of the religion is that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ who gave his life not for good, righteous people, but for the worst sinners. He came to seek and save the lost, the sinful, the broken, the unloved. And who is more of all those things than Tom Riddle? BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Sherry at PebTech.net Fri Feb 3 19:50:44 2006 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:50:44 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > > > > > Allie: > > > > Isn't it VERY unusual that Lupin has *not* mastered the Wolfsbane > > potion? Okay, even if it's very complicated and requires a lot > > of hard to find ingredients, what else does Lupin have to do? > > He barely works because of his condition. .... The man has had > > OVER 20 YEARS to learn how to make it! ... > > bboyminn: > > One small factor that you are overlooking Allie,...MONEY. You said it > yourself, Lupin doesn't work. Where is he going to get the money to > brew the potion. Not only the ingredients, but he must have a suitable > place to brew it. Not likely in a one room flat. > > Also, Wolfsbane Potion is relatively recent.... > [snip] So, if the Wolfbane Potion was > only invented 20 to 25 years ago, that probably implies it took a > certain amount of time for the information to spread and for the > general public to become aware of the potion and exactly how it was > brewed. So, based on this assumption, Lupin really hasn't had 20 years > to learn how to make it. > Amontillada: Wolfsbane Potion definitely had not been invented when Lupin and the other Marauders were students. In PoA Ch. 18, Lupin explains that the whole elaborate arrangement with the Whomping Willow, the tunnel, and ultimately the transfiguration of James et. al. were built up precisely because at that time, there was way to prevent his transformation. Wolfsbane Potion is a recent innovation, developed since he left school--in the last 15 to 20 years. Snape's being one of the few wizards who can brew it successfully indicates that he's not only a gifted potion-maker, but also that he works to increase both his knowledge about and his skill in new potion discoveries. Amontillada From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Feb 3 20:26:52 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 20:26:52 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147557 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > > > Pippin: > > It was a bang for me, though I am DDM!Snape through and through. > > Although I'm not clear on who Nora thinks JKR's ideal reader is - - > > if it's someone who's accepting Harry's evaluation of events > > without much analysis, Dumbledore's death would be bangy because it > > never occurred to Harry that Dumbledore might die, much less be > > murdered. Nora: > > I think (and this is a guess) that her ideal reader is someone whose > fundamental sympathies and inclinations lie with Harry. She > certainly doesn't understand people who read the books and don't find > him to be the hero and the sympathetic character. > > But she is playing a game with us-the-reader in HBP because of the > inclusion of these chapters where we aren't riding on Harry's > shoulder, so she's playing our inclinations against each other. One > strong one is that we've seen things Harry hasn't, so we say "Snape? > Nah. Too obvious, and we trust Dumbledore." But there is always a > strong pull to feel what Harry does, because we're put into his head > and thus know him in a way that we don't any of the other > characters. Harry is by far the most real and detailed person in the > series. Magpie: That seems like an unreasonable gamble on the writer's part. I completely agree with your explanation of how Harry might learn that he shouldn't demonize Snape because that can obscure Harry's vision, but that this could still leave Snape free to encompass actual evil. (As a former DE, I think at the very least we have to accept that he has done evil in the past, so you can't say "Snape would never do that!") But it seems odd to base the whole surprise of your book on the chance that most of your readers will disregard your telling them what's going to happen because you're just that tricky. Especially given the UV. Once Snape takes it we know he's got to either do an evil DE deed or die (and I can't have been the only one who never doubted the deed was to kill Dumbledore). I mean, mike_smith on lj read HBP without ever reading any of the other books before, and surely other people might do that too. Dumbledore's trust in Snape has always been highlighted as a shaky idea since he's always refused to explain it, and he's got a history of underestimating things about other peoples' characters. Not to mention that what we see always takes precedence over what we're told--hence the one vision we have of Snape sitting alone and being picked on completely obscures our being told he gave as good as he got and was in a gang. Here we *see* Snape being a DE and we only hear Dumbledore say he's on his side. Plus even if we do discount Snape in chapter two, that's still JKR giving us the same bang twice. Snape outs himself as a current DE in chapter two, and then again in chapter 32? (Or whatever chapter he was.) That's not exactly a "bang" so much as "I really meant that bang back in chapter two!" As would a later explanation retroactively bang the Lightning Struck Tower. Snape killing Dumbledore is shocking no matter what, but the shock that Snape is a traitor doesn't work if it's been discussed outright since chapter two. If the author makes a bang and nobody hears it for a several chapters, it's not a bang. Not that this means Snape has to be DDM or ESE or in between--there are plenty of possibilities, but like Carol, that moment didn't come across to me like a big surprise or seem like Dumbledore was really wrong. My instinct based on stuff before and after it left me feeling much the same way about Snape as I did before, leaning towards DDM. -m From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 20:47:07 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 20:47:07 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147558 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Magpie: > Dumbledore's trust in Snape has always been highlighted as a shaky > idea since he's always refused to explain it, and he's got a > history of underestimating things about other peoples' characters. But we're still encouraged to believe in him wholeheartedly, despite all the flaws and such seeded through the books. I started getting nervous about it back in OotP, where Ron and Hermione split over Snape and Hermione pulls out the "If we can't trust DD who can we trust?" card. And one of the cornerstones of belief in DDM! is that Dumbledore can't possibly have been that wrong--so all those readers, a substantial portion of the list, are choosing to view those hints of shakiness as not key to what happens. I'm not saying that this is a perfectly obvious BANG in which everything is resolved, because it's written with ambiguity of motive and the like. I don't think it's as ambiguous as some listies want to make it, but we're all experts at finding ambiguity where none turns out to exist. > Not to mention that what we see always takes precedence over what > we're told--hence the one vision we have of Snape sitting alone and > being picked on completely obscures our being told he gave as good > as he got and was in a gang. Here we *see* Snape being a DE and we > only hear Dumbledore say he's on his side. My uncharitable explanation here (don't flay me, plz) is that it involves Snape and a tendency to assume the best of him and to argue therefore. Hence something like the "It was a fake AK" argument, you know. Or maybe it's just the desire to believe the best of the good guys in most situations. Young!Snape is the underdog in the scene that we see, so we ignore what else we've heard. But Dumbledore's trust points to the better side of things, so we take that over what we've seen. > Plus even if we do discount Snape in chapter two, that's still JKR > giving us the same bang twice. I'm going to stand by my position that the BANG is totally dependent upon the process of reading here, but when is it not? I figured out early in PoA that Sirius Black wasn't evil, which certainly lessened the BANG of Peter (although that's still her finest hour in terms of pulling one out, hands down). These books are very different in the re-reading than in the initial pass. I suspect that future generations, spoiled from the beginning and having all seven at once, won't think up half of what we have on here. > Snape outs himself as a current DE in chapter two, and then again > in chapter 32? But chapter two is set up to be as confusing as possible. For instance, Snape tells us he had something to do with Black's death. That could be a tipoff to us-the-readers that he's lying. (Or a setup for a future BANG, but that's a slim chance.) Narcissa and Bellatrix don't know what to make of Snape for sure there, and neither do we. This is deliberate. It's all talk and one action. The Tower scene is the big action. > Snape killing Dumbledore is shocking no matter what... Hence labeling it a BANG. > but the shock that Snape is a traitor doesn't work if it's been > discussed outright since chapter two. If the author makes a bang > and nobody hears it for a several chapters, it's not a bang. I don't agree, because I think we've been led to discount the opinion that Snape is actually a traitor. The BANG does not have to come out of nowhere and have no preparation, it is merely the opposite to the Steady State, where things move at a gradual rate. I think it all made more sense back when we'd talk about the Destroyer. :) Chapter 2 is the setup for events, and things could go any number of ways from there. And at least for me, the process of reading the book without knowing what would happen is the process of trying to sort through what I knew as to truth and falsehood. That said, the suddenness of events surprised me. YMMV, but I do believe this still meets the basic standards of BANG...if, alas, it is not the BANG which we wanted. -Nora says that maybe it's a little like the end of Gotterdammerung. I mean, you totally know everyone's going to die, but it's still BANG- y when Hagen spears Siegfried in the back From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 20:53:12 2006 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 12:53:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR's dealing with emotions /Harry's grief over Sirius - realistic or not? In-Reply-To: <3AA1F56E-92E9-11DA-8414-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: <20060203205312.83539.qmail@web36813.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147559 I tried cutting and pasting other remarks on the thread, then gave up in despair (although I wasn't demonstrative about it...) As I've been reading parts of this thread, I'm reminded of Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, wherein Elinor and Marianne are contrasts in dealing with strong emotion. Austen makes a point of giving Elinor the "stiff upper lip and keep the home fires burning" attitude, while Marianne (and Mrs. Dashwood, for that matter) express, even revel in their grief, first over the death of the girls' father, then in Willoughby's betrayal. Marianne and Mrs. D discount Elinor's suffering because it isn't demonstrated, yet her feelings are at least as deep as theirs. Austen's brilliance is in demonstrating Elinor's controlled behavior and Marianne's over-the-top reactions without making judgment. We see that Elinor's self-control serves her in better stead, but we never wish Marianne were just like Elinor. In a sense, we can see a parallel with Sirius and Harry in dealing with profound loss. Sirius is, almost literally, mad with grief. When he is captured after the confrontation with PP, he is laughing like a madman. He displays impetuous, indeed sometimes thoughtless, behavior and allows his emotions to dictate his actions, often. Harry, although no Elinor, shows more restraint in HBP for similar reasons, I believe. He has a larger task at hand, and falling apart in the aftermath of Sirius' death serves no one. We're given a less-controlled Harry in OOP, and we're shown his growth through his increasing self-control in HBP. I definitely believe that personal experience can't help but color the reaction to JKR's use of controlled grief. Those of us who had to be the "strong" person at a time of profound grief are likely both to understand Harry's reactions and fill in any gaps that may exist in the literal narrative. So there! akh, always gleeful when she figures out a way to sneak in Jane Austen references. --------------------------------- Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 3 20:57:49 2006 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 20:57:49 -0000 Subject: Lack of Memorial for Sirius (was Re: JKR's dealing with emotions) In-Reply-To: <00b401c62899$9be7e0d0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147560 > Sherry now: > (lots of excellent post snipped) > i hope there is a plot reason for there to have been no service, because > Harry deserved to have one, if nothing else. no, everyone around him didn't > even need to talk about it, but just the being together, the unspoken > surrounding and support from whoever would have attended could have been > important to Harry. It isn't really even a matter of comfort, because > nothing and no words can comfort, but it is a matter of feeling the love and > support of others. and that does help, a tiny bit. maybe, when Harry goes > to Godric's hollow, he can do his own private memorial for his parents, for > Sirius and for Dumbledore. > lucianam: Those are my exact feelings on the subject. It seems so cruel that Harry, Sirius's friends, and us, the readers, were all denied evena tiny mention of a memorial service, so now I think there's GOT to be a good plot reason. And I hate to be redundant, but since I might as well put up a great big HE IS ALIVE!! neon sign accross my front door (I mean Sirius), well... of all the plot reasons the best one is that he's alive. You know what, the funny thing is that since the publication of OotP I've been through misery because I thought Sirius had died, doubtful hope because some people were posting about his possible escape, anger because he was barely mentioned in HBP, and now I'm excited and confident that he's alive and JKR is a clever writer. So she's not cruel or insensitive, just clever and her not giving much thought to Sirius in HBP will make sense in Book 7. I hope so, or I'll be very disappointed. But I'm not afraid of having expectations. lucianam From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 20:43:01 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 20:43:01 -0000 Subject: Redemption, Child Abuse, and Literary Taste In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > JKR has stated that she is a Christian and that anyone who knows this should be > able to figure out the ending. Christianity is all about redemption. A central > teaching of the religion is that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ > who gave his life not for good, righteous people, but for the worst sinners. He > came to seek and save the lost, the sinful, the broken, the unloved. And who is > more of all those things than Tom Riddle? > You know, you are absolutely right. Christianity does indeed have those central tenets. The problem is that JKR has stated that, in her view, Voldemort and Tom Riddle are the same person (it was back during the discussion of the identity of the HBP, when people said just because she had said it wasn't Voldemort didn't mean it wasn't Tom Riddle). So, the idea that Voldemort and Tom Riddle are different people, i.e. a redemption scenario which features the "death" of Voldemort and the "life" of Tom Riddle, seems to fly in the face of JKR's pronouncement. Therefore, a redemption means a redemption not of Tom Riddle, but of Lord Voldemort. Now, what would this really mean? What would a good Lord Voldemort look like? It's an interesting question, one that I, for one, would like to hear theories about. We also have the circumstance of Grindlewald and Dumbledore. Dumbledore is, supposedly, the "epitome of goodness." I have problems with that, but there you have it. If we are to look at anyone as a model for how JKR thinks "dark lords" should be dealt with, it would have to be DD. And yet all the evidence we have is that he killed Grindlewald. We may find out that isn't the truth. However, for the present, it seems that he literally killed the man. He didn't redeem him. Of course Harry is not DD. Maybe Harry is meant to be GREATER than Dumbledore? If he redeems Voldy, whereas DD killed Grindlewald, then the word "greater" would seem to fit. Lupinlore, who will defer to Alla when it comes to definitions of child abuse, as hers are ever so much better than his From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 21:10:53 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewijck) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 13:10:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060203211053.18413.qmail@web53214.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147562 Kemper now: > The problem with Harry's coping of Sirius' death isn't that > long, Shakespearean soliloquies are absent from the text, > it's that Harry isn't shown waking with a tear-soaked pillow > or something similar to show the reader the depth of Harry's > loss and how he was hurting silently. All JKR had to write > was a short, simple sentence and it would have been clear. > But we didn't get that, we got some movie version of macho > man-child, stiff upper-lip, "Sirius wouldn't want blahblah..." > soliloquy that left the reader emotionally unsatisfied. maria8162001: I don't think all the readers were left emotionally unsatisfied, IMO, only those who grieve differently from Harry are the ones who are not satisfied. I, on the otherhand was very well satisfied, but then, I bear my grief the way Harry does, oftentimes, many people think I'm unaffected. The silent grievers may show outward strength and unaffected emotional expression but that doesn't mean they are not hurting. They are hurting just the way other grievers do and maybe even more as silent grief tend to go so deep that it takes longer to subsides. But one cannot help it. Each individual grieve differently. Not even the writer can really express how the silent griever feels unless the writer feels the same or experience the same and again even silent grievers varry from one another. The only signs that you can see and which is consistent with the silent grievers are thier unaffected outward emotions and strength. That is why most of the time they are being criticized by those who grieve differently from them. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Feb 3 21:26:20 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:26:20 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147563 > -Nora says that maybe it's a little like the end of Gotterdammerung. > I mean, you totally know everyone's going to die, but it's still BANG- > y when Hagen spears Siegfried in the back Magpie: There is also Hitchcock's definition of suspense vs. surprise: if the characters are talking about something a bomb goes off, that's a surprise. If you know there's a bomb under the table and the characters don't, no matter what the characters are talking about that's suspense. Setting Snape up the way he is definitely creates suspense. I feel like throughout the book JKR is throwing out evidence on both sides. We've got these signs that Harry interprets as Snape being a DE, we see Snape himself claim to be a DE. Then we've got Dumbledore who seems to know everything that's going on and claims to have a reason for trusting Snape completely (and Dumbledore is all-knowing etc.) Then we've got wildcards like the conversation with Hagrid etc. So I do think that it could go either way, and that works for it. And the AK is a huge deal as an action either way. Really I'm more against discounting any piece of evidence yet. Like, just as we shouldn't, imo, start looking for ways Snape wasn't really a DE or that wasn't really an AK, nor should be brush aside hints that there's more info to come about his work for DD. -m From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 3 21:37:38 2006 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:37:38 -0000 Subject: Some counter-thoughts on ESE!Lupin in HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147564 > Amontillada wrote: > Yes, a transformed werewolf can be capable of attacking people > whom his/her human self would never hurt! Lupin takes Wolfsbane Potion > in order to avoid that very danger. > > > > In any case, as we've learned in PoA, it's quite common for other > wizards to assume that ALL werewolves are dangerous, even though there > > is now a potion that helps to control this peril. >Allie: (snipped) > Isn't it VERY unusual that Lupin has *not* mastered the Wolfsbane > potion? Okay, even if it's very complicated and requires a lot of > hard to find ingredients, what else does Lupin have to do? He > barely > works because of his condition. The Order didn't re-form until > recently. Seems to me like he might have had some spare time on his > hands. I would think that he would make learning to brew Wolfsbane > his primary goal. lucianam: It's a good idea, I think, that Tonks could be worried about the Minister blaming Lupin for what other werewolf did (Amontillada). As I said in my first message, all the points I suggested could probably have innocent explanations. But the point is (at least my point is) there are some pretty nasty explanations, too. No canon proof, but good foundations if JKR is setting up ESE!Lupin. And I agree with Allie that it's strange Lupin never learned to make Wolfsbane. Well maybe he'd have to be top-class, as good as Snape, but still... *shrugs* It looks as he doesn't try too hard. Carol: > Re Tonks: (much snipped) > > So while I don't think that the Tonks/Lupin subplot is particularly > well-handled, I don't think there's any unsolved mystery attached to > it. (To be frank, I think the subplot is just a set-up to show that > Patronuses can change and perhaps a variation on the theme of > obsessive love having detrimental effects, also demonstrated through > Merope and earlier through Barty Jr.'s mother's love for her son.) > lucianam: Frankly I don't think the 'Patronuses can change after great emotional shock' is canon. Who tells us that? Lupin, who is under suspicion of ESE!ness. And boy does he take his time to chew his turkey before he mumbles that answer. Snape also gives us some words on her Patronus. He tells Tonks he 'was interested to see her new Patronus.' He also says, with malice in his voice, 'I think you were better off with the old one, the new one looks weak.' And that's all, there's no confirmation that someone's Patronus can really change. Maybe it can't. People have a lot of different ideas about Tonks, well, suppose she really is someone else pretending to be her and that's why the Patronus is different, and Snape knows it. He lets her know he knows, with a great deal of malice. 'I'm on your secret, I know you're not Tonks,' is perhaps what he means by that little confrontation. Or maybe a person's Patronus CAN change, but not because of emotional shock. There could be other reason Lupin didn't tell Harry. And what animal is her Patronus, anyway? Is it really Moony? Not canon confirmed, at least not for those readers who suspect Remus/Tonks is a red herring and not a real relationship. Maybe there is such a thing as too many red herrings, but I bet we're still missing a few. lucianam From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 21:40:36 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:40:36 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147565 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > So I do think that it could go either way, and that works for it. > And the AK is a huge deal as an action either way. Really I'm more > against discounting any piece of evidence yet. Like, just as we > shouldn't, imo, start looking for ways Snape wasn't really a DE or > that wasn't really an AK, nor should be brush aside hints that > there's more info to come about his work for DD. I agree wholeheartedly that it could go either way, and it's been set up to make us think of the options--even if it does ultimately settle on one or the other. To bring it back around to the subject heading, that's precisely the reason that I don't find a new reveal of an ESE!character in book seven to be either likely or necessary. If we find out that Snape is ESE!, confirming one reading of the dramatic events at the end of HBP, then we have all kinds of issues of interest there. Same thing if he's DDM! or OFH!, or whatever framework we ultimately get to provide motivation to the events of the end of the book. It seems to me that there's enough going on there, with that BANG, that finding another character to 'actually' pin the Tail of Evil onto is a little superfluous. We have more than enough material to drive the plot of book seven, and the Tower events are central. Just my suspicions, of course. I suppose there's a chance that Molly actually did do it all. -Nora wonders what the series would have looked like if Rowling had ended up writing it backwards, like the Ring was... From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 21:43:17 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:43:17 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147566 nrenka: > It's *just* to save Snape from having used AK, right? I think that's > a cop-out. zgirnius: Heck no! I am not at all sure Rowling is going there (I would assign the largest probability to Snape performing the AK, personally) but I do see a point to this theory. You see, if Snape let Dumbledore down carefully off the tower using some nonverbal levitation spell with a conveniently green jet of light, then who killed Dumbledore? Well, it was Harry that fed him that potion, after all. On his orders, and in a situation in which it was apparently necessary for the greater good, yes... Of course, I would further defend our hero by pointing out the responsibility borne by Voldemort, who made the nasty potion in the first place to hide his Horcrux, an object clearly in sore need of destruction. And Draco, who brought Death Eaters into the school and thus prevented Dumbledore from seeking the medical attention he needed (though since he never got it, we cannot be sure that it would have done any good). And even Snape, who may have known as he left the school that he was the only one with a chance to effect a cure in time (or not). nrenka: >But if the theme is meant to be that it's a horrifying > decision for Snape and it's very difficult for him, then coming up > with a reason for why oh, it's actually not so bad, defangs it in a > way that just seems, well, cheap to me. I know you disagree, so I'd > love to hear from other listies here. zgirnius: Snape is not (as OFH!/ESE!Snapers keep reminding us ;) ) the hero of our story. Perhaps Rowling did not want to let HARRY off the hook so easily. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 21:46:39 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:46:39 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147567 > >>Carol: > > And in a bildungsroman, where the child protagonist has not > > yet acquired wisdom, it's unlikely that the child is right. As > > for the heroic quest, I could be wrong, but I don't think that > > the hero's judgment of who is or is not a villain is an > > essential element of the genre. > >>Alla: > It IS one of the essential elements of heroic quest as far as I > know - to know what are you looking for and who are your enemies > and I agree with Nora, book 7 IS very likely to have many features > of heroic quest. I mean, hero gets help along the way, but > certainly he has to know whom to trust. Of course book 7 is > unlikely to play ONLY by the rules of quest, so we shall see. Betsy Hp: This sounded wrong to me, so I did some fast and dirty web research. The heroic quest (or the Hero's Journey) doesn't need a secretly evil, or "surprise" villain at all. Heck, there's not really any need for an out and out villain in these sorts of tales, though of course they're handy. The hero needs something to strive against, but nature can fill that role quite nicely. (Hemmingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" as an example.) And if there is a villain, generally the hero knows exactly who they are from the get-go. Dorothy met the Wicked Witch of the West pretty quickly after arriving in OZ; Luke Skywalker knew he was going up against Darth Vader and the Emperor even before he commited to his quest. And Harry has known that Voldemort was his enemy since he learned who he himself was. Actually, what's interesting is going back to the list of villains from each book in the series, Voldemort was behind every single one of them, to the point of eclipsing the book's ESE. Ginny as villain in CoS is a perfect example of that. So I think the whole ESE thing goes towards JKR's nod towards the mystery genre rather than the Hero's Journey. I do think an element of discovery is essential to the Hero's Journey. A truth must be either learned or at least glimpsed at. And I suppose that can take the form of a "surprise" villain. But that's not what I see the ESE as fulfilling. And I don't think that's the sort of journey JKR has set Harry on. I mean, he's not a knight or a warrior really, is he? Dumbledore doesn't train him in arcane magical fighting skills. Instead, Dumbledore tries to show Harry the lost humanity of Voldemort. And he implies that only by understanding Voldemort will Harry have a hope of finding the missing horcruxes. And so, huh. I seem to have talked myself out of book 7 needing an ESE!character. (Though JKR really does like her mystery elements.) [I tried to figure out a way to gracefully work Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" into this post, since I think Kurtz could qualify as a "surprise" villain (though by the time Marlow finds him, it's not really a surprise anymore), but I couldn't. And yet, I didn't want to give it up! ] Betsy Hp, not quite sure this post makes sense, but posting it anyway From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 3 22:26:30 2006 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 22:26:30 -0000 Subject: ESE to DDM!Snape was Re: ESEDDM!Snape In-Reply-To: <43E2CE2C.1020907@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147568 > Alla: > > No, Nora is right. JKR calls him deeply horrible person. > > Bart: > This goes to what is becoming my favorite theory about Snape; he IS > evil, but considers Voldemort such a major menace that he is willing to > ally himself with the Order. Consider, for example, a con artist who > takes advantage of the greed of others falling upon a den of terrorists. > If he helps out the government, he is no less evil; it's just that he is > willing to help stop an even greater evil. > lucianam: Hey I was thinking about something that fits with this (don't be offended Bart as my idea is a bit wacky). Let us assume Snape is very, very horrible and EVERYTHING he told Bellatrix in chapter 2 of HBP is true to boot. Everything, including his lies to Dumbledore, the Emmeline Vance murder and so on. So, some point during HBP Snape finally does what he pretended to have done almost 16 years ago: he decides to change sides and work against Voldemort. And I think what causes this turn in his motivations is his learning that Harry is the "Chosen One", the boy with "power to vanquish the Dark Lord". This is just a wacky little idea, of course, and it's sprung from the fact that we have a mention of spiders in both moments when Harry's status as "The Chosen One" is spoken aloud. The Weasleys' broom shed and Aragog's funeral. Of course there's no mention of actual spiders spinning their webs around in Hagrid's hut, but there could be, and if JKR wanted to give us a hint about possible spiders lurking in there, I suppose, in Ron's words, a giant spider's 'horrible hairy body' is bigger than the average anvil. So, err, don't laugh please, but Snape being a spider Animagus is part of this idea I had. So Snape doesn't know the exact words of the entire prophecy, but now he knows Harry is "The One". What does this change? Is Snape suddenly converted to goodness? No, he's just as bad as before, only now he realizes there's finally a chance of someone defeating Voldemort. And he decides to change sides. Well, this theory requires a Snape that is not a loyal Death Eater, obviously, but someone who joined Voldemort's ranks for reasons other than fanaticism, such as Bella. And even if this Snape, since changing sides, did Dumbledore's bidding and even might have AK'ed him on his orders, he's not doing it out of any hidden goodness. He'd simply be eliminating a master that he feels is, as Bart put it, a major menace. I don't really like this theory (mine, not Bart's), it's just something I thought could work, because of the spider theme. Personally, I believe in Good Guy Snape as I find it more fitting to Harry's and Snape's development so far. lucianam, following the spiders From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 22:27:46 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 22:27:46 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147569 Sydney wrote: > It's possible that the Wolfsbane potion could be poisonous if not made exactly right-- the main ingredient being wolfsbane or aconitum luparia, which like most aconites is fatally toxic. Carol responds: In addition to the excellent points made by Steve and Sydney in this thread, I think we should look specifically at the etymology of "wolfsbane" (wolf's bane). "Bane" means death or poison, and wolfsbane is so named because it was believed to be specifically poisonous to wolves. The Latin name, which I believe is actually aconitum vulparia, suggests an aconite (poisonous plant) specifically dangerous to foxes (vulpes=fox) but could relate to wild canines in general. Aconitum luparia, if correct, means a plant poisonous to wolves, more or less synonymous with wolfsbane. A site called "Inter Canem et Lupum" (Between Dog and Wolf), which interestingly (hem, hem!) has links to material on black dogs, Grims, and werewolves (which I confess I have not yet explored), has this to say about aconite: "Wolfsbane (Aconitum vulparia, lycoctonum), along with silver, is typically described as among an extremely small number of substances which can harm a werewolf. The name originates from Germany, where it was once used to poison wolves." http://fan.inkstigmata.net/canemetlupum/wolfsbane.html Ironically, then, Wolfsbane Potion uses an ingredient normally poisonous to werewolves as an antidote to the mental anguish of transformation into a werewolf. That being the case, Lupin would be extremely foolish to attempt to make the potion himself even if he were skilled at potion making. As for why he can't buy it rather than make it, I think that has been adequately explained upthread by his poverty and the instability of the potion. I would add that the anti-werewolf legislation instituted by Umbridge could well include restrictions on the sale or trade of Wolfsbane Potion. On a sidenote, we should probably watch out for the Centaur Bane, whose name foreshadows death to someone, perhaps Firenze or Hagrid. Carol, who thought this was going to be a two-line "I agree" post! From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 23:20:46 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 23:20:46 -0000 Subject: Lack of Memorial for Sirius (was Re: JKR's dealing with emotions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147570 > lucianam >I might as well put up a great big HE IS ALIVE!! neon sign accross >my front door(I mean Sirius)... So she's not cruel or insensitive, >just clever and her not giving much thought to Sirius in HBP will >make sense in Book 7. michelle says: I agree, SIRIUS IS ALIVE. I'm not sure how he comes back but he did not die in the MoM. This has been something that I have been most adamant about. However the lack of memorial or mention still bothers me. It seems to me that by not having some kind of service JKR has made it too obvious that he is alive. She hasn't given any finality on Sirius-unlike DD who had a huge memorial service. michelle From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 21:49:28 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 21:49:28 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147571 >Renee: >For Voldemort is a riddle. You say he is without humanity. As he's not > literally the devil and was definitely born human, the question is >why he lost this humanity. We know how: by murdering and thereby >splitting his soul. But that doesn't explain what led to it....HBP >goes to great lengths to show him as a person, so we're apparently >meant to see him as such. Maybe I am mis-reading but I didn't interpret the pensieve "visits" as showing LV's "humanity". I more interpreted them as showing weaknesses, little nuances in his past that may make him vulnerable to attack later. I am agreed on the fact that more backstory on why LV lost all his humanity (if he ever had any) is needed, and hopefully provided in book 7, however even in the scene at the orphanage we see that early on LV was cruel and almost (forgive me for saying it but) inhumane. He seems to kill animals and traumatize younger children for revenge and his own pleasure. JKR also alludes (IMO) to a large amount of in-breeding in the Slytherin line which may have caused all the worst characteristics of generations to be manifested in LV. Tom Riddle Sr doesn't seem to have the best genes either-he seems cruel and arrogant in the brief moments we are privy to. I hate to believe that any child would come out "bad" but I haven't really read anything in the series to convince me that at one time LV was a "good" child with a loving, kind heart. (I'm going to start some serious speculating here, mostly just to play around and to have an adventure in my most wild tangents) What if LV was so evil that just carrying the child and giving birth to him was enough to drain Merope of all her energy? Maybe she would have had more resistance to the child if she didn't have a broken heart? What if it wasn't her lack of will or caring that caused her not to use magic to save herself but her absolute inability to use magic at all because all her power had been drained of her by the child she was carrying? michelle -who likes to wildly speculate just for the h*ll of it :P From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 3 23:40:09 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 23:40:09 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147572 > > >>Alla: > > It IS one of the essential elements of heroic quest as far as I > > know - to know what are you looking for and who are your enemies > > and I agree with Nora, book 7 IS very likely to have many features > > of heroic quest. I mean, hero gets help along the way, but > > certainly he has to know whom to trust. Of course book 7 is > > unlikely to play ONLY by the rules of quest, so we shall see. > > Betsy Hp: > This sounded wrong to me, so I did some fast and dirty web > research. The heroic quest (or the Hero's Journey) doesn't need a > secretly evil, or "surprise" villain at all. Alla: Where did I say that heroic quest needs a secret evil, or "surprise" villain? I said exactly the opposite - that hero needs to know who your enemies are. So I am not quite sure what exactly sounded wrong to you in my reply. Betsy Hp: > And if there is a villain, generally the hero knows exactly who they > are from the get-go. Alla: Correct, but since my argument is that book 7 is the ONLY book where at least in part we will see the quest, I say that this is exactly true - Harry knows "from the get go" of book 7 who the villains are and Snape can very well be amongst villains. Basically, in the book 7 IMO Harry will not make mistakes as to who the villains are. JMO, Alla, who thinks that necessity to hunt down horcruxes and the fact that "mirror" will show up indicates quite strongly that some kind of Quest will play out in book 7. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Feb 4 00:30:58 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:30:58 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147573 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mmmwintersteiger" wrote: > > >Renee: > >For Voldemort is a riddle. You say he is without humanity. As he's > not iterally the devil and was definitely born human, the question > is why he lost this humanity. Michelle: > Maybe I am mis-reading but I didn't interpret the pensieve "visits" > as showing LV's "humanity". Renee: By humanity I meant nothing more than: belonging to the human race. He's not some demon in human shape, or some evil deity, or whatever. He's a human being. That is, he was born as such; what he has become after all this soul-splitting is a different question. Michelle: > I am agreed on the fact that more backstory on why > LV lost all his humanity (if he ever had any) is needed, and > hopefully provided in book 7, however even in the scene at the > orphanage we see that early on LV was cruel and almost (forgive me > for saying it but) inhumane. He seems to kill animals and traumatize > younger children for revenge and his own pleasure. JKR also alludes > (IMO) to a large amount of in-breeding in the Slytherin line which > may have caused all the worst characteristics of generations to be > manifested in LV. Tom Riddle Sr doesn't seem to have the best genes > either-he seems cruel and arrogant in the brief moments we are privy > to. I hate to believe that any child would come out "bad" but I > haven't really read anything in the series to convince me that at one > time LV was a "good" child with a loving, kind heart. Renee: No, but that is precisely my problem. Are we to believe he was born evil, due to bad genes? Did he turn bad because he never experienced any love, not even as a baby? Either option would beg the question whether he can be held fully responsible for his deeds, or whether he's not sane. And if he's not sane, does that mean he should be killed like a rabid dog? HBP leaves me more than a little unsatisfied on these points. Voldemort's evil remains a riddle. If JKR's answer to the question why some people turn bad would ultimately turn out to be bad genes and lack of love, I'd be less than happy, because it runs counter to human experience: not everyone who turns bad started out like Voldemort did. It also runs counter to the stress JKR puts on choices. If our choices show who we are, instead of making us who we are, they're hardly choices at all, merely dictates of our own nature. The really interesting question would be, how we've become who we are, and whether there's anything we could have done to influence the outcome. I don't expect the last book to present a fully-fledged philosophy about the origins of evil, but I hope it will contain a little more of it than I've seen so far. I keep running against the same problem over and over again: that JKR is telling us a symbolic story about love and death, good and evil using a degree of (psychological) realism that is not always compatible with the symbolism. Michelle: > (I'm going to start some serious speculating here, mostly just to > play around and to have an adventure in my most wild tangents) What > if LV was so evil that just carrying the child and giving birth to > him was enough to drain Merope of all her energy? Maybe she would > have had more resistance to the child if she didn't have a broken > heart? What if it wasn't her lack of will or caring that caused her > not to use magic to save herself but her absolute inability to use > magic at all because all her power had been drained of her by the > child she was carrying? > Renee: Well, if this would turn out to be the case, I must say I'd have to stop taking JKR seriously. But I really hope this sort of biology isn't acceptable even in the Wizarding World. Renee From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Feb 4 00:34:08 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:34:08 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147574 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > Harry knows "from the get go" of book 7 who the villains are > and Snape can very well be amongst villains. Basically, in the book > 7 IMO Harry will not make mistakes as to who the villains are. > Renee: But does he? I'd say that as long as Snape remains ambiguous, he can't be entirely sure. That he believes Snape is a villain doesn't mean it's true. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 00:40:38 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:40:38 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147575 > > Alla: > > > > Harry knows "from the get go" of book 7 who the villains are > > and Snape can very well be amongst villains. Basically, in the book > > 7 IMO Harry will not make mistakes as to who the villains are. > > > Renee: > But does he? I'd say that as long as Snape remains ambiguous, he can't > be entirely sure. That he believes Snape is a villain doesn't mean > it's true. > Alla: True, true, I was just talking about the applicability of the rules of the Quest to the outcome which I see as most desirable, but as I said in another thread, I can see Snape turning out to be DD!M ( it is just then I have to twist Dumbledore character as I see him now in my head a lot), but of course it is a viable possibility. Harry's belief does not mean that it is true, but I see it as a viable possibility too. I see Harry in book 7 not as an idiot child, but as a Hero in the journey. IMO his major challenge towards Snape would be learning to forgive him for his very real crimes, NOT discover that he was wrong about Snape.... again. But the fact that I believe it does not mean that it is true, as I said I can see Snape as loyal to Dumbledore, because of ambiguity we were given. JMO, Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Feb 4 00:41:55 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:41:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion, Harry's money In-Reply-To: <20060203043040.91138.qmail@web52110.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060203043040.91138.qmail@web52110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43E3F853.9060007@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147576 Amber wrote: > do acknowledge that he does have a lot of free time to attempt it, > the full moon does come once a month. This would make it very hard > to do if it takes awhile to make. As JKR hasn't said exactly what > must be done to make this, we have no way of knowing if there are > certain steps to take at different times. Just thought I would put > my two cents into the mix! Bart: And perhaps a key step must be done under a full moon. It would make sense. I am curious as to exactly how wealthy Harry actually is. I suspect that, had he not been in the middle of a battle, he could have spent the rest of his life without working a single day, and have enough for his children, especially with a few investments as shrewd as George & Fred (I'm interested that they considered the money a loan; I wonder if they've paid it back, yet. I suspect that they have, that Harry compromised by refusing to accept interest, and the "free for life" is the way that Fred and George are getting around Harry's refusal). In any case, with Sirius Black's cash, I can't picture Harry not at least finding a sinecure for Lupin. Hell, Fred and George would probably hire him in a minute. I wonder if any students at Hogwarts have private tutors. Certainly if Harry hired him as a private tutor, it wouldn't be charity. Bart Bart From sopraniste at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 00:43:11 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:43:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Underage Magic.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060204004311.1983.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147577 > Allie: > > I > suspect that letter > also included, "Several of my acquaintances are > going to Harry's > home to remove him." Oooh! Good point. Further to that, considering that the Floo Network is regulated by the MoM, and Arthur had to have the Dursley's fireplace connected to the Floo Network for the day so that he COULD go pick Harry up, I think it can be assumed that the MoM knew that Arthur was at the Dursley's that day! Flop __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From viperbaby at sbcglobal.net Fri Feb 3 19:09:58 2006 From: viperbaby at sbcglobal.net (Leianne) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:09:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Parseltongue / Kreacher / Underage Magic / ESE! character in book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060203190958.45518.qmail@web80725.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147578 Re: Parsel tongue (has this been asked?) > bboyminn: > I don't think Dumbledore speaks or understands > Parsletongue, but I think he knows it when he hears it. > He knows he is dealing with the Heirs of Slytherin, > and he knows that it is likely that they speak Parsletongue. > So, when they start 'hissing' at each other he knows what > they are doing. Leianne: I agree with this and I think it is a recognized language for DD and he only asked becuse he knew that Harry spoke it. Re: House Elves (Kreacher) > kchuplis: > Harry is described as viewing Kreacher with words like > "repugnant" and "aghast"; so even if he wasn't screaming bloody > murder about Kreacher being there, I wouldn't exactly call his > response "bland". I would say that Harry and Kreacher have about > the same opinion of each other. Leianne: Also remember that Harry feels that Kreacher is partially responsible for Sirius's death. Re: Underage Magic.... > Chancie: > Arthur Weasley also used magic there in (GOF), as did Dumbledore > (HBP), and neither of these instances caused Harry to receive > letters from the ministry. Leianne: As DD explains, the MoM can tell when magic is occuring but not who performs it. Therefore in a house like the burrow for example, the MoM could not tell if it were, say the twins, or Arthur. Re: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? > lealess: > An even more Evil idea: perhaps James decided the most important > thing was not losing Lily. He may have resented the attention > Harry received from Lily. He may have been the one who bargained > for Lily's life, only to be killed by Voldemort right away. Leianne: I realize that I am going to get crap from everyone here but I think DD arranged it. In book 6 in the cave, DD is saying things like "I didn't mean it. Don't hurt them" while drinking the potion... Any other thoughts? From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sat Feb 4 01:47:29 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Luckdragon) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 01:47:29 -0000 Subject: I hate Fudge! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147579 Luckdragon: Jo has created many unsavoury and unlikeable characters in the Harry Potter books. Which characters other than LV would you most like to see get their "just desserts" in book seven? I have really found myself feeling great dislike for Fudge throughout the series. The way he treated both Harry and DD in OOTP was contemptible to say the least. I would love to see him wet his pants upon finding himself face to face with LV. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 02:00:13 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 02:00:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's ability to love- unusual or not? WAS: Re: JKR's dealing with emotions In-Reply-To: <43E38CA5.13926.494BAC@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147580 > Shaun: > Even so, even if Dumbledore is right though, I still don't see > any signs that Harry is any more loving than the next person in > the novels. He seems to simply be a fairly normal boy capable of > fairly normal love. That's just my opinion, but I really don't > see Harry as different in that regard. Alla: I am in partial agreement with you, Shaun, I suppose. I don't think Dumbledore overstates the case simply because to me the indication that Harry's ability to love will help him defeat Voldemort means that Harry's ability to love is indeed unusual. IMO of course. Where I am in agreement with you, sort of is that I don't see so far Harry's manifestation of love as something unusual, except for somebody who grew up in such horrible conditions. I think that it is more expected than not for Harry to grew up not able to love at all. THAT to me is unusual, but you seem to agree at least that Harry could have been growing up and not learning how to love at all, right? Having said that, I am thinking that maybe I am not agreeing with you after all, because IMO JKR subtly shows that Harry's ability to love IS unusual. I mean, YES, he does not go around telling to everybody "I love you" and hugging everybody or something like that. he certainly is able to express negative emotions and I am thanking that JKR shows to us not a saint, but a normal human being, BUT after Pensieve lesson he expresses a BRIEF pity for Tom, as Dumbledore remarks. Now, you can tell me that it was really brief and not that unusual, but personally I am NOT sure at all that I would be able to feel ANYTHING positive towards someone who ( G-d forbid) murdered my parents in cold blood, no matter how hard of childhood that person would have. So, TO ME that brief flash of pity Harry felt towards Tom IS unusual and could be a subtle showing of how great Harry could be. Honestly, I am very pleased how JKR deals with Harry's ability to love so far. We also have Harry pitying Malfoy, THAT of course is not so unusual, but I also admire Harry for pitying even briefly someone who just minutes ago was readying himself to kill Dumbledore. Again, Harry's attitude towards Malfoy I can imagine, but still I find at least a bit more than usual. Shaun: > I think he has a heightened sense of justice, and perhaps in some > ways a heightened sense of duty - this to me is his 'saving > people thing' and that may have some link to a form of love. Alla: True, I agree that could be subtle showing of ability to love as well. Shaun: > But I don't see much reason to suppose that Harry loved Sirius > anymore than any normal person would have loved a parent, or > pseudo-parent figure. Alla: Yes, again, I guess. I think Harry truly loved Sirius , just as Sirius loved him very much, but I see it as a normal person's love to the parent. Harry pitying Tom and Malfoy I do not find to be so normal, personally. JMO, Alla From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Feb 4 02:18:17 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:18:17 -0800 Subject: The Hero's Quest in Oz (was: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <934834221.20060203181817@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147581 Friday, February 3, 2006, 1:46:39 PM, horridporrid03 wrote: h> Dorothy met the Wicked Witch of the West h> pretty quickly after arriving in OZ; Actually, that's just in the movie -- In the book, she doesn't know she has to confront the Witch of the West until the Wizard tells her that she must "kill the witch" before he will help her. BTW, I think in the light of the current discussion that it's worth noting that in the 14 Oz books by Baum and countless ones by other authors, I can't think of one that follows a "Hero's Journey" model -- They are all about camaraderie and cooperation, and almost never does Dorothy or whomever the main protagonist is(*) have to "go it alone". -- Dave * Indeed, frequently it's not very clear *who* a particular Oz book's "main protagonist" is, unless his/her name is in the title, followed by the words, "in/of Oz". From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 4 03:53:47 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 03:53:47 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147582 Pippin: > > while fake deaths, spell words that have no effect, non-verbal > > spells, and Dumbledore's ingestion of an unhealthy drink, though > > they sound "outlandish" are all established canon and perfectly > > well-accounted for. Nora: > We've argued this before, but not in this forum, so I'll throw it out > there again: what's gained by your "It wasn't an AK curse that Snape > used, but he threw a poisoned Dumbledore off the parapets" > explanation? > > (Let's leave aside the general amusement that I have on thinking > about how this would have to be explained in the next book.) > > It's *just* to save Snape from having used AK, right? I think that's > a cop-out. Pippin: I'm irresistably reminded of Peter's line in PoA. "What was to be gained by refusing him?" and Sirius's answer, "Only innocent lives, Peter." Harry is pursuing vengeance against an innocent life, IMO. As for general amusement, I am much more amused by the idea of Harry, with rage and vengeance in his heart, deciding to listen to some longwinded explanation of how Snape was almost but not quite redeemed enough. Surely "He's innocent!" would be a better hook? The bangy moment being led up to is Harry's, when he realizes that he is about to or already has harmed an innocent person. You write as if Harry was planning to catch up with Snape and make him wash his hair or something. I don't think that's what he has in mind. The blood shows that Dumbledore died only minutes before his body was discovered, and that means he didn't die from the AK *or* the fall. We know that wizards can survive falls from considerable heights, so I have no problem believing that Dumbledore survived the fall, only to die of the poison because on the Tower he ordered Snape to leave him and save the others. Was it worth it? What do you think would have happened to Ginny if she had still been dodging AK's when the Felix wore off? I know you feel cheated of horror and profound pathos in this scenario, but believe me, ESE!Lupin provides them in spades. It's far more horrific -- and isn't that why most people don't want it to be true? > > Harry's demonization of Snape *can't* be right. Even Voldemort, who > > has literally demonized himself, is not the way he is because he's > > got "bad character" whatever that is. His evil has natural causes > > (in the context of the WW). It's what he does, not what he is. Nora: > "Our choices show who we are" not your thing? :) Pippin: Harry has demonized Slytherin House too. :) Or don't you think Draco's choice tells us more about him than what Harry thinks he is? Pippin From chnc1024 at earthlink.net Sat Feb 4 04:22:09 2006 From: chnc1024 at earthlink.net (chnc1024 at earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:22:09 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I hate Fudge! Message-ID: <410-220062644229752@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147583 > Luckdragon: > Jo has created many unsavoury and unlikeable characters in the Harry > Potter books. Which characters other than LV would you most like to > see get their "just desserts" in book seven? > > I have really found myself feeling great dislike for Fudge throughout > the series. The way he treated both Harry and DD in OOTP was > contemptible to say the least. I would love to see him wet his pants > upon finding himself face to face with LV. > ********************************************************** Chancie: My vote would definitely have to go for Umbridge! Every time she came into a scene in OOP I would cringe! And I'm still having a hard time figuring out how she's still walking around after all she did. Fudge was responsible for putting her in Hogwarts to begin with, but as power hungry as he is/was I have never read him as sadistic, which is exactly how I would describe Umbridge. I don't really care what happens to her as long as it's awful, and she's outed as the monster she is! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 04:37:18 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 04:37:18 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <43E38CA5.13926.494BAC@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147584 Shaun wrote: > Well, from my reading of that passage. Dumbledore is not saying that Harry's amount of love is unusal or the degree of love that Harry is capable of is at all unusual. What he is saying is that given Harry's experiences it is surprising he still has this the normal love that other people have. even if Dumbledore is right though, I still don't see any signs that Harry is any more loving than the next person in the novels. He seems to simply be a fairly normal boy capable of fairly normal love. > > I think he has a heightened sense of justice, and perhaps in some ways a heightened sense of duty - this to me is his 'saving people thing' and that may have some link to a form of love. Carol responds: I agree that there's an apparent conflict between Dumbledore's absolute certainty that Harry's capacity makes him unusually, if not uniquely, qualified to defeat Voldemort and what we see of Harry's actual capacity to love, which seems quite normal (despite his upbringing by the Dursleys), but not exceptional. He makes a few close friends and is on good terms with a few others, he develops a strong attachment to his mostly absent godfather, he has a "saving people" thing, he develops an adolescent crush or two. But it's his mother's love that saves him at Godric's Hollow and from Quirrell!mort and his parents' love (in the form of the shadows in the wand) that saves him from LV in the graveyard. It's his loyalty to DD, rather than some form of quasi-fraternal love, that brings Fawkes to him in CoS. And the love of his godfather that saves him from possession in OoP is a very fierce sort of love, a willingness to die to be with Sirius rather than continue to endure the pain of Voldemort's hated presence. Unless that incident foreshadows some sort of willingness to sacrifice himself, it's hard to see how it will help him to overcome LV in battle. (It's good, though, that he's unlikely to be possessed again.) The "saving people" thing could also, I suppose, be regarded as a kind of impersonal love (he didn't even know little Gabrielle Delacour, and he barely knew Ginny in CoS). It seems to me to be a sort of compulsion to make things better, to fix things, as opposed to talking about them and understanding them. (Harry wants Cho to be happy; he doesn't have a clue that she just wants to talk, or that tears are her way of dealing with grief and she needs to share her feelings and have him share his.) It strikes me that Harry has a capacity for very strong feelings, but the only ones that he recognizes are anger and hatred, and those, IMO, he nurtures a little too obsessively, which may be why he empathizes so strongly with "the Prince" before he knows that it's Severus Snape. But grief he has difficulty expressing, or even akcnowledging, so he expresses it as anger. And love and affection he feels but never expresses at all (unless you count kissing Cho and Ginny). He never tells his friends that he cares about them, never reaches out a hand to comfort them, never asks how they're feeling. He hasn't been brought up to do such things. they never even occur to him. JKR says that Harry has difficulty compartmentalizing his feelings. I suppose she means that he doesn't analyze them, doesn't attempt to identify them and sort them out, doesn't, in some cases, even recognize them. Maybe, if he could transfer all the energy he currently devotes to hatred and anger into love for the Wizarding World and for specific people in it, into the passionate desire to save the Weasleys and Hermione and everyone else he cares about from Voldemort, he would be what Dumbledore predicted he would be. He can feel with passionate intensity. But what he's feeling now is the wrong emotion. Not a theory, not an explanation, just a few random thoughts on Harry and Love and the wisdom of Dumbledore. Carol, hoping that Harry's impartial, sacrificial love will be replaced by the love of friends and family in the epilogue From jasnyder at intrex.net Sat Feb 4 04:40:54 2006 From: jasnyder at intrex.net (Jen Snyder) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 23:40:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Hero's Quest in Oz (was: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest) In-Reply-To: <934834221.20060203181817@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147585 But in the Hero's Quest, the hero doesn't usually have to "go it alone". Campbell specifically states that the hero receives help and or finds people who will be helpful. Jen -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Dave Hardenbrook Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:18 PM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Hero's Quest in Oz (was: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest) Friday, February 3, 2006, 1:46:39 PM, horridporrid03 wrote: h> Dorothy met the Wicked Witch of the West h> pretty quickly after arriving in OZ; Actually, that's just in the movie -- In the book, she doesn't know she has to confront the Witch of the West until the Wizard tells her that she must "kill the witch" before he will help her. BTW, I think in the light of the current discussion that it's worth noting that in the 14 Oz books by Baum and countless ones by other authors, I can't think of one that follows a "Hero's Journey" model -- They are all about camaraderie and cooperation, and almost never does Dorothy or whomever the main protagonist is(*) have to "go it alone". -- Dave * Indeed, frequently it's not very clear *who* a particular Oz book's "main protagonist" is, unless his/her name is in the title, followed by the words, "in/of Oz". Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MU ST_READ Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! SPONSORED LINKS Half-blood prince Adult education Culture club Organizational culture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at earthlink.net Sat Feb 4 04:53:14 2006 From: chnc1024 at earthlink.net (chnc1024 at earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:53:14 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Underage Magic Message-ID: <410-2200626445314642@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147586 > Re: Underage Magic.... > > Chancie: > > Arthur Weasley also used magic there in (GOF), as did Dumbledore > > (HBP), and neither of these instances caused Harry to receive > > letters from the ministry. > > Leianne: > As DD explains, the MoM can tell when magic is occuring but not > who performs it. Therefore in a house like the burrow for example, > the MoM could not tell if it were, say the twins, or Arthur. > ********************************************* Chancie: This was my point, perhaps next time I should more clearly state my meaning. I was simply pointing out that since Harry is the only person with magical powers in the area, any magic preformed in the Dursley home would be automatically blamed on Harry. And since I think it's clear that Magic was preformed by Author to repair the Dursley's fireplace in GOF, and Dumbledore when he visited the Dursley's in HBP it is interesting that neither of these instances resulted in Harry being sent a letter from the Ministry rep remanding him for underage magic. And not to mention the issue with Tonks packing Harry's trunk for him in OOP, (which was pointed out by another poster, sorry to say I forgot who.) and we definitely know that the ministry was looking for ANYTHING to add to their list of charges when trying to discredit him. Also, it seems that if Fudge knew about magic being used in the Dursley home after trying to expel Harry from Hogwarts only a few days before, then he would have added it into the trial evidence against him. I think it would have been very hard to explain who had preformed the spell, since Tonks was at risk of losing her job if found to be in the order. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 04:59:26 2006 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:59:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lack of Memorial for Sirius (was Re: JKR's dealing with emotions) In-Reply-To: <00b401c62899$9be7e0d0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <20060204045926.30280.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147587 Juli: So what's better, to keep Harry and Co And > the OoP alive, or to give Harry a chance to say goodbye? > Alla: Right, I don't think both tasks are necessarily mutually exclusive. Sherry: A memorial service is really a necessary part in the grieving process, the kind of first step. people who say they don't want any type of services when they die, are usually not thinking about the needs of the people left behind. The wake, or memorial service, gives people the chance to tell stories, share memories, cry, even laugh, with others who are experiencing the same loss. Juli again: I complete agree with both of you. I WISH Harry had had a wake for Sirius, I was just trying to come up with a reason why there wasn't one. I hope that Harry once at Godric's Hollow will be ablo to say goodbye, maybe even place a plate next to his parents' grave to conmemorate Sirius Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From oppen at mycns.net Sat Feb 4 05:02:48 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 05:02:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's grieving for Sirius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147588 I thought that the scenes in OotP where Harry is trying to deal with Sirius' sudden death were quite well-handled. Unlike some other writers, JKR did not force us to wallow in Harry's pain, loss and guilt-feelings. She suggested them, and IMNSHO did quite well. Some people on here have said that they'd have done things differently. First off, Harry's a boy, and from a culture that (at least until recently) discouraged excessive shows of emotion, particularly in males of any age above about age five. Secondly, he's from a profoundly dysfunctional family background, and I'm surprised sometimes at how normally he acts, most of the time. After all those years chez Dursley, I'd about have expected Lord Voldemort Mark II instead of the relatively well-adjusted Harry we see. From oppen at mycns.net Sat Feb 4 05:07:31 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 05:07:31 -0000 Subject: Why would DDM!Snape kill Dumbledore? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147589 I can come up with a scenario where Snape, _as Dumbledore's sworn man,_ would have to kill Dumbledore. We don't know what the effects of that awful potion he swilled down were. For all we know, it was Essence of Concentrated Evil...and in the few seconds they had to confer, using Legilimency, Dumbledore said something to Snape like: "Severus! I'm turning evil! For God's sake, kill me quickly! I can't control myself much longer! I can practically feel a BWA-HA-HA coming on me as I'm lying here!" But all that came out of his mouth was "Severus...please!" The knowledge that, if I didn't, _Dumbledore would turn evil_ would have had me launching an A-K as fast as the words could escape my lips. An evil Dumbledore would be a thousand times the menace that Tom "I-am-Lord-Voldemort-BWAHAHAHA" Riddle ever could have been, if only because _people trusted him!_ --Eric, who maybe understands evil a _leetle_ too well... From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Feb 4 05:27:10 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 23:27:10 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Underage Magic In-Reply-To: <410-2200626445314642@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147590 On Friday, February 3, 2006, at 10:53 PM, chnc1024 at earthlink.net wrote: > Chancie: > > This was my point, perhaps next time I should more clearly state my > meaning. > I was simply pointing out that since Harry is the only person with > magical > powers > in the area, any magic preformed in the Dursley home would be > automatically > blamed > on Harry.? And since I think it's clear that Magic was preformed by > Author > to > repair the Dursley's fireplace in GOF, and kchuplis: Well, since Arthur got the Floo network to connect them in just for the afternoon as a special favor, I'm sure they were aware there was some other wizard there than Harry. > Dumbledore when he visited the > Dursley's > in HBP it is interesting that neither of these instances resulted in > Harry > being sent > a letter from the Ministry rep remanding him for underage magic.? kchuplis: This is when the ministry is so darn keen on getting Harry to be their poster boy. They are bending over backwards at this point for him. Sending him cars, providing him aurors for protection. Heck, Harry could probably have conjured dancing girls at this point and the MoM would have looked the other way. I'm sure DD dropped them an owl informing them he was going there. > And not > to mention > the issue with Tonks packing Harry's trunk for him in OOP, (which was > pointed out > by another poster, sorry to say I forgot who.) and we definitely know > that > the ministry > was looking for ANYTHING to add to their list of charges when trying to > discredit him. > Also, it seems that if Fudge knew about magic being used in the Dursley > home after > trying to expel Harry from Hogwarts only a few days before, then he > would > have > added it into the trial evidence against him.? I think it would have > been > very hard to > explain who had preformed the spell, since Tonks was at risk of losing > her > job if found > to be in the order. kchuplis: Which is why I mentioned earlier that with so many MoM people in the order, I'm sure they arranged for whatever or whoever manages such things to be distracted or bewitched for the period of time they knew they'd be there. It couldn't possibly be hard to do. It seems like it is some kind of general system in place. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Feb 4 05:50:09 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 21:50:09 -0800 Subject: A "Satisfying" Ending?? (was: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35577982.20060203215009@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147591 Thursday, February 2, 2006, 3:42:33 PM, justcarol67 wrote: j> What *would* satisfy Dumbledore (if he were alive j> to see it)? I assumed that what he meant was what we've been discussing in this thread -- That D knows that however tempting it is to "scapegoat" LV, "merely killing" him would not stamp out evil or make the WW the good and loving place D wants desperately to see it become. That's why I'm *really* having a hard time figuring out how this series will end -- What conceivable ending would be both believable and "satisfying" (at least in Dumbledorian terms)???? -- Dave From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Feb 4 03:42:07 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 22:42:07 -0500 Subject: Grindlewald; the Floo Network Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147592 Lupinlore: "We also have the circumstance of Grindlewald and Dumbledore. Dumbledore is, supposedly, the "epitome of goodness." I have problems with that, but there you have it." BAW: We must, as a certain author said, consider the soup that is set before us and not ask to see the bones of the ox from which it was boiled. You may disagree with JKR's morals, but it is her world, and within it she is sovereign. Lupinlore: "If we are to look at anyone as a model for how JKR thinks "dark lords" should be dealt with, it would have to be DD. And yet all the evidence we have is that he killed Grindlewald. We may find out that isn't the truth. However, for the present, it seems that he literally killed the man. He didn't redeem him." BAW: Where in canon does it say that Dumbledore killed Grindlewald? It does say that he DEFEATED him, but that is hardly the same thing. Also, Dumbledore seemed to make a distinction between Voldemort and Tom Riddle. In the Battle of the Ministry, he insisted on addressing him as 'Tom', not 'Voldemort.' Now, Dumbledore is a man very insistant on maintaining a veneer at least of politeness at all times, but to refuse to address someone as he prefers to be addressed is VERY impolite. Accordingly, he must have a very good reason for doing so. > Allie: > > I suspect that letter also included, "Several of my > > acquaintances are going to Harry's home to remove him." Flop: > Oooh! Good point. Further to that, considering that the Floo > Network is regulated by the MoM, and Arthur had to have the > Dursle's fireplace connected to the Floo Network for the day so > that he COULD go pick Harry up, I think it can be assumed that > the MoM knew that Arthur was at the Dursley's that day! At least someone in the Ministry, if not the Ministry as a whole. The Ministry is not a hive entity, after all. BAW From ed9743621 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 05:21:12 2006 From: ed9743621 at yahoo.com (Ed) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 21:21:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some Questions on Book 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060204052112.37464.qmail@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147593 dd_ur_great: >> I think that there's no getting away from the fact that Snape did really perform AK on DD and so DD is really dead (yes, I do really HATE to even think about that!!). But in the wizarding world that doesn't mean he won't come back in some form to help Harry, I think he will, maybe through his portrait? But I think Snape may not be all bad, the murder of DD may be in fact masterminded by DD himself, there have been some interesting posts here including ideas even going as far as assisted suicide!! << Ed: Hi DD!! I guess it was kind of hard for me to accept that Dumbledore died in the HBP.. I thought he will be the one person who would be assisting Harry and always be at his side until they have vanquished the evil LV.. Still, maybe you are right too that he would be returning, in other form, in the final chapter but still, the thought that Snape being a protagonist in the end is kind hard to accept (IMO of course). ciao!! From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Feb 4 09:43:09 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:43:09 -0000 Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <20060203211053.18413.qmail@web53214.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maria Vaerewijck wrote: > > maria8162001: > > I don't think all the readers were left emotionally unsatisfied, > IMO, only those who grieve differently from Harry are the ones who > are not satisfied. That would still be quite a number of people and if that were true, it would mean these scenes were badly written. As I explained before, I grieve very differently from Harry, yet I found Harry's way of grieving totally convincing and moving. I think there are quite a lot of readers like me out there. Gerry From littleleah at handbag.com Sat Feb 4 11:47:16 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:47:16 -0000 Subject: Why would DDM!Snape kill Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > > I can come up with a scenario where Snape, _as Dumbledore's sworn > man,_ would have to kill Dumbledore. > > We don't know what the effects of that awful potion he swilled down > were. For all we know, it was Essence of Concentrated Evil...and in > the few seconds they had to confer, using Legilimency, Dumbledore said > something to Snape like: "Severus! I'm turning evil! For God's sake, > kill me quickly! I can't control myself much longer! I can > practically feel a BWA-HA-HA coming on me as I'm lying here!" But all > that came out of his mouth was "Severus...please!" > > The knowledge that, if I didn't, _Dumbledore would turn evil_ would > have had me launching an A-K as fast as the words could escape my > lips. An evil Dumbledore would be a thousand times the menace that > Tom "I-am-Lord-Voldemort-BWAHAHAHA" Riddle ever could have been, if > only because _people trusted him!_ > Leah: I liked this idea, but can't tie it in to DD's reaction to the potion in the cave, which doesn't suggest to me that it will turn him into the Big Bad. Rather, it seems to fill him with despair and self-loathing. If this is going to take effect permanently (though DD was certainly doing a good job of controlling it on the tower), then it would render him useless to the Order, as well as a possible danger -the "I'll do anything" in the cave. So, for a slightly different reason to you,I can see Snape, whether he has been DDM or OFH Snape up to that point, discovering what is happening through leglimency and deciding that DD had to go. It occurs to me that in this scenario, it would make sense for the 'revulsion and hatred' which is etched on Snape's face to be a reflection of what he is reading in DD's mind. What I am not happy with is the idea of DD pleading, in effect, to be put down. I have to say that was my original thought in a desperate attempt to save Snape from being ESE, but on reflection, it doesn't work for me. Firstly, there is the euthanasia idea. Whatever my personal views on this, my gut feeling is that it isn't right in the Potterverse. JKR's mother suffered from a degenerative disease, and I can see nothing in Rowling's comments on that, particularly her recent one, to support that way of thinking. Secondly, the 'kill me, Severus' approach means that DD's death was not Snape's free choice, and choice is such an important element of the series, that I believe it must operate in this key scene. I think the please from DD is a plea for Snape to carry on being DD's man. I can see Snape, boxed in as he is by the Unbreakable Vow, reading what is happening to DD, making the decision to use the AK. I see this in Snape's mind as being the equivalent of the staking of Lucy Westenra in 'Dracula'- a releasing of DD which also has the benefit for Snape of releasing him from the vow, and allows him to get the DEs out of Hogwarts. Grey Snape in fact. Leah From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Feb 4 12:25:28 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:25:28 -0000 Subject: Why would DDM!Snape kill Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147596 ericoppen: > > > > I can come up with a scenario where Snape, _as Dumbledore's sworn > > man,_ would have to kill Dumbledore. > > > > We don't know what the effects of that awful potion he swilled > down > > were. For all we know, it was Essence of Concentrated Evil... > Leah: > I liked this idea, but can't tie it in to DD's reaction to the > potion in the cave, which doesn't suggest to me that it will turn > him into the Big Bad. > *(snip)* > I see > this in Snape's mind as being the equivalent of the staking of Lucy > Westenra in 'Dracula'- a releasing of DD which also has the benefit > for Snape of releasing him from the vow, and allows him to get the > DEs out of Hogwarts. Grey Snape in fact. Ceridwen: I'll play. Making a patchwork out of things I've read or thought myself after reading these over the past few months: When DD destroyed the ring horcrux, he released the soul fragment, it immediately went for the nearest warm body, which was Dumbledore's. Between DD and Snape, they got the soul piece isolated in DD's hand. Since LV possession kills what he possesses much sooner than otherwise would have happened, the soul piece, being confined to a small portion of DD's body, and after whatever side effects there may have been from releasing the soul piece, quickly kills the skin of DD's hand. But it is trapped in the hand and can go no further. The potion in the cave is poisonous, and somewhat caustic. Did it resemble anti-freeze to anybody else? The poison in DD's system degrades the magic used to keep the soul piece in DD's hand as well as poisoning him. So, we have DD becoming possessed. Since DD is, obvious to me at least, more powerful than LV, and certainly more powerful than a bit of soul, he is able to stave it off while hoping to see Snape, to capture the bit before it hits the shoulder or somesuch. Even with his being weakened by the physical effects of the poison. But events on the tower preclude that from happening. When Snape does arrive, DD is already losing the battle against the soul piece and its toxic possession. And he can feel the invasion of LV's soul piece niggling at his brain. He allows Snape to see this via Legilimency. Here you get ericoppen's scenario coming into play, a BWA-HA-HA!Dumbledore in the offing and Snape killing him to prevent a full-blown 'I AM DARK LORD! HEAR ME ROAR!' moment. We do know that LV can possess, even as a memory. We do know that something happened to DD's hand, which I think will be some sort of key to his mindset through HBP. We know that thought images can be conveyed or plucked through Legilimency, and we know that both Dumbledore and Snape are practitioners of this art. We do know that things work differently in the Potterverse because they have magic. I don't think this will be the answer to the tower. But it's as possible at this point as anything else. And, it was a fun idea to play with. Ceridwen. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 13:16:18 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 05:16:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: <700201d40602010916t86f6997kdd3f56ccb419992a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060204131618.18182.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147597 --- Kemper wrote: > The problem with Harry's coping of Sirius' death isn't that long, > Shakespearean soliloquies are absent from the text, it's that Harry > isn't shown waking with a tear-soaked pillow or something similar > to show the reader the depth of Harry's loss and how he was > hurting silently..... > > The reader has developed a relationship with Sirius that is hours > long in the reading and even more so > upon our ponderings of the text. Harry had 2 years with Sirius and > saw him as a mentor if not a father figure. But after the > death.... not much. Not even silent lamenting. Harry didn't have "2 years with Sirius". He had a series of fleeting encounters and conversations - usually in the presence of other people (which can put a damper on intimacy) and at times of important plot or character development. I can remember only once when they had something like a private bonding moment that one would expect in a close godson-godfather relationship: in GOF when they're talking by floo and Harry is confiding his hurt about Ron's attitude and his fear of the upcoming dragan task. That conversation is interupted by Ron's appearance on the stairs. Sirius represented a lot of things to Harry: family connections to his parents, a non-Dursley adult guardian alternative, a wonderful future outside of Little Whinging. Someone who's there for Harry and Harry alone; someone who'd do anything for him. Which is not to say that Harry was somehow just using Sirius or didn't really care about him the man. But the deep emotional bond that would have to exist for the kind of grief that Kemper and others would like to see just hadn't had time or opportunity to develop. Harry felt closest to Sirius when Sirius was far away and inaccessible. When they did connect, open dialogue between them was often constrained by fears for each others' safety or the need for discretion in front of others. I find Harry's grief as JKR wrote it very believable. He's still slightly in shock, he's still got a strong feeling of personal guilt for going to the MOM in the first place, the future seems more lonely than before. He's not ready to deal with all that yet so he's stuck everything in the deep freeze where he won't have to look at it and has transferred the hostility he feels safe enough to let loose to Kreacher and Snape. Harry's not ready to grieve until he's ready to forgive himself - for the MOM fiasco, for not being more the kind of godson Sirius wanted or deserved, for not trying harder to understand and help Sirius himself during the year of OOTP. You don't think Harry doesn't remember how Sirius spent long hours alone with Buckbeak while Harry was with his friends in the rest of the house? You don't think Harry doesn't feel guilty as hell about that now? That he doesn't remember all those lost, wasted hours they could have talked together? Harry's not dealing with things well, and Dumbledore's death will allow him to work up a major head of steam as he gets down to really impressive Snape-hate in Book 7. Forgiving people he doesn't like is something that Harry has to learn in Book 7 and the first person he has to forgive is himself. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From richter at ridgenet.net Sat Feb 4 15:52:23 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:52:23 -0000 Subject: Grindlewald; the Floo Network In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147598 ---> Lupinlore: > "If we are to look at anyone as a model for how JKR thinks "dark > lords" should be dealt with, it would have to be DD. And yet all > the evidence we have is that he killed Grindlewald. We may find > out that isn't the truth. However, for the present, it seems that > he literally killed the man. He didn't redeem him." > > BAW: > Where in canon does it say that Dumbledore killed Grindlewald? > It does say that he DEFEATED him, but that is hardly the same > thing. == While BAW is right (the text is "defeated") I have a problem with that. If DD did NOT kill Grindlewald, then he is expecting/requiring others to do things he himself would not do -- he TELLS Harry that Harry MUST kill Voldemort. He doesn't give him any "you must destroy Voldemort" or "I don't know of any other solution, but there may be one" answers to HARRY. However much "choices" are a critical part of this series, the choices people make are always constrained by WHAT THEY KNOW as much as by what they want or what they believe. If there's a way to destroy Voldemort and let "Tom Riddle" survive, DD does not give any such indication to Harry -- even in the form of "there might be one but I don't know what it would be". If he doesn't truly believe in the prophesy (it is only true because LV has made it true) then there is no reason for DD not to try to kill LV himself. If he can, then the prophesy is either false or the wording can be interpeted to have the prophesy fufilled (if he'd killed LV at the MOM, Harry would have been "in proximity" and so "at the hand of" LV). If he can't kill LV, he has at least not asked others to do things he himself finds too repugnant to do. DD has two major problems for me. One is his requiring others to act for him (including killing, if he truly never did it himself) and the other is his "not telling people" thing. A lot of what happens happens because of a lack of information. If Harry goes into the maze believing he needs to help prevent the theft of the SS, in part it is because DD and others didn't sit him down and tell him "We have set a trap for LV and it's ok for you not to do anything". Hiding truth and information from even the young is not the best method of dealing with difficult issues. If DD and others set the SS "obstacle course" up as much for testing Harry as for catching LV (which is my belief), then again, DD is at least remiss in not cluing Harry in at the end. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole issue at GH didn't occur because DD was setting up YET ANOTHER "trap" for LV. Using people as pawns seems to be his methodology. It is only worse if he is using them to do things he himself would never do. If DD would "never" have killed Grindlewald and won't try to kill LV (MOM fight being the most recent opportunity), he is asking others to sacrifice THEIR souls, etc in ways he himself is not. That makes it a little hard to believe in a truly "good" DD. PAR (who apologizes if this is a bit rambling) From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 16:06:44 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:06:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco in the Bathroom -What Next for Draco/Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060204160644.75767.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147599 --- Steve wrote: > Poor Draco, he is already overwhelmed to the point of tears on more > than one occassion. Things aren't going right, and he fears for his > own life as well as the lives of his family. Yet, typical Death > Eater, he is bound and determined NOT to share glory with anyone. > > ...Even though Draco fears death, he > is still determined to be 'honored above all others'. He would > rather die than lose his chance at 'favored' status. I didn't think Draco was serious when he accused Snape of wanting the glory of fulfilling Draco's mission. It was something bold and courageous-sounding to say so that Snape wouldn't go back to Voldemort and say Draco was getting cold feet, thereby giving Voldemort an excuse to hurt Draco's family. It's a pathetic, desperate bluff. Because the real legacy of Voldemort to his followers is that they can't trust each other at all. He's got family proof in Auntie Bellatrix that true Voldemort loyalists are slightly cracked and he's got ample justification for believing that the ambitious DE's would kill their own families to acquire power. What Draco is saying here is that he doesn't trust Snape enough to tell him the truth about anything - and Snape knows it. Snape's in a bind because the harder he presses Draco the more resistence he's going to get and the farther away he'll flee. He can't level with Draco or make him the offer that Dumbledore will make on the tower because it's too important to maintain his cover and god knows what Draco might let slip to a legilmans like Voldemort. So he's got to get Draco to come to him and Draco can't because he's too terrified of the consequences. Draco knows there's no glory awaiting him. He's got that far along the road by the time of Slughorn's party. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dd_ur_great at yahoo.co.uk Sat Feb 4 11:26:17 2006 From: dd_ur_great at yahoo.co.uk (dd_ur_great) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 11:26:17 -0000 Subject: What Would Dobby Do? In-Reply-To: <0CD2E7F8-AB10-4A51-BECD-CFD4C97240C2@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147600 caesian wrote: > In light of many excellent summaries already posted, I thought I > would add one small idea. > > Is Dobby (or, are Dobby and Kreacher) still following Draco? In > other words, did the elves witness DD's death? Were they present > during the fight between members of the order and the DE's? And, > most important, did they follow Draco, and Snape, to wherever > they sought refuge after fleeing Hogwarts? dd_ur_great: Hey, yes, I am glad someone touched this topic. I thought that was one of the 'unfinished businesses' that would come into the picture in book seven. I think the elves are not 'off the job' till they are actually called off, which does mean that they were with Draco till he killed DD. After that we come to a parting of ways, maybe. Because, Kreacher, being owned by Harry, has to follow his orders, and follow Draco, to wherever he has gone. But Dobby is a free elf. Of course he respects and honours Harry ans would do anything for him. But at the moment he is in the employ of Dumbledore, at Hogwarts. What happens to that employment after DD dies, does it end, or is it an 'institutional' employment, in which case, he would have to stay at Hogwarts. What say? dd_ur_great From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 11:45:12 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewijck) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 03:45:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: JKR's dealing with emotions - Talking about Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060204114512.33885.qmail@web53202.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147601 Gerry wrote: >> As I explained before, I grieve very differently from Harry, yet I found Harry's way of grieving totally convincing and moving. I think there are quite a lot of readers like me out there. << maria8162001: That is very good. Though you grieve diffrently from Harry, me and other silent grievers, you understood his grieving quite well. Which just means that though your grief is different you were not left emotionally unsatisfied by Harry's grief, which also shows being open minded on your part. From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 14:42:17 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 14:42:17 -0000 Subject: Lack of Memorial for Sirius (was Re: JKR's dealing with emotions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147602 > michelle says: > I agree, SIRIUS IS ALIVE. I'm not sure how he comes back but > he did not die in the MoM. This has been something that I have > been most adamant about. However the lack of memorial or mention > still bothers me. It seems to me that by not having some kind of > service JKR has made it too obvious that he is alive. She hasn't > given any finality on Sirius-unlike DD who had a huge memorial > service. In The Order of the Phoenix Sirius went throught the curtain behind the veil. When this happened there was no body to bury and so therefore no true reason for a memorial. In the Half-Blood Prince Harry says that Dumbledore's funeral is the first that he has attended because there was no body for Sirius to remembered. This makes me think that yes that someone that falls through that curtain might be able to return. fuzz876i From lealess at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 18:07:09 2006 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:07:09 -0000 Subject: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147603 > Pippin wrote: > > > The blood shows that Dumbledore died only minutes before his > body was discovered, and that means he didn't die from the > AK *or* the fall. We know that wizards can survive falls from > considerable heights, so I have no problem believing that > Dumbledore survived the fall, only to die of the > poison because on the Tower he ordered Snape to leave him and save > the others. Was it worth it? What do you think would have > happened to Ginny if she had still been dodging AK's when the > Felix wore off? > In the realm of the worst case scenario, where my head is currently at: What if Snape is already dead? I am not entirely convinced Snape cast an AK. What if he didn't kill Dumbledore and paid an Unbreakable Vow price (assumed to be death) when Dumbledore later died because of the poison, as you suggest, or because of whatever reason? Draco could give this information to Harry. That would perhaps lead to the desired learning experience for Harry, and maybe lead to a search for information on motivations, while neatly avoiding an emotional blow-out between Snape and Harry. It could lead to a blow-out between Draco and Harry, two more-or-less equals, resolved for the good. It would take the focus off Snape. Not that I expect this to happen, because JKR enjoys writing Snape. I enjoy reading him, and therefore it is a worst case scenario for me ... another being if Snape ends up as an illustration of the banality of evil. That would be worse. On the other hand, I am not entirely convinced Dumbledore is dead. lealess From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 18:32:14 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:32:14 -0000 Subject: Lack of Memorial for Sirius -He's Alive (repost) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147604 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mmmwintersteiger" wrote: > > > lucianam > > >I might as well put up a great big HE IS ALIVE!! neon sign > >accross >my front door(I mean Sirius)... So she's not cruel > >or insensitive, just clever and her not giving much thought > >to Sirius in HBP will make sense in Book 7. > > > > michelle says: > > I agree, SIRIUS IS ALIVE. I'm not sure how he comes back but he > did not die in the MoM. This has been something that I have been > most adamant about. However the lack of memorial or mention > still bothers me. It seems to me that by not having some kind of > service JKR has made it too obvious that he is alive. She hasn't > given any finality on Sirius-unlike DD who had a huge memorial > service. > > michelle > bboyminn: I hope you will all forgive me for taking this opportunity to repost one of my favorite theories. Because it has been touched on before in this group and in another, I will try to keep it brief. The Theory - Can't say that it's all true, but it is an interesting theory. Others, in discussing this, have speculated that we will discover, much to Harry's own surprise, that he has the power of possession. In the last battle in front of the Veiled Arch, Voldemort will possess Harry for what ever reason, but Harry will turn the tables and possess Voldemort, and take him and all the Horcruxes through the Veil, ending Voldemort once and for all. Extending this further, we can say that Sirius went through the Veil under 'special circumstances'. He went in fully alive with both body and spirit completely in tact. I extended my original 'Veil Theory' (#142371) to include the possibility of Harry Possessing Voldemort and taking him through. Because Voldemort and Harry travel through the Veil as a single living being, due to /special circumstances/, Voldemort doesn't die until Harry leaves Voldemort's body. The problem is, when Harry leaves Voldemort's body, Harry also dies. Now the question is, how does Harry get out without dying? Simple, Sirius touches Voldemort's body (hand on shoulder), and Harry moves his possession from Voldemort through the contact point into Sirius. By doing so, Voldemort dies but Harry has never been alone in the realm beyond the Veil; he is still protected from death by sharing a body with another. Now, Harry walks Sirius body out from behind the Veil, and then, your choice, when Harry leaves Sirius's body, Sirius either lives or dies, but for sure Harry lives. Now Harry REALLY IS "The Boy Who Lived". He went to the Land of the Dead and returned. How cool is that? Additional bonus: he gets to spend some time with his parents. Additional additional bonus: maybe Sirius gets to live too. Yes, I know... pure speculation, but still it's an intriguing thought. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Sat Feb 4 19:44:57 2006 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 19:44:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's hand and UV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147605 Sorry if someone already posted this before (I did a search, but might have missed out). Only today I *noticed* that in order to make the Unbreakable Vow, you use your right hand. And Dumbledore's injured hand is the right one. We've been told death is the result of breaking an UV. And in Snape's famous first lesson he says something about being able to put a stopper to death. Suppose Dumbledore made an UV and had to break it. The magic of the UV makes contact with a person's body through their right hand so it's not so ridiculous to imagine death slowly (or speedily!) spreading from one's hand to one's whole body... But Snape's 'timely action' put a stopper to DD's death. It's just an idea, I thought it would be good to keep this coincidence (the right hand) in mind. lucianam From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Feb 4 21:07:32 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:07:32 -0000 Subject: Lack of Memorial for Sirius (was Re: JKR's dealing with emotions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147606 fuzz876i: > In The Order of the Phoenix Sirius went throught the curtain behind > the veil. When this happened there was no body to bury and so > therefore no true reason for a memorial. In the Half-Blood Prince > Harry says that Dumbledore's funeral is the first that he has > attended because there was no body for Sirius to remembered. This > makes me think that yes that someone that falls through that curtain > might be able to return. Ceridwen: A funeral involves the physical remains of the deceased. A memorial is a service held without the body. It can be held in a different city than the funeral, for instance a memorial service held in New York for someone who died and will be buried in Los Angeles. Or it can be held when there is no body to bury, as in the case of shipwreck victims. The memorial is absolutely for the living, some way of attaining closure, a time to say good-bye. I don't know why they didn't have a memorial service for Sirius, either. JKR said he's definitely dead. Not having a memorial leaves everything so open-ended, for everyone. It looks like Harry will have to hold his own private memorial. Ceridwen. From hambtty at triad.rr.com Sat Feb 4 21:54:44 2006 From: hambtty at triad.rr.com (hambtty) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:54:44 -0000 Subject: MM does she know more? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147607 Olive's Cousin ponders: Does Moaning Myrtle know more about Tom Riddle/LV than we do so far? She went to school with Tom and then Draco poured his heart out to her in Book 6. Is there something the trio can learn from her if they know what to ask? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 22:17:01 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:17:01 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147608 > >>Betsy Hp: > > This sounded wrong to me, so I did some fast and dirty web > > research. The heroic quest (or the Hero's Journey) doesn't need > > a secretly evil, or "surprise" villain at all. > >>Alla: > Where did I say that heroic quest needs a secret evil, > or "surprise" villain? I said exactly the opposite - that hero > needs to know who your enemies are. So I am not quite sure what > exactly sounded wrong to you in my reply. Betsy Hp: You were talking about Snape, though, correct? And I thought you were saying that Harry will need to correctly identify the villain (Snape) and that, indeed, there *must* be a villain in order for there to be a heroic quest. I was saying that the mystery of identifying the villain is *not* an essential part of a heroic quest. Voldemort is enough. We don't need the "surprise" of villain Snape. The heroic quest is generally more "know thyself" rather than "know thine enemies". (Though the first often leads to the latter.) You snipped this part but I also pointed out that there's no need for a villain in a heroic quest. It was the entirety of your answer that I was speaking towards, that I thought there was something a bit off in the definition of the heroic quest rather than just the secret villain part. Honestly, I think the "hero's journey" or "heroic quest" has tended to not be properly defined when it's been brought up on this list, so I was using this post as a jumping off point -- not just answering you specifically. The heroic quest is a lot broader, I think, than it's been given credit for. > >>Betsy Hp: > > And if there is a villain, generally the hero knows exactly who > > they are from the get-go. > >>Alla: > Correct, but since my argument is that book 7 is the ONLY book > where at least in part we will see the quest, I say that this is > exactly true - Harry knows "from the get go" of book 7 who the > villains are and Snape can very well be amongst villains. > Basically, in the book 7 IMO Harry will not make mistakes as to > who the villains are. Betsy Hp: See, I'd say that the *entire series* has been a heroic quest. And Harry has *always* correctly identified the villain (Voldemort). In fact, he's one of the few people willing to out and out name the villain, and often (each time?) he has a moment of personal connection with the villain. Harry's challenge has, it seems to me, been to correctly identify himself and thereby correctly see past Voldemort's smoke and mirrors. Voldemort and Harry are tied together and perhaps the whole thrust of the series has been Harry trying to untangle himself from Voldemort. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Dorothy met the Wicked Witch of the West pretty quickly after > > arriving in OZ; > >>Dave: > Actually, that's just in the movie.... Betsy Hp: Yup. I was going with the movie, since I'm not all that familiar with the books. > >>Dave: > BTW, I think in the light of the current discussion that it's > worth noting that in the 14 Oz books by Baum and countless ones by > other authors, I can't think of one that follows a "Hero's Journey" > model -- They are all about camaraderie and cooperation, and almost > never does Dorothy or whomever the main protagonist is(*) have to > "go it alone". > >>Jen: > But in the Hero's Quest, the hero doesn't usually have to "go it > alone". Campbell specifically states that the hero receives help > and or finds people who will be helpful. Betsy Hp: Either can be true, I think. In "The Old Man and the Sea" the old man is alone. In "Heart of Darkness" Marlow has help, but I think he's essentially alone. In "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" Huckleberry has Jim. Harry is at times, quite alone when confronting his own self-doubts, etc. But when facing down Voldemort, he's had help from Dumbledore or his parents. But that's what I mean about a too specific definition of a hero's quest. The only hard and fast rule (I think) is that a hero has a task to fulfill (catch fish, defeat Dark Lord, fetch missing guy). There's no rules about how that task is assigned (bearded guru, empty pockets, job assignment), how it's carried out (fellowship, fishing line, Company men), that it succeeds, or what specifically is achieved. That the hero tries for something, that he learns something along the way, is about all that's needed. (I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong .) And I do think JKR has set Harry on a journey. She used Hagrid to put Harry on the path and each book has brought him closer to whatever occurs in book 7. The ESE folks have provided Harry with opportunities to learn something about himself and Voldemort, and they've provided something interesting for the readers. But I don't think she's ever written an out and out mystery where Harry gathers clues and has a "j'accuse" moment. In fact, he's usually as stunned as the reader when the ESE!character is revealed. (What I find interesting, and an important part of understanding his character, is that Dumbledore is generally stunned himself.) And, every single time, the actual villain is Voldemort. (Even CoS's Tom Riddle has become Voldemort to his closest friends.) So yeah, I think the entire series has been a hero's quest or journey. ESE's provide flavor (so I'm back to thinking book 7 will have one) but they aren't the backbone of the story (so I'm seeing it as a secondary story line). Harry's quest to destroy Voldemort has always been the key story line. In HBP we were able to watch Tom Riddle's heroic quest and see how it lead him to create Voldemort. Perhaps book 7 will give us some insight into Snape's heroic quest and how it first lead him to and than away from Voldemort. But all of this has gone towards, and will go towards, Harry fulfilling his quest. In the end, there's not really a need for a villain at all. Betsy Hp, perches happily out on her limb. :-) From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 22:19:35 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:19:35 -0000 Subject: What DD wanted for LV? WAS:Re: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147609 Carol wrote: "Still, I think we can take the statement ("Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit") as true even though it's not the real reason (or the primary reason among many) why he doesn't attempt to kill Voldemort then or at any other time. That being the case, what can he mean by it? What *would* satisfy Dumbledore (if he were alive to see it)? Would merely having *Harry* take LV's life be somehow more satisfactory? Surely he's not expecting LV to beg for mercy or repentance? Or maybe it's not a half-truth at all but an out-and-out lie to cover up his knowledge of the Horcruxes? I can't imagine DD *wanting* to take someones life, not even Riddle/Voldemort's. What, then, does he mean? Ideas, anyone?" CH3ed: I agree with Carol that there is more to DD's remark to LV at the MoM. I also think this is one instance where it helped the good side that DD is known to LV as one of those softy fools who love. DD not killing LV/Harry (possessed) would be explained away in LV's mind as typical of DD the good guys who won't hurt innocent parties.... instead of alerting LV to the possibility that DD is on to him having Horcruxes. As to the question of what DD meant when he said,"merely taking your life wouldn't satisfy me." I agree with Kchuplis that love has to do with it. Maybe he wanted LV to realize before he dies what great things he missed by shunning love. But my own guess would be that DD would have liked to be able to trade LV's life for the lives of those innocents (and OotP members) LV had killed. And DD is bitter that he can't. CH3ed :O) back again after a long bout with pneumonia. From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 22:34:19 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:34:19 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147610 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: Since Alla cited me up thread, I feel the need to clarify what I think I actually meant. I see the *format* of book 7 going into Super Happy Quest Mode. I do not consider this quite the same thing as a 'Hero's Journey' paradigm, for one thing. (And for another, I think Joseph Campbell is generally bunk, but that's another thread.) Format means that Harry and his Trusty Sidekicks leave the comforting halls of Hogwarts and go out on a search for a number of objects, the Horsepuckies...err, Horcruxes. JKR has told us that yes, Harry now gets to find and destroy these objects. Then, all objects obtained, Harry is unable to finally unlock the last dungeon and progress to fighting the final boss of the game, after facing some lesser mini- bosses. Some ridiculous yet foreshadowed special trick may be necessary to be able to damage the boss. [Err, you know what I mean. Legacy of a wasted youth there. Sorry.] This is a major change in structure from the previous six books, which have centered around the regularity of the school year. For variety we got different approaches into each year (train, flying car, events on train, etc.), and the structure became looser as the books progressed (like opening GoF with all that other stuff before getting to Hogwarts), undergoing the major shift after GoF. > The heroic quest is generally more "know thyself" rather than "know > thine enemies". (Though the first often leads to the latter.) Above all, the heroic quest is "Find those things that you're looking for". This often involves running confrontations with some kind of villain, but it's more about progressing along and racking up points per magical object needed and obtained. > The only hard and fast rule (I think) is that a hero has a > task to fulfill (catch fish, defeat Dark Lord, fetch missing guy). I wouldn't disagree with most of this. What I'm still directing my attention to is the format. Harry has been stationary for most of the six books; they're Hogwarts centered. Only now is he striking out really on his own to go and hunt for things. It's the breaking of the stationary format which makes me reluctant to really think of the previous books as a 'journey' except in the most metaphorical of terms. Right now, I'm thinking mechanics. And there always have to be difficulties, if not outright antagonists, on a heroic quest for the magic thingies. No tension makes it too easy, and too easy makes for a boring novel. PACMAN, only for situations instead of characters. :) -Nora recommends some B-grade fantasy series with five books in them each (cough cough) for anyone who wants to see a fairly classic heroic quest/chase model in action From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 4 23:33:36 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 23:33:36 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147611 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: Betsy Hp: > See, I'd say that the *entire series* has been a heroic quest. And > Harry has *always* correctly identified the villain (Voldemort). In > fact, he's one of the few people willing to out and out name the > villain, and often (each time?) he has a moment of personal > connection with the villain. Harry's challenge has, it seems to me, > been to correctly identify himself and thereby correctly see past > Voldemort's smoke and mirrors. Voldemort and Harry are tied > together and perhaps the whole thrust of the series has been Harry > trying to untangle himself from Voldemort. > But I don't think she's ever written an out and out mystery where > Harry gathers clues and has a "j'accuse" moment. In fact, he's > usually as stunned as the reader when the ESE!character is > revealed. (What I find interesting, and an important part of > understanding his character,is that Dumbledore is generally stunned > himself.) > And, every single time, the actual villain is Voldemort. (Even > CoS's Tom Riddle has become Voldemort to his closest friends.) So > yeah, I think the entire series has been a hero's quest or > journey. ESE's provide flavor (so I'm back to thinking book 7 will > have one) but they aren't the backbone of the story (so I'm seeing > secondary story line). Harry's quest to destroy Voldemort has > always been the key story line. Geoff: There is one deviation from your suggested line and that is in Prisoner of Azkaban. Voldemort is not the actual villain - he doesn't appear of course. I suppose the ESE guy here is Peter Pettigrew but he's not working for Voldemort in this particular instance so your villain "family tree" is missing a branch. Perhaps the one you're perched on? :-) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 23:53:45 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 23:53:45 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147612 > >>Nora: > > I see the *format* of book 7 going into Super Happy Quest Mode. I > do not consider this quite the same thing as a 'Hero's Journey' > paradigm, for one thing. (And for another, I think Joseph > Campbell is generally bunk, but that's another thread.) Betsy Hp: That's what I mean about a too specific definition. Campbell *wrote* about the Hero's Journey. He didn't invent it. And I don't know that he's the definitive source of all things quest-ie. Actually, I think there's too strong a tendency to see the fantasy genre as the be all end all of the herioc quest. And that's a mistake on two levels. First, the fantasy genre ain't that old, whereas the heroic quest is as old as story-telling. And second, JKR has stated many, many times, that she's not at all interested in the fantasy genre. So I doubt she's really going for a fantasy story with her series. > >>Nora: > Format means that Harry and his Trusty Sidekicks leave the > comforting halls of Hogwarts and go out on a search for a number > of objects, the Horsepuckies...err, Horcruxes. > Betsy Hp: Yes, Harry is going pro-active. Instead of waiting for the action to come to him (to Hogwarts) he's going after the action. JKR has given us the McGuffins that are the horcruxes, but I suspect that they will be of secondary importance. I also suspect that HBP is not the last we'll see of Hogwarts. But I do see what you mean about the structure of the last book being different. JKR seems to be taking us well out of the school- days tale. In many ways, however, she did that with GoF. With Cedric's death, everything changed. Suddenly house points and quidditch cups became rather meaningless. > >>Nora: > JKR has told us that yes, Harry now gets to find and destroy these > objects. Then, all objects obtained, Harry is unable to finally > unlock the last dungeon and progress to fighting the final boss of > the game, after facing some lesser mini-bosses. Some ridiculous > yet foreshadowed special trick may be necessary to be able to > damage the boss. [Err, you know what I mean. Legacy of a wasted > youth there. Sorry.] > This is a major change in structure from the previous six books, > which have centered around the regularity of the school year. > Betsy Hp: Right, but the structure isn't the entire point of the tale, is it? I mean, it's not really a video game where the reader is most interested in seeing Harry use his massive wizards skills to go head to head against Voldemort. It never has been. And Dumbledore rather underlined that fact in HBP by *not* improving Harry's wizard skills. He didn't teach Harry anything about magic at all. I doubt JKR is going to change that all for book 7. Instead, as he's had to do in all the other books, Harry will need to learn something about himself, face an unpleasant truth (i.e. you'd have done well in Slytherin) and hopefully, learn some sort of basic truth that Voldemort has failed to grasp. I tend to agree with Sydney, [see here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147406 ] that book 7 will be more about Harry finally seeing the worth in those he pre-judged to be unworthy (hopefully I've not mis-spoken Sydney's point!). There's a delicious hint that Zach Smith may be a source for one of the horcruxes, and that could be a start. Learning a new side to Regulus Black could be another. And then, of course, there's Draco and Snape. So I think it's going to be more about personal relationships and Harry understanding himself and therefore others rather than a bunch of battles. > >>Nora: > Above all, the heroic quest is "Find those things that you're > looking for". Betsy Hp: Agreed. (Though it's generally "thing" rather than a plural - probably for clarity's sake.) > >>Nora: > This often involves running confrontations with some kind of > villain, but it's more about progressing along and racking up > points per magical object needed and obtained. Betsy Hp: Well, no. It rarely means that. The heroic quest is not soley a fantasy thing. Marlow didn't run into any magical objects in the Congo (unless Kurtz counts ). The old man didn't confront any villains while at sea. Gosh, the Harry Potter series doesn't involve any "obtaining of magical objects" or points being racked up. Mostly, Harry's success has been measured in not being dead. Which is why I'm reluctant to think JKR is going to collapse the interesting story she's been telling into a mere scavenger hunt. The hunt will be the structure, but not the point. > >>Nora: > It's the breaking of the stationary format which makes me > reluctant to really think of the previous books as a 'journey' > except in the most metaphorical of terms. Right now, I'm thinking > mechanics. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I see what you're saying, but the thing is, the hero's journey or heroic quest *is* a metaphorical thing. There doesn't always have to be literal travel involved. And, I do wonder how much actual traveling Harry will need to do. It wouldn't surprise me if Voldemort stuck his remaining horcruxes in and around Hogwarts. (Dumbledore does tell us that Voldemort is remarkably attached to the school. Not unlike Harry.) However, even if Harry does need to strike out to parts unknown to collect the bits and pieces of Voldemort's soul, it's the metaphorical journey that will be the most interesting, I believe. Because that's what JKR has always been more interested in. > >>Nora: > And there always have to be difficulties, if not outright > antagonists, on a heroic quest for the magic thingies. No tension > makes it too easy, and too easy makes for a boring novel. PACMAN, > only for situations instead of characters. :) Betsy Hp: Yes, the hero must have something to strive against, even if it's just a massive fish. And JKR has given Harry Voldemort. But she hasn't given Harry any sort of magic thing as the end of his quest. Unless we're counting life as something magical. Which I guess we could. > -Nora recommends some B-grade fantasy series with five books in > them each (cough cough) for anyone who wants to see a fairly > classic heroic quest/chase model in action Betsy Hp: I'd recommend Joseph Conrad's "The Heart of Darkness", or Hemmingway's "The Old Man and The Sea" as good heroic quest tales. Both are short reads, and neither could be classified as B-grade. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > And, every single time, the actual villain is Voldemort. > > > >>Geoff: > There is one deviation from your suggested line and that is in > Prisoner of Azkaban. Voldemort is not the actual villain - he > doesn't appear of course. I suppose the ESE guy here is Peter > Pettigrew but he's not working for Voldemort in this particular > instance so your villain "family tree" is missing a branch. > Perhaps the one you're perched on? :-) Betsy Hp: Okay, Geoff, time to watch me scramble. While Voldemort isn't actively involved in PoA, what Harry is looking for is who betrayed his parents to their deaths *at Voldemort's hands*. He's looking for Voldemort's servant. Without Voldemort Peter would have had no one to serve. IOW, Voldemort activates Peter's villainy. So Voldemort's shadow hangs quite heavily over PoA. So heavy, in fact, that Peter returns to him, rather than say, catching a boat to New Zeland. Betsy Hp, still clinging... she thinks. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Feb 5 00:28:48 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 00:28:48 -0000 Subject: FILK: Real Nice Mandrakes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147613 Real Nice Mandrakes To the tune of A Real Nice Clambake, from Rodgers and Hammerstein's Carousel (the film version) Dedicated to Ginger MIDI at: http://www.hamienet.com/xtrack993-3.mid The film version omits the first couple of stanzas, so fast forward the MIDI to 1:16 THE SCENE: The Herbology Greenhouse, a few years after CoS. SPROUT instructs another class in the proper raising of mandrakes. SPROUT & CHORUS OF STUDENTS They will be real nice mandrakes When they are full mature. Make sure the earmuffs are tight enough Or we'll be knocked out, for sure! Their skin is green, their bawling is shrill Though they are still quite young They will be real nice mandrakes `Cause they all have some real great lungs SPROUT Remember when we faced that Chamber monster What liked to petri-file? It slithered and snarled and slaughtered and slunk Hissin' like a foul reptile CHORUS OF STUDENTS Huntin' and a hissin' Huntin' and a hissin' Hissin' like a foul reptile! SPROUT It turned 'em into stone and froze `em up bad, And made `em to be like fossils So I planted `Drakes in pots And gave `em scarves and socks And they gave us success colossal CHORUS OF STUDENTS Plantin' and a pottin' Plantin' and a pottin' Pottin' in a compost pile SPROUT Then at last came the cure CHORUS OF STUDENTS The cure! Made `em less rocky, jus' how we cannot tell How did Mimsy ever get it down his gullet? SPROUT I couldn't say mysel' SPROUT & CHORUS OF STUDENTS Oh-h-h- They will be real nice mandrakes When they are fully grown If you're stalagmite from a snake bite They can turn you back from stone Their skin is green, their bawling is shrill Their acne's gone away They will be real nice mandrakes And they'll all soon be makin' hay They'll all leave their pots To start partyin' hard And all will be makin' hay They'll all leave their pots To start partyin' hard And all will be makin' hay! - CMC NOTE: The references to socks, scarves, acne and partying are all Canonic. HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 02:07:25 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 02:07:25 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > And second, JKR has stated many, many times, that she's not at all > interested in the fantasy genre. So I doubt she's really going for > a fantasy story with her series. Stated and done are not quite the same thing. I think there's a lot about it which can be fit, at least partially, into some of the many subgenres within that larger label. She's consciously twisting and playing with the folklore which is the fuel for many a work within the genre (love the wacky house-elves). If you're thinking of the Time interview, that was a mess on so many levels about the fantasy stuff, IMO (and not just MO, either). > Betsy Hp: > Yes, Harry is going pro-active. Instead of waiting for the action > to come to him (to Hogwarts) he's going after the action. JKR has > given us the McGuffins that are the horcruxes, but I suspect that > they will be of secondary importance. I also suspect that HBP is > not the last we'll see of Hogwarts. Isn't the classic definition of McGuffin a plot element/item which everyone wants but has no significance in and of itself--like the suitcase that everyone is chasing but no one, including the audience, knows what's inside? (One good example is in the movie Ronin.) The Horcruxes seem anything BUT a McGuffin in that function of the word. They absolutely must be found and destroyed before Voldemort himself can be taken care of--hence my joke about Harry being able to unlock the final dungeon, a classic scenario for all players of video game quests. And we've gotten a surprising amount of information about what they are and the symbolism surrounding each one, so they're meaningful in their own right. Magical diary preserving a shadow Tom, ring of the treasured ancestors, Founders' items. Very different from a classic Hitchcock setup where the reasons for being chased by a crop duster are less important than the chase itself. > I mean, it's not really a video game where the reader is most > interested in seeing Harry use his massive wizards skills to go > head to head against Voldemort. It never has been. And > Dumbledore rather underlined that fact in HBP by *not* improving > Harry's wizard skills. He didn't teach Harry anything about magic > at all. The structure's not the entire point, but the structure does dictate a lot of what can happen. While it may not be Harry blowing his way through the dungeons with ridiculous power (that's how I play, hehehe), it may *well* be an illustration of the many and varied skills of Harry and Sidekicks. After all, JKR does tell us that Harry knows more than he thinks that he does. It could be a demonstration of their deductive and hunting skills and the power of teamwork, rather than their 1337 magical powerz. > Agreed. (Though it's generally "thing" rather than a plural - > probably for clarity's sake.) Many quests do involve more than one thing. Classic plot trick is to reveal that the thing the seekers thought is what they needed is not what they thought it was. But Rowling's already done that once... > Well, no. It rarely means that. The heroic quest is not soley a > fantasy thing. Marlow didn't run into any magical objects in the > Congo (unless Kurtz counts ). The old man didn't confront any > villains while at sea. Gosh, the Harry Potter series doesn't > involve any "obtaining of magical objects" or points being racked > up. Mostly, Harry's success has been measured in not being dead. > Which is why I'm reluctant to think JKR is going to collapse the > interesting story she's been telling into a mere scavenger hunt. > The hunt will be the structure, but not the point. The hunt does have a point in and of itself, though, if you consider finding all the Horsepuckies absolutely vital to being able to make it to the end. I think that by giving us such an absolutely solid and material goal, and then reinforcing that yeah, that's it, she's already made it into a quest very different from that of Marlowe for Kurtz or the old man for his perfect fish, both of which are far more metaphysical. I don't doubt it's going to involve a lot of self- searching along the way, but JKR is prone to illustrate such through action as opposed to pages of describing how a character feels. > However, even if Harry does need to strike out to parts unknown to > collect the bits and pieces of Voldemort's soul, it's the > metaphorical journey that will be the most interesting, I believe. > Because that's what JKR has always been more interested in. I agree that the metaphorical journey is important, but again, I think it's definitely going to be accomplished through the media of the actual quest itself and not through a more internal style of questing. I doubt it's going to be something like Lem's _Fiasco_, an excellent but unbelievably disturbing novel, where it's really about the people on the ship and their atavism. The strength of the HP books is that Harry Does Things, and when she wants to, the plot zips right along. -Nora is a veteran dungeoncrawler, unsurprisingly From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 5 02:30:06 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 02:30:06 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147615 Betsy_HP > I do think an element of discovery is essential to the Hero's > Journey. A truth must be either learned or at least glimpsed at. > And I suppose that can take the form of a "surprise" villain. But > that's not what I see the ESE as fulfilling. And I don't think > that's the sort of journey JKR has set Harry on. I mean, he's not a > knight or a warrior really, is he? Dumbledore doesn't train him in > arcane magical fighting skills. Instead, Dumbledore tries to show > Harry the lost humanity of Voldemort. And he implies that only by > understanding Voldemort will Harry have a hope of finding the > missing horcruxes. > > And so, huh. I seem to have talked myself out of book 7 needing an > ESE!character. (Though JKR really does like her mystery elements.) > Pippin: The ESE has an important thematic purpose, IMO, besides being part of a mystery or puzzle. The ESE's are by definition ones whose behavior does not attract suspicion, ie they can act like normal innocent people. First of all that tells us that evil is harder to spot than we think it is. It also bears on JKR's beliefs that no one is born evil and children, unless they are very damaged, are basically good. * Obviously JKR doesn't hold that growing older automatically means growing wickeder, since Dumbledore is among the oldest characters and morally the example for everyone else. Anyone who holds such beliefs has to account for how normal basically good people can be led into the service of Voldemort or his real world counterparts. If normal people are basically good, how do we explain witch hunts? The ESE's have been, AFAWK, all normal and basically good to start with, though of course the longer they remained in Voldemort's service the more damaged they became. Each had a different reason for choosing Voldemort's side. Quirrell had a naive lust for power, Ginny was duped, but then became a collaborator, stealing the diary back for fear of exposure, Peter wanted protection, Crouch Jr sought the attention his father was never willing to give, Kreacher wanted to serve a master of his own choosing, and Draco (not exactly an ESE but the only HBP villain who has confessed) thought that being a dark wizard would be cool. I don't think JKR has finished exploring this question. Certainly Harry hasn't recognized that good people can go over to the dark side, so I fully expect another ESE, even if it isn't who I think it is. I'm no expert on these things, but I think the Hero going it alone is more related to the bildungsroman aspect of the books than the heroic quest. Our young heroes have to show that they have absorbed the wisdom and knowledge their guardians and protectors tried to instill, developed their potential, and can finally stand on their own two feet. The fundamental anxiety being addressed is not whether good can defeat evil, as in the heroic quest, but whether the young can survive without the immediate guidance and protection of their elders (as we all must if we live long enough.) Pippin * http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099-ap.html From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Feb 5 04:28:21 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 04:28:21 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Wolfsbane potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > > Allie: > > > Okay, even if it's very complicated and requires a lot > > > of hard to find ingredients, what else does Lupin have to do? > > > It's possible that the Wolfsbane potion could be poisonous if not made > exactly right-- the main ingredient being wolfsbane or aconitum > luparia, which like most aconites is fatally toxic. It would explain > why Lupin would be hesitant to experiment-- and why other werewolves > are wary of trying it. Only a real master could be trusted to handle > it-- like fugu! > > -- Sydney, picturing sushichef!Snape > Allie again: Okay, THAT is plausible. I wasn't believing the "it's just too hard" excuse. From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Feb 5 04:46:29 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 04:46:29 -0000 Subject: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147617 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Luckdragon" wrote: > > Luckdragon: > Jo has created many unsavoury and unlikeable characters in the Harry > Potter books. Which characters other than LV would you most like to > see get their "just desserts" in book seven? > Allie: BELLATRIX LESTRANGE (and I hope it's by Neville's hand) and Dolores Umbridge (as previously mentioned). I know she's insane, so maybe she's not responsible for her actions, but I really want to see Bellatrix punished. When the Death Eaters surround the kids in the Prophecy Room of the DoM, her immediate response is "let's torture the little girl"???? And she takes sadistic pleasure in subjecting Neville to the Cruciatus Curse, just like she did his parents. She's vile. From darkmatter30 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 05:07:55 2006 From: darkmatter30 at yahoo.com (Richard) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 05:07:55 -0000 Subject: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: <410-220062644229752@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147618 > Chancie: > My vote would definitely have to go for Umbridge! Every time she > came into a scene in OOP I would cringe! And I'm still having a > hard time figuring out how she's still walking around after all she > did. Fudge was responsible for putting her in Hogwarts to begin > with, but as power hungry as he is/was I have never read him as > sadistic, which is exactly how I would describe Umbridge. > I don't really care what happens to her as long as it's awful, > and she's outed as the monster she is! Richard here: I have to agree with Chancie (though, dear elves, this is not a mere "I agree post"), that Umbridge deserves to be revealed for what she is, but I think Chancie understates how evil Umbridge is. Here's how I see it ... I don't think Umbridge quite reaches the Adolf Eichmann plane of cold, bureaucratic evil, but believe she is not far from it. She orchestrates a murder attempt against Harry at the start of OotP, not for any ideal, or for personal benefit, but because Harry is a threat to her conception of the proper order of things. Voldemort is unquestionably evil, but it is a clearly understandable evil that is direct in its actions and its effects. It does not value the lives of any who stand it its way, but it is at least passionate in its actions, and (oddly) capable of a certain warped mercy, while Umbridge is willing to kill an innocent in cold blood for simply being inconvenient. Umbridge is in some senses worse (more "Eichmann-esque") than Voldemort, because at least Voldemort really only demands submission to and service for himself while, I suspect, being perfectly willing to let those who properly submit to be who and what they otherwise are. Umbridge's form of evil doesn't see individuality as tolerable, let alone desirable. All students are to simply read their texts, are denied the right to ask pertinent questions, are refused any instruction in how to protect themselves, and generally must not deviate from her vision of order. Voldemort would certainly punish any he suspected of the least treachery, yet allows his thralls to associate freely enough. (Being a Legilimens certainly affects this, but still there is a measure of freedom of association here.) For Umbridge, even the suspicion of potential conspiracy is enough for her to regulate association rigidly. Punishment in Umbridge's mind is not "proportional" in the sense that Voldemort's punishment is. If you betray Voldemort, or fail too badly to execute his orders, he will kill you. Lesser crimes get less punishments, one being simply "no longer favored," and thus excluded from confidences. For Umbridge, innocence is no obstacle to punishment, as it is all "for the greater good," however purely expedient and unjust ... for justice isn't even a consideration. There are a number of other things I despise about Umbridge, but I'm a little too tired to state the above as clearly as I would like, and won't venture further into why Umbridge is to me a more dangerous form of evil than Voldemort. I don't know that she will get entirely what she deserves, but there would be an elemenet of justice if she were to be killed personally by the man-creature she insisted could not be back, particularly if this could occur after her being outed for the sadistic bureaucratic monster she is. Richard, who thinks institutional evil can be far more dangerous than simple personal evil, and that we worst features of both would be seen if Umbridge were, somehow, to become Minister. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Feb 5 05:09:55 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 05:09:55 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147619 Betsy hp: > See, I'd say that the *entire series* has been a heroic quest. And > Harry has *always* correctly identified the villain (Voldemort). > In fact, he's one of the few people willing to out and out name > the villain, and often (each time?) he has a moment of personal > connection with the villain. Harry's challenge has, it seems to > me, been to correctly identify himself and thereby correctly see > past Voldemort's smoke and mirrors. Voldemort and Harry are tied > together and perhaps the whole thrust of the series has been Harry > trying to untangle himself from Voldemort. Jen: Oh, I like this interpretation Betsy. The part about Harry untangling himself from Voldemort particularly, because that does seem to be the 'central and critical question' JKR is trying to answer: How did Harry become tied to Voldemort in the first place (almost there but for Godric's Hollow) and how can he *untie* himself via destorying the horcruxes and ultimately, vanquishing Voldemort. And how does Harry do this without destroying his own soul in the process? Betsy hp: > However, even if Harry does need to strike out to parts unknown to > collect the bits and pieces of Voldemort's soul, it's the > metaphorical journey that will be the most interesting, I believe. > Because that's what JKR has always been more interested in. Nora: > I agree that the metaphorical journey is important, but again, I > think it's definitely going to be accomplished through the media > of the actual quest itself and not through a more internal style > of questing. The strength of the HP books is that Harry > Does Things, and when she wants to, the plot zips right along. Jen: This *is* a metaphsycial story in the sense of two souls of opposite composition (so to speak) being tied together, and how that can change both people. At least that's where I think we're headed: Voldemort ultimately can't tolerate having Harry's blood inside him or being bound to someone genuinely loving and sacrificing, just as Harry can't bear the pain of Voldemort's destroyed soul obtaining a body and coming in contact with him. The internal human struggle in the form of two separate souls. In that sense I agree with Betsy that the 'quest' may not go very far from home even though Harry internally will change through the process. JKR said she took Harry to all the places he needed to visit in OOTP, so presumably we aren't headed to Egypt, Durmstrang, Azkaban or other places unknown because the scene has already been set. Betsy hp: > I doubt JKR is going to change that all for book 7. > Instead, as he's had to do in all the other books, Harry will need > to learn something about himself, face an unpleasant truth (i.e. > you'd have done well in Slytherin) and hopefully, learn some sort > of basic truth that Voldemort has failed to grasp. Jen: Lily. I think she's the hinge Harry's story will hang on when all is said and done. It won't be *her* story, but the truth Harry will discover is what Voldemort underestimated and what Harry underestimates as well judging by his dismay at Dumbledore's speech about love in HBP. Lily, who also would have done well in Slytherin apparently , will be the missing piece to the puzzle. I can't wait to see if 'finding his [mother] inside himself' will manifest in actual magic as James did with the stag patronus. I love those little bits in the story, a little overly sentimental but what the hey. Harry destroying the horcruxes makes the defeat of Voldemort possible, but it will be a change inside Harry which is the final 'weapon' handed by Voldemort to Harry and the cause of the defeat. I picture this being an internal battle similar to the external brother wand confrontation. So Voldemort will in a sense defeat himself and fulfill the prophecy he set in motion. Simple, clean--I'm rather attached to this ending . Jen R. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 06:31:36 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 06:31:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's hand and UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lucianam73" wrote: > > Sorry if someone already posted this before (I did a search, but might > have missed out). Only today I *noticed* that in order to make the > Unbreakable Vow, you use your right hand. And Dumbledore's injured > hand is the right one. (Snip)> Suppose Dumbledore made an UV and had to break it. (Snip) Tonks: DD would not have made an UV because as I understand it that is a piece of dark magic. DD would not do anything that was dark magic. He may have stumbled upon dark magic when he found the ring and this had an effect on him, but he does not do any himself. Tonks_op From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 08:32:19 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 08:32:19 -0000 Subject: Why would DDM!Snape kill Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147621 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > > I can come up with a scenario where Snape, _as Dumbledore's sworn > man,_ would have to kill Dumbledore. > > We don't know what the effects of that awful potion he swilled down > were. **snip** Snape doesn't have to kill Dd at all.... All Snape has to do is remove the "stopper of death" he brewed to hinder DD's "dying hand" from spreading to the rest of his body!!! Snape left Harry a massive hint with all the "nonverbal" spells snape case against him during Snape's escape from Hogwarts...(not to mention snape's ditany on closing one's mind).. I do loathe Snape...I don't know if I can ever call him DD's man...because DD's man would NEVER treat students as Snape does... (it may be a different story if Snape had been "indifferent" to his "hated" students but he is not...) Also, Snape is simply not foul to only Harry, but also Ron, Hermione and Neville..(at the least) I think that Snape made the UV without his knowledge of all the facts in play. (he thought he knew but thought wrong).. I find myself asking one question...why would snape case a verbal AK!?!?? 1. because he said it and meant it 2. Because he said it and cast some other nonverbal spell. The only other question I ask that's not about snape is... Why would DD plead with snape? My answer is that Dd would never plead for his own life...only some one else's... So we have to ponder whether or not DD plead for Draco's life, or Harry's... And if Dd is pleading for Draco's OR Harry's lives then we all must consider why Snape killed DD... To save himself, Draco, or Harry... And what if Snape thought Draco would actually committ the deed given that Draco is one of Snape's favorites? This is my Dilemma... We know that DD would protect any of his students at a high cost. (even Voldemort) Was Dd pleading to save the students?!? And did Snape cast said spell to save himself, or Draco, or Harry..or others... (doubtful since he knocked Flitwick out) I don't think Snape neccessarily had to cast an AK to kill DD; just cast a spell to remove said "stopper"... This make a great deal of sense regarding DD's actions in HBP.. We also have to remember that one of Snape greatest doubters is Bellatrix... AND... After Snape's actions in HBP there really is little room to doubt...whose side Snape is on.. My prediction for book seven is that Peter Pettigrew will tell Harry that Snape is on his side.. (now isn't that a great plot device?) Doddiemoemoe From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Feb 5 11:53:40 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:53:40 -0000 Subject: Umbridge fate Re: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147622 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Richard" wrote: > There are a number of other things I despise about Umbridge, but I'm > a little too tired to state the above as clearly as I would like, > and won't venture further into why Umbridge is to me a more > dangerous form of evil than Voldemort. I don't know that she will > get entirely what she deserves, but there would be an elemenet of > justice if she were to be killed personally by the man-creature she > insisted could not be back, particularly if this could occur after > her being outed for the sadistic bureaucratic monster she is. I would prefer her being sacked, with a nice stay in Azkaban with a nice article about how this came to be including the dementor attack on Harry in the Daily Prophet. For someone like Umbridge being deprived of all power, having lost all she worked so hard for would be a fate truly worse than death. But maybe she just gets to meet a couple of centaurs again. Gerry From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Sun Feb 5 14:04:17 2006 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 14:04:17 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147623 Butting in this very exciting discussion (I'm lurking and reading it with great interest), I'd like to ask you guys if any of you considers the possibility of the Horcrux subplot being partially false? Or at any rate surprisingly unimportant to the actual plot of book 7? I wonder if JKR is really going to lay it thick on the (boring!) Horcruxes, because she's never given away the plot of her books before. She did say (sorry I can't remember the actual words) that 'now we have a clear idea of what Harry has to do'. But I can't help thinking if what she literally meant by that is 'now we know Harry is going to his parents' graves, and he's not coming back to school, then he's going after the four remaining Horcruxes that are such and such, then he's going after Voldemort and Snape', well that would apparently be the plot of her next book right there. Apparently. I CAN'T help thinking part of it, at least, must be a bluff. And since the Horcruxes seem less important in the story's structure than going after Snape, Voldemort, not to mention we finally seeing Godric's Hollow, there must be a twist about them. Well, at least all the books so far have been surprises as their plot is concerned. If JKR really gave so much away about what's going to happen, why shouldn't she give away the book's title too ... :P lucianam From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 5 14:36:46 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 14:36:46 -0000 Subject: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147624 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Luckdragon" > wrote: Luckdragon: > > Jo has created many unsavoury and unlikeable characters in the Harry > > Potter books. Which characters other than LV would you most like to > > see get their "just desserts" in book seven? Allie: > BELLATRIX LESTRANGE (and I hope it's by Neville's hand) and Dolores > Umbridge (as previously mentioned). > > I know she's insane, so maybe she's not responsible for her actions, > but I really want to see Bellatrix punished. When the Death Eaters > surround the kids in the Prophecy Room of the DoM, her immediate > response is "let's torture the little girl"???? And she takes > sadistic pleasure in subjecting Neville to the Cruciatus Curse, just > like she did his parents. She's vile. Geoff: I originally posted this about 7.45 am this morning but its now 2.30 pm and it looks as if Yahoomort has swallowed my message, so here goes again. Having read your message, something came to mind which has never occurred to me previously. There is a curious parallelism between Bellatrix Lestrange and Dolores Umbridge in the way they interact (or fail to interact) with young people. They both appear to treat them as if they were not any higher than about Year 1 in school and speak to them condescendingly and patronisingly. A couple of canon quotes as examples just to support my point: '"Well, good afternoon!" she said when finally the whole class had sat down. A few people mumbled "good afternoon" in reply. "Tut, tut," said Professor Umbridge, "/That/ won't do, now, will it? I should like you, please, to reply 'Good afternoon, Professor Umbridge'. One more time please, Good afternoon, class!" "Good afternoon, Professor Umbridge," they chanted back at her. "There, now." said Professor Umbridge sweetly, "That wasn't so difficult, was it?...."' (OOTP "Professor Umbridge" p.215 UK edition) She goes on to insist on such rules that pupils cannot speak without putting up a hand which would not endear her to 15-16 year old students. (I speak after having dealt with that age group for over 30 years). Again: '"You've got him," said Harry, ignoring the rising panic in his chest, the dread he had been fighting since they had first entered the ninety-seventh row. "He's here. I know he is." "The little baby woke up fwightened and fort what it dweamed was twoo," said the woman in a horrible, mock baby voice.' (OOTP "Beyond the Veil" p.689 UK edition) '"Come out, come out, little Harry!" she called in her mock baby voice which echoed off the polished floors. "What did you come after me for, then? I thought you were here to avenge my dear cousin!" "I am!" shouted Harry and a score of ghostly Harry seemed to chorus I am! I am! I am! all around the room. "Aaaaah... did you love him, little baby Potter?"' (OOTP "The Only One He Ever Feared" pp.714-15 UK edition) Curious the similar ways in which they treat the young people. I can understand Umbridge because she appears to be a typical spinster maiden aunt - fluffly cardigan, little hair bow and not knowing how best to treat the class. But Bellatrix does not seem the type to react on the same way. Any views out there? From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Feb 5 15:22:39 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:22:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060205152239.79845.qmail@web53306.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147625 Geoff Bannister wrote: > BELLATRIX LESTRANGE (and I hope it's by Neville's hand) and Dolores > Umbridge (as previously mentioned). > > I know she's insane, so maybe she's not responsible for her actions, > but I really want to see Bellatrix punished. When the Death Eaters > surround the kids in the Prophecy Room of the DoM, her immediate > response is "let's torture the little girl"???? And she takes > sadistic pleasure in subjecting Neville to the Cruciatus Curse, just > like she did his parents. She's vile. Geoff: I originally posted this about 7.45 am this morning but its now 2.30 pm and it looks as if Yahoomort has swallowed my message, so here goes again. Having read your message, something came to mind which has never occurred to me previously. There is a curious parallelism between Bellatrix Lestrange and Dolores Umbridge in the way they interact (or fail to interact) with young people. They both appear to treat them as if they were not any higher than about Year 1 in school and speak to them condescendingly and patronisingly. A couple of canon quotes as examples just to support my point: >snip< '"You've got him," said Harry, ignoring the rising panic in his chest, the dread he had been fighting since they had first entered the ninety-seventh row. "He's here. I know he is." "The little baby woke up fwightened and fort what it dweamed was twoo," said the woman in a horrible, mock baby voice.' (OOTP "Beyond the Veil" p.689 UK edition) '"Come out, come out, little Harry!" she called in her mock baby voice which echoed off the polished floors. "What did you come after me for, then? I thought you were here to avenge my dear cousin!" "I am!" shouted Harry and a score of ghostly Harry seemed to chorus I am! I am! I am! all around the room. "Aaaaah... did you love him, little baby Potter?"' (OOTP "The Only One He Ever Feared" pp.714-15 UK edition) Curious the similar ways in which they treat the young people. I can understand Umbridge because she appears to be a typical spinster maiden aunt - fluffly cardigan, little hair bow and not knowing how best to treat the class. But Bellatrix does not seem the type to react on the same way. Any views out there? Luckdragon: Perhaps Bellatrix can't seem to get the image of "Little baby Potter" out of her head, having last seen him as a baby that fateful night in Godric's Hollow. She claims she is LV's most faithful servant, and she went after the Longbottoms thinking they knew where to find LV after he lost his body. Could it be that she was the one at GH who helped LV and witnessed the events that night, and that is why she talks baby talk to him. --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hambtty at triad.rr.com Sun Feb 5 15:30:45 2006 From: hambtty at triad.rr.com (hambtty) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 15:30:45 -0000 Subject: Lily's Eyes or Lily's Soul? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147626 Olive's Cousin writes: Lily's eyes, Lily's eyes - that has us all pondering the meaning. We already suspect that Lily, as an Unspeakable, was researching love's powers. We know she used old magic to save Harry and that definitely involved love. Could Lily live on in Harry - not a ripped apart soul but a soul so full of love for her son that an added part now resides inside Harry? The eyes are windows to the soul as the saying goes. Maybe it is not the color of Harry's eyes but the looking into them that remind people of Lily's eyes? If this is so then if LV kills Harry will he still have a life force that a powerful wizard could use to bring him back? A similar ceremony over a cauldron with one HUGE difference - a bone of his father lovingly offered, the blood of a friend willing given, flesh of a servant (Kreacher may offer some scaly skin w/o need of a whole body part as LV demanded and by end of 7 he and Harry will have, with Hermione's help, a decent relationship) Thoughts? From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 15:30:13 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 15:30:13 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147627 > > Betsy Hp: > > JKR has > > given us the McGuffins that are the horcruxes, but I suspect that > > they will be of secondary importance. > Nora: > Isn't the classic definition of McGuffin a plot element/item which > everyone wants but has no significance in and of itself--like the > suitcase that everyone is chasing but no one, including the audience, > knows what's inside? (One good example is in the movie Ronin.) The > Horcruxes seem anything BUT a McGuffin in that function of the word. > They absolutely must be found and destroyed before Voldemort himself > can be taken care of--hence my joke about Harry being able to unlock > the final dungeon, a classic scenario for all players of video game > quests. Neri: I believe the proper term would be "plot coupons", as defined in the highly acclaimed (and highly amusing) 1986 assay by Nick Lowe, "The Well-Tempered Plot Device" http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html One of the main reasons I'm hoping for something like Horcrux!Harry is that it will prevent the Horcruxes from being standard plot coupons, and Book 7 from being a standard collect-the-coupons quest. > > Jen: Oh, I like this interpretation Betsy. The part about Harry > untangling himself from Voldemort particularly, because that does > seem to be the 'central and critical question' JKR is trying to > answer: How did Harry become tied to Voldemort in the first place > (almost there but for Godric's Hollow) and how can he *untie* > himself via destorying the horcruxes and ultimately, vanquishing > Voldemort. And how does Harry do this without destroying his own > soul in the process? Neri: Precisely, although I'm not sure Jen meant Horcrux!Harry here. What saves Tolkien's One Ring from being a shameless plot coupon is that it is a symbol of the main thematic question in the LotR series: how can power and knowledge be used without corrupting those who use them. What might save the Horcruxes from being shameless plot coupons is if at least one of them would prove central to the question "how do you destroy an evil soul without losing your own soul in the process?" (especially if Free Will would turn out central to the answer). The other alternative would be what Betsy seems to suggest, that the Horcruxes would be reduced to mere structure, an arbitrary excuse to take the plot of Book 7 away from Hogwarts and propel it forward while the important part would be the rather unrelated process of Harry untangling himself from Voldemort. And returning to the title of the thread, I also don't see how a standard ESE, however BANGy, can save the Horcruxes from being poorly written plot coupons. Neri From deliquescehp at googlemail.com Sun Feb 5 15:44:10 2006 From: deliquescehp at googlemail.com (Shelley) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 15:44:10 +0000 Subject: Bellatrix/Umbridge Similarities (Was:Re: I hate Fudge!) Message-ID: <98ff2d890602050744s5210f2f3r@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147628 Geoff Bannister insightfully wrote: > > There is a curious parallelism between Bellatrix Lestrange and > Dolores Umbridge in the way they interact (or fail to interact) with > young people. > > They both appear to treat them as if they were not any higher than > about Year 1 in school and speak to them condescendingly and > patronisingly. > Curious the similar ways in which they treat the young people. I can > understand Umbridge because she appears to be a typical spinster > maiden aunt - fluffly cardigan, little hair bow and not knowing how > best to treat the class. But Bellatrix does not seem the type to > react on the same way. > > Any views out there? Shelley (wolfe275) wrote: Hi, I forgot I belonged to this group-- it's my first post in ages. I just finished rereading OotP, and I have two thoughts about this. The first is that both characters are in sense socially/developmentally stunted. Umbridge lacks experience with children (and probably other forms of social experience as well) because of (as you pointed out) her maiden/spinster aunt personality. Bellatrix, like Sirius, has spent most of her adulthood in Azkaban. She's missed out (thus far) on having and raising children, as well as just all other sorts of widom-gaining adult life experiences. Like Sirius, she also seems to have suffered some emotional damage/regression from her time in Azkaban. The kind of condescension Bellatrix uses with Harry bespeaks immaturity-- it's more like the mockery that an adolescent uses to distinguish herself from children younger than her, than the attitude that an adult would take with a child. My second thought is that both women mentally rely on hierarchies of all type to elevate themselves above others. Bellatrix places herself as a pureblood witch above all other beings. Umbridge deplores half-humans; given her tightness with Fudge and her alliance with the students of Slytherin House, I bet if one scratched more deeply, one might find prejudice against Muggles and Muggleborns as well. Certainly she didn't seem much concerned that a Muggle boy had been endangered by the Dementors she sent to attack Harry. Given these strains of self-elevating prejudice in both women, it makes sense to me that they would cling to an age hierachy as well, placing themselves above teenagers in value. Certainly Umbridge seems to suggest that youth automatically makes her students opinions-- and even lives-- unimportant. Her response when Hermione questions her course aims is that 'Wizards much older and cleverer than you' are in charge (OotP (UK PB), 218). And there's Umbridge's classic comment when Harry and Hermione lead her to the Forest that 'The Ministry places a rather higher value on my life than yours, I'm afraid' (OotP (UK PB), 663). [sidenote: which is such a shocking contrast to the other teachers, who would always place a student's safety above their own] For Bellatrix, I wonder if her age-condescension is tied to blood prejudice. Harry's both 'a little baby' and a 'filthy half-blood.' Perhaps she's a bit less insufferable with her nephew Draco... Shelley From inyia at yahoo.es Sun Feb 5 14:17:46 2006 From: inyia at yahoo.es (inyia) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 14:17:46 -0000 Subject: Book 1 Questions -- wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147629 > Geoff: > We know that for a fact. Ron has his wand broken in the Ford Anglia > crash at the beginning of COS but he then shows Harry a brand new > replacement wand when they first meet up at Florean Fortescue's Ice- > Cream Parlour in POA. Maybe I am late because this mail was posted on January 21st but I think I have something to say. We must remember that at the beginning of PoA the Weasley have received a Prize; they have done a trip to Egypt so surely they saved a little of money and bought a wand to Ron, what seems so insatisfying is the fact that the Weasley can afford little gifts to their children because they bought Hermes to Percy because he was Prefect, and not bought a wand to Ron; later on they bought Ron the Wand because it was broken, but they could simply buy a new one to some of their other children ... And finally, when Ron is made Prefect they bought him a Broom, not a simply broom not the best but a good one... Well I think I am embarrassing myself and maybe going away from the question itself Inyia From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 16:40:59 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 16:40:59 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147630 This one should stir up some lively conversation. I posted this last night on another list. I thought you deserved a chance to tear this apart! Red Eye Randy Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies There is an ancient poem by Prudentius about the "Battle for the Soul". It discusses the seven contrary virtues to help someone battle the seven deadly sins. The Harry Potter books are a metaphor for this battle for the soul. 1. First book is the Philosopher's stone First deadly sin is PRIDE Pride is excessive belief in one's abilities. Book Theme: Humility versus Pride Humility is seeing ourselves as we are instead of comparing ourselves to others. Harry must look into the Mirror of Erised and see himself as he truly is. He must remain humble and not seek to become Immortal. Lord Voldemort is filled with pride in his abilities and he does seek immortality. He desires to be the greatest wizard of all time. He thinks: "there is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it " Perhaps pride is that evil voice in the back of your head! ;0) Pride has overtaken Professor Quirrell. Pride will prevent you from seeing yourself as you truly are in the mirror of your heart's desire. This will make you unworthy to attain the "Philosopher's Stone" which is a symbol of inner purity! 2. Second book is the Chamber of Secrets Second deadly sin is ENVY Envy is the desire for other's traits Book Theme is Love versus Envy "Love is kind". Love actively seeks the good of others for their sake. Envy resents the good others receive or even might receive. The innermost desires of a person are often said to lie inside his heart. If the person keeps his desires secret, he tends to lock them in his chamber of secrets. A diary can contain the innermost secrets of a person. Ginny had secret desires for Harry which she kept inside and wrote into Tom Riddle's diary. She locked her desires inside her chamber of secrets (ie. She had a locked heart) Professor Lockhart (locked heart) is envious of the deeds of others. He steals their achievements by stealing their memories and writing books about their deeds as if they were his. Professor Lockhart is filled with envy. Don't allow envy to lock up your heart into a "Chamber of Secrets"! 3. Third book is the Prisoner of Azkaban Third deadly sin is SLOTH. Sloth can be spiritual sloth which is related to Sadness and a feeling of not caring about doing things. Book Theme is Zeal versus Sloth. Professor Lupin appears to let his extreme sadness make him slow to act. He seems to act sometimes like he does not care about things. Harry must overcome his fears and learn to take action. He cannot wait for someone else to drive the Dementors away from Sirius at the lake. He must act himself and not remain a prisoner of his own fears! Sadness can lead to Spiritual Sloth which can make you a "Prisoner of Azkaban" of your own fears! 4. Fourth book is the Goblet of Fire. Fourth deadly sin is LUST. Lust is the inordinate craving of pleasures of the body. Book Theme is Self Control versus Lust. In this book Harry has desires for Cho Chang and he is jealous of Cedric Diggory when Cedric gets to take Cho to the Tri-Wizard Ball. Durmstrang is an exaggeration of male virility with Victor Krum representing excellence in athletic ability. The boys of Hogwarts all swoon when the ladies of Beaux Batons enter the room because they represent an exaggeration of female beauty. Ron lusts after Fleur, and he feels jealous that Victor Krum shows interest in Hermione. Hagrid shows amorous desires for Madame Maxime. Lord Voldemort craves the body he does not have yet. He lusts for the pleasures of the body. Mad Eye Moody is definitely moody and ill tempered like a teenager dealing with his inner lust. He has the mad eye that watches everything and keeps his true self locked up inside a trunk. It seems like the "madman" has escaped like in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The "Goblet of Fire" is a metaphor for the inner lust which drives people. This emotion can be channeled into competition such as the Tri-Wizard Tournament! 5. Fifth Book is the Order of the Phoenix. Fifth deadly sin is ANGER. An individual spurns love and opts for anger. Impatience with the faults of others is related to this, and anger is often our first reaction to the problems of others. Book Theme is Patience versus Anger. Harry is very angry with Dumbledore at the end of the book. Sirius and Snape are very angry with each other and impatient with each others faults. Sirius becomes impatient and wants to act. Harry is impatient and wants to save Sirius at the Ministry. Harry must endure punishment from Umbridge for his outbursts in class. He must learn patience. Professor Umbride is angered by Dumbledore's school and his teachers, and she becomes impatient to make changes. The Order of the Phoenix appears to be another pun. When one loses his temper his emotions burst into flame. When he learns patience, he recovers from the outburst and returns to his former self. 6. Sixth book is the Half Blood Prince Sixth deadly sin is GREED. Greed is more than the desire for material wealth or gain. Greed wants to get its fair share and wants to get the credit or praise. Book Theme is Generosity versus Greed. Generosity means letting others get the credit or praise. Generosity is giving without having expectations of the other person. Professor Snape wants the job of Defense Against the Dark Arts Teacher. He wants to receive praise and credit for his deeds. He does not wish others to get credit or praise. He especially dislikes Harry using spells that he created. He tries to confer a title upon himself. The young Tom Riddle greedily steals the objects of his classmates. Harry likes to get the credit or praise that the "Half-Blood Prince's" potions book has given him. He must learn not to take credit for the work of others. The "Half-Blood Prince" is seeking praise and credit for his actions! He wants notoriety! 7. Seventh book title is not yet known. Last deadly sin is GLUTTONY Gluttony is the desire to consume more than one requires. Temperance accepts natural limits of pleasures. This pertains not only to food, but to entertainment and the company of other people. Book Theme is Temperance versus Gluttony Since Professor Slughorn desires the company of other people too much and he drinks a little too much, he could become the new DADA teacher and fulfill the role of gluttony. Red Eye Randy Does anyone have any other ideas? From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 16:42:36 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 16:42:36 -0000 Subject: The Seven Tasks at the end of Book One Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147631 Given a theme of the 7 deadly sins, I took a look at the end of the first book and the seven tasks.... Task 1: Three Headed dog...trapdoor.... Pride.....Perhaps you have to get past ME, Myself and I (or the id, ego, and superego) to overcome pride... Or it could be that you are baptised with Faith,Hope, and Love to overcome Pride. Task 2: Devil's Snare....does not like sunlight.. Envy....it ensnares you and only loving warmth can break its hold on you Task 3: Winged Keys...Harry flies broom Sloth...Harry must take action or "take flight" to find the key to his release from fear Task 4: Chess Game ...Black Queen...White vs Black Lust...maybe male versus female (Ron vs. Black Queen) or competition as a way to channel lust? Task 5: Sleeping Troll... Anger...controlled anger is a sleeping troll. If you wake him up he likes to destroy things. Task 6: Potions Logic Puzzle... Greed...The desire to take credit or receive praise...Harry and Hermione complement each other and neither seeks to get praise for being the better wizard. They overcome this desire in the diaglogue. Task 7: Mirror of Hearts Desire..Immortality stone Gluttony... The desire for immortality would be a form of gluttony. It is asking for more than one needs. Red Eye Randy No wonder JKR is frustrated by the Christian Conservatives against her books! They just don't get it! From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 17:09:21 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 17:09:21 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the 7 corporal works of Mercy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147632 Harry Potter and The Seven Corporal Works of Mercy This is from Medieval catechisms 1. Feed the Hungry - Harry, Ron, Hermione give food to Sirius outside of Hogsmeade 2. Give Drink to the Thirsty ? Harry gives Felix Felicitis to Hogwarts kids (Ginny, Ron, Hermione) to protect them 3. Give Shelter to Strangers ? Slughorn is offered a home at Hogwarts 4. Clothe the Naked - Harry offers a sock to Dobby 5. Visit the Sick - Harry, Ron, Hermione visit St. Mungos 6. Minister to Prisoners - Harry frees Sirius and Peter 7. Bury the Dead - Harry brings back Cedrics body to Hogwarts Red Eye Randy By the way you can find these things on internet if you search for the Seven Deadly sins. From kchuplis at alltel.net Sun Feb 5 17:44:29 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:44:29 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: <20060205152239.79845.qmail@web53306.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0E925946-966F-11DA-BFC2-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147633 On Sunday, February 5, 2006, at 09:22 AM, Bee Chase wrote: > Luckdragon: > ? Perhaps Bellatrix can't seem to get the image of "Little baby > Potter" out of her head, having last seen him as a baby that fateful > night in Godric's Hollow. She claims she is LV's most faithful > servant, and she went after the Longbottoms thinking they knew where > to find LV after he lost his body. Could it be that she was the one at > GH who helped LV and witnessed the events that night, and that is why > she talks baby talk to him. > > ????? ????? > kchuplis: Underestimation of what children/young people can do or handle is a recurring idea in these books. I think it is deliberate and I happen to agree. I know that I felt "overprotected" as a young person. There is, in this vain, Dumbledore not wanting to burden Harry with the complete truth, and hiding, to his detriment, many facts that deeply concern Harry. Molly Weasley is constantly harping on how the kids are "too young" to be given information on the Order or on what is happening, completely disregarding what they have already face and can well be expected to face. Even Hermione and Ron themselves continually dismiss Harry's suspicions of Draco because they can't conceive of being given an important assignment from their leaders at the age of 16. They are applying, again to everyone's detriment, what adults have been conferring on them for 5 years to Draco. I think this is an extension of it. I imagine it will have a big part in the denouement as well, since DD (even though he still seemed to hold back IMO from Harry even in the cave) stressed LV underestimating the value of youth as well during the cave scene. It is certainly relevant to the story arch. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 19:49:00 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 19:49:00 -0000 Subject: Book 1 Questions -- wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "inyia" wrote: > > > Geoff: > > We know that for a fact. Ron has his wand broken in the > > Ford Anglia crash at the beginning of COS but he then shows > > Harry a brand new replacement wand when they first meet up at > > Florean Fortescue's Ice-Cream Parlour in POA. > Inyia: > > ... > > We must remember that at the beginning of PoA the Weasley have > received a Prize; ... so surely they saved a little of money > and bought a wand to Ron, what seems so insatisfying is ... > the Weasley can afford little gifts to their children because > they bought Hermes to Percy..., and not bought a wand to Ron; > later on they bought Ron the Wand because it was broken, but > they could simply buy a new one to some of their other children > ... And finally, when Ron is made Prefect they bought him a > Broom, not a simply broom not the best but a good one... > > Well I think I am embarrassing myself and maybe going away from the > question itself. > > Inyia > bboyminn: I'm not completely sure what your point is. Are you asking or wondering why Mr.and Mrs. Weasley didn't buy Ron a new wand instead of buying Percy a new owl? And why they bought Ron a new wand when Ginny also probably needed one? Or perhaps, you are wondering why Ron had to have a used wand as an original but Ginny got a new one right away? Regardless, I think I can add some prespective. The Weasleys are not poor. They do not live in a ditch. They do not have to catch furry critters in the wild and stew them up for food. They do not dress in rags, but neither do they dress in the latest 'mall' fashions. The Weasleys are what I would call working class, or perhaps a more international designation would be labor class. Mr. Weasley has a job and a steady income. He owns a significant plot of land in a country where land is very expensive. The Weasleys are never lacking for food, as is indicated by Harry's third and fourth helpings at every meal. The Weasleys have a house. OK, it's a quirky odd 'nothing fancy' house, but it gives them adequate shelter from the elements and is well furnished with a nice cozy feel to it. Mostly the Weasleys are just like the rest of us, they have the money they need but not an unlimited supply of it, so they have to set priorities. They feel that it is important to reward their children when they achieve some success, so they buy Percy an Owl as a reward for achieving Prefect. At the time, Ron has a perfectly servicable wand that belonged to his brother, so he doesn't need a new one. It is a matter of setting priorities, Percy needs a reward to encourage success, and Ron has a wand. Later when they win that money, they use it to give their kids what may be a once in a lifetime experience; a trip to see their brother in Egypt. In that particular year, Ron needs a wand and there is nothing that can be done about it. That is, Ron is actively in school and therefore /must/ have a wand, so since they have a little extra money, they buy him a new one. At that time, Ron's need was the highest priority so his need got the money. Really, for most of us normal people, unless we happen to be extremely rich or have a LOT of credit cards, we do not get everything we want. We priorities, we plan, we weigh our options, and eventually when we are a little money ahead, we get what we want. Only the very rich, always get everything, but they are a small minority in this world. Most of us need to plan and spend our money wisely which is exactly what the Weasleys do, they make the best possible use, in their view, of the money they have. And, I'd say they do a pretty fair job of it. I'm not sure if the covers your question or not, but my main point is that many readers have a distrorted view of just how poor the Weasleys actually are. They get by just fine. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 20:29:41 2006 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 12:29:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lack of Memorial for Sirius -He's Alive (repost) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060205202941.21675.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147635 bboyminn: The Theory - Others, in discussing this, have speculated that we will discover, much to Harry's own surprise, that he has the power of possession. In the last battle in front of the Veiled Arch, Voldemort will possess Harry for what ever reason, but Harry will turn the tables and possess Voldemort, and take him and all the Horcruxes through the Veil, ending Voldemort once and for all. Extending this further, we can say that Sirius went through the Veil under 'special circumstances'. He went in fully alive with both body and spirit completely in tact. I extended my original 'Veil Theory' (#142371) to include the possibility of Harry Possessing Voldemort and taking him through. Because Voldemort and Harry travel through the Veil as a single living being, due to /special circumstances/, Voldemort doesn't die until Harry leaves Voldemort's body. The problem is, when Harry leaves Voldemort's body, Harry also dies. Now the question is, how does Harry get out without dying? Simple, Sirius touches Voldemort's body (hand on shoulder), and Harry moves his possession from Voldemort through the contact point into Sirius. By doing so, Voldemort dies but Harry has never been alone in the realm beyond the Veil; he is still protected from death by sharing a body with another. Now, Harry walks Sirius body out from behind the Veil, and then, your choice, when Harry leaves Sirius's body, Sirius either lives or dies, but for sure Harry lives. Juli: I love this theory. Jo said that Sirius is dead, ok, he's dead while he remains in "the land beyond the veil". Sirius by himself can't get out of there. But Harry by getting there using someone else's body, he will be able to get into Sirius' body and bring both of them back. Once in the real world, Harry will jump back into his body and they will live happily ever after Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 20:57:24 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:57:24 -0000 Subject: Bella and Umbridge (Re: I hate Fudge!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147636 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Geoff: > I originally posted this about 7.45 am this morning but its now 2.30 pm and it looks as if Yahoomort has swallowed my message, so here goes again. Snip> There is a curious parallelism between Bellatrix Lestrange and > Dolores Umbridge in the way they interact (or fail to interact) with young people. > > They both appear to treat them as if they were not any higher than > about Year 1 in school and speak to them condescendingly and > patronisingly. (Snip) > > Curious the similar ways in which they treat the young people. I can understand Umbridge because she appears to be a typical spinster > maiden aunt - fluffly cardigan, little hair bow and not knowing how best to treat the class. But Bellatrix does not seem the type to > react on the same way. > > Any views out there? Tonks: oddly this is my second reply too. I sent the first at 11.00am and it is not here. What is going on with Yahoo? Here is the repost: As an Auror and a Metamorphmagus I have many disguises. Especially when at a HP conference. I find that most everyone at a conference dress up as one of the good guys (male or female) and after seeing way too many McGonagall's and noticing that small bands of Slytherin seem to be having the most fun well.. I decided to go to the dark side with a costume for Bella. In order to get into the right frame of mind I have pondered the personality of Bella and of Snape. I think that Bella is more like Snape than Umbridge. Let's look at Umbridge first and "get her out of the way". ;-) I see her as a typical bureaucrat that flaunts her power because she can. She is a sadistic person. It has nothing to do with the age of the person she is addressing, it has to do with power. She would treat anyone that she was in a position of power over in the same way. Perhaps she is not quite as hard on Snape because he can hold his own against her, but I would not want to be a staff person in a meeting with her. I had a manager like her once and we all hated her and plotted her overthrow. I see Bella as more like Snape, except it is clear which side she is on. She is a sadist and enjoys inflicting pain on others. Why? Many she has a subconscious need to over come an unhappy childhood. Doing to others what was done to her in an attempt to master the situation. (Oh pardon me.. the therapist in me just came out there.) Bella loves to pull the rug out from others. Her motivation is not so much power as it is the thrill of seeing others in pain, emotional or physical. LV on the other hand uses torture as a means to an end. For Bella it is an end in itself. I have to go now.. can explore this more later. Tonks_op From csettecase at indy.rr.com Sun Feb 5 15:33:09 2006 From: csettecase at indy.rr.com (Chris) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 15:33:09 -0000 Subject: Did I misread this relationship in OOTP? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147637 CNN.com had a small story posted on 2/3/06 titled "Filming on fifth Harry Potter movie to begin next week in Britain". [http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-02-03-fifth-potter-filming_x.htm] It's nice to know that they are finally starting! (Can't wait for it to be released!!!) However, one line stated "Potter also wrestles with his attraction to new character Luna Lovegood, a role taken by 14-year-old newcomer Evanna Lynch." When I read OOTP (which I reread after seeing GOF day 2 of release), I did NOT get the impression that Harry was *attracted* to Luna. Did I misread this? I thought that, at best, he felt some affinity for Luna as they were both "outcasts" at Hogwarts. Am I wrong? I hope that they are not writing this into the script! I have nothing against Luna, but she is NOT the match for Harry (as is supported for fans of Harry/Ginny). Thank you for your help! CC From kmalone1127 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 19:19:29 2006 From: kmalone1127 at yahoo.com (kmalone1127) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 19:19:29 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies/Seven Tasks/7 Corporal Works Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147638 Those are all very interesting. I think you're right, the Christian tone of the books escsapes most people. There is a website hogwartsprofessor.com where the guy who runs it (John Granger) has written several articles about the books and the Christian influence of them. I particularly liked your first post. The thing about JKR is that I don't know if she truly plans every single little metaphor in her books, but because of the story she is writting, they just come out on their own. I also noticed how each of the sins seems to be in all of the books in some way, not just the major sin of the book. Anyway, very good posts, This is the sort of thing I joined the Group for. Check out the website, there is a lot of illuminating material there. -kmalone1127 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 22:10:51 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:10:51 -0000 Subject: Bella and Umbridge - Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147639 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > Geoff: > > ... > > > > They both appear to treat them as if they were not any higher > > than about Year 1 in school and speak to them condescendingly > > and patronisingly. (Snip) > > > > Curious the similar ways in which they treat the young people. > > I can understand Umbridge because she appears to be a typical > > spinster maiden aunt - .... But Bellatrix does not seem the > > type to react on the same way. > > > > Any views out there? > > Tonks: > > ...edited... > > Let's look at Umbridge first and "get her out of the way". ;-) > I see her as a typical bureaucrat that flaunts her power because > she can. She is a sadistic person. It has nothing to do with the > age of the person she is addressing, it has to do with power. She > would treat anyone that she was in a position of power over in > the same way. ... > > I see Bella as more like Snape, except it is clear which side she > is on. She is a sadist and enjoys inflicting pain on others. Why? > Many she has a subconscious need to over come an unhappy childhood. > Doing to others what was done to her in an attempt to master the > situation. (Oh pardon me.. the therapist in me just came out > there.) > > Bella loves to pull the rug out from others. Her motivation is > not so much power as it is the thrill of seeing others in pain, > emotional or physical. LV on the other hand uses torture as a > means to an end. For Bella it is an end in itself. > > I have to go now.. can explore this more later. > > Tonks_op > bboyminn: While I don't necessarily disagree with Tonks_op, I think she is ignoring an aspect of their characters. Bella is very much about power, but it is subtly different than Umbridges take on power. Again, this is very subtle and I hope I can even remotely explain the difference. They are both about /control/ through the application of power, but in one case, it is 'I control you because I have power over you', and in the other, it is 'I control you because you are in/under my power'. Of course, in both cases, the flagrant and excessive use of power is a cover for a deep seated fear of being powerless. If Umbridge had truly been confident in her 'power', she would have never feared Harry enough to send Dementors to destroy him. That was an unconscionable act motivated by the fear of the loss of power, and the loss of control of her own destiny. In Bella's case, she puts people under the Cruciatus Curse, and while they are under the curse, she controls them completely. In a sense, she holds their lives in her hands and that is a great power. When she releases the Curse, they will do what she wants, at this point she has the power to control them because they fear the pain that will come if they don't obey. I think Bella gets a trememdous thrill out of this kind of forced power. I don't think it is so much the pleasure of given pain to others as it is the immense pleasure of controlling others so completely, of her being so powerful while they being so helpless. Each time she tortures someone, she is once again filled with this sense of complete control. In Umbridge's case, it is more the power of authority. In a sense, 'I am your superior and your master, you must obey me. I have the full force of the Ministry of Magic behind me, and all the consequences that this implies'. Umbridge takes great pleasure in the assertion of her authority. She is corrupt in the way the all (or most) powerful people are corrupt. By that I mean, that power and authority have become her gods; they stand above everything, above ethics, morality, justice, fair play. Nothing has value but power and the authority to use it. She weilds her authority without mercy and demands unswerving obedience. But, what is she without that authority; she is nothing? So, she clings desperately to her authority, and the absolute sense of power it brings. She so greatly fears the loss of that authority and the power it brings, that like all evil tyrants, she will stop at nothing to hold on to it. She will even go so far as to torture students, if it means absolute adherence to her authority. Of course, poor Umbridge, she is so misguided and corrupted by power that she fails to see that the tyranncial assertion of authority doesn't bring obedience but rebellion. Her continued harassment of Harry only set him more fiercely against her, and ultimately, like all evil tyrants, assures her downfall. Though, I admit, she didn't fall nearly as far as she should have. There is little hope for Bella, as she hasn't simply lost her perspective, she is completely and evilly deranged. Umbridge on the other hand, does still have some trace of normalicy in her. Of course, it's hidden very deeply. We have to accept that each nasty character in the story can't have their plotlines and evil actions accounted for and resolved. That simply doesn't happen in real life, and there simply isn't enough book left for that. So, I say quick easy aside karmic solutions are all we are left with. Here is my total fantasy scenario for Umbridge's comeuppance. At some point, it should become clear to the Ministry that their hope for survival rest on Harry, and then they will be more willing to cooperate with him /on his terms/. Somewhere in the course of Harry securing that assistance of the Ministry (long story) Umbridge will corner Harry and try to assert her authority over him. Harry will turn to her and point out that she admitted to unforgivable crimes in front of witnesses (Dementor attack on Harry), and that he has several witnesses to her other crimes (cutting quill) and if she doesn't keep her fat mouth shut and stay in her place, he will destroy her. Intially she will bluster and fluster, but when she sees the Harry is dead serious, and fully capable, she will have no choice but to back down. I say that this is Karmic retribution. Umbridge still has her position of power, but at the same time she is powerless; she is subserviant to Harry. That would have to be crushing for Umbridge, to still be in a position of power and authority, but to, at the same time, not be able to excersize that power. It just sounds right to me, and should only take a couple of pages in the book. As far as Bella, there is no hope for her. It's back to prison or death for her. Just a few fanciful thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 22:19:55 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:19:55 -0000 Subject: Did I misread this relationship in OOTP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147640 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chris" wrote: > > CNN.com had a small story ... > > However, one line stated "Potter also wrestles with his attraction > to new character Luna Lovegood, ...." > > ... I did NOT get the impression that Harry was *attracted* to Luna. > Did I misread this? ... > > Am I wrong? ... > > Thank you for your help! > > CC > bboyminn: No, I don't think you misread the books. What I think happened is that the news writer didn't bother to read the books at all, and just pulled his report together from general knowledge and assorted press releases. Really, new reporting today is in such a sorry state. As long as what you write is short and fits in the available space, which is usually very small, and reads relatively smoothly, odd things like the facts needn't get in the way. I think I read references to the continuation of the Harry/Cho story, so I don't think Luna will enter the story as any sort of love interest for Harry. I think we are seeing a case of a news sources more interested in getting the story out than in getting it right. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From kchuplis at alltel.net Sun Feb 5 22:28:51 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 16:28:51 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did I misread this relationship in OOTP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147641 On Sunday, February 5, 2006, at 09:33 AM, Chris wrote: > CNN.com had a small story posted on 2/3/06 titled "Filming on fifth > Harry Potter movie to begin next week in Britain". > [http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-02-03-fifth-potter- > filming_x.htm] > It's nice to know that they are finally starting!? (Can't wait for it > to be released!!!) > > However, one line stated "Potter also wrestles with his attraction to > new character Luna Lovegood, a role taken by 14-year-old newcomer > Evanna Lynch." > > When I read OOTP (which I reread after seeing GOF day 2 of release), I > did NOT get the impression that Harry was *attracted* to Luna.? Did I > misread this?? I thought that, at best, he felt some affinity for Luna > as they were both "outcasts" at Hogwarts.? > > Am I wrong?? I hope that they are not writing this into the script!? I > have nothing against Luna, but she is NOT the match for Harry (as is > supported for fans of Harry/Ginny). > > Thank you for your help! > > CC > I personaly think whoever wrote the blurb doesn't know the stories and has mixed her up with Cho. They've never deviated THAT far from the books and I can't see JKR allowing that. kchuplis > From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Feb 5 22:51:32 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:51:32 -0000 Subject: Umbridge fate Re: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > For someone like Umbridge being > deprived of all power, having lost all she worked so hard for would be > a fate truly worse than death. > > But maybe she just gets to meet a couple of centaurs again. > > Gerry > Allie: Incidentally, what does anyone think the centaurs did to Umbridge? She's terrified of them at the end of OotP, but the kids said she didn't have a scratch on her. She was with the centaurs for several hours, from the time the kids flew to the MoM until after the DoM battle when Dumbledore went into the forest to retrieve her. I suppose it's possible that she was injured but Dumbledore healed her before bringing her back, or that the centaurs tied her up and argued over what to do with her for several hours (like in the Hobbit, until the trolls turned to stone...). Other thoughts? From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Feb 5 23:16:00 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:16:00 -0000 Subject: Did I misread this relationship in OOTP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147643 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chris" wrote: > > > > CNN.com had a small story ... > > > > However, one line stated "Potter also wrestles with his attraction > > to new character Luna Lovegood, ...." > > > > ... I did NOT get the impression that Harry was *attracted* to Luna. > > Did I misread this? ... > > > > Am I wrong? ... > > > > Thank you for your help! >> > bboyminn: > >> Really, new reporting today is in such a sorry state. As long as what > you write is short and fits in the available space, which is usually > very small, and reads relatively smoothly, odd things like the facts > needn't get in the way. > Allie: Maybe Rita Skeeter is writing for CNN these days, having been fired from the Prophet. It's great, the press sees that there's a new female character in the Harry Potter series and assumes it must be a love interest. At least they're not pairing Umbridge up with anybody. Given HBP, it will be intersting to see how they write the interaction of Tonks and Lupin in the next movie. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 5 23:35:50 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:35:50 -0000 Subject: Wands and other things Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147644 In message 147629, Inyia wrote: > >Geoff: > >We know that for a fact. Ron has his wand broken in the Ford Anglia > >crash at the beginning of COS but he then shows Harry a brand new > >replacement wand when they first meet up at Florean Fortescue's Ice- > >Cream Parlour in POA. > Maybe I am late because this mail was posted on January 21st but I think > I have something to say.... Geoff: I think in your reply, you seem to have missed the point of my original answer in post 146798. It was in reply to Donna in post 146786, who wrote; > At the same time, I don't believe a wizard is restricted to one > wand over a lifetime. Mr. Ollivander says, speaking of Lilly, "It > seems only yesterday she was in here herself, buying her first > wand." My comment, quoted above, was to underline the point that wizards have, or can have, more than one wand. There was no suggestion that the Weasleys couldn't afford it ? it was the fact that Ron /had/ replaced the written off wand from COS. In message 147631 andy wrote: >Task 4: Chess Game ...Black Queen...White vs Black >Lust...maybe male versus female (Ron vs. Black Queen) >or competition as a way to channel lust? Geoff: I have to admit that I haven't quite got my head round your meaning here; my main thought is whether your theory is upset by the fact that Ron is in competition with the WHITE queen? The colour significance is lost on me. In message 147638 kmalone1127 wrote: >Those are all very interesting. I think you're right, the Christian >tone of the books escsapes most people. There is a website >hogwartsprofessor.com where the guy who runs it (John Granger) has >written several articles about the books and the Christian influence >of them. Geoff: I'm not sure that the Christian influence has been overlooked. After HBP arrived, we were swamped ? and are still so afflicted ? with a flood of posts about Snape, Horcruxes and whether Dumbledore is dead, which forced a lot of other topics out. About a year and a half ago, there was a lot of discussion regarding the Christian aspect because of a number of contributors who were putting forward alchemical theories. One of our more notable and outspoken members ultimately went off to start his own website to propagate these views. John Granger's name was mentioned more than once during these exchanges. I am afraid that, as a Christian, I am suspicious of his views because I do not believe that the way of alchemical liberation has anything to do with basic Christian faith. Christianity has also come up in viewing Harry as an Everyman echoing the faith and life view which many of us hold and there are many themes within the books which have been interpreted in this way, both in the group and by other authors. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 5 23:59:57 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:59:57 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest (was:Re: Was HPB's ending BANG-y?...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147645 > Neri: > I believe the proper term would be "plot coupons", as defined in the > highly acclaimed (and highly amusing) 1986 assay by Nick Lowe, "The > Well-Tempered Plot Device" > http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html > > One of the main reasons I'm hoping for something like Horcrux!Harry is > that it will prevent the Horcruxes from being standard plot coupons, > and Book 7 from being a standard collect-the-coupons quest. > Pippin: What makes a substandard quest story laughable is the contrast between the marvelous storied objects and the pedestrian characters sent in search of them. Since JKR's characters are not pedestrian I see no reason to worry about the plot on that score. But as for storied objects themselves, of course they are of no genuine importance -- how can they be? Fabulous treasures are fabulous only until they have been found. Then they are mere possessions, worth no more than someone is willing to pay for them. But that sparks an idea. Suppose three of the four remaining horcruxes are destroyed. The last one will be an item of interest to anyone who wants to have Voldemort over a barrel. The situation simply begs for an ESE character to take advantage of it. Aid Harry until three of the horcruxes are destroyed, then stop him from destroying the last one because it would make such a lovely bargaining chip. Not to say the horcruxes won't have symbolic value. I think, though JKR has done her best to cloud the issue, that the four missing horcruxes correspond to the four houses, and Harry's quest to find and destroy them will be intertwined with Ron and Hermione's quest to unite the Houses (as Head Boy and Head Girl.) I certainly don't expect a straightforward thriller, not after six books of multi-layered, multi-genre preparation, nor do I expect HP7 to be a sort of video game script in which Harry blows through a series of magical obstacles, grabs all four horcruxes, turns them into a superweapon and blows Voldemort away. Pippin From hartsonthemove at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 00:36:18 2006 From: hartsonthemove at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:36:18 -0000 Subject: What the heck does this mean? OOTP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147646 Sorry for the rather silly question, but I have no clue what the devil is Tonks saying when she meets Harry by saying "Wotcher Harry". Can someone tell me what this "Greeting" is supposed to mean? When I first read it, I figured it was some sort of "hi" type greeting. Is it specific to a certain geographical region? Thanks Kathy From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Mon Feb 6 01:51:30 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:51:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What the heck does this mean? OOTP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060206015130.48564.qmail@web53309.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147647 Kathy wrote: Sorry for the rather silly question, but I have no clue what the devil is Tonks saying when she meets Harry by saying "Wotcher Harry". Can someone tell me what this "Greeting" is supposed to mean? When I first read it, I figured it was some sort of "hi" type greeting. Is it specific to a certain geographical region? Luckdragon: Definition according to Wikepedia: Wotcher is a casual greeting used primarily in the United Kingdom. It has been described as a derivation or corruption of "what cheer", but is more likely a phonetic abbreviation of "What are you doing?" (Wotcher doin'?). Wotcher can also be a derivation of "What's up?" or "How's it going?". Wotcher is Nymphadora Tonks's favorite phrase. She is a fictional character in J.K. Rowling's famous series, Harry Potter. --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 02:20:22 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 02:20:22 -0000 Subject: ESE!Ollivander Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147648 I thought I'd amuse myself with speculating about ESE!Ollivander, but since I definitely remembered that such possibility was raised in the past, I decided to try to battle with Yahoomort first and maybe find out what exactly was said first. What do you know, Yahoomort was actually useful this time, SO useful in fact that I don't really have much to add, but maybe you guys do. Here are the posts which I was able to find and which coincide with my thoughts the most. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115703 - Songwriter wonders about "terrible but great things" phrase and why Ollivander put phoenix feather in Harry's wand and replies by Steve and Caius Marcus. I especially liked Caius Marcus' idea that Ollivander is the merchant first and foremost and deals with both parties. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115717 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115720 There were also some posts speculating about the reason of Ollivander dissappearance in light of different possibilities. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/136996 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137776 SO, Evil or not? Alla From darkmatter30 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 04:09:58 2006 From: darkmatter30 at yahoo.com (Richard) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 04:09:58 -0000 Subject: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147650 wrote: > I originally posted this about 7.45 am this morning but its now > 2.30 pm and it looks as if Yahoomort has swallowed my message, > so here goes again. > > Having read your message, something came to mind which has never > occurred to me previously. > > There is a curious parallelism between Bellatrix Lestrange and > Dolores Umbridge in the way they interact (or fail to interact) > with young people. > > They both appear to treat them as if they were not any higher than > about Year 1 in school and speak to them condescendingly and > patronisingly. A couple of canon quotes as examples just to > support my point: Richard here: I had noticed this, but thought that there were quite different reasons for the behavior of each. In the case of Bellatrix, I think there is method to her madness. I think Bellatrix is pathological, but not the slightest bit stupid. She knows that Harry loved his godfather, and she intentionally brings it up, speaks to him in a belittling manner and such precisely because she's trying to get Harry angry enough to do something rash ... and thus foolish. On the other hand, I think Umbridge is incapable of seeing those students as anything but lesser than herself. Even if she understood students of this age-group, I think she would STILL insist upon forcing them to conform to her ideal for their behavior, and that includes canned responses, speaking only with a hand up and when recognized, etc. I don't think it would matter to her at all if she were speaking to first-years or to seventh-years who were all legally adults. They are all her inferiors and in her charge. Richard, who loathes Umbridge. From jhnbwmn at hotmail.com Mon Feb 6 06:56:14 2006 From: jhnbwmn at hotmail.com (johnbowman19) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 06:56:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Love Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147651 Hello all It has been some time since my last post, so the appropriate apologies need to be made if this topic has been discussed recently because I am not in the mood to battle Yahoomort: I am sorry if this has been discussed into oblivion, but if someone can point me in the right direction of posts on the subject, I would be eternally grateful. I have been rereading the HPB sections at a time so as to give me time to think about each part I chose to read individually, and my latest section (or chapter) was "Lord Voldemort's Request". We all know what happens in this chapter so I will skip to my question to save time. What did Voldemort mean by (paraphrasing)" Your famous pronouncement that love is greater than my flavor of magic "? When I read this I took it literally meaning that somehow Dumbledore announced to the whole wizarding world that love was indeed a magic that could conquer all other forms of magic. I imagined him getting on the wizarding wireless network after his grand defeat of the Dark wizard Grindelwald to discuss his battle and making such a statement. So then my question becomes what did you all think of this statement? Is there a great academy that the wizard scholars who study the very fabric of magic go to and discuss the nature of magic? How else could Dumbledore make such a famous pronouncement? Indeed if it is a pronouncement, it would mean Dumbledore is a in a position of power to ascertain the greatest of all magics, otherwise it would merely be a statement and not a pronouncement. Clearly Dumbledore must have extensively studied the 31 different flavors of magic ( a la Baskin- Robins) to know which is best, so he must have gained said knowledge outside of Hogwarts because we know from the books that some flavors are just taboo. This must be a hint about his life before he came back to Hogwarts meaning he traveled just as extensively if not more so than Voldemort. And wondering about the life of Dumbledore has led me to another question of his character: How does Dumbledore know what love is? JK has already told us that he was burdened with always being the one with the answers. He never had an equal. He was forced to sit on his mountaintop of knowledge and help others ascend its cliffs. From this, I would argue that Dumbledore never knew true love because to have true love he would have had to find his equal. I know there are many different types of love, and he could certainly feel the love of a king over his subjects, but could he ever know the love that wills one to bind oneself to another for life? I would opine he did not because he never found an equal worth binding oneself to unless it was Fawkes (which would just lead to the absurd subject of animal/wizard marriages). And if his idea of love did not include the love a man for a woman could his whole idea of love be lacking, thus making his pronouncement hallow? Meaning Harry's greatest power would come up wanting in the final confrontation with Voldemort because Dumbledore misunderstood love. John (who hopes for a series written about Dumbledore) From ayaneva at aol.com Mon Feb 6 08:38:09 2006 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:38:09 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147652 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 9, The Half-Blood Prince The following is the summary and discussion divided into the three main scenes within the chapter. Thank you so much to Penapart Elf for being so patient with me and helping me edit this! I am rather late posting this, but I think it is mostly correct now. -NEWTS- Chapter Nine, The Half-Blood Prince, begins with Harry, Ron, and Hermione discussing what Harry overheard about Draco on the train. Immediately after this, we find the Trio in the Great Hall at breakfast receiving their NEWT class schedules from Professor McGonagall. McGonagall marks Hermione down for NEWT level Charms, DADA, Transfiguration, Herbology, Arithmancy, Ancient Runes, and Potions. We see Neville Longbottom's class schedule next. He is cleared for Herbology with an "Outstanding" and DADA with an "Exceeds Expectations," but he fails to gain entrance into Transfiguration since he only managed an "Acceptable." Despite Neville's less than stellar scores in Transfiguration, McGonagall points out that he has achieved an " Exceeds Expectations" in Charms and encourages him to pursue this as NEWT class in place of Transfiguration. When we get to Harry, Professor McGonagall clears Harry to take Charms, DADA, Herbology, and Transfiguration. She emphasizes her appreciation of Harry's Transfiguration skills and then wonders aloud why Harry has not opted to pursue NEWT level Potions courses. We get the whole story again about how Snape would not accept anything lower than an "Outstanding," but McGonagall points out that Slughorn is teaching now and an "Exceeds Expectations" will get you in. Harry mentions that he has no potions supplies, nor a textbook, because he did not expect to take NEWT Potions. McGonagall tells him that Slughorn will not be too put out by lending Harry some supplies and a textbook. So, Harry ends up taking Potions in addition to his other classes. On the same page, Ron is said to be taking the same subjects as Harry. -DADA- The first class of the day is DADA with Snape, during which the class will be practicing a Shield Charm. After the introduction, Snape tells the class to silently cast a Shield Charm; the former DA members had already gone over this with Harry in the previous year, but no one had ever tried it without speaking. Suffice to say, when asked to silently cast the charm, no one managed it except for Hermione. At one point, Snape bumps Ron aside and attempts to silently hex Harry in demonstration for Ron. Harry, however, reacts automatically and casts a really powerful Shield Charm, which knocks Snape into a desk. Naturally Professor Snape is not very happy about this and assigns Harry detention for Saturday night. After class, Harry is complaining about Snape and mentions that it sounds as if the man adores the Dark Arts, judging by the way that he was describing them to the class during his introduction. Hermione makes a good point when she says that Harry has spoken of the Dark Arts in almost the same manner. Just after this, Harry receives a note from Dumbledore, which requests a meeting for "private lessons" Saturday at eight pm. There goes Snape's detention -POTIONS- After DADA, we see the Trio in Potions class with Professor Slughorn. Since neither Harry nor Ron (who also did not expect to be in the class) has supplies, Slughorn digs up a couple of old books and some supplies from the cupboard. To begin class, Slughorn has the students go around naming off various potions that Slughorn has simmering away in cauldrons. The potions are, in this order: Veritaserum, Polyjuice, Amortentia, and Felix Felicis. The assignment for that day is to brew the Draught of Living Death - whoever makes the best brew gets a vial of Felix Felicis to use for whenever on one ordinary day. So, everyone is working away, half the people are doing horribly, Hermione is doing the best until Harry, who noticed that his borrowed potions book was totally scribbled in, realizes that the scribbles are actually alternate sets of directions for brewing the potions in the book. Resourceful guy that he is, Harry starts using the alternate Draught of Living Death directions and he soon has made the best potion and gotten himself a bottle of Felix Felicis for his own personal use. After class, Hermione and Ginny find out how Harry made such a great potion and they get really miffed at him for using directions of questionable origin to make such a finicky thing as a potion. Ron sides with Harry. Hermione checks the hand-me-down potions book for harmful curses and finds none. Harry takes the book back, drops it on the floor in the process, and, as he is picking the book back up, notices something written on the back cover in the same handwriting as the useful scribbles in the book. The inscription on the back cover reads: This Book is the Property of the Half-Blood Prince. And that is the end of Chapter Nine, The Half-Blood Prince. Now, a few questions/observations that I had when I read this chapter: -It seemed to me that when McGonagall was giving out the NEWT class schedules, the scene was written in such a way so that certain characters were completely glossed over (Hermione/Ron). Conversely, very specific points regarding classes and skill sets were made about other characters (Harry/Neville). It almost seems like JKR is, in essence, sticking a neon sign around certain skill areas of particular individuals; areas that I had not previously associated with these people. Are these really specific skill sets that are at least some of the exact elements with which to defeat Voldemort? What I cannot figure out is how these skills would be used and is the answer found somewhere in past books from what we already know about these areas of magic? -In the DADA class, of particular interest is the exact quote by Snape on page 177 (US HB), " `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.'" Could the quote tie into the theory that Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Neville (And Luna? And maybe Ginny?) all have something really, really specific to use against Voldemort? Could it be that each person has to use something unique on each "head" of the Voldemort and His Minions Dark Arts Monster? -Just for fun: This has nothing to do with anything, but it is mentioned that the Trio are doing some really complicated DADA homework. This begs the question, what exactly do you give for homework in magic class if it is not practice, but theoretical? I can imagine what you would have for Divinations, Astronomy, Muggle Studies, or Care of Magical Creatures. But for stuff like Transfiguration and DADA, what exactly are they doing that makes the homework so horrifically complex? -I still am not entirely convinced that Harry got the HBP book by accident. I have to wonder if someone (a professor) knew what was in the book. That then leaves me with the question of: If someone wanted Harry to have the book, who was it? -Slughorn lists two times that he took Felix Felicis: Once when he was twenty-four years old and once when he was fifty-seven. I wonder if these times are significant? -Slughorn talks about the dangers of taking too much Felix Felicis. He says that it causes giddiness, over-confidence, and recklessness. How long do these effects last? Is this significant? My first thought was that Voldemort is giddy, over-confident, and reckless. I do not know what to make of this. -Slughorn talks about Amortentia and he talks about the power of "obsessive love." Does this mean anything? Will it come into play? It too seems important. (there is always the Harry/Ginny/Amortentia theory I do wonder) -The Draught of Living Death pops up again. What is the significance of this? We keep seeing this particular potion over and over again, but we never see it used for anything! -Slughorn mentions Lily was good at potions. Did Lily write in the book at all? I doubt it since everything that is in the book, so far, is in the same handwriting. But maybe something will come up later about Lily and her connection to potions. All we hear about is charms. -What is the point in calling the chapter HBP? Just to introduce the potions book and tell us it is important? It seems kind of unnecessary and I keep thinking that there must be something else in this chapter that I am missing. -Finally, I wonder if the NEWT scene tells us what skills will be used to defeat Voldemort. If so, does that mean that the DADA scene tells us HOW the HRH and company will defeat Voldemort and his followers (that whole many-headed monster thing)? How might the third scene, Potions, be a part of some grand scheme to fight Voldemort? -Penapart Elf also brought up a couple of good points (hope you do not mind my mentioning these Penapart! These are direct quotes.) 1) "HRH (and if HRH are right, so do the rest of their year) dropped NEWT-level Care of Magical Creatures - too bad since they might have to fight The Voldemort and His Minions Dark Arts Monster." ?Penapart Elf 2) "How do Harry and Neville contrast with each other in terms of parental guidance when it comes to their NEWT selections?" -Penapart Elf AyanEva NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From ayaneva at aol.com Mon Feb 6 09:27:05 2006 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:27:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147654 These are some thoughts I had regarding the questions that I had about Chapter 9. (LONG) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "AyanEva" wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 9, The Half-Blood Prince I asked: > -It seemed to me that when McGonagall was giving out the NEWT class > schedules, the scene was written in such a way so that certain > characters were completely glossed over (Hermione/Ron). Conversely, > very specific points regarding classes and skill sets were made about > other characters (Harry/Neville). It almost seems like JKR is, in > essence, sticking a neon sign around certain skill areas of > particular individuals; areas that I had not previously associated > with these people. Are these really specific skill sets that are at > least some of the exact elements with which to defeat Voldemort? What > I cannot figure out is how these skills would be used and is the > answer found somewhere in past books from what we already know about > these areas of magic? My additional thoughts on this subject (sorry if anything repeats): I honestly do NOT remember there ever being any mention before now that Neville was good at Charms, but apparently he is. Also, the fact that he sucks at Transfiguration?This might mean something, but what? This just makes me think of Peter Pettigrew. I do not think that Neville is going to be the next Wormtail because he really is quite brave and loyal and has proven this a number of times since SS/PS. But that thing about being bad at Transfiguration, while at the same time, Harry is apparently quite good at it...it really is messing with my head. And speaking of Harry When did he start performing at a NEWT level in Transfiguration?? I think this is the first I have heard of it. And that he performed as well as he did in Potions? I know this means something, but I cannot piece anything together. As I suggestion in the discussion topic, maybe these are unique talents that will be used to fight Voldemort. We have guessed from the previous books, mostly PS/SS, that Ron could be the strategist. Hermione, besides being skilled in general, is a base of knowledge and instruction. Maybe this section of the chapter is a short list of the specific talents of the other two main players (not talking about raw power, just developed abilities). Perhaps Harry will do something very specifically involving transfiguration and/or potions, Neville does something that specifically involves charms. Now where the heck does Luna fit into this? She is not mentioned in this chapter, but is she simply the talented "other half" to Hermione and nothing else? I said in my inital post: > -In the DADA class, of particular interest is the exact quote by > Snape on page 177 (US HB), " `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.'" Could the quote tie > into the theory that Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Neville (And Luna? And > maybe Ginny?) all have something really, really specific to use > against Voldemort? Could it be that each person has to use something > unique on each "head" of the Voldemort and His Minions Dark Arts > Monster? > My additional thoughts: I found the DADA classrooms scenes to be the most enigmatic. I could not decide if I was over-reading or under-reading everything (I seem to have that problem with most of the book!). I did make some observations, though. First of all, I did not think that Snape spoke of the Dark Arts in any sort of reverential manner. In fact, when Harry raises this issue later on, Hermione points out that Snape was talking kind of the same way that Harry had before. When I read the quote by Snape about the Dark Arts in DADA, I cannot help but think, "Hey, thanks for the advice on how to approach fighting Voldemort!" So, I definitely think Snape is really teaching, not necessarily admiring. Earlier on the page, Snape looks right at Harry (and JKR makes a point of mentioning this), immediately after demanding that they listen closely and right before beginning his spiel. This leads me to think that the "many-headed monster" bit is specifically for Harry. Yes, yes, I AM a Snape flag-bearer, so my reading of this is a bit colored. It is also why I had so much trouble with this part; it is difficult to approach it objectively. Anyway, I do think that maybe this is a clue about how different characters are going to use different skills to fight Voldemort. I found the DADA classrooms scenes to be the most enigmatic. I could not decide if I was over-reading or under-reading everything (I seem to have that problem with most of the book!). I did make some observations, though. First of all, I did not think that Snape spoke of the Dark Arts in any sort of reverential manner. In fact, when Harry raises this issue later on, Hermione points out that Snape was talking kind of the same way that Harry had before. When I read the quote by Snape about the Dark Arts in DADA, I cannot help but think, "Hey, thanks for the advice on how to approach fighting Voldemort!" So, I definitely think Snape is really teaching, not necessarily admiring. Earlier on the page, Snape looks right at Harry (and JKR makes a point of mentioning this), immediately after demanding that they listen closely and right before beginning his spiel. This leads me to think that the "many-headed monster" bit is specifically for Harry. Yes, yes, I AM a Snape flag-bearer, so my reading of this is a bit colored. It is also why I had so much trouble with this part; it is difficult to approach it objectively. Anyway, I do think that maybe this is a clue about how different characters are going to use different skills to fight Voldemort. I said previously: > -I still am not entirely convinced that Harry got the HBP book by > accident. I have to wonder if someone (a professor) knew what was in > the book. That then leaves me with the question of: If someone > wanted Harry to have the book, who was it? > > -Slughorn lists two times that he took Felix Felicis: Once when he > was twenty-four years old and once when he was fifty-seven. I wonder > if these times are significant? My additional thoughts: The question of just how Harry happened to end up with the HBP's book is bugging me! On the surface it goes like this: Harry did not think he would be able to get into Potions class, so he did not buy any books or supplies. He gets in the class anyway and Slughorn scrounges around and just so happens to pull out two old books, one of which is the HBP's book, which Harry just so happens to get. Great coincidence? Lazy writing? Or just how buffoonish and clueless is Slughorn really? Slughorn certainly seemed far less of a blustering fool in the beginning of the book when he was hiding as a chair and Dumbledore was trying to hunt him down. I am not saying that Slughorn is not really pretentious guy, but we have already seen how Snape seems to exaggerate aspects of his personality when Snape was meeting with Narcissa and Bellatrix early on. I know that the reason that Dumbledore went to so much trouble to get Slughorn at Hogwarts was probably to try and retrieve that missing memory, but Harry getting that potions book just seems like too much of a coincidence for it not to tie in somehow. Snape is too meticulous and orderly, I cannot believe that he would not know what was and was not left in his classroom and the content of each thing that was there. Why the heck would that sort of book that would allow students to "cheat" be left lying around?? The title of book six is Half-Blood Prince and the potions book is the property of the Half-Blood Prince. Without getting into future chapters, even now we know that the potions book and the person to whom it belonged is going to be of importance to Harry. My thinking is that if I do not believe Harry getting that book is a coincidence, then him having the book was planned. And now I am going to make a Hagrid-sized leap and wonder if a) Slughorn is as clueless as he seems and what Dumbledore knows of this, b) The former Potions Master knew what was in the book and left it there and Slughorn, assuming he is not clueless, knows what is in the book (this is a HUGE assumption and probably incorrect). That then leaves me with the question of, c) if someone wanted Harry to have the book, who was it? Dumbledore? Slughorn? Snape? It could be Snape if he is trying to "teach" Harry covertly. I added from Penapart: > -Penapart Elf also brought up a couple of good points (hope you do > not mind my mentioning these Penapart! These are direct quotes.) > 1) "HRH (and if HRH are right, so do the rest of their year) > dropped NEWT-level Care of Magical Creatures - too bad since > they might have to fight The Voldemort and His Minions Dark > Arts Monster." ?Penapart Elf My thoughts: This is a really good point. All we have to do is look back at Buckbeak and the dragon; this idea is perfectly plausible! AyanEva From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 6 10:11:35 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:11:35 -0000 Subject: Bellatrix and Umbridge Re: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Curious the similar ways in which they treat the young people. I can > understand Umbridge because she appears to be a typical spinster > maiden aunt - fluffly cardigan, little hair bow and not knowing how > best to treat the class. But Bellatrix does not seem the type to > react on the same way. > > Any views out there? OK, second attempt. My beautiful eloquent and maybe even intelligent post from yesterday did not make it to the list for one reason or other. As far as Umbridge is concerned, I don't think it has anything to do with knowing how to treat a class. She is not interested in that. She does not care one whit about the classes she teaches and the children in there. What she cares about is the glorie of Umbridge and I think it gives her a thrill to address classes as she does, because it makes it so obvious who is in power. By addressing adolescents like little children she annoyes them, devalues them and she knows it. But she can do this, so she will. She has them in her power and she has the opportunity to make sure they learn only what she wants them to learn, i.e. nothing. She revels in that power. Bellatrix is goading Harry. It is more or less the same thing genuine condescension but also the joy of hurting him and trying to make him angry so he will make mistakes. Gerry From maria.elmvang at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 09:57:38 2006 From: maria.elmvang at gmail.com (Maria Elmvang) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:57:38 +0100 Subject: I hate Umbridge (was Re: I hate Fudge) Message-ID: <17785fc30602060157t39a93c8bj6f05d4e3a6b65fa4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147656 I hope you'll forgive me for a slight OT comment to start this out with, but I thought you'd find it interesting that my company has just hired a secretary by the name 'Langballe' - directly translated: 'Longbottom'. Back on topic... Luckdragon wrote: > Jo has created many unsavoury and unlikeable characters in the Harry > Potter books. Which characters other than LV would you most like to > see get their "just desserts" in book seven? Definitely, definitely, definitely Umbridge! I absolutely HATE that woman (and not in a 'love to hate' manner either). She ruined OotP for me. I know it's very uncharitable of me, but I'd love to see her utterly humiliated in book 7. Maria (feeling very vengeful today) -- I believe in God like I believe in the sun not because I see it, but by it I see everything else --- C.S. Lewis From kchuplis at alltel.net Mon Feb 6 14:54:28 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:54:28 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hero's quest /physical-metaphysical References: Message-ID: <006901c62b2d$3ae581c0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 147658 Jen D. Another thing I wanted to mention, I believe DD is dying all through HBP. That withered hand seems key. But also, his tone with Harry is much different. He seems to talk to Harry with much more emotion. He refers to Harry as a "friend." He tears up when he hears that Harry declared himself "Dumbledore's man, through and through." to the Minister of Magic. I see in him the kind of emotion that comes when people feel time is short. He has no more time to waste. Okay, that was a tangent, but I wanted to get that in, being this is a busy day! kchuplis: This is not a theory that I ascribed to previously, but on my last reading of HBP I noticed another thing: twice during the "lesson" with DD after Christmas, the one where Harry tells DD he told Scrimegour that he was DD's man through and through, Harry notices DD is tired, DD displays deep emotion when Harry tells him of his loyalty and twice Fawkes is heard to utter soothing croons, which in general he seems only to do when he is helping to put heart into someone or give them strength. It was really the first time I really started to believe DD may be dying all through the book. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Feb 5 18:59:23 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 18:59:23 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and Bellatrix Re: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147659 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Curious the similar ways in which they treat the young people. I can > understand Umbridge because she appears to be a typical spinster > maiden aunt - fluffly cardigan, little hair bow and not knowing how > best to treat the class. But Bellatrix does not seem the type to > react on the same way. > > Any views out there? Umbridge does not want to relate, she wants to be obeyed. If you take children seriously, you take into account the amount of responsibility they can handle and give it to them accordingly. Some teachers are stricter than others, but we always see every teacher treat the students seriously: as students who are there to learn and have the ability to do so (some more than others). Umbridge has a completely different agenda. She wants to establish her own power. She does not care one whit what the students think of her or what's best for them. She wants to rub it in, that they are children and she is the adult. I'm quite sure she knows the students detest the way she treats them, but it gives her a power-kick to do so anyways. For Bellatrix it is more strategic, I think. She knows that adolescents get absolutely mad to be addressed like little children. She is goading Harry to make him angry so he will make mistakes, and she will get the prophecy. Taunting him with Sirius also gives her pleasure of course. Gerry From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 09:40:20 2006 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 09:40:20 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147660 Randy wrote: > Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies Randy, that is a very interesting theory. When I read the HBP, I thought that Slughorn was a clear personfication of gluttony, and that caused me to look at the other revolving teachers in terms of the seven deadly sins. But I wasn't really sure if Lockhart's main fault was envy or pride. I think you make the right choice, and I love the connection you make with a "locked heart." Yes, Umbridge was anger. Is it always "pride" that is the first sin, or is it sometimes called "vanity"? I had a friend who kept saying, "You think of vanity as someone looking at herself in a mirror, but that's not it..." But it's funny that a mirror would play such a vital part. And Dumbledore says that the happiest person in the world would see themselves as they are. Third year: Sloth. Peter certainly embodies that sin, doesn't he? Scabbers sleeps all the time, waking up only when threatened. Then he becomes the energizer rat... scuttling all the way to Albania. Interesting... Montavilla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 16:18:12 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:18:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147661 AyanEva: > My additional thoughts on this subject (sorry if anything repeats): > > I honestly do NOT remember there ever being any mention before now > that Neville was good at Charms, but apparently he is. Also, the fact > that he sucks at Transfiguration?This might mean something, but what? zgirnius: About Transfiguration, perhaps just another indication that he does not respond well to a strict, disciplinarian teaching style? Potions of course he is abysmal at, maybe McGonagall also intimidates him to a certain degree? > AyanEva: > When did he start performing at a NEWT level in Transfiguration?? I > think this is the first I have heard of it. And that he performed as > well as he did in Potions? I know this means something, but I cannot > piece anything together. zgirnius: That he is a decent student in Transfiguration who is viewed by McGonagall as having some potential is made clear, if not earlier, then in the "Career Advice" chapter of OotP. McGonagall seems to think that if he really studies he should do well enough on his OWL in Transfiguration (a required NEWT course for a would-be Auror). Since she is his teacher, she should know. That he got the E in Potions I think reflects the overall high standard to which that class is taught. He wasn't doing as badly as he thought because 1) Snape's class is pretty advanced, 2) Snape does not lose an opportunity to mark him down, and 3) Harry cannot be bothered to pay as much attention to Snape's class as to classes whose teachers he likes better. Nice questions, BTW, I do plan to respond to the inital questions at some point! From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 16:57:49 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:57:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147662 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "johnbowman19" wrote: "Lord Voldemort's Request". > We all know what happens in this chapter so I will skip to my > question to save time. What did Voldemort mean by (paraphrasing)" > Your famous pronouncement that love is greater than my flavor of > magic "? > When I read this I took it literally meaning that somehow Dumbledore announced to the whole wizarding world that love was indeed a magic that could conquer all other forms of magic. I imagined him getting on the wizarding wireless network after his grand defeat of the Dark wizard Grindelwald to discuss his battle and making such a statement. So then my question becomes what did you all think of this statement? (Snip) > And wondering about the life of Dumbledore has led me to another > question of his character: How does Dumbledore know what love is? (snip) I would argue that Dumbledore never knew true love because to > have true love he would have had to find his equal. (snip) but could he ever know the love that wills one to bind oneself to another for life? (snip)And if his idea of love did not include > the love a man for a woman could his whole idea of love be lacking, thus making his pronouncement hallow? Meaning Harry's greatest power would come up wanting in the final confrontation with Voldemort because Dumbledore misunderstood love. ---------- Tonks: I just reread the part in HBP that you have referred to. At the time of my first reading I had interpreted that to mean just that it was well know what DD believed. I never thought of him having actually made some famous speech about Love. But now that you have pointed that out, maybe he did. As far as DD having had to have loved a woman and been married in order to understand love, I don't think that is true. After all look at the number of marriages that end in divorce. So I don't think that you can point to marital love as the highest form of love. I am not a parent, but I have been told by those who are, and in remembering my own parent's devotion to me, I think that one of the highest forms of love is that of a parent for a child. Beyond even that is the type of Love that DD believes in and that we saw in Lily and IMO in DD on the tower. The very highest form of Love is sacrificial love, and not just for those that we love by nature, but for those that by nature we might hate. Scott Peck wrote in the "Road Less Traveled", that Love is not a feeling, it is a "choice". This idea fits in with the theme of "Choice", which we know is a central point in the HP series. I think that DD's highest form of Love is that which Peck defines. 'Love is a choice that we make to place the welfare of another above our own'. Love of a man for a woman is "affection", since it involves feeling and not a conscious "Choice". Certainly `falling in love' is not a choice at all. IMO it is a form of temporary insanity. ;-) And people `fall out' of it too. The type of Love that is studied in the special room at the MoM is the type that DD believes in and lives. It is a very powerful type of Love, one not many have. But we do see this in Harry too. It is part of his "saving people thing". In the end I think that JKR will show us that it is possible for everyone to have that type of Love. It is not an easy thing, but it is, in the teaching of DD, the right thing. And this type of Love, lived by the majority of people will change our Muggle world. Tonks_op DD's most loyal servant. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon Feb 6 17:28:38 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 6 Feb 2006 17:28:38 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 2/5/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1139246918.13.2468.m33@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147663 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday February 5, 2006 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Notes: Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last. To get into Chat, just go to the group online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu. If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat". Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in. If you have an Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 19:23:42 2006 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:23:42 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Reminder, No Personal Attacks or Remarks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147664 Hello, everyone-- We want to remind you all that personal remarks against other list members are absolutely not allowed. Please keep the discussions civil and keep your comments focused on the arguments in their posts, which in turn will keep the discussions on topic. Thanks, everyone, The Elves From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 5 21:12:45 2006 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:12:45 -0000 Subject: MM does she know more? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147665 > Olive's Cousin ponders: > Does Moaning Myrtle know more about Tom Riddle/LV than we do so far? > She went to school with Tom and then Draco poured his heart out to her > in Book 6. Is there something the trio can learn from her if they > know what to ask? > Good question! I think you may be onto something here. I think MM knows more about Draco definitely. I am not sure about TR/LV ...if MM doesn't know about him, maybe Olive Hornby or someone else MM knew from school does. She may know something and not know she knows it, ya know? Beatrice From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 6 20:28:10 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:28:10 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and Bellatrix Re: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147666 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: Gerry: > Umbridge does not want to relate, she wants to be obeyed. If you take > children seriously, you take into account the amount of responsibility > they can handle and give it to them accordingly. Some teachers are > stricter than others, but we always see every teacher treat the > students seriously: as students who are there to learn and have the > ability to do so (some more than others). Umbridge has a completely > different agenda. She wants to establish her own power. She does not > care one whit what the students think of her or what's best for them. > She wants to rub it in, that they are children and she is the adult. > I'm quite sure she knows the students detest the way she treats them, > but it gives her a power-kick to do so anyways. Geoff: Putting aside the baby talk I mentioned which kicked off this thread, the fact is that Umbridge is not a teacher. Speaking as a teacher of over 30 years experience, you do not tell a class to read and read and read and forbid quesitoning or any other action. It is not a recipe for either learning or cooperative discipline. I'm not even sure, on reflection, that it is because she gets a power-kick that she deals with people this way; it's not only pupils who get this treatment - look at Trelawney and Hagrid for example. She has no communication skills to deal with folk who do not have the same bureaucratic mindset as she possesses. I suspect she was foisted on Dumbledore from the Ministry with the agenda to watch what was going on. McGonagall makes it very clear when she speaks to Harry after his first run-in with Delectable Dolores: '"Didn't you listen to Dolores Umbridge's speech at the start-of-term feast, Potter?" "Yeah," said Harry. "Yeah... she said... porgress will be prohibited or... well, it meant that... that the Ministry of Magic is trying to interfere at Hogwarts." Professor McGonagall eyed him closely for a moment, then sniffed, walked around her desk and held open the door for him. "Well, I'm glad you listen to Hermione Granger at any rate," she said.' (OOTP "Professor Umbridge" pp.224-25 UK edition) It is probably the only way that they could insist on her being there. I imagine that Dumbledore has figured it out but may be unable to totally block her presence. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 22:06:02 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:06:02 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147667 > >>Betsy Hp: > JKR has given us the McGuffins that are the horcruxes, but I > suspect that they will be of secondary importance. > >>Nora: > Isn't the classic definition of McGuffin a plot element/item which > everyone wants but has no significance in and of itself...? > >>Neri: > > One of the main reasons I'm hoping for something like Horcrux! > Harry is that it will prevent the Horcruxes from being standard > plot coupons, and Book 7 from being a standard collect-the-coupons > quest. > >>Pippin: > > But as for storied objects themselves, of course they are of no > genuine importance -- how can they be? Fabulous treasures are > fabulous only until they have been found. Then they are mere > possessions, worth no more than someone is willing to pay for > them. > Betsy Hp: Exactly. And, from what we've seen, the horcruxes will become worthless junk once they're destroyed. Which is why I define them as McGuffins. It doesn't really matter what they actually are, it matters that Harry needs to get them and Voldemort needs to protect them. The excitement won't be in discovering exactly *what* the Ravenclaw (or Gryffindor?) horcrux is, but *how* Harry gets it. Sure, there will be a momentary thrill if your guess was right (it *was* a wand!) but that thrill won't last past the first reading. However, if Harry learns some major new fact about his mother in order to track down that horcrux, well that will be something with real meat to it. At least in my opinion. > >>Pippin: > > Not to say the horcruxes won't have symbolic value. I think, > though JKR has done her best to cloud the issue, that the > four missing horcruxes correspond to the four houses, and Harry's > quest to find and destroy them will be intertwined with Ron and > Hermione's quest to unite the Houses (as Head Boy and Head Girl.) > Betsy Hp: And *that* would count as a payoff of a true hero's quest to my mind. Uniting what has so long been divided... Dumbledore would weep. Plus, what a fantastic example of Harry going in a completely different direction than Voldemort. Voldemort who used the divisions of the school to his advantage, Voldemort who uses his power to set families against each other, Voldemort who could never, ever, turn to someone else for any sort of assistance. I fully expect Harry to have to choose to trust, to rely on, someone outside himself and his inner circle to complete his task. Luna Lovegood, Zacharias Smith, and Draco Malfoy spring to mind, in order of escalating difficulty. Though it'd be interesting if instead of Luna, the Ravenclaw connection was either Cho or Marietta. > >>Jen R.: > Harry destroying the horcruxes makes the defeat of Voldemort > possible, but it will be a change inside Harry which is the > final 'weapon' handed by Voldemort to Harry and the cause of the > defeat. I picture this being an internal battle similar to the > external brother wand confrontation. So Voldemort will in a sense > defeat himself and fulfill the prophecy he set in motion. Simple, > clean--I'm rather attached to this ending . Betsy Hp: I like this idea too, Jen. For all of its action, the Harry Potter series is quite an internal story. And what was interesting to me in the "brother wand moment" was that Harry chose to stand and fight even while knowing he was most likely going to die. Which ties into his "walking into the arena rather than being dragged" thought in HBP. Which is why I think the act of finding the horcruxes will be more important than the actual horcruxes themselves. > >>Neri: > > The other alternative would be what Betsy seems to suggest, that > the Horcruxes would be reduced to mere structure, an arbitrary > excuse to take the plot of Book 7 away from Hogwarts and propel it > forward while the important part would be the rather unrelated > process of Harry untangling himself from Voldemort. And returning > to the title of the thread, I also don't see how a standard ESE, > however BANGy, can save the Horcruxes from being poorly written > plot coupons. Betsy Hp: Oh, I don't think there will be two unrelated story-lines going on. There will probably be symbolic and thematic value in the horcruxes, as Pippin stated above. But the the horcruxes in and of themselves are really meaningless. Just as the "one ring" could have been the "one bracelet" or the "one necklace" or the "one garden hoe". Also, I don't see the horcruxes as an excuse to send Harry out on a physical journey. As I said before, the horcruxes could all be stuck in and around Hogwarts for all we know. What *will* be important, I think, is Harry acting in a manner completely unlike Voldemort. Using harmony where Voldemort uses chaos, and trust where Voldemort uses suspicion. I'm expecting some hard choices for Harry, moments where he can take the Voldemort path, or his own path while on the great Horcrux Hunt. Which leads us to the title of this cartoon . I've come to realize that I behave horribly like a weather vane on the issue of an ESE in book 7. I flip back and forth depending on the current point being made. However, the one thing that every Heroic Quest needs is a moment of temptation for the hero, a moment where he can choose to give up or give in. And JKR seems to have taken that sort of moment away from Harry. I think Dumbledore specifically says at one point that Voldemort has made it so Harry will never be tempted by what he offers. Which seems to cut out an excellent (and cliched, I'll admit, so maybe that's the reason) dramatic moment. But could someone else offer that moment? If say, Lupin is ESE, could he sway Harry to maybe give up the fight? (I cannot see Harry ever wanting to *join* Voldemort.) Or could an ESE!Character encourage Harry to not trust someone he should be trusting? (Boy, would a twin fit *that* bill! ) Betsy Hp From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Feb 6 23:12:59 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 00:12:59 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's Love References: Message-ID: <00e701c62b72$dfd5ba70$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 147668 johnbowman19 wrote: > What did Voldemort mean by (paraphrasing)". > Your famous pronouncement that love is greater than my flavor of > magic."? > When I read this I took it literally meaning that somehow Dumbledore > announced to the whole wizarding world that love was indeed a magic > that could conquer all other forms of magic. I imagined him getting > on the wizarding wireless network after his grand defeat of the Dark > wizard Grindelwald to discuss his battle and making such a > statement. So then my question becomes what did you all think of > this statement? > Is there a great academy that the wizard scholars who study the very > fabric of magic go to and discuss the nature of magic? How else > could Dumbledore make such a famous pronouncement? Miles: I don't think that Voldemort spoke about a famous speech or something like that. We know that Dumbledore is a very famous wizard, and we know as well that there is wizards' press, books, public (-shed) opinion. So it's not surprising, that Dumbledore's opinions about many things are part of public knowledge. He may have written books, essays, we can be sure that he was interviewed more than once. And additionally we know, that the Ministry is up to research Love and sees it as the most powerful source of magical power - Dumbledore seems not to be alone with his opinion. johnbowman19 wrote: > And wondering about the life of Dumbledore has led me to another > question of his character: How does Dumbledore know what love is? JK From > this, I would argue that Dumbledore never knew true love because to > have true love he would have had to find his equal. > Tonks: > As far as DD having had to have loved a woman and been married in > order to understand love, I don't think that is true. After all look > at the number of marriages that end in divorce. So I don't think > that you can point to marital love as the highest form of love. The very highest form of Love is > sacrificial love, and not just for those that we love by nature, but > for those that by nature we might hate. Miles: I don't think we should ask what form of love is "highest", so somehow I disagree with both of you. There are several forms of love, parental love (love between relatives in general), the love of lovers, friends' love, just to name the three most important. In all kinds of love there are various degrees of intensity. Sacrificial love can be the extreme form of all these forms of love. Talking about Dumbledore, he obviously loves Harry in a mixture of (grand)parental love, and the kind of love that can develop between teacher and student. This love is deep. So obviously Dumbledore can love. By the way, we really don't know anything of Dumbledore's emotions at the age of 20 or before, so there may be some stories to be told (or not told). Miles From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Feb 6 23:45:37 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:45:37 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147669 AyanEva: > -In the DADA class, of particular interest is the exact quote by > Snape on page 177 (US HB), " `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.'" Jen: I snipped down your question b/c this part strongly reminded me of Dumbledore's speech to Harry in PS: "...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." (chap. 17, p. 298, Sch.) Dumbledore sounds a bit more optimistic than Snape and yet he defeated Grindelwald only to watch Voldemort rise in his place. He seems to believe evil can be delayed but gives no indication it can be eradicated. Maybe they were closer than I imagined on this subject. Now if we only knew where Snape stood on the issue of love vs. Voldemort's magic? Somehow I don't see him putting all his eggs in the love basket . Not sure if this is crucial. Take Mundungus for instance, he probably doesn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about love magic but is still loyal to Dumbledore. Course the difference is Snape has actually been tempted by Voldemort before and that *does* seem to be critical as far as being vulnerable to LV (from what Dumbledore told Harry in the 'Horcrux' chapter). AyanEva: > -Slughorn lists two times that he took Felix Felicis: Once when he > was twenty-four years old and once when he was fifty-seven. I > wonder if these times are significant? Jen: Wish we knew his age in relation to Dumbledore and whether he was 57 round the time of Grindelwald's defeat. I thought this would come back up in HBP myself. > -Slughorn talks about Amortentia and he talks about the power > of "obsessive love." Does this mean anything? Will it come into > play? It too seems important. (there is always the > Harry/Ginny/Amortentia theory I do wonder) Jen: Amortentia seemed liked foreshadowing for Merope/Riddle, the Ron incident & all the hormone surges in HBP more than a plot yet to come. Obsession in general, not just obsessive love, was definitely a major theme in HBP. It affected many of the major players just as irritability and recklessnesses dogged people in OOTP. Does each book have a theme which corresponds closely to the effects of a potion? Hmmm. Even though polyjuice is introduced in COS, the theme of "I'm not who you think I am" fits better for GOF. AyanEva: > -The Draught of Living Death pops up again. What is the > significance of this? We keep seeing this particular potion over > and over again, but we never see it used for anything! Jen: Like the bezoar, eh? My guess is Regulus or Emmeline Vance. Regulus seems most likely because of JKR's 'he's dead these days' comment. Thanks AyanEva, lots of good observations! Jen R. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Feb 7 00:04:05 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:04:05 -0000 Subject: Umbridge fate Re: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147670 > > ...or that the centaurs tied her up and > argued over what to do with her for several hours (like in the > Hobbit, until the trolls turned to stone...). Other thoughts? > La Gatta Lucianese: I do hope that one of their options was cooking her for dinner en brochette, and that most of the discussion centered around how to tenderize her and which marinade to use. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Feb 7 00:06:03 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:06:03 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147671 Betsy hp: > However, the one thing that every Heroic Quest needs is a moment > of temptation for the hero, a moment where he can choose to give > up or give in. And JKR seems to have taken that sort of moment > away from Harry. I think Dumbledore specifically says at one > point that Voldemort has made it so Harry will never be tempted by > what he offers. Which seems to cut out an excellent (and cliched, > I'll admit, so maybe that's the reason) dramatic moment. > But could someone else offer that moment? If say, Lupin is ESE, > could he sway Harry to maybe give up the fight? (I cannot see > Harry ever wanting to *join* Voldemort.) Or could an ESE!Character > encourage Harry to not trust someone he should be trusting? (Boy, > would a twin fit *that* bill! ) Jen: Or could Voldemort offer Harry the chance to torture or murder Snape? How tempting would that be? No matter how cliched it is, Voldemort's 'lure of power' is his ability to use a person's weakness against them, putting the person into impossible situations. The speech by Dumbledore to Harry about never being tempted and Harry's 'of course not, never!' answer made me think, 'uh-oh, Voldemort could never tempt Harry to join him but what about other temptations Dumbledore doesn't mention?' LV tried in OOTP thinking Harry's weakness was Sirius, but with Dumbledore there to save him and Harry's love to cast him out from possessing him, he was safe. I wonder if he'd be 'protected against the lure of power like Voldemort's' if Harry was feeling intense hatred instead of love though. I'm thinking Voldemort would feel right at home inside him in that enviroment. Jen R. thinking Betsy is not flip-flopping but considering all her options. ;) From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Feb 7 00:35:14 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:35:14 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147672 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > And *that* would count as a payoff of a true hero's quest to my > mind. Uniting what has so long been divided... Dumbledore would > weep. Plus, what a fantastic example of Harry going in a completely > different direction than Voldemort. Voldemort who used the > divisions of the school to his advantage, Voldemort who uses his > power to set families against each other, Voldemort who could never, > ever, turn to someone else for any sort of assistance. > > I fully expect Harry to have to choose to trust, to rely on, someone > outside himself and his inner circle to complete his task. Luna > Lovegood, Zacharias Smith, and Draco Malfoy spring to mind, in order > of escalating difficulty. Though it'd be interesting if instead of > Luna, the Ravenclaw connection was either Cho or Marietta. Besty could you explain what you mean by "House unity"? I've always had a problem understanding what people mean when they say that. Do they mean the end of the house system or some sort of ideal Hogwarts where no bullying and name calling occurs? I know that the sorting hat and Dumbledore pushed for it but they always seemed vague on it. Actually I'm not sure that Draco is going to be that difficult for Harry to trust. Harry currently has a huge advantage over Draco in that he saw Draco's little scene on the Tower with Dumbledore. I wouldn't be surprised if Smith is harder to trust then Draco (I'm a little of a Draco pusher). Quick_Silver (all this talk of house unity has me wondering if I missed something) From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Feb 7 00:43:31 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:43:31 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's Love In-Reply-To: <00e701c62b72$dfd5ba70$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147673 johnbowman19 > Is there a great academy that the wizard scholars who study the very > > fabric of magic go to and discuss the nature of magic? How else > > could Dumbledore make such a famous pronouncement? > > Miles: > I don't think that Voldemort spoke about a famous speech or something > like > that. We know that Dumbledore is a very famous wizard, and we know as > well > that there is wizards' press, books, public (-shed) opinion. So it's > not > surprising, that Dumbledore's opinions about many things are part of > public > knowledge. He may have written books, essays, we can be sure that he > was > interviewed more than once. > And additionally we know, that the Ministry is up to research Love and > sees > it as the most powerful source of magical power - Dumbledore seems not > to be > alone with his opinion. > > kchuplis: It's really interesting because I just took it to mean an argument they had discussed often when he was a student of Dumbledore's. You know certain professors often have their pet theories, and obviously Tom Riddle had a keen and active knowledge too that might lead to spirited discussion in class. So, I always felt as though LV was bringing up something that had been often argued between them in a class situation. Though we don't see it, they must have spent much class time together. Dumbledore says to Harry in the cave that he "knows Tom's style" because he taught him. From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Feb 7 01:01:38 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:01:38 -0600 Subject: Love/mercy/compassion/ Who dies? Message-ID: <4B263301-9775-11DA-8D6C-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147674 kchuplis: Had another thought on who might die. I keep going back to the fact that we've been given the info that house elves have a powerful magic of their own and Dobby's really fierce love for Harry Potter, sir. We keep thinking of all of Harry's friends as candidates for death, but what if it's Dobby? What if Dobby provides a key piece of the end? Loyalties that Harry has from showing mercy (Dobby and Wormtail) could easily be a big part of how his ability "to love" (keeping in mind mercy and compassion can be types of love) helps him survive where LV has only slavery by fear. Thoughts? From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Feb 7 01:07:00 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 01:07:00 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147675 AyanEva: >At one point, Snape bumps Ron > aside and attempts to silently hex Harry in demonstration for Ron. > Harry, however, reacts automatically and casts a really powerful > Shield Charm, which knocks Snape into a desk. Naturally Professor > Snape is not very happy about this and assigns Harry detention for > Saturday night. > > After class, Harry is complaining about Snape and mentions that it > sounds as if the man adores the Dark Arts, judging by the way that he > was describing them to the class during his introduction. Hermione > makes a good point when she says that Harry has spoken of the Dark > Arts in almost the same manner. Potioncat: One little point. Snape doesn't give Harry detention for knocking him into the desk, but for Harry's cheek afterwards. As for Hermione, I think she's providing canon for what many of us have noticed over the years, Harry and Snape are a lot alike. > > >AyanEva: It almost seems like JKR is, in > essence, sticking a neon sign around certain skill areas of > particular individuals; areas that I had not previously associated > with these people. Are these really specific skill sets that are at > least some of the exact elements with which to defeat Voldemort? Potioncat: I had the same feeling in OoP when the students were reading the requirements for certain careers. She seemed to be giving us random bits of information, but I can't help but think it will be important. >AyanEva: > -In the DADA class, of particular interest is the exact quote by > Snape on page 177 (US HB), " `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.'" Potioncat: Well, ESE!Snape would be saying the Dark Arts are supreme, wouldn't he? DDM!Snape would be saying that it is an unending battle. That what you are fighting changes and becomes different. You know, Harry wasn't tempted by Draco's "right sort of people" or the Hat's "you can be great" but he was lured by the HBP's spells. And he has fallen into the tempatation to use Dark Arts against Dark Wizards. But for stuff like > Transfiguration and DADA, what exactly are they doing that makes the > homework so horrifically complex? Potioncat: I snipped the part where you said "just for fun" but I think "fun" is part of it. JKR is presenting a Wizarding school that provides the same sort of challenges that RL school offers. We can all (no matter how young or old) understand the challenge of a difficult report/assignment. The fun is for us readers as we feel for the kids doing the work. > > -I still am not entirely convinced that Harry got the HBP book by > accident. I have to wonder if someone (a professor) knew what was in > the book. That then leaves me with the question of: If someone > wanted Harry to have the book, who was it? Potioncat: Well, my opinion is that it just happened. But, I'll play. The three suspects would be DD, Snape and Slughorn. From his reaction in the bathroom, I don't think it was Snape. Given Snape's reaction, I can't imagine DD would condone Harry's having the book either. That leaves Slughorn, but what possible reason could he have? If he knew how much better the HBP's instructions were than the books, I'd think Slughorn would teach them. I think the book and young Snape were parted. (the book was lost, the book was stolen, Snape was called away abruptly at the end of the year...don't know) I suspect that the book was in Slughorn's boxes of stuff and brought back to school. Or had been at the bottom of a cabinet badly in need of re-orgnizing...for many years. But I don't think Snape knew the book was there. It's very similar to the map, which had been confiscated while the Marauders were kids and later used by a different generation. > -Slughorn mentions Lily was good at potions. Did Lily write in the > book at all? I doubt it since everything that is in the book, so far, > is in the same handwriting. But maybe something will come up later > about Lily and her connection to potions. All we hear about is > charms. Potioncat: It would be interesting to know if Lily was as good at potions as Slughorn says. If so, he may be truely assuming that Harry gets his skills from her. Since she was Head Girl, there's reason to think she was an exceptional student. From what I've seen at this site, academics usually play a role in that position. I don't think there's any reason to think Severus and Lily worked together or swapped the book. In fact, Lily's skill at potions is sort of a red herring. It leads us to think it was her book while Harry is thinking it was James's. And it plays into LOLLIPOPS. Very good review and questions! From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Feb 7 01:24:04 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 01:24:04 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147676 "AyanEva" wrote: > > I honestly do NOT remember there ever being any mention before now > that Neville was good at Charms, but apparently he is. Also, the fact > that he sucks at Transfiguration?This might mean something, but what? Potioncat: Well, we knew he was pretty bad at Transfiguration from GoF. I'm with you, we didn't know about the Charms. I thought it would play out in this book, of course, I was expecting more of him in this book. It could be a set up for the next one. > AyanEva: > When did he start performing at a NEWT level in Transfiguration?? I > think this is the first I have heard of it. Potioncat: Back in Career Advice, McGonagall said he could make it if he studied. I guess he did. Or perhaps she assigned work that improved his skills.She did say she would do everything in her power to see he got into Auror school. (Although we never saw her doing anything.) AyanEva: And that he performed as > well as he did in Potions? I know this means something, but I cannot > piece anything together. Potioncat: I think Snape marked everyone in such a way that they were doing better than they knew. He did from what we could tell, mark Harry lower than he should have been. AyanEva: Earlier on the page, Snape looks right at > Harry (and JKR makes a point of mentioning this), immediately after > demanding that they listen closely and right before beginning his > spiel. This leads me to think that the "many-headed monster" bit is > specifically for Harry. Yes, yes, I AM a Snape flag-bearer, so my > reading of this is a bit colored. It is also why I had so much > trouble with this part; it is difficult to approach it objectively. > Anyway, I do think that maybe this is a clue about how different > characters are going to use different skills to fight Voldemort. Potioncat: You have a good point. I haven't had time to consider it. But,yes, I'd say Snape is particularly teaching Harry. I think that's the real reason he sort of "attacked" him in the first class. I also think it's way he attacked him in the very first potions class too. (Not that it's the best way to deal with Harry.) AyanEva: Snape is too meticulous and orderly, I cannot > believe that he would not know what was and was not left in his > classroom and the content of each thing that was there. Why the heck > would that sort of book that would allow students to "cheat" be left > lying around?? Potioncat: I addressed this a bit in my reply to the first part of the discussion. But I think it's possible the book had been in Slughorn's possession all this time. I don't think Snape knew it was there. Also, I don't think of it as a book that allows students to cheat, but a book that a student make improvements in. > >AyanEva: > > -Penapart Elf also brought up a couple of good points (hope you do > > not mind my mentioning these Penapart! These are direct quotes.) > > 1) "HRH (and if HRH are right, so do the rest of their year) > > dropped NEWT-level Care of Magical Creatures - too bad since > > they might have to fight The Voldemort and His Minions Dark > > Arts Monster." ?Penapart Elf Potioncat: But CoMC is about acceptable creatures within the magical world. It's how to take care of them, not how to fight them. The Dark Creatures are covered in the early years of DADA. I wonder what other creatues Hagrid introduced and who might have taken the class? The trio should be able to use any magical creature since they have ordinary knowledge of them. > > From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Feb 7 01:52:16 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:52:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5DECC2B8-977C-11DA-8D6C-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147677 On Monday, February 6, 2006, at 07:24 PM, potioncat wrote: > AyanEva: > And that he performed as > > well as he did in Potions? I know this means something, but I > cannot > > piece anything together. > > Potioncat: > I think Snape marked everyone in such a way that they were doing > better than they knew. He did from what we could tell, mark Harry > lower than he should have been.? > kchuplis: Most likely everyone except Hermione, did better in the tests. After all, Snape is not there. It is even mentioned how this makes a difference for Harry (and I think Neville). Plus, even when Harry did fine, Snape was disappearing his potions or breaking the flask. It isn't all about him not doing it well, but more about not doing well under Snape's eye. From estesrandy at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 02:13:58 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy Estes) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:13:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060207021358.82481.qmail@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147678 Thanks. I looked up Umbridge and realized that umbrage means a feeling of anger cause by being offended. Not only is Dolores angry but she offends the centaurs and makes them angry! I don't know if this one applies but snipe is a gunshot from a concealed location. Could Snape be firing his curse at Voldemort (or Dumbledore) from a concealed location? Snipe can also mean fool and someone else once mentioned that the Tarot card for the fool looks like a man who is upside down being held by his ankle. The curse that Harry used on Ron and James used on Snape! Randy --- montavilla47 wrote: > Randy wrote: > > > Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies > > Randy, that is a very interesting theory. When I > read the HBP, I thought that Slughorn was > a clear personfication of gluttony, and that caused > me to look at the other revolving > teachers in terms of the seven deadly sins. > > But I wasn't really sure if Lockhart's main fault > was envy or pride. I think you make the > right choice, and I love the connection you make > with a "locked heart." > > Yes, Umbridge was anger. Is it always "pride" that > is the first sin, or is it sometimes called > "vanity"? I had a friend who kept saying, "You > think of vanity as someone looking at > herself in a mirror, but that's not it..." But it's > funny that a mirror would play such a vital > part. And Dumbledore says that the happiest person > in the world would see themselves as > they are. > > Third year: Sloth. Peter certainly embodies that > sin, doesn't he? Scabbers sleeps all the > time, waking up only when threatened. Then he > becomes the energizer rat... scuttling all > the way to Albania. > > Interesting... > > > Montavilla > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 02:01:03 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 02:01:03 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147679 > > >>Neri: > > > > One of the main reasons I'm hoping for something like Horcrux! > > Harry is that it will prevent the Horcruxes from being standard > > plot coupons, and Book 7 from being a standard collect-the-coupons > > quest. > > > >>Pippin: > > > > But as for storied objects themselves, of course they are of no > > genuine importance -- how can they be? Fabulous treasures are > > fabulous only until they have been found. Then they are mere > > possessions, worth no more than someone is willing to pay for > > them. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Exactly. And, from what we've seen, the horcruxes will become > worthless junk once they're destroyed. Neri: I'm not sure I made my argument here clear. I maintain that the Horcruxes are in great danger to prove worthless junk (from the literary point of view, at least) even *before* they are found. Nick Lowe explains why much better (and much more wittily) than I ever could, so I recommend again his essay about different kinds of plot devices: http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html but I'll try recreating his argument here in specific relation to the HP series: JKR could have plotted Harry vanquishing Voldemort in many alternate ways. She could have Harry become a leader and use the DA to unite the houses, including Slytherin, to fight the DEs. She could have Harry win the support of the centaurs and/or the goblins and/or the giants and/or the werewolves. She could have Harry discovering how to release the house-elves from their magical slavery and in return they would be his army. She could have Harry use his influence as the Chosen One to unite the WW against Voldemort. She could have Harry teach everybody to pronounce Voldemort's name so they won't be afraid of him. She could have Harry devise a secret plan to kill Voldy with an ingenious combination of Polyjuice Potion, Priori Incantatum, The Mirror of Erised and the Death Arch in the DoM. She could have Harry delving into Ancient Magic and use his own blood to brew an anti-Voldemort potion, or study and somehow use the power in the locked room. She could have Harry lead a brilliant espionage scheme, maybe with double-agent Snape as his point man, or using Legilimency and the mind link to discover Voldemort's secrets. Or any combination of the above or something different yet. But what is common to all these examples is that plotting them in a convincing way wouldn't be easy. It would require not merely deep knowledge of the Potterverse, but also of things such as logic, strategy, sociology and politics. Instead, JKR had Dumbledore, which is a classic Wise Old Man stock character, inform the hero that in order to defeat the evil overlord he must locate and destroy several magical objects. The identities of these objects are completely arbitrary. Their magical properties are completely arbitrary. Their histories and hiding places are completely arbitrary. JKR could have chosen them to be anything she feels like. So this kind of plot is much easier to write, but it's also much more artificial. It has the feel of a video game quest, of a set contest, like the tasks in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. It makes you suspect that the author was simply lazy, or that she didn't think she would be able to put together a more complex and realistic plot. And indeed, as Nick Lowe demonstrates, this plot device is one of the most common in bad fantasy literature (I don't object to calling it a McGuffin, but I think Lowe's definition of "plot coupon" nails it more precisely). So the question IMO is how to save the Horcruxes from being worthless junk in the literary sense. Well, some of the answers basically seem to say "the Horcruxes aren't really very important to the story", but I think that wouldn't save them from being worthless junk, it would just make them *unimportant* worthless junk. Not much of an improvement. It seems to me that the only way to save the Horcruxes is if the whole "how to split your soul and make a Horcrux" thing, rather than being mere arbitrary back story for a collect-the-coupons quest, would prove central to the story, both plot-wise and in the thematic level. I think JKR can do that because she already did a similar thing with the prophecy. Arbitrary prophecies are also a very common plot device in bad fantasy lit (Nick Lowe classified them as one cheap form of the deus-ex-machina, and he wrote his essay years before Harry Potter came to Jo in the train). The directions for operating this device are incredibly easy: do you need to explain the readers why only a mere kid can defeat the greatest Dark wizard of all times? No problem! Just put in an arbitrary prophecy in mock-archaic verse that foretells it. JKR used this cheap trick in her plot, but then she went and "subverted" it. She gave her prophecy a central thematic value by involving the Choice factor. I predict, or at least I hope, that she'll do a similar thing with the Horcruxes. Neri From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Mon Feb 6 14:46:07 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:46:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Dumbledore's hand and UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060206144607.82722.qmail@web37007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147680 Tonks: DD would not have made an UV because as I understand it that is a piece of dark magic. DD would not do anything that was dark magic. He may have stumbled upon dark magic when he found the ring and this had an effect on him, but he does not do any himself. Cat: I can't say whether or not DD would make an unbreakable vow, but as for it being dark magic, how would the twins know about it at the age of 6, quote from Ron "Fred and George tried to get me to make one when I was about five. I nearly did, too, I was holding hands with Fred and everything when Dad found us." HBP ch16 "A Very Frosty Christmas" How would the twins know about the linked hands and everything? And where would they have learned the spell? I highly doubt that the Weasleys have books on the Dark Arts in their house for them to learn from. Cat (who has spent the last few days reading hundreds of posts, absolutely dunmbfounded as to how interesting you guys are!) From newbrigid at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 18:44:22 2006 From: newbrigid at yahoo.com (Lia) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 10:44:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Lack of Memorial for Sirius (was Re: JKR's dealing with emotions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060206184423.44240.qmail@web31705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147681 fuzz876i wrote: In The Order of the Phoenix Sirius went throught the curtain behind the veil. When this happened there was no body to bury and so therefore no true reason for a memorial. In the Half-Blood Prince Harry says that Dumbledore's funeral is the first that he has attended because there was no body for Sirius to remembered. This makes me think that yes that someone that falls through that curtain might be able to return. Lia muses: I interpreted some of this a bit differently. First of all, while I know that, in Sirius' case as opposed to Dumbledore's, there was no body around which to structure a funeral, I would find it odd if that precluded any type of memorial service. (For instance, my father wished to be cremated, and in addition, my mother didn't feel ready to hold a service until some months after his passing...yet, there was still a "true reason" for a memorial, so thus a service WAS held.) I personally thought that the reason(s) surrounding a lack of memorial were similar to those surrounding a lack of formal christening for Harry, e.g., Voldemort's rise and/or return to power, surrounding fear, need for secrecy, and there being lots of work to be done, in essence. Just a thought... Lia, who thinks that Sirius shall not return, but still wonders much about the nature of the Veil... From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Mon Feb 6 22:56:08 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:56:08 -0000 Subject: Redemption, Child Abuse, and Literary Taste In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147682 > BAW: > JKR has stated that she is a Christian and that anyone who knows > this should be able to figure out the ending. Christianity is > all about redemption. A central teaching of the religion is that > God became human in the person of Jesus Christ who gave his life > not for good, righteous people, but for the worst sinners. He > came to seek and save the lost, the sinful, the broken, the > unloved. And who is more of all those things than Tom Riddle? michelle says: Christianity is all about redemption however these books appeal to people who are not only Christian but all other religions and the non- religious as well. To myself, and I am sure many others as well, it would be bad literature to redeem someone like LV just because the writer is a Christian. I am glad that there are people in the world who can forgive others no matter what they have done, but this is literature not reality. I read to be entertained not to be told that I should "forgive and forget" and "turn the other cheek". I will get my morals from the Bible, thank you very much, not from the fiction I choose to entertain myself with. -michelle, who is also a Christian From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 03:10:08 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:10:08 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147683 AyanEva wrote: > -DADA- > > Harry, however, reacts automatically and casts a really powerful > Shield Charm, which knocks Snape into a desk. Naturally Professor > Snape is not very happy about this and assigns Harry detention for > Saturday night. Alla: Heeee. One would wonder why exactly the teacher is not happy when student produces powerful Shield Charm. On the other hand, knowing the name of this teacher one would not. :-) AyanEva: > After class, Harry is complaining about Snape and mentions that it > sounds as if the man adores the Dark Arts, judging by the way that he > was describing them to the class during his introduction. Hermione > makes a good point when she says that Harry has spoken of the Dark > Arts in almost the same manner. Alla: You know, that's funny. From Hermione's summary I did not think that Harry and Snape speeches sounded that similar at all. Even in Hermione's summary Harry does not talk about Dark Arts being "indestructible", but I digress. I wanted to read Harry's speech verbatim to compare for myself. I had a guess that Hermione meant Harry talking for DA when she made this observation, but I could not find what she was talking about at all. In the Hog's Head Harry mainly just answers whether he did certain deeds and says that he had a lot of help with his stuff. In Dumbledore's Army he supervises practices, but I could not find what Hermione talks about either. Could somebody help me, please? Which Harry's speech Hermione compares to Snape's? Personally, as I said in the past, I can definitely see some similarities between Harry and Snape, but I am convinced for now that the main reason Dumbledore kept Snape in school besides protecting his ungrateful..... ( my opinion of course, only my opinion, nothing more :-)) was to show his students including Harry what kind of person they should not become EVER. Sort of negative lesson - do not get stuck in the past, forgive people who wronged you or at least don't actively harm their innocent children. IMO of course > Potioncat: > One little point. Snape doesn't give Harry detention for knocking him > into the desk, but for Harry's cheek afterwards. Alla: Is that Okay that I don't really believe him though? :-) Do you think Snape was honestly concerned for example with protecting kids from being expelled after Shack when he said that they were being confunded ( As you probably guessed, I don't, I think the most logical thing for someone who really is concerned about that would be say NOTHING at all) or maybe his pride suffered too much from being knocked down by three thirteen years old? I mean your interpretation is certainly supported by canon, but I do think that the fact that Harry overpowered him played significant role in Snape giving Harry that detention. Just my general impression of Snape's character. :-) Potioncat: As for Hermione, I > think she's providing canon for what many of us have noticed over the > years, Harry and Snape are a lot alike. Alla: Ok, Alla makes pleading face again. Which speech Hermione is talking about? Help me? :-) AyanEva: > -It seemed to me that when McGonagall was giving out the NEWT class > schedules, the scene was written in such a way so that certain > characters were completely glossed over (Hermione/Ron). Conversely, > very specific points regarding classes and skill sets were made about > other characters (Harry/Neville). It almost seems like JKR is, in > essence, sticking a neon sign around certain skill areas of > particular individuals; areas that I had not previously associated > with these people. Are these really specific skill sets that are at > least some of the exact elements with which to defeat Voldemort? What > I cannot figure out is how these skills would be used and is the > answer found somewhere in past books from what we already know about > these areas of magic? Alla: Oh, it is a possibility IMO. I don't know about any other characters, but she certainly bumps Neville up in the skills and confidence level. I mean, as someone said, we already know that he is not bad at Transfiguration, but Minerva does not take him in her class and strongly advises him to take Charms, which means that he is much better in Charms. I am sure Neville's role will be significant enough at the end. I don't think you are the only one who cannot figure out the specifics though. :-) Otherwise we would have predicted the correct ending long time ago. AyanEva: >> -I still am not entirely convinced that Harry got the HBP book by > accident. I have to wonder if someone (a professor) knew what was in > the book. That then leaves me with the question of: If someone > wanted Harry to have the book, who was it? Alla: Sorry, not a conspiracy theorist. Unless it was Snape who wanted to tempt Harry into Dark Arts ( and as I said in the past, I think that Harry's being tempted with HBP spells is the extent JKR will go with the temptation storyline. IMO of course), I think it was a total accident. Just don't buy Dumbledore wanting Harry to use Sectusemptra curse or any other staff from the book, but I am not into Puppetmaster! Dumbledore at all, so you maybe asking a wrong person :-) AyanEva: > -Slughorn talks about the dangers of taking too much Felix Felicis. > He says that it causes giddiness, over-confidence, and recklessness. > How long do these effects last? Is this significant? My first thought > was that Voldemort is giddy, over-confident, and reckless. I do not > know what to make of this. Alla: Heee. Maybe Snape supplies him with Felix Felicis constantly? That would too easy to defeat him then, just cut the supplies, so I suppose not :-) > > -Slughorn talks about Amortentia and he talks about the power > of "obsessive love." Does this mean anything? Will it come into play? > It too seems important. (there is always the Harry/Ginny/Amortentia > theory I do wonder) Alla: Well, there is Snape's obsessive love to Lily theory too. :-) > -The Draught of Living Death pops up again. What is the significance > of this? We keep seeing this particular potion over and over again, > but we never see it used for anything! Alla: I am convinced that at some point it would be very important - as in someone will be saved with it or someone will resurrect. Would love if Renee's speculation will come true and Regulus was the one who took it at some point. Penapart Elf: > 2) "How do Harry and Neville contrast with each other in terms of > parental guidance when it comes to their NEWT selections?" > Alla: Well, the point which JKR is making about Neville's guidance is clear enough to me - his Gram is trying to make Neville live his dad's life or something like that. IMO anyways. As to Harry - what parental guidance? I mean, not only he has none, at that point nobody is there even nominally to fulfill the role of the guardian IMO. I mean, besides McGonagall, sort off. Thanks for the cool questions, AyanEva JMO of course, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 03:11:37 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:11:37 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147684 > AyanEva: > Snape is too meticulous and orderly, I cannot > > believe that he would not know what was and was not left in his > > classroom and the content of each thing that was there. Why the > heck > > would that sort of book that would allow students to "cheat" be > left > > lying around?? > > Potioncat: > Also, I don't think of it as a book that allows students to cheat, > but a book that a student make improvements in. zgirnius: I also do not think this book would have allowed a student to 'cheat' in Snape's Potions classes. It is a peculiarity of his that he wrote his potions instructions on the board. I suspect this is because he wrote his own instructions on the board-so having Snape's old notes would not have given any student an advantage over the others. From erikog at one.net Tue Feb 7 03:27:17 2006 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:27:17 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147685 >>-It seemed to me that when McGonagall was giving out the NEWT class >>schedules... It almost seems like JKR is, in >>essence, sticking a neon sign around certain skill areas of >>particular individuals...Are these really specific skill sets that are at >>>least some of the exact elements with which to defeat Voldemort? I think the scheduling process accomplishes more than just linking characters with skills. We get: basic character development, information about the subjects in general, plot advancement, *and* linkage between characters/subjects. For example: Parvati is "crestfallen" because she's not going to be taught Divination by the "handsome Centaur" this year--in other words, JKR is beating the hormone drum; Neville: We hear (again) he's good in Herbology. We are reassured that he's made it to the highest levels in DADA. Then we get the Tran- figuration/Charms discussion, which I think really isn't much about Neville at all. It establishes that Neville's self-esteem is in the gutter, thanks to his grandmother, and that McGonagall is building him up. That's not terribly new. What IS new is the explicit information that Charms as a subject is difficult, not soft, and "not necessarily worthless." I take that as a giant Lilly Potter flag. (I also think this info about Charms is setting Neville on a path to think about memory charms.) Harry: No major new information here, but for the explanation about why he wasn't previously signed up for Potions--and why he's going to need to borrow supplies/book from Slughorn. Plot motion. >>In the DADA class, of particular interest is the exact quote by >>Snape on page 177 (US HB), " `The Dark Arts,' said Snape, `are many, >>varied, ever-changing, and eternal. Fighting them is like fighting a >>many-headed monster.... Could the quote tie >>into the theory that Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Neville (And Luna? And >>maybe Ginny?) all have something really, really specific to use >>against Voldemort? I had more a vision of Harry, Ron, and Hermione going up against the three- headed dog as first-years--you can't go it alone, you need your friends. I do think there's something special in his words, though, since he deliberately lowers his voice to give that part of the speech. >>Just for fun: This has nothing to do with anything, but it is >>mentioned that the Trio are doing some really complicated DADA >>homework. This begs the question, what exactly do you give for >>homework in magic class if it is not practice, but theoretical? I think the homework probably had something to do with nonverbal spells, since none of the kids could produce them (either a jinx or a silent shield) before. Otherwise, for Transfiguration--uhhh, maybe Physics problems?? >>I still am not entirely convinced that Harry got the HBP book by >>accident. I have to wonder if someone (a professor) knew what was in >>the book. That then leaves me with the question of: If someone >>wanted Harry to have the book, who was it? No idea about that one! >>Slughorn lists two times that he took Felix Felicis: Once when he >>was twenty-four years old and once when he was fifty-seven. I wonder >>if these times are significant? I think the 57 has to be significant. Slughorn is younger than Dumbledore, but well into retirement age now. I was looking to see if we had any info on Slug's age now, to guess who-all would be his student when he was 57, but I haven't found anything specific. (BTW, given that Harry's due for a date with a crazed homicidal overlord, why isn't he keeping it for that? Or brewing batches of it for the big day? :P) >>Slughorn talks about the dangers of taking too much Felix Felicis. >>He says that it causes giddiness, over-confidence, and recklessness. >>How long do these effects last? Is this significant? My first thought >>was that Voldemort is giddy, over-confident, and reckless. I do not >>know what to make of this. I think Felix is a combination of 1.) the experience of the spoilt person, so you know afterward as great as it was, daily life with all its ugly struggle is better; and 2.) the experience of alcohol/being drunk. I have a feeling FF is going to come back (along with the love potion) in discussion of the Marauders-era kids. >>Slughorn talks about Amortentia and he talks about the power >>of "obsessive love." Does this mean anything? Will it come into play? >>It too seems important. (there is always the Harry/Ginny/Amortentia >>theory I do wonder) I'm thinking it is huge, huge, huge, and there's a reason we haven't gone deeply into it yet. The Draught will pop up in book 7, I bet, but Amorentia may be the "big" potion of the book. >>The Draught of Living Death pops up again. What is the significance >>of this? We keep seeing this particular potion over and over again, >>but we never see it used for anything! I think it is a set-up for Book 7, nothing more than that. It also backs up Dumbledore's claim that he can hide people in danger, and Snape's first year speech about "stoppering death." >>Slughorn mentions Lily was good at potions. Did Lily write in the >>book at all? I doubt it since everything that is in the book, so far, >>is in the same handwriting. But maybe something will come up later >>about Lily and her connection to potions. All we hear about is >>charms. I think this is the groundwork for a Snape-Lily connection of some kind. >>What is the point in calling the chapter HBP? Just to introduce the >>potions book and tell us it is important? It seems kind of >>unnecessary and I keep thinking that there must be something else in >>this chapter that I am missing. The chapter covers a range of threads and themes: the quest to find yourself, teenage hormones, thinking for yourself, ego/ambition. I would not be surprised if all of the above did not play a big part in Snape's backstory. >>Finally, I wonder if the NEWT scene tells us what skills will be >>used to defeat Voldemort. If so, does that mean that the DADA scene >>tells us HOW the HRH and company will defeat Voldemort I think it affirms thinking outside the box, so to speak. As angry as Hermione is about Harry's "win" in the FF contest, if you compare her work in Snape's class and in Slughorn's, there's a negative message being sent about Hermione's use of sheer book knowledge to dominate her classes. She is REALLY over-the-top in Slughorn's class; I love Hermione, but if I were in that class, I'd be annoyed! (I note also that on p. 177, Snape tells the students to shut their books and pay attention to him, again suggesting that book learning isn't everything.) Two last things: 1.) Despite Harry's claim that Snape was going to jinx him, thus meriting the excessive Shield response, what actually happens is that both Ron and Harry are getting nowhere in their practice of nonverbal skills. Snape is going to take Ron's place as a demonstration, and Harry fires back with a verbal Shield. After Snape corrects Harry about the assignment (nonverbal vs. verbal spells), Harry snarks back at Snape, and therefore earns the detention. There's no excessive evil on Snape's part here, just Harry venting his Snape hate. and 2.) What struck me also in this chapter is something on p. 176--Katie's advice to Harry about being a leader: "Good teams have been ruined before now because Captains just kept playing the old faces, or letting in their friends..." It's taken at the time as a comment about letting Ron on the team, but I think it is an overall statement about leaders and being too exclusive about from where you'll get help. Krista From tifflblack at earthlink.net Tue Feb 7 03:38:12 2006 From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (Tiffany Black) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:38:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147686 AyanEva: > After class, Harry is complaining about Snape and mentions that it > sounds as if the man adores the Dark Arts, judging by the way that he > was describing them to the class during his introduction. Hermione > makes a good point when she says that Harry has spoken of the Dark > Arts in almost the same manner. Alla: You know, that's funny. From Hermione's summary I did not think that Harry and Snape speeches sounded that similar at all. Even in Hermione's summary Harry does not talk about Dark Arts being "indestructible", but I digress. I wanted to read Harry's speech verbatim to compare for myself. I had a guess that Hermione meant Harry talking for DA when she made this observation, but I could not find what she was talking about at all. In the Hog's Head Harry mainly just answers whether he did certain deeds and says that he had a lot of help with his stuff. In Dumbledore's Army he supervises practices, but I could not find what Hermione talks about either. Could somebody help me, please? Which Harry's speech Hermione compares to Snape's? Tiffany: I think Hermione meant what Harry said the night he was soaking his hand in the mertlap when Hermione first brought up the idea of the D.A. He said, and I'm only paraphrasing here, that fighting Voldemort wasn't about reciting spells, but about using your brains and your luck and your guts, and that's all that's standing between you and death. Tiffany From lavstalicious at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 03:25:51 2006 From: lavstalicious at yahoo.com (Miri) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:25:51 -0000 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147687 This is a debate that cropped up with some friends of mine and I'm very interested in what others may think. It deals with this bit of the prophecy about Harry: "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 ... " The debate is this: When it talks about 'those who have thrice defied him' does this mean that Lily and James, together, worked against him thus defying him or does it mean that they faced him three times, in person, and defied him that way? I know, that's very unclear, but it's the argument we are having. "Miri" From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Feb 7 05:00:53 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 05:00:53 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147688 Jen: First, I read the article you posted and even though I snipped your list of ways JKR could resolve the plot, I think it's very possible several of them will be important along with the horcruxes for defeating Voldemort. The first obvious thing that comes to mind is how many alliances Harry has formed over the years which will likely come into play in Book 7. Now, you may call these--what was it, plot vouchers (?)--the cashing in on an alliances (magical spells, potions, etc.) brought into the story only for that reason. But take Viktor Krum, or Dobby, or Beauxbatons, pretty much anyone besides Grawp , and they have been woven logically into the story for more reason than simply "Harry needs them later" from how I read it. Neri: > Instead, JKR had Dumbledore, which is a classic Wise Old Man stock > character, inform the hero that in order to defeat the evil > overlord he must locate and destroy several magical objects. The > identities of these objects are completely arbitrary. Their > magical properties are completely arbitrary. Their histories and > hiding places are completely arbitrary. JKR could have chosen them > to be anything she feels like. Jen: Here's another point I'm in disagreement with. To me JKR very carefully set up Voldemort as a person obsessed with immortality, an irrational person who sees objects as having a 'magical' value in the sense of having a value beyond monetary. Yes the Wise Man stock character tells Harry about the horcuxes but only after we get to the bottom of the story as to why Voldemort would go that route as opposed to drinking the Elixer, or performing some old dark magic with no psychological fascination for him. What I'm saying is the objects aren't arbitrary to Voldemort, nor are the hiding places. Taking myself completely out of the story as the writer of that article did makes practically any plot sound absurd! JKR did 'make it so' as author/god, but she also tried to back it up and give it a viable reason for being there. Maybe the reasoning appeals to me more than someone else because I thought she did a damn good job creating a psychological case study to underscore Voldemort's choices. And I think it's very possible LV's irrational obsessions could be taken even further, i.e. the gleam. Neri: > So this kind of plot is much easier to write, but it's also much > more artificial. It has the feel of a video game quest, of a set > contest, like the tasks in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. It makes you > suspect that the author was simply lazy, or that she didn't think > she would be able to put together a more complex and realistic > plot. Jen: It could have the feel of a video game. The idea may sound that way at the moment without the written word. It's impossible to say what JKR can spin it into though, as you mention later on. Neri: > It seems to me that the only way to save the Horcruxes is if the > whole "how to split your soul and make a Horcrux" thing, rather > than being mere arbitrary back story for a collect-the-coupons > quest, would prove central to the story, both plot-wise and in the > thematic level. I think JKR can do that because she already did a > similar thing with the prophecy. Jen: I'm wondering if you feel only Harrycrux could achieve this end? Maybe instead Harry does help unite many allies (and possibly a few enemies) by accessing their talents for finding and/or destroying horcruxes. Or Harry's refusal to work with the MOM finally forces a crack in the corruption there and leads the way for at least a faction of the MOM to stand beside him and force some changes in the future. Ancient magic, Dobby being the first of many later House elves to own a wand and go to Hogwarts, Harry discovering he has other powers transferred by Voldemort and using them---the combination of events is endless. JKR could choose any and all to go along with the horcrux search to fit with her major themes. Basically I can't see the horcruxes standing alone because she doesn't write events in isolation for the most part. Neri: > The directions for operating this device are > incredibly easy: do you need to explain the readers why only a mere > kid can defeat the greatest Dark wizard of all times? No problem! > Just put in an arbitrary prophecy in mock-archaic verse that > foretells it. JKR used this cheap trick in her plot, but then she > went and "subverted" it. She gave her prophecy a central thematic > value by involving the Choice factor. I predict, or at least I > hope, that she'll do a similar thing with the Horcruxes. Jen: I'm glad she chose that route because the prophecy was ...not my favorite part . Jen R. From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Tue Feb 7 04:51:27 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 23:51:27 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What DD wanted for LV? WAS:Re: Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? References: Message-ID: <43E8274F.000009.01584@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 147689 Carol wrote: "Still, I think we can take the statement ("Merely taking your life would not satisfy me, I admit") as true even though it's not the real reason (or the primary reason among many) why he doesn't attempt to kill Voldemort then or at any other time. That being the case, what can he mean by it? What *would* satisfy Dumbledore (if he were alive to see it)? Would merely having *Harry* take LV's life be somehow more satisfactory? Surely he's not expecting LV to beg for mercy or repentance? Or maybe it's not a half-truth at all but an out-and-out lie to cover up his knowledge of the Horcruxes? I can't imagine DD *wanting* to take someones life, not even Riddle/Voldemort's. What, then, does he mean? Ideas, anyone?" Donna replys: I don't think LV will die and my reasons, in no particular order, are: 1. LV is afraid of death. 2. DD says there are things worse than death. 3. The prophecy says the Dark Lord will be vanquished, not killed. 4. The quote by Carol. 5. Harry doesn't have it in him to kill. But, I do believe LV will wish he were dead. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 7 07:54:19 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 07:54:19 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E8522B.1050002@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147690 dumbledore11214 wrote: > > Alla: > > Heeee. One would wonder why exactly the teacher is not happy when > student produces powerful Shield Charm. On the other hand, knowing > the name of this teacher one would not. :-) > You don't cut Snape any slack, even if it was a perfectly legitimate teaching situation by any standards. (On the other hand, knowing the name of the listee, one does not wonder ;-) Their task was analogous to, say, doing mental maths. Harry produced a big whopping calculator and was very quick in punching the buttons. Do you think a maths teacher should have praised him? Irene From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Feb 7 09:04:05 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:04:05 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies In-Reply-To: <20060207021358.82481.qmail@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147691 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Randy Estes wrote: > Randy: > I don't know if this one applies but snipe is a > gunshot from a concealed location. Could Snape be > firing his curse at Voldemort (or Dumbledore) from a > concealed location? Snipe can also mean fool and > someone else once mentioned that the Tarot card for > the fool looks like a man who is upside down being > held by his ankle. The curse that Harry used on Ron > and James used on Snape! > Renee: I'm afraid you're (con)fusing two Tarot cards here: the Fool and the Hanged Man. The Fool is the first card of the deck, bearing the number zero, and stands for innocence, naivity, new beginnings and unexpected happenings. Reversed, it stands for ill-advised risks, impulsive actions and rash decisions. If this is anyone's card, it's Harry's, not Snape's. The Hanged Man is card #12. It stands for change (things turned on their head), rebirth, sacrifice, devotion to a cause, but reversed, for loss, lack of commitment, selfish preoccupations and inability to move forward. If this is Snape's card, the interesting question would be whether it came out upright or reversed. Renee From Jen at alveymedia.com Tue Feb 7 06:02:43 2006 From: Jen at alveymedia.com (Jennifer Nielsen) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 23:02:43 -0700 Subject: Mundungus and the Locket Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147692 I'm sure this is obvious to everyone out there but me, but in a re- read of HBP, when Harry catches Mundungus with the things he had "nicked" from Grimmauld Place, he sees him with a silver locket. I don't read that he ever saw Mundungus with the locket. Why is it suspected that he has that? Also, any chance he could have seen Hufflepuff's cup there? Jen From mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 04:29:19 2006 From: mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com (Jutika Gehani) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:29:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Love/mercy/compassion/ Who dies? In-Reply-To: <4B263301-9775-11DA-8D6C-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: <20060207042919.19842.qmail@web80908.mail.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147693 Karen wrote: >> Had another thought on who might die. We keep thinking of all of Harry's friends as candidates for death, but what if it's Dobby? What if Dobby provides a key piece of the end? << Hey, You could be right. Dobby can prove to be an important key in the end. But I feel that JKR will be killing somebody who is very close to the readers.....like she has done in her previous books (I guess with the exception of Cedric). Take care, Jutika. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Feb 7 10:40:43 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 10:40:43 -0000 Subject: Wands and other things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147694 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > kmalone1127: > There is a website > >hogwartsprofessor.com where the guy who runs it (John Granger) has > >written several articles about the books and the Christian influence > >of them. > > > Geoff: >About a year and a half ago, > there was a lot of discussion regarding the Christian aspect because > of a number of contributors who were putting forward alchemical > theories. One of our more notable and outspoken members ultimately > went off to start his own website to propagate these views. John > Granger's name was mentioned more than once during these exchanges. I > am afraid that, as a Christian, I am suspicious of his views because > I do not believe that the way of alchemical liberation has anything > to do with basic Christian faith. Renee: AFAIK, John Granger is not a proponent of the way of alchemical liberation. His views are - I hope to do them justice now - that the HP books are Christian literature in the tradition of the Inklings, notably Lewis and Tolkien. But while the message itself is Christian, but JKR presents it by using the imagery and symbolism of spiritual alchemy as developed in the European alchemical tradition. The medium is not the message, though, at least not in the eyes of John Granger, who is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you take a look at his website and read some of the articles, you'll see that he does not propagate alchemical liberation as a worldview. Nor does he claim JKR is doing so. Renee From greatraven at hotmail.com Tue Feb 7 11:34:15 2006 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 11:34:15 -0000 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147695 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miri" wrote: > > This is a debate that cropped up with some friends of mine and I'm > very interested in what others may think. > > It deals with this bit of the prophecy about Harry: > > "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 ... " > > > The debate is this: > > When it talks about 'those who have thrice defied him' does this mean > that Lily and James, together, worked against him thus defying him or > does it mean that they faced him three times, in person, and defied > him that way? > > I know, that's very unclear, but it's the argument we are having. > > "Miri" Sue: Actually, I don't think we were ever told, were we, any more than Tolkien ever mentions whether Legolas is fair or dark, which doesn't stop fans from arguing over it. At the start of the first novel, they have already been attacked and are dead. Presumably, as members of the original Order of the Phoenix, they would have been busy defying him in one way or another. :-) We just aren't told what that is. Of course, someone may have a better memory than I have about this than I have... > From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Tue Feb 7 12:29:13 2006 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:29:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Centaurs Re; Umbridge fate Message-ID: <1b3e053de6af824383e63d4c7f95b22c@bellsouth.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147696 Since, in mythology, the centaurs are associated with debauchery and orgies, ...hmm a lot of bad things could have happened to Umbridge. Now Rowling's centaurs seem to be different--more civilized. Who knows? Maybe nothing. Maybe the traditional view is an unfair prejudice held by wizards (and muggles)? But if Umbridge thinks she's been captured by the equivalent of an American motorcycle gang, she's got to be terrified. That alone could have placed her in shock. Personally, I think this is another allusion made by Rowling for adults to catch, yet keeping the story appropriate for children to read. Barbara (`'?.?(`'?.?-:?:-?.?' ?)?.?'?) -:?:-??..-:?:-* ~ Barbara~ *-:?:-..??-:?:- (?.?'?(?.?'?-:?:-`'?.?)`'?.?) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rkdas at charter.net Tue Feb 7 13:50:11 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:50:11 -0000 Subject: Wands and other things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147699 SNIPPED > Renee: > > AFAIK, John Granger is not a proponent of the way of alchemical > liberation. His views are - I hope to do them justice now - that the > HP books are Christian literature in the tradition of the Inklings, > notably Lewis and Tolkien. But while the message itself is Christian, > but JKR presents it by using the imagery and symbolism of spiritual > alchemy as developed in the European alchemical tradition. The medium > is not the message, though, at least not in the eyes of John Granger, > who is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you take a look at > his website and read some of the articles, you'll see that he does not > propagate alchemical liberation as a worldview. Nor does he claim JKR > is doing so. > > Renee Jen here, Thank you Renee for that concise and very clear explanation of JKR's use of the Alchemical tradition. I found Granger's writings very enlightening because he was the first to demonstrate how deeply JKR's writing is steeped in the classis tradition and how that world view operated. We have lost so many of the reference points that someone even 50 years ago would have known about because we no longer study so many of the things that formerly comprised education in the classical sense. JKR and the Inklings share a world view in which the good doesn't have to be labeled overtly. And as you point out European alchemical tradition was a way of talking about Christian themes that people understood. Alchemical liberation has developed into its own tradition but the two still use many of the same terms but do not share the same world view at all. Jen D. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 7 14:31:07 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:31:07 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147700 > Neri: > I'm not sure I made my argument here clear. I maintain that the > Horcruxes are in great danger to prove worthless junk (from the > literary point of view, at least) even *before* they are found. > > Nick Lowe explains why much better (and much more wittily) than I ever > could, so I recommend again his essay about different kinds of plot > devices: > http://www.ansible.co.uk/Ansible/plotdev.html > but I'll try recreating his argument here in specific relation to the > HP series: Pippin: First of all, anybody who thinks Cooper's _The Grey King_ is no good is not a literary authority as far as I'm concerned. It's not the plot devices that make hackwork hackneyed, it's the refusal to do anything creative with them for fear of challenging the audience. A hack would never have given us Hermione as a lead character. Ginny would have got the spot (and sold a lot more Ginny dolls.) Similarly, the self-admitted commercializers of the LOTR property replaced Tolkien's middle-aged, sarcastic Frodo with the young and wide-eyed naif played by Elijah Wood. The plot device of destroying the horcruxes will no doubt require Harry to do many of the things I've snipped from your post, and I am sure Dumbledore knows they need doing. But Harry would never have accepted the task in that form, since he does not think of himself as a potential leader, or spy, or magical researcher etc. Pippin who will be AFK for the next 10 days or so From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Feb 7 14:41:27 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 09:41:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Centaurs Re; Umbridge fate In-Reply-To: <1b3e053de6af824383e63d4c7f95b22c@bellsouth.net> References: <1b3e053de6af824383e63d4c7f95b22c@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <43E8B197.2040205@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147701 Barb Roberts wrote: > Since, in mythology, the centaurs are associated with debauchery and > orgies, ...hmm a lot of bad things could have happened to Umbridge. > Now Rowling's centaurs seem to be different--more civilized. Bart: This appears to be yet another factor which makes me believe that Rowling has read more of the Narnia series than she claims. While there were a couple of learned centaurs in Greek Mythology (notably Chiron), Rowlings centaurs seem remarkably similar to Lewis' centaurs, especially from the later books in the series. Bart From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 7 14:53:56 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:53:56 -0000 Subject: Redemption, Child Abuse, and Literary Taste In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147702 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mmmwintersteiger" wrote: > > > BAW: > > JKR has stated that she is a Christian and that anyone who knows > > this should be able to figure out the ending. Christianity is > > all about redemption. A central teaching of the religion is that > > God became human in the person of Jesus Christ who gave his life > > not for good, righteous people, but for the worst sinners. He > > came to seek and save the lost, the sinful, the broken, the > > unloved. And who is more of all those things than Tom Riddle? michelle: > Christianity is all about redemption however these books appeal to > people who are not only Christian but all other religions and the non- > religious as well. To myself, and I am sure many others as well, it > would be bad literature to redeem someone like LV just because the > writer is a Christian. I am glad that there are people in the world > who can forgive others no matter what they have done, but this is > literature not reality. I read to be entertained not to be told that > I should "forgive and forget" and "turn the other cheek". I will get > my morals from the Bible, thank you very much, not from the fiction I > choose to entertain myself with. Geoff: As a Christian, I have commented on many occasions on my own personal take on how JKR's faith affects the books. I have posted on several occasions about the fact that no one is irredeemable - usually in connection with Draco. On the subject of your closing sentence, I touched on this back in message 145828, which was in a thread "Moralising and preaching" and I wrote: "I think this may depend on how you interpret moralising and sermonising. We often draw comparisons with "The Lord of the Rings" and the Narnia books. In these stories, here and there are occasions when folk have suggested that Tolkien and Lewis were guilty of doing just this in their works. In the case of Lewis, it is probably true because he made it clear that he intended "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" to be an allegory of the Christian way to faith. If someone has a strong faith, then that is going to permeate and influence what they do and think and it will probably show itself in their writing unless they make a great effort to mask it or write from an opposite point of view for effect. It depends, as I said, as to how far you consider writing from your own world view and letting that underpin your fiction constitutes moralising and sermonising. Tolkien makes his points very subtly but if you look closely enough - not only in LOTR but in other books like "The Silmarillion" - you can see where he is coming from and what moral absolutes drive his characters." One has to remember that it can be through fiction that a person can come to a real life acknowledgement of God and - if by a Christian author - a realisation of what Christ did to save men. It is also an interesting exercise to read about the interplay of thoughts between J.R.R.Tolkien, Hugo Dyson and C.S.Lewis about ideas such as myths which helped to finalise Lewis' faith and Christian commitment. Sadly, I have lost the book over the years but it is covered at some length in "The Inklings" which was (I think) by Humphrey Carpenter who was the author of the first biography of Tolkien. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 7 15:12:35 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:12:35 -0000 Subject: Wands and other things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147703 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" wrote: Renee: > > AFAIK, John Granger is not a proponent of the way of alchemical > > liberation. His views are - I hope to do them justice now - that > the > > HP books are Christian literature in the tradition of the Inklings, > > notably Lewis and Tolkien. But while the message itself is > Christian, > > but JKR presents it by using the imagery and symbolism of spiritual > > alchemy as developed in the European alchemical tradition. The > medium > > is not the message, though, at least not in the eyes of John > Granger, > > who is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you take a look > at > > his website and read some of the articles, you'll see that he does > not > > propagate alchemical liberation as a worldview. Nor does he claim > JKR > > is doing so. Jen: > Thank you Renee for that concise and very clear explanation of JKR's > use of the Alchemical tradition. I found Granger's writings very > enlightening because he was the first to demonstrate how deeply > JKR's writing is steeped in the classis tradition and how that world > view operated. We have lost so many of the reference points that > someone even 50 years ago would have known about because we no > longer study so many of the things that formerly comprised education > in the classical sense. JKR and the Inklings share a world view in > which the good doesn't have to be labeled overtly. And as you point > out European alchemical tradition was a way of talking about > Christian themes that people understood. Alchemical liberation has > developed into its own tradition but the two still use many of the > same terms but do not share the same world view at all. Geoff: I find it difficult agree with you on your take of John Granger's ideas. I have not read a lot of his writing but having recently gone through "The Alchemical Keys to the last Harry Potter novel", I found little reference to the Christian faith as I see it; let me add as a disclaimer that this is not a prescriptive view but a personl one. We have had discussions on alchemy on this group on the past and I have remarked on occasion that this view reminds me of the teaching of the Gnostics way back in the 2nd century AD. They put forward the idea that you had to have a secret knowledge (gnosis) in order to experience salvation. Instead of faith being open to anyone, it was blanketed in esoteric mysticism. I believe, as a commited Christian, that to have faith in Christ both simple and difficult; simple because it can be summed up in two comments made by Jesus himself; difficult because you have to move beyond an intellectual belief to a spiritual acceptance as well. I believe that there is a Christian underpinning of the books if you wish to look for it; I realise that not everyone will want to do that but many folk have pointed out - on this group, in books and in articles - that, in the behaviour of characters such as Dumbledore and Harry himself, many parallels can be drawn with real faith. From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 15:21:49 2006 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:21:49 -0000 Subject: FAQ poll Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147704 Hi! Has anyone got any idea as to when Rowling plans on answering the poll on her site? (the one where one of the questions concerns the Fidelius Charm, and another has got to do something with Horcruxes... I can't remember the third) Or has she, perhaps, answered it, and I am simply not aware of it? Cheers, Lolita From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Feb 7 15:27:29 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:27:29 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wands and other things References: Message-ID: <008901c62bfb$0245c3b0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 147705 ----- Original Message ----- From: Geoff Bannister I believe that there is a Christian underpinning of the books if you wish to look for it; I realise that not everyone will want to do that but many folk have pointed out - on this group, in books and in articles - that, in the behaviour of characters such as Dumbledore and Harry himself, many parallels can be drawn with real faith. kchuplis: Well, there is certainly a moral underpinning to the books. Morality is not the soul property of Christianity. I think sometimes that's why I get a little impatient with all the need to label the books "alchemical" or "christian". It seems to me when you get down to the basics the important aspect is that they are mostly about the story that arises from people's good and bad choices ; and how those choices affect the chooser and those around them. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Feb 7 16:34:32 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:34:32 -0000 Subject: Snape's DADA speech (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147706 > Alla: > > You know, that's funny. From Hermione's summary I did not think that > Harry and Snape speeches sounded that similar at all. Even in > Hermione's summary Harry does not talk about Dark Arts > being "indestructible", but I digress. I wanted to read Harry's > speech verbatim to compare for myself. I had a guess that Hermione > meant Harry talking for DA when she made this observation, but I > could not find what she was talking about at all. In the Hog's Head > Harry mainly just answers whether he did certain deeds and says that > he had a lot of help with his stuff. In Dumbledore's Army he > supervises practices, but I could not find what Hermione talks about > either. > > Could somebody help me, please? Which Harry's speech Hermione > compares to Snape's? Potioncat: Least I become the next HBP...(Half-baked Poster) I sat down and re- read the chapter. It's a habit I may just cultivate. Darts a look at Penapart Elf who is rolling her eyes. Anyway,I came across Part II of Snape's DADA speech. It's something I'd forgotten and it may be something Harry didn't hear, but Hermione did.I didn't know exactly which speech of Harry's Hermione was talking about, however, now I think it was this part of Snape's speech that she was actually comparing Harry's comments to: "Your defenses," said Snape, a little louder, "must therefore be as flexible and inventive as the arts you seek to undo. These pictures"..."give a fair represantation of what happens to those who suffer, for instance, the Cruciatus Curse"..."feel the Dementor's Kiss"..."or provoke the aggression of the Inferius"... Parvati asks, "Has an Inferius been seen, then?"..."Is it definite, is he using them?" "The Dark Lord has used Inferi in the past"..."which means you would be well-advised to assume he might use them again. Now..." This does sound more like Harry, "flexible and inventive". It's also interesting to me, that Snape tells the class what Voldemort has done in the past and that they should be prepared for it again. Granted, he says "Dark Lord." Keep in mind, Malfoy is in this class...yet Snape is admitting that he's teaching the class how to prepare themselves for LV. Cutting it a bit close, isn't he? After all, DADA has been around longer than LV has, Snape could have taken this in a different direction. It's also interesting that he has posters of the Cruciatus Curse, rather than performing it for the class. Isn't this the year Crouch!Moody said the class was supposed to learn the Unforgivables? Snape then has them partner off and practice silent spells, both attacking and defending. Snape turns his wand on Harry who panics (my words) and knocks Snape off balance. There is the bit of 'conversation' which ends with Snape saying..."I do not take cheek from anyone Potter...not even the '*chosen one.*'" (Interesting that in my book the words are ' ' and italics.) Snape is reminding Harry who Harry is, and that it's important he learns nonverbal spells. I am of course, speaking of DDM!Snape, I have no idea what his evil twin might have been doing if he was teaching the class. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Feb 7 16:43:33 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:43:33 -0000 Subject: Wands and other things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147707 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" > wrote: > Geoff: > I find it difficult agree with you on your take of John Granger's > ideas. I have not read a lot of his writing but having recently gone > through "The Alchemical Keys to the last Harry Potter novel", I found > little reference to the Christian faith as I see it; let me add as a > disclaimer that this is not a prescriptive view but a personal one. Renee: Well, maybe this will make you curious enough to delve a little deeper into his writings. "The Alchemical Keys" was Granger's first foray into Potter studies and stressed the alchemical imagery of the books rather than the Christian interpretation. Below is a quote from one of Granger's articles on HBP, which is titled "Baptism into a sacrificial death - Christian keys to Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince." "The Christian Meaning: The Harry Potter books do not offer a generic 'good over evil' message. Ms. Rowling writes the powerful, spiritual answer in story form to mankind's larger questions in the only language even a post Christian culture can understand: she writes in the symbols and doctrines of the Christian faith. Harry Potter fans enjoy a resurrection experience in every book and are awash in words, pictures and images of Christ and souls in pursuit of perfection in Him. Without this specific meaning, Rowling could not have achieved her unprecedented popularity in a culture that only knows of God in these forms." Geoff: > We have had discussions on alchemy on this group on the past and I > have remarked on occasion that this view reminds me of the teaching > of the Gnostics way back in the 2nd century AD. They put forward the > idea that you had to have a secret knowledge (gnosis) in order to > experience salvation. Instead of faith being open to anyone, it was > blanketed in esoteric mysticism. I believe, as a commited Christian, > that to have faith in Christ both simple and difficult; simple > because it can be summed up in two comments made by Jesus himself; > difficult because you have to move beyond an intellectual belief to a > spiritual acceptance as well. Renee: Yes, I do remember your exchanges with the chief proponent of the HP-books-follow-the-way-of-alchemical-liberation theory, and I completely agree with your diagnosis that it is a form of Gnosticism. What I tried to say in my previous post, is that John Granger is *not* an adherent of this theory, but an Orthodox Christian who wouldn't hesitate to confirm your views of what real Christianity is. I think it's deplorable that those past discussions have led you to believe that he is. In fact, I get the distinct impression he's considered guilty by association. But equating his views with Gnosticism is doing him an injustice. Hence this rejoinder. Geoff: > I believe that there is a Christian underpinning of the books if you > wish to look for it; I realise that not everyone will want to do that > but many folk have pointed out - on this group, in books and in > articles - that, in the behaviour of characters such as Dumbledore > and Harry himself, many parallels can be drawn with real faith. Renee: And that is precisely what Granger says repeatedly in the articles on his website. (Personally, I even think he's overdoing it and turning JKR into more of an Inkling like Lewis and Tolkien than she really is.) He's also hosting articles containing other people's Christian interprettions of the series, but none on alchemy *as a system of beliefs*. Renee From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Feb 7 16:42:06 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:42:06 -0000 Subject: Mundungus and the Locket In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147708 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Nielsen wrote: > > I'm sure this is obvious to everyone out there but me, but in a re- > read of HBP, when Harry catches Mundungus with the things he had > "nicked" from Grimmauld Place, he sees him with a silver locket. I > don't read that he ever saw Mundungus with the locket. Why is it > suspected that he has that? Also, any chance he could have seen > Hufflepuff's cup there? > > Jen > Hickengruendler: I don't think it was ever directly mentioned that Mundungus had a locket. So you didn't miss anything. But Mundungus being (or having been) in the possession of the locket is nonetheless a very good guess. If R.A.B. is Regulus (and in my opinion, there is hardly any doubt left) than it seems logical, that the locket Harry and his friends saw in Grimmauld Place while cleaning up (which incidentily nobody could open) is indeed the Slytherin one. First of all, it has a "S" written on it, and most of all, it would finally explain, why JKR wrote that lengthy scene at all instead of cutting directly to the family tree. And if the locket was there, then either of the following could have happened to it. 1) It simply stayed there, which a) would be boring, because it would be too easy and b) seems higly unlikely, since all the other garbage and dark stuff was thrown out, and I see no reason for why they should have kept that locket which could have any possible curses on it. 2) It went out with all the other garbage. Which is of course possible, but I do not think so, since it would mean that they practically have to start at zero with their search, and the R.A.B. clue seems to be totally in vain. 3) Kreacher nicked it. It was among the stuff he brought back into the house. 4) And then it could have been stolen by Mundungus when he broke into GP12 to steal and sell Sirius' stuff (*hiss* I absolutely hate Mundungus Fletcher. And not in a good way. I hate reading about him.) This of course is possible in combination with either possibility 1 or possibility 3. My guess is that three and four happened. And then it could have been among the stuff Mundungus sold to Aberforth. Hickengruendler From rstiegel at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 15:28:59 2006 From: rstiegel at yahoo.com (Rachael) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:28:59 -0000 Subject: Mundungus and the Locket In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147709 Jennifer Nielsen wrote: > > I'm sure this is obvious to everyone out there but me, but in a re- > read of HBP, when Harry catches Mundungus with the things he had > "nicked" from Grimmauld Place, he sees him with a silver locket. I > don't read that he ever saw Mundungus with the locket. Why is it > suspected that he has that? Also, any chance he could have seen > Hufflepuff's cup there? > I don't think Harry ever saw Dung with the locket, but there are a few reasons why he might have it... * it brings a prupose to the whole plot line about him stealing things from Grimmauld Place * he is in Azkaban and that is a place we have read about a lot, but never seen; if he has the locket, the readers may actually get to visit the wizard prison in the next book * Dung is friends with Aberforth and him having the locket might bring him into the picture; JKR has said that Dumbledore's family is a "profitable line of inquiry" I also think the silver locket he has might be a hint. There are lots of different lockets in the last book: the real Horcrux locket, the cursed locket, the fake locket in the cave, and now this one. I think the reference to the silver locket is a little hint that Dung has the Horcrux locket even though it is heavy and gold, not silver. Rachael From kfreimu at gmail.com Tue Feb 7 12:22:35 2006 From: kfreimu at gmail.com (Krista Freimuth) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:22:35 -0600 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <977182740602070422k6398d716sfe92b1a7ac44b3d1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147710 Miri wrote: > > When it talks about 'those who have thrice defied him' does this mean > that Lily and James, together, worked against him thus defying him or > does it mean that they faced him three times, in person, and defied > him that way? > When I read this, it made me wonder if the graveyard scene in GOF is one of the scenes of Lily & James defying him? The first would be when they were killed and a second could be that scene. There could be another one coming in the new book or there could have been something before they were killed. Krista From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 18:14:29 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:14:29 -0000 Subject: HBP - Hogwarts Secrets Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147711 Here is a thought provoking statement by DD that I found after rereading the section on LV's Request. (Page 431, US edition) DD says that he thinks LV wanted to teach at Hogwarts because: "The castle is a stronghold of ancient magic. Undoubtedly LV had penetrated many more of its secrets that most of the students who pass thought the palace, but he may have felt that there were still mysteries to unravel, stores of magic to tap." Maybe we need to ponder what other secrets the castle holds. "Stronghold of ancient magic", bring to mind the "ancient magic" that protected Harry at Godrick's Hollow. Also maybe there is magic there that may have only been unlocked by DD. This leads me to another thought. Since DD was the only one that LV ever feared and DD's presents at Hogwarts kept everyone safe What does his death gain LV? I had thought that it was just to get DD out of the way so that LV could get to Harry. But maybe it is not just about Harry, or not about Harry at all. Help me out folks. What do we know about Hogwarts? 1. It was the hiding place for the Stone that gave Eternal Life. 2. It was the safest place for the stone, even safer that Gringotts. 3. The Chamber of Secrets is there. 4. Trelawney is there, but I don't think she is that important even though DD was protecting her by keeping her there. What else?? What is in Hogwarts that LV wants? Something or some knowledge that he needs? Any ideas? Tonks_op From erikog at one.net Tue Feb 7 18:21:11 2006 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:21:11 -0000 Subject: Centaurs Re; Umbridge fate In-Reply-To: <43E8B197.2040205@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147712 > Barb Roberts wrote: > > Since, in mythology, the centaurs are associated with debauchery and > > orgies, ...hmm a lot of bad things could have happened to Umbridge. > > Now Rowling's centaurs seem to be different--more civilized. > > Bart: > This appears to be yet another factor which makes me believe that > Rowling has read more of the Narnia series than she claims. While there > were a couple of learned centaurs in Greek Mythology (notably Chiron), > Rowlings centaurs seem remarkably similar to Lewis' centaurs, especially > from the later books in the series. I'll throw in a little info here that I think supports the idea that there is another, non-debauchery centuar trope out there. The astrological sign of Sagitarius (Nov/Dec) is a centaur holding a drawn arrow. All descriptions of the "Sagitarius character" that I've read highlight philosophical/educational leanings, not wild and crazy debauchery. There are other repeating elements in descriptions of Sagitarius, but that's the one that always stood out to me: the Centaur as Philosopher. (I know this because it's my sign!) Krista From erikog at one.net Tue Feb 7 18:33:43 2006 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:33:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: <43E8522B.1050002@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147713 Overheard between Alla and Irene: > > Alla: > > > > Heeee. One would wonder why exactly the teacher is not happy when > > student produces powerful Shield Charm. On the other hand, knowing > > the name of this teacher one would not. :-) > > > Irene: > You don't cut Snape any slack, even if it was a perfectly legitimate > teaching situation by any standards. (On the other hand, knowing the > name of the listee, one does not wonder ;-) While I agree Snape's critique of Harry (nonverbal vs. verbal spells) was valid, I want to point out that Snape's "not happy" and supposed anti-Harry vendetta here is very questionable: The sequence of events goes like this: Snape takes Ron's place in the demonstration; Harry gives a verbal Shield spell that throws Snape back; Snape arises, "scowling," and asks if Harry recalls the lesson is about *nonverbal* spells--he doesn't say peep about being blasted by Harry, about Harry reacting too quickly, etc. Just that the assignment was *nonverbal*; Harry says "yes," which Snape corrects to "yes, sir," without being especially vicious in his response. Snape has now had *two* opportunities to retaliate against Harry for the spell, if he were really ticked about it-- and he doesn't do anything; Harry smarts off with the "sir" comment (which couldn't be overlooked in *any* classroom) and he gets detention. He isn't pitched out of class, threatened with expulsion, etc. I don't think McGonagall would've reacted so well to someone mocking her authority, frankly. To me there are no signs of Snape being especially anti-Harry in this episode. He reacts pretty mildly, by my reading. Krista From rkdas at charter.net Tue Feb 7 18:48:59 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:48:59 -0000 Subject: HBP - Hogwarts Secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147714 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: LIBERALLY SNIPPED > Help me out folks. What do we know about Hogwarts? > > 1. It was the hiding place for the Stone that gave Eternal Life. > 2. It was the safest place for the stone, even safer that Gringotts. > 3. The Chamber of Secrets is there. > 4. Trelawney is there, but I don't think she is that important even > though DD was protecting her by keeping her there. > > What else?? What is in Hogwarts that LV wants? Something or some > knowledge that he needs? > > Any ideas? > > Tonks_op > Jen D. here. The first thing that came to my mind is that Hogwarts is the site of the only place that the 4 great wizards and witches were ever united (for a time) and when they were united, they must have been a powerful group. Perhaps some of their power has remained. This could be the "ancient" magic or powers in addition to the ancient magic. Jen D. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 19:02:23 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:02:23 -0000 Subject: Snape's DADA lesson WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: <43E8522B.1050002@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147715 Irene: > You don't cut Snape any slack, even if it was a perfectly legitimate > teaching situation by any standards. (On the other hand, knowing the > name of the listee, one does not wonder ;-) Alla: Listee in question though just as any other listee is not a topic for our discussions. :-) Irene: > Their task was analogous to, say, doing mental maths. Harry produced a > big whopping calculator and was very quick in punching the buttons. Do > you think a maths teacher should have praised him? > Alla: Using your analogy, of course not, but I only agree with the first part of it. "Mental maths" - absolutely, nice analogy, but I would not analogize Harry doing verbal spell instead of nonverbal with using calculator, but rather with doing calculations on paper, instead of in his mind. I cannot translate this word to get the exact meaning, but you will get what I mean, I am sure. IMO what Harry did could be analogized to doing calculations "stolbikom". Harry did the work; he used nothing to help himself, only his own power. Now, that is absolutely true that Harry was not able to do what he was asked to - namely to produce non-verbal spell and for that he should not be praised, BUT correct me if I am wrong, isn't the idea behind nonverbal spells to hide from your opponent what is your next move is going to be, in essence to WIN the battle with your opponent, no matter what type of the battle it is? Harry's VERBAL spell was faster and more effective that Snape's NONVERBAL one, IMO. Should Harry be praised for that? IMO yes, at least something like -" that was effective, but now go back to try doing it nonverbally." In any event though, I acknowledged in my earlier post that Potioncat's argument is supported by that piece of canon and mine is just based on Snape's previous actions. It is just based on Snape's despicable treatment of Harry throughout the books (IMO of course), I have a very hard time believing that Snape would take it graciously to Harry out beating him. If that was any other teacher, I would have no problem believing that this detention was given to Harry for talking back to Snape. If I met Snape for the first time during that lesson, I would have no problem believing that detention was given to Harry solely for talking back to Snape. But based on what I know about Snape, I don't believe it. I mean surely talking back played a part in it, but I do think that the fact that Harry knocked him down played a part in it. I speculate that Snape wanted Harry to talk back to him. I mean, really, what exactly was wrong with Harry's first answer to Snape question? Harry just answers "yes", that is all. Okay, he answers stiffly, but I will be hard pressed to find ANY disrespect here. Does Snape really has to insist in EVERY sentence for Harry to call him Sir? I am still looking for ANY other Hogwarts teacher doing the same thing. I am trying to say that I would not put it past Snape to provoke Harry into that kind of answer. As I said - am just speculating here, nothing more, but based on how I see Snape I think I have some reason for my speculations. I think I have even more reason for my speculation that Harry overpowering Snape played a part in assigning him detention, when I read about what type of detention was assigned. Absolutely, teacher has a right to assign ANY kind of detention, but to specifically give the task that will give an extra pain and humiliation, it is a typical Snape IMO, who wants to pay Harry back. Again, let me stress that my argument is mainly based on Snape's previous behavior towards Harry. JMO, Alla From mauranen at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 19:05:05 2006 From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:05:05 -0000 Subject: Mundungus and the Locket In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147716 Rachael wrote: > * he is in Azkaban and that is a place we have read about a lot, but > never seen; if he has the locket, the readers may actually get to visit > the wizard prison in the next book > > * Dung is friends with Aberforth and him having the locket might > bring him into the picture; JKR has said that Dumbledore's family is a > "profitable line of inquiry" I don't quite see how he would have the locket with him in Azkaban, but the Aberforth line of thought seems plausible. What interests me is does he have the locket, and if so, does he know what it is, and what will he do with it? jekatiska From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 18:41:04 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:41:04 -0000 Subject: I hate Fudge! In-Reply-To: <410-220062644229752@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147717 > Chancie: >My vote would definitely have to go for Umbridge!...Fudge was >responsible for putting her in Hogwarts to begin with, but as power >hungry as he is/was I have never read him as sadistic, which is >exactly how I would describe Umbridge. michelle says: I agree. Fudge is clueless, not sadistic. I really think the opening chapter of HBP shows just how clueless Fudge is. Fudge was in denial about LV's return in GoF and then he made bad choices in OOtP (IMO). I think he was so worried about/threatened by DD that he forgot who he was and what his job was. I don't think his ambition was to run MoM flawlessly (or even well), I think it was to show up DD thus making himself look good. I find this hilarious because DD is so humble. I hate Fudge, not because he is cruel but because he is incompetent. michelle From mauranen at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 19:32:26 2006 From: mauranen at yahoo.com (jekatiska) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:32:26 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147718 > Renee: > > I'm afraid you're (con)fusing two Tarot cards here: the Fool and the > Hanged Man. The Fool is the first card of the deck, bearing the number > zero, and stands for innocence, naivity, new beginnings and unexpected > happenings. Reversed, it stands for ill-advised risks, impulsive > actions and rash decisions. If this is anyone's card, it's Harry's, > not Snape's. > > The Hanged Man is card #12. It stands for change (things turned on > their head), rebirth, sacrifice, devotion to a cause, but reversed, > for loss, lack of commitment, selfish preoccupations and inability to > move forward. If this is Snape's card, the interesting question would > be whether it came out upright or reversed. Jekatiska: Lack of commitment to Dumbledore and the Order? Selfish preoccupations - I think we've seen that, too. Inability to move forward from his hatred of James and Sirius? Yeah, I'll buy that. As for gluttony, Slughorn seems like a good guess, but how about the theme involving other characters than teachers? Dudley? I seem to recall JKR saying in an interview we would eventually get to know what Dudley saw when the Dementor attacked, which somehow suggests to me that we'll see a bit more of Dudley in the next book than in HBP. Incidentally, has anyone else thought of the 'huge blond Death Eater' as an Imperiused Dudley? I know it's a weird long shot but it's the first thing that came to my mind when I read that scene. (I haven't been following the discussion for the past 6 months or so, so forgive me if this is an old topic.) Jekatiska From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Feb 7 19:40:56 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:40:56 -0600 Subject: NVBL spell question References: Message-ID: <002601c62c1e$69f0fd40$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 147719 kchuplis: It is suggested in OoTP that non-verbal spells might not be as powerful as verbal ones when it is said that Hermione's injurys from the battle at the MoM were not as severe as they would have been if the DE had been able to cast it verbally. Has there been any other reference to this? I'm assuming then that you certainly couldn't do a successful AK or crucio spell nonverbally. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From deliquescehp at googlemail.com Tue Feb 7 17:55:03 2006 From: deliquescehp at googlemail.com (Shelley) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:55:03 +0000 Subject: Snape's DADA speech (wasRe: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98ff2d890602070955q7721e3c4i@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147720 Potioncat wrote: > > Snape then has them partner off and practice silent spells, both > attacking and defending. Snape turns his wand on Harry who panics (my > words) and knocks Snape off balance. There is the bit > of 'conversation' which ends with Snape saying..."I do not take cheek > from anyone Potter...not even the '*chosen one.*'" (Interesting that > in my book the words are ' ' and italics.) > > Snape is reminding Harry who Harry is, and that it's important he > learns nonverbal spells. Shelley (wolfe275): I think your point here is really interesting, and ties in with something I noticed in rereading OotP. It seems to me that Snape's attitude and tactics toward Harry when he's teaching Harry Occlumency and DADA differ from when he's teaching Harry potions. Snape seems to let his loathing for Harry run free when he's teaching potions; he has no trouble actively undermining Harry's efforts to produce competent potions and he marks him unfairly. He *wants* Harry to do poorly in potions, and takes obvious pleasure in Harry's failures. Harry perceives Snape's pedagogical attitude towards him to be the same (or worse) in Occlumency and DADA, but it doesn't read that way to me. I think, for instance, in Occulmency he wants Harry to learn what he's teaching him (and yes, this is DDM!Snape we're talking about). For one thing, he acknowleges and even praises Harry's displays of competency. He starts his first demonstration with: 'I have been shown that you have already shown aptitude at resisting the Imperius Curse. You will find similar powers are needed for this.' (OotP, Ch. 24). Granted, not gushing encouragement, but on the adjusted Snape-to-Harry scale, it's positively positive. In fact, as far as I can remember, I think it's first time Snape has every acknowledged that Harry can do anything well. And as the lessons go on, Snape does give Harry credit each time he successfully repels his legilimency. To be sure, it's Snapish credit-- 'for a first attempt that was not as poor as it might have been...You managed to stop me eventually' (Ch 24) and 'that was certainly an improvement...I don't remember telling you to use a Shield Charm...but there is no doubt it was effective...' (Ch 26). But it's still real acknowledgement, and it contrasts with his usual practice in Potions of deliberately ignoring the successful performance of the students he dislikes. And Snape's different attitude in teaching Harry Occulmency vs. Potions is even more marked when Harry fails. Snape often takes a cool, composed pleasure in Harry's failures in Potions class. He savours pointing out Harry's mistakes. But when Harry fails again and again in Occlumency, Snape gets frustrated, and finally angry. He gets 'furious' when its becomes obvious that LV is leading Harry further and further into the DoM, and yells that Harry is 'not working hard enough!' (Ch 26). Whether Snape is doing a good job of teaching Harry Occulmency is another question and another conversation, but to my eye these scenes read as if Snape genuinely wants Harry to succeed in learning it. Which fits with your analysis of DDM!Snape's response to Harry in DADA class. He doesn't chide Harry for producing a powerful shield charm; he chides him for not following instructions, and not working on the nonverbal spellcasting that Harry obviously needs to learn to survive. And I suspect almost any teacher-- certainly McGonagall-- would have given a student a detention for then mouthing off the way Harry did. In fact, given that its Harry and Snape, Snape's response seemed to me surprisingly mild. As if, perhaps, he's more concerned with Harry learning what he's teaching than in punishing the kid he hates above all others... Shelley From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Tue Feb 7 20:01:36 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:01:36 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mundungus and the Locket References: Message-ID: <43E8FCA0.000011.02424@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 147721 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Nielsen wrote: > > I'm sure this is obvious to everyone out there but me, but in a re-read of HBP, when Harry catches Mundungus with the things he had "nicked" from Grimmauld Place, he sees him with a silver locket. I don't read that he ever saw Mundungus with the locket. Why is it suspected that he has that? Also, any chance he could have seen > Hufflepuff's cup there? > > Jen > Hickengruendler: I don't think it was ever directly mentioned that Mundungus had a locket. So you didn't miss anything. But Mundungus being (or having been) in the possession of the locket is nonetheless a very good guess. If R.A.B. is Regulus (and in my opinion, there is hardly any doubt left) than it seems logical, that the locket Harry and his friends saw in Grimmauld Place while cleaning up (which incidentily nobody could open) is indeed the Slytherin one. First of all, it has a "S" written on it, and most of all, it would finally explain, why JKR wrote that lengthy scene at all instead of cutting directly to the family tree. 4) And then it could have been stolen by Mundungus when he broke into GP12 to steal and sell Sirius' stuff (*hiss* I absolutely hate Mundungus Fletcher And not in a good way. I hate reading about him.) This of course is possible in combination with either possibility 1 or possibility 3. My guess is that three and four happened. And then it could have been among the stuff Mundungus sold to Aberforth. Donna comments: My feelings are Mundungus will play a large part in finding the horcrux's because he's a sneak, a thief, under handed, snoopy, and sly. I think he knows more about the locations of the horcrux's than anyone even though he may not know what a horcrux is. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 20:19:19 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:19:19 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147722 [1] -It seemed to me that when McGonagall was giving out the NEWT class schedules, the scene was written in such a way so that certain characters were completely glossed over (Hermione/Ron). Conversely, very specific points regarding classes and skill sets were made about other characters (Harry/Neville). It almost seems like JKR is, in essence, sticking a neon sign around certain skill areas of particular individuals; areas that I had not previously associated with these people. Are these really specific skill sets that are at least some of the exact elements with which to defeat Voldemort? Carol: I'm not sure that I agree with th first observation. It's no surprise that Hermione received high marks in everything except Divination and is again taking a very full course load, including Ancient Runes and Arithmancy, which will surely come into play (finally) in Book 7, or JKR would not have made sure to let readers know that these areas are specialties of Hermione's. (Would have been nice if she'd been present to read [translate] the runes around Dumbledore's Pensieve!) As for Ron, what's important is simply that he's taking the same courses as Harry (note that he, too, got an E on his Potions OWL), so both he and Harry (assuming that they survive Book 7) will be able to train as Aurors, though they may have to start their seventh year at Hogwarts when they're eighteen! Neville is another matter. We know that he was almost as abysmal at Transfiguration as at Potions (McGonagall publicly reprimanded him in GoF for accidentally placing his own ears on a cactus when he attempted a "simple" Switching Spell), and clearly he doesn't respond well to her teaching style any more than he does to Snape's. Flitwick, in contrast, never reprimands anybody and is not even perturbed when he's sent sailing across the room by a badly aimed Banishing Charm. It's not surprising, then, that Neville managed an E in that class even with his father's wand and no particular aptitude like that which he shows in Herbology. What's interesting to me is his Gran's reaction. On the one hand, she bought him a new wand after the events in the MoM (rather than "killing" him as he had predicted) and bragged about him in the Daily Prophet article, making it clear to the entire WW that he was a friend of Harry Potter's and was part of the fight against the DEs at the MoM. On the other hand, she's still, apparently, a bit disappointed that he isn't his father or doesn't follow in the footsteps of her side of the family (as opposed, perhaps, to his mother's?). It's an interesting sidelight into her character that she failed the Charms OWL but was presumably good at Transfiguration (as McGonagall, who is apparently the same age and just possibly from the same house, remembers well). She still seems to be clinging to the hope that Neville will be like her and her son Frank, whose wand she once gave him as, IMO, a symbol of what he should aspire to. Gran, in her old-fashioned, stern matriarchal way (not that different, really, from McGonagall's teaching style) is a steadfast supporter of Dumbledore and therefore of Harry. And it's a bit ironic that McGonagall can see the effects of Gran's sternness on Neville, but not of her own. At any rate, steering Neville toward Charms and getting him to see it as one of his strengths could well have consequences, not only for the development of Neville's independence and self-confidence but also for the fight against the DEs. (Could it somehow tie in with Bellatrix? It would be funny if he used a Hover Charm or a Banishing Charm against her. I have a mental picture of Bellatrix somehow at Neville's mercy and his choosing *not* to Crucio her. A knowledge of interesting Charms might enable him to do that.) > > -2]-In the DADA class, of particular interest is the exact quote by Snape on page 177 (US HB), " `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.'" Could the quote tie into the theory that Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Neville (And Luna? And maybe Ginny?) all have something really, really specific to use against Voldemort? Carol: Yes, I'm sure that it does tie in, as we know that Harry has always depended on others to help him and that their skills complement his. And the addition of Neville, Luna, and Ginny to the group who fought the DEs at the MoM surely foreshadows later roles for all three in the battle against the Dark Arts. (And note that there's no evidence of Snape picking on Neville in the DADA class, where he's not melting cauldrons every other week.) But I think what's most important here is Harry's interpretation of Snape's words as lovingly caressing the Dark Arts. Quite possibly, it's the subject itself, DADA, that he loves. We see something similar, and even more poetic, in his first speech in Potions class in SS/PS. As for the similarity between Harry's speech and Snape's, here's Harry's speech to Ron and Hermione for comparison: "*You don't know what it's like!" You--neither of you--you've never had to face him, have you? You think it's just memorizing a bunch of spells and throwing them at him, like you're in class or something! The whole time you're sure you know there's nothing between you and dying except your own--your own brain or guts or whatever--like you can think straight when you're about a second from being murdered or tortured, or watching your friends die--they've never taught us that in their classes, what it's like to deal with things like that . . ." (OoP Am. ed. 528). So Hermione's paraphrase, or rather summary of the main point, is reasonably accurate, as is her comparison of Harry's words to Snape's. Both of them know from experience what it's like to face Voldemort in person. The difference, IMO, is that Harry is passionately responding to the horror of the experience and indicating that his intuitive defenses (his fierce courage and subconscious selection of an appropriate fight-or-flight response), whereas Snape, the intellectual, is divorcing his words from his own experience and emotions and trying to express to his students the magnitude of the enemy they're fighting without actually naming Voldemort (with Draco and Theo in the class, he has to depersonalize the enemy as "the Dark Arts") and emphasize "flexibility" and "inventiveness" (traits that he himself displayed as a boy in both DADA and Potions, as we see in the notes in the margins of his Potions book). I see Snape's rather scary teaching style in his posters, which nevertheless serve the practical purpose of revealing to his students exactly what they are facing (the consequences of not paying attention in DADA class!), but nothing sinister in either the quoted speech or the lessons he teaches. He's absolutely right in comparing the Dark Arts to a mutant Hydra that keeps growing new heads, each different from the next, and in the sort of response that is required--not desperate, reckless courage but cool-headed inventiveness and flexibility. He is also absolutely right to teach them nonverbal spells, which he knows are especially important for Harry to master. > [3]-Just for fun: This has nothing to do with anything, but it is > mentioned that the Trio are doing some really complicated DADA > homework. This begs the question, what exactly do you give for > homework in magic class if it is not practice, but theoretical? Carol: Just as he assigned complex and difficult essays in Potions, Snape assigns long and complicated DADA essays. Notice that he never uses the textbook(s) in either class, but he expects the students to have read them (and, like Hermione, he seems to have memorized them, in this chapter referring to a specific passage in the Charms textbook for their year, IIRC). It seems to me that his classes, both in Potions and DADA, are purely practical, except for the information he imparts at the beginning of the class and the questions he deigns to answer (as in his careful response to Parvati's question about Inferi). The theoretical aspects, which require careful reading not only of the texts for his own and other(!) classes but library research as well, are taken care of in the essays. His methods, BTW, can be profitably contrasted with Umbridge's, which involved no practical lessons and only a minimum of theory at its most useless and boring (in-class reading of a textbook by an author who did not really help them to understand the spells that he, like Umbridge, didn't think the students should be casting). That there is a useful and, to Snape, interesting, theoretical component is shown, IMO, by his detailed responses to the questions on his DADA OWL in the Pensieve scene in OoP. Surely a mastery of the theory is what enabled him to invent his own spells at such a young age, just as a mastery of Potions theory (and a willingness to experiment) enabled him to improve on the instructions in the Potions text. > > [4]-I still am not entirely convinced that Harry got the HBP book by > accident. I have to wonder if someone (a professor) knew what was in > the book. That then leaves me with the question of: If someone > wanted Harry to have the book, who was it? Carol: I doubt that Slughorn had any idea that Harry was not creating those potions on his own. Snape, in contrast, seems to suspect that something is up, especially after Harry uses Sectumsempra on Draco, but it's only when he uses Legilimency on Harry that he knows for sure that Harry is using his own old textbook--and he's not at all happy about it for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here. Dumbledore *may* have planted the textbook to give Harry extra help with Potions and test his resistance to the temptation of using a spell labeled "for enemies," but I don't know how he could have got hold of Sevvie's old textbook and I see no evidence that he's manipulating Harry or events in that particular way. I think the most likely explanation is that young Severus left the battered old textbook behind when he had mastered everything in it, including his own notations, and that Slughorn found it and tossed it into a cupboard or took it home with him. Dumbledore could have dropped a hint that students who received E's on the Potions OWL might need to borrow a used textbook and Slughorn might have scrounged up any old books that he could find just in case, but I think it's largely coincidence--and Harry's own peculiar luck. (Note that Snape, unlike Slughorn, has not been using antiquated textbooks, so the textbooks date from Slughorn's tenure as Potions teacher, not only of young Severus but of young Eileen Prince some thirty years earlier still. *Not* a remarkable instance of flexibility or inventiveness!) > > [5]-Slughorn lists two times that he took Felix Felicis: Once when he was twenty-four years old and once when he was fifty-seven. I wonder if these times are significant? Carol: No idea on this one. I have difficulty imagining Slughorn, even at 24, being lucky in love. Maybe both instances related to employment or money. Or maybe he just wanted a memorable, lucky day on two occasions. > > [5]-Slughorn talks about the dangers of taking too much Felix Felicis. He says that it causes giddiness, over-confidence, and recklessness. How long do these effects last? Is this significant? Carol: The overconfidence and recklessness (not so much the giddiness) remind me of the young James Potter and Sirius Black--not suggesting that they took Felix Felicis, but they certainly took risks for fun without considering consequences. Possibly Harry faces a similar risk if he takes Felix Felicis to help him find a Horcrux or fight the DEs. No idea whether this passing reference is significant or not. Maybe it's just a hint to young readers that, no, Harry can't depend on FF for success in Book 7. > > [6]-Slughorn talks about Amortentia and he talks about the power > of "obsessive love." Does this mean anything? Will it come into play? Carol: I see it as emphasizing the obsessive love theme that permeates HBP, beginning with Narcissa's obsessive devotion to her son, with its disastrous consequences for Snape and Dumbledore. It also introduces Amortentia, foreshadowing Merope's use of it or a similar potion to ensnare Tom Riddle Sr., with even more disastrous consequences (the birth of the future Voldemort). Amortentia could play a further role, but I can't see Harry using it to fight Voldemort or his minions. ("Here, Bellatrix. Drink this!") > >[7] -The Draught of Living Death pops up again. What is the significance of this? We keep seeing this particular potion over and over again, but we never see it used for anything! Carol: This one I have more hopes for, especially given DD's words to Draco about faking death in HBP. Candidates for the faked death range from DD or Regulus to Caradoc Dearborn (whose body was never found), but I'd like it to be Emmeline Vance as concrete evidence that Snape is on the Order's side despite appearances. It's also possible that he'll work with, say, Lupin to fake Draco's and Narcissa's deaths and lure Lucius (whose escape from Azkaban I predict he'll be ordered to arrange, now that LV has to choose between punishing DEs for their failings and adding relevant competent DEs to his dwindling supply) to join the fight against LV. Anyway, that's the scenario I hope for; not that I'm expecting anything of the sort. I do, however, expect the Draught of Living Death to come into the books, just as bezoars and wolfsbane (also mentioned in Snape's first Potions lesson) have done. > >[8] -Slughorn mentions Lily was good at potions. Did Lily write in the book at all? I doubt it since everything that is in the book, so far, is in the same handwriting. But maybe something will come up later about Lily and her connection to potions. All we hear about is charms. Carol: The notations are all in the minuscule, cramped hand of young Severus Snape, first shown to us on his DADA OWL in OoP. It weems unlikely that Lily and Severus ever sat at the same table, any more than the four Slytherins in Slughorn's NEWT Potions class sit with the three Gryffindors in Harry's year. I've always thought that the reference in SS/PS to Lily's first wand as being "a nice wand for Charm work" would prove important (for example, I imagine it was she who placed the Fidelius Charm on PP to make him the Secret Keeper), and I was surprised to hear Slughorn referring to her proficiency at Potions. I suspect she was good at Potions, as Hermione is, and that she received an O (as Severus did) on her Potions OWL, but I think Slughorn's fond memories of her, combined with Harry's apparent (but unreal) natural aptitude for the subject, are causing to credit a clever and talented student with a genius that really belongs to an even more gifted but perennially underappreciated student, Severus Snape. > > [9]-What is the point in calling the chapter HBP? Just to introduce the potions book and tell us it is important? It seems kind of unnecessary and I keep thinking that there must be something else in this chapter that I am missing. Carol: I think the whole chapter is a hint to the identity of the HBP, and of course the title, matching the title of the book itself, reinforces the importance both of the identity of the "Prince" and of the book itself. The first section of the chapter sets up Harry's ability to take the class and the necessity of obtaining a new book. The middle section focuses on the "Prince" himself, in adult form, unknown to either Harry or the first-time reader. (It's interesting to read the middle section bearing in mind teen!Snape's early aptitude for the subject, along with his skill at Potions, and to speculate on his reasons for wanting to teach DADA rather than Potions despite the "jinx" (curse) on the subject.) The third section reminds us that Harry is no Potions genius and introduces the very helpful and sensible notations by a very bright former student and places Harry on what Nora would probably call the slippery slope of reliance on notations by an unknown student, leading to his willingness to experiment with unknown spells clearly invented by that same student. (There's also the questionable ethics of relying on someone else's notations and *taking credit* for them as your own. I, for one, think Hermione deserved to win the Felix Felicis since she concocted a very good, though not excellent, potion through her own efforts. That she didn't succeed is the fault of the book, whose directions she followed to the letter--which may be one reason why Snape as Potions teacher puts his own directions on the board rather than relying on any text.) > > [10]- How might the third scene, Potions, be a part of some grand scheme to fight Voldemort? Carol: I don't know, but I do think that *Snape* has been presenting Harry and the others with useful Potions information all along (notably the life-saving capability of bezoars) and that part of his exasperration with Harry is that Harry fails to see the importance of Potions and its links to DADA. Antidotes in general can be considered as a form of DADA--and a necessary defense against Dark Wizards who might attenpt to poison you. And of course there must be a good reason why Potions is a requirement for training as an Auror, so perhaps Potions can be used defensively. The Draught of Living Death will almost certainly play a role. I wonder if Hermione will prepare it using the HBP's textbook, which Harry, despite his animus against Snape, will retrieve from the ROR? > > -Penapart Elf also brought up a couple of good points (hope you do > not mind my mentioning these Penapart! These are direct quotes.) > 1) "HRH (and if HRH are right, so do the rest of their year) > dropped NEWT-level Care of Magical Creatures - too bad since > they might have to fight The Voldemort and His Minions Dark > Arts Monster." ?Penapart Elf Carol: As others have pointed out, Magical Creatures are not synonymous with Dark Creatures, which they learned about in Lupin's DADA class. Also, Hagrid's classes focus on *care of* magical creatures, not defense against them. We may see something on dragons (which Harry has briefly dealt with) in Book 7, with Charlie Weasley brought briefly back onto the scene as the Order member most capable of dealing with that particular creature, but I suspect that the Dark Creature Harry will be most concerned with is Nagini. And maybe poor Ron will have to "follow the spiders"! Carol, with apologies for the length of her responses, which no doubt take less time to read than they did to compose From mandorino222 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 18:08:51 2006 From: mandorino222 at yahoo.com (mandorino222) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:08:51 -0000 Subject: Mundungus and the Locket In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147723 Hickengruendler wrote: 3) Kreacher nicked it. It was among the stuff he brought back into the house. Nick wrote: I was also thinking that Kreacher might have at some point or another given it to Bellatrix, which would provide 1) an evil obstacle to be overcome in obtaining the locket and 2) a nice excuse for a Harry v. Bellatrix face-off. Additionally, as a dispute over the Black inheritance, it would underlie the whole "blood vs. bond of love" theme. Would it belong to Harry the adopted heir or Bellatrix the blood relative? See "Will and Won't" for the first battle in that war... Nick From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 20:51:30 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:51:30 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147724 Gerry wrote: > Umbridge does not want to relate, she wants to be obeyed. If you take children seriously, you take into account the amount of responsibility they can handle and give it to them accordingly. Some teachers are stricter than others, but we always see every teacher treat the students seriously: as students who are there to learn and have the ability to do so (some more than others). Umbridge has a completely different agenda. She wants to establish her own power. She does not care one whit what the students think of her or what's best for them. She wants to rub it in, that they are children and she is the adult. I'm quite sure she knows the students detest the way she treats them, but it gives her a power-kick to do so anyways. Carol responds: I'm not so sure that it's personal power Umbridge wants. I think it's power for the Ministry, and she doesn't care how she obtains it or uses it, even if it means using a Crucio behind Fudge's back to promote Fudge's own agenda ("What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him") or sending Dementors to Little Whinging unbeknownst to Fudge. I do think, however, that Fudge's agenda in OoP has been largely engineered by Umbridge, who has stepped in to make sure that Hogwarts and Dumbledore are under the control of the Ministry. If we compare the Fudge of GoF to the Fudge of OoP, he seems to have evolved from bumbling to ruthless in a hurry, and I imagine he had some, erm, encouragement in this direction. As Geoff points out upthread, Umbridge is not a teacher but a bureaucrat. She reminds me of so-called educationists, imposing educational theory on teachers at the expense of teachers' actual knowledge of their subjects and their experience as teachers. I don't know whether JKR, who has been a teacher, is targeting government interference with education, just as she's targeting bureaucracy in general, but that's how it seems to me. At any rate, Umbridge as High Inquisitor, is operating (IMO) on the same principle as Dostoevsky's (doubly imaginary) Grand Inquisitor in "The Brothers Karamazov": The people (in this case, the students) are too ignorant to know what's best for them, and those who do know have both the right and the duty to impose it on them and to brutally suppress those who try to instigate rebellion. Carol, hoping that Geoff or someone else with recent experience teaching in the UK will respond From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 7 21:11:52 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:11:52 -0000 Subject: Wands and other things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" > > wrote: > > Geoff: > > I find it difficult agree with you on your take of John Granger's > > ideas. I have not read a lot of his writing but having recently gone > > through "The Alchemical Keys to the last Harry Potter novel", I found > > little reference to the Christian faith as I see it; let me add as a > > disclaimer that this is not a prescriptive view but a personal one. > > Renee: > > Well, maybe this will make you curious enough to delve a little deeper > into his writings. "The Alchemical Keys" was Granger's first foray > into Potter studies and stressed the alchemical imagery of the books > rather than the Christian interpretation. Geoff: Perhaps I have misjudged the author on the strength of that article. The problem is that, although retired, I find keeping up with the volume of traffic on the group is difficult so also keeping an eye on other material is not easy; therefore, when you visit JG's site and find that "The Alchemical Keys" is the top item on the website index, it is going to give a wrong impression of his take on things. I hope that you are right because, as I have said, I believe that to link Christianity with the alchemical theories which have been bounced around here is a complete no-no to someone with similar views to myself. From newbrigid at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 15:21:28 2006 From: newbrigid at yahoo.com (Lia) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:21:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies -- Tarot In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060207152128.30340.qmail@web31703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147726 Renee wrote: >> I'm afraid you're (con)fusing two Tarot cards here: the Fool and the Hanged Man. The Fool is the first card of the deck, bearing the number zero, and stands for innocence, naivity, new beginnings and unexpected happenings. Reversed, it stands for ill- advised risks, impulsive actions and rash decisions. If this is anyone's card, it's Harry's, not Snape's. The Hanged Man is card #12. It stands for change (things turned on their head), rebirth, sacrifice, devotion to a cause, but reversed, for loss, lack of commitment, selfish preoccupations and inability to move forward. If this is Snape's card, the interesting question would be whether it came out upright or reversed. << Lia muses: This talk of Tarot has gotten me thinking of the sixteenth card-- The Tower. It's interesting to think of the events on the tower in HBP how they relate to this Tarot discussion. The Tower card can be interpreted thusly: Upright - Disruption. Conflict. Change. Sudden violent loss. Overthrow of an existing way of life. Major changes. Disruption of well worn routines. Ruin and disturbance. Dramatic upheaval. Change of residence or job sometimes both at once. Widespread repercussions of actions. In the end, enlightenment and freedom. Ill Dignified or Reversed - Negativity. Restriction of desires and imprisonment. Drastic change that may rob the individual of freedom of expression. Sometimes bankruptcy and imprisonment. Imprisonment within a set of circumstances which cannot currently be altered. Sudden changes out of one's control. I find the upright meaning(s) particularly interesting, as most of those things are exactly what happened in HBP...but what about that last phrase? Hmmm.... Lia, who finds quirky little connections like this intriguing, even if they don't play out From rstiegel at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 15:37:02 2006 From: rstiegel at yahoo.com (Rachael) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:37:02 -0000 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147727 > > "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 ... " It might be just me, but I have always wondered if this part of the prophecy does not refer to "the one" but rather to Voldemort because of the amibiguity about the subject of each part of the prophecy. It could mean that Voldemort was born to parents who have thrice defied him and he was born prematurely in the seventh month of pregnancy. Tom Riddle Sr. defied Voldemort by abandoning him as a baby. Merope defied Voldemort by dying. The third time? Not staying together in the first place? I know it's a bit out there, but I am always weary of taking the prophecy at face value because JKR says that she and Trelawney both chose its wording very carefully. Rachael [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mandorino222 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 18:32:37 2006 From: mandorino222 at yahoo.com (mandorino222) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:32:37 -0000 Subject: Centaurs Re; Umbridge fate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147728 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "krista7" wrote: The astrological sign of Sagittarius (Nov/Dec) is a centaur holding a drawn arrow. All descriptions of the "Sagittarius character" that I've read highlight philosophical/educational leanings, not wild and crazy debauchery. There are other repeating elements in descriptions of Sagittarius, but that's the one that always stood out to me: the Centaur as Philosopher. (I know this because it's my sign!) mandorino222: Also Sagittarius is a fire sign (Aries, Leo and Sagittarius) which is associated with Gryffindor/Dumbledore/Harry/the good fight. Centaurs are good creatures, even if they are a stubborn/hotheaded, and I think that Firenze may yet have a role to play in deciding this conflict. From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Feb 7 21:45:45 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:45:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's hand and UV In-Reply-To: <20060206144607.82722.qmail@web37007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147729 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catherine higgins wrote: > >> Cat: > I can't say whether or not DD would make an unbreakable vow, but > as for it being dark magic, how would the twins know about it at > the age of 6, quote from Ron "Fred and George tried to get me to > make one when I was about five. I nearly did, too, I was holding > hands with Fred and everything when Dad found us." HBP ch16 "A > Very Frosty Christmas" How would the twins know about the linked > hands and everything? And where would they have learned the spell? > I highly doubt that the Weasleys have books on the Dark Arts in > their house for them to learn from. > Allie: Excellent, excellent point! Unless the twins had WITNESSED an unbreakable vow being made or heard a detailed discussion of how it's done. I can't think of anything significant that happened when Ron and Harry were 5-ish, though, that would merit reintroduction to the story. (Going on the assumption that if they had witnessed an Unbreakable Vow, they would have immediately tried it out on Ron, not waited for months or years.) From Sherry at PebTech.net Tue Feb 7 21:47:34 2006 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:47:34 -0000 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: <977182740602070422k6398d716sfe92b1a7ac44b3d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147730 > Miri wrote: > > > > When it talks about 'those who have thrice defied him' does this mean > > that Lily and James, together, worked against him thus defying him or > > does it mean that they faced him three times, in person, and defied > > him that way? Amontillada: I read "thrice" as indicating three particular occasions of defiance, not only their ongoing efforts against him. On the other hand, it's hard for me to believe that Lily and James had confronted him firsthand three times, and yet had not been killed. The general image I've gotten is that Voldemort was absolutely ruthless, and it doesn't mesh with that that they had survived three confrontations--and so had the Longbottoms. Perhaps "thrice defied" referred to three particularly important occasions--for example, times when Lily and James snared one or some of Voldemort's most important supporters. Frank and Alice Longbottom had likewise made especially important strikes against the Death Eaters (just as intelligence agents make major and minor discoveries). > Krista: > When I read this, it made me wonder if the graveyard scene in GOF is one of > the scenes of Lily & James defying him? The first would be when they were > killed and a second could be that scene. There could be another one coming > in the new book or there could have been something before they were killed. Amontillada: The wording of the prophecy says "who HAVE thrice DEFIED him" (emphasis added)--the past perfect tense of "defy." Trelawney was evidently saying that the parents had ALREADY done that three times before she made the prophecy. Dumbledore interpreted those words as pointing to the Potter and Longbottom couples, thinking of things they had already done. If the phrase had suggested "things they have done OR WILL DO," there would have been little or no way to narrow it down! Amontillada (fervently avoiding any thought of time travel playing a part in this prophecy) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 7 21:46:30 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 21:46:30 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147731 > >> AyanEva: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, > Chapter 9, The Half-Blood Prince > Betsy Hp: Really good discussion questions, AyanEva. To not retread what other posters have said, I'm just going to deal with two questions I have some (hopefully) different takes on. > -Slughorn lists two times that he took Felix Felicis: Once when he > was twenty-four years old and once when he was fifty-seven. I > wonder if these times are significant? Betsy Hp: Absolutely wild guess here: At 24 Slughorn took the Felix Felicis and managed to get hired on at Hogwarts as both Potions Master and Head of Slytherin house, *the* position for the sort of networking that is Slughorn's bead and butter. At 57 Slughorn took the Felix Felicis and managed to either a) help his friend defeat a great Dark Lord without risking life and limb (making him about 109 years old) or b) retire from teaching without being destroyed by another Dark Lord on whom he has far too much intimate knowledge (making him about 73 years old). > -What is the point in calling the chapter HBP? Just to introduce > the potions book and tell us it is important? It seems kind of > unnecessary and I keep thinking that there must be something else > in this chapter that I am missing. I think it's hugely important that Harry met the young Severus Snape without realizing that was who he was meeting. He found the young Snape to be someone he related to (as he does in the pensieve scene in OotP, interestingly enough) and someone he could rely on to provide clear and useful advice. Something I believe he's going to need to recognize about adult Snape if he has a hope of defeating Voldemort. We also get the anvil dropping of Harry and Snape being such similar people. And I'm sure it's a hint that the "half-blood Prince" is Snape. I really think Snape is going to be *the* challange for Harry in the next book. Harry is going to have to get past his hatred for Snape, and he's going to have to see past Snape's rather crusty exterior in order to prevail. Otherwise, I'm afraid that even if Harry *does* defeat Voldemort, he'll turn into a man just as or even more bitter than Snape is now. It's interesting because the importance of Snape has been discussed many a time on this list, but this is at least the third time Snape has had a chapter heading of his very own (the first being "The Potions Master" in PS/SS, the second being "Snape Victorious" in HBP). Has any other character received such high billing as many times? Perhaps JKR is giving us a hint. (Oh, and of course, Snape gets his own book. Can't forget that! ) Betsy Hp From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Tue Feb 7 22:21:59 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:21:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] HBP - Hogwarts Secrets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060207222200.96109.qmail@web53305.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147732 Tonks wrote: Here is a thought provoking statement by DD that I found after rereading the section on LV's Request. (Page 431, US edition) DD says that he thinks LV wanted to teach at Hogwarts because: "The castle is a stronghold of ancient magic. Undoubtedly LV had penetrated many more of its secrets that most of the students who pass thought the palace, but he may have felt that there were still mysteries to unravel, stores of magic to tap." Maybe we need to ponder what other secrets the castle holds. "Stronghold of ancient magic", bring to mind the "ancient magic" that protected Harry at Godrick's Hollow. Also maybe there is magic there that may have only been unlocked by DD. >snip< Help me out folks. What do we know about Hogwarts? 1. It was the hiding place for the Stone that gave Eternal Life. 2. It was the safest place for the stone, even safer that Gringotts. 3. The Chamber of Secrets is there. 4. Trelawney is there, but I don't think she is that important even though DD was protecting her by keeping her there. What else?? What is in Hogwarts that LV wants? Something or some knowledge that he needs? Any ideas? Luckdragon: I wonder if there could be more to the "Room of Requirement". If it presents itself as any place you need to use, equipment included, could LV use it in some way to find what he needs to be more powerful (ie: ancient books, potions, etc). Could there be other secret rooms yet to discover. Could DD's possession's be of value, all his little instruments that may have helped him overcome Grindewald. Perhaps he just wants more "trophy's" to make more Horcruxes ie) the hat & sword. Mainly though I think LV just want's Hogwarts so he can breed his pureblood wizard army to take over the world. --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 7 22:53:02 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:53:02 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's DADA lesson WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E924CE.6090207@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147734 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > > Listee in question though just as any other listee is not a topic for > our discussions. :-) I mean it in the nicest way possible - it's always a pleasure to argue Snape with you. :-) > > Irene: >> Their task was analogous to, say, doing mental maths. Harry > produced a >> big whopping calculator and was very quick in punching the buttons. > Do >> you think a maths teacher should have praised him? >> > > Alla: > > Using your analogy, of course not, but I only agree with the first > part of it. "Mental maths" - absolutely, nice analogy, but I would > not analogize Harry doing verbal spell instead of nonverbal with > using calculator, but rather with doing calculations on paper, > instead of in his mind. I cannot translate this word to get the exact > meaning, but you will get what I mean, I am sure. IMO what Harry did > could be analogized to doing calculations "stolbikom". Harry did the > work; he used nothing to help himself, only his own power. Even using this analogy, a maths teacher would not be thrilled. This was not the point of the exercise. > > Now, that is absolutely true that Harry was not able to do what he > was asked to - namely to produce non-verbal spell and for that he > should not be praised, BUT correct me if I am wrong, isn't the idea > behind nonverbal spells to hide from your opponent what is your next > move is going to be, in essence to WIN the battle with your opponent, > no matter what type of the battle it is? Yes, yes, but it's a school setting, and a specific lesson with a specific target in mind. I'm sure Harry uses exactly the same logic to justify in his mind the infamous Bezoar lesson. But even he understands that he's got away with it only due to the special relationship with Slughorn. Yes,Bezoar protects against the poison, but that was not the point of the exercise. > > But based on what I know about Snape, I don't believe it. I mean > surely talking back played a part in it, but I do think that the fact > that Harry knocked him down played a part in it. Could be. But I think Krista has demonstrated rather convincingly that if Snape wanted to punish Harry for knocking him down, he didn't have to wait for the talking back bit. In Occlumency lessons Harry does not get any punishment for hexing Snape either. > > I think I have even more reason for my speculation that Harry > overpowering Snape played a part in assigning him detention, I really doubt it. Yes, Snape is insecure in many ways (whom does Dumbledore love more: me or Harry? :-)) but surely he knows that in a real fight situation Harry is nowhere near to being a match for him, as the very same book demonstrates. The supposed desire to get even does not work for me psychologically. Irene From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Feb 7 23:03:21 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:03:21 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147735 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > I think it's hugely important that Harry met the young Severus Snape > without realizing that was who he was meeting. He found the young > Snape to be someone he related to (as he does in the pensieve scene > in OotP, interestingly enough) and someone he could rely on to > provide clear and useful advice. Something I believe he's going to > need to recognize about adult Snape if he has a hope of defeating > Voldemort. We also get the anvil dropping of Harry and Snape being > such similar people. And I'm sure it's a hint that the "half- blood > Prince" is Snape. Something that I'd never really thought of before (or heard...although I'm sure someone had thought of it before) is that Harry meets young Snape in a way that is highly similar to how he first meets the young Marauders. Harry meets young! Snape though the Half-Blood Prince's potions book, which highlights the skill and knowledge of magic that the Prince possessed, and Harry meets the Marauders though the Marauders Map, which highlights their skills and understanding of magic. Oddly enough both draw the disapproval of Hermione and Harry uses them both for less then honest means. Interesting. Quick_Silver (who is endlessly interested in the Marauder's Map) From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Feb 7 23:21:37 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 00:21:37 +0100 Subject: Wands and other things References: Message-ID: <011f01c62c3d$3eeb8f10$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 147736 Geoff Bannister wrote: > I believe that there is a Christian underpinning of the books if you > wish to look for it; I realise that not everyone will want to do that > but many folk have pointed out - on this group, in books and in > articles - that, in the behaviour of characters such as Dumbledore > and Harry himself, many parallels can be drawn with real faith. Miles: I agree and I think it is important to underline. Yes, Rowling's faith is important for her literary work, it will shine through, sometimes obviously, sometimes you will have to search for it. If we want to predict what will happen in book 7, it is promising to think about how Christian belief could influence the plot and had influenced it within the books we know. But I have the impression that we have to be careful about this. I never had the feeling that Rowling wants to evangelise her readers, not even in the way the Inklings did (actually, speaking of Tolkien I do not see much Christianity in LoTR, much too much revenge and violence, but this is OT). So, I have problems with exaggerated 'Christian' interpretations of Harry Potter, and worst of all the "Harry Potter as the Messias of the WW" (which, again only my personal opinion, would be blasphemic). I am sure that people can understand Harry Potter without being Christian and without knowing very much about Christian faith. And I think that this is part of the global success of this series - it's universal. > Renee: > And that is precisely what Granger says repeatedly in the articles on > his website. (Personally, I even think he's overdoing it and turning > JKR into more of an Inkling like Lewis and Tolkien than she really > is.) Miles: I as well think he is overdoing it, and that's the reason I do not like his articles very much. But the reason for this may be, that his target readership is not me, but fundamentalistic Christians especially in the US, who think that Harry Potter is "evil" or "satanic" or something like that, because there is "magic" in it (sorry for shortening a point of view I think is ridiculous). To convince readers who are influenced by not very intelligently designed reviews like that, he *has* to exaggerate his PoV. And he really does (and not only him). Miles From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Feb 7 23:40:07 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 00:40:07 +0100 Subject: House Elves in book 7 (was: Love/mercy/compassion/ Who dies?) References: <4B263301-9775-11DA-8D6C-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: <013701c62c3f$d4615c30$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 147737 > kchuplis: > Had another thought on who might die. I keep going back to the fact > that we've been given the info that house elves have a powerful magic > of their own and Dobby's really fierce love for Harry Potter, sir. We > keep thinking of all of Harry's friends as candidates for death, but > what if it's Dobby? What if Dobby provides a key piece of the end? > Loyalties that Harry has from showing mercy (Dobby and Wormtail) could > easily be a big part of how his ability "to love" (keeping in mind > mercy and compassion can be types of love) helps him survive where LV > has only slavery by fear. Thoughts? Miles: I agree that Dobby could be a key factor in the final book, but not him alone (and I doubt he will die in book 7). We learnt in CoS, that Elves communicate, that they are aware of how they are treated, and that they feel their situation being improved after the fall of Lord Voldemort. Constraint: Dobbie is a very special elf - but I do not doubt his words when he reports to Harry, that the Elves appreciate being treated friendly and dislike being tortured and mishandled, both within the limitation of their slavery. So, it really could be possible that not only Dobby will give Harry a helping (wandless, but magic) hand, maybe we will see more Elves or hear reports of or about them assisting Harry to overcome Lord Voldemort. Pure speculation, indeed, but I like it ;). Miles From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Feb 8 00:07:54 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:07:54 -0000 Subject: NVBL spell question In-Reply-To: <002601c62c1e$69f0fd40$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147740 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Karen" wrote: > > > kchuplis: > > It is suggested in OoTP that non-verbal spells might not be as powerful as verbal ones when it is said that Hermione's injurys from the battle at the MoM were not as severe as they would have been if the DE had been able to cast it verbally. Has there been any other reference to this? I'm assuming then that you certainly couldn't do a successful AK or crucio spell nonverbally. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Allie: I'm inclined to agree with you, although I think the power of the wizard would influence the strength of the spell also. Then there are spells like "levicorpus" which are nonverbal by design. I would guess that certain spells have the same result whether spoken or nonverbal, for example, a vanishing spell would have the same result whether verbal or not - the object is still gone. But something like requires a lot of power, like sectumsempra, maybe, wouldn't be as severe if nonverbal. From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 00:14:54 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:14:54 -0000 Subject: Snape's DADA lesson WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: <43E924CE.6090207@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147741 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin wrote: > I really doubt it. Yes, Snape is insecure in many ways (whom does > Dumbledore love more: me or Harry? :-)) but surely he knows that in a > real fight situation Harry is nowhere near to being a match for him, > as the very same book demonstrates. The supposed desire to get even > does not work for me psychologically. Maybe I'm missing the point, but perhaps the fact that Harry *isn't* up to taking him on is precisely what drives some of this. If we assume that Snape is somewhat insecure vis a vis Dumbledore and Harry (which seems an argument with legs), then he might be displacing some of that into an area where he can indulge in it freely and glory in his own overt and actual superiority. That's at least one way I can make sense out of Snape's perpetual tendency to lord it over children and indulge in being unfair to them. He can't do it in other areas of frustration and to other people (such as most of the other Professors, who would remember him as a snot-nosed kid; no way to be authoritative there), so hey! take it out on an available target whenever a glimmer of an opportunity shows itself. Possible reading. -Nora now invisions herself with a notebook and a couch, to her horror From Ajohnson5 at comcast.net Wed Feb 8 00:02:59 2006 From: Ajohnson5 at comcast.net (April Johnson) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:02:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Umbridge References: Message-ID: <01d001c62c43$05915780$1502a8c0@april> No: HPFGUIDX 147742 > Carol responds: > I'm not so sure that it's personal power Umbridge wants. April responds: What exactly was Umbridge's agenda in OOTP by sending a dementor to Harry? Did she want him 'dead' for a lack of better term, or what exactly was her deal? We know she was going to be sent to work at Hogwarts reguardless of wether or not Harry was found guilty. So, what was the actual reason given for the dementors? Did they just want him expelled?? April From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 00:39:47 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:39:47 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: <01d001c62c43$05915780$1502a8c0@april> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147743 > April responds: > > What exactly was Umbridge's agenda in OOTP by sending a dementor to Harry? > Did she want him 'dead' for a lack of better term, or what exactly was her > deal? We know she was going to be sent to work at Hogwarts reguardless of > wether or not Harry was found guilty. So, what was the actual reason given > for the dementors? Did they just want him expelled?? > zgirnius: The point was to discredit Harry. Harry claims that he and Cedric were taken by Portkey to a graveyard where Voldemort's followers killed Cedric and brought Voldemort back to full life, and that Harry barely escaped with his own life. The Ministry is spreading the story that this is nonsense. Having Harry testify that he was attacked by Dementors (when everyone knows they are all in Azkaban) would demonstrate yet again that Harry is a disturbed and attention-seeking adolescent with a persecution mania. From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Feb 8 00:41:05 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:41:05 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147744 Two topics in the area of magical skill do not add up for me. 1. Hermione Granger, most talented witch of her age, able to perform well on both written and practical exams, able to master complicated spells in a single lesson, able to produce a Patronus in one D.A. session... achieves only an E on her DADA Owl???? I realize that JKR wrote the OWL grades to highlight that Harry is exceptionally talented at DADA, but it's not realistic for me that Hermione wouldn't have achieved the same grade. I know JKR planted the seed way back in PoA. It's not like the subject is difficult for Hermione - she masters those spells in the same way as anything else. So what gives? 2. Harry Potter is the son of Lily Evans and James Potter. James Potter was a Quidditch star, but he was also Head Boy and very smart. Lily, we know, was very talented in Charms and Potions. We know that Harry VERY MUCH takes after his parents - he looks exactly like James, is a Quidditch star himself, and he has Lily's eyes and her cheek. Despite being JUST LIKE his parents, Harry is, by most standards, a slightly above average wizard with an aptitude for one subject. He works very hard a lot of the time for even the basic skills. By rights, Harry really ought to have a little more **natural** magical talent than he's written. Allie From rkdas at charter.net Wed Feb 8 01:09:21 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 01:09:21 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147745 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > Two topics in the area of magical skill do not add up for me. > > 1. Hermione Granger, most talented witch of her age, able to > perform well on both written and practical exams, able to master > complicated spells in a single lesson, able to produce a Patronus in > one D.A. session... achieves only an E on her DADA Owl???? I > realize that JKR wrote the OWL grades to highlight that Harry is > exceptionally talented at DADA, but it's not realistic for me that > Hermione wouldn't have achieved the same grade. I know JKR planted > the seed way back in PoA. It's not like the subject is difficult > for Hermione - she masters those spells in the same way as anything > else. So what gives? Jen here, My take on this discrepency you've seen is two part as well. 1. Hermione is a wonderful student. Give her a book, she'll read it front to back and memorize it mostly. She performs to standard and her standards are high so she'll always get good grades. But she needs the security of studies to be successful. DADA requires as she says, bravery and quick-thinking but it also seems to require an innate ability that Harry possesses but she does not. She can be unnerved and Harry, as bad as the circumstances get, he just doesn't lose his nerve. I can think of so many instances of this. Would you like me to innumerate them? Harry trusts his instincts and Hermione seems to need to see something in print in order to believe it. It's a very smudgy line, how to know when to trust your gut and when to look for outside confirmation. And I think that's one thing JKR is demonstrating, that there are more than a few ways to be be smart. Harry's got one way, Hermione another. > > 2. Harry Potter is the son of Lily Evans and James Potter. James > Potter was a Quidditch star, but he was also Head Boy and very > smart. Lily, we know, was very talented in Charms and Potions. We > know that Harry VERY MUCH takes after his parents - he looks exactly > like James, is a Quidditch star himself, and he has Lily's eyes and > her cheek. Despite being JUST LIKE his parents, Harry is, by most > standards, a slightly above average wizard with an aptitude for one > subject. He works very hard a lot of the time for even the basic > skills. By rights, Harry really ought to have a little more > **natural** magical talent than he's written. > > Allie Jen here again: I really like the way that JKR has made Harry not the best of students. You see all the time he can do the work, but most of the time he doesn't give things like charms or transfiguration his whole attention and therefore, looks mediocre. A typical student. But I did see him get much more serious after his career discussion with McGonnagal. He worked much harder, knowing what he'd need in order to shoot for his goal. I think he has a great deal of natural talent, just wasn't always interested in applying himself. Jen D> From oppen at mycns.net Tue Feb 7 14:24:28 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:24:28 -0600 Subject: Fw: Message status from e-mail system Message-ID: <000201c62c33$d1632dd0$b5560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 147746 > > I don't know if I've shared this one yet... The Ballad of Voldemort > > ttto The Ballad of Sweeney Todd > > by Eric Oppen > > Attend the tale of Voldemort > He has returned, he's here once more > He's ready and rested but with no tan > And now he has a cunning plan > To be the man > The evil Dark Lord of Britain. > > It was a spooky Halloween > Some years ago he last was seen > He'd finally found the Potter boy > And loosed a spell meant to destroy > A cunning ploy > From our dark ruler of Britain. > > Wave your wand about, Dark Lord! > Light the world with green! > All your enemies quite soon > Will be unseen! > > It seems his evil spell backfired > For years we thought that he'd expired > Eleven years, back from the dead > And riding about on Quirrel's head > Or so it's said > The evil Dark Lord of Britain. > > We heard that when he was Tommy > He made himself a diary > To bring himself back at sixteen > When he was young and quick and keen > In white-and-green > The evil Dark Lord of Britain > > With bone and blood and flesh he's back > And soon he'll go on the attack > The spare is dead and Potter's next > And Dumbledore will soon be vexed > And thoroughly hexed > By our dark ruler of Britain! > > > > > > > ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01C62B12.D56CA270-- > > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 02:20:55 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:20:55 -0000 Subject: What was the spell that hit Tonks? (Was: NVBL spell question) In-Reply-To: <002601c62c1e$69f0fd40$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147747 kchuplis wrote: > > It is suggested in OoTP that non-verbal spells might not be as powerful as verbal ones when it is said that Hermione's injurys from the battle at the MoM were not as severe as they would have been if the DE had been able to cast it verbally. Has there been any other reference to this? I'm assuming then that you certainly couldn't do a successful AK or crucio spell nonverbally. Carol responds: I'm not sure whether it's necessarily the case that a nonverbal spell is weaker than a verbal one. I think that Snape wants his students to practice and master nonverbal spells (and notice that the other teachers have jumped on the bandwagon and are insisting on nonverbal Charms and Transfiguration spells--surely not intended to provide an advantage in battle but maybe intended to help the students master the technique so that it becomes second nature to them. I wonder if Snape made this suggestion in a faculty meeting and they took him up on it)? That aside, are we certain that the spell Dolohov cast would have been more powerful if it had been spoken or is the narrator reflecting Harry's OOV? Also, there are a lot of jets of green light flashing around the DoM during the battle and very few cries of "Avada Kedavra," or at least very few that get beyond the first word of the curse. One of these jets of green light (note that they are not blinding flashes and there's no rushing sound) hits Tonks and she rolls down the steps, unconscious. She alone of the Order members has to spend time in St. Mungo's, but she doesn't die. And fans of Amortentia!Tonks or Polyjuiced!Tonks should take note that she seems very much herself, pink hair and all, in the last chapter of OoP (after Sirius Black's death, so it's odd that Harry would attribute her depression to that.) Granted, most of these green spells miss their targets and damage the benches, walls, and (in LV's case) the fountain of Magical Brethren, so we don't see their effects on people. The one that (temporarily) kills Fawkes is almost certainly an AK, but (IIRC) the narrator labels only one other silent spell as a "killing curse," and that label could simply reflect Harry's perspective. He may assume that because the light is green, the spell must be an AK (despite the fact that Ron's "Eat slugs!" spell also involved a jet of green light). It seems to me that if these green spells were all killing curses, more people would have been killed. Surely they didn't *all* miss their targets (except for the one that hit Tonks, who was seriously injured but did not die). Either that or nonverbal AKs aren't necessarily lethal and kchuplis is right that they're generally weaker than spoken spells. (Maybe it depends on the individual wizards powers and abilities, and most of these DEs have only recently escaped from Azkaban and probably are not in top form. I also wonder where they got the wands, since theirs must have been broken when they were sent to prison, but I'm straying off topic as usual.) Thoughts, anybody? Carol, who hopes that JKR will tell us what that purple spell Dolohov used on Hermione was (it doesn't seem to be Sectumsempra or she would have bled, even from the silent version) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 02:23:16 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:23:16 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes / House Unity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147748 > >>Quick Silver: > Besty could you explain what you mean by "House unity"? I've > always had a problem understanding what people mean when they say > that. Do they mean the end of the house system or some sort of > ideal Hogwarts where no bullying and name calling occurs? I know > that the sorting hat and Dumbledore pushed for it but they always > seemed vague on it. Betsy Hp: I'd love to! I actually like the House system and hope that the end of the series won't see a Hogwarts without its Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs, Gryffindors or Slytherins. (I've got a bit of a personal issue with this, I'll admit. My college used to have a house system and it was done away with after I graduated. Which means that freshmen no longer have an upperclassman roommate to show them the ropes, that age group hangs with age group, and that several old traditions no longer have a place.) However, I do think there's been an unhealthy seperation between the Hogwarts houses symbolized by the Slytherins' outsider status. I like what Jen D. says here on an unrelated topic: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147714 > >>Jen D.: > The first thing that came to my mind is that Hogwarts is the site > of the only place that the 4 great wizards and witches were ever > united (for a time) and when they were united, they must have been > a powerful group. Perhaps some of their power has remained. This > could be the "ancient" magic or powers in addition to the ancient > magic. I think there *is* a power to a united Hogwarts, and that's why the Sorting Hat has twice called for (OotP on page, HBP off page) the students to unite together. The united efforts of the Hogwarts professors, regardless of house, turned Umbridge from a tyrant into an ineffective bungler. Imagine if all the students had been united as well. I'm not expecting some sort of Hogwarts utopia though. Just an ability for Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, Slytherin and Gryffindor to work together. Which is something I expect Harry will need to make happen in order to hunt down the remaining horcruxes. > >>Neri: > > I maintain that the Horcruxes are in great danger to prove > worthless junk (from the literary point of view, at least) even > *before* they are found. > > Instead, JKR had Dumbledore, which is a classic Wise Old Man stock > character, inform the hero that in order to defeat the evil > overlord he must locate and destroy several magical objects. The > identities of these objects are completely arbitrary. Their > magical properties are completely arbitrary. Their histories and > hiding places are completely arbitrary. > > JKR used this cheap trick in her plot, but then she went and > "subverted" it. She gave her prophecy a central thematic value by > involving the Choice factor. I predict, or at least I hope, that > she'll do a similar thing with the Horcruxes. Betsy Hp: I've ruthlessly snipped your post, Neri, sorry. I want to deal with the "stock" fantasy devices JKR has used in her story thus far. There's the prophecy, which I agree she rather brilliantly subverted by going the more interesting "MacBeth" or "Oedipus Rex" route where the prophecy only has power if it is believed. There's Dumbledore who has the earmarks of the "Wise Old Man" but gets subverted, I believe, by having him come so close to, and sometimes hitting out and out, failure in just about every book. I picture him as hanging by his fingernails most of the time. And finally there are the horcruxes. The reason I don't consider them "plot coupons" is that I don't think they really fill that function. The horcruxes don't *give* Harry anything. Which goes against the video game analogy, I believe. They *take away* something from Voldemort. And they're a perfect reflection of Voldemort neurosis. > >>Jen R.: > What I'm saying is the objects aren't arbitrary to Voldemort, nor > are the hiding places. Taking myself completely out of the story as > the writer of that article did makes practically any plot sound > absurd! JKR did 'make it so' as author/god, but she also tried to > back it up and give it a viable reason for being there. Maybe the > reasoning appeals to me more than someone else because I thought > she did a damn good job creating a psychological case study to > underscore Voldemort's choices. And I think it's very possible LV's > irrational obsessions could be taken even further, i.e. the gleam. Betsy Hp: I totally agree with this. It's all about Voldemort's weaknesses. He's a majorly powerful wizard. More powerful than Harry, as we've seen demonstrated by his early grasp and control of magic. And yet he *purposefully* weakens himself by splitting his soul. And he sets himself up to be taken down by anyone who doesn't share his same fears, hiding the locket in a dark place surrounded by death because those things scare him. (And I must say the idea of Voldemort being scared of the dark gives him a certain... sympathetic maybe? edge. I can see him as a scared little boy, forever waiting for his mom to come make him safe.) I see the horcruxes as McGuffins because in the end what they are exactly won't matter, I think. I don't think this makes a weak story. On the contrary, that a master story-teller like Alfred Hichcock used them so often suggests that McGuffins can be an important ingredient to a well-told story. The very fact that the object itself is unimportant suggests that they aren't plot coupons. It won't be the having, it'll be the getting that makes a difference. > >>Quick Silver: > Actually I'm not sure that Draco is going to be that difficult for > Harry to trust. Harry currently has a huge advantage over Draco in > that he saw Draco's little scene on the Tower with Dumbledore. I > wouldn't be surprised if Smith is harder to trust then Draco (I'm a > little of a Draco pusher). Betsy Hp: Hmm, I think Harry would easily accept a broken and contrite Draco. But what if Draco isn't all that broken? What if Draco doesn't come on bended knee, begging to make amends, but rather full of attitude and knowledge of the difference he could make? I prefer the idea of an unbroken Draco, and he's someone I think Harry will find a bit challenging to accept. Though of course he will! Betsy Hp From MadameSSnape at aol.com Wed Feb 8 02:29:47 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:29:47 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Centaurs Re; Umbridge fate Message-ID: <96.35f29bf8.311ab19b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147749 In a message dated 2/7/2006 8:17:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, miamibarb at BellSouth.net writes: Since, in mythology, the centaurs are associated with debauchery and orgies, ...hmm a lot of bad things could have happened to Umbridge. Now Rowling's centaurs seem to be different--more civilized. Who knows? Maybe nothing. Maybe the traditional view is an unfair prejudice held by wizards (and muggles)? ------------- Sherrie here: In Greek mythology, there were no femle centaurs - centaurs bred by kidnapping human women. I've always thought that would be rather a fitting vengeance on Umbridge, the hater of half-breeds... Sherrie "Well, what's got YOUR wand in a knot?" - Hermione Granger, HARRY POTTER & THE GOBLET OF FIRE [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Feb 8 02:51:41 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:51:41 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What was the spell that hit Tonks? (Was: NVBL spell question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147750 On Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 08:20 PM, justcarol67 wrote: > > > That aside, are we certain that the spell Dolohov cast would have been > more powerful if it had been spoken or is the narrator reflecting > Harry's OOV? kchuplils: It doesn't sound like it is just a guess: "The curse Dolohov had used on her, though less effective than it would have been had ha been able to say the incantation aloud, had nevertheless cased, in Madam Pomfrey's words, "Quite enough damage to be going on with." " > carol: > Also, there are a lot of jets of green light flashing around the DoM > during the battle and very few cries of "Avada Kedavra," or at least > very few that get beyond the first word of the curse. One of these > jets of green light (note that they are not blinding flashes and > there's no rushing sound) hits Tonks and she rolls down the steps, > unconscious. She alone of the Order members has to spend time in St. > Mungo's, but she doesn't die. kchuplis: So maybe a silent AK is just really damaging to possibly deadly? carol: > Granted, most of these green spells miss their targets and damage the > benches, walls, and (in LV's case) the fountain of Magical Brethren, > so we don't see their effects on people. The one that (temporarily) > kills Fawkes is almost certainly an AK, but (IIRC) the narrator labels > only one other silent spell as a "killing curse," and that label could > simply reflect Harry's perspective. He may assume that because the > light is green, the spell must be an AK (despite the fact that Ron's > "Eat slugs!" spell also involved a jet of green light). > kchuplis: I definitely agree that the color of flash is not proprietary of the AK. carol: > It seems to me that if these green spells were all killing curses, > more people would have been killed. Surely they didn't *all* miss > their targets (except for the one that hit Tonks, who was seriously > injured but did not die). Either that or nonverbal AKs aren't > necessarily lethal and kchuplis is right that they're generally weaker > than spoken spells. (Maybe it depends on the individual wizards powers > and abilities, and most of these DEs have only recently escaped from > Azkaban and probably are not in top form. I also wonder where they got > the wands, since theirs must have been broken when they were sent to > prison, but I'm straying off topic as usual.) > > Thoughts, anybody? > > Carol, who hopes that JKR will tell us what that purple spell Dolohov > used on Hermione was (it doesn't seem to be Sectumsempra or she would > have bled, even from the silent version) > kchuplis: Totally agree. I've been dying to know what that was. One other note about the sectumsempra Snape used on James, maybe it almost missed him and that is why there was only a cut on his cheek, but maybe it was because it was nonverbal. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Feb 8 03:00:23 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 03:00:23 -0000 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147751 > Amontillada: > I read "thrice" as indicating three particular occasions of > defiance, not only their ongoing efforts against him. On the other > hand, it's hard for me to believe that Lily and James had confronted > him firsthand three times, and yet had not been killed. The general > image I've gotten is that Voldemort was absolutely ruthless, and it > doesn't mesh with that that they had survived three confrontations-- > and so had the Longbottoms. Jen R.: For some reason whenever I hear the words 'thrice defied' it makes me think of the two couples refusing Voldemort. Maybe refusing him something he wanted, or refusing to be a follower or some other circumstance. These wouldn't have occur in person but *could* have, I guess. If Voldemort wanted something from them he wouldn't necessarily strike first before achieving his goal. Similar to refused would be 'resisted'. One definition of defy in my dictionary is 'to resist attempts at'. I guess what Lupin is doing with the werewolves could be considered a resistance movement in Voldemort's eyes because he's attempting to grab followers. Amontillada: > Perhaps "thrice defied" referred to three particularly important > occasions--for example, times when Lily and James snared one or some > of Voldemort's most important supporters. Frank and Alice Longbottom > had likewise made especially important strikes against the Death > Eaters (just as intelligence agents make major and minor > discoveries). Jen R.: Wish we knew James/Lily's professions. It's easy to imagine Aurors challenging Voldemort's power by doing something to undercut his plans--taking away followers, exposing secrets, etc. Maybe as Order members James/Lily were doing similar things. Jen R. From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Wed Feb 8 00:51:17 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:51:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: <01d001c62c43$05915780$1502a8c0@april> Message-ID: <20060208005117.31848.qmail@web37011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147752 April responds: So, what was the actual reason given for the dementors? Did they just want him expelled?? Catherine: Umbridge (and the rest of the MoM) want Harry discredited. They want him to look like a big show-off, an attention seeking brat. A kid who would do anything to stay in the limelight. Umbridge says it herself (OOP, ch 32 p.658 UK edition I think since I'm in Canada...) Harry: "you sent the Dementors after me?" "Somebody has to act," breathed Umbridge, as her wand came to rest pointing dirsctly at Harry's forhead. "They were all bleating about silencing you somehow - discrediting you - but I was the one who actually did something about it... only you wriggled out of that one, didn't you, Potter?"... Catherine From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 03:04:38 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 03:04:38 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147753 > >>Betsy hp: > > However, the one thing that every Heroic Quest needs is a moment > > of temptation for the hero, a moment where he can choose to give > > up or give in. > > > >>Jen R.: > Or could Voldemort offer Harry the chance to torture or murder > Snape? How tempting would that be? > > I wonder if he'd be 'protected against the lure of power like > Voldemort's' if Harry was feeling intense hatred instead of love > though. I'm thinking Voldemort would feel right at home inside him > in that enviroment. Betsy Hp: (Oops! I meant to reply to this in my last post!) This is an excellent point, Jen, and one I do agree with. (Which is why it's excellent, of course. ;-)) Harry's obsessive hatred of Snape (blinding hatred at times) is, I think, a very bad thing. And that is a place where Voldemort could easily hit him. Because Voldemort would *gladly* give Harry Snape if it meant Voldemort's survival. And this is information that an ESE character could well slip to Voldemort, who I agree would know *exactly* how to exploit it. Hatred is Voldemort's forte after all. > Jen R. thinking Betsy is not flip-flopping but considering all her > options. ;) Betsy Hp: Yeah, *that's* what I'm doing! Betsy Hp From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 02:09:56 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:09:56 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: <01d001c62c43$05915780$1502a8c0@april> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147754 > April: > What exactly was Umbridge's agenda in OOTP by sending a dementor > to Harry? Did she want him 'dead' for a lack of better term, or > what exactly was her deal? We know she was going to be sent to > work at Hogwarts regardless of whether or not Harry was found > guilty. So, what was the actual reason given for the dementors? > Did they just want him expelled?? In The Order of the Phoenix Umbridge's agenda imo is to prove Harry is as insane as the Daily Prophet makes him out to be. He is rash in what he does and never thinks. When no one else in the ministry will do anything to get Harry expelled then she acts in the only way she knows how with sadistic power and control. Even though she was already going to Hogwarts to teach if that is what you want to call what she did, she needed to prove Harry unstable. She set the dementors after Harry not knowing Harry would protect his cousin. Umbridge said that when no one else would act she acted of her own accord and sent the dementors after Harry. By doing this she showed that she had the sadistic ability of a serial killer that gets complete satisfaction of her crime even if the end results were not what she wanted them to be. Harry being allowed to return to school was not exactly what she wanted but to get him expelled. Like a serial killer in order to make the crime known and to be famous she had to be caught. fuzz876i From estesrandy at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 03:22:47 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy Estes) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:22:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060208032247.26306.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147755 --- quick_silver71 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > "horridporrid03" > wrote: > > > I think it's hugely important that Harry met the > young Severus > Snape > > without realizing that was who he was meeting. He > found the young > > Snape to be someone he related to (as he does in > the pensieve > scene > > in OotP, interestingly enough) and someone he > could rely on to SNIP > > Something that I'd never really thought of before > (or > heard...although I'm sure someone had thought of it > before) is that > Harry meets young Snape in a way that is highly > similar to how he > first meets the young Marauders. Harry meets young! > Snape though the > Half-Blood Prince's potions book, which highlights > the skill and > knowledge of magic that the Prince possessed, and > Harry meets the > Marauders though the Marauders Map, which highlights > their skills > and understanding of magic. SNIP > > Quick_Silver (who is endlessly interested in the > When you think about it, Harry has few people to use as role models prior to Hogwarts. Obviously, Dudley is the worst possible role model. Hogwarts has allowed him to meet other people like Ron and Hermione. The map and potions book and pensieve have allowed him to see the consequences of actions taken when people are young. He can see where a certain behavior may lead him.... James...a bit too proud of his abilities Peter...who envies James and wishes to be like him Lupin... does not act to prevent things he knows are wrong Merope...who lusts after a handsome Tom Riddle, Sr. Sirius...reckless, impatient, gets into trouble, quick to anger Snape...who desperately and greedily wants to get credit for his greatness and not allow others like James to use his spells...his worst memory...having James get credit for using his own spell against him.... Dudley...who is the ultimate glutton Tom Riddle...who has all of these traits rolled into one...let's see that's seven different faults...hmmm Pride,Envy,Sloth,Lust,Anger,Greed,Glottony Tom Riddle has them all......and 7 horcruxes too.... Randy grins __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 02:21:20 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:21:20 -0000 Subject: How is it that Wormtail and others can use other's wands? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147756 I have recently reread The Goblet of Fire and The Prisoner of Azkaban and both books raised some questions. In the Sorcerer's Stone when Harry buys his wand he is told the wand chooses the wizard. In the 2 books mentioned other people used some one else's wand. In Prisoner of Azkaban Sirius used Ron's wand to disarm Harry and Hermione. He used Snape's wand to magic Snape out of the Shrieking Shack. He also used Snape's wand to make Wormtail show himself as a human and not a rat. In The Goblet of Fire Wormtail used Lord Voldemort's wand twice to cast the Avada Kedavra curse once on Frank Bryce and once on Cedric Diggory. What I want to know is this: how is it possible to use someone else's wand when that wand is supposed to be specific to the owner and backfire if someone else uses it? fuzz876i From estesrandy at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 03:40:40 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy Estes) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:40:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wands and other things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060208034040.83464.qmail@web35615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147757 --- susanbones2003 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > "susanbones2003" > wrote: > > > > SNIP > > > Miles: > > > I as well think he is overdoing it, and that's > the reason I do > not > > like his > > > articles very much. But the reason for this may > be, that his > target > > > readership is not me, but fundamentalistic > Christians especially > > in the US, > > > who think that Harry Potter is "evil" or > "satanic" or something > > like that, > > > because there is "magic" in it (sorry for > shortening a point of > > view I think > > > is ridiculous). To convince readers who are > influenced by not > very > > > intelligently designed reviews like that, he > *has* to exaggerate > > his PoV. > > > And he really does (and not only him). > > > > > > Miles > > > > > > > Miles, > > I had to reply to your assumption that John > Granger's main aim is > > reaching out to Christian fundamentalists in order > to convince > them > > Harry is okay. Perhaps that was one aim with his > book "Looking for > > God in Harry Potter" but only part of his goal to > see the many > > Christian images and symbols in HP. The website > mostly discusses > > Christian themes in Harry, but it doesn't come > across as > > evangelizing for Harry. Yes, there are articles by > Christians > > explaining why they think Harry is okay, but I > haven't seen any > from > > a fundementalist point of view yet and I wouldn't > expect any. For > a > > fundementalist, any mention of magic is an > absolute anathema. In > his > > book, Granger explains his initial hesitancy to > read Harry but > then > > goes on to demonstrate why he believes Harry is a > very good read > for > > a Christian. So please, if you haven't read the > book, do not > assume > > it's just to convince fundementalists to read > Harry. > > Jen D. > > > You know, I like to think about it this way. JKR is busy weeding a large garden that many people are walking around and stopping to look at. Many people are commenting about all the weeds she has in the garden. Some people are noticing all the weeds she is pulling out of the garden. Some parents are remembering to weed their own gardens which they have neglected. Some kids are actually seeing what weeds are for the first time, since their parents have never bothered to point them out to them. I think people would be more effective if they showed people how to weed a garden and spent less time pointing out all the weeds they see. Randy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Wed Feb 8 03:40:52 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 03:40:52 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes / House Unity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147758 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > I'd love to! I actually like the House system and hope that the > end of the series won't see a Hogwarts without its Ravenclaws, > Hufflepuffs, Gryffindors or Slytherins. (I've got a bit of a > personal issue with this, I'll admit. My college used to have a > house system and it was done away with after I graduated. Which > means that freshmen no longer have an upperclassman roommate to show > them the ropes, that age group hangs with age group, and that > several old traditions no longer have a place.) > > However, I do think there's been an unhealthy seperation between the > Hogwarts houses symbolized by the Slytherins' outsider status. I > like what Jen D. says here on an unrelated topic: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147714 > I'm not expecting some sort of Hogwarts utopia though. Just an > ability for Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, Slytherin and Gryffindor to > work together. Which is something I expect Harry will need to make > happen in order to hunt down the remaining horcruxes. Ahhh I think that I understand a little better now. I've always taken a slightly different view of the house system and how it effects characters (Harry mainly) and what's its future is. To me it seems that as Harry ages he is gradually expanding his horizons and relationships with people outside of his house and outside of his typical views. So part of Harry's coming of age is that he realizes he's outgrown the house system and doesn't need it anymore. So when Harry makes relationships with Draco or (god help us) Snape it won't be because they represent their house to him (i.e. a token Slytherin friendship) but an acceptance of them as a person. So even if book 7 features house unity as a theme it's ironic because Harry will be done Hogwarts (at least emotionally if not in theory). And it's ironic because it seems like a lot of the problems with the house system can be traced back Voldemort and by the end of book 7 Voldemort will be gone (unless he wins which would be an amazing twist if nothing else). > > > > I maintain that the Horcruxes are in great danger to prove > > worthless junk (from the literary point of view, at least) even > > *before* they are found. > > > > Instead, JKR had Dumbledore, which is a classic Wise Old Man stock > > character, inform the hero that in order to defeat the evil > > overlord he must locate and destroy several magical objects. The > > identities of these objects are completely arbitrary. Their > > magical properties are completely arbitrary. Their histories and > > hiding places are completely arbitrary. > And finally there are the horcruxes. The reason I don't consider > them "plot coupons" is that I don't think they really fill that > function. The horcruxes don't *give* Harry anything. Which goes > against the video game analogy, I believe. They *take away* > something from Voldemort. And they're a perfect reflection of > Voldemort neurosis. I'm going to disagree with the Horcruxs noting giving Harry anything they give him (and whoever comes along with him) experience fighting the dark forces. And they can take things away from Harry too Dumbledore lost his life because of what happened in the cave (either directly or indirectly). > > >>Quick Silver: > > Actually I'm not sure that Draco is going to be that difficult for > > Harry to trust. Harry currently has a huge advantage over Draco in > > that he saw Draco's little scene on the Tower with Dumbledore. I > > wouldn't be surprised if Smith is harder to trust then Draco (I'm a > > little of a Draco pusher). > > Betsy Hp: > Hmm, I think Harry would easily accept a broken and contrite Draco. > But what if Draco isn't all that broken? What if Draco doesn't come > on bended knee, begging to make amends, but rather full of attitude > and knowledge of the difference he could make? I prefer the idea of > an unbroken Draco, and he's someone I think Harry will find a bit > challenging to accept. Though of course he will! Even if Draco comes with that attitude and knowledge that wouldn't take away that Harry has seen Draco at his most conflicted and making the hardest choices of his life. I didn't mean that Draco would be broken but that Harry will have some insight into him insight that Draco doesn't really have into Harry. So even if Draco comes with attitude Harry will have seen what lies beneath. Quick_Silver From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Feb 8 03:41:48 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:41:48 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How is it that Wormtail and others can use other's wands? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147759 On Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 08:21 PM, fuzz876i wrote: > > > What I want to know is this:? how is it possible to use someone > else's wand when that wand is supposed to be specific to the owner > and backfire if someone else uses it? > kchuplis: I've always been under the impression that you might just perform *better* with the right wand. Or perform certain things better. I guess there isn't any real cannon for this, but I expect that's the general idea. From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Feb 8 03:52:06 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:52:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How is it that Wormtail and others can use other's wands? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <458067D4-9856-11DA-9F5D-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147760 On Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 09:41 PM, Karen wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 08:21 PM, fuzz876i wrote: > > > > > > > What I want to know is this:? how is it possible to use someone > > else's wand when that wand is supposed to be specific to the owner > > and backfire if someone else uses it? > > > > kchuplis: > > I've always been under the impression that you might just perform > *better* with the right wand. Or perform certain things better. I guess > there isn't any real cannon for this, but I expect that's the general > idea. > > > Sorry to reply to my own post but I realized after I sent this why I think this way. (So if for any reason someone does read my posts - I felt I needed to explain further). I play classical guitar. For years, all I had was this cheap Yamaha that was in the family. Yeah, it was okay, got the job done, but I always wondered what a better guitar, one that fit more how I played, fit me better would be. Through a series of incidents, a concert guitar, handmade, that belonged to a concert guitarist was gifted to me (as I would not be able to afford one of this caliber). Well, it answered my question. Things I could NOT do on my Yamaha, suddenly were much easier. The sound was hugely different. Practicing became pretty much a joy. I guess I feel that a wand in Potterverse is rather like that of an instrument that fits you, like in our universe. From exodusts at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 03:44:09 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 03:44:09 -0000 Subject: How is it that Wormtail and others can use other's wands? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147761 fuzz876i > What I want to know is this: how is it possible to use someone > else's wand when that wand is supposed to be specific to the owner > and backfire if someone else uses it? > > I am not sure that there is anything in canon that says wands backfire when people other than their owners use them. Judging from Neville's attempts to use a secondhand wand, it just makes magic more difficult. Thus it might be important for beginning wizards, like Harry in PS, to get a wand that is just right for them, to give them the best start in wizard-life. According to this Mugglenet Editorial: http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt27.shtml "...it's clear that you can do perfectly good magic with any wand if you're a good wizard. Your own wand will allow you those perfect results and add an extra touch to your magic perhaps, but it's not crucial to have your own, perfect match to do magic in general." exodusts From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Feb 8 03:25:06 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:25:06 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore's Love In-Reply-To: <1139218334.951.26322.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147762 John: > What did Voldemort mean by (paraphrasing) "Your famous > pronouncement that love is greater than my flavor of magic."? > > How does Dumbledore know what love is? If John wants to know what sort of love Dumbledore meant when he said that love was the greatest magic, I suggest he take out is Bible--or borrow one from a friend, if he doesn't own a Bible, or even from the public library if he hasn't a friend--and read I Cor. 13. BAW From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Feb 8 04:10:51 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:10:51 -0000 Subject: FILK: It Would Have Been Wonderful Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147763 It Would Have Been Wonderful To the tune of the same name from Sondheim's A Little Night Music MIDI (a bit too slow) here: http://www.hamienet.com/midi2622.html Text here (you'll have to scroll down) http://tinyurl.com/9arj6 Dedicated to Susan Albrecht "Your aunt and uncle will be proud, though, won't they?" said Hermione as they got off the train and joined the crowd thronging toward the enchanted barrier. "When they hear what you did this year?" "Proud?" said Harry. "Are you crazy? All those times I could've died, and I didn't manage it? They'll be furious ...... - CoS, Chap. 18 No, Harry, VERNON & PETUNIA are not really furious, not exactly; they're more filled with sorrowful resignation and regret over the events of the last six years (for filking purposes, the Dursleys are far better informed about WW events than we might otherwise guess) PETUNIA: I should never have said he could stay with us. Then he'd never have come to our lodgings If he never had come to our lodgings Potter would have stayed somewhere else . VERNON: Madam.. PETUNIA: Sir... If he'd been gotten rid of By a riddling Sphinx Or if Thomas M. Riddle Used a hex or a jinx If his end had been perfectly awful It would have been wonderful. If...if... If the Chamber when entered Got him turned into stone Or if kissed by dementors And mentally turned to a drone If he'd rode on a centaur And sudden was from horseback thrown It would have been wonderful. But he has Lily's protection He's the Boy Who's Alive Who brings his infection To 4 Privet Drive Oh, for a change in direction So he won't survive .. And that would be wonderful. Sir... VERNON: Madam... If he'd only been buried When AK'd in a duel If he'd only been harried To death in his school If he had far more awful defects It would have been wonderful. If...if... If he'd only expired Once tied up to a grave Or if he'd not use fire When he was trapped in the cave If he had raised Fluffy's ire And he had made him misbehave It would have been wonderful. But your blood gives him protection, To our deepest disgust Instead of rejection Which would have been just. May he soon make connection With ashes and dust! For that would be wonderful. PETUNIA: If he'd only been slaughtered-- VERNON: While exploring the maze PETUNIA: If he'd drowned in deep water-- VERNON: As all the merpeople gazed PETUNIA: If it had only been Peter-- VERNON: Or Bella-- PETUNIA: Or Eaters-- VERNON: Half-crazed-- BOTH: It would have been wonderful. VERNON: If... BOTH: If... PETUNIA: If they'd fed him to spiders VERNON: If Bludgers banged his head... PETUNIA: If the Veil opened wider... VERNON: If he met an ending PETUNIA: Like Ced-- VERNON: If he'd been hit by Dark Lords PETUNIA: Or dragons-- VERNON: Or Ron's Ford-- PETUNIA: `Til dead-- BOTH: It would have been wonderful. But he always springs to action, Thus avoiding his doom. Our dissatisfaction, It's safe to assume When he does the-fate-of Black shun Fills us with such gloom! VERNON: Madam... PETUNIA: Sir... BOTH (with a sudden glimmer of hope): At least there is one more year .. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Feb 8 03:48:14 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:48:14 -0500 Subject: Teaching Styles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147764 Justcarol67: "And it's a bit ironic that McGonagall can see the effects of Gran's sternness on Neville, but not of her own. At any rate, steering Neville toward Charms and getting him to see it as one of his strengths could well have consequences, not only for the development of Neville's independence and self-confidence but also for the fight against the DEs. (Could it somehow tie in with Bellatrix? It would be funny if he used a Hover Charm or a Banishing Charm against her. I have a mental picture of Bellatrix somehow at Neville's mercy and his choosing *not* to Crucio her. A knowledge of interesting Charms might enable him to do that.)" BAW: I see McG. & Neville's Gran--I can't, somehow, bring myself to call her "Mrs. Longbottom"; to me she's "the Lady Augusta", even though there's no evidence of titles in the WW; remember that "Augusta" means in Latin--as two sides of the same personality. I'm sure that the Lady Augusta loves Neville in her own way, and that Prof. McG., bless her heart, would never act with deliberate malice or cruelty against any of her students, much less one in her own House; yet Neville is obviously only a little less intimidated by both of them than by Prof. Snape. BTW, didn't you just love Snape's pulling out of the cracker a hat like the Lady Augusta's at the Christmas Feast? While Prof. Lupin wouldn't have told any of his colleagues about Neville's Boggart or how he dealt with it, there were several students who saw it, and I bet it was all over the school before the day was out; it is impossible to keep any sort of secret in a closed community like that. I can imagine Prof. Flitwick hearing some Ravenclaws giggling over it in their common room, casually mentioning it to (say) Prof. Sprout and. . . .. Which brings me to Prof. Snape. His two fields are DADA and Potions. What is distinctive about those subjects? This--if you don't do it right, you can get yourself or someone else killed. Has anyone here been in the military? Was your drill instructor in any way cuddly? Anyone here in the Health Sciences? Any doctors, nurses, pharmacists? Were your instructors cuddly? Anyone here studied the Martial Arts? Were your instructors cuddly? I would say NOT. Why not? Because if you didn't learned what your DI had to teach you , you could get yourself or your comrades killed in combat. Because if you didn't learn your lessons properly, you might poison your patient. Because if you didn't learn your techniques properly, you'd get pounded to a pulp on the mat. In English or History or some other soft subject, if you don't learn your lessons, it is no big deal--you flunk your test; while it may make a difference in your academic career or your future professional plans, nobody will get hurt or killed; I suggest that the consequences of not learning Potions or DADA are far more serious. Snape is a lot harsher than other teachers because he feels he has to be. Perhaps he knows of someone whose Potions or DADA teacher WASN'T that harsh and who got himself or someone else killed or injured thereby? Perhaps Snape himself got someone hurt or killed because of some error or omission that he (thinks) he would not have made if his teacher hadn't been a little tougher on him. From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Wed Feb 8 04:26:08 2006 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 23:26:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wands and other things In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147765 >> >> Geoff: >> ...I find it difficult agree with you on your take of John Granger's >> ideas. I have not read a lot of his writing but having recently gone >> through "The Alchemical Keys to the last Harry Potter novel", I found >> little reference to the Christian faith as I see it; let me add as a >> disclaimer that this is not a prescriptive view but a personal one. > > Renee: > > ...Well, maybe this will make you curious enough to delve a little > deeper > into his writings. "The Alchemical Keys" was Granger's first foray > into Potter studies and stressed the alchemical imagery of the books > rather than the Christian interpretation. I checked John Granger's LOOKING FOR GOD IN HARRY POTTER out from my library in the audio book version. From the part that I listened to (which makes it impossible for me to quote ) I have a couple of impressions. One, this work seems to be targeted at serious, conservative Christians rather than just fundamentalists, which is only a subset of the larger group. Two, his contention that JKR uses many of the images and themes found in the canon of western literature, so the more one was familiarity with the classics, the more one would see the broad Christian underpinning of JKR's writing. The origins of many of these themes / images are often pre-Christian past, but later acquired a Christian meaning in the western canon even if that was not the original intent. He thinks that Rowling, like others, uses alchemic imagery to indicate transformation. So in effect when Granger talks about Rowling's alchemic imagery, he sees it as alluding to the Christian idea of a transformed life. Granger certainly doesn't see JKR as a modern day proponent of Alchemy. What I found interesting is how important the transformation theme in the Potter books. I think Granger has hit upon something important. If Granger is correct, than subject of transformation isn't just Hogwart's version of Muggle school's physics. Rather it is close to the Christian doctrines of sanctification and glorification. Maybe Rowling mainly has growth in mind, but I think this whole idea of transformation needs closer study. Very interesting. Barbara From djklaugh at comcast.net Wed Feb 8 05:25:08 2006 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:25:08 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147766 allie wrote: (snip) It's not like the subject is difficult > for Hermione - she masters those spells in the same way as > anything > else. So what gives? Jen here, (snip) "bravery and quick-thinking but it also seems to require an > innate ability that Harry possesses but she does not". (snip) Deb (djklaugh) here I agree Jen. As I see it Harry has learned his DADA so well it's become instinctive... he does not have to think very hard to know what would work best in any given situation - he just does the thing that seems to be the best response to the situation at hand. Hermione on the other hand still has to think things through before taking action. Plus... as far as his OWL grades are concerned... Harry got extra credit for performing the Patronus spell and proving to everyone that he can indeed invoke a corporeal Patronus. While Hermione and the other DAs knew how to do a Patronus spell by the time OWLs came along no one else knew that they knew .... and they could not admit it or request extra credit for demonstrating the spell during the exam because Umbridge was there watching the testing. Allie wrote: (snip) "Despite being JUST LIKE his parents, Harry is, by most > standards, a slightly above average wizard with an aptitude for > one > subject. He works very hard a lot of the time for even the basic > skills. By rights, Harry really ought to have a little more > **natural** magical talent than he's written. > Jen here again: > I really like the way that JKR has made Harry not the best of > students. You see all the time he can do the work, but most of the > time he doesn't give things like charms or transfiguration his whole > attention and therefore, looks mediocre. A typical student. But I > did see him get much more serious after his career discussion with > McGonnagal. He worked much harder, knowing what he'd need in order > to shoot for his goal. I think he has a great deal of natural > talent, just wasn't always interested in applying himself. > Jen D> Deb again: James grew up in a loving wizarding family - and an apparently well off family at that. He was a child of priviledge and plenty. Plus he knew long before he went to Hogwarts that he was a wizard and probably knew he was strong in magical talent. He arrived at Hogwarts already confident in his abilities as a wizard and his physical abilities as well - LOL in fact over confident perhaps. Needed to be brought down a peg or two before he became a likeable fellow. Lily grew up in a Muggles family - apparently middle class but also a family where she was loved and supported - one of the reasons Petunia was so furious with her was because their parents thought it was wonderful to have a witch in the family. She apparently arrived at Hogwarts confident in her self as a person if not in her abilities as a witch. Harry, on the other hand, grew up with the Dursleys - unloved, unappreciated, with no knowledge of his heritage in wizardry. He came to Hogwarts from a background of emotional abuse, physical and mental neglect, and with not much confidence in his intellectual or physical abilities... and no knowledge at all of his wizarding abilities. And not even knowing until after he arrived at school that his parents loved him!!! So in addition to having to learn about magic and the WW from the level of practically a kindergartener, he also has to learn that he is a very OK person, and gain confidence in his own unique gifts of mind, body, spirit and magic. My guess is that when Harry finally puts it all together - when he finally becomes fully adult and fully a wizard - with the confidence in his abilities, knowledge that he is indeed loved and appreciated, and strength of character he's been developing during his time at Hogwarts... I'd bet he will be a wizard to rival even Dumbledore. Deb (djklaugh) From kjones at telus.net Wed Feb 8 06:39:22 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:39:22 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E9921A.3010907@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147767 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: In English or History or some other soft subject, if you > don't learn your lessons, it is no big deal--you flunk your test; > while it may make a difference in your academic career or your > future professional plans, nobody will get hurt or killed; I > suggest that the consequences of not learning Potions or DADA are > far more serious. KJ writes: You make a very good point here, although I must tell you that I had a Latin teacher who could have shown Snape how. I have never considered Latin to be particularly dangerous until this teacher assisted a student, who declined to pay attention, out of the door with the toe of his boot. That increased the level of class alertness considerably. None of us were intimidated by this teacher, but we all respected the limits of his patience. KJ From juli17 at aol.com Wed Feb 8 06:51:22 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 01:51:22 EST Subject: Snape's DADA lesson WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince Message-ID: <22e.603af38.311aeeea@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147768 Alla wrote: Harry's VERBAL spell was faster and more effective that Snape's NONVERBAL one, IMO. Should Harry be praised for that? IMO yes, at least something like -" that was effective, but now go back to try doing it nonverbally." Julie: And you would expect SNAPE to do this? Even a DDM!Snape, whose goal is to pound knowledge into Harry whether he likes it or not (and enjoy every minute of that pounding, of course!) isn't going to praise Harry for doing a spell the wrong way, even if he did it well. He's not that type of teacher, nor is McGonagall. That would be more likely from Dumbledore or Lupin. Alla wrote: In any event though, I acknowledged in my earlier post that Potioncat's argument is supported by that piece of canon and mine is just based on Snape's previous actions. It is just based on Snape's despicable treatment of Harry throughout the books (IMO of course), I have a very hard time believing that Snape would take it graciously to Harry out beating him. If that was any other teacher, I would have no problem believing that this detention was given to Harry for talking back to Snape. If I met Snape for the first time during that lesson, I would have no problem believing that detention was given to Harry solely for talking back to Snape. But based on what I know about Snape, I don't believe it. I mean surely talking back played a part in it, but I do think that the fact that Harry knocked him down played a part in it. I speculate that Snape wanted Harry to talk back to him. I mean, really, what exactly was wrong with Harry's first answer to Snape question? Harry just answers "yes", that is all. Okay, he answers stiffly, but I will be hard pressed to find ANY disrespect here. Does Snape really has to insist in EVERY sentence for Harry to call him Sir? I am still looking for ANY other Hogwarts teacher doing the same thing. I am trying to say that I would not put it past Snape to provoke Harry into that kind of answer. As I said - am just speculating here, nothing more, but based on how I see Snape I think I have some reason for my speculations. Julie: In fact Snape does insist at every answer to a question that his students use "sir" or "Professor." And I'm suspecting Dumbledore is right with him there (as Dumbledore is very strong on showing respect to teachers, hence his continual admonishments to Harry to say "Professor" in front of Snape's name). So that's no surprise. I do agree Snape's not exactly against "baiting" Harry, though I doubt he sees it as baiting, but as forcing a belligerent student to show respect, whether said student likes it or not. After all, from Snape's POV, all Harry has to do is mutter "sir" and it's done. From Harry's POV, even that is too much for a man he now hates. I also interpret this scene based on canon Snape, and canon Snape loathes, and I mean truly *LOATHES* disrespect. He doesn't loathe competence, even from Harry. During Occlumency he actually gave Harry a gruding compliment when Harry forced his way into Snape's mind. It's not even a close call for me whether Snape would blow up at being physically discomforted by a well-performed spell or at being addressed with disrespect. The latter, any and every day of the week, is what pushes his buttons. Alla: I think I have even more reason for my speculation that Harry overpowering Snape played a part in assigning him detention, when I read about what type of detention was assigned. Absolutely, teacher has a right to assign ANY kind of detention, but to specifically give the task that will give an extra pain and humiliation, it is a typical Snape IMO, who wants to pay Harry back. Julie: I agree Snape wants to pay Harry back, for his show of disrespect. Did I mention there's nothing Snape LOATHES more than being disrespected? ;-) Alla: Again, let me stress that my argument is mainly based on Snape's previous behavior towards Harry. Julie: Mine too. Knock me over/invade my mind with a well-performed spell=minor irritation and perhaps even a grudging compliment. Disrespect me=your ass is mine (i.e., Detention!). It's Snape to T, from PS/SS to HBP. He's consistent if nothing else ;-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jhnbwmn at hotmail.com Wed Feb 8 07:22:30 2006 From: jhnbwmn at hotmail.com (johnbowman19) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:22:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Love ( a rather lengthy post, warning for those faint of heart) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147769 > If John wants to know what sort of love Dumbledore meant when he said > that love was the greatest magic, I suggest he take out is Bible-- or > borrow one from a friend, if he doesn't own a Bible, or even from the > public library if he hasn't a friend--and read I Cor. 13. > > BAW > Hello BAW In response to what BAW posted, I posit this: your quote is not a true definition of love. According the New International Version of the Bible, the verse you refer to is "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love". Now being a Catholic for my entire life, and going to only Catholic school my entire life, below the fact that I have been trained by the Jesuits for the past 8 years, I know what the Bible has to say on the subject to of love (Catholicism is a famous sect of Christianity for those of you who do not know). In fact the better quote, in my eyes, to have cited is "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self- seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth". But this quote by BAW does not challenge my point for when one deals with the Bible, unless one is a fundamentalist, one is dealing with each individual's interpretation of the event that took place in the Bible. Interpretations are what we are really dealing with here on HP for Grown Ups because if we all thought the same way about cannon this list would not exist. Now my definition of love of a man and woman closely matches that of the quote I cited above. I think this way because of my degree in Philosophy, and my life experience. I would argue that the definition of love is not a subjective idea because if it were, it would mean that love was something different for everyone, meaning that everyone's opinion is valid, thus degrading love to something that can be decided individually by every person. I would say that not everyone knows what love is. Most confuse mere infatuation for the true love that lasts the test of time as described in my quote. I would argue that love is something that is objective or universal to all, and can be understood by all if all use reason and self determination. However, in my interpretation, love is not as simple as the quote cited by BAW. I would adhere to the idea presented in Hinduism as "Reflecting on the changes of love" when one finds one's Ishta or ideal. In other words, I would argue that love has different aspects for the different people one loves. One does not love a lover in the same way one loves a friend, or parent. To me, there are clearly different forms of love. I would argue that Dumbledore does not love Harry in the same way he could love a son, brother, friend or lover. He loves Harry in a different way. He doesn't see Harry as a son because he does not share the same DNA, nor has he been there to guide Harry through his life, save as a detached watcher. He is not there to protect him from the Durselys during Harry's first years of life, nor during the summers. The love of a Father for a son is that of protection. In this idea I am speaking from experience. Dumbledore does not love Harry as a friend because to have a friend one must recognize that one is equal to another and respect their different and varying views on subjects. Instead Dumbledore offers advice from the mountain top to our poor protagonist. Dumbledore does not love Harry as a brother because to love a brother, again, one must recognize equality and similar experience and origin; not to mention the fact that one has to share those experiences with one's brother. At the very least Dumbledore had a brother who was magical to confide in with Aberforth so his upbringing should have been different that that of Harry. Most importantly Dumbledore could not love Harry as a lover because it is not Ancient Greece. Literally they do not have sex, and cannot experience the 3 aspects of sex that is unique to lovers: reproduction, unity, and pleasure. So then my question remains the same, does Dumbledore understand the nature of love? As I said in my previous post, he may understand love as a king loves his subjects, but is a true definition of love? I am sorry BAW, but I do not think the Bible will assist in this question. John, who loves Dumbledore more than any character in the books for his wit and daring, but cannot understand his motivation. Also I abhor the ad hominum attack foisted upon my defenses. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 07:29:43 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:29:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: <20060208032247.26306.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147770 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Randy Estes wrote: > Tom Riddle...who has all of these traits rolled into > one...let's see that's seven different faults...hmmm > > Pride,Envy,Sloth,Lust,Anger,Greed,Glottony > Tom Riddle has them all......and 7 horcruxes too.... > Tonks: Hum... Now that is a thought! Do you think we can use the 7 deadly sins to figure out what the horcruxes are? And if that be true, do we distroy them by their opposite - the 7 virtues?? Any takers for this one? Tonks_op From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 8 07:43:40 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:43:40 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: <20060208005117.31848.qmail@web37011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catherine higgins wrote: > > > April responds: > > So, what was the actual reason given > for the dementors? Did they just want him expelled?? Catherine: > Umbridge (and the rest of the MoM) want Harry discredited. > They want him to look like a big show-off, an attention seeking brat. > A kid who would do anything to stay in the limelight. > > Umbridge says it herself (OOP, ch 32 p.658 UK edition > I think since I'm in Canada...) > Harry: "you sent the Dementors after me?" > > "Somebody has to act," breathed Umbridge, > as her wand came to rest pointing dirsctly at Harry's forhead. > "They were all bleating about silencing you somehow - > discrediting you - > but I was the one who actually did something about it... > only you wriggled out of that one, didn't you, Potter?"... Geoff: In passing, it is the same page in the UK edition - I think they must be identical. What concerns me are the following facts. Does Umbridge know so little about the Dementors that she is prepared to let them loose on juveniles in order to discredit them without knowing the possible outcome? Dumbledore has already outlined the risks to the school: "It is not in the nature of a Dementor to understand pleading and excuses. I therefore warn each and every one of you to give them no reason to harm you. I look to the Prefects, and our new Head Boy and Girl, to make sure that no student runs foul of the Dementors." (POA "The Dementor" p.72 UK edition) Or, more dangerously, is she so obsessed with the good name of the Ministry, her own position as a result and slapping down Harry that she is prepared to see him rendered soulless by a Dementor? She has kept the information to herself, even after putting the plan in train, obviously fearing that Fudge would have stopped the idea. He may be a wittering idiot, but I think he, unlike Umbridge, possesses some humanity. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 08:10:43 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:10:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Love ( a rather lengthy post, warning for those faint of heart) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147772 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "johnbowman19" wrote: > I would say that not everyone knows what love is. Most confuse mere infatuation for the true love that lasts the test of time as described in my quote. > I would argue that love is something that is objective or universal to all, and can be understood by all if all use reason and self determination. (snip) > So then my question remains the same, does Dumbledore understand the nature of love? As I said in my previous post, he may understand > love as a king loves his subjects, but is a true definition of love? I am sorry BAW, but I do not think the Bible will assist in this question. > Tonks: lol, I love you dry sense of humor. The Roman Catholic church a "sect". And the "because this is not Ancient Greece" comment, just cracked me up. Back to the subject: First DD is wiser than many others and more powerful, etc. this is true. And to this extent he may not have an equal. But if you see him as a human being (I am not sure that I do), but for those who do, let us explore it this way. He is an equal with everyone by virtue of his humanness. Mozart may not have had an equal in his ability at music, but he could still relate to other humans because he too shared the human condition. DD may be the greatest wizard of all times and has no equal. But he understands the human condition because he shares it with other humans. So in this way he is equal with all. As I said before, I do not think that he has to have a romantic love relationship to understand true or real love. I think that DD understands it better than most. (Forgive me, I know that I am not expressing this well.) Since BAW brought the bible into this... The place in the bible to look for an example of the highest form of Love is to look at the life and person of Jesus. I think that DD shows that type of life and personhood too. If you look at DD in this way it may help to understand his motives and the deep degree to which he (IMO) does understand Love, and Love in its very highest form. Tonks_op From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 8 09:10:01 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:10:01 -0000 Subject: Snape's DADA lesson WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147773 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > I speculate that Snape wanted Harry to talk back to him. I mean, > really, what exactly was wrong with Harry's first answer to Snape > question? > > Harry just answers "yes", that is all. Okay, he answers stiffly, but > I will be hard pressed to find ANY disrespect here. > > Does Snape really has to insist in EVERY sentence for Harry to call > him Sir? I am still looking for ANY other Hogwarts teacher doing the > same thing. Well, I think it is completely normal that when a students answers a professor they say either yes Sir/yes Professor. Harry only needs to be polite and Snape only gives him detention after his very flippant remark. A remark he would not have made to Sprout, Flitwick or McGonnagal. He was rude and got detention. Completely deserved. About the praise: Snape does not give praise for the wrong kind of work. It is not his style in teaching. If it were Flitwick he would have, because that is the kind of teacher he is. But Snape is not Flitwick and Flitwick's style is not the only right way of teaching. Gerry Gerry From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Feb 8 09:51:18 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:51:18 -0000 Subject: !! In-Reply-To: <43E8274F.000009.01584@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147774 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: > > > Carol wrote: > "Still, I think we can take the statement ("Merely taking your life > would not satisfy me, I admit") as true even though it's not the real > reason (or the primary reason among many) why he doesn't attempt to > kill Voldemort then or at any other time. That being the case, what > can he mean by it? What *would* satisfy Dumbledore (if he were alive > to see it)? Would merely having *Harry* take LV's life be somehow > more satisfactory? I can't imagine DD > *wanting* to take someones life, not even Riddle/Voldemort's. What, > then, does he mean? Ideas, anyone?" > > Donna replys: > > I don't think LV will die and my reasons, in no particular order, are: > > 1. LV is afraid of death. > > 2. DD says there are things worse than death. > > 3. The prophecy says the Dark Lord will be vanquished, not killed. > > 4. The quote by Carol. > > 5. Harry doesn't have it in him to kill. > > But, I do believe LV will wish he were dead. > Renee: Fascinating post. Not so long ago, I found myself wondering what would be the worst thing that could happen to Voldemort. What my brain managed to come up with, was: discovering that DD was right all the time, that there are, indeed, worse things than dying. And logically, in order to find this out, he needs to be in a situation where he all he wants is to die, and then finds that he can't. It would also be a perfect example of the karmic punishment that JKR seems so fond of in the series. Only, I'm not sure this would ultimately satisfy DD, if he were alive - unless Voldemort ends up in a situation where he will eventually die of old age (because all his horcruxes are destroyed), having spent the remainder of his "life" in deep regret. Renee From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Feb 8 10:01:21 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 10:01:21 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147775 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > > Which brings me to Prof. Snape. His two fields are DADA and > Potions. What is distinctive about those subjects? This--if you > don't do it right, you can get yourself or someone else killed. > > Has anyone here been in the military? Was your drill instructor > in any way cuddly? > > Anyone here in the Health Sciences? Any doctors, nurses, > pharmacists? Were your instructors cuddly? > > Anyone here studied the Martial Arts? Were your instructors > cuddly? > > I would say NOT. Why not? Because if you didn't learned what > your DI had to teach you , you could get yourself or your comrades > killed in combat. Because if you didn't learn your lessons > properly, you might poison your patient. Because if you didn't > learn your techniques properly, you'd get pounded to a pulp on the > mat. > Snape is a lot harsher than other teachers > because he feels he has to be. Perhaps he knows of someone whose > Potions or DADA teacher WASN'T that harsh and who got himself or > someone else killed or injured thereby? Perhaps Snape himself > got someone hurt or killed because of some error or omission that > he (thinks) he would not have made if his teacher hadn't been a > little tougher on him. > Renee: There's a lot to be said for this point of view. Except that I don't get the impression JKR shares it. She called Snape "a very sadistic teacher". On the other hand, Lupin, who also teaches DADA but whose approach is more cuddly than harsh, is called "a wonderful teacher". So, while I do see your point, I'm not sure it's the point the HP books are trying to make. Renee From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Feb 8 10:13:05 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:13:05 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <43EA5EE1.21724.6A1BAB9@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147776 On 7 Feb 2006 at 22:48, Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > I would say NOT. Why not? Because if you didn't learned what > your DI had to teach you , you could get yourself or your comrades > killed in combat. Because if you didn't learn your lessons > properly, you might poison your patient. Because if you didn't > learn your techniques properly, you'd get pounded to a pulp on the > mat. In English or History or some other soft subject, if you > don't learn your lessons, it is no big deal--you flunk your test; > while it may make a difference in your academic career or your > future professional plans, nobody will get hurt or killed; I > suggest that the consequences of not learning Potions or DADA are > far more serious. Snape is a lot harsher than other teachers > because he feels he has to be. Perhaps he knows of someone whose > Potions or DADA teacher WASN'T that harsh and who got himself or > someone else killed or injured thereby? Perhaps Snape himself > got someone hurt or killed because of some error or omission that > he (thinks) he would not have made if his teacher hadn't been a > little tougher on him. You make some excellent points, in my view. And I've spoken on this before, myself - I had some very Snape like teachers at school, and they were very effective teachers. I had other teachers who were not at all Snape like, who were also effective, so I certainly don't subscribe to the view that the way Snape teaches is the only way for a teacher to be effective - but I really do believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with a teacher who teaches the way that Snape does. Now, I've been involved in educational advocacy all my adult life, and I'm just about to begin the fourth and final year of my Bachelor of Education degree. I think I know a bit about education, but I confess that I do have some somewhat unfashionable views about it. I happen to think that the older methods of teaching were often very good ones - not for every child, but for many children. I've no problem with newer methods when they work, and they often do - I just don't think the modern way is inherently better. I was miserable in a modern school environment, and ecstatically happy in a traditional one, and that certainly colours my views. But to my point - while I agree that part of the reason Snape is a hard teacher, even a harsh teacher, may well be because he realises the subjects he's teaches are ones that are very unforgiving of failure. But I think there may be another good reason as well. And it may be that this is the way he feels *he* teaches most effectively. As I have said, I have recently completed the third year of my education degree. Each year, I have had to do teaching rounds - practice teaching in schools, for which I am assessed. During my first two years, my assessments for my teaching rounds were adequate - I passed easily enough, but I didn't do incredibly well. And each time, one of the things that let me down was my classroom control. I tried in those first two years to use all the nice, positive, sweet methods that my lecturers advised. And found that I wasn't particularly good at using them. Not bad. Just not good. For this last year, my third year, I finally decided not to use those methods, but instead to use some of the methods (I hasten to add, not the most severe ones!) that experience told me worked, rather than the ones my lecturers told me should work. I became a much stricter teacher, a much sterner disciplinarian. Why did I make this decision - partly because I've made a decision as to where I'd like to teach and those are schools more accepting of those methods than most schools, and partly because I've gained a bit of confidence to trust myself over my lecturers, having become convinced they're not always right (-8 Anyway - result of the new stricter me, using the old fashioned methods that worked for me as a child? Well, on my last assessment I was assessed as an 'Outstanding' teacher (considering my experience level) and while I do think that was somewhat generous, I have absolutely no doubt that I was a far more effective teacher during my most recent teaching rounds than in my previous ones. I am a *better* teacher when I use traditional methods of classroom control, than when I use nice modern, fluffy methods. I don't have anything inherently against those methods. I've seen teachers use them effectively. But they're not right for me. And I really do wonder if this is part of the reason for the way Snape teaches. Let's face it. Snape is *not* a likeable person. He is never likely to be popular with his students. He is never likely to be teaching them lessons that they enjoy. It's a matter of his personality - at least I think it is. He's just not Mr Nice Guy. It really seems to me that it would be a waste of time for Snape to try and be Mr Nice Guy, to try and run a pleasant classroom where everyone (even Neville) was always happy. And if he tried, I'm fairly sure it would be a disaster. Snape can't be a popular teacher. He can't be a teacher where his students like his classes. So why try? Instead, why not try to do something worthwhile for his students. If they are going to dislike him anyway, then why not channel that dislike into his teaching? My point is, really, that the teaching style a teacher adopts isn't a blank slate choice. Teachers can't just choose to teach in a particular way - at least most teachers can't, there may be some brilliant ones who can do so. But generally speaking, a teacher teaches best when they embrace the way they are, and teach to their strengths and don't try to fake their way into some other style of teaching. Obviously, there need to be limits - a teacher shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they like and simply claim that's just their style - and I can understand why some people might think Snape goes too far. Personally, generally, I don't think he does - and that view comes from having learned from some masters who were very much like Snape (and incidentally the two 'worst' were classics masters - Latin and Ancient Greek - I just noticed somebody else talking about a Snape like Latin teacher). Honestly, I think a lot of people have a rather narrow understanding of what teachers should be like, and how teachers should teach. I admit that I certainly do, although I try very hard indeed to be very broad-minded and I hope that I succeed. And those ideas tends towards rather 'modern' ideas. It may be that those methods worked for them, or for their kids, or perhaps conversely that more traditional methods didn't work for them, and so they decide that their experiences are somehow universal - that what didn't work for them is 'wrong' and what did work for them is 'right'. It's not that simple, though. Children are individuals and no specific teaching method works for all children, and virtually no specific teaching method fails for all children. What we see in Snape is a very traditional method of teaching. Personally, unfashionable as it may be, I don't consider it surprising in a school that seems to be as traditional in focus as Hogwarts. Expecting modern teaching methods in a school that seems very obviously based on very old fashioned ideas seems to me rather odd. So I think it can be taken as given, that the methods used are likely to be traditional. So I think the only fair way to assess them if by whether or not they work, especially when you consider the teacher. Umbridge's classes are a prime example of a traditional method that really *doesn't* work very well, very often. Snape's classes - in my views - are an example of a tradition that does work for a lot of students (and I've seen it work) though when it's wrong for a student, it may be very wrong - as it seems to me to be for Neville at least in the early books. But guess what - the class cannot revolve around Neville Longbottom. He's one child in classes of about twenty (at least I think that's what the numbers show). His needs shouldn't be ignored (I really believe that) but we don't really see any evidence anywhere (except of Harry's fictional extra potions lessons masking occlumency) that much effort is made to provide extra help at Hogwarts. If this is a flaw, it's a flaw in the school in general, not a flaw in Snape's classes specifically. I should say in the interests of full disclosure that I have recently been reading a book called 'Why our schools are failing: What parents need to know about Australian education' by Kevin Donnelly, and he takes the view that a lot of modern ideas in education are very harmful. I agree with a lot of what he has to say (not all of it), but I must say that this reading may have crystalised some of my views expressed in this post to be stronger than normal. I need to read some John Holt to balance myself out later (-8 Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Feb 8 11:47:37 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:47:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] How is it that Wormtail and others can use other's wands? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43E9DA59.2010301@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147777 fuzz876i wrote: > What I want to know is this: how is it possible to use someone > else's wand when that wand is supposed to be specific to the owner > and backfire if someone else uses it? Bart: I don't believe it says that anywhere in the canon. The only example I saw was when Lockhart used Ron's BROKEN wand, which often backfired on Ron. Bart From exodusts at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 05:14:38 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:14:38 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147778 Allie: > Two topics in the area of magical skill do not add up for me. > > 1. Hermione Granger, most talented witch of her age, able to > perform well on both written and practical exams, able to master > complicated spells in a single lesson, able to produce a Patronus in > one D.A. session... achieves only an E on her DADA Owl???? I > realize that JKR wrote the OWL grades to highlight that Harry is > exceptionally talented at DADA, but it's not realistic for me that > Hermione wouldn't have achieved the same grade. I know JKR planted > the seed way back in PoA. It's not like the subject is difficult > for Hermione - she masters those spells in the same way as anything > else. So what gives? > > 2. Harry Potter is the son of Lily Evans and James Potter. James > Potter was a Quidditch star, but he was also Head Boy and very > smart. Lily, we know, was very talented in Charms and Potions. We > know that Harry VERY MUCH takes after his parents - he looks exactly > like James, is a Quidditch star himself, and he has Lily's eyes and > her cheek. Despite being JUST LIKE his parents, Harry is, by most > standards, a slightly above average wizard with an aptitude for one > subject. He works very hard a lot of the time for even the basic > skills. By rights, Harry really ought to have a little more > **natural** magical talent than he's written. > > Of these two points, the first is the strongest. Logically, there is no reason why Harry ought to have inherited his parents talent to their degree. Genetics is a messy business, and real-world examples of this abound - in fact, passing on of exceptional ability is the exception, not the norm (see "regression to the mean"). JKR also prefers to emphasise that "our choices make us who we are" (see Dumbledore), and specifically rejects pure-blood reasoning. Harry is anyway special enough by virtue of what has happened to him SINCE his birth. If we want to rationalise further, within the context of the story, we might wonder what Harry COULD have been had he not been neglected, and in a non-wizarding household, for the most important formative years of his life. Blame the Dursleys. The second point is well made. It is an unfortunate and unrealistic contrivance that Hermione doesn't have a clean sweep of top grades. The idea is to emphasise again that "books and cleverness" are not the most important things in life (see Philosopher's Stone). This is probably because JKR has issues with her younger self for being an insufferable swot. It doesn't stand up even within the internal detail of the stories when, as you point out, Hermione appears wholly capable in the RoR sessions. A child as clever and determined as she is portrayed to be would not let herself get anything less than a top grade - it is her psychological raison d'etre. That is not to say that Harry wouldn't have bettered her, but she would not fail to ensure that no discernible difference would appear in the grading system. If JKR had wanted to make this point, what she SHOULD have done is work in some kind of unexpected starred grade / top-in-the- country award for Harry, revolving around an emmissary from the Exam Board being an ally of Amelia Bones, and the corporeal Patronus. exodusts From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 13:09:14 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:09:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147779 John: > And wondering about the life of Dumbledore has led me to another > question of his character: How does Dumbledore know what love is? JK > has already told us that he was burdened with always being the one > with the answers. He never had an equal. He was forced to sit on his > mountaintop of knowledge and help others ascend its cliffs. From > this, I would argue that Dumbledore never knew true love because to > have true love he would have had to find his equal. I know there are > many different types of love, and he could certainly feel the love > of a king over his subjects, but could he ever know the love that > wills one to bind oneself to another for life? I would opine he did > not because he never found an equal worth binding oneself to unless > it was Fawkes (which would just lead to the absurd subject of > animal/wizard marriages). And if his idea of love did not include > the love a man for a woman could his whole idea of love be lacking, > thus making his pronouncement hallow? Meaning Harry's greatest power > would come up wanting in the final confrontation with Voldemort > because Dumbledore misunderstood love. > > John (who hopes for a series written about Dumbledore) a_svirn: Somehow I don't believe that Dumbledore has spent all his century and a half in the Ivory Tower. Strange as it may seem, he used to be a child once, he must have had a family at some point, his friends numbered such personages as Nicholas Flamel (surely, his equal at the very least) etc. It is possible, even probable that, say, a century or so ago he did know a true love (although it didn't have to be a woman, necessarily). As for his bond with Fawkes I don't think we should interpret it literally as an animal/wizard marriage, yet I am sure that it has something to do with love in general and Dumbledore's notions of love in particular. Take the White Tomb and Phoenix Lament ? both chapters together are a sort of paraphrase of Shakespeare's "the Phoenix and the Turtle". The lament itself, the manner of Dumbledore's funeral: the manner in which every wizarding races were gathered, and the sudden incineration of his body ? plus the shadow of the phoenix soaring from the flames. All of the above is an allusion to the poem ("Love and constancy is dead;//Phoenix and the turtle fled// In a mutual flame from hence"). Also Dumbledore's phrase about Voldemort's bond with his snake ? "in essence divided" is a reverse quote from the poem: "Had the essence but in one;//Two distincts, division none". Which sort of suggests that unlike Voldemorte's bond with Nigini, Dumbledore and Fawkes were indeed "Two distincts, division none". I do not suggest the bond was indeed "married chastity", but I think it's a given that it had something to do with "love and constancy". Shakespearian dove and phoenix upset the laws of nature because their love is so great that they become a single being, achieving the ultimate union in death. And Dumbledore told Harry in POA that the dead we`ve loved continue to live within us or something to this effect. The connection of love and death is clearly very important to Dumbledore (I do believe that there was a kind of personal tragedy behind all this). Maybe that's what makes Harry's ability to love so unusual? That he is able to give his parents a kind of immortality ? through his love ? even though he never actually knew them From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 13:29:09 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:29:09 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147780 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > Anyone here studied the Martial Arts? Were your instructors > cuddly? Very, actually. :) > Snape is a lot harsher than other teachers because he feels he has to > be. Perhaps he knows of someone whose Potions or DADA teacher WASN'T > that harsh and who got himself or someone else killed or injured > thereby? Perhaps Snape himself got someone hurt or killed because of > some error or omission that he (thinks) he would not have made if his > teacher hadn't been a little tougher on him. Perhaps. But I think there's an excluded middle and a train of logic that thinks it has necessity on its side but doesn't, in here. There's no immediate correlation between the type of harshness which Snape shows in class and intellectual rigor--toughness, we might call it. One can be tough and demand that from one's students without being personal about it or pulling one's own issues into the class, for one thing. And I'll state upfront that to my best reading of the books, and this hasn't been contradicted plain-out yet, Snape makes things personal. I have studied a martial art, albeit one often considered 'fuzzy' by some people. My instructors have all been very warm, gentle, and caring people, because students learn better (and much more quickly, too) when they're not scared and have confidence in their actions. YMMV, but that's my own personal experience in the martial arts. And my own experience in academia is that anyone who has a major hang- up over titles and always being shown the level of formality which he thinks he deserves, those people almost always have Serious Issues. Since we're playing personal analogies today, fair game, I think. -Nora gets ready to go off to her tough yet friendly, personable, and caring professor for morning class From mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 05:11:47 2006 From: mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com (Jutika Gehani) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:11:47 -0000 Subject: Question on PS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147781 Hi, In PS DD says to Harry, "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." Does this mean that DD can become invisible using magic? If this is the case why didn't he just become invisible when Snape was about to kill him? Take care, Jutika. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Feb 8 14:45:11 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:45:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43EA03F7.5050803@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147782 Tonks wrote: > Tonks: > Hum... Now that is a thought! Do you think we can use the 7 deadly > sins to figure out what the horcruxes are? And if that be true, do we > distroy them by their opposite - the 7 virtues?? Bart: Well, both come from the planets visible from the Earth by the naked eye (note that "planets" refer to the bodies that move relative to the stars. For example, with the Seven Deadly Sins, Pride = Sun, Envy = Moon, Greed = Mercury, Lust = Venus, Anger = Mars, Gluttony = Jupiter, Sloth = Saturn. Most of the significance of 7 is backwards; we put things into 7's BECAUSE 7 is significant. Even the colors of the rainbow had to have this "indigo" shoved in, to make 7. Bart From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Feb 8 14:59:16 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 08:59:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's Love ( a rather lengthy post, warning for those faint of heart) References: Message-ID: <004901c62cc0$3b649bb0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 147783 kchuplis (not in answer to any specific post but some general thoughts this thread has brought to me): I'm just not sure why DD's ability to love or in what capacity he loves is even in question? The whole speech at the end of OoTP seems pretty plain, especially in its culmination: "I cared about you too much," said Dumbledore simply. "I cared more for your happiness that your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act." I mean, that's just a snippet of the whole speech and yet, it seems to me to be pretty clear. It's kind of a reflection of the whole "how can Harry love Sirius" argument too. People do not have to be with other people for years and years to love them, for whatever reasons, in whatever way very quickly and very deeply. That is the mystery of love. Why do we immediately take to some people and not others? Why can you love someone and still argue bitterly with them? How is it that we do make tremendous mistakes, mistakes we see in other relationships, when we are too deep in our own situation to recognize it? There really is no deeper mystery than love and to ask to quantify DD's or Harry's or anyone elses love in these situations is really asking for the impossible for even IF they were real and even IF we were those people we would not be able to say exactly and in the whole *how* we love, nor how much, nor why - at least not in such a way to be able to cover all aspects because there is always that one aspect that you just don't know. If we could, we would probably be able to manage world peace. But if we could, love would also lose that last vestige of "awe". Why are we trying to bottle this? Quantify it? Qualify it? Since it isn't really a "measurable" thing, isn't it enough to know it exists? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Sherry at PebTech.net Wed Feb 8 15:17:14 2006 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:17:14 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147784 Geoff: > Does Umbridge know so little about the Dementors that she is prepared > to let them loose on juveniles in order to discredit them without > knowing the possible outcome? Amontillada: Umbridge's problem may be less what she does or doesn't know, and more what she does or doesn't want to recognize! From everything we saw of her in OotP, she's so convinced of the inferiority of non- Wizard magical beings that she actually expects them to go along with this characterization. She assumed that she could simply say "I'm a Witch, you're just Centaurs," and the centaurs would just accept her superiority; and she was utterly shocked when they defied that idea. I'm not saying this well! But she may very well have assumed that after the Dementors had attacked Harry, she would be able to send them back to Azkaban, and they'd just accept her orders. Geoff: > Or, more dangerously, is she so obsessed with the good name of the > Ministry, her own position as a result and slapping down Harry that > she is prepared to see him rendered soulless by a Dementor? Amontillada: In a word, YES! In fairness, I don't think she really expected the Dementors to steal Harry's soul. As I've said above, she likely thought that they would attack him only far enough to discredit him, and would then withdraw when she wanted them to. But if they had carried through their attack, she would probably have told herself that it was somehow unavoidable--even that "Harry brought it on himself." Amontillada, another despiser of Umbridge From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Feb 8 15:30:04 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:30:04 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <43EA5EE1.21724.6A1BAB9@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147785 Sean Hateley: > Let's face it. Snape is *not* a likeable person. He is never likely > to be popular with his students. He is never likely to be teaching > them lessons that they enjoy. It's a matter of his personality - at > least I think it is. He's just not Mr Nice Guy. > > It really seems to me that it would be a waste of time for Snape to > try and be Mr Nice Guy, to try and run a pleasant classroom where > everyone (even Neville) was always happy. And if he tried, I'm fairly > sure it would be a disaster. > > Snape can't be a popular teacher. He can't be a teacher where his > students like his classes. > Magpie: And yet that's not true. Snape is very popular with the Slytherins, who cheer wildly for him when he's made DADA teacher. Narcissa says he's Draco's favorite teacher, and he seems to be. (Draco's offer to "put in a good word" for Snape with his father seems perfectly genuine to be in CoS, as does Snape's reaction, and OotP also hints at a friendly relationship between them pre-Pensieve.) Of course I know the obvious response to that is that Snape favors Slytherin--we've seen him take their side when they're clearly in the wrong, and since he praised Draco the first day of class and hates Harry, that's a pretty good reason for Draco to like him regardless of anything else. However, I don't think that fully explains Snape's relationship to the Slytherins. Umbridge favored them even more ridiculously and I didn't see any hint that they liked or respected her, even as they enjoyed the power. For all the favoring Snape does of the Slytherins in situations where its their word against the Gryffindors, and the fact that he amuses them by picking on Gryffindors in class, I see no evidence that Snape is any less strict with them. People often make references to them supposedly acting out in class but this isn't true. They aren't very badly behaved in class at all, and Draco, the one most often claimed to be running amuck in class, seems to be a perfectly good student who usually treats Snape with a natural respect (which is why Harry is so struck when he hears Draco openly challenge him--Snape reacts to Draco's challenge as an adult to an adolescent, unlike the way he reacts to Harry's). In HBP we learn that Snape does give detentions to Slytherins. His strictness, to me, seems to be something students like Draco like. My point being that I think while the Slytherins see a different Snape they don't see a Snape who's any fluffier than the guy we see in class. He's not going to be praising them for doing it wrong any more than he's going to praise Harry. I've always thought he genuinely appealed to them, and I don't think it's the pettiness that does it. I think the Slytherins actually do get more a sense of the Snape who, whatever side he's on, can be intelligent, cool and a badass. For some people Snape's toughness is probably proof that his praise is real, and if his "recognizing" the superiority of Slytherins gets their attention, it doesn't seem to include Snape thinking his Slytherins are superior to *him.* So yeah, my point here isn't to say that Snape's a great guy and Harry can't see it but the Slytherins can...it's just to say that whatever Rowling's personal judgment is on Snape as a teacher I do think she acknowledges the difference between Snape having power and Snape abusing power and is almost interested in the line crossing. If he was no good as a teacher at all I don't think he'd work the way he needs to work in the story. -m From kjones at telus.net Wed Feb 8 15:50:48 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:50:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43EA1358.6080304@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147786 > Magpie: > So yeah, my point here isn't to say that Snape's a great guy and > Harry can't see it but the Slytherins can...it's just to say that > whatever Rowling's personal judgment is on Snape as a teacher I do > think she acknowledges the difference between Snape having power and > Snape abusing power and is almost interested in the line crossing. > If he was no good as a teacher at all I don't think he'd work the > way he needs to work in the story. > > -m KJ writes: Considering the fact of HBP where we learn about non-verbal spells, and OotP, where we learn about Legilimency, and considering the fact that Harry is the only one really that Snape picks on, I can't help but wonder if he has been doing that all along to keep an open channel to Harry's mind. Harry is much easier to read when he is angry. Snape makes Harry furious every time they are together and yet we don't see that with other students. Since we can be sure that Snape and Dumbledore would have been keeping a wary eye on Harry to see how much influence Voldie would have on him, this would be the best way to do that. KJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 16:19:57 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:19:57 -0000 Subject: Snape's DADA lesson WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: <22e.603af38.311aeeea@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147787 Alla wrote: > Harry's VERBAL spell was faster and more effective that Snape's NONVERBAL one, IMO. Should Harry be praised for that? IMO yes, at least something like -" that was effective, but now go back to try doing it nonverbally." > > Julie: > And you would expect SNAPE to do this? Even a DDM!Snape, whose goal is to pound knowledge into Harry whether he likes it or not (and enjoy every minute of that pounding, of course!) isn't going to praise Harry for doing a spell the wrong way, even if he did it well. He's not that type of teacher, nor is McGonagall. That would be more likely from Dumbledore or Lupin. Carol responds: Canon supports Julie's and Potioncat's argument that what earned Harry his detention was the disrespect, so I won't repeat their arguments or Potioncat's quotes. I would like to add, however, that Snape stepped in in the first place because Ron was failing so abysmally to cast a nonverbal spell for Harry to deflect nonverbally. As a former teacher, I can imagine how frustrating it must have been for Snape that the students were just not getting it, and if he's DDM!Snape, that Harry--the Chosen One--was having no chance to practice because of Ron's ineptitude. (Rather like having the inept Lockhart demonstrating DADA spells in CoS; Snape steps in and gets rid of the snake that Lockhart fails to vanish.) So Snape steps in to provoke Harry into nonverbally Protego-ing *him* instead of Ron. Harry, of course, already has his wand out, and the Occlumency lessons have at least taught him to instinctively protect himself, as has the battle in the DoM. And in his mind, Snape is not a teacher trying to help him learn nonverbal spells but a DE trying to attack him. So his verbal spell is faster than Snape's nonverbal one--if Snape even had a nonverbal spell in mind. ("The Flight of the Prince" makes me doubt this; if Snape had really wanted to attack Harry rather than provoke a response, he could easily have done so given his Legilimency and fast reflexes.) This swift reaction is IMO, exactly what Snape wants, just as he *wants* Harry to defend himself in the Occlumency lessons, but with one difference: he wants Harry to defend himself nonverbally, a lesson he reinforces at the end of the book. So he does not give Harry detention for the attack that he himself deliberately provoked. He merely reminds Harry that the Shield Charm should have been nonverbal. It's only when Harry mouths off that Snape gives him detention. Not a word about attacking a teacher, only that Snape will not "take cheek, even from the Chosen One." Carol, noting that the duel later in the book shows Snape's duelling skills to be vastly superior to Harry's, and Snape could easily have beaten Harry to the draw in DADA class had he chosen to do so From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 16:37:04 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 16:37:04 -0000 Subject: Worse than death. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147788 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > Carol wrote: > I can't imagine DD *wanting* to take someones life, not even Riddle/Voldemort's. What, then, does he mean? Ideas, anyone?" > > (Snip) > Renee: > Not so long ago, I found myself wondering what would be the worst > thing that could happen to Voldemort. What my brain managed to come up with, was: discovering that DD was right all the time, that there are, indeed, worse things than dying. Tonks: Add to that the emptiness one would feel if your whole life had been a lie. If all the time you spent and all the struggling you did was for nothing. What if your followers figured it out too and they all left you. What if everyone figured out that the only thing that gave you power was what you took from them, by feeding off of their fears. What if no one feared you anymore and you had no followers to back you up. And now you are in a mortal body, disfigured, without power, without the ability to invoke fear in others. (Remember Lupin telling Harry that is was good that the only thing he feared was fear itself? I think it was Churchill that said that during the Muggle war.) Or, what if that touch of "love blood" that you foolishly put in your body turned out to be your undoing? What if it enabled you to feel Love for the first time, maybe the Love that Harry's mother had for Harry. Then you who had not known a mother's love would know it now, but from the mother's point of view. I have head it said that one of the things that happen when we die is that we relive our life backwards and from the POV of those we have hurt. What if LV had to do this? With Lily's blood in him he would know her pain. And he might somehow from this develop a conscience. If you were LV, wouldn't that be hell! There you would be... knowing love, knowing for the first time remorse, knowing that you had been so horribly wrong. Can you just imagine what absolute "Hell" that would be. And if you continued to be immortal you would feel this for all eternity. I think that this would be far worse that death. I am almost feeling sorry for poor Tom. Tonks_op From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 17:04:13 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:04:13 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147789 > BAW: > Which brings me to Prof. Snape. His two fields are DADA and > Potions. What is distinctive about those subjects? This--if you > don't do it right, you can get yourself or someone else killed. > > Has anyone here been in the military? Was your drill instructor > in any way cuddly? > > Anyone here in the Health Sciences? Any doctors, nurses, > pharmacists? Were your instructors cuddly? > > Anyone here studied the Martial Arts? Were your instructors > cuddly? Amiable Dorsai: Nuclear physics work for you? How about high voltage electronics? Organic chemistry? I've studied and/or worked with all three. I have never, in those fields, encountered a Snape. My instructors wanted me to learn, yes. As near as I can tell, they wanted me to do that without dying. One of them even went ballistic when a student knocked over a bottle of concentrated nitric acid, then tried to walk away without telling anyone about it (the student was expelled--rightly so). But I've never had an instuctor in those demanding subjects who picked out scapegoats, tried to make students feel worthless as a recreational activity, selectively enforced rules, or frothed at the mouth when frustrated. Even with that handicap, I have managed to have a twenty-plus year career in the sciences without killing myself or anyone else. Just lucky, I guess. Amiable Dorsai From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 17:16:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:16:42 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147790 Allie wrote: Hermione Granger, most talented witch of her age, able to perform well on both written and practical exams, able to master complicated spells in a single lesson, able to produce a Patronus in one D.A. session... achieves only an E on her DADA Owl???? It's not like the subject is difficult for Hermione - she masters those spells in the same way as anything else. So what gives? Carol responds: Unlike her Charms and Transfiguration classes, where she has had the same competent teacher every year and plenty of practice in a logical progression of classes from easy to increasingly difficult, Hermione at the end of her OWL year has had only one competent DADA teacher, Lupin, who focused on Dark Creatures, not defensive spells. Her only training in DADA spells comes from a few intermittent lessons with Harry, possibly six altogether. Possibly these lessons are enough to make her competent but not confident, as she is in Charms and Transfiguration (and Potions, for that matter, but it's not a spell-casting class). But there's still the Boggart, which (thanks to Lupin's misplaced kindness or oversight, I'm not sure which), she never learned to overcome. Hence, the E. Granted, she's not given a chance, as Harry is, to cast a corporeal Patronus, but that only gives Harry a single bonus point when he's already achieved an O. I think the fact that Hermione doesn't achieve an O under these circumstances is perfectly understandable and helps to humanize her. Her E in DADA also helps to demonstrate that defensive spells are somehow different from Charms and Transfiguration, which Hermione so easily masters, perhaps because they involve attacking a human opponent rather than altering the characteristics (Charms) or essence (Transfiguration) of an object or animal. It's one thing to put legs on a teacup or make a cushion fly across a room; quite another to stupefy an opponent, even a classmate, in ritual combat. I can easily see Hermione excelling at the one and merely exceeding expectations in the other, especially with the level of DADA instruction she's been given in her first five years. Granted, she had no qualms about petrifying Neville in SS/PS, but she wasn't in combat with him. (BTW, I remember Crouch!Moody casting spells on the kids, but did he ever teach them to cast them on each other? Certainly Quirrell, Lockhart, Lupin, and Umbridge didn't, and she hadn't yet had a DADA class from Snape.) OoP Harry, in contrast, has had personal experience defending himself against everything from Dementors (PoA) to Blast-Ended Skrewts (GoF), not to mention Voldemort himself, that enables him to pass on some of his skills to his fellow students, including Hermione, in half a dozen or so DA sessions. But as both Harry and Snape point out, in their different ways, DADA is not just choosing the right spell to shoot at Voldemort. It has to be so ingrained into the subconscious mind that the right defense is instinctive. And, paradoxically, only facing a deadly enemy can create the skills needed to survive a confrontation with a still deadlier one. Carol, thinking that if Hermione could retake her DADA OWL after the DoM battle and lessons in nonverbal DADA spells from Snape, she, too, would get an O From dossett at lds.net Wed Feb 8 17:40:01 2006 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:40:01 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <43EA1358.6080304@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147791 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: > > > > Magpie: > > > So yeah, my point here isn't to say that Snape's a great guy and > > Harry can't see it but the Slytherins can...it's just to say that > > whatever Rowling's personal judgment is on Snape as a teacher I do > > think she acknowledges the difference between Snape having power and > > Snape abusing power and is almost interested in the line crossing. > > If he was no good as a teacher at all I don't think he'd work the > > way he needs to work in the story. > > > > -m > > KJ writes: > > Considering the fact of HBP where we learn about non-verbal spells, > and OotP, where we learn about Legilimency, and considering the fact > that Harry is the only one really that Snape picks on, I can't help but > wonder if he has been doing that all along to keep an open channel to > Harry's mind. Harry is much easier to read when he is angry. Snape makes > Harry furious every time they are together and yet we don't see that > with other students. Since we can be sure that Snape and Dumbledore > would have been keeping a wary eye on Harry to see how much influence > Voldie would have on him, this would be the best way to do that. > > KJ > I agree, this is one very possible explanation. But another might be, that Spy!Snape *has* to keep his relationship with Harry just as snarky as it is, because when he's in LV's presence, he knows that LV will be performing legilimancy on him, to discover what his relationship with Harry (and Neville) is like! In other words, Snape needs to keep his relationship with Harry on nasty terms, for his own safety as a spy, if he is DDM!Snape (which I lean towards.) By doing so, he protects not only himself, but also Harry from LV. It's the same situation as Dumbledore not speaking to Harry all through OoTP: so LV has no idea of the affection DD has for Harry, and that their relationship is nothing more than headmaster and pupil. (I'll leave it to everyone's imagination to decide what Snape's feelings toward Harry are :o) ) Thanks for listening, Pat From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 18:08:56 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:08:56 -0000 Subject: Can Dumbledore become invisible? Was: Question on PS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147792 Jutika wrote: > In PS DD says to Harry, "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." Does this mean that DD can become invisible using magic? If this is the case why didn't he just become invisible when Snape was about to kill him? Carol responds: This question ties in with why he doesn't summon Fawkes or use the other defenses he uses against Voldemort in OoP, including, notably, whirling around and disappearing with a swish of his cloak before reappearing in another part of the room, which does not seem to be the same as Disapparating/Apparating (impossible even for DD in Hogwarts). And we also know that he has "watched [Harry] more closely than you know" (quoted from memory from OoP), suggesting that he can either become invisible or perhaps disguise himself as a dumbledore (bumblebee) Animagus. (Then again, he could simply be "watching from afar" using the instruments in his office, which seem to be less fallible than Trelawney's crystal ball.) To return to the question of why he didn't become invisible or use one of the defenses that he used against Voldemort or Fudge, I can think of three possible reasons: 1) These defenses require a wand, and Draco has disarmed him, leaving him defenseless. 2) They don't require a wand, but he's too weak to perform wandless magic. 3) He wants to save Snape's (and Harry's and Draco's) lives at the expense of his own, which can only happen if Snape kills him (or sends him over the tower to die from the poison, which amounts to the same thing). It seems to me that the Dumbledore who outduels Voldemort in OoP and escapes from Fudge and his cronies earlier in the same book could easily have defeated or escaped from Snape, even without a wand, although doing so would have resulted in Snape's death from the UV. But a weakened and possibly dying Dumbledore is another matter. *Could* he have escaped from Snape using wandless magic if he chose to do so, preventing Snape from becoming a murderer but dooming him to die for failing to "do the deed"? If so, did he *choose* not to escape because Snape's life, or Snape's ability to save Draco and get Harry away from the DEs (Snape would have known that Harry was present because of the second broom), was more important to DD than his own life, especially if he was already dying through the combined influence of the poisoned memory potion and the ring curse? Or did he, in his weakened state, have no choice but to force Snape to choose between losing his life (and accomplishing nothing, since DD and Draco would have been murdered and Harry would have rushed into the fray and been killed or kidnapped) or losing his soul for the greater good (keeping his vow to save Draco and, more important, keeping Harry alive at all costs)? I don't know, and neither does Harry, because (unlike Snape?) we don't have access to Dumbledore's mind. But if DD could defeat *Voldemort*, he should have been able to defeat Snape, even in his weak and wandless state, had he chosen to do so. Or so it seems to me. Carol, wishing that DD could have saved himself, Harry, Draco and Snape with a swish of his cloak, but realizing that an all-powerful Dumbledore would make Snape's tragic dilemma and Harry's role as hero superfluous From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 19:04:35 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:04:35 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <43EA5EE1.21724.6A1BAB9@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147793 Shaun: > Snape's classes - in my views - are an example of a tradition that > does work for a lot of students (and I've seen it work) > though when it's wrong for a student, it may be very wrong - as it > seems to me to be for Neville at least in the early > books. > > But guess what - the class cannot revolve around Neville Longbottom. > He's one child in classes of about twenty (at least I > think that's what the numbers show). His needs shouldn't be ignored > (I really believe that) but we don't really see any > evidence anywhere (except of Harry's fictional extra potions lessons > masking occlumency) that much effort is made to provide extra help at > Hogwarts. If this is a flaw, it's a flaw in the school in general, > not a flaw in Snape's classes specifically. Alla: I just want to address this point, because maybe I misinterpreted your position in our past discussions or maybe not, we shall see. Oh, by the way, please please if you feel that I am misinterpreting your position now, correct me, it is certainly not intentional, if this happens. I was under impression that your position is that as long as Snape teaching style works for the majority of the students and does not work for few of them, the teacher should have no problem whatsoever and the student should deal with it - find another teacher, transfer to another school, something like that. ( Again, I am not sure if you said it in those exact words, this is the summary, which I felt was your position on it, I could be wrong) But now you are saying that Neville's needs should not be ignored, so I guess you have the certain line of mistreatment of, I don't know one or two students ( Harry and Neville in our situation), which if crossed by Snape would place him as "bad teacher". Is that correct? If this is indeed correct, my question to you will be where you place the limit? How much Snape has to mistreat Neville and Harry before you would consider him a bad teacher and NOT simply that his methods do not work for Neville and Harry? Let's suppose that after much discussed "Trevor potions lesson" Neville would have gotten so upset that he would have committed suicide and left a note that the sole reason for his suicide would have been that he cannot handle Snape anymore. Would you say then that Snape should have been removed from Hogwarts right away or would you say that it is Neville's problem that his psyche was too fragile in the first place? Keep in mind that I am not saying that Neville as he is now would have done it and as we see he did not, but the fact that Neville found inner strength to deal with the abusive teacher ( my opinion of course, nothing more) does not make the severity of Snape's actions any less to me. Let's suppose that corporal punishment in its traditional form would have been still allowed at Hogwarts ( at least Dumbledore was smart enough to stop that IMO) and Snape decided to whip Harry severely for not addressing him "Sir" or "Professor", moreover Snape deliberately abused that punishment and gave Harry more blows that it is allowed to the point that Harry lost consciousness. Do you think that would have warranted Dumbledore firing Snape on the spot or still Snape should be allowed to continue teaching other students? What is the extent of the free reign you would allow Snape over few students, if it is a given that he is a good teacher for everybody else? I mean, I still think that we have no definite proof that he is a good teacher for everybody else, except Umbridge calling class advanced, but let's suppose I buy it for the sake of the argument. Magpie: > So yeah, my point here isn't to say that Snape's a great guy and > Harry can't see it but the Slytherins can...it's just to say that > whatever Rowling's personal judgment is on Snape as a teacher I do > think she acknowledges the difference between Snape having power and > Snape abusing power and is almost interested in the line crossing Alla: Well, personally, I think that besides many interviews where JKR said what kind of teacher she thinks Snape is, the loudest statement about whether he is good as a teacher was made at the end of HBP, because Snape is no longer at Hogwarts. I mean, he is no longer in Hogwarts for some other reasons we all know, but I highly doubt that Snape will ever return there and that means that new generations of Hogwarts teachers will not longer have to study with him. I mean, maybe he will return at the end and I will have to eat a crow, but for some reason I think that the end of HBP did "irreparable damage to his teaching career" to quote JKR on what Snape did to poor Remus (loved that answer by the way - not that I was in any doubt what was Snape outing Remus) Magpie: > If he was no good as a teacher at all I don't think he'd work the > way he needs to work in the story. Alla: Ooooo, I completely, one hundred percent disagree on this issue. Take my reactions to the text - I HATE Snape's teaching, hate with the great deal of passion and if Hogwarts was "real", I would say Snape had to be fired ASAP. IMO of course. But he works perfectly for me within the story, I absolutely think that the story would lost a lot without him. Why? Because the feelings I have about Snape are the feelings I usually have about the villain ( well, I used to have a love/hate feeling about this character, now it is just hate). Every story like this needs a villain and Voldemort does not invoke even remotely close reaction I have about Snape. It does not matter if at the end Snape's evil will be only everyday one ( what I describe as abusive bastard, but loyal to Dumbledore). Without him, I would not have a villainous character in the story. I mean, Voldemort got better after HBP, but still not even close in my book. > Amiable Dorsai: But I've > never had an instructor in those demanding subjects who picked out > scapegoats, tried to make students feel worthless as a recreational > activity, selectively enforced rules, or frothed at the mouth when > frustrated. Alla: Yes, of course. I just cannot call somebody a good teacher if only one student is being mistreated in his class and IMO we see that three students are being mistreated for sure and IMO it is a pretty good assumption that all Gryffindors are being treated unfairly. JMO, Alla From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 19:07:27 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:07:27 -0000 Subject: How is it that Wormtail and others can use other's wands? In-Reply-To: <43E9DA59.2010301@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147794 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > fuzz876i wrote: > > What I want to know is this: how is it possible to use someone > > else's wand when that wand is supposed to be specific to the owner > > and backfire if someone else uses it? > > Bart: > I don't believe it says that anywhere in the canon. The only example I > saw was when Lockhart used Ron's BROKEN wand, which often backfired on Ron. > hpfan_mom: In fact, that wasn't even really Ron's wand - wasn't it originally Charlie's wand? From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 18:44:27 2006 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:44:27 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147795 Pat wrote: > I agree, this is one very possible explanation. But another might > be, that Spy!Snape *has* to keep his relationship with Harry just as > snarky as it is, because when he's in LV's presence, he knows that > LV will be performing legilimancy on him, to discover what his > relationship with Harry (and Neville) is like! In other words, > Snape needs to keep his relationship with Harry on nasty terms, for > his own safety as a spy, if he is DDM!Snape (which I lean towards.) > By doing so, he protects not only himself, but also Harry from LV. > It's the same situation as Dumbledore not speaking to Harry all > through OoTP: so LV has no idea of the affection DD has for Harry, > and that their relationship is nothing more than headmaster and > pupil. (I'll leave it to everyone's imagination to decide what > Snape's feelings toward Harry are :o) ) > > These are all very interesting and insightful thoughts. I have little to add, but to say that Snape's nastiness towards Harry in particular might not be so much to fool Voldemort into thinking Snape hates him--as simply to keep Harry from entrusting him with any secrets that Voldemort might eventually access. For example--and maybe this is a bad one--but putting Harry on detention for every Saturday cuts down on Harry's time with Ginny. Now, maybe Harry + Ginny == TruLove is going around the school, but maybe it isn't. With fewer public sightings of them strolling along the lake hand in hand, there's less liklihood of it catching Draco's attention (DDM! Snape would have to worry most about him, wouldn't he?) But I digress, because I wanted to add a thought about not every teaching style working for every student. Not every style works for every student at every period in their lives, either. The first school I attended was so cuddly that we had neither grades nor attendence records. It worked well for students who excelled academically, and for those who tested very low. It wasn't so hot for the mid-level students. I excelled, and what I liked about the school was that it made very clear that education was *my* business. I was in charge of how fast I wanted to learn, and to a certain extent what I wanted to learn. I wasn't particularly social, but on the other hand, I wasn't shunned because I like to read the textbooks. I had good friend, and since there was no hierarchy among the students, there were no real bullies. But I knew that if I had been in a regular school, I would have been horrid. I would have sucked up to my teachers and been a pet in every class--which would not have been fair, because memorization, reading, math--it all came easily to me. So, I am sorry to say, did sucking up. But when I hit the age of 15 or 16, I was tired of having freedom without any challenge and wanted something more structured. I decided to attend another highschool for half- a-day (it offered courses I couldn't get at the first school). After the first half-day, I went immediately to the counselor's office and transferred completely. The last two years I attended this school and enjoyed it immensely. Heh. And the toughest teachers at the new school were my Jazz Dance teacher (who was worshipped by everyone) and the Drama teacher (who was new, but had been so worshipped at his last school that his former students followed him to ours). There's a time to be cuddled and a time to be challenged. I feel for 11 year old Neville in Snape's Potion classes. But I'll bet he surprised himself with what he got on his O.W.L. in the subject and he didn't seem to have any problem with D.A.D.A. with Snape teaching it. Montavilla From xxSalesboy52 at aol.com Wed Feb 8 17:49:26 2006 From: xxSalesboy52 at aol.com (Mark) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:49:26 -0000 Subject: New Deputy Head Master/Mistress Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147796 Who will Professor McGonagall name as deputy head Master/Mistress? Possibly Flitwick, Sprout, Slughorn? Against list Hagrid, Trelawney? Mark From exodusts at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 04:06:07 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 04:06:07 -0000 Subject: HBP - Hogwarts Secrets In-Reply-To: <20060207222200.96109.qmail@web53305.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147797 > Tonks wrote: > Maybe we need to ponder what other secrets the castle > holds. "Stronghold of ancient magic", bring to mind the "ancient > magic" that protected Harry at Godrick's Hollow. Also maybe there is > magic there that may have only been unlocked by DD. > > >snip< > > What else?? What is in Hogwarts that LV wants? Something or some > knowledge that he needs? > > Luckdragon: > > I wonder if there could be more to the "Room of Requirement". If it presents itself as any place you need to use, equipment included, could LV use it in some way to find what he needs to be more powerful (ie: ancient books, potions, etc). > > Could there be other secret rooms yet to discover. > > Could DD's possession's be of value, all his little instruments that may have helped him overcome Grindewald. > > Perhaps he just wants more "trophy's" to make more Horcruxes ie) the hat & sword. > > Mainly though I think LV just want's Hogwarts so he can breed his pureblood wizard army to take over the world. Dumbledore is clear on this: 'Dumbledore pointed his blackened fingers to the wall behind him, where a ruby-encrusted sword reposed within a glass case. "Do you think that's why he really wanted to come back to Hogwarts, sir?" said Harry. "To try and find something from one of the other founders?" "My thoughts precisely," said Dumbledore. "But unfortunately, that does not advance us much further, for he was turned away, or so I believe, without the chance to search the school. I am forced to conclude that he never fulfilled his ambition of collecting four founders' objects. He definitely had two ? he may have found three ? that is the best we can do for now."' (HBP Ch23) Unless DD is lying (highly unlikely) or wrong (unlikely), LV wanted to come back to Hogwarts to get his hands on Horcrux material. This immediately suggests two options: LV wanted to search the Room of Requirement (POOR): If correct, how does this advance the plot? It doesn't. It means that if there IS a founder-object in the RoR, it ISN'T a Horcrux, because it would be preposterous plotting by JKR. LV found it and got it out via an agent, Horcrux-ed it, then returned it via an agent? She just isn't going to write something as silly as that. LV wanted access to the Sorting Hat (GOOD): Why? So he can A) use his teaching position to influence an appropriate student of each House to pull a founder-object from the Hat, as Harry did in his second year, then B) run off with and/or destroy the Hat. Otherwise, the Hat represents the biggest threat to his Horcrux plan. Anyone who realises its power, and has access to Hogwarts students, can round up four of his Horcruxes in a matter of minutes. This may be the important thing about the Hat that JKR has hinted about. What is extraordinary about this, if true, is why doesn't Dumbledore realise and do it? Maybe he wants Harry to figure it out for himself, since he is the chosen one. Maybe he doesn't want the moral responsibility of pressuring students to use the Hat, since it might make them into targets if LV realises what is going on? exodusts From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Feb 8 19:21:15 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:21:15 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00b501c62ce4$d63e2380$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 147798 Pat wrote: > I agree, this is one very possible explanation. But another might > be, that Spy!Snape *has* to keep his relationship with Harry just as > snarky as it is, because when he's in LV's presence, he knows that > LV will be performing legilimancy on him, to discover what his > relationship with Harry (and Neville) is like! In other words, > Snape needs to keep his relationship with Harry on nasty terms, for > his own safety as a spy, if he is DDM!Snape (which I lean towards.) > By doing so, he protects not only himself, but also Harry from LV. > It's the same situation as Dumbledore not speaking to Harry all > through OoTP: so LV has no idea of the affection DD has for Harry, > and that their relationship is nothing more than headmaster and > pupil. (I'll leave it to everyone's imagination to decide what > Snape's feelings toward Harry are :o) ) > > Sherry now: If it turned out to be that Snape by his own choice or by Dumbledore's orders was deliberately bating Harry in order to perform legilimency on him, I would consider that such a serious breach of conduct, and even deserving of a prison sentence. right now, in the US, everyone is up in arms over the government's right to monitor suspected terrorist connections by tapping phone lines or other communications without a warrant. No matter how anyone feels about that, I can't help comparing it to anyone being able to and even allowed to or ordered to read another person's thoughts without permission. If they can perform legilimency and do it accidentally, that's one thing, but to purposely anger a child to be able to have access to his thoughts is despicable. I would lay that term at Dumbledore's door as well, if he was the one to ask Snape to do it. in fact, i would lay the blame pretty much exclusively on Dumbledore for instructing his staff person to violate someone's privacy in that way. OOOOO. It just gives me the creeps. Sherry From exodusts at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 05:06:24 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:06:24 -0000 Subject: Mundungus and the Locket In-Reply-To: <43E8FCA0.000011.02424@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147799 Donna: > My feelings are Mundungus will play a large part in finding the horcrux's > because he's a sneak, a thief, under handed, snoopy, and sly. I think he > knows more about the locations of the horcrux's than anyone even though he > may not know what a horcrux is. > > My two cents on this: Mundungus is a red herring for Harry to chase, to fill out the plot. When Harry realised that Mundungus was stealing from 12 GOP, he told Tonks, who told Dumbledore. See HBP: '"Sir," said Harry tentatively, "I met Mundungus in Hogsmeade." "Ah yes, I am already aware that Mundungus has been treating your inheritance with light-fingered contempt," said Dumbledore, frowning a little. "He has gone to ground since you accosted him outside the Three Broomsticks; I rather think he dreads facing me. However, rest assured that he will not be making away with any more of Sirius's old possessions."' Next thing we hear, Mundungus has been arrested and is in Azkaban. Assuming the locket WAS in his suitcase, what are the options? 1) Mundungus was caught with the locket. It is in a Ministry of Magic confiscation department (an excuse for Harry to end up back inside the Department of Mysteries for an adventure)? Why not just get Arthur / Order insiders to recover it? No story potential there. 2) Mundungus was caught with the locket. It is in Azkaban. Harry must go to Azkaban and get it from the officials. Why not just ask Arthur to arrange its delivery? It is his legal property, as are all the accompanying Black heirlooms. The only possible further story is a legal paperwork problem (mmm, exciting!), or if a mass breakout means it is taken by Death Eaters, in which case LV probably gets it. What can Harry do about that? Nothing, until the final confrontation. Bad for subplotting. Both of these scenarios are slimly possible ONLY if Dung took to wearing the locket because he thought it was "pretty". Realistically, I think he'd much rather treat it as more merchandise (for beer- money). So... 3) Mundungus has stashed the locket in a safe house. What is the story potential here? Harry leads a raid on Azkaban that frees Dung - ok, good. Dung takes Harry to the safehouse and gives him the locket. Bad. Where's the drama? Unless the house wasn't so safe, and has been raided by X, Y or Z, but then the internal logic of the story takes a strain. Dung is a professional thief. It is a contrivance if, for this one time, his cover has been most unfortunately blown. Bad writing. 4) Mundungus SOLD the locket to Aberforth before he got arrested. Harry leads a raid on Azkaban that frees Dung - ok, good. Dung tells Harry to go see Aberforth. Aberforth tells Harry some Important Stuff about Dumbledore - good. He gives Harry the locket - bad. Far too easy to make a good story. It's better, but still not great. ***My theory*** 5) The locket was NEVER in the suitcase. How does this help? Harry realises it MIGHT have been (when Hermione points out that R.A.B. is Regulus Black, reminds him of the locket they found at 12 GOP, and they search the house for it in vain). He rushes off to Azkaban to mount an extensive rescue mission by brooms, with Order assistance. He liberates Stan Shunpike and Dung. Possibly, Death Eaters turn up at the same time to liberate THEIR crew, and there is a Big Fight. Maybe they don't, and there is just a Big Fight with the guards. Stan turns out to be the magical "Late Bloomer" that JKR has talked about. Rescued, Dung tells Harry that he sold everything in the case to Aberforth. He can't remember if there was a locket there or not. Harry goes to see Aberforth. Aberforth tells Harry some Important Stuff about Dumbledore - good. Aberforth has the stuff Dung sold him, but the locket is NOT amongst it - good. Harry is stumped. Only later does he realise where it is. It was MOVED, with a pile of other valuables, after the house-cleaning in OotP (OR at Dumbledore's request, when he realised Dung was stealing from 12 GOP). Where was it moved to? The owner's Gringotts vault of course. (And what has happened to the contents of Sirius' vault? They have been moved into Harry's.) The locket has been in Harry's vault all along, either since Sirius' death, or since Dumbledore gave the moving order. If the former, this might explain why JKR went out of her way to emphasise that Harry did not go to see his own gold in HBP (Bill gets it for him) - so that he couldn't realise it was in there. exodusts From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Feb 8 19:57:06 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:57:06 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147800 > Magpie: > > > So yeah, my point here isn't to say that Snape's a great guy and > > Harry can't see it but the Slytherins can...it's just to say that > > whatever Rowling's personal judgment is on Snape as a teacher I do > > think she acknowledges the difference between Snape having power > and > > Snape abusing power and is almost interested in the line crossing > > Alla: > > Well, personally, I think that besides many interviews where JKR said > what kind of teacher she thinks Snape is, the loudest statement about > whether he is good as a teacher was made at the end of HBP, because > Snape is no longer at Hogwarts. Magpie: I think if there's one thing clear in the Potterverse it's that being a teacher at Hogwarts doesn't mean you're any good any more than not being a teacher there means you're not good. > Alla: > > Ooooo, I completely, one hundred percent disagree on this issue. Take > my reactions to the text - I HATE Snape's teaching, hate with the > great deal of passion and if Hogwarts was "real", I would say Snape > had to be fired ASAP. IMO of course. > > But he works perfectly for me within the story, I absolutely think > that the story would lost a lot without him. Why? Because the > feelings I have about Snape are the feelings I usually have about the > villain ( well, I used to have a love/hate feeling about this > character, now it is just hate). Magpie: That has nothing to do with my point, which is not whether Snape is a "good teacher" in terms of him not being a villain or people not hating him, but Snape getting results. Rowling could have written him as bad in all the ways he is bad and also completely ineffectual, but that character would not be Snape. -m From newbrigid at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 16:11:20 2006 From: newbrigid at yahoo.com (Lia) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 08:11:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dumbledore's Love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060208161120.32718.qmail@web31704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147801 Tonks wrote: Since BAW brought the bible into this... The place in the bible to look for an example of the highest form of Love is to look at the life and person of Jesus. I think that DD shows that type of life and personhood too. If you look at DD in this way it may help to understand his motives and the deep degree to which he (IMO) does understand Love, and Love in its very highest form. Lia says: Pardon the snippage! The comparison of Dumbledore to Jesus is an interesting one. To be brief (for a change): Jesus gave all to gain all (for humankind). Might Dumbledore, then, have given all to gain all for the wizarding world? I think that Dumbledore does understand love, and can also feel it deeply. I think he loves Harry very much. Somewhere in the Book of John it states: "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." Dumbledore states in HBP that he views Harry as a friend, doesn't he? (Or did I imagine it? Alas, I am at work and cannot check canon.) If so, perhaps that's what Dumbledore did. Just a few musings... Lia From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 17:47:47 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 17:47:47 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147802 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Which brings me to Prof. Snape. His two fields are DADA and > Potions. What is distinctive about those subjects? This--if you > don't do it right, you can get yourself or someone else killed. > > Anyone here in the Health Sciences? Any doctors, nurses, > pharmacists? Were your instructors cuddly? Yes indeed. Several years of medical training. And many of the instructors were indeed, to use your phrase, "cuddly" and extremely interested in making sure their students were comfortable and not intimidated. Others, to be sure, were more "Snape-like," but they by no means the majority. I currently work for the military, and one of the people with whom I often interact is in charge of the disposition and use of nuclear weapons. He is one of the kindest and most patient people I know, well-known throughout the base for creating a warm and appropriate work environment. Another friend, who runs a counter-intelligence program designed to protect said nuclear weapons among other things, is somewhat more stern, but still kind and thoughtful, and universally popular among the agents assigned to him for supervision and training due to his skill at making them feel at ease. > Anyone here studied the Martial Arts? Were your instructors > cuddly? The answers are Yes and Yes. Indeed, my martial arts instructor has made it clear that the various martial arts schools in my local area are working very hard to "flush out" the older style (i.e. "Snape- like") instructors, as their techniques are viewed as irresponsible and counter-productive. > Perhaps Snape himself got someone hurt or killed because of some > error or omission that he (thinks) he would not have made if his > teacher hadn't been a little tougher on him. That is possible. However, I don't know of any evidence for such in the text, and certainly McGonagall manages to teach a dangerous subject without sinking to Snape's level, as did Lupin. Lupinlore From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Wed Feb 8 19:03:55 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:03:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060208190356.67085.qmail@web37014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147803 Allie: > Two topics in the area of magical skill do not add up for me. > > 1. Hermione Granger, most talented witch of her age, able to > perform well on both written and practical exams, able to master > complicated spells in a single lesson, able to produce a Patronus > in one D.A. session... achieves only an E on her DADA Owl???? saberbunny: Don't forget, Hermione (and pretty much the rest of the DA except Lavander) learned how to produce a Patronus in a bright room without any Dementors (or Boggarts assuming the shape of a Dementor). Harry even points out that it's not the same thing learning the spell and using it to defend yourself. When Harry learned how to produce a Patronus, he was younger AND had to do it facing a boggart/dementor. Also the examiner must have known that he had on at least 1 occasion produced the Patronus to protect himself from Dementors. That is indeed more impressive. Don't forget as well in the book PoA at the lake when Harry tells Hermione the spell to save them and Sirius, she fails. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 8 20:28:43 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:28:43 -0000 Subject: How is it that Wormtail and others can use other's wands? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147804 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfan_mom" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: fuzz876i: > > > What I want to know is this: how is it possible to use someone > > > else's wand when that wand is supposed to be specific to the > > > owner and backfire if someone else uses it? Bart: > > I don't believe it says that anywhere in the canon. The only > > example I saw was when Lockhart used Ron's BROKEN wand, which > > often backfired on Ron. hpfan_mom: > In fact, that wasn't even really Ron's wand - wasn't it originally > Charlie's wand? Geoff: There is an interesting canon point here which indicates that a wizard can use someone else's wand.... 'As he measured, he said, "Every Ollivander wand has a core of a powerful magic substance, Mr.Potter. We use unicorn hairs, phoenix tail feathers and the heartstrings of dragons. No two Ollivander wands are the same, just as no two unicorns, dragons or phoenixes are quite the same. And, of course, you will never get such good results with another wizard's wand."' (PS "Diagon Alley" p.64 UK edition) From Jen at alveymedia.com Wed Feb 8 19:39:01 2006 From: Jen at alveymedia.com (Jennifer Nielsen) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 12:39:01 -0700 Subject: Mundungus and the Locket In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147805 > Donna: > > My feelings are Mundungus will play a large part in finding the > horcruxes because he's a sneak, a thief, under handed, snoopy, > and sly. I think he knows more about the locations of the > horcruxes than anyone even though he may not know what a horcrux > is. While Harry never caught Mundungus with the locket and that remains open to speculation, he did see a goblet that fell out of his sack. Could that be Hufflepuff's Cup? Jen From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 20:38:13 2006 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:38:13 -0000 Subject: Evidence Snape is Good (Was: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP9, The Half-Blood Prince) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147806 Meri here, just putting her two knuts in after a good while away. AyanEva wrote: > -What is the point in calling the chapter HBP? Just to introduce the > potions book and tell us it is important? It seems kind of > unnecessary and I keep thinking that there must be something else in > this chapter that I am missing. Meri - It has been an established theory that the "real bad guy" of the Harry Potter books invariably makes an appearance or is prominently mentioned in Chapter 13 of the book they are featured in, as noted below: Book 1, Chapter 13 - Nicolas Flamel, in which Harry sees Snape talking to Professor Quirell (Quirell!Mort) in the Forest. Book 2, Chapter 13 - The Very Secret Diary, in which Harry travels into Tom Riddle's diary Book 3, Chapter 13 - Gryffindor vs. Ravenclaw, in which it is discussed that Scabbers/Peter Pettigrew has faked his death Book 4, Chapter 13 - Mad Eye Moody, self explanatory Book 5, Chapter 13 - Detention with Dolores, also self explanatory Book 6, Chapter 13 - The Secret Riddle, ditto My point being since this is only chapter 9 and that Snape prominently featured here and not in chapter 13 then perhaps this is difinitive evidence that Snape is, in fact, a Good Guy. But on the other hand what is interesting to me is that several of these Chapter 13s provide good red herrings: in Book 1 we come out of that chapter convinced Snape is the bad guy, in book 2 we are shown Hagrid being framed for the opening of the Chamber, in book 3 it is Sirius Black who breaks into the boys' dormitory, in book 4 Moody is presented as a good guy, and in book 5 Harry suspects, momentarily, that Umbridge may be a DE. I can't come up with any red herring moments in book 6, chapter 13, but I just thought it was interesting anyway. Meri - apologizing for the rambling...but just curious as to thoughts. From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Wed Feb 8 20:09:58 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:09:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Petunia and Dementors Message-ID: <20060208200958.89022.qmail@web37006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147807 I'm sorry if these subjects have been discussed into oblivion, but I've been reading many, many posts and haven't found much (at least lately). I am wondering about what you will all think about my theories... Petunia has a very important role to play at the beginning of the next book. She will be the key to Lily and maybe even more of DD's insight. In HBP, the ONLY time she reacts to anything that DD says is that Harry will come of age next summer. She has something to do, information to give to Harry at that time and maybe didn't realize it was coming so soon? I like someone else thinking that maybe part of the pact was about Dudley, perhaps he was showing some signs of magic as a baby. Could Petunia have been visiting her sister sometime in October, 16 odd years ago? Maybe not, but she has a very important role to play and it definitely has (IMO) something to do with Lily, "that awful boy" (Snape? James?) and DD....what do you guys think? Another point I have been pondering, as awful as Harry's childhood has been, as many bad memories that he must have, why does he keep remembering *only* the memory of his parent's death when attacked by Dementors? Everytime I remember people talking about Dementors, they make you relive your worst MEMORIES (note the plural) yet all Harry remembers is the night his parents were murdered. I think that this will come into play. Either on purpose (or being overcome perhaps by Dementors) Harry will relive the *entire* night, and see who else was in Godric's Hollow the night his parents died. JKR has hinted that maybe Voldemort was not alone that fateful night. There might have been witnessess, and where better to get this information, then his own memories? Opinions? Cat From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 20:27:48 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:27:48 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's hand and UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147808 > Tonks: >DD would not have made an UV because as I understand it that is a >piece of dark magic. DD would not do anything that was dark magic. How do you know that DD has never done dark magic? He may not have used Unforgiveable curses or directed bad at anyone but he could have easily dabbled in certain areas of the dark arts. How could he be one of the wisest wizards and not have a first hand knowledge of many things that go on with the dark arts? It seems a little naive, to me at least, to assume that DD has never performed a dark spell. michelle From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 20:49:41 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:49:41 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes / House Unity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147809 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" > wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > > ...edited... > > I'm not expecting some sort of Hogwarts utopia though. Just an > > ability for Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, Slytherin and Gryffindor > > to work together. Which is something I expect Harry will need > > to make happen in order to hunt down the remaining horcruxes. > quick_silver: > > ... I've always taken a slightly different view of the house > system and how it effects characters (Harry mainly) and what's > its future is. To me it seems that as Harry ages he is gradually > expanding his horizons and relationships with people outside of > his house and outside of his typical views. So part of Harry's > coming of age is that he realizes he's outgrown the house system > ... > bboyminn: Once again, an excellent point made by Quick_Silver, and one that I hadn't thought of. Indeed I think you are right, literally 'growing up' in the wizard world mean getting over or at least getting past the House system. When I say 'growing up', I don't mean getting chronologically older or becoming 'of age'; I mean emotionally growning up. In a sense, House desigantions have no significants beyond school, yet some immature people hold on to petty schoolboy grudges for a life time. More emotionally mature people eventually realize that a person's House designation doesn't define them; it is their general good character and action in everyday life that define who they truly are. So, I very much like this aspect of Harry's 'coming of age'; he simply grows beyond petty House designations. Now on the subject of Houses from a more general perspective. People will always divide themselves. They will always, in a sense, create and foster an 'us vs them' social system. Go into any high school that does not have a House System, and you will find the student ridgedly divided into Jocks, Nerds, Freaks, Stoners, and the 'Artsy' crowd. All of whom are contantly waging overt or covert 'war' against each other. Of course, just like Hogwarts, there are many students that can pass in more than one group. Even when I was in college, students were assigned to 'residence halls' which in reality were nothing more than a place to sleep. Yet, each residence hall was absolutely convinced that they had the coolest people and threw the best parties. My point is that even without genuine houses, students will create artificial house in which to seek friendship and validation. So, Houses are never going away. If nothing else, Hogwarts student will define themselves by the 'residence hall' in which the live. Next, Uniting the Houses, does not mean 'uniting' to perfection. It doesn't mean that the House will join together down the the absolute last person. But if some Gryffindors, join with some Hufflepuffs, who join with some Ravelclaws, who all mutually join with some Slytherins, the resulting unit will be much stronger than the remaining factions. It is in this sense that the Houses will unite. I want to urge everyone to remember that we have not seen all Slytherins, in fact we have only seen a small fraction of them. We have no reason to believe the unseens Slytherins are anything other than normal ambitious kids trying to make their way through school and through life. JKR said as much herself. So, don't define all Slytherins by the Malfoys or Voldemort. > quick_silver: > > I'm going to disagree with the Horcruxs noting giving Harry > anything they give him (and whoever comes along with him) > experience fighting the dark forces. And they can take things > away from Harry too Dumbledore lost his life because of what > happened in the cave (either directly or indirectly). > bboyminn: I love this whole discussion of McGuffins, Plot Devices, Plot Coupon, Plot Vouchers, and assorted other story generating tools. In a sense, a McGuffin is simply the reason or motivating force for the characters to interact. In "North by Northwest" Gary Grant is mistaken for a spy and "BOOM" you have a movie. In some ways, the new Defense Against Dark Arts teacher is a McGuffin simply because the bulk of each book is related to Harry interacting with the new teacher. Yet in the end, that teacher is not really the key to the story; they are nothing more than the reason for the plot to move forward until we can reach the true reason for the story. Plot Vouchers are, in a sense, the author's and Hero's 'get out of jail free' card. In volume one of 'Any Story' the hero is given a powerful magic 'Amulet of Plot Resolution' or a 'Staff of Infinute Power' that the Hero can call on whenever the author runs out of plot solutions. We could say that the Weasley Flying Car is a Plot Voucher. It is something introduced at the begining of the story in a seemingly insignificant way, lost, then returns at the most critical moment to save the day. While in the hands of a hackneyed writer that could have been laughable, in JKR's hands I think it was masterfully handled. The Car does not have infinite power, nor does it shield against all evil. It is a quirky plot device that in a sense takes on its own personality, and in the end, doesn't save the day by some supreme intervention of God or the Author, but simply intervines within the normal boundaries of a normal mildly magical objects. I hate hackneyed all powerful 'get out of jail free' cards, but I loved that car. Another example is Fawkes. Fawkes is an all-powerful magical device that JKR can pull out whenever she has written herself into corner and needs to save the plot. Yet, I think she has used Fawkes in a unique and imaginitive way. While Fawkes is very powerful, he is not the 'Universal Amulet Against All Magic'. Fawkes saves the day with imagination and more importantly with limitations. In the Chamber of Secrets, Fawkes doesn't swoop in and slay the Basilisk; Fawkes merely blinds him. Then what tools does Fawkes bring - the Sorting Hat - which seems to have no useful purpose. Yet, an unlikely and unpredicatable sword appears out of the hat. Still, a sword against a Basilisk, I'd much rather have the 'Staff of Infinite Power and Plot Resolution' than a mere sword against a 60 foot Snake as thick as an oak tree. Yet, in the end, through a masterful sequence of events, the mere sword does prove to be enough. A hackneyed writer simply pulls out his Plot Voucher, the villian of the moment is vanguished and the story goes on. JKR, who is far more imaginitive than hackneyed, brings Fawkes to the rescue and we breath a sigh of relief, only to feel of lungs lock up again when we realize that all Fawkes has brought is a song and a hat. Then Fawkes attacks the Basilisk, and we breath a sigh of relief again, but then the Basilisk is only blinded and Harry is still in danger; we tense. Harry get the Hat - sigh, but what good is a hat -tense. The Hat produces a weapon - sigh, but what good is a sword against a Basilik - tense. That's figuratively like fighting a bull elephant with a pocket knife. But Harry manages to use the Sword to slay the Snake - sigh; but then the fang pierces his arm - tense. Then all is lost, Harry is wounded and poisoned, Voldmort is victorious - double tense, but then Fawkes mourns and laments Harry's demise - sigh (but for a different reason). Then, oddly, Harry does not meet his demise, he actually feels better - sigh (for the original reason). Then in a moment of inspiration, Harry stabs the book with the fang - sigh of relieve followed by a cheer. OK, that is one complicated 'Plot Voucher'. > quick_silver: > > Even if Draco comes with that attitude and knowledge that > wouldn't take away that Harry has seen Draco at his most > conflicted and making the hardest choices of his life. I > didn't mean that Draco would be broken but that Harry will > have some insight into him insight that Draco doesn't really > have into Harry. So even if Draco comes with attitude Harry > will have seen what lies beneath. > > Quick_Silver > bboyminn: I've always said that Draco will alway be Draco regardless of whether he fights for the good side or the bad; smarmy, sarcastic, and self-serving. He and Harry, may cooperate but they will never be friends. Draco's mistakes may at some point be forgiven, but I don't think they will ever be forgotten; at least not by Harry. Harry will always know that Draco is s self-serving coward, who in the end will do what is best for Draco. Certainly, Draco is now finally and clearly aware that being a Death Eater is NOT and never was in his best interests. He will do what he has to do while amoung the Death Eaters, but I think Draco definitely wants out. Better to live and grow rich in a world filled with mudbloods than die young pursuing a false and impractical Pureblood ideology. (I'll avoid for the moment expressing my ideas of how hopelessly disfunction the wizard world will become if Voldemort wins.) This is one aspect of the story that I am immensely curious about. How will Draco and Harry resolve things? I'm certain they will. JKR seems to have setup Draco's redemption, or at least his cooperation with the good guys, but to what ultimate end, I can't say. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Feb 8 21:01:46 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:01:46 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes / House Unity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147810 > bboyminn: > I've always said that Draco will alway be Draco regardless of whether > he fights for the good side or the bad; smarmy, sarcastic, and > self-serving. He and Harry, may cooperate but they will never be > friends. Draco's mistakes may at some point be forgiven, but I don't > think they will ever be forgotten; at least not by Harry. Harry will > always know that Draco is s self-serving coward, who in the end will > do what is best for Draco. Magpie: Or alternately, whatever Draco does it will be defined as Draco being a self-serving coward who in the end will do what is best for Draco. Personally, I think he already proved himself more than that and that kind of resolution sounds a bit like hitting the reset button back to the Marauders Era. -m From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 20:51:27 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (mmmwintersteiger) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 20:51:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's hand and UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147811 > >> Cat: > > I can't say whether or not DD would make an unbreakable vow, but > > as for it being dark magic, how would the twins know about it at > > the age of 6, How would the twins know about the linked > > hands and everything? And where would they have learned the > > spell? I highly doubt that the Weasleys have books on the Dark > > Arts in their house for them to learn from. > > Allie: > Excellent, excellent point! Unless the twins had WITNESSED an > unbreakable vow being made or heard a detailed discussion of how > it's done. You do have to take into account that Arthur works for the MoM. I'm sure he has had many "adult" conversations with friends that the twins could have overheard. With that in mind, I am also convinced that most wizards have at least some knowledge of the dark arts but make a conscious decision not to use them. michelle From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 21:21:47 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:21:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching style Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147812 > Magpie: > I think if there's one thing clear in the Potterverse it's that > being a teacher at Hogwarts doesn't mean you're any good any more > than not being a teacher there means you're not good. Alla: Yes,indeed. I am just saying that IMO Rowling is primarily into portraying Snape as abusing his power and would probably not let Snape teach at the end for that reason among others > Magpie: > That has nothing to do with my point, which is not whether Snape is > a "good teacher" in terms of him not being a villain or people not > hating him, but Snape getting results. Rowling could have written > him as bad in all the ways he is bad and also completely > ineffectual, but that character would not be Snape. Alla: Right, but you said in your previous post: "if he was no good as a teacher at all I don't think he'd work the > way he needs to work in the story.". You did not specify IMO what did you mean by "he'd work the way he needs to work in the story". To me character working within the story means that character fulfils the function that author intends him to fulfill, that the story in essense works for my mind and my feelings. Basically what you are saying is that to you Snape working within the story means getting results? Okay, but then I still think that Snape does not get any results from Harry and Neville and that it is to me actually one of the greatest arguments for Snape ineefectiveness as a teacher for these two, but by extension probably for everybody else, although we don't know of course about everybody else. If Snape is indeed concerned about Harry learning ( that is if he is DD!M Snape of course), then why does he not CHANGE his methods, if he sees that what he does clearly IMO does not work for Harry. Good teacher IMO should be flexible, Snape IMO so not. JMO, Alla, who hopes that her ramblings made sense From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Feb 8 22:00:47 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:00:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching style In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147813 Alla: > Basically what you are saying is that to you Snape working within the > story means getting results? Okay, but then I still think that Snape > does not get any results from Harry and Neville and that it is to me > actually one of the greatest arguments for Snape ineefectiveness as a > teacher for these two, but by extension probably for everybody else, > although we don't know of course about everybody else. Magpie: I meant what I described, which was that as far as teachers went he wasn't incompetent even compared to some others at Hogwarts. I was responding to specific point made about how Snape is regarded within the school, which I still think is more accurate than the idea that Snape his hated throughout Hogwarts as the abuser of Harry and Neville and even mostly ineffective as a teacher. Alla: > > If Snape is indeed concerned about Harry learning ( that is if he is > DD!M Snape of course), then why does he not CHANGE his methods, if he > sees that what he does clearly IMO does not work for Harry. > > Good teacher IMO should be flexible, Snape IMO so not. Magpie: I couldn't say whether Snape was that interested in Harry or Neville personally learning or not. I wouldn't nominate him for teacher of the year. I was responding to a point that Sean made about Snape not appealing to any students based on what I saw in canon. I'm not going to attempt to prove the negative that Snape ISN'T a bad teacher to anyone's personal satisfaction, even my own. I've had a related discussion before and it was, imo, frustrating and had little to do with the actual canon. That way lies Snape the bad guy not praising Harry for not following instructions. Not going there. -m From rkdas at charter.net Wed Feb 8 22:10:44 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:10:44 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dementors In-Reply-To: <20060208200958.89022.qmail@web37006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147814 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catherine higgins wrote: SNIPPED Another point I have been pondering, as awful as Harry's childhood > has been, as many bad memories that he must have, why does he keep > remembering *only* the memory of his parent's death when attacked by Dementors? Everytime I remember people talking about Dementors, they make you relive your worst MEMORIES (note the plural) yet all Harry remembers is the night his parents were murdered. I think that this will come into play. Either on purpose (or being overcome perhaps by > Dementors) Harry will relive the *entire* night, and see who else > was in Godric's Hollow the night his parents died. JKR has hinted > that maybe Voldemort was not alone that fateful night. There might > have been witnessess, and where better to get this information, then > his own memories? Opinions? > > Cat Hi Cat, This last point got my attention and I wanted to add a little bit of RL information. Harry was very young at his parents' death. Pre- verbal would be the important descriptor. I am not an expert at this and if anyone is, please enter in, but pre-verbal memory is very amorphous and unformed. Usually pre-verbal memory has to be fastened to sight,smell, the senses, as it were. I find it very telling that Harry can remember the screams of his mother. I don't think he can remember very many things she said and surely he'd have heard her begging for Harry's life. But since he was so very young, he just didn't have the words to put meaning to his experience. So I do not think there will be much more coming from Baby Harry. And if it were possible, would not DD have tried to explore that time in order to gain information about LV? Just a few ideas. Jen D. > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 22:34:13 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:34:13 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching style In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147815 > Magpie: I'm not > going to attempt to prove the negative that Snape ISN'T a bad > teacher to anyone's personal satisfaction, even my own. Alla: Oh, I am not asking that at all. How about proving that Snape IS a good teacher, if you wish of course, I understand if you don't. As I said, except Umbridge calling his class advanced and Snape saying that his students pass the OWLS(or was it NEWTS?), I see no such proof in the books and Snape bragging about his teaching success does not seem like substantial proof to me. Really, IMO all that Rowling needed to do if she wanted to show that Snape is a good teacher for anybody except Slytherins is to let ANY older Gryffindor make a passing remark, about his class being good, challenging, interesting. Twins, Angelina, I don't know, could have said something during Qudditch practice or some place else, like mention that Snape is a tough bastard, but they learned a lot during his class. I don't remember any such thing, personally. Magpie: That way lies Snape the bad guy > not praising Harry for not following instructions. Alla: Oh, IMO Snape hurt Harry so many times before that he deserves a title of the bad guy even without this incident. And I never said that Snape should have praised Harry for not following instructions, but that it would have been nice if Snape acknowledged that Harry won the exercise, even if using the verbal spell. Irene brought the bezoar example and I think the analogy is right on point, although I make the opposite conclusion from her. I don't think that Slughorn praised him because he had special relationship with Harry, but because Harry achieved the GOAL of the exercise, which was to find antidote to all those poisons. Harry did not exactly do what was required there either, but he found the poison. He should not have been praised because he read it in HBP, BUT if he remembered it on his own, I absolutely think that he would have fulfilled the purpose of the exercise perfectly. IMO the purpose of the nonverbal spells exercise was DUAL - to learn how to do nonverbal spells and to overpower your opponent. Harry did not do the first part, but he did the second one perfectly. Should he had been acknowledged for that? Not even praised, just acknowledged as to how good his shield was, even if performed verbally? Yes, I think so. IMO if the purpose was only to practice nonverbal spells they were not put to practice with each other, Snape may have just tell them to practice on their own. Just speculating here. But by no means I think that this was Snape's greatest offense against Harry. Magpie: Not going there. > Alla: As you wish. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 22:46:12 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:46:12 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147816 > >>Shaun: > > Snape can't be a popular teacher. He can't be a teacher where > > his students like his classes. > >>Magpie: > And yet that's not true. Snape is very popular with the > Slytherins, who cheer wildly for him when he's made DADA teacher. Betsy Hp: I also wonder how the Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws view Snape. I'm quite sure he's as strict and demanding as we've seen, but they wouldn't be subject to his favoritism in quite the same manner Gryffindors are. I'm not saying they'd all love him to pieces (though it wouldn't surprise me if at least a few of the Ravenclaws do) but I'd imagine he garners about the same amount of respect McGonagall does. [Semi-OT aside: I'm also absolutely positive Snape has a few fangirls running around Hogwarts. As one of the few young-ish male teachers, with a strong poetic sense, a love of his craft, and a flair for the dramatic there *has* to be some girls giggling over him in safety of their rooms. And nowhere Snape could catch them.] We do know Hermione thinks well of him as a teacher. And while he's not a favorite with the Gryffindors, only Harry cried aloud when Snape's new position was revealed. I do agree with Shaun, however, that Snape doesn't worry about being well liked by his students. What Snape worries about, I think, is that his students learn their craft, be it Potions or DADA. > >>Alla: > Well, personally, I think that besides many interviews where JKR > said what kind of teacher she thinks Snape is, the loudest > statement about whether he is good as a teacher was made at the > end of HBP, because Snape is no longer at Hogwarts. Betsy Hp: Heh. Neither is Dumbledore. Or Lupin, for that matter. Also, in his very last scene Snape is still behaving like a teacher, trying to get vital information across to Harry. We've seen how JKR shows someone as an ineffective teacher: the students either quit the class as soon as they can (Hagrid) or they set up an alternative (Umbridge). It's interesting, because I know we disagree strongly on this, but it seems to me that if JKR wanted to *clearly* show that Snape was a poor teacher she'd have done so. Instead she does show us Snape treating Harry unfairly (though not so unfairly as to take away his ambiguity, unlike Umbridge for example) and yet well able to control his classroom, keeping Neville in potions (and possibly Hogwarts), taken seriously by Hermione (unlike Umbridge, again), respected by his colleagues (unlike Lockhart). To my mind the very fact that there *are* such strong disagreements about Snape's abilities as a teacher means that JKR has been purposefully unclear. When she wants to show ineffective teachers, she does so. And yet, the discussion about Snape rages on. Which means that like his DDM or ESE status, Snape's effectiveness as a teacher is ambiguious because JKR wishes it to be so. (And yes, the above was *really* hard for me to write, because it seems so bloody obvious to me that Snape is both a good teacher (I'm not saying the best one ever) and totally DDM. But I'm trying to be objective. ::wipes sweat from brow while grinning madly::) Betsy Hp From Nrsedany2be at aol.com Wed Feb 8 23:02:34 2006 From: Nrsedany2be at aol.com (Nrsedany2be at aol.com) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:02:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question on PS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C7FB1AE1C55D17-13A8-12E0@mblk-d34.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147817 I think DD has the house elves report things to him about the students. I think this becuase the house elves are good about being silent and not noticible. So they are spies for DD, and DD's uses the info when he needs to. Most likely the headmasters and mistresses have always used the elves, portraits or ghosts to help them with the students. And depending on what the students are doing, depends on if they get in trouble for it later if no teacher catches them doing the act. Either that or he was making a remark that Harry was so engrossed in what he was doing that Harry didn't notice him there or he was there when Harry came in and Harry didn't notice him at all. Just my opinion Danielle HP nut of Colorado springs, co -----Original Message----- From: Jutika Gehani To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:11:47 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question on PS Hi, In PS DD says to Harry, "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." Does this mean that DD can become invisible using magic? If this is the case why didn't he just become invisible when Snape was about to kill him? Take care, Jutika. 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 Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Nrsedany2be at aol.com Wed Feb 8 23:06:45 2006 From: Nrsedany2be at aol.com (Nrsedany2be at aol.com) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:06:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia and Dementors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C7FB1B77AAD57D-13A8-132E@mblk-d34.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147818 I think Harry would never remember the screams or the night his parents died if it hadn't been for the dementors. I think the dementors are kinda like being hypnotized. Harry wouldn't remember unless he was under. Also we have to remember that these are magical folk, theirs brains are wired differently, so maybe they can remember things unlike normal human brains even at such a young age. And maybe Harry feels that his parents dying is just worst than anything of the memories of being with the muggie muggles. Or maybe it likes to bring up memories that are repressed. Danielle -----Original Message----- From: susanbones2003 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 22:10:44 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petunia and Dementors --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catherine higgins wrote: SNIPPED Another point I have been pondering, as awful as Harry's childhood > has been, as many bad memories that he must have, why does he keep > remembering *only* the memory of his parent's death when attacked by Dementors? Everytime I remember people talking about Dementors, they make you relive your worst MEMORIES (note the plural) yet all Harry remembers is the night his parents were murdered. I think that this will come into play. Either on purpose (or being overcome perhaps by > Dementors) Harry will relive the *entire* night, and see who else > was in Godric's Hollow the night his parents died. JKR has hinted > that maybe Voldemort was not alone that fateful night. There might > have been witnessess, and where better to get this information, then > his own memories? Opinions? > > Cat Hi Cat, This last point got my attention and I wanted to add a little bit of RL information. Harry was very young at his parents' death. Pre- verbal would be the important descriptor. I am not an expert at this and if anyone is, please enter in, but pre-verbal memory is very amorphous and unformed. Usually pre-verbal memory has to be fastened to sight,smell, the senses, as it were. I find it very telling that Harry can remember the screams of his mother. I don't think he can remember very many things she said and surely he'd have heard her begging for Harry's life. But since he was so very young, he just didn't have the words to put meaning to his experience. So I do not think there will be much more coming from Baby Harry. And if it were possible, would not DD have tried to explore that time in order to gain information about LV? Just a few ideas. Jen D. > 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 Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 8 23:21:01 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:21:01 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's teaching style In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43EA7CDD.5020600@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147819 dumbledore11214 wrote: > > Alla: > > Oh, I am not asking that at all. How about proving that Snape IS a > good teacher, if you wish of course, I understand if you don't. Several people achieved Outstanding in his class, which is 100% canon. I don't know what is the result of Transfiguration or Charms OWL, but in DADA it's quite clear to me (though not 100% canon fact) that Harry is the only student with an O. Several Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws were ready to continue Potions with Snape on NEWTs level (and so was Hermione). No one wanted NEWTs class with Hagrid (including Harry, which is quite hypocritical of him). Really, IMO all that Rowling > needed to do if she wanted to show that Snape is a good teacher for > anybody except Slytherins is to let ANY older Gryffindor make a > passing remark, about his class being good, challenging, interesting. > Twins, Angelina, I don't know, could have said something during > Qudditch practice or some place else, like mention that Snape is a > tough bastard, but they learned a lot during his class. But the deeds speak louder than the words! :-) Hermione was going to take another two years of Snape. And it's funny that you mention twins - they own most of their success to their superb knowledge and application of Potions. Did they need to say it out loud, that Snape didn't put them off the subject? > > Irene brought the bezoar example and I think the analogy is right on > point, although I make the opposite conclusion from her. I don't > think that Slughorn praised him because he had special relationship > with Harry, but because Harry achieved the GOAL of the exercise, > which was to find antidote to all those poisons. No, no, no, it was NOT the goal of the exercise. :-) (And Hermione agrees with me, so that has to count for something). The exercise was a practical application of the Galpagot's law. Oh, and JKR was really over-egging the pudding with Harry being so completely unable to understand it. My 9 year old child understood it while we were reading. Surely 16 year old Harry can't be so dim? > Harry did not exactly do what was required there either, but he found > the poison. He should not have been praised because he read it in > HBP, BUT if he remembered it on his own, I absolutely think that he > would have fulfilled the purpose of the exercise perfectly. > IMO the purpose of the nonverbal spells exercise was DUAL - to learn > how to do nonverbal spells and to overpower your opponent. Harry did > not do the first part, but he did the second one perfectly. Nope. In greko-roman wrestling you don't get points by using legs, in football (the proper one) you don't score goals with you hands, in boxing you don't win by hitting your opponent under the belt. In all the cases above one would be punished, not praised, even though the opponent is overpowered. > Should he > had been acknowledged for that? Not even praised, just acknowledged > as to how good his shield was, even if performed verbally? Yes, I > think so. That wizard that Flitwick once mentioned, the one that had produced a buffalo sitting on his chest, do you think it brought him some satisfaction, the fact that it was such a perfect buffalo? > > Alla: > As you wish. Could not resist. :-) Irene From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 23:25:18 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:25:18 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching style In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147820 > >>Alla: > Oh, I am not asking that at all. How about proving that Snape IS a > good teacher, if you wish of course, I understand if you don't. > Betsy Hp: This sort of question seems silly to me, because the bar is always being moved. 1)"If Snape's so good, why does no one praise him?" Well, Umbridge calls his classes advanced, and not as a suck up. And suddenly that doesn't count. 2) "If Snape's so good, why don't the students see him as a good teacher?" Well, Hermione, JKR's chosen judge of good vs. bad teaching (except for the Lockhart moment, which if you want to argue that Hermione is hot for Snape, be my guest ), has consistently said Snape is a teacher worth listening to, and in HBP says he's like Harry. But, no, suddenly *that* doesn't count (though I can't remember the reason that gets dismissed, off hand). 3) "I will judge Snape's abilities on the number of students achieving an O in potions." HBP comes out, we've got a classroom made up of 1/4 of Harry's class. But suddenly that number is no good because... well, I seem to recall a whole new maths was invented to throw this one out. Plus it was decided that Harry's class is actually *much* bigger than we've seen. (Tons of unknown Hufflepuffs I assume). 4) "I will judge Snape's abilities on the number of Slytherins that become Death Eaters." There was one, and he was incredibly reluctant. So much so his family needed to be threatened to get him to obey. I'm sure the usual Slytherin bias dismisses this one. (The only good Slytherin is a dead Slytherin, etc., etc.) You've brought up a new one, Alla, so lets tackle that. > >>Alla: > Really, IMO all that Rowling needed to do if she wanted to show > that Snape is a good teacher for anybody except Slytherins is to > let ANY older Gryffindor make a passing remark, about his class > being good, challenging, interesting. > Betsy Hp: A neat little trap, this, Alla. Because we do know that Snape doesn't like Gryffindors, and we also know that Gryffindors don't like Slytherins. However, if we accept that Hufflepuffs are not total duffers, the fact that Ernie Macmillan says of Snape's first DADA class, "Good lesson, I thought," (HBP scholastic p.182) should fit the bill. (Only, of course it won't .) > >>Alla: > > And I never said that Snape should have praised Harry for not > following instructions, but that it would have been nice if Snape > acknowledged that Harry won the exercise, even if using the verbal > spell. Betsy Hp: Right. Just as I'm sure your law professors would have been pleased if during mock court one of the students pulled out a gun and broke his client out of the courtroom. Because, hey, the client is now free so the exercise was won. Or, to keep it on a Hogwarts level, Flitwick should give points to a student flinging his feather into the air, because, hey, it floated, after all. > >>Alla: > Irene brought the bezoar example and I think the analogy is right > on point, although I make the opposite conclusion from her. I > don't think that Slughorn praised him because he had special > relationship with Harry, but because Harry achieved the GOAL of > the exercise, which was to find antidote to all those poisons. Betsy Hp: Ooh, not even *Harry* agrees with you here. Harry *totally* relied on Slughorn's liking him. That's why he told Ron the *trick* wouldn't have worked if he'd given Ron a bezoar. Harry *cheated*, and he knew it. Heck, that's why Slughorn praised him for his cheek. Betsy Hp From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Feb 8 23:36:43 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:36:43 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: References: <43EA5EE1.21724.6A1BAB9@localhost> Message-ID: <43EB1B3B.995.C418F9@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147821 On 8 Feb 2006 at 19:04, dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > > I just want to address this point, because maybe I misinterpreted > your position in our past discussions or maybe not, we shall see. > > Oh, by the way, please please if you feel that I am misinterpreting > your position now, correct me, it is certainly not intentional, if > this happens. > > I was under impression that your position is that as long as Snape > teaching style works for the majority of the students and does not > work for few of them, the teacher should have no problem whatsoever > and the student should deal with it - find another teacher, transfer > to another school, something like that. ( Again, I am not sure if you > said it in those exact words, this is the summary, which I felt was > your position on it, I could be wrong) Shaun: Not exactly, although I can understand why you've arrived at that conclusion, because it's not that dissimilar from my position really. I believe that if a teacher's methods are working for the great majority of students (not just a simple majority - 51% - but a significant majority - say at least 80%) then that teacher is almost certainly a good teacher. The fact that their methods may not work for a small minority of their class doesn't make them a bad teacher. The simple fact - and it's a fact that a lot of people don't like talking about - is that there are very, very few heterogeneous classrooms where every child in the class is receiving an education appropriate to their needs. Virtually every teacher has some kids who do not respond to their teaching style, no matter how good that style seems. As I have said myself in the past, I did not learn well in modern classroom environments, with teachers who spent all their time trying to be nice. Was that because they were bad teachers? No. Most of the class was learning, their style just wasn't right for me. In terms of Harry Potter, look at Trelawney's Divination classes, and Hermione's reaction to them. Again we have a total mismatch between teaching style and the needs of a particular student. It happens. A teacher is not a bad teacher just because they fail to get through to a small number of their students. A bad teacher is someone like - well, like Umbridge, or Lockhart, I would say. Who don't add value for many students (if any) at all. What I am saying is that judging a teacher based only on their worst performing students is not a fair or accurate way to judge them. You need to judge them on their success with their classroom as a whole. > Alla: > > But now you are saying that Neville's needs should not be ignored, so > I guess you have the certain line of mistreatment of, I don't know > one or two students ( Harry and Neville in our situation), which if > crossed by Snape would place him as "bad teacher". Is that correct? Well, certainly I agree that there is, somewhere, a line of 'mistreatment' that a teacher should never cross. But where that line is... that's where it gets tricky. I do think Snape crosses a line when it comes to Harry, and I have said so in the past. Snape has a personal visceral hatred for Harry Potter as a person. This has *nothing* to do with his teaching, however - it's purely personal based on factors completely external to his teaching and to his skill as a teacher. With regards to Neville, however, I feel the question is much more complicated. Two examples: "Things didn't improve for the Gryffindors as the Potions lesson continued. Snape put them all into pairs and set them to mixing up a simple potion to cure boils. He swept around in his long black cloak, watching them weigh dried nettles and crush snake fangs, criticizing almost everyone except Malfoy, whom he seemed to like. He was just telling everyone to look at the perfect way Malfoy had stewed his horned slugs when clouds of acid green smoke and a loud hissing filled the dungeon. Neville had somehow managed to melt Seamus's cauldron into a twisted blob, and their potion was seeping across the stone floor, burning holes in people's shoes. Within seconds, the whole class was standing on their stools while Neville, who had been drenched in the potion when the cauldron collapsed, moaned in pain as angry red boils sprang up all over his arms and legs. 'Idiot boy!' snarled Snape, clearing the spilled potion away with one wave of his wand. 'I suppose you added the porcupine quills before taking the cauldron off the fire?'" (PS) Is Snape mean to Neville here? Yes, he is. But why? Has it come out of the blue? No, what has happened is that Neville has failed to properly follow instructions for a 'simple potion'. He's made a mistake out of carelessness, which has damaged other students property, created chaos in the classroom, and which has also hurt himself. "A few cauldrons away, Neville was in trouble. Neville regularly went to pieces in Potions lessons; it was his worst subject, and his great fear of Professor Snape made things ten times worse. His potion, which was supposed to be a bright, acid green, had turned - 'Orange, Longbottom,' said Snape, ladling some up and allowing to splash back into the cauldron, so that everyone could see. 'Orange. Tell me, boy, does anything penetrate that thick skull of yours? Didn't you hear me say, quite clearly, that only one rat spleen was needed? Didn't I state plainly that a dash of leech juice would suffice? What do I have to do to make you understand, Longbottom?'" (PoA) Two books later - and the same situation. Neville makes an elementary mistake because he didn't follow instructions. What I see Snape doing, most of the time, with regards to Neville is seeking to discipline him. By verbally scolding him. And, no, I don't think that crosses the line, unpopular and unfashionable though it may be to some people. But more importantly, it's hardly unique to Snape at Hogwarts - as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, Professor McGonnagal also scolds Neville when she feels he deserves it. Lupin scolds Harry - admittedly he does so in a much more subtle way, but, by God, he does it. When I was 13, I started at a new school. At the time, I was emotionally extremely fragile. The thing is, this was a rather strict school, and on more than a couple of occasions, I got into trouble for various reasons. And, sometimes, I got told off in quite distressing ways. I didn't like it at all. I remember *very* vividly being told off in front of my entire class after I didn't do some homework and had tried to conceal that fact. It was one of the most miserable experiences I can remember. But I never again tried to hide the fact that I hadn't done my homework (on reflection, I think my teacher would have preferred if my response had merely been to start doing my homework, rather than to just stop concealing the fact I hadn't... I would have preferred it too, on further reflection as the methods they used to make me decide to take that further step wound up being very unpleasant and painful for me. But I digress). The thing is what that teacher did to me *hurt* me emotionally (and what he did later hurt me physically). But it worked (to a point). And I deserved it. And he wasn't a bad teacher, by any means - I didn't appreciate him as much at the time, as I do today, but looking back on him, he was probably one of the best teachers I ever had. And that's not just my opinion. The thing is, telling a child off, even harshly - I don't see anything wrong with that at times - I really don't. But more importantly, in the context of Hogwarts, it's not unusual. Singling out Snape because he does this as being a bad teacher would seem to me very odd. Is there a line to be crossed? Yes, there is - and at Hogwarts we have clear indications that there are some things teachers may not do. Whipping is no longer an option at the school, though it has been in the past, and it doesn't seem that it would be all that hard to reintroduce it - it seems that it is a matter for the Headmaster's or Headmistress' discretion. So that crosses a line (and, I should point out that, while personally, I think corporal punishment is appropriate in some cases in schools, I also believe that if it is banned then it is *banned*. It is utterly inappropriate for a teacher to exceed their statuatory authority even if they believe the limits are in the wrong place). Also, we know that teachers are not meant to use transfiguration as a punishment - that definitely crosses a line. Although, seeing I have mentioned the issue of the fact that transfiguration as a punishment does cross the line, I just want to raise this rather disturbing (to me at least) passage from 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone'. "'I AM NOT PAYING FOR SOME CRACKPOT OLD FOOL To TEACH HIM MAGIC TRICKS!' yelled Uncle Vernon. But he had finally gone too far. Hagrid seized his umbrella and whirled it over his head, 'NEVER,' he thundered, '- INSULT- ALBUS- DUMBLEDORE - IN - FRONT - OF - ME!' He brought the umbrella swishing down through the air to point at Dudley - there was a flash of violet light, a sound like a firecracker, a sharp squeal, and the next second, Dudley was dancing on the spot with his hands clasped over his fat bottom, howling in pain. When he turned his back on them, Harry saw a curly pig's tail poking through a hole in his trousers. Uncle Vernon roared. Pulling Aunt Petunia and Dudley into the other room, he cast one last terrified look at Hagrid and slammed the door behind them. Hagrid looked down at his umbrella and stroked his beard. 'Shouldn'ta lost me temper,' he said ruefully, 'but it didn't work anyway. Meant ter turn him into a pig, but I suppose he was so much like a pig anyway there wasn't much left ter do.'" Talk about a disturbing example of somebody crossing the line. OK, Hagrid isn't a teacher at this point - but rereading that passage recently as I started a reread of the books, that really did chill me. Because we *know* that transfiguration isn't meant to be used as a punishment - but Hagrid certainly tried to cross that line. But even worse - it was Vernon Dursley who had angered him. Not Dudley. Hagrid deliberately targeted an innocent child with an an inappropriate spell out of anger towards his father. You want to talk about crossing a line. That's a real example in my view. And it's even made me begin to wonder about Hagrid's true allegiances. But, again, I digress (-8 My point is that, yes, I do believe there are lines that should not be crossed. And we know that Hogwarts does have such lines. Apparently scolding students - even in a particularly harsh way - doesn't cross the lines that exist at Hogwarts. If that is so, and *if* it is wrong, then that is a systemic problem with the school in general. It is *not* a problem with Severus Snape. Not when we see other teachers doing it as well. If it's inappropriate (and I think that is highly debatable, but a perfectly valid position for a person to adopt), it is inappropriate whoever is doing it, and viewing it as somehow different when it comes to Snape seems to me to unjustified. > Alla: > > If this is indeed correct, my question to you will be where you place > the limit? > > How much Snape has to mistreat Neville and Harry before you would > consider him a bad teacher and NOT simply that his methods do not > work for Neville and Harry? Shaun: That's an extremely difficult question to answer - sorry, that's not quite correct. It's just that even after answering the question, it's an extremely difficult thing to measure when talking about abstracts. > Alla: > > Let's suppose that after much discussed "Trevor potions lesson" > Neville would have gotten so upset that he would have committed > suicide and left a note that the sole reason for his suicide would > have been that he cannot handle Snape anymore. Would you say then > that Snape should have been removed from Hogwarts right away or would > you say that it is Neville's problem that his psyche was too fragile > in the first place? I would say neither. Now, please understand that I am writing this as someone who came very, very close to suicide while at school, largely because of the way I was treated by certain teachers at the age of 12. I've actually written about my school experiences in a book that is supposed to be published this year (it's been supposed to be published for the last few years, this time I tend to believe it's going to actually happen as the new publisher is much bigger than the original one) - the following are two very brief extracts from what I wrote for that book: "Though I have survived and now look forward to my future, I did not emerge from my schooling unscathed. I bear physical and emotional scars from my experiences. Most notably I am a clinical depressive and the current prognosis is that this condition may have to be controlled by medication for the rest of my life. I spent a great deal of my adolescence suicidal - though I never actually made an attempt at taking my own life, I seriously considered the idea and came very close to doing so on several occasions." and: "And I believe that most of my teachers, even those whose actions hurt me, were honest, committed and decent people, but who were simply unequipped to deal with a child like me." The question you ask is not a particularly abstract one - not for me at least. I had teachers who left me on the verge of suicide - and I still believe most of them were honest, committed and decent people. I've been through that wringer. Now, to your question, I would not say that the fact that somebody suicided is necessarily an indication of a fragile psyche. People - and this includes children - suicide for all sorts of reasons. Personally, I believe that suicide is, in nearly all cases, an irrational act, and so in nearly all cases, I believe who commits such an act is not thinking rationally - but that's different from saying they have a fragile psyche. But because a person who commits suicide is often irrational - and I do believe that to be the case - that does mean that the mere fact somebody suicides and leaves a note saying that a particular person was responsible, doesn't necessarily mean all that much. I would say that if such a situation developed at Hogwarts as a real school, I would expect Snape to be investigated. And if it was found he has acted outside the rules relating to his interactions with Neville, or if he had ignored very clear warning signs that what he was doing was negatively effecting Neville to the point that a reasonable educator should have realised that self harm was a significant risk, then in that situation I would want him dismissed. But I would need to be convinced of that - and so far I don't see evidence at that level. > Alla: > > Keep in mind that I am not saying that Neville as he is now would > have done it and as we see he did not, but the fact that Neville > found inner strength to deal with the abusive teacher ( my opinion of > course, nothing more) does not make the severity of Snape's actions > any less to me. Shaun: Abuse is abuse. The fact that some students may be better able to deal with abuse than others, doesn't change the seriousness of genuine abuse. If something is abusive, then it is abusive, no matter how the student deals with it. It doesn't cease to be abuse, just because a student is better equipped to deal with it. *BUT* (and this is a big but, and I cannot lie) it works both ways. Non-abuse does not *become* abuse simply because a particular student is ill equipped to handle it. > Alla: > > Let's suppose that corporal punishment in its traditional form would > have been still allowed at Hogwarts ( at least Dumbledore was smart > enough to stop that IMO) and Snape decided to whip Harry severely > for not addressing him "Sir" or "Professor", moreover Snape > deliberately abused that punishment and gave Harry more blows that it > is allowed to the point that Harry lost consciousness. Do you think > that would have warranted Dumbledore firing Snape on the spot or > still Snape should be allowed to continue teaching other students? Yes, it would warrant his immediate dismissal, and I would hope prosecution to the full extent of the law. And that is coming from someone who does believe corporal punishment can sometimes be appropriate in schools. The instant he had inflicted more strokes than was authorised, he crossed an absolute line. > Alla: > > What is the extent of the free reign you would allow Snape over few > students, if it is a given that he is a good teacher for everybody > else? I mean, I still think that we have no definite proof that he is > a good teacher for everybody else, except Umbridge calling class > advanced, but let's suppose I buy it for the sake of the argument. Shaun: As long as Snape is acting within the boundaries placed on him by those concerned with the governance of Hogwarts (and I would say that is the Headmaster, the Governors - and *possibly* the Ministry of Magic), then that sets the limits in my view. As long as he is acting within what is accepted at Hogwarts as acceptable. Now, just finishing up with a question I think I should answer, and which I haven't found it convenient to answer above. I am just going to paste back in something you said earlier in this post, so I can reply to another point I missed above, and which I can't figure out how to neatly insert where it would 'belong' above. > Alla: > > But now you are saying that Neville's needs should not be ignored Shaun: I believe this is in response to my statement in my last mail that: "But guess what - the class cannot revolve around Neville Longbottom. He's one child in classes of about twenty (at least I think that's what the numbers show). His needs shouldn't be ignored (I really believe that) but we don't really see any evidence anywhere (except of Harry's fictional extra potions lessons masking occlumency) that much effort is made to provide extra help at Hogwarts. If this is a flaw, it's a flaw in the school in general, not a flaw in Snape's classes specifically." Some people might well feel that there is some conflict between my views, here. How can I say that Neville's needs shouldn't be ignored, but at the same time state that Snape shouldn't alter his teaching methods just for Neville. Well, there isn't a conflict at all. Not in my view. I think a teacher altering their style of teaching, if it is working for most of the class, to try and cater to a small minority for whom it isn't working, is wrong. It involves giving a small number of children priority over a larger number of children - and I disagree with that. *But* at the same time, I firmly believe all children should be entitled to a reasonably appropriate education given their individual needs. I just don't think you do this simply by deciding to let their needs dominate your classroom to the detriment of other students. If a students individual needs can be accommodated in a classroom *without* negatively impacting other students, then I certainly have no objection to it. But if what they need is incompatible with the needs of the rest of the class, then the support they need has to come from elsewhere. And I do think this is something that Hogwarts seems to lack. There's no real sign, in my view, that any real attention is paid to students who fall through the cracks in particular classes. This does seem to be the case for Neville in Potions - it's also the case for Hermione in Divination, in my view. I would want any real school to have something in place to deal with these situations. *But* I have to say that, once again, Hogwarts is presented as a very traditional, very old fashioned school - and from that perspective, it really is not at all unusual that it is a sink or swim environment. That was the reality of a lot of these schools, and though I will defend them on many, many issues, on that issue, I would hope that most have changed. But overall, even when a student at Hogwarts does seem to have a problem in some subjects, they have plenty of other places. OK, Neville doesn't do well in potions. He does very well in herbology. There's no reason to feel a student *has* to do well in every subject. It's nice when they do, but there are always some students for whom a particular class won't work - and generally this isn't a disaster, as long as in general they can get a decent education. Maybe this will make things clearer... I don't think there is anything inherently *wrong* with Snape's scolding Neville severely when he makes basic mistakes in Potions classes. I don't think that that is inappropriate. *BUT* I do think that it is probably counterproductive. That method might work with most students, but I do think that Neville as an individual would probably respond better to less stressful correction of his mistakes. And I wouldn't have any problem at all, if Snape saw that and decided that *with Neville specifically* a different approach might be a better one to use. By the same token, I believe that if he did that, he would be affording Neville a privilege - not a right. However, I would have *very* strong objections if, in order to cater to Neville, Snape changed the way he taught the other nineteen students in that class. And there is a big difference. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 8 23:50:46 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:50:46 -0000 Subject: Draco, Slytherin representative (was:Re:...McGuffins & Horcruxes / House Unity) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147822 > >>bboyminn: > > I want to urge everyone to remember that we have not seen all > Slytherins, in fact we have only seen a small fraction of them. We > have no reason to believe the unseens Slytherins are anything other > than normal ambitious kids trying to make their way through school > and through life. JKR said as much herself. So, don't define all > Slytherins by the Malfoys or Voldemort. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I think it's too late in the game, however, for JKR to suddenly pull some "normal" Slytherins out of the woodwork to represent their house. If she does, I myself would call shenanigans. Especially since she gave us so much development on Draco in HBP. I think what we have to watch doing is defining all Slytherins by the prevailing Gryffindor view of them, especially with Harry. Remember, Harry had a fairly negative view of Cedric for a while there, and yet I'd say Cedric was an excellent representative of Hufflepuffs. > >>bboyminn: > I've always said that Draco will alway be Draco regardless of > whether he fights for the good side or the bad; smarmy, sarcastic, > and self-serving. He and Harry, may cooperate but they will never > be friends. Draco's mistakes may at some point be forgiven, but I > don't think they will ever be forgotten; at least not by Harry. > Harry will always know that Draco is s self-serving coward, who in > the end will do what is best for Draco. > Betsy Hp: Ooh, you had me right up to here, Steve. Draco as self-serving? He sacrificed *everything* important to him to keep his family safe. Sure he's sarcastic, so's Harry. And I'd bet Draco would define Harry's interactions with Lupin to be smarmy. "Yes, professor, thank you professor, are you okay professor, may I have some more chocolate professor." Or with Hagrid, for that matter, "Oh, yes, Hagrid, you're a wonderful teacher, why hardly anyone got killed today!" I'd also bet that while Draco may feel he needs to apologize to some people for some of his actions, I seriously doubt Harry is on that list. I wonder if Harry even feels that Draco has wronged him in some way. I don't recall him thinking that, anyway. And of course, the coward thing leaves me completely confused. Again, Draco stepped up to the plate to do what he thought his father would have wanted him to do. His tenacity and grit in the face of some pretty overwhelming odds struck me as quite couragous. I mean, sure, when faced with a horrible, unicorn-sucking monster in the Forbidden Forest, Draco ran. And Harry froze. Both are examples of fear. I'm not sure that this means Draco is somehow a great big coward. Betsy Hp From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Feb 9 00:03:39 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 01:03:39 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Discrepancy of skills References: Message-ID: <017301c62d0c$48ad1d00$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 147823 allies426 wrote: > Two topics in the area of magical skill do not add up for me. > > 1. Hermione Granger, most talented witch of her age, able to > perform well on both written and practical exams, able to master > complicated spells in a single lesson, able to produce a Patronus in > one D.A. session... achieves only an E on her DADA Owl???? susanbones2003 wrote: > 1. Hermione is a wonderful student. Give her a book, she'll read it > front to back and memorize it mostly. She performs to standard and > her standards are high so she'll always get good grades. But she > needs the security of studies to be successful. DADA requires as she > says, bravery and quick-thinking but it also seems to require an > innate ability that Harry possesses but she does not. Miles: In my opinion, susanbones is wright and wrong at the same time. She is absolutely right, because DADA really requires bravery and cold blood in a critical situation, so Harry will indeed perform much better than the theorist Hermione. BUT - this is only right in a critical situation like the one in the Ministry (by the way, Hermione did quite a good job there), but surely not in an OWL examination. As far as it is described, the DADA exam is quite similar to the transfiguration exam, so Hermione should perform at her usual (that means: the highest) level. > Deb (djklaugh) wrote > I agree Jen. As I see it Harry has learned his DADA so well it's > become instinctive... he does not have to think very hard to know > what would work best in any given situation - he just does the thing > that seems to be the best response to the situation at hand. > Hermione on the other hand still has to think things through before > taking action. Plus... as far as his OWL grades are concerned... > Harry got extra credit for performing the Patronus spell and proving > to everyone that he can indeed invoke a corporeal Patronus. Miles: I do not buy this one. This would mean, that the examiner failed to give the most extraordinary witch in the year the chance to gain the best mark. I can't believe that, do you? In any oral/practical exam I attended (at school and university), the examiners tried to find out whether they could give me top grades when they realised that my knowledge was above average. And I do not doubt that the examiners for OWLs and NEWTs would act in the same way. I think JKR wanted to point out Harry's outstanding talent here - but she did it inadequately concerning her own plot. Miles From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 00:19:11 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:19:11 -0000 Subject: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes / House Unity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147824 > > Jen: First, I read the article you posted and even though I snipped > your list of ways JKR could resolve the plot, I think it's very > possible several of them will be important along with the horcruxes > for defeating Voldemort. The first obvious thing that comes to mind > is how many alliances Harry has formed over the years which will > likely come into play in Book 7. Now, you may call these--what was > it, plot vouchers (?)--the cashing in on an alliances (magical > spells, potions, etc.) brought into the story only for that reason. > But take Viktor Krum, or Dobby, or Beauxbatons, pretty much anyone > besides Grawp , and they have been woven logically into the story > for more reason than simply "Harry needs them later" from how I read > it. Neri: No, I wouldn't see them as "plot vouchers" in their classic form. However, I still think it doesn't prevent the Horcruxes from being plot coupons if other people or other methods are enlisted to help finding them. A lot of page time in HBP is dedicated to Horcruxes background (mostly given by the Wise Old Man) but there's very little or no development in the alternative directions I mentioned. For example, the whole promising DA plot from OotP came to nothing in HBP. It's of course possible that it will be revived in Book 7, but in that case it would look like inconsistent plotting. So it seems we are stuck with the damned Horcruxes, for good or for bad, in the center of the plot. It's probably no coincidence that many of us didn't like the Horcruxes and still try to shove them aside. I think we immediately felt, even before we could formulate it as well as Lowe does, that there's something disappointing about them. But I think that JKR can only correct this by giving them deeper meaning. Sure, it would be great if she will develop ingenious and deeply thematic ways for finding her plot coupons, but I'd still wonder why did she need these plot coupons in the first place, when she could have developed ingenious and deeply thematic ways for vanquishing Voldy without Horcruxes at all. > Jen: Here's another point I'm in disagreement with. To me JKR very > carefully set up Voldemort as a person obsessed with immortality, an > irrational person who sees objects as having a 'magical' value in > the sense of having a value beyond monetary. Yes the Wise Man stock > character tells Harry about the horcuxes but only after we get to > the bottom of the story as to why Voldemort would go that route as > opposed to drinking the Elixer, or performing some old dark magic > with no psychological fascination for him. > > What I'm saying is the objects aren't arbitrary to Voldemort, nor > are the hiding places. Taking myself completely out of the story as > the writer of that article did makes practically any plot sound > absurd! JKR did 'make it so' as author/god, but she also tried to > back it up and give it a viable reason for being there. Maybe the > reasoning appeals to me more than someone else because I thought she > did a damn good job creating a psychological case study to > underscore Voldemort's choices. And I think it's very possible LV's > irrational obsessions could be taken even further, i.e. the gleam. > Neri: Yes, JKR did manage to convince me that these specific objects aren't arbitrary to Voldemort, but they still feel arbitrary to *me* as a reader. After all, real evil people are rarely obsessed with immortality, and even if they are, this obsession rarely manifests itself in hiding objects for some hero to find. This is why *I* as a reader get this absurd feeling that Voldemort and his obsession only exist so our hero can have his quest. In order to rectify this I expect JKR to make these objects (or at least one of them) meaningful to me as the reader, and not merely because Voldy like them. If she can do that I wouldn't feel the plot is absurd, and I don't think Lowe would either. > > Jen: It could have the feel of a video game. The idea may sound that > way at the moment without the written word. It's impossible to say > what JKR can spin it into though, as you mention later on. > Neri: It feels like this *now*, after a whole book about Horcruxes. I don't think it's just me. It was Nora who came up with the video game image, and before that Pippin compared the Horcruxes in Book 7 to the TWT tasks in GoF, and I think we aren't the only readers with this feeling. Yes, I expect JKR to change this in Book 7, by giving the Horcruxes some deeper meaning. > > Jen: I'm wondering if you feel only Harrycrux could achieve this > end? Maybe instead Harry does help unite many allies (and possibly a > few enemies) by accessing their talents for finding and/or > destroying horcruxes. Or Harry's refusal to work with the MOM > finally forces a crack in the corruption there and leads the way for > at least a faction of the MOM to stand beside him and force some > changes in the future. Ancient magic, Dobby being the first of many > later House elves to own a wand and go to Hogwarts, Harry > discovering he has other powers transferred by Voldemort and using > them---the combination of events is endless. JKR could choose any > and all to go along with the horcrux search to fit with her major > themes. Basically I can't see the horcruxes standing alone because > she doesn't write events in isolation for the most part. > Neri: These suggestions don't make the Horcruxes themselves any less arbitrary, and they don't give them higher thematic value. You basically say that they are just an excuse to move the plot in directions that can be very meaningful, but not due to the Horcruxes. JKR could have achieved all the above if she never introduced Horcruxes at all. In fact she could have achieved it better since she wouldn't have to spend all that page time in HBP on Horcruxes background. But she did spend it and she did commit herself to the Horcruxes, so now I think she must, if she want to be consistent, give this horrible crux of the matter some central, non-arbitrary thematic value. Can only Harrycrux achieve this end? I'm sure there are other possibilities, but right now I can't think of anything that would be as half as foreshadowed, as half as tying together the remaining plot threads, and especially as half as thematic. You wrote upthread that this is a metaphysical story of two souls being tied together. What better way to show Harry untangling himself from Voldemort than them sharing a soul? What better way to make the thematic point that destroying an evil soul endangers your own soul? What better way to make the thematic point that it's only the different choices that differentiate Harry from Voldemort? Many of us wondered when JKR failed to show us Tom's gradual fall into Evil in HBP, but I suspect this was intended. If Tom's soul is described as completely and utterly "evil", then by sharing it Harry would show that it isn't the soul, but the different *choices* that matter. Plus Harrycrux definitely wouldn't be a clich?. If Harry would indeed turn out to be the last Horcrux, even Nick Lowe in his most derisive mood wouldn't be able to claim that the Horcruxes were mere plot coupons. > > Jen: I'm glad she chose that route because the prophecy was ...not > my favorite part . > Neri: It wasn't my favorite part too. I remember right after OotP many of us didn't like the prophecy. The common critique was, IIRC, that "it was so obvious!" but now I think the real critique should have been "it's so arbitrary!" So I'm very glad she rectified it, especially her use of the Choice theme. Note that she actually invoked the Choice theme here *twice*: First in Voldemort's choice to act upon the prophecy at all, secondly in him choosing Harry rather than Neville. It suggests to me that this is indeed the most important theme in the story, and I predict she'll use it again to correct the arbitrariness of the Horcruxes. > Betsy Hp: > I want to deal with > the "stock" fantasy devices JKR has used in her story thus far. > There's the prophecy, which I agree she rather brilliantly subverted > by going the more interesting "MacBeth" or "Oedipus Rex" route where > the prophecy only has power if it is believed. > Neri: Well, I wish to differ somewhat about the "brilliantly" part. It *would* have been brilliant if only we found about it together with Harry from some shattering plot turn, rather than being lectured about it by the Wise Old Man. But as a whole I'm very glad that JKR rescued the prophecy, and I hope she'll do an even better job with rescuing the Horcruxes in Book 7. At least it seems the Wise Old Man won't be there to give the lecture anymore, so it's down to Harry and the plot. > Betsy Hp: > There's Dumbledore who has the earmarks of the "Wise Old Man" but > gets subverted, I believe, by having him come so close to, and > sometimes hitting out and out, failure in just about every book. I > picture him as hanging by his fingernails most of the time. > Neri: I don't pretend to be an expert on poor fantasy writing, quite the reverse . I usually try to avoid it, so I can't say how original has JKR been in "subverting" her Wise Old Man. I refused, out of principle, to pay money to see the last horrible Star Wars prequels, but I seem to very dimly recall that Yoda made some mistakes too. Don't get me wrong, I like Dumbledore, but there's no talking around the fact he's quite a stereotypic Wise Old Man, not only in his characterization (which is moderately original and quite likable) but mainly in the ways he is used to advance the plot. JKR really has to be careful there if she wishes not to be confused with Star Wars. > Betsy Hp: > And finally there are the horcruxes. The reason I don't consider > them "plot coupons" is that I don't think they really fill that > function. The horcruxes don't *give* Harry anything. Which goes > against the video game analogy, I believe. They *take away* > something from Voldemort. And they're a perfect reflection of > Voldemort neurosis. > Neri: I think you might be mixing "plot coupons" with "plot vouchers", which are indeed devised to help the hero. It's true that the same object can fill both functions, but this is rare. The Horcruxes are classic plot coupons in the same sense that Tolkien's One Ring is a classic plot coupon ? it's a rather arbitrary object that the hero, in order to win the game against the evil overlord, must collect and "cash in" in some arbitrarily pre-specified way ? destroy it, throw it into a volcano, etc. (thus saving the author the trouble of plotting a more believable way to achieve victory). The Horcrux coupons don't have to *give* Harry anything, the same way that the Ring coupon didn't actually give Frodo anything, except that cashing them in would win the game. However, the Horcruxes are, as of now, much cheaper plot coupons than the One Ring, because there are six of them rather than just one, and because their thematic value is currently much lower, and this is exactly what I hope JKR will rectify. Neri From rkdas at charter.net Thu Feb 9 00:28:38 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:28:38 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: <017301c62d0c$48ad1d00$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147825 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > SNIPPED Deb (djklaugh) wrote > > I agree Jen. As I see it Harry has learned his DADA so well it's > > become instinctive... he does not have to think very hard to know > > what would work best in any given situation - he just does the thing > > that seems to be the best response to the situation at hand. > > Hermione on the other hand still has to think things through before > > taking action. Plus... as far as his OWL grades are concerned... > > Harry got extra credit for performing the Patronus spell and proving > > to everyone that he can indeed invoke a corporeal Patronus. > > Miles: > I do not buy this one. This would mean, that the examiner failed to give the > most extraordinary witch in the year the chance to gain the best mark. I > can't believe that, do you? In any oral/practical exam I attended (at school > and university), the examiners tried to find out whether they could give me > top grades when they realised that my knowledge was above average. And I do > not doubt that the examiners for OWLs and NEWTs would act in the same way. > > I think JKR wanted to point out Harry's outstanding talent here - but she > did it inadequately concerning her own plot. > > Miles Hi MILES! I respect your experience. I had similar experience with a French economics professor. I was his only conscious student for an 8:00 am Macro class and at exam time, he was very keen for me to do well. What I can say in JKR's favor is that Hermione has a history of choking during her DADA exam. Remember her disastrous final with Lupin where her bogart turned into McGonagall and gave her a zero on a homework paper? That was my first thought when you all pointed out the best student of the year couldn't possibly do less than an "outstanding" in all her exams. Cheers! Jen D. > From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 01:01:52 2006 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:01:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's teaching style In-Reply-To: <43EA7CDD.5020600@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: <20060209010152.31913.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147826 IreneMikhlin: No one wanted NEWTs class with Hagrid (including Harry, which is quite hypocritical of him). Juli: why is it hypocritical? he likes hagrid, not his subject. I't nothing personal. I also like Hagrid, but I would never take COMC!! Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Brings words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From estesrandy at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 01:19:40 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:19:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Love ( a rather lengthy post, warning for those faint of heart) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "johnbowman19" wrote: > > > > If John wants to know what sort of love Dumbledore meant when he > said > > that love was the greatest magic, I suggest he take out is Bible- - > SNIP --and read I Cor. 13. > > > > BAW > > > Hello BAW > In response to what BAW posted, SNIP SNAPE SNIP >In fact the better quote, in my eyes, > to have cited is "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, > it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self- > seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. > Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth". SNIP SNAPE SNIPE SNIP BIGGER SNIP SNIPERUS< SPARTACUS< SNIPERVERUNT,SNIPO,SNIPAE,SNIPORUM Randy says: I don't wish to join in the battle here, but I like the quoted passages for Harry Potter's themes.... Love is Harry's most powerful weapon according to some... Versus PRIDE..."it is not proud" Versus ENVY..."it does not envy" Versus GREED..."it is not self-seeking" Versus ANGER..."it is patient and it is not easily angered" I really think this is JKR's theme. Love concurs all. If you fell asleep in church, she'll give you a path of M&Ms to follow. She is not telling you to follow "FILL IN THE BLANK". She is showing you the results of not having any spiritual basis in your life. She is pointing out some of the bad behaviors that have become accepted in the 21st Century. In essence, I think she is teaching the largest class of students ever assembled in the modern age! Randy From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Feb 9 02:05:05 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:05:05 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: References: <43EA5EE1.21724.6A1BAB9@localhost> Message-ID: <43EB3E01.20915.14BF450@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147828 On 8 Feb 2006 at 15:30, sistermagpie wrote: > Magpie: > > And yet that's not true. Snape is very popular with the Slytherins, > who cheer wildly for him when he's made DADA teacher. Narcissa says > he's Draco's favorite teacher, and he seems to be. (Draco's offer > to "put in a good word" for Snape with his father seems perfectly > genuine to be in CoS, as does Snape's reaction, and OotP also hints > at a friendly relationship between them pre-Pensieve.) Shaun: Well, let's look at this. Do the Slytherin's 'cheer wildly' for Snape when he becomes DADA teaxcher? Not from my reading. "'Professor Snape, meanwhile," said Dumbledore, raising his voice so that it carried over all the muttering, "will be taking the position of Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher.' 'No!' said Harry, so loudly that many heads turned in his direction. He did not care; he was staring up at the staff table, incensed. How could Snape be given the Defense Against the Dark Arts job after all this time? Hadn't it been widely known for years that Dumbledore did not trust him to do it? 'But Harry, you said that Slughorn was going to be teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts!' said Hermione. 'I thought he was!' said Harry, racking his brains to remember when Dumbledore had told him this, but now that he came to think of it, he was unable to recall Dumbledore ever telling him what Slughorn would be teaching. Snape, who was sitting on Dumbledore's right, did not stand up his mention of his name; he merely raised a hand in lazy acknowledgment of the applause from the Slytherin table, yet Harry was sure he could detect a look of triumph on the features he loathed so much." (HBP) Wild cheering? Hardly. Some applause yes - but applause that isn't loud enough to block out Harry's cry of 'No', when we are told that Dumbledore had to raise his voice just to be heard over muttering. That to me, is hardly a ringing endorsement. Yes, the Slytherins clap (and no mention is made of any applause from the Hufflepuffs or the Ravenclaws, but perhaps Snape was merely too rude to acknowledge them), but he is his their Housemaster - it would be very odd indeed if there was no applause and mere applause isn't that impressive. As for Narcissa describes Snape as Draco's favourite teacher, yes, but at the time she seems to be flattering Snape, so I'm not sure how much strength we can give that. I am inclined to agree that this is probably true - but Snape *specifically* favours Draco. "Things didn't improve for the Gryffindors as the Potions lesson continued. Snape put them all into pairs and set them to mixing up a simple potion to cure boils. He swept around in his long black cloak, watching them weigh dried nettles and crush snake fangs, criticizing almost everyone except Malfoy, whom he seemed to like." (PS) Half the class above is Slytherin - and yet Draco is immune from criticism being inflicted on most of the class. Yes, I think Draco likes Snape. But I think that may be because Snape *specifically* makes an effort to be nice to Draco. Being liked by Draco - who he singles out for special treatment - doesn't really suggest to me genuine popularity in general with the Slytherins. I expect (and hope - because he is in loco parentis over them) the Slytherins like him more than people from other houses 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 From darkmatter30 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 02:14:14 2006 From: darkmatter30 at yahoo.com (Richard) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 02:14:14 -0000 Subject: Question on PS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147829 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jutika Gehani" wrote: > > Hi, > > In PS DD says to Harry, "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." > Does this mean that DD can become invisible using magic? If this is the > case why didn't he just become invisible when Snape was about to kill > him? > > Take care, > Jutika. > Richard here: Escaping from Snape would require more than simply becoming invisible. Being invisible doesn't mean you aren't there, nor does it mean that a well-aimed spell (or even a fortuitously aimed one) won't affect the invisible party. Remember, Harry had on his invisibility cloak when Malfoy hit him with that petrificus totalus on the Hogwarts train. Dumbledore, being in a terribly weakened condition may not have been able to make himself invisible, even if he still had his wand in hand, but as he was described as slowly slipping down the wall during his conversation with Malfoy, I think it doubtful that he could have moved far enough, quickly enough to be even relatively safe from the Death Eaters gathered there. A second consideration is that Harry was there, and Dumbledore needed to protect him. Had Dumbledore been able to disappear AND move quickly enough to avoid a spell cast in immediate response, the subsequent searching and random spray of spells might well have found and harmed or killed Harry. While I don't think becoming invisible was a practical consideration in this case, I do wonder why he did not summon any of the house elves. I'm sure he had no desire to see any harm come to these elves, nor would he want them responsible for killing anyone, but house-elves are hardly defenseless, and a hundred house elves could easily have handled even a dozen Death Eaters. I suppose there might be some legislation against house elves attacking humans, but perhaps the more important consideration is what it would do to the plot line. Richard, who thinks the most difficult problem with magic in literature is limiting it so that it doesn't destroy any tension in the plot From whiggrrl at erols.com Thu Feb 9 00:11:50 2006 From: whiggrrl at erols.com (j. lutz) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 19:11:50 -0500 Subject: Snape using legilimency on Harry on DD orders?WAS: Re: Digest Number 6862 In-Reply-To: <1139426489.6072.20648.m6@yahoogroups.com> References: <1139426489.6072.20648.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <43EA88C6.7020608@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147830 Sherry: >If it turned out to be that Snape by his own choice or by Dumbledore's >orders was deliberately bating Harry in order to perform legilimency on him, >I would consider that such a serious breach of conduct, and even deserving >of a prison sentence. right now, in the US, everyone is up in arms over the >government's right to monitor suspected terrorist connections by tapping >phone lines or other communications without a warrant. No matter how anyone >feels about that, I can't help comparing it to anyone being able to and even >allowed to or ordered to read another person's thoughts without permission. >If they can perform legilimency and do it accidentally, that's one thing, >but to purposely anger a child to be able to have access to his thoughts is >despicable. I would lay that term at Dumbledore's door as well, if he was >the one to ask Snape to do it. in fact, i would lay the blame pretty much >exclusively on Dumbledore for instructing his staff person to violate >someone's privacy in that way. OOOOO. It just gives me the creeps. > > Have you read Pharnabazus' "Expecto Patronus" series of essays (http://pharnabazus.livejournal.com/715.html#cutid1)? They start from the premise that since the 1692 Act of Seclusion the Wizarding World has lived in a steady "state of emergency," and its citizenry largely takes for granted governmental practices that strike you, me, and most of the people on this e-mail list as an intolerable infringement on civil liberties. I believe Rowling in interviews has hinted that the WW is a nastier place than some of her readers seem to think. In the meantime, I expect that in Book 7, if Harry asks the right questions it will be revealed that Dumbledore consciously manipulated Harry's upbringing (and possibly Neville's) with the goal of producing a wizard capable of defeating Voldemort. And this theory of mine includes Snape being permitted (or even encouraged) to harass Harry and Neville, so that when the final battle comes they will have the hate in their hearts necessary to cast the Unforgiveable Curses effectively. -- j.lunatic From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 00:56:51 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:56:51 -0000 Subject: New Deputy Head Master/Mistress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147831 Mark wrote: > > Who will Professor McGonagall name as > deputy head Master/Mistress? > Possibly Flitwick, Sprout, Slughorn? > Against list Hagrid, Trelawney? > In my opinion it will be the one she deems worthy. In the office scene in Half Blood Prince she asked Hagrid what he thought should happen to the school. Hagrid replied that it is for the Headmistress and the Governors to decide. McGonagall replied that because Dumbledore valued his opinion she did to. This in my mind leads me to believe that Hagrid just might have a chance. But this is just my opinion. Fuzz876i From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 9 03:32:04 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 03:32:04 -0000 Subject: New Deputy Head Master/Mistress In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147832 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mark" wrote: > > Who will Professor McGonagall name as > deputy head Master/Mistress? > Possibly Flitwick, Sprout, Slughorn? > Against list Hagrid, Trelawney? Potioncat: Let's not assume too quickly that McGonagall will be the Headmistress. She's filling that position for the remainder of the school year, and yes, Hogwarts itself accepts her as Headmistress. The board may choose someone else. We have canon for at least one Headmistress coming straight from St. Mungo's. I would bet, that short of someone from outside the school coming in, McGonagall will be Headmistress and Slughorn will be Deputy. I'm not sure the Deputy is actually determined by the Headmistress either, but most likely is. From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Thu Feb 9 03:52:00 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Luckdragon) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 03:52:00 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147834 Luckdragon: After reviewing the 6 books for the umpteenth time I thought it would be fun to make some predictions for book 7 based on little clues or even just hunches we have thought up from what we've read so far. After reading book 7 we can see how close or how far off we were. Luckdragon's predictions: 1) The person with LV at GH was a female. The "cackle of high-pitched laughter" was neither Wormtail nor LV, although Peter was lurking outside unbeknownst to the others. 2) Lupin will die! His sad life as a Werewolf must end; taking Fenrir Greyback with him. 3) Snape will be redeemed. 4) Someone utterly shocking will be revealed as ESE! 5) LV will succumb to the Dementor's Kiss after Harry destroy's the Horcruxes. 6) A Wizard(Lupin), a Witch(Bellatrix), a Centaur(Bane), and a House- elf(Winky) will die. 7) Harry will find out his family owned Zonko's. From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Feb 9 04:03:40 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:03:40 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147835 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Her E in DADA also helps to demonstrate that defensive spells are > somehow different from Charms and Transfiguration, which Hermione so > easily masters, perhaps because they involve attacking a human > opponent rather than altering the characteristics (Charms) or essence > (Transfiguration) of an object or animal. It's one thing to put legs > on a teacup or make a cushion fly across a room; quite another to > stupefy an opponent, even a classmate, in ritual combat. I can easily > see Hermione excelling at the one and merely exceeding expectations in > the other, especially with the level of DADA instruction she's been > given in her first five years. Granted, she had no qualms about > petrifying Neville in SS/PS, but she wasn't in combat with him. Allie again: But Hermione *does* succeed in real-life DADA during the battle in the Department of Mysteries. She's on target, she accurately knocks out several death eaters, and she doesn't choke under the pressure. Outstanding! The only one of the children who does better than she does is (of course) Harry, but that doesn't mean she's not outstanding as well. I still think she should have aced the exam. She's clearly an excellent test-taker, and there's a big written part to those exams as well as the practical. Even a "practical" is not the same as a real-life situation. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147836 > Shaun: > > Not exactly, although I can understand why you've arrived at that > conclusion, because it's not that dissimilar from my position really. > > I believe that if a teacher's methods are working for the great > majority of students (not just a simple majority - 51% - but a > significant majority - say at least 80%) then that teacher is almost > certainly a good teacher. The fact that their methods may not work > for a small minority of their class doesn't make them a bad teacher. Alla: Right, that is what I thought. And really if by "methods do not work" you mean that children simply do not perform well, small minority of children, I mean, I guess I could see your POV, but if by "methods do not work" you mean that teacher is actively harming physically and /or emotionally three, two or even one child in the classroom, I would never call him a good teacher, so I guess we are in significant disagreement. Shaun: > In terms of Harry Potter, look at Trelawney's Divination classes, and > Hermione's reaction to them. Again we have a total mismatch between > teaching style and the needs of a particular student. It happens. Alla: This is actually a VERY good example of what I would find to be not very problematic mismatch. I mean I have problems with Trelawney as teacher for different reasons, but IF her method did not work for just Hermione, I would NEVER call her a bad teacher. She was not IMO actively harming Hermione in any way, shape or form. I mean, she was damaging her chance to learn Divination well, who knows maybe she would have performed better under a different teacher, but as you said - it happens. Snape IMO actively harms Harry and Neville and for that reason I think that he is a very bad teacher. I also think that he is a bad teacher for all Gryffindors at least (IMO of course), but this is of course what we see less than what he does to Harry and Neville. Shaun; > What I am saying is that judging a teacher based only on their worst > performing students is not a fair or accurate way to judge them. You > need to judge them on their success with their classroom as a whole. Alla: See above - I would maybe agree with you if the minority of students is not performing well, but not HARMED. If one student in Snape class ends up being permanently hurt because of him, I absolutely will call him a bad teacher because of it, IMO of course. Shaun: > I do think Snape crosses a line when it comes to Harry, and I have > said so in the past. Snape has a personal visceral hatred for Harry > Potter as a person. This has *nothing* to do with his teaching, > however - it's purely personal based on factors completely external > to his teaching and to his skill as a teacher. Alla: See, that is another point where I am completely failing to understand where you are coming from. If the person argues that what Snape does to Harry is fine, I can sort of see how then Snape can be called good teacher. Well, I think that calling what Snape does to Harry as "fine" is not supported by the canon, BUT when the most horrific case of mistreatment(IMO of course) is explained away ( together with Neville - I understand you disagree, but that is IMO), then all you have to do is to imagine that maybe Snape is very good to everybody else in school and here we go - he is a good teacher. But you agree that Snape mistreats Harry, that he hates the boy, moreover you agree that Snape brings PERSONAL hatred to the classroom. Don't you think that if he does it to ONE student, there is a danger that he can do so to ANY student? Basically Snape cannot keep his feelings in check, isn't it dangerous to let him teach in the first place? What if he decided that parents of , I don't know Lee Jordan insulted him and he has a grudge against him? How about Cho Chang parents? I am just picking the first names that came to mind here. Shaun: > What I see Snape doing, most of the time, with regards to Neville is > seeking to discipline him. By verbally scolding him. And, no, I don't > think that crosses the line, unpopular and unfashionable though it > may be to some people. Alla: Shaun, I am snipping your canon about Neville, because here our positions are very far away from each other, but I don't see the point in discussing it, since I can only offer the different interpretation of the same canon, not offering anything new. To make a long story short - yes, I believe Snape completely out of line when he deals with Neville, but this is JMO. Shaun: > Yes, it would warrant his immediate dismissal, and I would hope > prosecution to the full extent of the law. And that is coming from > someone who does believe corporal punishment can sometimes be > appropriate in schools. The instant he had inflicted more strokes > than was authorized, he crossed an absolute line. Alla: I am very glad to hear it and this is coming from someone who does not believe that corporate punishment is ever appropriate in schools. > > Alla: > > > > Oh, I am not asking that at all. How about proving that Snape IS a > > good teacher, if you wish of course, I understand if you don't. Irene: > Several people achieved Outstanding in his class, which is 100% canon. I > don't know what is the result of Transfiguration or Charms OWL, but in > DADA it's quite clear to me (though not 100% canon fact) that Harry is > the only student with an O. Several Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws were ready to continue Potions with > Snape on NEWTs level (and so was Hermione). Alla: Oh, but I have no problem agreeing with you that Snape maybe a good teacher for SOME. Its "Snape is a good teacher for many" I have problem with. I am not sure I understand how you arrived at the conclusion that Harry is the only student with "O", but I have to say that the bad grades of many students in DADA would not surprise me at the very least, considering the fact that they only had a good teacher for one year out of five years of schooling. Again though, where do you find their DADA grades? Irene: No one wanted NEWTs class > with Hagrid (including Harry, which is quite hypocritical of him). Alla: What Juli said :-) Irene: > But the deeds speak louder than the words! :-) Hermione was going to > take another two years of Snape. Alla: She is you know... Hermione. :-) Irene: And it's funny that you mention twins - > they own most of their success to their superb knowledge and application > of Potions. Did they need to say it out loud, that Snape didn't put them > off the subject? Alla: Actually this was precisely the reason why I brought up Twins, because I remembered this argument. Do they indeed own their success primarily to their knowledge of potions? I mean I am sure that some of their creations are based on Potions but mostly it is just creativity in general, no? Right now I can only name Canary Cream as something which is based on potion and love potions I guess, but this is only a small part of what they do, no? So, yeah, I would like to hear them saying it out loud. Alla earlier: > > IMO the purpose of the nonverbal spells exercise was DUAL - to learn > > how to do nonverbal spells and to overpower your opponent. Harry did > > not do the first part, but he did the second one perfectly. Irene: > Nope. In Greco-roman wrestling you don't get points by using legs, in > football (the proper one) you don't score goals with you hands, in > boxing you don't win by hitting your opponent under the belt. > > In all the cases above one would be punished, not praised, even though > the opponent is overpowered. Alla: Oh, snort. Too funny about proper football. You know, I still cannot make myself to call American football "football". I so miss "Dinamo Kiev" sometimes. Never mind, that was erm... lyrical aside. Good analogies, no question about it, the only thing I can say is that those are "games' which should be played by the rules and supposedly Hogwarts students will be using those spells during battle where there are no rules. Betsy Hp: > This sort of question seems silly to me, because the bar is always > being moved. > > 1)"If Snape's so good, why does no one praise him?" Well, Umbridge > calls his classes advanced, and not as a suck up. And suddenly that > doesn't count. Alla: Are you SURE Betsy that Umbridge is not a suck up to Snape? It seemed to me that for someone who wooed Slytherin house to be on her team so actively it would make whole lot of sense to be in the good graces of Slytherin Head of the House? So, yes, does not count for much. IMO of course. Betsy: > 2) "If Snape's so good, why don't the students see him as a good > teacher?" Well, Hermione, JKR's chosen judge of good vs. bad > teaching (except for the Lockhart moment, which if you want to argue > that Hermione is hot for Snape, be my guest ), has consistently > said Snape is a teacher worth listening to, and in HBP says he's > like Harry. But, no, suddenly *that* doesn't count (though I can't > remember the reason that gets dismissed, off hand). Alla: Could you point me to interview where JKR said that Hermione is a chosen judge of good vs bad teaching? But in any event "worth listening to" does not equal "good teacher" in my book. Betsy: > 3) "I will judge Snape's abilities on the number of students > achieving an O in potions." HBP comes out, we've got a classroom > made up of 1/4 of Harry's class. But suddenly that number is no > good because... well, I seem to recall a whole new maths was > invented to throw this one out. Plus it was decided that Harry's > class is actually *much* bigger than we've seen. (Tons of unknown > Hufflepuffs I assume). Alla: You should really take this grievance with JKR. :-) Because she was the one who could not decide whether Harry's year contains 600 ( almost sure of the number) or 40( I think) students. If Harry's year contains 600 students, then by the number of students in his NEWT classroom he seems to be an abysmal failure of the teacher. IMO of course, because I don't remember 150 students sitting there. :) Betsy: > 4) "I will judge Snape's abilities on the number of Slytherins that > become Death Eaters." There was one, and he was incredibly > reluctant. So much so his family needed to be threatened to get him > to obey. I'm sure the usual Slytherin bias dismisses this one. > (The only good Slytherin is a dead Slytherin, etc., etc.) Alla: You have some proof that Slytherins who graduated while Snape was a teacher had not become DE? I mean I don't remember either way, but surely we can assume both possibilities here, no? And no, Draco's family did not need to be threatened to make him to obey. He was quite happy to start his service without knowing that Voldemort will threaten his family later on. Big difference IMO because I can by no means call Draco on the train "reluctant". He seems quite eager and pleased to me. > Betsy Hp: > A neat little trap, this, Alla. Because we do know that Snape > doesn't like Gryffindors, and we also know that Gryffindors don't > like Slytherins. Alla: So, I take it you agree with me that older Gryffindors do not think Snape is a good teacher either? Betsy: > However, if we accept that Hufflepuffs are not total duffers, the > fact that Ernie Macmillan says of Snape's first DADA class, "Good > lesson, I thought," (HBP scholastic p.182) should fit the bill. > (Only, of course it won't .) Alla: If we disregard the fact that I was talking about Snape as a potions teacher, not as DADA teacher, then Okay you got me here - Snape is a good teacher for Ernie Macmillan. Huge accomplishment that. :-) > > >>Alla: > > > > And I never said that Snape should have praised Harry for not > > following instructions, but that it would have been nice if Snape > > acknowledged that Harry won the exercise, even if using the verbal > > spell. > > Betsy Hp: > Right. Just as I'm sure your law professors would have been pleased > if during mock court one of the students pulled out a gun and broke > his client out of the courtroom. Alla: Flawed analogy, Betsy. Here is the better one. IMO of course. If say during the examination of the witness I would use the unexpected questions, which will make the witness to reveal damaging information and will help me to win the case, my professors would be very pleased, even if they would expect me to ask completely different questions. And I can tell you that especially in the RW, my client certainly does not care how I win the cases, as long as I win them. I mean, I have ethical constraints of course, but besides that, really everything goes, if judge allows. > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, not even *Harry* agrees with you here. Harry *totally* relied > on Slughorn's liking him. That's why he told Ron the *trick* > wouldn't have worked if he'd given Ron a bezoar. Harry *cheated*, > and he knew it. Heck, that's why Slughorn praised him for his > cheek. Alla: I won't argue bezoar with you, since again this is different interpretation of the same canon, but what do you mean - Slughorn praised him for his cheek because Harry cheated? JMO, Alla From exodusts at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 03:01:19 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 03:01:19 -0000 Subject: Mundungus and the Locket In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147837 Jen wrote: > While Harry never caught Mundungus with the locket and that remains > open to speculation, he did see a goblet that fell out of his sack. > Could that be Hufflepuff's Cup? > > Unlikely. A) The goblet in Mundungus' suitcase was silver, with the Black family crest on it: QUOTE, HBP Ch12 Ron had stooped down and picked up something silver. "Hang on," Ron said slowly. "This looks familiar ?" SNIP "You took that from Sirius's house," said Harry, who was almost nose to nose with Mundungus and was breathing in an unpleasant smell of old tobacco and spirits. "That had the Black family crest on it." END QUOTE B) It sounds like part of the set that Mundungus admired in OotP: QUOTE, OotP Ch 5 "Sirius," said Mundungus, who did not appear to have paid any attention to the conversation, but had been closely examining an empty goblet. "This solid silver, mate?" "Yes," said Sirius, surveying it with distaste. "Finest fifteenth- century goblin-wrought silver, embossed with the Black family crest." "That'd come orf, though," muttered Mundungus, polishing it with his cuff. END QUOTE C) Hufflepuff's Cup is golden, with a badger on it: QUOTE, HBP Ch20 Harry edged forward a little to get a better view and saw what looked like a small golden cup with two finely wrought handles. SNIP "A badger," murmured Voldemort, examining the engraving upon the cup. "Then this was... ?" "Helga Hufflepuff's, as you very well know, you clever boy!" END QUOTE D) The goblet in the suitcase MIGHT still be Hufflepuff's Cup, IF Regulus Black had stolen that Cup from Voldemort's hiding place, brought it back to 12 GOP, and Transfigured it to look like one of the Black set. BUT this is improbable for four reasons. One, we have seen that just getting to any Horcrux is hard enough - Regulus being able to steal two is pushing the envelope of "realism" (within the internal logic of JKR's world). Two, it is impractical. Would Regulus really want himself and his family to enjoy meals where the drinks were served in a Horcrux? What if Ma Black decided to throw out the old dinner-set one day? Would Regulus be able to instantly tell the Horcrux apart from the ordinary goblets if he needed to do something with it? Three, it seems unlikely that a Horcrux item would be susceptible to ordinary Transfiguration, due to the risk this could represent to Voldemort, and the fact that, if possible, it ought to make Harry's hunt impossible (if Voldemort has already thought to disguise them as radically different objects). Four, it is very likely that Slytherin's Locket was in 12 GOP (JKR has tacitly acknowledged this, in quotes), and it makes for a better story if the Cup is somewhere else entirely, forcing Harry to explore further afield. Exodusts. From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Feb 9 04:28:28 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:28:28 -0000 Subject: Snape using legilimency on Harry on DD orders?WAS: Re: Digest Number 6862 In-Reply-To: <43EA88C6.7020608@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147838 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "j. lutz" wrote: > > In the meantime, I expect that in Book 7, if Harry asks the right > questions it will be revealed that Dumbledore consciously manipulated > Harry's upbringing (and possibly Neville's) with the goal of producing a > wizard capable of defeating Voldemort. And this theory of mine includes > Snape being permitted (or even encouraged) to harass Harry and Neville, > so that when the final battle comes they will have the hate in their > hearts necessary to cast the Unforgiveable Curses effectively. > > -- j.lunatic > Allie: Dumbledore is constantly speaking of how important it is to love. Do you really think he manipulated Harry and Neville to HATE? I don't think he would want them to use the Unforgiveables, ever. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 04:54:30 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 04:54:30 -0000 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147839 Amontillada wrote: "On the other hand, it's hard for me to believe that Lily and James had confronted him((LV)) firsthand three times, and yet had not been killed ---- it doesn't mesh with that that they had survived three confrontations--and so had the Longbottoms. Perhaps "thrice defied" referred to three particularly important occasions." CH3ed: I believe DD told Harry while they discussed things in DD's office at the end of OotP that Harry had just defied LV the 4th time, which was 'more than his parents had done'. Sorry I don't have the book with me today. But I think just escaping with your life from a face- to-face confrontation with LV when you are his enemy is probably considered as having defied LV. At the end of OotP Harry had escaped LV alive 4 times against LV's will; 1. in PS/SS from the dungeon 2. in CoS from the Chamber of Secrets (with Tom Riddle) 3. in GoF from the graveyard scene 4. in OotP from the fight at the MoM CH3ed :O) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 05:02:44 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 05:02:44 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147840 > Luckdragon: > After reviewing the 6 books for the umpteenth time I thought it would > be fun to make some predictions for book 7 based on little clues or > even just hunches we have thought up from what we've read so far. > After reading book 7 we can see how close or how far off we were. Alla: LOVE predictions games, always. It is midnight here, so I could not resist before going to bed. I will comment on some of yours and then add mine. > Luckdragon's predictions: > 1) The person with LV at GH was a female. The "cackle of high- pitched > laughter" was neither Wormtail nor LV, although Peter was lurking > outside unbeknownst to the others. Alla: Snape, my money is on Snape and not for the good reasons either, probably waiting to get his reward - "Lily". > 2) Lupin will die! His sad life as a Werewolf must end; taking Fenrir > Greyback with him. Alla: After JKR giving Remus love interest, I feel much more confident that he will live. Oh, and of course he was not and never wil be ESE. :-0 > 3) Snape will be redeemed. Alla: hmmm, that is a possibility of course. > 4) Someone utterly shocking will be revealed as ESE! Alla: Either nobody or a minor character. > 5) LV will succumb to the Dementor's Kiss after Harry destroy's the > Horcruxes. Alla: Could be. > 7) Harry will find out his family owned Zonko's. > Alla: Would love that. Some of mine: If Harry dies, he will be reunited with his loved ones behind the Veil, if he does not, he will NOT be Frodo Potter. He will get a chance to live a reasonably normal happy life. Maybe "twelve kids" prediction will come true. At some point in book 7 Harry will believe that he is Horcrux, which may or may not be true, but Harry will be fully prepared to sacrifice himself, which hopefully will not be needed. Snape will get what he deserves whatever that is. :-) Oh, of course the AK Snape performed was very real, not fake. Hogwarts will be open. Will add more later if come up with something new. JMO, Alla From djklaugh at comcast.net Thu Feb 9 05:30:08 2006 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 05:30:08 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: <017301c62d0c$48ad1d00$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147841 Deb wrote: Plus... as far as his OWL grades are concerned... > Harry got extra credit for performing the Patronus spell and proving > to everyone that he can indeed invoke a corporeal Patronus. Miles: > I do not buy this one. This would mean, that the examiner failed to give the > most extraordinary witch in the year the chance to gain the best mark. I > can't believe that, do you? In any oral/practical exam I attended (at school > and university), the examiners tried to find out whether they could give me > top grades when they realised that my knowledge was above average. And I do > not doubt that the examiners for OWLs and NEWTs would act in the same way. > > I think JKR wanted to point out Harry's outstanding talent here - but she > did it inadequately concerning her own plot. > > Miles Deb here: HBP, Scholastic, Chapter 32 O.W.L.s page 714-15: "... and on Thursday, Defense Against the Dark Arts. Here, for the first time, Harry felt sure he had passed. He had no problems with any of the written questions and took particular pleasure, during the practical examination, in performing all the counterjinxes and defensive spells right in front of Umbridge, who was watching coolly from near the doors into the entrance hall. 'Oh bravo!' cried Professor Tofty, who was examining Harry again when Harry demonstrated a perfect boggart banishing spell. "Very good indeed! Well, I think that's all, Potter... unless...' He leaned forward a little. 'I heard... that you can produce a Patronus? For a bonus point...?' Harry raised his wand, looked directly at Umbridge, and imagined her being sacked. 'Expecto Patronum!' The silver stag erupted from the end of his wand and cantered the length of the hall..... Professor Tofty clapped his veined and knotted hands enthusiastically. 'Excellent!' he said. 'Very well, Potter, you may go.' Reads to me like Harry went from an E-exceeds expectations to an O- outstanding on the basis of his Patronus - just my interpretation of this passage. Deb (djklaugh) who's only Snape-like teacher during high school and college was a prep school English teacher - expository writing in fact. Professor D gave a first lesson speech very similar to Snape's "as there will be no silly wand waving" speech with a touch of Tom Hanks' diatribe in "A League of Their Own" - "there's no crying in baseball" From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 9 05:56:46 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 23:56:46 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147842 Just a thought reading through all these threads about Snape teaching Harry and Neville, I guess what is most interesting to me is that BOTH of them perform reasonably well when simply left alone as is proven by their OWL exams. Now, with Harry it was evident from the get go that Snape just plain hates him. When he asks Harry in the first class about asphodel and wormwood (or whatever) and ignores Hermione, it is obvious he isn't looking for the answer but merely to discomfit Harry. When Neville's cauldron melts not only does Snape get irritated with Neville (possibly a simple response and not really applicable to "good" or "bad" teaching styles) he then turns to Harry blaming him for not correcting Neville before he makes a mistake and takes points from him for it, which is again, solely to take his daily shot at Harry. At that point (which is one of the very first potions lessons) it becomes obvious that teaching style has nothing to do with Snape and Harry. He just hates him. So, I really don't see how one can even discuss teaching style in regards to Harry (and this hatred seems to then just extend to anyone friendly with Harry). In regards to Neville, it isn't really a teaching "style" IMO, to heave insults like "idiot boy" and debasement like the one about having no brains, along with deriding him to other teachers (Lupin). How is any of this a "teaching style"? I had a Jesuit priest for religion class in H.S. who hurled insults like peanuts at students using vocabulary that they just didn't know, plus a sense of the ridiculous so dry you could set fire to it with a withering look. It irritated me NO end, because it was merely for his own entertainment. I made a point of taking up whatever they were saying and arguing that tack just to prove not everyone had not understood him. It ended up that I think he *wanted* that response and he would gladly argue any issue to death with me. It wasn't a teaching style but I guess I'd call it teaching boredom that caused him to act that way towards students (looking back this is what I would guess. I certainly had the impression then and now that he considered 90 percent of his students dunderheads). It lead me to question everything he said, which ended up being good for both of US I suppose, but did very little in the way of education of the rest of the students. To me a "tough teaching style" would be someone who really stuck to strict grading rubrics and for good reason (as those cited of something that could lead to death if wrong) and a severe attitude about any laxness or frivolity, but actually degrading people, no matter how good you are at getting results from X number of students, just doesn't qualify as a "style" IMO. From catlady at wicca.net Thu Feb 9 06:10:58 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 06:10:58 -0000 Subject: Snape/werewolves/Seamus/SPEW/Demonic/HQuest/Firenze/House Elves/purple curse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147843 La Gatta Lucianese wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147328 : << Dumbledore's relationship with Snape (and McGonagall's too; I wish JKR showed us more of it) is definitely more "in loco parentis" than colleague to colleague. >> I definitely agree about Dumbledore, but PS/SS McGonagall said: "Heaven knows, we need a better team than last year. Flattened in that last match by Slytherin, I couldn't look Severus Snape in the face for weeks...." PAR "richter_kuymal" wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147330 : << Is Lupin offering them Wolfsbane Potion (which only helps control the episodes) or would it be possible to offer them the immensely complex Homophus Charm and a cure? >> I agree that the Homorphus Charm is real, because Lockhart stole his exploits, not invented them. I don't agree that the Homorphus Charm is a cure for lycanthropism, because if it were, someone would have tried it on Lupin by now, either his parents, who 'tried everything' or his clever friends who became Animagi for his sake. At first I thought it might put an end to the werewolf transformations permanently, but at the cost of tremendous brain damage to the person, but then I realized it MIGHT be the same spell that Black and Lupin used to make Pettigrew leave his rat form. So now I think that it turns the transformed human back into his/her human form for only a few moments. That's not a cure for lycanthropism, but it is long enough for the villagers to recognize one of their neighbors. Now that they know who the werewolf is, they can deal with him while he is still a mere human. One would hope that they would lock him in a secure cage before moonrise on the Full Moon night and release him when he turned human again, but I expect they probably just killed him in his sleep in his bed at New Moon. (*waves "Hi" at Steve bboyminn in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147341 ) Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147366 : << Maybe the parents didn't know that Dumbledore would tolerate and protect the werewolf children if the parents asked his help, but surely they would educate them at home and provide a safe place for them to transform even if they didn't send them to school? >> Apparently not. It seems that most wizards have a horror of lycanthropy that is more than intense. << And wouldn't the children get Hogwarts letters like all other magical children in Britain, as Remus obviously did? >> The wizarding werewolf children must get Hogwarts letters --- owls can find their shack in the werewolf encampment --- and throw them aside because, even if they know how to read, they know they have no money for school books. Some of the bitten children must be Muggles -- FB says both Muggles and wizards become werewolfs when bitten. Their Muggle parents may know *nothing* about werewolfs. I wonder if the MoM takes their bitten children away from them and hands them over to Fenris Grayback, and Obliviates the parents -- better yet, make them think their children died, so they can tell everyone who questions. Betsy Hp wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147375 : << The only peer betrayal that I've seen any sort of foreshadowing for myself is .... *Possibly* Seamus, though I think that's another boat that's sailed. >> I still want to know why the Sorting Hat took 'almost a whole minute' to Sort Seamus. Lupinlore wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147416 : << (And it is interesting that Hermione forgets all about SPEW for the time being, isn't it?) >> I think that particular point was adequately foreshadowed. In OoP, we saw Hermione reluctantly accept the fact that they CAN'T free Kreachur, saw Kreachur consistently rebuff her kindness and insult her and finally participate in a plot to catch Harry for the Dark Lord. Not surprising to me that, after a few weeks to digest it, she decided not to talk about Kreachur to Harry. Further, in GoF we saw her forget all about SPEW and Elf Emancipation while at the ball with Viktor -- in HBP she is concentrating even harder on romance, aka being mean to Ron. Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147543 : << It's interesting that the context of that quote was how much JKR enjoys writing about Snape. C.S. Lewis said that his devils, who were of course demonic, weren't much fun to write. >> J.K. Rowling is not C.S. Lewis. I recall no sign that Lewis enjoyed vulgar jokes about bogies, either. Lucianam wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147623 : << I'd like to ask you guys if any of you considers the possibility of the Horcrux subplot being partially false? Or at any rate surprisingly unimportant to the actual plot of book 7? >> Yes, me. I suppose the Horcruxes are real, but I was surprised to find so many listies agreeing that Book 7 will be a search for Horcruxes when my assumption was that Harry's allies (probsably the Order of the Phoenix members) would find them and destroy them all, getting that business out of the way in about one page, mandorino222 wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147728 : << Centaurs are good creatures, even if they are a stubborn/hotheaded, and I think that Firenze may yet have a role to play in deciding this conflict. >> The lying Statue of Magical Brethren depicted a wizard, a witch, a goblin, a centaur, and a house elf. I keep thinking, first that it refers to some specific historical event, and second that it foreshadows that Voldemort will be defeated by teamwork of a wizard (Harry), a witch (Hermione, Ginny, Luna), a house elf (Dobby), a centaur (Firenze), and a goblin. Miles wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147737 : << We learnt in CoS, that Elves communicate, that they are aware of how they are treated, and that they feel their situation being improved after the fall of Lord Voldemort. Constraint: Dobbie is a very special elf - but I do not doubt his words when he reports to Harry, that the Elves appreciate being treated friendly and dislike being tortured and mishandled, both within the limitation of their slavery. >> It appears that Kreachur dislikes being treated friendly and appreciates being tortured and mishandled. Is he representative of a significant fraction of house elves, a weird exceptional house elf, or perhaps not a house elf at all? An Inferius made of a house elf corpse? Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147747 : << hopes that JKR will tell us what that purple spell Dolohov used on Hermione was >> I remain persuaded by whoever posted that it was the Entrail-Expelling Curse, invented by Urquhart Rackharrow whose portrait in St Mungos was seen in OoP. From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 9 06:23:20 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 00:23:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Snape/werewolves/Seamus/SPEW/Demonic/HQuest/Firenze/House Elves/purple curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <90ADF1B8-9934-11DA-8B5C-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147844 On Thursday, February 9, 2006, at 12:10 AM, Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote: > Lucianam wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147623 : > > << I'd like to ask you guys if any of you considers the possibility of > the Horcrux subplot being partially false? Or at any rate surprisingly > unimportant to the actual plot of book 7? >> > catlady: > Yes, me. I suppose the Horcruxes are real, but I was surprised to find > so many listies agreeing that Book 7 will be a search for Horcruxes > when my assumption was that Harry's allies (probsably the Order of the > Phoenix members) would find them and destroy them all, getting that > business out of the way in about one page, > kchuplis: I still don't see that as happening right off the bat at any rate since Harry won't TELL the Order about the horcruxes. At least he seems determined to keep their existence known only to him, Ron and Hermione at the end of HBP because he won't tell McGonagall for that reason. Why would he not tell her at least if he was going to tell the Order? Maybe that will happen, but right now, it looks like he is staying mum and going after them himself. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 07:06:04 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 07:06:04 -0000 Subject: Wands and other things In-Reply-To: <008901c62bfb$0245c3b0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147845 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Karen" wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Geoff Bannister > > I believe that there is a Christian underpinning of the books > if you wish to look for it; I realise that not everyone will > want to do that but many folk have pointed out - on this group, > in books and in articles - that, in the behaviour of characters > such as Dumbledore and Harry himself, many parallels can be > drawn with real faith. > > > > kchuplis: > > Well, there is certainly a moral underpinning to the books. > Morality is not the soul property of Christianity. I think > sometimes that's why I get a little impatient with all the > need to label the books "alchemical" or "christian". ... > > bboyminn: I'm going to have to support Kchuplis on this issue. I've said many time before, relating to many aspect of this series, that it tells a universal tale, and rather than preaching, it lets the story tell the tale. That tale that is told is one of universal morality; a universal sense of good and bad, right and wrong. From that universal morality we see our Christian selves reflected, but not only Christian. I also think any good Buddhist would see a reflection of themselve in this story. In view of this, I don't think JKR has to tell us a 'Christian' tale. She simply has to tell us the story of a basically good boy who struggles against moral uncertainty to do the right thing. That is a tale that any one of any age and any culture can understand. And that is why these books have such a univesal popularity. To put it another way, this is a moral tale not because Harry does what is right, but because he struggles, and sometimes fails, in his flawed human way, to determine what is right. It is not in Harry doing what is right, but in his struggle to know what is right that every Harry Potter fan in the worlds many diverse cultures sees his or her self. In a way that is the best way to tell a story; to make it as universal as possible. That's why myths and legends from centuries and even millennia ago are still viable, knows, and enjoyed stories today. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Feb 9 07:46:27 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:46:27 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: References: <43EB1B3B.995.C418F9@localhost> Message-ID: <43EB8E03.7930.1065A3F@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147846 On 9 Feb 2006 at 4:27, dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > > Right, that is what I thought. And really if by "methods do not > work" you mean that children simply do not perform well, small > minority of children, I mean, I guess I could see your POV, but if > by "methods do not work" you mean that teacher is actively harming > physically and /or emotionally three, two or even one child in the > classroom, I would never call him a good teacher, so I guess we are > in significant disagreement. Shaun: No, not necessarily. It's that scenario that is one reason why I said 'almost certainly' a good teacher above, rather than definitely. Because yes, I do agree that if a teacher is actually harmful (at least significantly harmful - because 'harm' can be defined very broadly at time) - to that minority it does change the equation. *But* for that to be the case in my view, the harm has to be reasonably significant in my view and has to be reasonably predictable and has to be the teacher's fault - not something that is primarily a problem for the child. Frankly, I don't believe there is a single teacher on Earth who could claim they'd never harmed a child. Children are complicated people and there's no way you can guarantee that something you try as a teacher won't backfire sometimes. There's no universally successful, universally safe methods of educating them. If you want to teach kids, you're accepting a a great deal of power - and you're accepting that sometimes you may get it wrong. That's the way it works. The same is true of any job involving human beings in the loop - but when it comes to teaching you're explicitly trying to mould children and that is a process full of inherent risk. If you label teachers as bad teachers simply because they might have harmed a child at some stage of their teaching, then I doubt there is a single good teacher on this planet. It's an impossible standard. Now, of course, there are limits. And, maybe, Snape does cross those limits. I don't think so - but he's certainly nowhere near perfect. But I certainly think a 'do no harm' standard is unrealistic and overly perfectionist. > Alla: > This is actually a VERY good example of what I would find to be not > very problematic mismatch. I mean I have problems with Trelawney as > teacher for different reasons, but IF her method did not work for > just Hermione, I would NEVER call her a bad teacher. She was not IMO > actively harming Hermione in any way, shape or form. I mean, she was > damaging her chance to learn Divination well, who knows maybe she > would have performed better under a different teacher, but as you > said - it happens. Shaun: Well, I *really* disagree with you on this. Not about having problems with Trelawney's teaching (I would be much more inclined to call Trelawney a bad teacher than Snape) but with the idea that she isn't harming Hermione. I work with profoundly gifted children - and I actually think Hermione is an example of an exceptionally or profoundly gifted child, and so a lot of other advocates for these children and many experts. And I would say, most definitely, that Hermione is harmed by Trelawney's classes. Did Hermione walk out of Lockhart's worthless DADA classes? Did Hermione walk out of Umbridge's utterly worthless DADA classes? Did Hermione walk out of Hagrid's fairly worthless CoMC classes? Hermione is the uber-student (-8 She is very single minded when it comes to her education - I don't think most people would argue for that. She is the type of student who would put up with something unpleasant to learn. She has a high tolerance for such things, I would say. So for her to decide to walk out of a class - and presumably accept a failing mark for that class - I really do believe that she *must* have felt that staying in that class had become utterly untenable. Hermione acts completely out of character in Divination classes: "'Well, they do,' said Hermione. 'Everybody knows about Harry and You-Know-Who.' Harry and Ron stared at her with a mixture of amazement and admiration. They had never heard Hermione speak to a teacher like that before." (PoA) >From the first class (echoes of Snape and Neville in my view) Trelawney says some rather mean things to Hermione, and she does it because she dislikes Hermione (echoes of Snape and Harry): "Professor Trelawney surveyed Hermione with mounting dislike. 'You'll forgive me for saying so, my dear, but I perceive very little aura around you. Very little receptivity to the resonances of the future.'" (PoA) Note that - from the very first Divination class, a teacher who is acting out of dislike publically seeks to tell a student there's something wrong with them. I really don't see a real difference between this and the first class with Snape. And it does affect Hermione: "'Professor Trelawney said you didn't have the right aura! You just don't like being bad at something for a change!' He had touched a nerve. Hermione slammed her Arithmancy book down on the table so hard that bits of meat and carrot flew everywhere." (PoA) It touched a nerve. In the very first Divination class, Trelawney - out of dislike for Hermione - publically tells her that there is something wrong with her. And that does upset Hermione - I hesitate to generalise but there's relatively few things a teacher could say to most gifted perfectionists (and I think Hermione is one of these) which is more likely to cause distress. Incidentally - Harry also dislikes Trelawney's classes: "Harry was also growing to dread the hours he spent in Professor Trelawney's stifling tower room, deciphering lopsided shapes and symbols, trying to ignore the way Professor Trelawney's enormous eyes filled with tears every time she looked at him. He couldn't like Professer Trelawney, even though she was treated with respect bordering on reverence by many of the class." (PoA) Harry *dreads* his Divination classes because of the way his teacher treats him. Does this meet the standard of harming a student sufficiently to make her a bad teacher? I mean, after all, I'm sure Neville dreads Snape's classes. But this: "Parvati whispered something to Lavender, and they both glared at Hermione too. Professor Trelawney stood up, surveying Hermione with unmistakable anger. 'I am sorry to say that from the moment you have arrived in this class my dear, it has been apparent that you do not have what the noble art of Divination requires. Indeed, I don't remember ever meeting a student whose mind was so hopelessly mundane.' There was a moment's silence. Then - 'Fine!' said Hermione suddenly, getting up and cramming Unfogging the Future back into her bag. 'Fine!' she repeated, swinging the bag over her shoulder and almost knocking Ron off his chair. "I give up! I'm leaving!' And to the whole class's amazement, Hermione strode over to the trapdoor, kicked it open, and climbed down the ladder out of sight." (PoA) Trelawney - out of dislike and anger - publically tells Hermione in front of her friends, her classmates, her peers that she has the most hopelessly mundane mind of any student Trelawney has ever encountered. I doubt you could deliberately design a more hurtful thing to say to Hermione Granger - a girl to whom her mind is obviously very important. If Hermione isn't harmed by this, it's only because she is a very resilient girl by that stage of the books. To rephrase something you said he about Neville and Snape in a previous post: The fact that Hermione found inner strength to deal with the abusive teacher (my opinion of course, nothing more) does not make the severity of Trelawney's actions any less to me. And I restate my position on that: Abuse is abuse. The fact that some students may be better able to deal with abuse than others, doesn't change the seriousness of genuine abuse. If something is abusive, then it is abusive, no matter how the student deals with it. It doesn't cease to be abuse, just because a student is better equipped to deal with it. People really do seem to me to hold Snape to a much higher standard than other teachers. Now I can understand why people feel Snape is abusive - but it seems to me that there should be a consistent standard - and if Snape is abusive because of the way he treats Neville, then so is Trelawney. I don't think either of them are abusive, personally. I think both show poor judgement in dealing with particular individual students, but that is a different matter. But I think we need a consistent standard. > Alla: > > See above - I would maybe agree with you if the minority of students > is not performing well, but not HARMED. If one student in Snape > class ends up being permanently hurt because of him, I absolutely > will call him a bad teacher because of it, IMO of course. Shaun: Well, I simply disagree - and of course, that is just my opinion. But it's coming from someone who suffered long term psychological damage because of some teachers, and who can still hold a view that most of those teachers weren't bad teachers. They just weren't equipped for me. > Shaun: > > I do think Snape crosses a line when it comes to Harry, and I have > > said so in the past. Snape has a personal visceral hatred for > Harry > > Potter as a person. This has *nothing* to do with his teaching, > > however - it's purely personal based on factors completely > external > > to his teaching and to his skill as a teacher. > > Alla: > > See, that is another point where I am completely failing to > understand where you are coming from. If the person argues that what > Snape does to Harry is fine, I can sort of see how then Snape can be > called good teacher. Well, I think that calling what Snape does to > Harry as "fine" is not supported by the canon, BUT when the most > horrific case of mistreatment(IMO of course) is explained away ( > together with Neville - I understand you disagree, but that is IMO), > then all you have to do is to imagine that maybe Snape is very good > to everybody else in school and here we go - he is a good teacher. Shaun: No, not to everybody else in the school, just to most people (-8 And it's not a matter of 'imagining' that maybe Snape is a good teacher. I (and at least some other people) believe the evidence for that assertion is there. It's there in the results his pupils achieve, it's there in the statement by an evil inspector looking for reasons to criticise teachers that his students are advanced, etc. It's not imagination - though I agree it can be argued with, > But you agree that Snape mistreats Harry, that he hates the boy, > moreover you agree that Snape brings PERSONAL hatred to the > classroom. Don't you think that if he does it to ONE student, there > is a danger that he can do so to ANY student? Basically Snape cannot > keep his feelings in check, isn't it dangerous to let him teach in > the first place? Shaun: If you want to talk about dangerous teachers in the classroom - how about a werewolf? "'This time tomorrow, the owls will start arriving from parents... They will not want a werewolf teaching their children, Harry. And after last night, I see their point. I could have bitten any of you... That must never happen again.'" (PoA) Any teacher is potentially dangerous to students. Any teacher. Hogwarts is a school with anywhere from 280 to 1000 students, depending on which number you subscribe to. I'm going to go with the lowest number - partly because I think it is the number most consistent with the canon, partly because it creates a 'worst case' scenario in terms of the numbers we have. Snape teaches a core subject at Hogwarts - one that all students study. Assuming that the school size remains consistent over the years (and that is an assumption) by the time Harry is in his sixth year (all that we have seen so far) Snape has apparently taught somewhere over 1000 students in his fifteen years at the school. Do we have any indication whatsoever that Snape has developed the same type of attitude towards any other student that he has developed towards Harry? Well, I can't think of any. So, because in 1 in 1000 cases, Snape acts in this way, should we be worried about him doing it to other students? I'll take those odds. Especially seeing we know (or at least we think we know) where a lot of the hatred comes from. Snape was bullied by James Potter, and that seems to be at the root of his hatred for Harry, in my view. So perhaps other children of the people who bullied him might be at similar risk. Who do we know that was involved... Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, Peter Pettigrew. Are any of those likely to have kids turning up at Hogwarts? > Alla: > > What if he decided that parents of , I don't know Lee Jordan > insulted him and he has a grudge against him? How about Cho Chang > parents? I am just picking the first names that came to mind here. Shaun: Well, as *soon* as I saw evidence that he was doing this to another student, then, yes, my concern levels would sky rocket. But until we see some sort of evidence that Snape is at all likely to treat another student in this way, then, no it doesn't concern me greatly as a real risk. I think Harry is a unique case. If evidence emerged that that wasn't the case, my opinion would change considerably. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 09:22:53 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:22:53 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: <43EB8E03.7930.1065A3F@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147847 > Shaun: > Trelawney says some rather mean things to Hermione, and she does it > because she dislikes Hermione (echoes of Snape and Harry): > > "Professor Trelawney surveyed Hermione with mounting dislike. > > 'You'll forgive me for saying so, my dear, but I perceive very > little aura around you. Very little receptivity to the resonances of > the future.'" > > (PoA) > > Note that - from the very first Divination class, a teacher who is > acting out of dislike publically seeks to tell a student there's > something wrong with them. -- > > I don't think either of them are abusive, personally. I think both > show poor judgement in dealing with particular individual students, > but that is a different matter. Finwitch: Well, we must also consider the subject. Trelawney is teaching a subject that *requires* a certain set of mind, which Hermione does not have. While her mindset - logic, theory, abstract - is excellent for theoretical achievement and applying a theory, also provide excellent grades for many subjects, her set of mind does not help her to beat her boggart. Harry's mindset OTOH - while not making him the model student - is the sort that helps him defeat not just a boggart, but a dementor and deal with TimeTravel in a deep, profound understanding which Hermione did not achieve with a year of practice. Note: Harry came to *understand* TimeTravel without theory trough ONE practice. Hermione had theory and experience of being in 3 places at once for a year, and yet she did not gain understanding. Seeing to the future (Divination) is that kind of TimeTravel. It's apparent Hermione can't deal with it (she realised it by the end of her third year). Trelawney saw that in her - she can't deal different times - she can't deal with Divination - and Trelawney told her so. Everyone can't deal with unpleasant truth (like Fudge) - or predestination that will happen no matter what (Hermione) - but that's what Divination is all about. Wasn't it better for Hermione to learn that early on and having the 'it's nonsense'-defence than learn how everyone else can do something while she can't? And Trelawney didn't call Hermione stupid - she said her mind is 'mundane'. Snape calls ALL students potential 'dunderheads', and presumes they don't appreciate the subject. I see a difference in name-calling students including taking points unfairly from Gryffindor-house (what was that thing with the library book? or when Harry came in with Tonks in HBP?) and telling a student she's not fit in the subject. Finwitch From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Feb 9 09:55:38 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 01:55:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <653575072.20060209015538@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147848 Wednesday, February 8, 2006, 8:54:30 PM, h2so3f wrote: h> At the end of OotP Harry had escaped h> LV alive 4 times against LV's will; h> 1. in PS/SS from the dungeon h> 2. in CoS from the Chamber of Secrets (with Tom Riddle) h> 3. in GoF from the graveyard scene h> 4. in OotP from the fight at the MoM I'm with you on 1, 3, & 4, but I've never been sure if the fourth occasion refers to the CoS or Godric's Hollow... -- Dave From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 9 10:26:22 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:26:22 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147849 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > > > > > Oh, I am not asking that at all. How about proving that Snape IS > a > > > good teacher, if you wish of course, I understand if you don't. > > > Alla: > > Oh, but I have no problem agreeing with you that Snape maybe a good > teacher for SOME. Its "Snape is a good teacher for many" I have > problem with. Someone else was very sarcastic in this thread about the constantly moving goal posts. I thought it was too much at the time, but now I start to see the point. > > Irene: > No one wanted NEWTs class > > with Hagrid (including Harry, which is quite hypocritical of him). > > Alla: > > What Juli said :-) OK, I'll answer it here. I don't have a problem with "He likes Hagrid as a person, not as a teacher" approach. But less than a year ago he was shouting at Hermione for daring to say more or less the same thing, and bullied her into taking it back. > > Irene: > > But the deeds speak louder than the words! :-) Hermione was going > to > > take another two years of Snape. > Alla: > She is you know... Hermione. :-) I see, so it does not count. How can I prove "good teacher for many" if every individual example does not count in one way or the other? Hermione is after knowledge, first and foremost, I hope we can agree about that. If Snape's lessons did not bring her any added value, beyond what she can get from books, why did she sign up for two more years of abuse (if we take your point of view) or even harsh and sarcastic treatment (if we take mine). > Alla earlier: > > > IMO the purpose of the nonverbal spells exercise was DUAL - to > learn > > > how to do nonverbal spells and to overpower your opponent. Harry > did > > > not do the first part, but he did the second one perfectly. I still can't believe you argue this seriously and not just to wind me up, Dynamo Kiev or not. :-) In the court room example you were arguing elsewhere - you can ask different questions from what your teachers were expecting and that's fine. The same would be true for Harry if instead of producing non-verbal Shield charm he would do another *non-verbal* defensive spell. Instead, in your analogy, he hooked the witness to the lie detector. Really, teaching environment is quite similar to sport and games. It has silly rules. To go into an area I'm more familiar with, when you learn programming, you get tasks with a very specific limitations: it has to implement *this* algoritm in *that* language. Even if I implement a faster algoritm in a more suitable language, I'd still fail my assignment, and rightly so. > Betsy: > > However, if we accept that Hufflepuffs are not total duffers, the > > fact that Ernie Macmillan says of Snape's first DADA class, "Good > > lesson, I thought," (HBP scholastic p.182) should fit the bill. > > (Only, of course it won't .) > > Alla: > > If we disregard the fact that I was talking about Snape as a potions > teacher, not as DADA teacher, then Okay you got me here - Snape is a > good teacher for Ernie Macmillan. Huge accomplishment that. :-) Back to my point - it's impossible to demonstrate what you want, because we can't go to Hogwarts and interview all the students to prove a majority opinion. And using the technique above, individual examples can always be dismissed. Irene From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Feb 9 10:43:16 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 21:43:16 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: References: <43EB8E03.7930.1065A3F@localhost> Message-ID: <43EBB774.15233.1A840F8@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147850 On 9 Feb 2006 at 9:22, finwitch wrote: > Finwitch: > > Well, we must also consider the subject. Trelawney is teaching a > subject that *requires* a certain set of mind, which Hermione does not > have. While her mindset - logic, theory, abstract - is excellent for > theoretical achievement and applying a theory, also provide excellent > grades for many subjects, her set of mind does not help her to beat > her boggart. Harry's mindset OTOH - while not making him the model > student - is the sort that helps him defeat not just a boggart, but a > dementor and deal with TimeTravel in a deep, profound understanding > which Hermione did not achieve with a year of practice. Shaun: I really do not see this at all. Trelawney is, in terms of her teaching, a fraud. Yes, she is a genuine seer as evidenced by her very occasional prophecies, but the subject she teaches is an almost total nonsense. But even if she wasn't a fraud, one of her first statements about Divination is the following: "'Many witches and wizards, talented though they are in the area of loud bangs and smells and sudden disappearings, are yet unable to penetrate the veiled mysteries of the future,' Professor Trelawney went on, her enormous, gleaming eyes moving from face to nervous face. 'It is a Gift granted to few. You, boy,' she said suddenly to Neville, who almost toppled off his pouf. 'Is your grandmother well?'" So, if Trelawney is genuine (and as a teacher, I do not believe she is, but just for the sake of argument), one of the first thing she tells us about her subject is that it is something few of her students will be able to master. So, why does she single Hermione out in that case? If this is truly a gift granted to few, and Trelawney is teaching it to those few, she must be used to students who are never going to be able to do it. But the only person we see her single out publically for comment on this is Hermione. Trelawney's classes are presented throughout the book as fraudulent. Harry and Ron do well in them by simply making things up. If she has any talent to identify students who won't be able to do her subject, she should certainly be capable of picking up on students who are constantly cheating and playing her for a fool. She doesn't, because she can't. Except for very brief flashes of (admittedly incredibly impressive) talent, she doesn't have any ability. > Finwitch: > > Note: Harry came to *understand* TimeTravel without theory trough ONE > practice. Hermione had theory and experience of being in 3 places at > once for a year, and yet she did not gain understanding. Seeing to the > future (Divination) is that kind of TimeTravel. It's apparent Hermione > can't deal with it (she realised it by the end of her third year). > Trelawney saw that in her - she can't deal different times - she can't > deal with Divination - and Trelawney told her so. Shaun: Again I disagree. I don't believe Harry understands time travel any better than Hermione does, although I would be interested to read why you believe she does. During the rescue of Buckbeak and Sirius, I see plenty of evidence that Hermione knows exactly how what they are doing works: "'Hermione,' said Harry suddenly, 'what if we - we just run in there and grab Pettigrew -' 'No!' said Hermione in a terrified whisper. 'Don't you understand? We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen - ' 'We'd only be seen by ourselves and Hagrid!' 'Harry, what do you think you'd do if you saw yourself bursting into Hagrid's house?' said Hermione. 'I'd - I'd think I'd gone mad,' said Harry, 'or I'd think there was some Dark Magic going on -' 'Exactly! You wouldn't understand, you might even attack yourself! Don't you see? Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time.... Loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!' 'Okay!' said Harry. 'It was just an idea, I just thought -'" ***** This is a clear example of Hermione knowing more about what is going on than Harry. All through the passage, it is Hermione who is able to keep track of the two separate timelines: ***** "'Shh! Listen! Someone's coming! I think - I think it might be us! Hermione had her ear pressed against the cupboard door. 'Footsteps across the hall... yes, I think it's us going down to Hagrid's!' 'Are you telling me,' Harry whispered, 'that we're here in this cupboard and we're out there too?' 'Yes,' said Hermione, her ear still glued to the cupboard door. 'I'm sure it's us. It doesn't sound like more than three people... and we're walking slowly because we're under the Invisibility Cloak -'" ***** "'Okay, but we'll go around by the greenhouses!' said Hermione breathlessly. 'We need to keep out of sight of Hagrid's front door, or we'll see us! We must be nearly at Hagrid's by now!' Still working out what she meant, Harry set off at a sprint, Hermione behind him." ***** "They crept through the trees until they saw the nervous hippogriff, tethered to the fence around Hagrid's pumpkin patch. 'Now?' Harry whispered. 'No!' said Hermione. 'If we steal him now, those Committee people will think Hagrid set him free! We've got to wait until they've seen he's tied outside!' ***** "'Now what?' whispered Harry, looking around. 'We'll have to hide in here,' said Hermione, who looked very shaken. 'We need to wait until they've gone back to the castle. Then we wait until it's safe to fly Buckbeak up to Sirius's window. He won't be there for another couple of hours.... Oh, this is going to be difficult....'" ***** "'If he'd only grabbed the cloak,' said Harry. 'It's just lying there...' He turned to Hermione. 'If I just dashed out now and grabbed it, Snape'd never be able to get it and -' 'Harry, we mustn't be seen!' 'How can you stand this?' he asked Hermione fiercely. 'Just standing here and watching it happen?' He hesitated. 'I'm going to grab the cloak!' 'Harry, no!' Hermione seized the back of Harry's robes not a moment too soon. just then, they heard a burst of song. It was Hagrid, making his way up to the castle, singing at the top of his voice, and weaving slightly as he walked. A large bottle was swinging from his hands. 'See?' Hermione whispered. 'See what would have happened? We've got to keep out of sight! No, Buckbeak!'" ***** I really do find the assertion that Harry came to understand time travel while Hermione didn't perplexing. I think the evidence is very clear all through that passage that Hermione has, by far, the better understanding of what is going on - hardly surprising considering she has had much more time to deal with this. The only time Harry comes to a realisation that Hermione doesn't in that passage is when he comes to the realisation - at virtually the last second only while he is standing at the point that he saw himself. That's a relatively profound realisation I suppose - but he's right on the scene. Hermione understands time travel perfectly well. If she didn't Harry would have blown the entire operation more than once. And I don't think the reason that Hermione gives up the Time Turner has anything to do with not being able to understand time. I think it has everything to do with how busy she was. The text is not absolutely clear on this, but it does seem to me the simplest explanation. Especially seeing we have several indications in the text that her workload was making her tired: "Oh, well - you know - working hard," said Hermione. Close-up, Harry saw that she looked almost as tired as Lupin." > Finwitch: > > Everyone can't deal with unpleasant truth (like Fudge) - or > predestination that will happen no matter what (Hermione) - but that's > what Divination is all about. Wasn't it better for Hermione to learn > that early on and having the 'it's nonsense'-defence than learn how > everyone else can do something while she can't? And Trelawney didn't > call Hermione stupid - she said her mind is 'mundane'. Snape calls ALL > students potential 'dunderheads', and presumes they don't appreciate > the subject. Shaun: As I have mentioned earlier, if we can rely on Trelawney's statements (and I don't think we can): "'Many witches and wizards, talented though they are in the area of loud bangs and smells and sudden disappearings, are yet unable to penetrate the veiled mysteries of the future,' Professor Trelawney went on, her enormous, gleaming eyes moving from face to nervous face. 'It is a Gift granted to few." then it's simply not true that Hermione is being told that she can't do something everyone else can do. If Trelawney's statement is to be trusted, only a few people can do Divination and there was *no* reason for her to single Hermione out. I believe the reason Trelawney singles Hermione out is very simple. She does so because Hermione is smart enough to see through her, and not to go along with her fraud. Trelawney's statement about Hermione lacking an aura comes immediately after Hermione has said that she can't see the Grim in Harry's teacup - the blob that has already been described by Ron as looking like a hippo or a sheep, but certainly not like a dog. Trelawneys response is to look at her with 'dislike' according to the text, and then announce there's a problem with her aura. As for the statement about her mind being mundane, when that statement is made, Trelawney is described as being unmistakeably angry - and why. Because Professor Trelawney is once again about to claim that the Grim has appeared in Harry's future again. This is not a matter of a teacher breaking an unpleasant truth to a student. This is a matter of a teacher deliberately insulting a student for daring to challenge her. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Feb 9 11:25:53 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:25:53 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: <43EB8E03.7930.1065A3F@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > Shaun: > > > Frankly, I don't believe there is a single teacher on Earth who could > claim they'd never harmed a child. Hickengruendler: Well, maybe. I certainly admit that every individual child reacts differently about certain teaching styles, and that things that might be helpful to one kid might hurt another, especially if the teacher practices a "tough love" style. But the very least thing the teachers should do, is not harming the kids on purpose. And while I, grudgingly, may accept (but never share) the theory, that what Snape does to Neville is a highly misguided (in that Neville reacts positively to Lupin's or Harry's teaching style, who both chose to build up his confidence) but genuinely well meant attempt to make him a better wizard, I cannot see how this explains his behaviour towards Harry or Hermione. IMO, it is obvious that Snape singles out Harry for solely personal reasons, namely because Harry is James Potters son. That does not mean, that I never agree with Snape, Harry certainly deserved *any* detention given to him by Snape in HBP, for example, (and in fact, Harry got away lightly with his detention after injuring Draco in the bathroom). But nonetheless Snape hated the boy from the very first second for reasons that have nothing to do with Harry himself. Of course in the end Harry gets as biased towards Snape as Snape is towards him, but what else can you expect from a hot headed teenager, who was treated unfairly by one of his teachers from the very first second on. Snape is the grownup, therefore it is not asked too much to expect him to act like one, for a change. I say this as somebody, who genuinely likes Snape as a character, who feels sorry for him and who does not think that he is evil. But neither of those things make him a good teacher. That does not mean everything about Snape's teaching style is bad. Saying that Ernie Macmillan's and Hermione's positive opinions about his classes may just be the opinion of some individuals doesn't IMO totally capture it as well, since we could also argue, that Harry's or Neville's negative reactions about him are also those of some individuals and may not stand for the majority of students. Snape certainly has a lot of knowledge, and, in contrast to Umbridge, for example, does IMO attempt to give this knowledge to the students. IMHO, the first DADA lesson in HBP was some stellar teaching by Snape. I do not say this because Hermione or Ernie MacMillan think so, but because I saw the lesson described in the book and from what I saw Snape told them about the nature and dangers of the Dark Arts in a very convincing way. Similarly, his simple answer in the later lesson, that Voldemort used Inferi in the past and that we therefore better expect he may use them in the future as well, was short and brought the situaion to the point. (On the other hands, I do agree with the students that "Ghosts are transparent" is a very good method to disguise them, and here Snape's snarky answer to Harry was IMO again for personal reasons). Most of Harry's interpretation of Snape's classes in HBP and the way Snape spoke about the Dark Arts was IMO just that, Harry's interpretation, formed by his dislike for Snape. But nonetheless I will not accept Snape as a good teacher as long as he consistanly insults and hurts some of his students on purpose. From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 12:05:28 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:05:28 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: <43EBB774.15233.1A840F8@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147852 > > Shaun: -- > > The only time Harry comes to a realisation that Hermione doesn't in > that passage is when he comes to the realisation - at virtually the > last second only while he is standing at the point that he saw > himself. That's a relatively profound realisation I suppose - but > he's right on the scene. > > Hermione understands time travel perfectly well. If she didn't Harry > would have blown the entire operation more than once. Finwitch: Well, that's exactly what I meant of Harry's understanding. What passed before that, was a learning process for Harry. Hermione knows the rules and follows them. I don't know if it means she understands TimeTravel. I don't, however, see her understanding Harry's happy statement about the patronus:*** 'I could do it because I'd already done it'. 'Harry, did anyone see you?' 'Don't you understand? I saw myself. I thought I was my dad. I saved us, It's alright...' 'Harry, your Dad is -- you know -- dead...' ******* Also, as much as Divination may seem to be nonsense to those who don't understand it - well, it's like Zen, isn't it? Oh, and don't you think it curious that Trelawney saw 'Grim' in Harry's cup-- (a big, black dog that is) -- until the year Sirius died... She *sees* true, but often misinterprets what she sees. She saw Sirius (animagus form) until Harry's 5th year... I find it curious she predicted that 'one of our number will leave us around easter' - which came true when Hermione left. You may argue she caused Hermione to leave, *but* how was she to know WHEN? You know, Hermione could have decided to prove her fraud by choosing another time to leave, but she didn't. As for Hermione not dealing with TimeTravel well - Percy Weasley had 12 OWLs so I conclude he had also a TimeTurner to cope with his lessons. And quite apparently, Percy managed to take it to OWL-level. So *someone* has done it. Hermione could not. Trelawney is about acceptance (particularly your own mortality), Firenze is about critical thinking (isn't certain about anything). I don't know if Hermione could do with either of them... (What was that thing about Horses? Hasn't she read in her FBaWTFT about Centaurs? It was such a silly comment.) In light of Harry's fthe prediction that Harry will die is a good thing, because it means he won't go so dark as to be so cursed, caught in half-life like Voldemort. He won't go and make Horcruxes. It tells of the goodness of the soul: 'Always the innocent are the first to be slain.' Because all humans are mortal, being a human means that you are a mortal and therefore will die? Saying it like that it's a sentence, and many will ignore it. Saying it Trelawney's way, it's the truth you must learn to cope with, as much as you'd like to deny it. Firenze's critical thinking is great, too. You know, the 'Mars is bright tonight.' I think I much prefer Seamus' thorough analysis on the cup to Hermione's outspoken: 'I don't see a grim in it!' Hermione didn't even bother to try in the class at all, before Trelawney 'picked on her'. Finwitch From exodusts at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 07:43:13 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 07:43:13 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147853 > > Luckdragon: > > 1) The person with LV at GH was a female. The "cackle of high- > > pitched > > laughter" was neither Wormtail nor LV, although Peter was lurking > > outside unbeknownst to the others. > Alla: > 1) Snape, my money is on Snape and not for the good reasons either, > probably waiting to get his reward - "Lily". Exodusts: 1) Occam's Razor says the laughing was Voldemort, since we already know he has a "high, cold voice". There is no need for a mysterious female. Snape (fav), Pettigrew, long shot is Harry himself, watching from the shadows with a Time-Turner. > > Luckdragon: > > 2) Lupin will die! His sad life as a Werewolf must end; taking > > Fenrir > > Greyback with him. > Alla: > 2) After JKR giving Remus love interest, I feel much more confident > that he will live. Oh, and of course he was not and never wil be > ESE. :-0 Exodusts: 2) Lupin will not die, since he has a viable future with Tonks and illustrates too many important moral messages for JKR to idly kill him. > > Luckdragon: > > 3) Snape will be redeemed. > Alla: > 3) hmmm, that is a possibility of course. Exodusts: 3) He will be simultaneously mortally wounded/redeemed in a vital strike against Voldemort, saving Harry. Just time for a reconciliatory chat with his last breath. > > Luckdragon: > > 4) Someone utterly shocking will be revealed as ESE! > Alla: > 4) Either nobody or a minor character. Exodusts: 4) No. Snape being revealed as ESG! is the "big twist" of book 7. > > Luckdragon: > > 5) LV will succumb to the Dementor's Kiss after Harry destroy's > > the > > Horcruxes. > Alla: > 5) Could be. Exodusts: 5) If his big fear is death, why not just have him die? To prove that Dumbledore was right about there being things worse than death? As a neat solution to the problem of Voldemort's outright death requiring the destruction of Horcrux-Harry? (The latter could be avoided by having a Dementor, Harry's Big Fear, sucking the soul-part out through his scar). Still, a solid 50/50 prediction. > > Luckdragon: > > 6) A Wizard(Lupin), a Witch(Bellatrix), a Centaur(Bane), and a > > House-elf(Winky) will die. Exodusts: 6) Lupin NO; Bellatrix YES, 100% come-uppance time at the hands of a sub-hero (not Harry, probably Neville by indirect means); Bane, if he is the centaur-leader, possibly yes, to be replaced by Firenze; Winky, no, her death lacks a moral basis, her partial recovery suits JKR's style much better. > > Luckdragon: > > 7) Harry will find out his family owned Zonko's. > Alla: > 7) Would love that. Exodusts: 7) Evidence? Isn't "inventor-of the-snitch-descendants" more plausible? Maybe Unspeakable pay turns out to be good, if both his parents worked in Dept of Mysteries. Long shot: Potters = last living descendants of Godric Gryffindor, inherited riches (JKR supposedly quashed the heir-of-Gryffindor theory, but if you read the quote, she is prompted to deny it, delays an answer, then brushes the topic off with a "Yeah"). > Alla: > If Harry dies, he will be reunited with his loved ones behind the > Veil, if he does not, he will NOT be Frodo Potter. He will get a > chance to live a reasonably normal happy life. Maybe "twelve kids" > prediction will come true. Exodusts: Of course. Additionally, if he does die in book 7, he might a) come back moments later in a blaze of glory (provided Dumbledore isn't the one who gets resurrected: it's one or the other, not both, and if one DOES come back it will be through the Locked Door in the DoM) or b) be able to chat merrily to Hermione and Ron every day via a Two-Way mirror he takes through the veil, surrounded by his dead Parents, Sirius, Dumbledore, and with a nice scarless forehead. > Alla: > At some point in book 7 Harry will believe that he is Horcrux, > which > may or may not be true, but Harry will be fully prepared to > sacrifice himself, which hopefully will not be needed. Exodusts: It will be true, he will sacrifice himself, but it will all work out for the best. > Alla: > Snape will get what he deserves whatever that is. :-) Exodusts: Yes, redemption and reconciliation with Lily's son. > Alla: > Oh, of course the AK Snape performed was very real, not fake. Exodusts: Of course. Whatever dumbledoreisnotdead.com says, the evidence is clear from the books, leaving aside the obvious fact that Dumbledore has to be dead, in order to undergo Jesus-style Phoenix-inspired resurrection. > Alla: > Hogwarts will be open. Exodusts: Definitely, since there is nothing to prevent McGonagall from opening it, and Harry needs to go there to chat to Dumbledore's painting, fetch the Sorting Hat, get Zacharias Smith's home address, possibly find the heir of Ravenclaw, and expose the painting of Fortescue in the Head's Office as Voldemort's spy (under duress - his relative, Florian has being kidnapped by the Death Eaters). > Alla: > Will add more later if come up with something new. Exodusts: If you want, I reckon I can sketch out the whole plot of book 7 up to about the 3/5 point, when it all becomes a bit hazy, minus the Ravenclaw Horcrux subplot, which will be done with Brand New stuff, if not a brand new item, and probably provide the title ("Harry Potter and the Heir of Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff/Gryffindor", anyone?). An alternative random stab: "Harry Potter and the Hogwarts Curse". From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 9 14:43:29 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 08:43:29 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Trelawaney (was) Re: Teaching Styles LONG References: Message-ID: <001e01c62d87$315c1130$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 147854 ----- Original Message ----- From: finwitch Also, as much as Divination may seem to be nonsense to those who don't understand it - well, it's like Zen, isn't it? Oh, and don't you think it curious that Trelawney saw 'Grim' in Harry's cup-- (a big, black dog that is) -- until the year Sirius died... She *sees* true, but often misinterprets what she sees. She saw Sirius (animagus form) until Harry's 5th year... I find it curious she predicted that 'one of our number will leave us around easter' - which came true when Hermione left. You may argue she caused Hermione to leave, *but* how was she to know WHEN? You know, Hermione could have decided to prove her fraud by choosing another time to leave, but she didn't. kchuplis: The last time through OoTP and HBP I got the distinct impression that Trelawney's mutterings in the hallway while shuffling cards etc. may show more "sight" than previously believed. Trelawney is definitely a bit of an old fraud, yet she has had two seriously real "visions". However, particularly in HBP, her lines seem like more throw away fraud bits, and yet, I get the distinct feeling she is actually dropping bits of truth here and there. Did anyone else get this feeling? (Also, note, she tends to discount the things that she really does see as being impossible or too far fetched, which I find interesting). In regards to Hermione/Trelawney vx. Harry/Snape, to me the difference is that Hermione goes into Divination with the attitude that it is a "fuzzy" science and she is therefore ready to take a stance opposite Trelawney from before setting foot in class. Trelawney only seems to confirm this for her. Their mutual dislike grows from that basic premiss. Harry and Snape on the other hand, have a degree of disgard almost solely due to Snapes feelings towards James. Harry gets the impression Snape dislikes him from before classes even begin, reinforced by the pain in his scar at the opening feast (which even though we find out later was due to Quirrell probably still pyschologically reinforces the notion before class starts). But his attitude towards the subject itself was open and willing. So there seems to be a fundamental difference in the two situations to me. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 9 14:54:58 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 08:54:58 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Trelawaney (was) Re: Teaching Styles LONG References: <001e01c62d87$315c1130$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: <003a01c62d88$cbb33780$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 147855 disgard Sorry folks. "disregard". I need to be more awake before I post. I hope that last post was even readable. Seeing it on list, I'm not very happen with my communications skills. Argh. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 9 14:56:01 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 08:56:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Trelawaney (was) Re: Teaching Styles LONG References: <001e01c62d87$315c1130$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> <003a01c62d88$cbb33780$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: <004201c62d88$f16b2190$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 147856 HAPPY ! not happen. I give up. ----- Original Message ----- From: Karen To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups]Trelawaney (was) Re: Teaching Styles LONG disgard Sorry folks. "disregard". I need to be more awake before I post. I hope that last post was even readable. Seeing it on list, I'm not very happen with my communications skills. Argh. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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 Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! SPONSORED LINKS Half-blood prince Adult education Culture club Organizational culture ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Feb 9 15:49:05 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:49:05 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <43EB3E01.20915.14BF450@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147857 Shaun Hately > Wild cheering? Hardly. Some applause yes - but applause that isn't > loud enough to block out Harry's cry of 'No', when we are told that > Dumbledore had to raise his voice just to be heard over muttering. > That to me, is hardly a ringing endorsement. Yes, the Slytherins clap > (and no mention is made of any applause from the Hufflepuffs or the > Ravenclaws, but perhaps Snape was merely too rude to acknowledge > them), but he is his their Housemaster - it would be very odd indeed > if there was no applause and mere applause isn't that impressive. Magpie: That's why I shouldn't post when I don't have canon in front of me--I hate getting it wrong. I think I had mostly remembered the image of Snape lazily acknowledging the applause and so in my mind must have exaggerated the description of the applause for more contrast. The Slytherins applaud, they do not wildly cheer. Note that I just looked at the canon and adjusted my argument to fit it. I did not start explaining away the canon or finding ways that "applause from the Slytherin table" could indicate wild cheering when you take into account Harry's bias or the accoustics of the Great Hall. This is a work of fiction, not a crime scene. The reason Harry can be heard along with the Slytherins is because the author is giving us two bits of information: Harry's reaction and the Slytherins'. That Harry can still speak to his friends on the other side of the Great Hall is not a way of telling us that the Slytherin applause is anything less than applause (approval expressed especially by the clapping of hands; praise; commendation). If the author wanted to indicate that, she would say that. I already acknowledged that Snape favored Draco from the very first day. He also favors the Slytherins over other students. My point was that throughout canon Snape has mostly been shown having positive interactions with the Slytherins, and there is at least one student we know who considers him his favorite. I remain feeling your desciption is more based on your own life experience with teachers you believe to be like Snape (he knows he won't ever be popular, etc.) than the character of Severus Snape in the Harry Potter books, who, from the evidence we have, seems perfectly popular with his own house. He is not the most unpopular teacher in canon. Irene Milkin: Someone else was very sarcastic in this thread about the constantly moving goal posts. I thought it was too much at the time, but now I start to see the point. Magpie: Honestly, I don't think it was sarcasm. It was a perfectly accurate desciption of the way the argument looked to be going and was demonstrated perfectly with the response. I believe it's a common thing in debate--I think it's called an "unfalsified premise?" The idea is that you have a premise that can never be falsified--what Betsy described as "always raising the bar higher." -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 18:59:09 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:59:09 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles LONG/ small response to Potioncat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147859 > > Alla: > > > > Oh, but I have no problem agreeing with you that Snape maybe a > good > > teacher for SOME. Its "Snape is a good teacher for many" I have > > problem with. Irene: > Someone else was very sarcastic in this thread about the constantly > moving goal posts. I thought it was too much at the time, but now I > start to see the point. Alla: I am going to try and clarify myself one more time. If after that you still think that I am moving the standards, raising the bar higher every time, etc, there is really nothing I can do about it. :-) I went upthread and reread my initial post and I see what you are saying in terms I phrased the question. I should have asked about proving that Snape is the good teacher for majority of the students and that is ( please believe me when I say it) what I was thinking about, because I was thinking about Shaun's argument that Snape is a good teacher for majority. That's all I can say on this point. Whether you believe me or not, it is certainly up to you. :-) I have absolutely no problem believing that Snape is a good teacher for SOME students, moreover I have absolutely NO problem believing that Snape KNOWS his subjects both DADA and Potions. What I DO have huge problem believing that Snape wants and/or knows how to teach his subjects to the majority of the students. But the most important thing I think Snape has no clue how to do is how to treat the students he teachers fairly and unbiased. So, as I said I see what you are saying in terms I phrased the question, but not in terms of other examples. ESPECIALLY about Hermione, but more about it later on. Irene: > OK, I'll answer it here. I don't have a problem with "He likes > Hagrid as a person, not as a teacher" approach. But less than a year > ago he was shouting at Hermione for daring to say more or less the > same thing, and bullied her into taking it back. Alla: Oh, Okay I understand it then. > > > > Irene: > > > But the deeds speak louder than the words! :-) Hermione was > going > > to > > > take another two years of Snape. > > Alla: > > She is you know... Hermione. :-) Irene: > I see, so it does not count. How can I prove "good teacher for many" > if every individual example does not count in one-way or the other? > Hermione is after knowledge, first and foremost, I hope we can agree > about that. If Snape's lessons did not bring her any added value, > beyond what she can get from books, why did she sign up for two more > years of abuse (if we take your point of view) or even harsh and > sarcastic treatment (if we take mine). Alla: Right,Hermione. I have NEVER taken an approach that Hermione's judgments are always right, EVER. I think HBP showed us perfectly how completely idiotic Hermione can act when she kept dismissing Harry's concerns about Draco all the time and when her jealousy about Ron and Lavender was acting out. She IS after knowledge absolutely and she is learning from everybody, IMO, who in her mind has knowledge to give her. I really liked Finwitch argument that Hermione had no mindset for Divination and therefore was not able to like it. And as I said above, I do not doubt that Snape is a knowledgeable man at all. I doubt his value as a teacher, but he certainly knows his subjects. Besides, I cannot make up my mind whether Snape abuses Hermione or not. IMO he certainly mistreats her, but his mistreatment does not arise to the level of what he does to Neville and Harry. So, maybe Hermione decided that she could handle Snape's harshness, which knows. > > Alla: > > > > If we disregard the fact that I was talking about Snape as a > potions > > teacher, not as DADA teacher, then Okay you got me here - Snape is > a > > good teacher for Ernie Macmillan. Huge accomplishment that. :-) Irene: > Back to my point - it's impossible to demonstrate what you want, > because we can't go to Hogwarts and interview all the students to > prove a majority opinion. And using the technique above, individual > examples can always be dismissed. Alla: But I was absolutely serious when I was saying that I was talking about Snape as Potions instructor, I cannot form the judgment about Snape as DADA instructor yet, I don't have enough information on that, SO Snape can be a good teacher in DADA for the majority of the students for all I know. I mean, I had seen enough proof that he is not a good teacher to Harry in DADA either, but not to everybody else who is not in Gryffindor house. But is it really fair to base the assessment of Snape on Ernie McMillan words, if we did not see how Snape interacted with him? I mean, really, I can also argue and did argue in the past that what Snape does to Harry and Neville are meant to show us the samples of how Snape treats all Gryffyndors - unfairly, biased, etc. Would not you respond that individual examples should be dismissed in this situation? And I am not even dismissing it, I completely agree that Snape can be a good teacher for Ernie McMillan. I want to address something else here, even though I really should have addressed in another post, but it relates to DADA lesson, so here it goes. Potioncat ( I think) made a brilliant point that Snape does not really use Unforgivables in his DADA lesson, instead he just shows pictures, contrary to what Fake!Moody did and that he claimed about learning unforgivables. If Potioncat reads this post, I just want to acknowledge that I find it a very good possible proof for the DD!M Snape who does not really have much fun of showing off Unforgivables. ( But I hope not, LOL!) JMO, Alla From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Thu Feb 9 11:05:49 2006 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (Rebecca Williams) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:05:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: <017301c62d0c$48ad1d00$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: <20060209110549.92853.qmail@web25304.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147860 Miles said: I do not buy this one. This would mean, that the examiner failed to give the most extraordinary witch in the year the chance to gain the best mark. I can't believe that, do you? In any oral/practical exam I attended (at school and university), the examiners tried to find out whether they could give me top grades when they realised that my knowledge was above average. And I do not doubt that the examiners for OWLs and NEWTs would act in the same way. Becky replies: I think it is absolutely disgraceful that an examiner would seek to give someone top grades just because they believed them to have above average general knowledge - the point is surely how well you perform in the exam, not for examiners to help you cheat. Herminone is excellent at remembering any- thing written down in a book but as Snape often points out her answers are 'word for word' what is written in the textbooks (i.e. 'an answer taken directly from the standard book of spells grade 6 but correct in essen- tials' HBP). This implies that though her memory is excellent and though she is a bright girl she does not necessarily show any applied logic.(That's more in Snape's opinion than mine, I think she has shown logic on many occasions so don't attack me for that). In OOTP when they are persuading Harry to teach them, he says that DADA is about guts and your nerves, thinking on your feet (not a direct quote obviously)which implies it takes a different intelligence set to those who are more theory based. (There are different types of intelligence - for example many scientists are often hopeless at English - I should know, I am a journalist working with scientists). Hermione is definitely a theory girl - she is not a good flyer so is more comfortable with books than anything physical and she has never been outstanding at DADA - remember in PoA during the exams she cocked up the boggart bit, running out screaming - her nerves therefore get the better of her. She has never shown herself to be outstanding in DADA, even in that year with the best teacher they had. And, let's not forget, her teacher in her OWL year was Harry so he is bound to be better than her. If, like all the other subjects she took, she had a competent teacher all the way through she probably would have done better but her education was interrupted by the constant changes in teachers in that subject. She can remember anything she is taught but if she is not taught it properly in the first place she might have trouble and an E is still a good grade. Becky From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 9 20:27:41 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:27:41 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles LONG/ small response to Potioncat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147861 Alla wrote: > But is it really fair to base the assessment of Snape on Ernie > McMillan words, if we did not see how Snape interacted with him? > snip< > And I am not even dismissing it, I completely agree that Snape can be > a good teacher for Ernie McMillan. Potioncat: We also have Hermione who often defends Snape, even though she has enough reasons not to bother. The "Is Snape a Good Teacher?" thread has existed in some form since before this list began...I'm sure of it. If you picked a post number at random, you'd have a good chance of it discussing some variation of this theme. The biggest difficulty, aside from the fact that we, as a group, don't even agree upon the defintion of a good teacher, is that we all see Snape through a different filter. Upthread somewhere Alla commented that while canon supported one view, she also had her years of knowing Snape to use in support of a different view (I know, I really should go get that comment, but it's close, isn't it?) The bigger point is that it brought home to me that I'm doing the same thing. Some see Snape through a filter that associates cruelty as a motive in the way Snape deals with Harry. Some see through a filter that adjusts for "there's a reason for this/it's more than it seems." None of us just read the page and move on. I do think that Ernie's comment, and Hermione's were JKR's way of supporting Snape as good DADA teacher. Just as in earlier books we have Ron's quotes from the twins about Snape and that gave us some information too. (I think it came from the twins.) For that matter, I think it's an important detail that Hermione did better in Snape's class than she does in Slughorn's. I just don't know what it means that Hermione trust(ed) Snape but not the HBP, while Harry trust(ed) the HBP but not Snape. >Alla: > Potioncat ( I think) made a brilliant point that Snape does not > really use Unforgivables in his DADA lesson, instead he just shows > pictures, contrary to what Fake!Moody did and that he claimed about > learning unforgivables. > > If Potioncat reads this post, I just want to acknowledge that I find > it a very good possible proof for the DD!M Snape who does not really > have much fun of showing off Unforgivables. ( But I hope not, LOL!) Potioncat: Although in later chapters Draco seems to say that DADA isn't important, Snape seems to be very open about what he's doing. Potioncat,(feel free at any time to attribute any brilliant points to me.) ;-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 20:30:06 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:30:06 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147862 Luckdragon wrote: > > > 1) The person with LV at GH was a female. The "cackle of high- pitched laughter" was neither Wormtail nor LV, although Peter was lurking outside unbeknownst to the others. Exodusts responded: > 1) Occam's Razor says the laughing was Voldemort, since we already > know he has a "high, cold voice". There is no need for a mysterious > female. Snape (fav), Pettigrew, long shot is Harry himself, watching > from the shadows with a Time-Turner. Carol notes: Agreed that LV's "high, cold voice" (descried as such, IIRC, in every book) is the one Harry hears. But if we're going to apply Occam's razor, then the person at Godric's Hollow is Pettigrew, who revealed the location to LV and later returned his wand. Snape, we now know, was already teaching at Hogwarts, and Harry with a Time-Turner is very much a long-shot. My own theory is that Dumbledore, alerted either by his own sudden knowledge of the previously secret whereabouts of the Potters, and perhaps by Snape's running to him to inform him that his Dark Mark was nearly obliterated, was "watching from afar" using his mysterious silver instruments--the same way he has watched Harry "more closely than you know" for at least six years (his time at Hogwarts) and perhaps even during his time at the Dursleys'. Not sure whether that fits with Occam's razor or not, but it would at least explain how he knew to send Hagrid to find Harry, as Harry with a time turner would not. > > > > Luckdragon: > > > 2) Lupin will die! His sad life as a Werewolf must end; taking Fenrir Greyback with him. Carol responds: I predict that Peter Pettigrew will fulfill his life debt to Harry by using his silver hand to kill Fenrir Greyback (assuming that Greyback is not already in Azkaban)--two minor mysteries from Peter's character arc resolved together. As for Lupin, I expect that he will either serve as a go-between for Snape and Harry or be killed or both. Remember Trelawney's view of him in the crystal ball. Of course, that could simply be a red herring for his "orb" boggart and her prediction that Lupin would not be with them for long could relate to the DADA curse that cost him his job. (So, I'm iffy on Lupin, but pretty certain with regard to PP.) > > > Luckdragon: 3) Snape will be redeemed. Carol: All indications point that way, IMO--except for those who are inclined to overlook them. > > > Luckdragon: 5) LV will succumb to the Dementor's Kiss after Harry destroy's the Horcruxes. Carol: The Horcruxes will have to be destroyed, no question, but not necessarily by Harry alone. (Bill Weasley, Hermione, and/or Snape could play an important role here.) But I think that Harry will use another of the powers acquired at Godric's Hollow to destroy him: possession. Either LV will feel Harry's pain caused by the loss of the people LV has killed or destroyed (the pain which, according to DD in OoP, makes Harry human and ties in with the otherwise inexplicable Love motif) or Harry will send him through the Veil or both (Harry, possessing Voldemort, forces LV's body and remaining soul bit through the Veil but escapes himself, possibly using Sirius's body, which will end up on the other side of the Veil while his soul does not). Carol, snipping the points she has no opinions about and predicting a happy ending for Harry From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 20:34:09 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:34:09 -0000 Subject: Umbridge - Consequnces Be Damned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147863 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > > April responds: > > > > What exactly was Umbridge's agenda in OOTP by sending a > > dementor to Harry? Did she want him 'dead' for a lack of > > better term, or what exactly was her deal? We know she > > was going to be sent to work at Hogwarts reguardless of > > whether or not Harry was found guilty. ... > > > zgirnius: > The point was to discredit Harry. The Ministry is spreading the > (Harry's) story that this is nonsense. > > Having Harry testify that he was attacked by Dementors (when > everyone knows they are all in Azkaban) would demonstrate yet > again that Harry is a disturbed and attention-seeking adolescent > with a persecution mania. > bboyminn: I think Umbridge's intent, indeed every aspect of her existance and actions, are based in Power. I think we see enough evidence in the clues we are given about the nature of Umbridge to see that she is a very insecure person. Fearing her own powerlessness, she grasps on to tokens of power. In a sense, she defines herself by the power she holds. It gives her her worth and sense of self-importance, and NOTHING but absolutely NOTHING can be allowed to weaken or damage her self-image of a powerful and superior person. Umbridge is in a powerful position, the books seem to imply that she is in the number TWO spot in terms of power, though not necessarily in terms of succession to the 'throne'. So, to threaten the Ministry or the Minister, is to threaten its power, and to threaten its power is to threaten Umbridge herself. Therefore, any threat to her or her power must be immediately STOMPED DOWN regardless of consequences. That is exactly what she does. Umbridge see Harry as a threat to her power and therefore to herself, and she STOMPS HIM DOWN, puts him in his place, makes him think twice before he dares to threaten her. If Harry happens to be destroyed in the process of learning his place in life, then that will just have to serve as a unfortunate lesson to anyone else who might consider challenging her power. Umbridge's attitude in the fewest words - "I have power and I will destroy anyone who threatens it, consequences be damned." As a side note: 'The Bartimaeus Trilogy' by Jonathan Stroud very nicely illustrates what might happen if Magicians reveal themselves to muggle society and integrated into it. Naturally the wizards are the ruling class and they do everything they can to suppress the commoners. Libraries are close, the propaganda press is filled with misinformation, knowledge of science and math are withheld from commoners; everything possible is done to keep the masses docile and compliant. Sadly, if only life were so easy. Meanwhile the wizards are all vying for status and postion. The usual method of lifting oneself up is by pushing other around you down so you will look better by comparison. In fact, everyone is so busy trying to look good while making everyone else look bad that nothing ever gets done because to do the job is to risk failure. It really is a wonderful insight into an alternate world of magicians. In a sense, it is the expansion of a very Fudge/Umbridge like government. Where power and status are everything and consequences be damned as long as you look good and don't get caught. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 20:37:35 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:37:35 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147864 finwitch: > As for Hermione not dealing with TimeTravel well - Percy Weasley had > 12 OWLs so I conclude he had also a TimeTurner to cope with his > lessons. And quite apparently, Percy managed to take it to OWL- level. > So *someone* has done it. Hermione could not. zgirnius: She did not quit because she could not handle the Time Travel. She quit because it was not necessary. She decided not to take Divination. Percy passed 12 OWLS, she passed 11 (presumably all the same as he, except Divination). finwitch: > Trelawney is about acceptance (particularly your own mortality), > Firenze is about critical thinking (isn't certain about anything). > I don't know if Hermione could do with either of them... (What was > that thing about Horses? Hasn't she read in her FBaWTFT about > Centaurs? It was such a silly comment.) zgirnius: It was made in response to an equally silly comment. I could imagine myself in the distant past having a classmate tell me I should be in some class, the teacher is SOOO handsome, and replying "I don't care for blonds" in exactly the same way. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 9 20:50:57 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:50:57 -0000 Subject: What was the spell that hit Tonks? (Was: NVBL spell question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147865 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > I'm not sure whether it's necessarily the case that a nonverbal spell > is weaker than a verbal one. Gerry It is probably depending on the spelcaster. If someone is really good at nonverbal spells it will be the same, if someone is not, it will be weaker. > That aside, are we certain that the spell Dolohov cast would have been > more powerful if it had been spoken or is the narrator reflecting > Harry's OOV? Gerry Well, Dolohov up til that moment used verbal spells, so we may assume nonverbals are not his strongest point. So yes, I guess the spell was weaker because he could not speak the words. From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Wed Feb 8 22:26:10 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:26:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: Harry's memories of that night at Godric's Hollow (was Re: Petunia and Dementors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060208222610.79451.qmail@web37002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147866 JenD: >> Harry was very young at his parents' death. Pre-verbal would be the important descriptor. I am not an expert at this , but pre-verbal memory is very amorphous and unformed. I find it very telling that Harry can remember the screams of his mother. I don't think he can remember very many things she said and surely he'd have heard her begging for Harry's life. << He does also hear his father(? at least we assume it's James) telling her to take Harry and run and that he'll hold Voldemort off (PoA UK edition, ch 12"The Patronus" pg 178). Remember also that the MoM enforcement officer (Bob?) remembered all the hissing noises between Gaunt and Morfin, but he didn't understand them. Of course, this is merely my opinion, but there's something more to that memory. cat From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 21:00:19 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:00:19 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dementors In-Reply-To: <20060208200958.89022.qmail@web37006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147867 cat wrote: "Petunia has a very important role to play at the beginning of the next book. She will be the key to Lily and maybe even more of DD's insight. In HBP, the ONLY time she reacts to anything that DD says is that Harry will come of age next summer. She has something to do, information to give to Harry at that time and maybe didn't realize it was coming so soon? I like someone else thinking that maybe part of the pact was about Dudley, perhaps he was showing some signs of magic as a baby. Could Petunia have been visiting her sister sometime in October, 16 odd years ago? Maybe not, but she has a very important role to play and it definitely has (IMO) something to do with Lily, "that awful boy" (Snape? James?) and DD....what do you guys think?" CH3ed: Yep, the subject has been discussed before but didn't get far since we don't have a lot of info on Petunia in canon. It is a good theory, tho. Petunia is in many ways like Snape to me. They are horrendous to Harry, but they protect him, nonetheless, often without being acknowledged for it by Harry himself. I doubt that there is more to Dudley than meet the eye since Jo basically says Dudley is just as we've seen him and nothing more on her website. But I wouldn't be surprised if the magic that protects Harry also protects Petunia and her family. It would only be fair, since when Petunia accepted Harry into her house she herself would have also became a fair target for LV and his DEs. The condition of Harry's protection dictates that he has a room in the place his mother's living blood relative dwells. If Petunia is assassinated, then there would be no other living blood relative of Lily, and the protection should expire. Maybe that's why Petunia resents Harry so much (beside him being a wizard, that is). Cat wrote: "As awful as Harry's childhood has been, as many bad memories that he must have, why does he keep remembering *only* the memory of his parent's death when attacked by Dementors? Every time I remember people talking about Dementors, they make you relive your worst MEMORIES (plural) yet all Harry remembers is the night his parents were murdered. I think that this will come into play. Either on purpose (or being overcome perhaps by Dementors) Harry will relive the *entire* night, and see who else was in Godric's Hollow the night his parents died. JKR has hinted that maybe Voldemort was not alone that fateful night. There might have been witnesses, and where better to get this information, than his own memories? Opinions?" CH3ed: Good points. :O) I think Harry just was never tormented by the dementors long enough to start remembering other things than his absolute worst memory. Until the GoF graveyard scene, that was the murder of his parents (the memory that came out when Harry was attacked by Umbridge's dementors was what LV said to him in the graveyard). I don't think using the dementors to induce Harry to remember the details of LV's attack at Godric's Hollow is an option. The dementors seem very bent on performing the kiss on him.... even though they were not ordered to (definitely not in PoA, and I doubt that Umbridge really ordered a 'kiss' on him in OotP). They didn't go after other kids on the train in PoA, but the one that entered Harry's car stepped toward Harry and not the others near him. So I think they have it in for Harry and can't be trusted. Also, I don't think dementor-induced remembrance of worst things past ;O) is effective in helping one remember the details of the memory. One falls into a state of despair and, if left with the dementors long enough, loses ones mind (like most prisoners at Azkaban). On the other hand, the penseive is a great way of re-examining long past memories, because it reproduces the memories as they happened (without the person's bias)..... unless the person deliberately tampers with them like Slug did the first memory he gave DD on the Horcrux discussion with LV. If DD left his penseive to Harry, then I hope Harry learns how to extract memory and to use the pensieve real soon. He might even try to see Sirius again in the pensieve by pulling out memories of him..... perhaps one in 12GP and, by chance, pulls the one of the day they were cleaning the room and found the magically sealed-shut locket! CH3ed :O) From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 01:23:14 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:23:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Love, forms of love In-Reply-To: <20060208161120.32718.qmail@web31704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147868 > Lia says: > The comparison of Dumbledore to Jesus is an interesting one. > > Jesus gave all to gain all (for humankind). Might Dumbledore, > then, have given all to gain all for the wizarding world? > > I think that Dumbledore does understand love, and can also feel > it deeply. I think he loves Harry very much. > > Somewhere in the Book of John it states: > "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life > for his friends." > > Dumbledore states in HBP that he views Harry as a friend, > doesn't he? If so, perhaps that's what Dumbledore did. Fuzz here: Jesus showed the agape form of love by giving his life for all humanity. The form of love I see from Dumbledore is more familia. Don't get me wrong, Dumbledore probally is capable of agape. Now let me explain the two Greek words I used here: first, agape is a strong and the purest form of love any one can show. Second is familia - this is a love of family. There are two more forms of love; they are philidandros the friendship love, and erotica the love of husband and wife or a sexual love. Dumbledore understands the prior and also the other three forms of love. Voldemort being a creature of hate understands neither form of love. It seems that his abandonment as a child caused him not to be able to understand love in its purest form or agape. Fuzz876i From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 21:08:38 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:08:38 -0000 Subject: What was the spell that hit Tonks? (Was: NVBL spell question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147869 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen wrote: > > > On Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 08:20 PM, justcarol67 wrote: > > > > > > That aside, are we certain that the spell Dolohov cast would > > have been more powerful if it had been spoken or is the > > narrator reflecting Harry's OOV? > > kchuplils: > > It doesn't sound like it is just a guess: > > "The curse Dolohov had used on her, though less effective than > it would have been had ha been able to say the incantation aloud, > had nevertheless cased, in Madam Pomfrey's words, "Quite enough > damage to be going on with." " bboyminn: I don't think we can apply this one statement uniformly to all spells and curses. I always to that statement that Dolohov's curse would have been more powerful as a reflection of that one particular unique curse. With most spells it's not a matter of whether it is more powerful or less, only whether it was effective. If you intent to light a fire nonverbally and the fire lights, then it was a successful effective spell regardless of whether it would have been more powerful if spoken. Results are what are important, not method for method's sake. The AK Curse is somewhat unique in this sense. Any AK curse that doesn't kill the person is a failed curse. Further the books seem to imply that if the spell (the AK) is casted and it strikes then it is fatal. In the rare case of the AK curse merely grazing you, I guess it is possible to do some damage but not kill you. But that is just speculation. From what we know, there are no powerful and weak AK's; if it hits you, your dead. But other spells can certainly come in powerful and weak forms, and again, results are what matter, if the spell cast nonverbally is enough to produce the desired effect then it is a successful spell even if it would have been more powerful is spoken. Noting that if spoken and more powerful, it still would have only produced the same result. I guess my main point is that we can't apply this one comment absolutely to each and every spell known to exist. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Feb 9 21:06:48 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:06:48 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147870 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fuzz876i" wrote: > In The Order of the Phoenix Umbridge's agenda imo is to prove Harry > is as insane as the Daily Prophet makes him out to be. He is rash > in what he does and never thinks. When no one else in the ministry > will do anything to get Harry expelled then she acts in the only way > she knows how with sadistic power and control. > Actually, I don't think she wanted him expelled, she wanted him dead. She did not know he could produce a Patronus, so the attack ought to have been fatal. Potter dead, no more embarassment for the MoM, case closed. I'm sure she would have masked his death as something completely else so nobody would have known it was a dementor attack. When he survived the trial was obviously a try for the next best scenario: Harry expelled. But even that did not happen. How she must have hated that annoying kid. Gerry From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 21:12:32 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:12:32 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: <20060209110549.92853.qmail@web25304.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147871 > Becky replies: > > I think it is absolutely disgraceful that > an examiner would seek to give someone top > grades just because they believed them to > have above average general knowledge - the > point is surely how well you perform in the > exam, not for examiners to help you cheat. zgirnius: I think you are misunderstanding Miles' point, I do not think he was suggesting the examiners would, or ought to, cheat to help Hermione. The examiner would give Hermione the chance to get the best grade by providing her the opportunity to 'show her stuff', such as possibly asking her to perform more advanced spells than would be asaked of other students, if she is able. (As in fact we see Harry's examiner do, by having him demonstrate the Patronus spell). This is definitely something that can happen with a one-on-one oral sort of exam. It has happened to me before. But I think it is fine that Hermione got the E in DADA, regardless. First, the examiners are not teachers at the school so they actually may not knew that Hermione is likely the top overall student at Hogwarts in her year. And second, since she does get nervous, I could see her blowing an easy opening problem on her practical (Boggart, anyone?) and this affecting her performance on the rest of the practical enough to bring her doubtless perfect written exam score down to an E. She did get Os in everything else, including subjects Harry is not even taking. From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 02:57:33 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 02:57:33 -0000 Subject: Petunia and Dementors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147872 Cat wrote: > SNIPPED > > Another point I have been pondering, as awful as Harry's > > childhood has been, as many bad memories that he must have, > > why does he keep remembering *only* the memory of his parent's > > death when attacked by Dementors? Everytime I remember people > > talking about Dementors, they make you relive your worst > > MEMORIES (note the plural) yet all Harry remembers is the night > > his parents were murdered. I think that this will come into > > play. Either on purpose (or being overcome perhaps by Dementors) > > Harry will relive the *entire* night, and see who else was in > > Godric's Hollow the night his parents died. JKR has hinted > > that maybe Voldemort was not alone that fateful night. There > > might have been witnessess, and where better to get this > > information, than his own memories? Opinions? > > Jen D.: > Harry was very young at his parents' death. Pre-verbal would be > the important descriptor. pre-verbal memory is very > amorphous and unformed. I find it very telling that Harry > can remember the screams of his mother. I don't think he can > remember very many things she said and surely he'd have heard her > begging for Harry's life. But since he was so very young, he just > didn't have the words to put meaning to his experience. To continue on Jen's point, Harry's subconscious could remember the screams and her pleading for his life. The dementor attack not only brought about the attack on his mother but also the attack on his father. In his subconscious mind these two attacks are linked; they took place at roughly the same time just within a few moments of each other. The morning of Dudley's birthday on the way to the zoo he speaks about a flying motorcycle that he saw in a dream. We know that Hagrid took him to the Dursleys' on the back of Sirius's flying motorbike; this again was his subconscious mind bringing out a good memory. We tend to repress memories we had best not think about and our subconsous minds bring them out. Harry had dreams about a flash of green light and had no idea what it meant until fake Moody showed the class the unforgivable curses. Harry was then able to associate the flash he saw in his dreams with the Avada Kedavra curse. In Prisoner of Azkaban Harry thinks that it is weakness that causes him to pass out when the dementors get close. Lupin points out that it is the horrors in his past that cause him to pass out. When he faces the boggart/dementor he hears his dad for the first time. This again is his subconscious mind producing yet another memory from that fateful night. Petunia kept the truth from Harry because she thought he could not handle it. So did Dumbledore until Sirius's death in The Order of the Pheonix. In my opinion the story of Harry's parents dying in a car crash not only came from the Dursleys but also Dumbledore. In Harry's psychological mind and subconscious these memories from that fateful night in Godric's Hollow will lead him to the truth and the best way to dicover what is there is to put him under hypnosis. This could be the key to tell us exactly what he remembers from that night. Or give him some truth serum. These two things can lead to either exact memories or fake memories. Either of these can be very dangerous and can cause a lapse in Harry's own subconscious revealing what it needs to. Fuzz876i From rkdas at charter.net Thu Feb 9 21:23:27 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:23:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's memories of that night at Godric's Hollow (was Re: Petunia and Dementors) In-Reply-To: <20060208222610.79451.qmail@web37002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147873 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catherine higgins wrote: > > JenD: > >> Harry was very young at his parents' death. Pre-verbal > would be the important descriptor. I am not an expert at this > , but pre-verbal memory is very amorphous and unformed. > I find it very telling that Harry can remember the screams > of his mother. I don't think he can remember very many things she > said and surely he'd have heard her begging for Harry's life. << > > > > He does also hear his father(? at least we assume it's James) > telling her to take Harry and run and that he'll hold Voldemort > off (PoA UK edition, ch 12"The Patronus" pg 178). Remember also that > the MoM enforcement officer (Bob?) remembered all the hissing > noises between Gaunt and Morfin, but he didn't understand them. > Of course, this is merely my opinion, but there's something more > to that memory. > > cat Hi Cat, You know, someone else maybe you, pointed out that a wizard's brain may not work like a muggle's so maybe there is a memory in Harry's brain that can be extracted. I just have to wonder if there were any chance that Harry might have had more memory in there, wouldn't DD have tried to access it? I mean, he certainly worked with many other people to collect information about LV using their memories, many of which were incomplete, tampered with, but that didn't stop him. But I won't discount anything, this is just a feeling, a hunch. Jen D. > From mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 05:21:45 2006 From: mail_to_jutika at yahoo.com (Jutika Gehani) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:21:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060209052145.59764.qmail@web80901.mail.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147874 > Luckdragon's predictions: > 1) The person with LV at GH was a female. The "cackle of high- > pitched laughter" was neither Wormtail nor LV, although Peter > was lurking outside unbeknownst to the others. > 2) Lupin will die! His sad life as a Werewolf must end; taking > Fenrir Greyback with him. > 3) Snape will be redeemed. > 4) Someone utterly shocking will be revealed as ESE! > 5) LV will succumb to the Dementor's Kiss after Harry destroy's > the Horcruxes. > 6) A Wizard(Lupin), a Witch(Bellatrix), a Centaur(Bane), and a > House-elf(Winky) will die. > 7) Harry will find out his family owned Zonko's. 1) Could be. 2) JKR wants only Harry to fight in the end. And she has taken care of this by killing anyone who could have helped him (Sirius & DD). So it could be possible that Lupin dies. 3) Hmm.....again a possibility. 4) I really don't think so. 5) This doesn't go with the flow. Isn't Harry supposed to destroy every remaining part of LV's soul (remaining horcruxes and the part that's in LV's body). If LV succumbs to the Dementor's kiss, that means his soul will be just sucked out of his body. Does that also mean that it will be destroyed? I really don't know. 6) Bellatrix should die. In fact she should be killed by Harry.... as an act of revenge. Can't say anything about the other 3. 7) Wow! Great ending!! Maybe he'll even hand it over to Fred & George. Take care, Jutika. From chiviscandacegpna at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 21:17:56 2006 From: chiviscandacegpna at yahoo.com (Candace Chivis) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:17:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: What was the spell that hit Tonks? (Was: NVBL spell question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060209211756.64660.qmail@web61117.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147875 bboyminn: > With most spells it's not a matter of whether it is more powerful > or less, only whether it was effective. > > But other spells can certainly come in powerful and weak forms, > and again, results are what matter, if the spell cast nonverbally > is enough to produce the desired effect then it is a successful > spell even if it would have been more powerful is spoken. Noting > that if spoken and more powerful, it still would have only produced > the same result. Candace: I think that also part of a spell's success would have to do with how much you want the spell to work. Sectumsempra (the blood spell) worked on Malfoy because Harry was upset, but he couldn't do the unforgivable curses because it really wasn't in his nature to be that evil. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 22:01:52 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:01:52 -0000 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: <653575072.20060209015538@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147876 Dave wrote: "CH3ed wrote: h> At the end of OotP Harry had escaped h> LV alive 4 times against LV's will; h> 1. in PS/SS from the dungeon h> 2. in CoS from the Chamber of Secrets (with Tom Riddle) h> 3. in GoF from the graveyard scene h> 4. in OotP from the fight at the MoM I'm with you on 1, 3, & 4, but I've never been sure if the fourth occasion refers to the CoS or Godric's Hollow." CH3ed: Yeah. I wondered about that too, but I ended up scoring GH for Lily instead of for Harry, since she was the one that did the actual facing with LV. Harry in that scene wasn't doing anything but getting hit by the AV curse, which then rebounded off him because of Lily's sacrifice. On the other hand both Lily and James died in the scene.... but Lily's death gave the protection that defied and destroyed LV... so I guess Lily's final tally is 1 more than James? CH3ed :O) From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Thu Feb 9 22:42:27 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:42:27 +0100 Subject: Discrepancy of skills References: Message-ID: <00e101c62dca$1b50c640$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 147877 susanbones2003 wrote: > What I can say in JKR's favor is that Hermione has a history of > choking during her DADA exam. Remember her disastrous final with > Lupin where her bogart turned into McGonagall and gave her a zero on > a homework paper? That was my first thought when you all pointed out > the best student of the year couldn't possibly do less than > an "outstanding" in all her exams. Miles: This was ONE incident with a much younger Hermione. And as far as we have seen the OWL exam, there was no similar task at all. The exam was similar to Charms or Transfiguration - that means both student and examiner sit at a table, and the student has to perform jinxes and spells. That is exactly the kind of exam that Hermione would always master, isn't it? Deb wrote: > Reads to me like Harry went from an E-exceeds expectations to an O- > outstanding on the basis of his Patronus - just my interpretation of > this passage. > Becky replies: > I think it is absolutely disgraceful that > an examiner would seek to give someone top > grades just because they believed them to > have above average general knowledge - the > point is surely how well you perform in the > exam, not for examiners to help you cheat. > zgirnius: > I think you are misunderstanding Miles' point, I do not think he was > suggesting the examiners would, or ought to, cheat to help Hermione. > The examiner would give Hermione the chance to get the best grade by > providing her the opportunity to 'show her stuff', such as possibly > asking her to perform more advanced spells than would be asaked of > other students, if she is able. (As in fact we see Harry's examiner > do, by having him demonstrate the Patronus spell). Miles: zgirnius got my point correctly. I agree with him (?) and Deb, that Harry achieved his "Outstanding" for performing the Patronus - I think this is the only way to understand canon at this point. But given (speculation standing on very solid feet) that Hermione had performed as well as Harry up to this point in her exam, I'm quite sure that every examiner would have given her the chance to perform something special as well, so she could achieve an "Outstanding" like Harry could. We know that Hermione can produce a Patronus as well, and surely she is able to perform any other spell as well that is required for the OWL examination. Yes, maybe it is nice to have her one "E" in her OWLs, but this one is against overwhelming odds. Miles From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 22:53:19 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:53:19 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills - Hermione's DADA OWL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147878 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "exodusts" wrote: > > Allie: > > Two topics in the area of magical skill do not add up for me. > > > > 1. Hermione Granger, most talented witch of her age, able to > > perform well on both written and practical exams, able to > > master complicated spells in a single lesson, able to produce > > a Patronus in one D.A. session... achieves only an E on her > > DADA Owl???? > exodusts: > > ... > > The second point is well made. It is an unfortunate and unrealistic > contrivance that Hermione doesn't have a clean sweep of top grades. > ...edited... > > exodusts > bboyminn: Let's not lose our perspective here, Hermione received a muggle 'B' or wizard's 'E' in DADA, that is a very respectable grade in anyone's book. Further, letter grades are very limited when it comes to making a distinction between the best grade-B student and the worst grade-B student (wizard's grade-E). For all we know Hermione got an 'E++++++' in DADA; she may have missed a full grade-O by a mere point or even a fraction of a point. Hermione is good, but she is not perfect. We know she would logically do well on written tests as they typically deal with textbook knowledge, but the DADA test could have had Applied Defensive Strategy questions that were along the line of 'If you were in 'this' situation, how would you best defend yourself?'. Now Hermione can't get the answer straight from a textbook, she has to analyse the situation, choose a strategy, and then defend that as the correct strategy. In the applied test, we must remember two things; first Umbridge wants the student to pass the OWL test, but at the same time, she is bend on making sure they don't gain any practical applied knowledge. She is actively suppressing their education. Harry on the other hand is teaching a very narrow range of what he thinks are practical and useful defensive spells. I'm sure the general course of study covered a much wider range of topics than Harry covered. Harry is in a sense taking the opposite approach to Umbridge, he is teach the skilled practical use of a narrow range of useful spells, wereas Umbridge it teaching a wide range of theoretical defensive spells. Neither is to Hermione's benefit relative to taking the test. Harry leaves her with a narrow but practical range of spells. Umbridge leaves her with no practical skills but a wide range of superficial theoretical knowledge. Given this, it's possible that Hermione was confronted with a spell she hadn't had a chance to practice in Harry's class. Certainly she would have been able to work it out from theoretical knowledge, but she would not have been able to apply it as well as a spell she had actually practiced. Between strategic questions on the written test, and new unpracticed spells in the practical exam, it's easy to understand why Hermione wasn't perfect. But none the less, a muggle 'B', wizard's 'E' is nothing to sneeze at. That is a very respectible grade, and if we assume, as we logically would, that Hermione receive a very high 'B' (wizard's 'E') that would explain a lot. I think in applies skill and applied strategy, Hermione would have certainly been at her weakest. And I don't find it that hard to speculate a circumstance in which Hermione would have been at a disadvantage that left her with a very respectable 'E'. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Feb 9 22:59:01 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:59:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's memories of that night at Godric's Hollow (was Re: Petunia and Dementors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147880 JenD: > > >> Harry was very young at his parents' death. Pre-verbal > > would be the important descriptor. I am not an expert at this > > , but pre-verbal memory is very amorphous and unformed. > > I find it very telling that Harry can remember the screams > > of his mother. I don't think he can remember very many things she > > said and surely he'd have heard her begging for Harry's life. > << cat: > > He does also hear his father(? at least we assume it's James) > > telling her to take Harry and run and that he'll hold Voldemort > > off (PoA UK edition, ch 12"The Patronus" pg 178). Remember also > that > > the MoM enforcement officer (Bob?) remembered all the hissing > > noises between Gaunt and Morfin, but he didn't understand them. > > Of course, this is merely my opinion, but there's something more > > to that memory. Jen D.: > Hi Cat, > You know, someone else maybe you, pointed out that a wizard's brain > may not work like a muggle's so maybe there is a memory in Harry's > brain that can be extracted. I just have to wonder if there were any > chance that Harry might have had more memory in there, wouldn't DD > have tried to access it? I mean, he certainly worked with many other > people to collect information about LV using their memories, many of > which were incomplete, tampered with, but that didn't stop him. But > I won't discount anything, this is just a feeling, a hunch. Ceridwen: Maybe this works like a Penseive memory, objectively recalling everything even though the one whose memory it is doesn't see/hear/know what else is going on until they plop it into a Penseive? So a pre-verbal infant, or a wizard who cannot speak Parseltongue, will still have these things imprinted in their memory so others who do know the language can hear what was going on if the memory was available. Or, so Harry recalls what was said when this memory is disturbed by the Dementors because the raw information was already there, and now he has the knowledge to decypher it correctly. Ceridwen. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 22:59:34 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:59:34 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147881 > >>Irene Milkin: > > Someone else was very sarcastic in this thread about the constantly > > moving goal posts. I thought it was too much at the time, but now I > > start to see the point. > >>Magpie: > Honestly, I don't think it was sarcasm. It was a perfectly accurate > desciption of the way the argument looked to be going and was > demonstrated perfectly with the response. I believe it's a common > thing in debate--I think it's called an "unfalsified premise?" The > idea is that you have a premise that can never be falsified--what > Betsy described as "always raising the bar higher." Betsy Hp: Magpie is right. I wasn't being sarcastic at all. And I wasn't even trying to be rude. It's just how these arguments have always gone down. > >>Alla: > Are you SURE Betsy that Umbridge is not a suck up to Snape? Betsy Hp: Yes. Because JKR wrote Umbridge as hostile to Snape. Even Harry picked up on the hostility. So I'd say this isn't opinion, it's canon. I mean, sure there's a *logic* to Umbridge sucking up to Snape, just as there's a logic to Fake!Moody sucking up to Draco Malfoy. But it doesn't mean the charater will follow the logical route. And JKR makes it very clear that Umbridge and Snape do not get along. > >>Alla: > Could you point me to interview where JKR said that Hermione is a > chosen judge of good vs bad teaching? Betsy Hp: No. This is something you pick up from reading the books. Hermione is very interested in her education and so, unless she's got a crush, she will not tolerate an incompetent teacher. > >>Alla: > You should really take this grievance with JKR. :-) Because she was > the one who could not decide whether Harry's year contains 600 ( > almost sure of the number) or 40( I think) students. Betsy Hp: Can you point me to the canon that supports the theory that Harry's class has 600 students? That would be 150 students per house (in *only* Harry's class). Which means Snape and Sprout teach 300 students in Harry's classes with them. Which also means there are 142 Gryffindors in Harry's year that he never mentions. Unless we're going with, what, 8 Gryffindors, 10 Slytherins, 291 Ravenclaws and 291 Hufflepuffs? Which would mean that while Snape and Sprout had a class of about 20 when Harry was learning from them, their other classes had 582 students. That's a lot of mandrakes! I'd love for you to point out some canon support for those numbers, Alla. But I'll understand if you don't want to. > >>Alla: > You have some proof that Slytherins who graduated while Snape was a > teacher had not become DE? Betsy Hp: I'd say the burden of proof is on your side actually. Show me that under Snape's leadership, Slytherins have been flocking to Voldemort. I will say that the recruitment numbers were probably low all over while Voldemort was Vapor!Mort. And none of the Death Eaters we've met so far have been young enough to have been recruited, straight from Hogwarts in the last two years. And of Harry's class, only Draco has actively worked for Voldemort (though we don't know if he's an actual Death Eater) and he didn't relish the work. (The glory, yes, but not the work.) So that's *one* student out of however many. But you're welcome to try and prove there's been more. > >>Alla: > So, I take it you agree with me that older Gryffindors do not think > Snape is a good teacher either? Betsy Hp: No. You can take it that I agree that Gryffindors, for the most part, are bigoted against Slytherins in general. Which is why I considered your question a clever trap. (Would a Hatfield praise a McCoy?) This next bit is a perfect example of raising the bar, so I'll play the conversation out in full: > >>Alla: > Really, IMO all that Rowling needed to do if she wanted to show > that Snape is a good teacher for anybody except Slytherins is to > let ANY older Gryffindor make a passing remark, about his class > being good, challenging, interesting. > > >>Betsy Hp: > A neat little trap, this, Alla. Because we do know that Snape > doesn't like Gryffindors, and we also know that Gryffindors don't > like Slytherins. > However, if we accept that Hufflepuffs are not total duffers, the > fact that Ernie Macmillan says of Snape's first DADA class, "Good > lesson, I thought," (HBP scholastic p.182) should fit the bill. > (Only, of course it won't .) > >>Alla: > If we disregard the fact that I was talking about Snape as a potions > teacher, not as DADA teacher, then Okay you got me here - Snape is a > good teacher for Ernie Macmillan. Huge accomplishment that. :-) Betsy Hp: And suddenly the playing field changes. You weren't talking about how JKR wrote Snape as a *teacher* anymore (to "anybody except Slytherins"), now we're talking specifically about *Potions* teaching. (Because teaching DADA is so darn easy, is the implication.) And apparently not only *are* Hufflepuffs a bunch of duffers, but for some reason poor Ernie is the worst of the lot. (At least that's what your "huge accomplishment" remark seems to imply.) So really, your first question doesn't count, and can I please find another example to meet your exact standards. Only, if I do, that won't quite suffice either. It's frustrating. Less a discussion than an exercise in verbal fencing. You're not really interested in an answer to your question because you think you already know the answer. Or at least, that's the impression I get. > >>Alla: > I won't argue bezoar with you, since again this is different > interpretation of the same canon, but what do you mean - Slughorn > praised him for his cheek because Harry cheated? Betsy Hp: Because that's what cheek is. Boldness in the face of wrongdoing. If Harry was merely correct, then he'd have been, well, correct. And if Ron had *also* had a bezoar it would have been correct too. And Harry wouldn't have worried about Slughorn yelling at him, and Slughorn wouldn't have told him, yes but you still need to learn how to mix antidotes.... I still don't see any support whatsoever for your argument that Harry answered the class problem correctly. I suspect you're not actually serious about that argument, and you're just making a joke, right? Heh. I have a feeling this post is a massive waste of time, but what the heck, I'll post it anyway. Betsy Hp From Nrsedany2be at aol.com Thu Feb 9 23:05:11 2006 From: Nrsedany2be at aol.com (Nrsedany2be at aol.com) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:05:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's memories of that night at Godric's Hollow (was Re: Petunia and Dementors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C7FBE4699D72DB-DE4-1EBA5@mblk-d30.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147882 I was the one who said that maybe wizards brains work differently. just also remember that in the mom there was the tank full of brains. Danielle D. -----Original Message----- From: susanbones2003 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:23:27 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's memories of that night at Godric's Hollow (was Re: Petunia and Dementors) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catherine higgins wrote: > > JenD: > >> Harry was very young at his parents' death. Pre-verbal > would be the important descriptor. I am not an expert at this > , but pre-verbal memory is very amorphous and unformed. > I find it very telling that Harry can remember the screams > of his mother. I don't think he can remember very many things she > said and surely he'd have heard her begging for Harry's life. << > > > > He does also hear his father(? at least we assume it's James) > telling her to take Harry and run and that he'll hold Voldemort > off (PoA UK edition, ch 12"The Patronus" pg 178). Remember also that > the MoM enforcement officer (Bob?) remembered all the hissing > noises between Gaunt and Morfin, but he didn't understand them. > Of course, this is merely my opinion, but there's something more > to that memory. > > cat Hi Cat, You know, someone else maybe you, pointed out that a wizard's brain may not work like a muggle's so maybe there is a memory in Harry's brain that can be extracted. I just have to wonder if there were any chance that Harry might have had more memory in there, wouldn't DD have tried to access it? I mean, he certainly worked with many other people to collect information about LV using their memories, many of which were incomplete, tampered with, but that didn't stop him. But I won't discount anything, this is just a feeling, a hunch. Jen D. > 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 Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rkdas at charter.net Thu Feb 9 23:08:31 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:08:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's memories of that night at Godric's Hollow (was Re: Petunia and Dementors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147883 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: SNIPPED > Jen D.: > > Hi Cat, > > You know, someone else maybe you, pointed out that a wizard's brain > > may not work like a muggle's so maybe there is a memory in Harry's > > brain that can be extracted. I just have to wonder if there were > any > > chance that Harry might have had more memory in there, wouldn't DD > > have tried to access it? I mean, he certainly worked with many > other > > people to collect information about LV using their memories, many > of > > which were incomplete, tampered with, but that didn't stop him. But > > I won't discount anything, this is just a feeling, a hunch. > > Ceridwen: > Maybe this works like a Penseive memory, objectively recalling > everything even though the one whose memory it is doesn't > see/hear/know what else is going on until they plop it into a > Penseive? > > So a pre-verbal infant, or a wizard who cannot speak Parseltongue, > will still have these things imprinted in their memory so others who > do know the language can hear what was going on if the memory was > available. Or, so Harry recalls what was said when this memory is > disturbed by the Dementors because the raw information was already > there, and now he has the knowledge to decypher it correctly. > > Ceridwen. Hi there, Ceridwen, I am not arguing with you about this but I just can't imagine why DD wouldn't have wanted to go into Harry's memory and retrieve anything that might have been there from that night at Godric's Hollow. Are you saying that now that Harry has had the experiences of seeing others' memories in the pensieve, that he'll somehow find a way to go back into his own? Jen D. > From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Feb 9 23:08:26 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:08:26 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: <00e101c62dca$1b50c640$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: <43EC661A.19682.4529311@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147884 On 9 Feb 2006 at 23:42, Miles wrote: > Miles: > This was ONE incident with a much younger Hermione. And as far as we have > seen the OWL exam, there was no similar task at all. The exam was similar to > Charms or Transfiguration - that means both student and examiner sit at a > table, and the student has to perform jinxes and spells. That is exactly the > kind of exam that Hermione would always master, isn't it? Honestly, no it's not. I work with exceptionally and profoundly gifted kids (and I was one myself). These are kids with IQs (or equivalent measures) that place them at at least the 1 in 10,000 level among the population. They are extremely intelligent. And while, by no means all of them, are particularly academic, some most certainly are. And, Hermione, as presented in the books definitely reminds me of those kids. And, honestly, everytime these kids have to go through an exam process, I have to deal with kids who (to their surprise and often to their parents surprise) have some odd marks. No matter how brilliant a student is, and how dedicated a student is, occasionally most of them will drop a few marks somewhere. It's a reality - even for the most brilliant student. Especially on externally assessed examinations - and especially on examinations where the marking is at all subjective (as opposed to totally objective). Sometimes, it can even be because the student gives an answer that is totally correct, but is so far beyond what the marker is expecting that they don't realise it is correct. One of the things I have to teach PG kids is that they should always try and work out 'What answer does the examiner want'? not just 'What is the correct answer'? because sometimes it's not the same thing. Maybe Hermione was asked a question - and rather than give the textbook answer - she gave a really obscure answer from the seriously out-of-print 1803 edition of 'Merlin's Theory of Thaumaturgical Warfare' that she feels is a better answer, and maybe the examiner had never read that book. There's plenty of reasons this can happen. And it does happen. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 23:18:40 2006 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:18:40 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: <20060209052145.59764.qmail@web80901.mail.scd.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147885 > Luckdragon's predictions: > 4) Someone utterly shocking will be revealed as ESE! 4) It's Dobby. Think about it. He was bound to and working for the Malfoys. His original mission was to keep an untrained Harry out of Hogwarts. Dobby's actions could have led to the expulsion of Harry for performing underage magic, or to a serious bludger injury. When Harry freed Dobby from Lucius Malfoy, after Dobby told him how, the elf became situated in a place where he could keep an eye on Harry. He sees to it he is the only one entrusted with cleaning the Gryffindor common room. He ingratiates himself into Hermione's good graces by wearing the hats she makes, solidifying the ill will of the house-elves against Harry's friend. He looked after Winky to prevent her from revealing terrible secrets. The fight with Kreacher was a set-up to get Harry to trust him even more. Dobby was given the task of keeping an eye on Draco -- but how good a job did he do, really? Who's to say he wasn't another loyal lookout for Draco? Dobby may just pop back at the beginning of book 7 and say, "I followed Draco when he apparated out of here, and if you hurry, we can catch him -- and Snape". Then viola, Harry rushes right into a trap and Dobby cackles maniacally. Snape and Lupin have nothing on Dobby when it comes to being a double agent. And Dobby, while remaining loyal to the Malfoys, gets paid for his services. How ... Evil. (implied smiley face) lealess From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Feb 9 23:25:20 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:25:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's memories of that night at Godric's Hollow (was Re: Petunia and Dementors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147886 Jen D.: > Hi there, Ceridwen, > I am not arguing with you about this but I just can't imagine why DD > wouldn't have wanted to go into Harry's memory and retrieve anything > that might have been there from that night at Godric's Hollow. Are > you saying that now that Harry has had the experiences of seeing > others' memories in the pensieve, that he'll somehow find a way to > go back into his own? Ceridwen: I don't know why Dumbledore didn't try to retrieve Harry's memory. And, I don't know that Dumbledore didn't retrieve it, study it, then put it back. We don't know much about Godrick's Hollow at all, who was there, what precisely happened, or where Harry was for a day between. All we can do is come up with suggestions and hope they're plausible. But, I expect that if Dumbledore didn't go in and take a look at Baby! Harry's memory, then it might have been because it would be better to let it sink into oblivion, be repressed, in his mind until he was strong enough and old enough to handle it. Maybe it was buried so deep that only a jar as strong as the Dementors could bring it forward. Just guessing on my part here. Maybe Harry, or Hermione or Ron, will think about the way memories can be viewed, and think of going back in Harry's memory. They can visit the site, but since it was destroyed, there will be little physical evidence left, and if there had been, someone might have picked it up - Aurors, any DEs left when LV vaporized. With time alone it will have changed a lot. So, a visit to GH as it is now, and a trip back in time via the Penseive? Maybe, to get all possible angles. Ceridwen. From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Fri Feb 10 00:12:34 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 19:12:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060210001234.17825.qmail@web53307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147888 > Luckdragon's predictions: > 4) Someone utterly shocking will be revealed as ESE! Lealess wrote 4) It's Dobby. Think about it. He was bound to and working for the Malfoys. His original mission was to keep an untrained Harry out of Hogwarts. Dobby's actions could have led to the expulsion of Harry for performing underage magic, or to a serious bludger injury. When Harry freed Dobby from Lucius Malfoy, after Dobby told him how, the elf became situated in a place where he could keep an eye on Harry. He sees to it he is the only one entrusted with cleaning the Gryffindor common room. He ingratiates himself into Hermione's good graces by wearing the hats she makes, solidifying the ill will of the house-elves against Harry's friend. He looked after Winky to prevent her from revealing terrible secrets. The fight with Kreacher was a set-up to get Harry to trust him even more. Dobby was given the task of keeping an eye on Draco -- but how good a job did he do, really? Who's to say he wasn't another loyal lookout for Draco? Dobby may just pop back at the beginning of book 7 and say, "I followed Draco when he apparated out of here, and if you hurry, we can catch him -- and Snape". Then viola, Harry rushes right into a trap and Dobby cackles maniacally. Snape and Lupin have nothing on Dobby when it comes to being a double agent. And Dobby, while remaining loyal to the Malfoys, gets paid for his services. How ... Evil. Luckdragon: Dobby being ESE would definitely be shocking to me. His innocence, naivete, and sincerity would be so misleading. I've seriously wondered about McGonagall many times especially when she demanded to know what DD and Harry had been doing the night DD "died"; but then I remember her earnest sympathy for Harry at other times. Whoever LV's double agent may be has been well hidden by Jo. --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Fri Feb 10 00:44:32 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 19:44:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My 7 book 7 predictions- Alla In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060210004432.29193.qmail@web53307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147889 > Luckdragon: > After reviewing the 6 books for the umpteenth time I thought it would > be fun to make some predictions. Alla: LOVE predictions games, always. It is midnight here, so I could not resist before going to bed. I will comment on some of yours and then add mine. > Luckdragon's predictions: > 1) The person with LV at GH was a female. The "cackle of high- pitched > laughter" was neither Wormtail nor LV, although Peter was lurking > outside unbeknownst to the others. Alla: Snape, my money is on Snape and not for the good reasons either, probably waiting to get his reward - "Lily". Luckdragon: but can you really picture either Snape or Peter emitting a high pitched cackle. I can see Peter chuckling or wheezing gleefully while rubbing his hairy little hands together or Snape's upper lip curling, sneering, or smirking. Do men "cackle"? > 2) Lupin will die! His sad life as a Werewolf must end; taking Fenrir > Greyback with him. Alla: After JKR giving Remus love interest, I feel much more confident that he will live. Oh, and of course he was not and never wil be ESE. :-0 Luckdragon: No arguments on Lupin's goodness; but don't you find it strange that this relationship was just thrown into the mix without prior clues. How would this work? Good a metamorphagus and Auror as Tonks may be even Moody wasn't able to remain entirely in one piece and fell victim to Crouch Jr. It would just be too dangerous to marry a Werewolf (Lupin knows it). > 7) Harry will find out his family owned Zonko's. > Alla: Would love that. Luckdragon: James and his friends (purveyors of aids to magical mischief makers) were the creators of the Marauder's Map after all. They had to learn it somewhere. Some of mine(Alla's) Alla: If Harry dies, he will be reunited with his loved ones behind the Veil, if he does not, he will NOT be Frodo Potter. He will get a chance to live a reasonably normal happy life. Maybe "twelve kids" prediction will come true. Luckdragon: Goodness, I hope not the 12 kids part. Alla: At some point in book 7 Harry will believe that he is Horcrux, which may or may not be true, but Harry will be fully prepared to sacrifice himself, which hopefully will not be needed. Luckdragon: I think he'd have been long gone with his gold if he wasn't prepared for that possibility. Alla: Oh, of course the AK Snape performed was very real, not fake. Luckdragon: That I won't believe til the last page of book 7 ends. --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 00:52:31 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:52:31 -0000 Subject: Umbridge - Consequnces Be Damned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147890 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > I think Umbridge's intent, indeed every aspect of her existance and > actions, are based in Power. Tonks: I am beginning to wonder if Power isn't a major point in the HP books. We see the craving for Power, the misuse of Power, the quest for the Ultimate Power, etc. And in DD we see the gentle form of Power of one who knows who he is and what he can do. We see in DD a man who has a great deal of personal power, but does not misuse it. And we see Harry discovering that the high form of Love is the highest form of Power. Any thoughts? Tonks_op From rkdas at charter.net Fri Feb 10 00:58:16 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:58:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's memories of that night at Godric's Hollow (was Re: Petunia and Dementors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147891 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: SNIPPED > Ceridwen: > I don't know why Dumbledore didn't try to retrieve Harry's memory. > And, I don't know that Dumbledore didn't retrieve it, study it, then > put it back. We don't know much about Godrick's Hollow at all, who > was there, what precisely happened, or where Harry was for a day > between. All we can do is come up with suggestions and hope they're > plausible. > > But, I expect that if Dumbledore didn't go in and take a look at Baby! > Harry's memory, then it might have been because it would be better to > let it sink into oblivion, be repressed, in his mind until he was > strong enough and old enough to handle it. Maybe it was buried so > deep that only a jar as strong as the Dementors could bring it > forward. Just guessing on my part here. > > Maybe Harry, or Hermione or Ron, will think about the way memories > can be viewed, and think of going back in Harry's memory. They can > visit the site, but since it was destroyed, there will be little > physical evidence left, and if there had been, someone might have > picked it up - Aurors, any DEs left when LV vaporized. With time > alone it will have changed a lot. So, a visit to GH as it is now, > and a trip back in time via the Penseive? Maybe, to get all possible > angles. > > Ceridwen. Hi Ceridwen, I have a confession. You know the first time you pick up a new HP book and you read it fast as lightening? Mostly just to find out what happens? Then you go back and read it again slowly for the details? Until last week, I never read HPB that 2nd, 3rd, 4th time. And I missed a ton of details. But I just couldn't cope with DD's death and it seemed best to avoid it, like a sore place. So just about 30 minutes ago, I read the part (as if it were the first time, sadly enough) where Harry says he's going back to Godric's Hollow. Now all that we've been discussing makes so much more sense. From what JKR has hinted, and from what Harry says, it will be an invaluable experience. But now I just don't think any of the trio has the expertise to probe a person's memory. It's very confunding that the two most accomplished people have both left the scene. And another question. How do wizard memories work? They seem somewhat omniscient. After all, in "Snape's Worst Memory" Harry could spend time where he wanted to be, near his dad and Sirius, not simply with Severus. Does that mean that Severus gave the Marauders such close attention or that a wizard memory is more like a video camera, taking in the whole scene? I appreciate your speculations on wizard memory. I hope some of the blanks get filled in. Jen D From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 01:25:19 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:25:19 -0000 Subject: What was the spell that hit Tonks? (Was: NVBL spell question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147892 bboyminn wrote: > > The AK Curse is somewhat unique in this sense. Any AK curse that doesn't kill the person is a failed curse. Further the books seem to imply that if the spell (the AK) is casted and it strikes then it is fatal. From what we know, there are no powerful and weak AK's; if it hits you, your dead. Carol responds: I'm not sure that I agree. Crouch!Moody told Harry's fourth-year DADA class that if all of them together aimed their wands at him and yelled "Avada Kedavra," he probably would not suffer so much as a nosebleed. Of course, he could have been lying, but I think that both intent and power count in an AK as they do in a Crucio (with the difference that a Crucio has to be sustained and an AK doesn't). But *if* nonverbal spells are generally weaker than verbal ones, as is implied by the narrator's remark about Dolohov's curse, then perhaps a silent AK could fail. Certainly there was a lot of green light flashing around the MoM, yet only Sirius Black died (from falling through the Veil, not an AK as far as we know). So either the fresh-out-of-Azkaban DEs are a hopeless bunch of rejects who can't hit the broad side of a barn (which doesn't explain why Lucius Malfoy's AKs would miss their targets), or those unnamed and apparently silent spells weren't AKs despite the jets of green light, or the silent AKs failed. At least the one that hit Tonks did. She fell down the stairs unconscious, but she didn't die. So was the jet of green light that sent her to St. Mungo's a failed AK (weak because it was silent) or was it something else? (Note that there are no blinding flashes of light in the whole battle, so maybe Harry misidentified the few that the narrator identifies as killing curses--or being silent weakens them to mere "jets." Take your pick.) Carol, thinking that an AK, like any other spell, would require practice to master and wondering what the Durmstrang kids practiced on From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 01:43:28 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 01:43:28 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147893 Gerry wrote: Actually, I don't think she [Umbridge] wanted [Harry] expelled, she wanted him dead. She did not know he could produce a Patronus, so the attack ought to have been fatal. Potter dead, no more embarassment for the MoM, case closed. I'm sure she would have masked his death as something completely else so nobody would have known it was a dementor attack. When he survived the trial was obviously a try for the next best scenario: Harry expelled. But even that did not happen. How she must have hated that annoying kid. Carol responds: Interesting idea, but a Dementor sucking your soul doesn't kill you. As Lupin explains in PoA, your brain and other organs continue to work and your body remains alive. It's just your soul that's irretrievably lost, which is why Lupin tells Harry that having your soul sucked out is *worse* than death. (Evidently your soul can't go through the Veil?) And the poster of a Dementor victim in Snape's DADA classroom shows a living man staring blankly, not a corpse. So there would be no way to disguise a soul-sucking as a death. The victim's heart would still be beating and he would still be breathing. Apparently Umbridge knew from someone (Fudge?) that Harry could produce a Patronus and sent a Dementor after him to make him cast the spell (in a Muggle neighborhood). I'm pretty sure that she wanted him discredited, not dead (or rather, soul-sucked). The Dementor(s), however, had other ideas. (I do wonder, though, why there were two of them. How could Umbridge have anticipated that Harry would be with Dudley? Carol, not sure exactly what happens to the victim but pretty sure that he'd end up in a special ward in St. Mungo's, not the WW equivalent of a morgue From juli17 at aol.com Fri Feb 10 01:54:42 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:54:42 EST Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions Message-ID: <227.5fa66ea.311d4c62@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147894 > > Luckdragon: > > 1) The person with LV at GH was a female. The "cackle of high- > > pitched > > laughter" was neither Wormtail nor LV, although Peter was lurking > > outside unbeknownst to the others. > Alla: > 1) Snape, my money is on Snape and not for the good reasons either, > probably waiting to get his reward - "Lily". Exodusts: 1) Occam's Razor says the laughing was Voldemort, since we already know he has a "high, cold voice". There is no need for a mysterious female. Snape (fav), Pettigrew, long shot is Harry himself, watching from the shadows with a Time-Turner. Julie: I don't see any reason for a female voice either, though I suppose it could be Bellatrix. JKR has definitely implied someone else was at Godric's Hollow, and while Pettigrew is an obvious choice, it doesn't make much sense to me that he's this mysterious person JKR wouldn't name. She already confirmed that Pettigrew took LV's wand from Godric's Hollow, so if she meant him to be the mysterious person who was there during the murders also, why not just say so? He's no surprise revelation, so no need to keep the mystery. I still like Snape being the person, though not so he could get Lily as his reward. DDM!Snape wouldn't do that, as he's actually reformed and wants to save the Potter family, not just Lily (and Snape had already turned back to DD's side at this point). Even for an ESE!Snape it doesn't make sense from LV's standpoint, because why not just stupefy Lily and give her to Snape? It cost LV nothing and keeps a grateful Snape more loyal than ever. > > Luckdragon: > > 2) Lupin will die! His sad life as a Werewolf must end; taking > > Fenrir > > Greyback with him. > Alla: > 2) After JKR giving Remus love interest, I feel much more confident > that he will live. Oh, and of course he was not and never wil be > ESE. :-0 Julie: I agree. The love interest sealed it for me. And Remus is the *only* adult left Harry can fully confide in now, and who can mentor him. Hagrid's a sweetheart, but not exactly stand-in father material. > > Luckdragon: > > 3) Snape will be redeemed. > Alla: > 3) hmmm, that is a possibility of course. Exodusts: 3) He will be simultaneously mortally wounded/redeemed in a vital strike against Voldemort, saving Harry. Just time for a reconciliatory chat with his last breath. Julie: That's what I expect also. Nothing else to add ;-) > > Luckdragon: > > 4) Someone utterly shocking will be revealed as ESE! > Alla: > 4) Either nobody or a minor character. Exodusts: 4) No. Snape being revealed as ESG! is the "big twist" of book 7. Julie: LOL, but I don't think so. Snape will remain ESC!, or ever-so-conflicted, too steeped in bitterness to slough off his nastier traits, but compelled by his loyalty to Dumbledore and his own conscience (yes, I do think he has one) to do the right thing (when it comes to the bigger picture anyway). He will also be revealed as DDM!, which will be an eye-opener for Harry. Hmm, Snape and Harry, two sides of the DDM coin ;-) > > Luckdragon: > > 5) LV will succumb to the Dementor's Kiss after Harry destroy's > > the > > Horcruxes. > Alla: > 5) Could be. Exodusts: 5) If his big fear is death, why not just have him die? To prove that Dumbledore was right about there being things worse than death? As a neat solution to the problem of Voldemort's outright death requiring the destruction of Horcrux-Harry? (The latter could be avoided by having a Dementor, Harry's Big Fear, sucking the soul-part out through his scar). Still, a solid 50/50 prediction. Julie: I like the idea of the Dementor's sucking the soul part out of Harry's scar! In fact, maybe that's why they're so attracted to Harry. And if LV is soul-sucked by the Dementors, that's not really dying, but living on as a soulless shell. (Though it still seems like dying to me, unless it's analogous to being fully paralyzed with your mind intact, since how else would one know how dreadful their soul-sucked existence is?) > > Luckdragon: > > 6) A Wizard(Lupin), a Witch(Bellatrix), a Centaur(Bane), and a > > House-elf(Winky) will die. Exodusts: 6) Lupin NO; Bellatrix YES, 100% come-uppance time at the hands of a sub-hero (not Harry, probably Neville by indirect means); Bane, if he is the centaur-leader, possibly yes, to be replaced by Firenze; Winky, no, her death lacks a moral basis, her partial recovery suits JKR's style much better. Julie: Bellatrix is a goner, but Lupin will live. I expect some Order members to die, which is likely to include at least one Weasley. And I think Dobby is more likely to die than Winky. He'll go while helping Harry, which gives his death meaning, and conveniently gets him out of Harry's life (who really wants a simpering house-elf hanging around for a lifetime?). > Alla: > If Harry dies, he will be reunited with his loved ones behind the > Veil, if he does not, he will NOT be Frodo Potter. He will get a > chance to live a reasonably normal happy life. Maybe "twelve kids" > prediction will come true. Exodusts: Of course. Additionally, if he does die in book 7, he might a) come back moments later in a blaze of glory (provided Dumbledore isn't the one who gets resurrected: it's one or the other, not both, and if one DOES come back it will be through the Locked Door in the DoM) or b) be able to chat merrily to Hermione and Ron every day via a Two-Way mirror he takes through the veil, surrounded by his dead Parents, Sirius, Dumbledore, and with a nice scarless forehead. Julie: Harry won't die. Harry will get his just reward--his karmic justice, as some might say--which will be a long and happy life to make up for the nearly unending misery of his childhood. The end :-) > Alla: > At some point in book 7 Harry will believe that he is Horcrux, > which > may or may not be true, but Harry will be fully prepared to > sacrifice himself, which hopefully will not be needed. Exodusts: It will be true, he will sacrifice himself, but it will all work out for the best. Julie: I agree he'll be prepared to sacrifice himself, but it will be Snape who will sacrifice himself instead, thus paving the way for Harry's long and happy life after Voldemort. And you know he'll get no thanks from that little brat! ;-) Actually, he probably will. > Alla: > Snape will get what he deserves whatever that is. :-) Julie: Absolutely! He'll pay with his life for his many sins, but he'll also be redeemed because of his sincere efforts to make up for (most) of those sins. And while Harry's living a long, happy life, Snape will be hanging out with the one person he truly loved, Dumbledore, somewhere behind the veil ;-) > Alla: > Oh, of course the AK Snape performed was very real, not fake. Exodusts: Of course. Whatever dumbledoreisnotdead.com says, the evidence is clear from the books, leaving aside the obvious fact that Dumbledore has to be dead, in order to undergo Jesus-style Phoenix-inspired resurrection. Julie: Dumbledore is dead, though I'm not convinced about the AK. JKR has pulled too many switches on us (though never without canon basis) for me to discount the possibility of a fake AK covering up a nonverbal spell that knocked Dumbledore off the Tower. And the canon comes from the heavy emphasis on nonverbal spells in HBP, though canon is completely silent on one spell being masked by another (which leaves as much a possibility as not). > Alla: > Hogwarts will be open. Exodusts: Definitely, since there is nothing to prevent McGonagall from opening it, and Harry needs to go there to chat to Dumbledore's painting, fetch the Sorting Hat, get Zacharias Smith's home address, possibly find the heir of Ravenclaw, and expose the painting of Fortescue in the Head's Office as Voldemort's spy (under duress - his relative, Florian has being kidnapped by the Death Eaters). Julie: Agreed. And I think Voldemort may attack Hogwarts, which will get the Order and DA deeply involved. And I like the idea of one of the portraits being a spy! Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Thu Feb 9 23:05:44 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 18:05:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060209230544.17672.qmail@web37007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147895 CH3ed: >> At the end of OotP Harry had escaped LV alive 4 times against LV's will; 1. in PS/SS from the dungeon 2. in CoS from the Chamber of Secrets (with Tom Riddle) 3. in GoF from the graveyard scene 4. in OotP from the fight at the MoM << Actually 5 times if you also consider his escape as a baby when the AK curse failed to kill him.... Cat From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 02:04:15 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:04:15 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: <227.5fa66ea.311d4c62@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > Julie: > I still like Snape being the person, though not so he could get > Lily as his reward. DDM!Snape wouldn't do that, as he's actually > reformed and wants to save the Potter family, not just Lily (and > Snape had already turned back to DD's side at this point). Even for > an ESE!Snape it doesn't make sense from LV's standpoint, because > why not just stupefy Lily and give her to Snape? It cost LV nothing > and keeps a grateful Snape more loyal than ever. I would like to take the dubious honor of being (I think) the first person to resurrect this vintage (vintage!) theory for the new book, which I did here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/132993 In answer to your 'why not just stupefy Lily' question, you're not thinking with Evil Overlord logic, and Voldemort has shown himself to be absolutely classic EO material: splitting up his soul and hiding it in precious objects, giving his opponent a chance to duel and thus escape, other flashy theatrics, etc. So Voldemort has never been the most terribly considerate Evil Overlord towards his minions. Sure, he makes an *offer* to spare Lily (note interview confirmation of said fact), but if she's not going to take it, she might as well be disposed of. Snape, as a good minion, will just have to suck it up and deal. But you have to admit that the idea that Snape and Voldie had some general agreement does explain the "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them?" comment distressingly well. That said, I still think it's a long shot because of the genuinely EWWW factor of the theory, incorporated into its name. Just be glad it's not "So EWWWer It's In the SEWWWer", which I'm not even going to think about. -In fact, Nora feels rather dirty even thinking about it From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 02:14:52 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:14:52 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147897 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Luckdragon" wrote: > > Luckdragon: > After reviewing the 6 books for the umpteenth time I thought it would be fun to make some predictions for book 7 based on little clues or even just hunches we have thought up from what we've read so far. Tonks: 1. We find out that (in spite of all time turners being broken) that Harry is, like Merlin, living his life backwards. Scar is the last word because it was the beginning of the story. Don't ask me to explain this, because it is rather mind boggling, but just a thought. 2. The high pitched laughter is "the Dark Lord" as I wrote in an earlier post quoting a poem that I saw about the Dark God: "I am the high pitched laugher at the edge of death". I agree with others here, that is if there was anyone else with LV at Godric's Hollow it was PP, maybe in his rat form. 4. DD is really dead. DD will come back briefly, having been resurrected and Fawkes with him. Fawkes will be available to help Harry. 5. Harry will live. Yes, I know in the past I said that Harry will die. But these are children's books and Harry is a young man now. Harry is a good role model for everyone young and old alike. Can we really kill him off? I agree, with who ever here said, that one of the other Harry or DD must die and come back. So if DD is not the one to die and be resurrected then in that case it will have to be Harry. But everyone here has convinced me that Harry is Everyman. In that case we have to have DD as Christ and Fawkes as the Holy Spirit. 6. Snape (DD's Man) will be redeemed, but die a tragic heroic death. And his truth will be reveled. We will know why DD trust him and it will shock us. 7. We will somehow come to understand that each of us must be ready to do as Harry does in his battle to vanquish LV. LV is, in part, within Harry and because Harry is Everyman, LV is in each of us. We each have to overcome the dark side of ourselves. Somehow Harry will show us how. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 02:34:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:34:13 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147898 Alla: > > Are you SURE Betsy that Umbridge is not a suck up to Snape? > Betsy Hp responded: > Yes. Because JKR wrote Umbridge as hostile to Snape. Even Harry picked up on the hostility. So I'd say this isn't opinion, it's canon. And JKR makes it very clear that Umbridge and Snape do not get along. Carol adds: I agree with Betsy. Far from sucking up to Snape, Umbridge asks if he's been applying for the DADA position every year and has failed to get it, to which he replies with cold anger, "Obviously," and when she asks Dumbledore's reasons, he responds even more coldly, "I suggest you ask Dumbledore." (Quoted from memory but essentially accurate.) She also states that the Ministry is checking the teacher's backgrounds, implying that she knows he's a former DE. She does not, however, find anything to criticize in his teaching methods and consequently does not put him on probation (at least not until much later, when he refuses to provide her with Veritaserum to use on Harry before Harry runs off to the MoM). Alla wrote: > > You have some proof that Slytherins who graduated while Snape was a teacher had not become DE? > Betsy Hp responded: > I'd say the burden of proof is on your side actually. Show me that under Snape's leadership, Slytherins have been flocking to Voldemort. I will say that the recruitment numbers were probably low all over while Voldemort was Vapor!Mort. And none of the Death Eaters we've met so far have been young enough to have been recruited, straight from Hogwarts in the last two years. Carol adds: Again, I agree with Betsy. The only Death Eaters we've seen, aside from Draco, are those who were with Voldemort in VW1. He hasn't had time to recruit any new ones. He was Vapor!mort for eleven years, then he was in Quirrell's head, then he was vaporized again, then he was Baby!mort. The DEs he called to the graveyard at the end of GoF were all old "friends" from VW1. For the next year, he was obsessed with the Prophecy. He arranged for the escape from Azkaban of ten DEs, but as far as we know, he didn't recruit any new ones. We do see DEs in HBP who are new to *us,* but Snape's mention to Bellatrix of Yaxley and the Carrows indicates that they, too, were around in VW1. At any rate, they're adults, as are Gibbon (who died) and the unnamed big blond DE. The only young DE, as far as we know, is Draco. There could be more, but surely we would have heard if, say, Theo Nott was also a DE. (Pansy Parkinson and Blaise Zabini clearly aren't, nor are Crabbe Jr. and Goyle Jr. If they were, they would know what Draco was up to.) That aside, how can Snape be blamed if Draco becomes a DE? He's following in his father's footsteps, not Snape's. His father's arrest is clearly the stimulus for his joining Voldemort, as we can see as early as the end of OoP. And if Snape as HOH is somehow to blame for Draco's foolish decision, then Slughorn must be to blame for young Snape's decision to become a DE twenty-some years earlier. Not to mention that Lucius Malfoy, Bellatrix and the Lestrange brothers, Macnair, Crabbe S., Goyle Sr. and just about every other DE we know of who came from Slytherin was in that house when Slughorn was head of it. I assume that you don't blame Slughorn for their decision to join Voldemort--or McGonagall for Peter Pettigrew's. How, then, can you blame Snape for Draco's? Draco may be sixteen, but a sixteen-year-old is old enough to be held responsible for his own decisions. Carol, noting that Snape is teaching *Defense against* the Dark Arts, not the Dark Arts themselves as Draco thinks he should From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 03:13:47 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:13:47 -0000 Subject: Subverting Prophecies, Wisemen, Horcruxes (wasRe: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147899 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I want to deal with the "stock" fantasy devices JKR has > > used in her story thus far. There's the prophecy, which I agree > > she rather brilliantly subverted by going the more > > interesting "MacBeth" or "Oedipus Rex" route where the prophecy > > only has power if it is believed. > >>Neri: > Well, I wish to differ somewhat about the "brilliantly" part. It > *would* have been brilliant if only we found about it together with > Harry from some shattering plot turn, rather than being lectured > about it by the Wise Old Man. Betsy Hp: Yeah, I'll give you that. I'm just pleased that it wasn't so much the prophecy running the show than how Voldemort chose to interpert the prophecy, even down to giving it weight in the first place. > >>Neri: > But as a whole I'm very glad that JKR rescued the prophecy, and I > hope she'll do an even better job with rescuing the Horcruxes in > Book 7. At least it seems the Wise Old Man won't be there to give > the lecture anymore, so it's down to Harry and the plot. Betsy Hp: I totally agree. The "Dumbledore explains it all" bits were never my favorite scenes. I was generally glad to receive the information, but would have preferred a different delivery system. [Bit of an aside, but I wonder if the intense interest in Snape, negative or positive, is partially based on the fact that there are very few "Dumbledore explains it all" moments in his story. Instead Harry usually learns new things about Snape through, well, "shattering plot turns" I suppose. Just a thought.] > >>Betsy Hp: > > There's Dumbledore who has the earmarks of the "Wise Old Man" > > but gets subverted, I believe, by having him come so close to, > > and sometimes hitting out and out, failure in just about every > > book. I picture him as hanging by his fingernails most of the > > time. > >>Neri: > I don't pretend to be an expert on poor fantasy writing, quite the > reverse . I usually try to avoid it, so I can't say how original > has JKR been in "subverting" her Wise Old Man. I refused, out of > principle, to pay money to see the last horrible Star Wars > prequels, but I seem to very dimly recall that Yoda made some > mistakes too. Betsy Hp: Gah! Why'd you have to go *there* Neri! I will only say that the mistakes Yoda made as seen by the viewers were not necessarily seen as mistakes by Lucas (unfortunately). Which isn't the case, I think, with JKR and Dumbledore. > >>Neri: > Don't get me wrong, I like Dumbledore, but there's no talking > around the fact he's quite a stereotypic Wise Old Man, not only in > his characterization (which is moderately original and quite > likable) but mainly in the ways he is used to advance the plot. > Betsy Hp: I disagree. But I also think my view is not widely accepted. I could just be writing my own version of Dumbledore in my head, so take this for what it's worth . The stereotypic Wise Old Man should have all the information. I mean seriously, just about *all* the information. Especially compared to the other characters in the story. Dumbledore knows some things Harry doesn't. But honestly, it's not that much. Not for a Wise Old Man, anyway. Some of that stuff is just things *Harry* doesn't know but is generally common knowledge: i.e. Harry is a wizard, James and Snape didn't get along at school. And he knows some things that aren't common knowledge, but known to the people traveling in his circle: i.e. Tom Riddle is Voldemort, Snape is a spy and a former Death Eater. But his actual "only I know" information is remarkably small, IMO. He knows the prophecy; he knows why Snape changed sides; and by HBP he knows about the horcruxes. That ain't much by Wise Old Man standards. Gandalf would be dismayed. (And Gandalf is, I believe, the Wise Old Man against whom all other Wise Old Men are judged.) He didn't realize Quirrell was the threat to the Stone, at first. And I seriously doubt he knew about the "Voldemort in a turban" trick Quirrell had going. And under his watch, Harry very nearly died. He didn't know *how* the Chamber was being opened, especially since he *knew* Voldemort wasn't on location (wrong!). He couldn't keep himself from being kicked out of the school. And Harry very nearly died. He didn't know about the Marauders' secret passages, the map, Lupin's secrets, or that Sirius was not actually guilty. And he wasn't able to clear Sirius when he *did* find out the truth. A really big one was missing that a friend of his wasn't actually his friend but a Death Eater in disguise. And when Harry finally faced Voldemort in the flesh, Dumbledore was waiting helplessly miles and miles away. And of course there was the serious mis-calculation about how to best help Harry in OotP. That book was a series of mistakes from beginning to end. About the only good thing that happened was the Voldemort reveal, but the price was pretty darn high, I think. HBP was fairly good to Dumbledore. He finally figured out the horcrux mystery to his satisfaction (I enjoyed learning how he figured them out; that the idea didn't occur to him until Harry gave him the diary, and that he had to hunt down further information; the knowledge not springing full-grown from his brow), and I think he was actually helpful to Harry. (And I'm going with DDM!Snape, which gives Dumbledore more credit than other theories, I think.) In general the Wise Old Man is something more than human. He's someone almost god-like, or at least someone from a higher plain. Dumbledore is wonderfully human, IMO. He doesn't get personal rivalries, so he failed Snape and the Marauders, and he failed Harry and Snape. I think he also fell down on the school unity issue, and he certainly failed Tom Riddle. I don't see these as unforgivable failures because he's made very human mistakes. Which is, I think, a subversion of the Wise Old Man. Of course there's still the "Dumbledore explains it all" moments. So I'm not saying there aren't any beats of the Wise Old Man to his character. > >>Neri: > > The Horcruxes are classic plot coupons in the same sense that > Tolkien's One Ring is a classic plot coupon ? it's a rather > arbitrary object that the hero, in order to win the game against > the evil overlord, must collect and "cash in" in some arbitrarily > pre-specified way ? destroy it, throw it into a volcano, etc. > (thus saving the author the trouble of plotting a more > believable way to achieve victory). Betsy Hp: You seem to be using "The Lord of the Rings" as an example of a bad fantasy tale, which is a mistake, I think. Especially since Tolkien pretty much invented the genre. So the idea that any story that contains a plot coupon is somehow bad (which is what I think you're saying?) is similarly mistaken. Like McGuffins they can be a vital short-cut to a well told tale, *if used properly*. I believe Tolkien uses his "plot coupon" well. Imagine the series if the bad guy (cannot remember his name, sorry!) had to be taken down by the usual years and years of warfare, etc. One small hobbit wouldn't make a bit of difference, and it'd be an entirely different tale. The ring wasn't a *crutch* for Tolkien's story, it was the *core* of his story. > >>Neri: > The Horcrux coupons don't have to *give* Harry anything, the same > way that the Ring coupon didn't actually give Frodo anything, > except that cashing them in would win the game. Betsy Hp: "The Lord of the Rings" wasn't a video game, it didn't read like a video game, and throwing the ring into the volcano was not an easy way out for the hero of the story. Not only didn't Frodo get anything from the ring, it destroyed him. Again, using this particular series as an example of "plot-coupons equals badly written story" is a mistake, I think. Because if JKR uses the horcruxes half as well as Tolkien used the ring, her story will be well-told, IMO. > >>Neri: > However, the Horcruxes are, as of now, much cheaper plot coupons > than the One Ring, because there are six of them rather than just > one, and because their thematic value is currently much lower, and > this is exactly what I hope JKR will rectify. Betsy Hp: Rectify what? How have the horcruxes ruined the story right now? I know you *worry* that suddenly JKR will write a video game or a cheap, trite, fantasy tale (with Ginny in judiciously ripped gowns, I suppose? ) but she hasn't fallen into those sort of traps yet, has she? Quite frankly the very fact that there is more than one horcrux fits neatly into Voldemort's fear of death. "If one talisman is good, more talismen are better." It's not like JKR pulled this out of nowhere in book 6. I think Jen R. has already pointed out that JKR *is* following a theme with these plot coupons, and that's what makes a difference between a well told story and a poorly told one. So, yeah, not really saying JKR is subverting plot coupons with the horcruxes. But I'm not sure she needs to. When they work, they work. And I'm quite confident that JKR will make them work. She's already handled them well, IMO. Betsy Hp From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 10 03:23:33 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 21:23:33 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups]makes me giggle (was) Subverting Prophecies, Wisemen, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9DC2D28E-99E4-11DA-BC50-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147900 On Thursday, February 9, 2006, at 09:13 PM, horridporrid03 wrote: > He didn't realize Quirrell was the threat to the Stone, at first. > And I seriously doubt he knew about the "Voldemort in a turban" > trick Quirrell had going.? And under his watch, Harry very nearly > died.? > > kchuplis: Does anyone else just get a fit of the giggles when rereading SS/PS knowing about LV under the turban? I mean, I can just imagine the depths LV feels he has sunk to when the Weasleys are following Quirrell around bouncing snowballs off of it. It's a rather sadistic pleasure, especially once you've read GoF. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 03:41:38 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:41:38 -0000 Subject: OotP Dementors Attack WAS: Re: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147901 Carol wrote: "I do wonder, though, why there were two of them. How could Umbridge have anticipated that Harry would be with Dudley?" CH3ed: Me too! That attack was also so very conveniently coincided with the brief absence of Dung (who was on duty as Harry's guard). I smell a stuffy tobacco-addicted rat. And Dung is decidely of untrustworthy disposition.... and occupation. I wonder if Dung being in the OotP wasn't one of DD's "big mistakes." CH3ed :O) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 03:56:00 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:56:00 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147902 Carol: > That aside, how can Snape be blamed if Draco becomes a DE? He's > following in his father's footsteps, not Snape's. His father's arrest > is clearly the stimulus for his joining Voldemort, as we can see as > early as the end of OoP. Alla: Agreed, as I told you earlier. :-) I blame Snape for many things, but I certainly don't think that he has much control in whether his students join Voldemort. I was just responding to the idea that if not many Slytherins joined Voldemort during Snape being Slytherin's HOH, that somehow makes him a good teacher. I don't think we know one way or another, but I certainly think that Snape has little control over his students joining or NOT joining DE. Carol: Draco may be sixteen, but a sixteen-year-old > is old enough to be held responsible for his own decisions. Alla: Agreed again, little shmuck was SO happy to be in Voldemort's service in the beginning of the year, but unless we will learn that Snape was actively hypnotizing Draco and forcing him to join (which I think we can safely assume never happened), I do not blame Snape for this. > Potioncat: >> The biggest difficulty, aside from the fact that we, as a group, > don't even agree upon the defintion of a good teacher, is that we all > see Snape through a different filter. Upthread somewhere Alla > commented that while canon supported one view, she also had her years > of knowing Snape to use in support of a different view (I know, I > really should go get that comment, but it's close, isn't it?) The > bigger point is that it brought home to me that I'm doing the same > thing. Some see Snape through a filter that associates cruelty as a > motive in the way Snape deals with Harry. Some see through a filter > that adjusts for "there's a reason for this/it's more than it seems." > None of us just read the page and move on. Alla: It is very close, my dear. In fact I am still to see you misinterpreting my words once. Thank you for that! Of course, I agree we all see Snape through our filters plus bringing our experiences to the mix too. It is just to me many of his actions are reprehensible on its face, regardless of whether they are more than it seems or not. > Potioncat,(feel free at any time to attribute any brilliant points to > me.) ;-) > Alla: Do you know how easy it is to see another side POV when the debater is so polite, unconfrontational, and always ready to entertain opposing POV as you are? I told you many times, but I will say it again you are one of my very favorite people to disagree with. Alla, Hoping that she did not just write what in essence called "me too" Hopefully she at least explained why she agrees in more details From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 06:09:12 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 06:09:12 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147903 > > Luckdragon: > > After reviewing the 6 books for the umpteenth time I thought it > would be fun to make some predictions for book 7 based on little > clues or even just hunches we have thought up from what we've read > so far. Oooh, can I play? In no particular order: -- Snape is DDM! (duh). And motivated by love of Lily and guilt. And is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. -- a mysterious phoenix patronus will run around, leading everyone to think Dumbledore is alive. It will in fact be Snape's patronus, changed on account of his shock at the sacrifice of Dumbledore (love this theory-- not mine, I hasten to say) --The final defeat of Voldemort will somehow feature the Room of Love -- Harry will travel to the other side of the veil, Aeneas-like, speak to one or more people, and return alive -- Ron and Hermionie 4 EVA!! -- the ancient history behind the Gryffindor/Slytherin split will be revisited, prove to be more compicated than thought, and somehow play into the defeat of V-mort. Probable vector: the Sorting Hat -- Dumbledore's portrait will have Many Helpful and Vague Things to Say and will Twinkle a lot. -- going on a Tarot card hunch: buried truths will be revealed, and people thought to be dead will rise again-- Regulus? Vance? -- going on trusting the alchemy structure: Hagrid will die -- going on a vague theory of story-physics: Snape won't die. I'm probably shakiest in my confidence in this one, but I have my reasons. If he doesn't die, he will go to work at St. Mungus as a curse healer, joining their fine roster of famous healers who also invented horrible curses (Entrail-Expelling Hex, anyone?) -- most of the cast will live Happily Ever After -- Book 7 will be a magic Tardis book, fitting all this stuff in and yet being shorter than OoP, according to JKR. --Sydney, (who honest-to-God has started and abandoned huge Mystery-and-scapegoating posts, none of which are coherent) From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Fri Feb 10 07:13:17 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:13:17 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147904 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > > > Luckdragon: > > > After reviewing the 6 books for the umpteenth time I thought it > > would be fun to make some predictions for book 7 based on little > > clues or even just hunches we have thought up from what we've read > > so far. I'll play too. Quick_Silver's prediction: 1. Harry leaves the Dursley's one last time but not before reading the letter that Dumbledore left with Harry when Harry first arrived. Harry visits the Ministry to get his apparition license. 2. Voldemort and the DE's crash the Bill and Fleur's wedding leading to several deaths of several Order members (perhaps a Weasley or two). The Order regroups at Number 9 which led's to the hunt for the Horcruxs. 3. Another breakout from Azkaban. 4. Harry is made Head boy but decides not to return to Hogwarts although he will visit several times. 5. More details of the Prank will be known...while not clearing Sirius I believe they will shift part of the blame onto Snape and basically make him equally culpably with Sirius. 6. Snape is DDM! But will be found out by Voldemort leading to the reverse of the ending of HBP...the ownage of Snape by Voldemort. 7. Draco flees Voldemort and is allowed to leave by Peter...Draco proceeds to tell Harry that Snape has been discovered. Harry arrives in the nick of time to save Snape's a** and then it's the final showdown. Little Things I'd like to see: -Harry as Head boy...he deserves it -Snape getting beaten by someone, anyone...Voldemort, Harry (my preferred choice), the Marauders, Neville...this applies double if he's DDM! (Oddly enough I find DDM! to be a more arrogant person then ESE!) -Harry out-brewing Snape in Potions (I consider that being the universe balancing itself) -more Slughorn...he interests me and he's the one teacher at Hogwart's that I feel can be of use to Harry -Voldemort destroying something or a group of someone's...by himself (10-12 Aurors or Order members sounds like a nice number) -Harry killing Voldemort with AK (never going to happen) proving that there are things worth splitting your soul for (interesting...Sirius believed in dying for something and DDM!Snape was willing to risk his soul for something) -Someone creating their own spell like Harry I wonder what type of spell Harry would create? Quick_Silver From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 10 07:44:53 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:44:53 -0000 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: <20060209230544.17672.qmail@web37007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147905 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catherine higgins wrote: > > CH3ed: > >> At the end of OotP Harry had escaped LV alive 4 times > against LV's will; > 1. in PS/SS from the dungeon > 2. in CoS from the Chamber of Secrets (with Tom Riddle) > 3. in GoF from the graveyard scene > 4. in OotP from the fight at the MoM << > > > Actually 5 times if you also consider his escape as a baby when > the AK curse failed to kill him.... > Cat Geoff: Quite. This has prompted the discussion on which of the five doesn't count. Consensus seems to favour Godric's Hollow. The 'four times' comes from canon: "He chose the boy he thought most likely to be a danger to him," said Dumbledore. "And notice this, Harry, he chose, not the pure- blood (which, according to his creed, is the only kind of wizard worth being or knowing) but the half-blood like himself. He saw himself in you before he had ever seen you and in marking you with that scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave you powers and a future which have fitted you to escape him not once, but four times so far - something that neither your parents,nor Neville's parents, ever achieved." (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" p.742 UK edition) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 08:40:58 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:40:58 -0000 Subject: DD- the Cave and the Tower (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147906 I am only now able to reread these chapters of HBP. I was so depressed after the first reading back in July that I just could not bring myself to read it again until now. But some things struck me this time around that I did not see the first time. There are two symbols of the Crucifixion of Christ that are in these chapters. Now I know that some here do not what to hear this. But it is what it is, I didn't write the book, I am only the one reporting what I see. HBP: In the cave DD drinks the poison from a cup. Bible: The night that Jesus was betrayed he went to the garden and prayed "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done" -------- HBP: The Dark Mark is over the tower. The Dark Mark is a Skull with a snake coming out of the mouth. Bible: Jesus was crucified at Golgotha, which is translated "Place of the Skull". -------- Now you might say that this is just coincidence, but I don't think so. Also a foreshadowing of events on the tower: HBP (page 512 US): "But he understood at last what Dumbledore had been trying to tell him. It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high. Some people, perhaps, would say that there was little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew-- and so do I, thought Harry, with a rush of fierce pride, and so did my parents--that there was all the difference in the world." Bible: Jesus went willing with the guards that came for him. He told his followers to put away their swords. He then said "do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels?" I think this is an answer to the person here who asked why DD didn't call for the house elves. The house elves could have come to his rescue with their own magic. Remember that Dobby overpowered Lucius Malfoy and Malfoy seemed a bit scared of Dobby once he was free. DD could easily have called for them, but did not. HBP (p. 392 US) DD to Draco "No Draco, it is my mercy, not yours, that matters now". Didn't anyone wonder what that was about? I think it makes sense if you see DD's death as a metaphor of the death of Christ. --------- HBP: DD is surrounded by Death Eaters. One of them is a werewolf. Bible: The Psalms that are read at Good Friday say: "Many young bulls encircle me; Strong bulls of Bashan surround me. They open wide their jaws at me, Like a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water; All my bones are out of joint; My heat within my breast is melting wax. My mouth is dried out like a pot-sherd; My tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth, And you have laid me in the dust of the grave. Packs of dogs close me in, And gangs of evildoers circle around me " -------- HBP: After DD's death the glass Gryffindor hour glass had been hit by a curse and the rubies were falling out onto the floor. Some had suggested that this meant that this was the death rattle of Hogwarts. I suggest that it might also be the disguised version of the "veil in the temple being torn in two", which happened at the death of Jesus. Or maybe we will see that later, since we have a veil in the MoM in the books. Of course there is the obvious of Fawkes and his singing over DD's body. Tonks_op From exodusts at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 07:42:42 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:42:42 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147907 Carol: > I predict that Peter Pettigrew will fulfill his life debt to Harry by > using his silver hand to kill Fenrir Greyback (assuming that Greyback > is not already in Azkaban)--two minor mysteries from Peter's > character arc resolved together. Exodusts: Interestingly, there is a recent essay on livejournal about this very topic. I have to say it is NOT going to happen. JKR dismissed the idea of Peter killing Remus with his hand in the rumours section of her website, and the wording is highly suggestive that she is dismissive of the whole idea, not just that Remus will be the one to die. Julie: > I like the idea of the Dementor's sucking the soul part out of > Harry's scar! In fact, maybe that's why they're so attracted to > Harry. And if LV is soul-sucked by the Dementors, that's not really > dying, but living on as a soulless shell. (Though it still seems > like dying to me, unless it's analogous to being fully paralyzed > with your mind intact, since how else would one know how dreadful > their soul-sucked existence is?) Exodusts: I guessed the possibility of a Dementor liberating the soul-part in Harry, but the credit for the scar-kiss detail must go, I think, to Red Hen or an associate. Julie: > Agreed. And I think Voldemort may attack Hogwarts, which will get > the Order and DA deeply involved. And I like the idea of one of the > portraits being a spy! Exodusts: Thanks! That idea I think is actually an original Exodusts Prediction (TM), unless anyone can point out anything to the contrary on the net. Quick_Silver: > Harry killing Voldemort with AK (never going to happen) proving > that there are things worth splitting your soul for > (interesting...Sirius believed in dying for something and DDM!Snape > was willing to risk his soul for something). Exodusts: It just hit me (probably not original but...), if killing splits your soul, then that COULD be how Harry gets Voldemort's soul-piece out. If he finally AKs Voldemort after the other Horcruxes have been destroyed, and Nagini (who isn't really one) killed, he'll be thinking: this is it, all 7, we've got him. But then the last soul part flies out of Harry and it takes over either the dead body, or possesses someone close by (who Harry cares for) stretching out the climax. PS One other reason why Hogwarts will of course be open - it is a good prediction that Harry will want to use the Pensieve in DD's office. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 08:11:26 2006 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:11:26 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <43EB3E01.20915.14BF450@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147908 Shaun: > "Things didn't improve for the Gryffindors as the Potions lesson > continued. Snape put them all into pairs and set them to mixing up a > simple potion to cure boils. He swept around in his long black cloak, > watching them weigh dried nettles and crush snake fangs, criticizing > almost everyone except Malfoy, whom he seemed to like." > > (PS) > > Half the class above is Slytherin - and yet Draco is immune from > criticism being inflicted on most of the class. Yes, I think Draco > likes Snape. But I think that may be because Snape *specifically* > makes an effort to be nice to Draco. I'd just like to point out something, because it gets glossed over every time this passage is quoted. We're assuming that Snape praised Malfoy *only* out of favoritism. Might it not be possible that Draco's slugs really *were* perfectly cut? He did get a good O.W.L. grade, after all--probably an O. And that didn't come from favoritism. Montavilla From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Feb 10 09:43:24 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:43:24 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: References: <43EB3E01.20915.14BF450@localhost> Message-ID: <43ECFAEC.6633.2213BFD@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147909 On 10 Feb 2006 at 8:11, montavilla47 wrote: > I'd just like to point out something, because it gets glossed over every time this passage is > quoted. We're assuming that Snape praised Malfoy *only* out of favoritism. Might it not > be possible that Draco's slugs really *were* perfectly cut? I think you're right, and I do tend to assume that Draco is quite good at potion class. I think Snape favours him, certainly, but the next part of the quote is this: "He was just telling everyone to look at the perfect way Malfoy had stewed his horned slugs when clouds of acid green smoke and a loud hissing filled the dungeon." I don't think Snape would draw attention to Draco's slugs unless they had been stewed properly. It would be counterproductive in teaching terms, but would also serve to embarrass Draco by drawing attention to his mistakes. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Feb 10 11:17:38 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:17:38 -0000 Subject: Snape's teaching style In-Reply-To: <43EA7CDD.5020600@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147910 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin wrote: > > Several Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws were ready to continue Potions with > Snape on NEWTs level (and so was Hermione). And if Harry would have gotten an O in potions or if Snape would be satisfied with an E Harry would have as well. And so would Ron. Becoming an auror meant more for both of them than being taught by Snape. Gerry From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Fri Feb 10 11:24:57 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:24:57 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147911 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17@ wrote: > > > Julie: > > > > > I still like Snape being the person, though not so he could get > > Lily as his reward. DDM!Snape wouldn't do that, as he's actually > > reformed and wants to save the Potter family, not just Lily (and > > Snape had already turned back to DD's side at this point). Even for > > an ESE!Snape it doesn't make sense from LV's standpoint, because > > why not just stupefy Lily and give her to Snape? It cost LV nothing > > and keeps a grateful Snape more loyal than ever. Nora: > In answer to your 'why not just stupefy Lily' question, you're not > thinking with Evil Overlord logic, and Voldemort has shown himself to > be absolutely classic EO material: splitting up his soul and hiding > it in precious objects, giving his opponent a chance to duel and thus > escape, other flashy theatrics, etc. > > So Voldemort has never been the most terribly considerate Evil > Overlord towards his minions. Sure, he makes an *offer* to spare > Lily (note interview confirmation of said fact), but if she's not > going to take it, she might as well be disposed of. Snape, as a good > minion, will just have to suck it up and deal. But you have to admit > that the idea that Snape and Voldie had some general agreement does > explain the "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them?" > comment distressingly well. Renee: Though it's a bit heavy even in a book aimed at teenagers and JKR would have to handle this with a great deal of care, I have to say I'd rather like it if this theory turned out to be true, or close to the truth. If it is, Voldemort may have had another reason to kill Lily instead of just stunning her. She's refused his offer. Obviously, she can't be trusted. Apparently, she has a strong personality. How does LV know Snape will remain loyal to him if he takes Lily home as a prize? Renee From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Feb 10 11:39:56 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:39:56 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <43EB1B3B.995.C418F9@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > Maybe this will make things clearer... I don't think there is > anything inherently *wrong* with Snape's scolding Neville > severely when he makes basic mistakes in Potions classes. I don't > think that that is inappropriate. > > *BUT* I do think that it is probably counterproductive. That method > might work with most students, but I do think that Neville as an > individual would probably respond better to less stressful correction > of his mistakes. And I wouldn't have any problem at all, if Snape saw > that and decided that *with Neville specifically* a different > approach might be a better one to use. By the same token, I believe > that if he did that, he would be affording Neville a privilege - not > a right. Actually, a really good teacher would see that his approach would be counterproductive and would at least try and change it. It has nothing to do with priveliges or rights but with his job requirement. A teacher has to teach and an effective teacher is one where students learn something. Snape is quite all right as a teacher, but he is not flexible enough to be a truly good one. As for the Trevor incident: that was vile. There is no way a teacher can justify that. Gerry From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Fri Feb 10 12:13:36 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:13:36 -0000 Subject: DD- the Cave and the Tower (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Tonks: > > HBP: After DD's death the glass Gryffindor hour glass had been hit > by a curse and the rubies were falling out onto the floor. > > Some had suggested that this meant that this was the death rattle of > Hogwarts. I suggest that it might also be the disguised version of > the "veil in the temple being torn in two", which happened at the > death of Jesus. Or maybe we will see that later, since we have a > veil in the MoM in the books. > Renee: (Warning: wild speculation) Now that's interesting. Because the Bible verse about the veil in the temple being torn, is followed by another one saying: "And the graves were opened; and many bodys of the saints which slept, arose." I know JKR has said that dead = dead, but still... Renee From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 12:53:50 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:53:50 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147915 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Gerry wrote: > Actually, I don't think she [Umbridge] wanted [Harry] expelled, she > wanted him dead. > Carol responds: > Interesting idea, but a Dementor sucking your soul doesn't kill > you. As Lupin explains in PoA, your brain and other organs > continue to work and your body remains alive. It's just your soul > that's irretrievably lost... And your memories. Remember that after Crouch Jr. got Kissed, he was, according to Dumbledore, "unable to give evidence". So it works for Umbridge either way: Harry discredited, or Harry mindless--and, apparently, if a Muggle or two got soulectomies in the process, so what? They were only Muggles. Umbridge's ability to justify such monstrous acts, combined with her sadism and her position of power, make her one of the most horrifying of JKR's creations, as far as I'm concerned. Amiable Dorsai From chnc1024 at earthlink.net Fri Feb 10 18:17:37 2006 From: chnc1024 at earthlink.net (chnc1024 at earthlink.net) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:17:37 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My 7 book 7 predictions Message-ID: <410-220062510181737251@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 147917 > > > Luckdragon: > > > After reviewing the 6 books for the umpteenth time I thought it > > would be fun to make some predictions for book 7 based on little > > clues or even just hunches we have thought up from what we've read > > so far. > ********************************************** Chancie: I'd like to take a shot! ~The four Hogwarts Houses will be unified by the end of the book. ~Hagrid will die. ~Harry will move to restore the realtionships between wizards/witches, centors, goblins and house elves, (the Fountain of Magical bretherin) all of which will be crucial in the defeat of Voldemort. ~Snape will turn out to be DDM!Snape, Harry will realize this in the course book 7, the question is will Harry be willing to accept the proof (whatever that may turn out to be, perhaps Snape seen with Fawks?), and accept his help. Snape will point Harry to the key of distroying Voldemort. ~We will learn how the Veil actually killed Sirius, and Harry will manage to comunicate with someone "beyond". The question is who... ~We will find that Dumbledore has left clues for Harry to find that will help him in his journey. ~Draco will feel guilty for his actions in HBP. The talk he had with Dumbledore will have made a real impact on him. Look for him to wrestle with whether he should help his family, or the person he's seen as an enemy for 7 years, Harry. Well that's 7, but I've still got a few more: ~Umbridge, and Bellatrix will die. (Well I admit that's more of a hope than anything else!) ~Harry will find that his scar is what protected him from a horrible injury when he destroyed Tom Riddle's Diary in COS. (I say this because Dumbledore was obviously seriously injured when distroying the ring.) ~Hermione and Ron will prove to be a real couple, and their love for one another will become more and more evident to everyone, Harry will see this and start to wonder if pushing Ginny away for "noble reasons" was the right thing to do. Harry and Ginny will be back together by the end of the book well, if they live... but I think they will! ~Someone shocking will turn out to be ESE---NOT LUPIN!!!!!!!!!! From estesrandy at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 18:49:06 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:49:06 -0000 Subject: My opening arguments -Lots of canon (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147919 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I present my opening arguments regarding the 7 deadly sins as the themes of the Harry Potter book series . 1. PRIDE /VANITY First sentence of Book One: p.1 "Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were `PROUD" to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much." p.13 (pride discussed) " every child in our world will know his name!" "Exactly," said Dumbledore, looking very seriously over the top of his half-moon glasses. "It would be enough to turn any boy's head." Dumbledore does not want Harry to have too much pride in his abilities at too young an age. p. 30 "Yet sometimes he thought (or maybe hoped) that strangers in the street seemed to know him. " Seeing ourselves as we are and not comparing ourselves to others is Humility. Harry needs humility to see himself properly in the Mirror of Erised and retrieve the stone. p.308 ""People jostled them as they moved forward toward the gateway back to the Muggle world. Some of them called: "Bye, Harry!' `See you, Potter!' `Still famous,' said Ron, grinning at him `Not where I'm going, I promise you,' said Harry. He, Ron, and Hermione passed through the gateway together. `There he is, Mom, there he is, look!' It was Ginny Weasley, Ron's younger sister, but she wasn't pointing at Ron. "Harry Potter!" she squealed. "Look, Mom! I can see-" "Be quiet, Ginny, and it's rude to point." This notoriety would like to excessive Pride (Vanity) and that is why Harry must go back to the Dursley's. Ginny seems in awe of Harry and perhaps she wants to be like him. Could she be envious of him? 2. ENVY Book Two: p.10 (envy discussed) "Wish they could see famous Harry Potter now, he thought savagely " After Lockhart gets his picture taken with Harry and gives him free books, Draco shows his envy. Envy resents the good others receive or even might receive. p. 61 "Bet you loved that, didn't you, Potter?" said a voice Harry had no trouble recognizing. He straightened up and found himself face-to- face with Draco Malfoy, who was wearing his usual sneer. "Famous Harry Potter," said Malfoy. "Can't even go into a bookshop without making the front page." To wish to be like someone else. Harry and Ron turn into Crabbe and Goyle. Tom Riddle wants to be like than Slytherin. Argus Filch is envious of the Wizards at Hogwarts because he is just a Squib. (p. 142) 3. SLOTH Book Three: p.15 (sloth discussed) "Deciding that he'd worry about the Hogsmeade form when he woke up. Harry got back into bed " In the above sentence, Harry demonstrates a little sloth. But finally takes action when pushed by Aunt Marge. p.28 "He ?didn't work," said Uncle Vernon, with half a glance at Harry. `Unemployed.' `As I expected!' said Aunt Marge, taking a huge swig of brandy and wiping her chin on her sleeve. ` A no-account, good-for-nothing, lazy scrounger who-`" This argument (and the Aunt Marge inflation incident) leads Harry to take action and leave the Dursleys. 4. LUST Book Four: (lust metaphors) Chapters One and Two: Harry awakes from a bad dream (which involves snakes and a discussion of a woman who had been kidnapped and killed) with his scar hurting. He is afraid to tell anyone about the dream. He does feel that he can tell Sirius Black about his scar hurting but does not get up the courage to talk about his dream. Okay, this is a stretch, but it could be a 14 year old boy waking up from his first wet dream and being afraid to talk about it to anyone. Voldemort lusts after a body. A large snake is curled up in front of a warm fire. Bertha Jorkins kidnapped and killed. Later in the book we meet beautiful women from Beauxbatons and athletic men from Durmstrang. The teenagers from Hogwarts are in lust! 5. ANGER Book Five: Chapter One: p. 13 (anger discussed) It gave Harry enormous satisfaction to know how furious he was making Dudley; he felt as though he was siphoning off his own frustration into his cousin, the only outlet he had." An argument between Dudley and Harry ensues and almost leads to a fight when the Dementors show up. Later in the chapter on p. 19 Mrs Figg says: "I'm going to kill Mundugus Fletcher!" This book is filled with anger. Professor Umbridge (umbrage means anger) gets angry at the students, the teachers, and Dumbledore. Harry gets angry at Dumbledore. Sirius and Snape are angry at each other. Anger comes from impatience. Sirius is impatient, and Harry becomes impatient to rescue Sirius at the MOM. The Order of the Phoenix is a symbol of the flaming of emotion that is anger which returns to calm and rebirth of the old self. The book even ends with a threat of a fight! p. 869 "Yeah, if we get any hint that Potter's been mistreated in any way, you'll have us to answer to," said Moody. Uncle Vernon swelled ominously. His sense of outrage seemed to outweigh even his fear of this bunch of oddballs. "Are you threatening me, sir?" he said , so loudly that passersby actually turned to stare. 6. GREED (in terms of wanting to get the credit and praise and more!) Book Six: Snape and Bellatrix argue about who should have the highest status with the Dark Lord. p. 29 "He shares everything with me!" said Bellatrix, firing up at once. `He calls me his most loyal, his most faithful-" p. 34 Narcissa tries to convince Snape to help her and Draco: "You could do it. You could do it instead of Draco, Severus. You would succeed, of course you would, and he would reward you beyond all of us-" Harry likes the fame that the HBP potions book gets him. Young Tom Riddle greedily wants all the special objects of the other kids at the orphanage. Draco is worried that Snape wants to get credit for killing Dumbledore instead of him. Later on, the Ministry of Magic wishes to get credit for doing a good job against Voldemort by using Harry's name as a consultant. p. 649 "So," said Scrimgeour, his voice cold now, "the request I made of you at Christmas-" "What request? Oh yeah the one where I tell the world what a great job you're doing in exchange for-" "-for raising everyone's morale!" snapped Scrimgeour. Scrimgeour still wants to get the credit and praise! 7. GLUTTONY This book has not been written yet, but we know it deals with Voldemort's desire for immortality which is truly being a glutton for life! Randy From babyhrndz at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 18:27:39 2006 From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda Shoffner) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:27:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Harry Potter and the Seven Deadlies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060210182739.75916.qmail@web30810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147923 Red Eye Randy wrote: <7. Last deadly sin is GLUTTONY LV is the top choice I would choose of the HP characters. The second part of the definition above states- LV has a level of "temperance" (self-control) in limiting the amount of times his soul can be unna- turally (in his opinion naturally) split for his pleasure (seven times). Lastly, the definition above states- To LV power is his food, torture is his entertainment,and even though he does not care for anyone but himself, the company of the death eaters feeds his hunger for more power in that there are those that would follow him. Let me know what you think ~Amanda From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Feb 10 19:25:44 2006 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:25:44 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umbridge - Consequnces Be Damned References: Message-ID: <001d01c62e77$cb092d40$c9340152@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 147924 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" > Umbridge is in a powerful position, the books seem to imply that she > is in the number TWO spot in terms of power, though not necessarily in > terms of succession to the 'throne'. So, to threaten the Ministry or Though she's never actually referred to as (say) Junior Minister or even Deputy Minister. Compare Fudge who describes himself as having been Junior Minister at the time of Sirius's arrest. I think that if Dolly had been that high up she'd have referred to it, especially given her chronic hubris as OoP progresses. She was I think ambitious in the extreme and had hitched her wagon to Fudge and certainly potentially could have got a lot further up the greasy pole of power, had she not overreached herself. hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From estesrandy at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 19:50:54 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:50:54 -0000 Subject: Seven Players vs Seven Bottles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147926 Quidditch has seven players on one team: One Keeper Someone in charge of other people. ( I am my brother's keeper) "Keeper" means a person in possession or control of a dog or other animal. A person becomes the keeper of a stray domesticated animal, other than a dog or livestock, if the person feeds that animal for at least 10 consecutive days The hardware which mates with a lock mechanism. One Seeker Anyone searching for spiritual truth in any form. Two Beaters A beater is a worker who rouses wild game from under cover for a hunter. A beater is an everyday use car such as a Ford Anglia that has seen better days. ;0) Three Chasers Bow chaser is a naval gun in the bow for firing while chasing another vessel. Stern chaser is a naval gun able to fire astern at a ship in chase. There is a correlation with the seven bottles in the sixth task of the first book. Seven bottles in the Potions Task One lets you move ahead ? (SEEKER in Quidditch) One brings you back - (KEEPER in Quidditch) Two hold only nettle wine ?(irritate, sting, provoke) ( BEATER in Quidditch) Three are killers waiting hidden (CHASERS in Quidditch take shots) Neither dwarf nor giant holds death in their insides The second left and the second right are twins once you taste them though different at first sight I read a post once about the 7 DADA teachers being related to the 7 bottles of wine. 3 are killers - Quirrell, Moody, Snape?/Lupin if he is ESE? 2 are only nettle wine (nettle means irritate, provoke) - Lockhart, Umbridge One lets you move ahead ? maybe Lupin?/ Snape if he is DDM? One brings you back ? the Unknown DADA teacher? (Slughorn?) What do you guys think about this stuff? Red Eye Randy From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 20:00:37 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:00:37 -0000 Subject: What was the spell that hit Tonks? (Was: NVBL spell question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > bboyminn wrote: > > > > The AK Curse is somewhat unique in this sense. Any AK curse > > that doesn't kill the person is a failed curse. Further the > > books seem to imply that if the spell (the AK) is casted and > > it strikes then it is fatal. From what we know, there > > are no powerful and weak AK's; if it hits you, your dead. > > > > Carol responds: > I'm not sure that I agree. Crouch!Moody told Harry's fourth-year > DADA class that if all of them together aimed their wands at him > and yelled "Avada Kedavra," he probably would not suffer so much > as a nosebleed. Of course, he could have been lying, but I think > that both intent and power count in an AK ...edited... > bboyminn: Well, first I admit that while my point was probably clear, that wasn't my finest bit of writing. Second I anticipated this argument and it is irrelavant to my point. In Moody's class, the students could have pointed their little sticks at Moody and spoken the approriate words, but the spell wouldn't have worked. It's is not just that the resulting combined spell would have been too weak to hurt him, it would be that there would have been no spell cast, just stick pointing and muttering. At least, that's how I see it. I speculate that the AK curse takes a certain threshold of intent and magical power. If you can't cross that threshold, then no spell is cast. Again, just stick pointing and mutterning. Once you cross that threshold, and the curse is cast, if it strikes it's target then that target is dead (Harry being the noted exception). So, in this sense, whether weak or powerful, the AK, when on target, is alway fatal (again, with unique and notable exceptions). My main points is that the comment regarding the Purple Slash Curse can not necessarily be applied universally to all curses. Perhaps it could, but we lack the information to say that; further, I THINK the books imply just the oppossite; the verbal/nonverbal aspect of the Purple Slash Curse are generally unique to that curse. Note that I say 'generally unique'; I'm sure there are a few other curse that it might apply to, but we simply can not extend that efrfect to absolutely and universally include all curses and spells. That was the main point I was trying to illustrate. > Carol continues: > > Certainly there was a lot of green light flashing around the > MoM, yet only Sirius Black died (from falling through the Veil, > ...). So either the fresh-out-of-Azkaban DEs are a hopeless bunch > of rejects who can't hit the broad side of a barn ..., or those > unnamed and apparently silent spells weren't AKs despite the jets > of green light, or the silent AKs failed. At least the one that > hit Tonks did. She fell down the stairs unconscious, but she > didn't die. > > ...edited.. > > Carol, thinking that an AK, like any other spell, would require > practice to master and wondering what the Durmstrang kids > practiced on > bboyminn: On the many green-light curses, we agree. We know from examples in the books that other curses have a green color, so without a doubt we are wrong to assume every green-light curse is an AK. Certainly some of them were, but I think we need to take context into account when we are guessing which one were the AK and which ones weren't. I think it is safe to assume green-light curses cast by Voldemort against Dumbledore were AKs, but I don't think we can assume that any green-light curse cast by Dumbledore against Voldemort were AKs (if there were any). Voldemort recognises that Dumbledore is not trying to kill him implying that he is not trying to AK him. Also, there are only just so many primary colors. If we use TV as an example; all colors are made from a combination of Red, Green, and Blue. I believe printing uses combinations of cyan, magneta, and yellow. If we use the Rainbow of primary colors then there are seven. Perhaps by choice or perhaps by chance, JKR seems to favor Red and Green. We don't see many Blue, Yellow, Indigo, or Orange spell colors. So, unless the context clearly implies it, I don't think that most green-light curse are the AK. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 20:23:43 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:23:43 -0000 Subject: What was the spell that hit Tonks? (Was: NVBL spell question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147928 > bboyminn: > My main points is that the comment regarding the Purple Slash Curse > can not necessarily be applied universally to all curses. Perhaps it > could, but we lack the information to say that; further, I THINK the > books imply just the oppossite; the verbal/nonverbal aspect of the > Purple Slash Curse are generally unique to that curse. Note that I say > 'generally unique'; I'm sure there are a few other curse that it might > apply to, but we simply can not extend that efrfect to absolutely and > universally include all curses and spells. That was the main point I > was trying to illustrate. zgirnius: First, I entirely agree. Second, I would like to add that it may also not be a peculiarity of the Purple Slash Curse per se, but possibly instead of the caster. There are wizards, we are told, who never learn to do nonverbal spells at all. Possibly, there are others who can, but never get as good at it as they are at spoken spells. Perhaps Hermione was fortunate that the Death Eater she chose to silence was not a master at nonverbal spellcasting. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 20:38:11 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:38:11 -0000 Subject: Subverting Prophecies, Wisemen, Horcruxes (wasRe: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147929 > Betsy Hp: > The stereotypic Wise Old Man > should have all the information. I mean seriously, just about *all* > the information. Especially compared to the other characters in the > story. > Neri: I'm not sure that a stereotypic Wise Old Man should know *all* the information. Merlin, Gandalf and Yoda surely didn't. > Betsy Hp: > Dumbledore knows some things Harry doesn't. But honestly, it's not > that much. Not for a Wise Old Man, anyway. > > But his actual "only I know" information is remarkably small, IMO. > He knows the prophecy; he knows why Snape changed sides; and by HBP > he knows about the horcruxes. That ain't much by Wise Old Man > standards. Gandalf would be dismayed. (And Gandalf is, I believe, > the Wise Old Man against whom all other Wise Old Men are judged.) > Neri: I always have been an opponent of Omniscient!DD myself, but I'd say the prophecy, Snape's motives and the Horcruxes is quite a lot. It's a considerable percentage of the main mysteries in the series. To this you should add the powers that were transferred from Voldy to Harry in GH, the mind connection between them, the Ancient Magic protecting Harry, the interesting bit about the brother wands and Wormtail's life debt, all of them things we know almost exclusively thanks to Dumbledore's explainations. And this is even before counting things like The Gleam or "in essence divided" that are yet to be explained, but are probably central to the main mystery. > Betsy Hp: > He didn't realize Quirrell was the threat to the Stone, at first. > And I seriously doubt he knew about the "Voldemort in a turban" > trick Quirrell had going. And under his watch, Harry very nearly > died. > < snip a list of things in the series DD didn't know> Neri: I see your list, in many cases, as making Dumbledore *more*, rather than less, of a Wise Old Man stock character. Some of the things that he didn't realize, like Quirrell's secret or his old friend Moody being an imposter, are so unbelievable that some notable HPfGU members simply refuse to believe it. In fact, even Harry himself suspects by the end of SS/PS that DD knew everything about Quirrell but let Harry have his fight. This strange paradox is explained, I believe, by the common Wise Old Man formula. Unfortunately Nick Lowe doesn't seem to have ever extended his research to characterization, but I think we can agree between us that the Wise Old Man formula (at least in regard to his contribution to the plot) looks something like this: 1) Wise Old Man identifies Hero and his destiny. 2) Wise Old Man coaches Hero and gives him some key background information needed for the quest. 3) Wise Old Man steps aside, willingly or not, in order to let Hero have his quest alone. What is slightly original about the HP series (although I suspect other members may come up with precedents for that too) is that this formula works not only for the series as a whole, but in many ways for each book separately. Wise Old Man steps aside in each book in order to let Hero have his fight alone, thus generating the somewhat paradoxical Wise Old Man who sometimes makes "huge mistakes". Does this makes HP less formulistic or *more* formulistic? Actually you can already see the beginning of such a repeating WOM formula in LotR. In the first book Gandalf was supposed to help Frodo make it to Rivendell, but that would have interfered with Frodo and Aragorn doing it by themselves, so Gandalf had to make the mistake of trusting Saruman and get stranded on the Orthank for a while. This formula is then repeated in a larger scale when Gandalf is taken out of Frodo's quest in Moria. > Betsy Hp: > In general the Wise Old Man is something more than human. He's > someone almost god-like, or at least someone from a higher plain. > Dumbledore is wonderfully human, IMO. He doesn't get personal > rivalries, so he failed Snape and the Marauders, and he failed Harry > and Snape. I think he also fell down on the school unity issue, and > he certainly failed Tom Riddle. I don't see these as unforgivable > failures because he's made very human mistakes. Which is, I think, > a subversion of the Wise Old Man. > Neri: I think we should measure the superiority of each Wise Old Man against his natural habitat. Gandalf and Yoda exist in universe populated with many superhumans, so they have to be superhumans themselves to compete. But Dumbledore certainly is described from the first chapter of the series as the greatest wizard in the world (and thus the most powerful being, as the Potterverse doesn't have beings more powerful than wizards) with Voldemort only taking the lead in the Dark Arts that Dumbledore is "too noble" to practice. And like I showed above, while Dumbledore's characterization is indeed nicely human, his role in the plot is certainly that of a rather stereotypic Wise Old Man. > > Betsy Hp: > You seem to be using "The Lord of the Rings" as an example of a bad > fantasy tale, which is a mistake, I think. Especially since Tolkien > pretty much invented the genre. So the idea that any story that > contains a plot coupon is somehow bad (which is what I think you're > saying?) is similarly mistaken. Neri: I'm not saying that. I'm a big LotR fan, but that doesn't mean I can't see it's shortcomings too. I generally agree with Lowe that the One Ring was, from plot considerations alone, a very artificial plot device, but that Tolkien managed to get away with it by making the Ring very meaningful in the thematic sense (BTW, Tolkien also *just* managed to get away with the deus-ex-machina of the eagles rescuing Frodo and Sam, by invoking the clever parallel with Bilbo's story. He was very good at just getting away with cheap plot devices). At any rate, Tolkien was a true master of theme, language, scope and atmosphere, so the bare plot was less central in LotR. But in the HP series the plot is considerably more complex and plays a considerably more important role, and the Horcruxes have (as of now) much less thematic value than the One Ring, which is why they feel artificial while the Ring doesn't. > > Betsy Hp: > "The Lord of the Rings" wasn't a video game, it didn't read like a > video game, and throwing the ring into the volcano was not an easy > way out for the hero of the story. Neri: It's not *supposed* to be easy for the hero, it's supposed to be easy for the author . No, LotR certainly didn't read like a video game, but notice how many video games use similar plot devices, frequently in quantities, like having to locate a concealed key in order to open the door to the next room or collect several items in order to finally win a prize (reminds you of a certain website? ). This is why there are so many Tolkien wannabees and why they are frequently so lousy. A plot coupon would make the story feel like a video game *unless* it's given a deep meaning of its own. Tolkien did it to the Ring in LotR and I hope JKR will do it to the Horcruxes in Book 7. > Betsy Hp: > Rectify what? How have the horcruxes ruined the story right now? I > know you *worry* that suddenly JKR will write a video game or a > cheap, trite, fantasy tale (with Ginny in judiciously ripped gowns, > I suppose? ) but she hasn't fallen into those sort of traps yet, > has she? > Neri: I know that the Horcruxes felt artificial to several readers of HBP, and many others didn't like them much although they didn't have the vocabulary to explain why exactly. I too couldn't explain to myself why they felt weak until reading Lowe's article. > Betsy Hp: > Quite frankly the very fact that there is more than one horcrux fits > neatly into Voldemort's fear of death. "If one talisman is good, > more talismen are better." Neri: This is a plot reason, not a thematic reason. There's usually a plot reason explaining the existence of the plot coupon, as such reasons are mostly very easy to manufacture. Neri From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Fri Feb 10 22:03:35 2006 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:03:35 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]makes me giggle (was) Subverting Prophecies, Wisemen, Horcrux In-Reply-To: <9DC2D28E-99E4-11DA-BC50-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147931 > > kchuplis: > > Does anyone else just get a fit of the giggles when rereading SS/PS > knowing about LV under the turban? I mean, I can just imagine the > depths LV feels he has sunk to when the Weasleys are following Quirrell > around bouncing snowballs off of it. It's a rather sadistic pleasure, > especially once you've read GoF. > lucianam: Bwahahahaha! I absolutely love that. It so matches the U-No-Poo pun we just got in HBP. I think Mrs.Weasley might have a poitn when she says they'll be murdered in their beds. I hope she's wrong, but who knows, maybe Voldemort hasn't gotten over the indignity of having snowballs thrown at him. And the Poo thing now. But I think it's just JKR having fun and eventually nothing is going to happen to the twins because they make fun of Voldemort. It makes me love the books, the fun. I suspect this is sort of a wasted post since I didn't say much, but I haven't posted in a while. And you made a good point there, kchuplis. lucianam From rkdas at charter.net Fri Feb 10 22:14:26 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:14:26 -0000 Subject: Subverting Prophecies, Wisemen, Horcruxes (wasRe: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147932 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > > Betsy Hp: SNIPPED strenuously... > > In general the Wise Old Man is something more than human. He's > > someone almost god-like, or at least someone from a higher plain. > > Dumbledore is wonderfully human, IMO. He doesn't get personal > > rivalries, so he failed Snape and the Marauders, and he failed > Harry > > and Snape. I think he also fell down on the school unity issue, > and > > he certainly failed Tom Riddle. I don't see these as unforgivable > > failures because he's made very human mistakes. Which is, I think, > > a subversion of the Wise Old Man. > > Jen D. here, Forgive me, really, but I am confused. How did Dumbledore fail Tom Riddle? Was it his inability to turn Tom around? Or deal sternly enough with him? Or his failure to share his suspicions with the Headmaster or fellow teachers? I am afraid I am missing a bigger point here. Enlighten me! Jen D. > > Neri: > I think we should measure the superiority of each Wise Old Man > against his natural habitat. Gandalf and Yoda exist in universe > populated with many superhumans, so they have to be superhumans > themselves to compete. But Dumbledore certainly is described from the > first chapter of the series as the greatest wizard in the world (and > thus the most powerful being, as the Potterverse doesn't have beings > more powerful than wizards) with Voldemort only taking the lead in > the Dark Arts that Dumbledore is "too noble" to practice. And like I > showed above, while Dumbledore's characterization is indeed nicely > human, his role in the plot is certainly that of a rather stereotypic > Wise Old Man. > > > > > Betsy Hp: > > You seem to be using "The Lord of the Rings" as an example of a bad > > fantasy tale, which is a mistake, I think. Especially since > Tolkien > > pretty much invented the genre. So the idea that any story that > > contains a plot coupon is somehow bad (which is what I think you're > > saying?) is similarly mistaken. > > Neri: > I'm not saying that. I'm a big LotR fan, but that doesn't mean I > can't see it's shortcomings too. I generally agree with Lowe that the > One Ring was, from plot considerations alone, a very artificial plot > device, but that Tolkien managed to get away with it by making the > Ring very meaningful in the thematic sense (BTW, Tolkien also *just* > managed to get away with the deus-ex-machina of the eagles rescuing > Frodo and Sam, by invoking the clever parallel with Bilbo's story. He > was very good at just getting away with cheap plot devices). At any > rate, Tolkien was a true master of theme, language, scope and > atmosphere, so the bare plot was less central in LotR. But in the HP > series the plot is considerably more complex and plays a considerably > more important role, and the Horcruxes have (as of now) much less > thematic value than the One Ring, which is why they feel artificial > while the Ring doesn't. Jen D. here, very much a neophyte in discussions of this depth but willing to plunge in and make an idiot of myself anyway... >From what I can gather you two are debating, the Horcruxes seem very contrived to Neri, and possibly detract from the overall story because they are simply plot coupons, things to be cashed in for plot movement. I can understand what you mean but I see the potential at the very least, for horcruxes to be imbued with meaning on several levels. Horcruxes tell us something about LV. Remember DD telling Harry in one of their meetings that LV had "magpie-like tendancies?" And that he chooses objects for their deep significance? It could be that the horcruxes, the obtaining of them involves Harry's willingness to delve into the personality of LV in order to understand what he'd choose or how to obtain the horcruxes. SNIPPED > > > Betsy Hp: > > Rectify what? How have the horcruxes ruined the story right now? > I > > know you *worry* that suddenly JKR will write a video game or a > > cheap, trite, fantasy tale (with Ginny in judiciously ripped gowns, > > I suppose? ) but she hasn't fallen into those sort of traps yet, > > has she? snipped > > > > Betsy Hp: > > Quite frankly the very fact that there is more than one horcrux > fits > > neatly into Voldemort's fear of death. "If one talisman is good, > > more talismen are better." > > Neri: > This is a plot reason, not a thematic reason. There's usually a plot > reason explaining the existence of the plot coupon, as such reasons > are mostly very easy to manufacture. Neri Jen here again: I am not trying to grasp at straws but I do beleive JKR has a plan and she's probably aware of Nick Lowe as well. This is for Betsy especially, the number 7 has a great deal of significance and I feel sure she's going to expand and expound on that next book. After all, it's the 7th book! 7 means much more than "more than one is better." And I believe it can be stretched to the thematic as well as plot. Jen D, having just finished HPB for the 2nd time and ready to go again.... > > >> From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 22:49:39 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:49:39 -0000 Subject: Subverting Prophecies, Wisemen, Horcruxes (wasRe: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147933 > >>Neri: > I'm not sure that a stereotypic Wise Old Man should know *all* the > information. Merlin, Gandalf and Yoda surely didn't. Betsy Hp: Didn't they? Especially compared to the other characters? I'm trying to recall a moment when Gandalf or Yoda were genuinely stumped. I mean stumped to the point that, for example, children under their care were being threatened by a deadly and unknown foe for an entire year. Or stumped to the point of not knowing how to destroy their enemy for many, many years. I mean, Dumbledore was *there*, right there when Voldemort whisked Harry away from him. Would Gandalf have been so helpless? Or Merlin or Yoda? > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I think [Dumbledore] also fell down on the school unity issue, > > and he certainly failed Tom Riddle. > > > >>Jen D.: > Forgive me, really, but I am confused. How did Dumbledore fail Tom > Riddle? Was it his inability to turn Tom around? Or deal sternly > enough with him? Or his failure to share his suspicions with the > Headmaster or fellow teachers? I am afraid I am missing a bigger > point here. Enlighten me! Betsy Hp: Tom Riddle is a damaged child, Dumbledore sees and recognizes that and yet is unable to help him. Honestly, I'm not sure what Dumbledore could have done, especially since he wasn't Tom's head of house. But I would imagine that if you asked him, Dumbledore could think of a number of things he might have done differently. But my big point here is that a Wise Old Man, like Gandalf or Merlin or Yoda, *would* have been able to save Tom. Because they're so darn wise. Dumbledore, being much more human, was unable or didn't know how to help. > >>Neri: > I see your list, in many cases, as making Dumbledore *more*, > rather than less, of a Wise Old Man stock character. Some of the > things that he didn't realize, like Quirrell's secret or his old > friend Moody being an imposter, are so unbelievable that some > notable HPfGU members simply refuse to believe it. In fact, even > Harry himself suspects by the end of SS/PS that DD knew everything > about Quirrell but let Harry have his fight. Betsy Hp: Yeah, I recognize that my human!Dumbledore is not popular. But I honestly think there's a tendency to place too much importance on the length of Dumbledore's beard. He looks like the standard Wise Old Man, so therefore he must have the extra-ordinary knowledge of the Wise Old Man. IOW, I believe Harry is completely wrong at the end of PS/SS. The last thing Dumbledore wanted was for Harry to face Quirrell. I think Harry came so near death that Dumbledore got a bit giddy with relief and did his foolish cup grab at the Leaving Feast. (A very not Wise Old Man move, unless of course all Slytherins are evil.) Again, I really do see Dumbledore as hanging on by his fingernails and barely managing to pull a victory (or a draw) in pretty much every single book. He does it with a twinkle, and makes it look easy (better to comfort the children with) but I don't see that it has been. > >>Neri: > I always have been an opponent of Omniscient!DD myself, but I'd > say the prophecy, Snape's motives and the Horcruxes is quite a > lot. It's a considerable percentage of the main mysteries in the > series. Betsy Hp: And yet, it's only three things. And it's not any sort of fantastic knowledge that only years of scholarly attainment or superhuman powers could achieve. It's something that a fairly intelligent schoolmaster who kept his ear to the ground could pick up. Yes, Dumbledore is the keeper of this knowledge, so that is a beat of the Wise Old Man. But it's not *fantasitical* knowledge. Heck, it's not even exclusive to Dumbledore. Others have this information too. Dumbledore is just clever enough to put it together. > >>Neri: > To this you should add the powers that were transferred from Voldy > to Harry in GH, the mind connection between them, the Ancient > Magic protecting Harry, the interesting bit about the brother > wands and Wormtail's life debt, all of them things we know almost > exclusively thanks to Dumbledore's explainations. Betsy Hp: Again, there's a Wise Old Man beat, but none of this information is exclusively Dumbledore's. And in fact, some of it (the life debt, for example) is something Dumbledore puts together as Harry tells him what's just happened. I like how JKR shows Dumbledore thinking on his feet. Where generally, the Wise Old Man knew what was going to happen, when, and has already had a dozen or so contingency plans ready to go. > >>Neri: > And this is even before counting things like The Gleam or "in > essence divided" that are yet to be explained, but are probably > central to the main mystery. Betsy Hp: Which may all seem quite esoteric until we get the explanation. Just because he's managed to confuse Harry doesn't mean Dumbledore is a near divine genius. > >>Neri: > 1) Wise Old Man identifies Hero and his destiny. Betsy Hp: Only Dumbledore doesn't. He tries to *keep* the hero from being identified by hiding the Potters away. It's Voldemort who picks out the Hero who will destroy him. Once Harry is forced into the hero role by Voldemort, Dumbledore does do his best to keep him alive. But I had the sense that Dumbledore wished that he'd been able to subvert the whole "destiny" thing from the beginning. > >>Neri: > 2) Wise Old Man coaches Hero and gives him some key background > information needed for the quest. Betsy Hp: The subversion comes from Dumbledore's great reluctance to do the above. > >>Neri: > 3) Wise Old Man steps aside, willingly or not, in order to let > Hero have his quest alone. Betsy Hp: Again, Dumbledore did this with great reluctance. I mean the whole, allowing Harry his quest. JKR got a lot of dramatic conflict out of Harry trying to fill the role of hero while Dumbledore did his best to keep him from it. So again with some subversion. Though of course, Dumbledore *did* need to give Harry his dues, and the more harmonic HBP was the resolution of Dumbledore finally stepping into the Wise Old Man shoes. On the whole though, I think Dumbledore would have preferred to play the part of hero and spared Harry the pain. That's the subversion, I think. Dumbledore is very reluctant to be the Wise Old Man. > >>Neri: > I think we should measure the superiority of each Wise Old Man > against his natural habitat. > Betsy Hp: Okay. Dumbledore is barred from his school by Lucius Malfoy and Fudge. He was thwarted by politics. Not too superior, I think. I mean, yes, Dumbledore is certainly one of the most powerful wizards of his age. He's got a very keen mind and a strong moral sense. So there are characteristics of the Wise Old Man. But he can also be kicked about by petty bureaucrats. He has to be careful with how he spends his political capital. The local paper has the power to turn the public against him. And children under his care can be killed. He's never done this Wise Old Man shtick before in his life. He's only ever played the hero, and it looks like it was hard for him to allow a young boy to fill that role. None of that fits into the Wise Old Man stereotype. > >>Neri: > I know that the Horcruxes felt artificial to several readers of > HBP, and many others didn't like them much although they didn't > have the vocabulary to explain why exactly. I too couldn't explain > to myself why they felt weak until reading Lowe's article. Betsy Hp: I still think this has the flavor of a future worry. That the last book will end badly because of the horcruxes. They were predicted by other readers, though. And they were forshadowed back in the second book. And the series hasn't been tired and old yet, at least IMO. The kind of traps Lowe mentioned haven't tripped JKR up yet. I have confidence she won't choke in the final stretch. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Quite frankly the very fact that there is more than one horcrux > > fits neatly into Voldemort's fear of death. "If one talisman is > > good, more talismen are better." > >>Jen D. > This is for Betsy especially, the number 7 has a great deal of > significance and I feel sure she's going to expand and expound on > that next book. After all, it's the 7th book! 7 means much more > than "more than one is better." And I believe it can be stretched > to the thematic as well as plot. Betsy Hp: Yes, seven is a powerful number, and that's why Voldemort picked 7 horcruxes. I do agree with Neri that there will probably be a reason, plot-wise, for there to be seven horcruxes, but I don't think this means the series is on a fast track for utter suckage. > >>Neri: > This is a plot reason, not a thematic reason. There's usually a > plot reason explaining the existence of the plot coupon, as such > reasons are mostly very easy to manufacture. Betsy Hp: Well, yes and no. It's also a characteristic of Voldemort's. It fits the thematic beats of his character. And while yes, if Voldemort didn't fear death so very, very much he'd probably be Tom Riddle, Minister of Magic, loved and admired by the WW, well, one must have a story, right? Telling a story by using a structure doesn't automatically make one a bad story teller. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 23:36:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:36:37 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147935 > After JKR giving Remus love interest, I feel much more confident > that he will live. Oh, and of course he was not and never will be > ESE. :-0 > > Luckdragon: No arguments on Lupin's goodness; but don't you find it strange that this relationship was just thrown into the mix without prior > clues. How would this work? Good a metamorphagus and Auror as Tonks may be even Moody wasn't able to remain entirely in one piece and fell victim to Crouch Jr. It would just be too dangerous to marry a Werewolf (Lupin knows it). Alla: Well, what can I say ? The relationship did jump on me pretty much out of nowhere, but I think that this is where the argument that Harry does not see everything can work well to explain "out of nowhere part". I don't see any more than usual difficulties because Tonks is an auror and Remus is werewolf. He is pretty much not dangerous when he drinks a potion and she has a dangerous job, but many people have dangerous jobs and many people have chronic illnesses. Relationships are difficult in general, I don't see theirs necessarily as more difficult than many others. IMO of course. Personally, I would much more preferred Remus to be in relationship with Sirius, but for some reason I remember well a phrase at one of the discussions table at Witching Hour symposium. "JKR gave Remus a love interest in order for him to have a reason to stay alive". I happen to agree with it. I mean one would hope that Harry was at least part of such reason too. We shall see. > Alla: > If Harry dies, he will be reunited with his loved ones behind the > Veil, if he does not, he will NOT be Frodo Potter. He will get a > chance to live a reasonably normal happy life. Maybe "twelve kids" > prediction will come true. > > Luckdragon: Goodness, I hope not the 12 kids part. > Alla: Heeee. Why not? You don't want Harry to stay kids or you just want him to have that many? :-) > Alla: > Oh, of course the AK Snape performed was very real, not fake. > >Luckdragon: That I won't believe till the last page of book 7 ends. > Alla: Snort. What if at some point in time JKR will write on her website in Rumors section or FAQ section something to the effect. "Dumbledore is dead and AK killed him". Would you believe it then? > Quick_Silver's prediction: > 5. More details of the Prank will be known...while not clearing > Sirius I believe they will shift part of the blame onto Snape and > basically make him equally culpably with Sirius. Alla: Oh, yes, agree completely. JKR said that we will learn more about Prank so that much is a given. It IS impossible IMO to clear Sirius completely and unnecessary, but I will put my money on Snape being equally culpable and not just in his relationship with Marauders in general but in the events preceding Prank whatever they were. I think it is been rather heavily foreshadowed in HBP by the fact that Snape was inventing Curses, one of which was very dark and another one could be used in a quite nasty way AND his own curse was used against him AND that half of Hog warts was using levicorpus at one point in time. Pensieve scene will always be example of horrible bullying, but I think that it also could foreshadow in a metaphorical way that somebody was getting the dose of his own medicine. So I am betting that whole picture will become more multicolored than it was in OOP at the end. Moreover, I think it became more multicolored already at the end of HBP. Quick Silver: > 7. Draco flees Voldemort and is allowed to leave by Peter...Draco > proceeds to tell Harry that Snape has been discovered. Harry arrives > in the nick of time to save Snape's a** and then it's the final > showdown. Alla: HAHA. Harry saving Snape's a** will be the very best punishment for Snape, but unfortunately I am predicting that JKR will not go as far as to leave Snape in Potter's life debt again. I think that Harry will save Snape in the middle of the book and close to the end Snape will save Harry. Quick > Little Things I'd like to see: > -Snape getting beaten by someone, anyone...Voldemort, Harry (my > preferred choice), the Marauders, Neville...this applies double if > he's DDM! (Oddly enough I find DDM! to be a more arrogant person > then ESE!) Alla: I don't even need him physically beaten, to me it would be satisfactory enough to see him powerless and at Harry's mercy. To make this scene plausible I can imagine that Harry at that point already decided to forgive Snape, so Harry is not becoming LIKE Snape but for some brief period of time Snape does not know that yet and hates awaiting Harry's decision as to his fate ( not sure when and how that would happen) and starts running his mouth at Harry again, desperate and powerless. Oh, yes, I would love to see that. And yes, that would be enough punishment to me only if Snape is DD!M. If he is ESE! or OFH! I am sure he will get a nice long stay in Azkaban. Hey, he would still have it better than Sirius - there would be no Dementors and I would not wish Dementors even on Snape. It is most likely of course that he will die no matter what kind of Snape he is. :) Quick Silver: > -Harry out-brewing Snape in Potions (I consider that being the > universe balancing itself) Alla: That would be lovely. But unfortunately I cannot see Harry wanting to enter into potion competition with Snape under any circumstances, ever. IMO of course . Quick Silver: > -more Slughorn...he interests me and he's the one teacher at > Hogwart's that I feel can be of use to Harry Alla: Love Slughorn as very typical Slytherin. When I did chapter 4 discussion questions, I expressed some doubts that Slughorn can turn out to be ESE, but this is the case where I really truly don't want my doubts to turn out true. I hope Slughorn stays and continues to be Slytherin head of the house. Couple more predictions from me, I think I read everybody else's, but I may have missed something, so forgive me if I by accident repeat somebody else's prediction: Harry will return to Hogwarts, but will be leaving it often to go hunting just as Dumbledore did. One of the possible endings for dear Voldemort I can think of ( that was not said in this thread, but I may have seen it earlier or discussed it with somebody) would be Voldemort turning into a baby at the end and Harry taking a pity on him and not killing him for that reason ( have no clue who would take care of this "baby" after all though ? maybe St.Mungo?). It is not my favorite one by all means, but I keep thinking about "baby face" DE at the MoM battle and Hermione's "we cannot hurt a baby" ( paraphrase, but I think essentially correct one) and I can see this kind of end. But I much prefer dear Tommy go away and never come back, ever. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 10 23:45:42 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 23:45:42 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147936 > >>Sydney: > Oooh, can I play? > In no particular order: > -- Snape is DDM! (duh). And motivated by love of Lily and guilt. > And is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Betsy Hp: Totally agree. ::snuggles Snape, ignores sharp elbow to the gut, snuggles him some more:: > >>Sydney: > -- a mysterious phoenix patronus will run around, leading everyone > to think Dumbledore is alive. It will in fact be Snape's patronus, > changed on account of his shock at the sacrifice of Dumbledore > (love this theory-- not mine, I hasten to say) Betsy Hp: Agree again! Though I've also heard the possiblity of a bumblebee patronus, which would be cool but might go over Harry's head. (Would Hermione get it?) > >>Sydney: > --The final defeat of Voldemort will somehow feature the Room of > Love > -- Harry will travel to the other side of the veil, Aeneas-like, > speak to one or more people, and return alive > -- Ron and Hermionie 4 EVA!! Betsy Hp: Yes, yes, and yes. I'll throw in Sirius as spirit guide, possibly in Padfoot form (Redhen's idea, which I love). And Ginny and Harry will continue to sit in their tree, multiple baby-carriages to follow. > >>Sydney: > -- the ancient history behind the Gryffindor/Slytherin split will > be revisited, prove to be more compicated than thought, and > somehow play into the defeat of V-mort. Probable vector: the > Sorting Hat Betsy Hp: See, this is what I'm waiting for. There must be *something* about Gryffindor and Slytherin. There *must*. Otherwise I'll feel quite let down. > >>Sydney: > -- Dumbledore's portrait will have Many Helpful and Vague Things to > Say and will Twinkle a lot. Betsy Hp: This I'm not sure about. Harry cut McGonagall and Hogwarts out, so I'm not sure how much time will be spent in her office. > >>Sydney: > -- going on a Tarot card hunch: buried truths will be revealed, > and people thought to be dead will rise again-- Regulus? Vance? Betsy Hp: Regulus would be lovely for the Black family. But Vance would be pretty strong proof of a DDM!Snape. Is hoping for both a bit greedy? > >>Sydney: > -- going on trusting the alchemy structure: Hagrid will die Betsy Hp: While I'm not a huge Hagrid fan in that he can be a somewhat boring character, gosh it would tear me up for Harry's sake. > >>Sydney: > -- going on a vague theory of story-physics: Snape won't die. I'm > probably shakiest in my confidence in this one, but I have my > reasons. > If he doesn't die, he will go to work at St. Mungus as a curse > healer, joining their fine roster of famous healers who also > invented horrible curses (Entrail-Expelling Hex, anyone?) Betsy Hp: Oh *please* be right!! I honestly expect Snape to suffer the fate of a sin-eater. In taking the sin from both Harry and Draco, and allowing a healing of the Slytherin/Gryffindor rift, he will have to die. But if he *doesn't* die? So. Very. HAPPY! > >>Sydney: > -- most of the cast will live Happily Ever After > -- Book 7 will be a magic Tardis book, fitting all this stuff in > and yet being shorter than OoP, according to JKR. Betsy Hp: I expect a very fast pace. No side-bars on grades or quidditch matches or how Hagrid spent his summer. Everything will count. Should be grand. And then everyone will sit down for tea. > --Sydney, (who honest-to-God has started and abandoned huge > Mystery-and-scapegoating posts, none of which are coherent) Betsy Hp (waiting for the mystery-and-scapegoating post, *and* the Snape-will-live post ) From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sat Feb 11 00:00:20 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:00:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My 7 book 7 predictions- to Alla In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060211000020.28129.qmail@web53307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147937 dumbledore11214 wrote: > After JKR giving Remus love interest, I feel much more confident > that he will live. Oh, and of course he was not and never will be > ESE. :-0 > > Luckdragon: No arguments on Lupin's goodness; but don't you find it strange that this relationship was just thrown into the mix without prior > clues. How would this work? Good a metamorphagus and Auror as Tonks may be even Moody wasn't able to remain entirely in one piece and fell victim to Crouch Jr. It would just be too dangerous to marry a Werewolf (Lupin knows it). Alla: Well, what can I say ? The relationship did jump on me pretty much out of nowhere, but I think that this is where the argument that Harry does not see everything can work well to explain "out of nowhere part". I don't see any more than usual difficulties because Tonks is an auror and Remus is werewolf. He is pretty much not dangerous when he drinks a potion and she has a dangerous job, but many people have dangerous jobs and many people have chronic illnesses. Relationships are difficult in general, I don't see theirs necessarily as more difficult than many others. IMO of course. Personally, I would much more preferred Remus to be in relationship with Sirius, but for some reason I remember well a phrase at one of the discussions table at Witching Hour symposium. "JKR gave Remus a love interest in order for him to have a reason to stay alive". I happen to agree with it. I mean one would hope that Harry was at least part of such reason too. We shall see. LD again: Lupin and Sirius as a couple would have been a fun twist IMO. Who will make Lupin's "complex" potion now that Snape is MIA? Also what if LV finds a way to use Tonks to get to Lupin. That is the whole reason Harry set his relationship with Ginny aside for the time being. I think any new open relationship right now could be detrimental to one of the parties, particularly when one has a hairy little problem and his aid is no longer available. > Alla: > If Harry dies, he will be reunited with his loved ones behind the > Veil, if he does not, he will NOT be Frodo Potter. He will get a > chance to live a reasonably normal happy life. Maybe "twelve kids" > prediction will come true. > > Luckdragon: Goodness, I hope not the 12 kids part. > Alla: Heeee. Why not? You don't want Harry to stay kids or you just want him to have that many? :-) LD again: I'm an Early Childhood Educator. The thought of 12 kids 24/7 is very daunting. I would really like to see Harry be able to travel and enjoy the world after years living in a cupboard under the stairs and a dorm with 4 other boys. Hard to do with 12 kids. > Alla: > Oh, of course the AK Snape performed was very real, not fake. > >Luckdragon: That I won't believe till the last page of book 7 ends. > Alla: Snort. What if at some point in time JKR will write on her website in Rumors section or FAQ section something to the effect. "Dumbledore is dead and AK killed him". Would you believe it then? LD again: Frankly I don't take anything on her site at face value just yet. I'm sure something she has told us will be a trick; either Sirius or DD or Regulus is really alive or there are more horcruxes than we know, or Neville is really "The one". I don't know if I'm an Optimist or a Pessimist, but I keep expecting a surprise. Alla: Couple more predictions from me, I think I read everybody else's, but I may have missed something, so forgive me if I by accident repeat somebody else's prediction: Harry will return to Hogwarts, but will be leaving it often to go hunting just as Dumbledore did. Luckdragon: Totally thinking the same thing here. Hogwarts will be home base, the Library and teachers will be Harry's resources, Students, ghosts, portraits and Elves will aid Harry as well. There may even be a horcrux lurking on the grounds. Alla: One of the possible endings for dear Voldemort I can think of ( that was not said in this thread, but I may have seen it earlier or discussed it with somebody) would be Voldemort turning into a baby at the end and Harry taking a pity on him and not killing him for that reason ( have no clue who would take care of this "baby" after all though ? maybe St.Mungo?). It is not my favorite one by all means, but I keep thinking about "baby face" DE at the MoM battle and Hermione's "we cannot hurt a baby" ( paraphrase, but I think essentially correct one) and I can see this kind of end. Luckdragon: Interesting experiment. Nurture vs. nature. Put baby Tom in a loving home and see if things turn out differently. Would the magic world dare chance it. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 00:21:44 2006 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:21:44 -0000 Subject: Seven Players vs Seven Bottles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147938 Randy: > > Seven bottles in the Potions Task > > One lets you move ahead ? (SEEKER in Quidditch) > One brings you back - (KEEPER in Quidditch) > Two hold only nettle wine ?(irritate, sting, provoke) ( BEATER in > Quidditch) > > Three are killers waiting hidden (CHASERS in Quidditch take shots) > > Neither dwarf nor giant holds death in their insides > The second left and the second right are twins once you taste them > though different at first sight > > I read a post once about the 7 DADA teachers being related to the 7 > bottles of wine. > > 3 are killers - Quirrell, Moody, Snape?/Lupin if he is ESE? > 2 are only nettle wine (nettle means irritate, provoke) - Lockhart, > Umbridge > One lets you move ahead ? maybe Lupin?/ Snape if he is DDM? > One brings you back ? the Unknown DADA teacher? (Slughorn?) > > What do you guys think about this stuff? Kelleyaynn: Since there are seven bottles, and seven is such an important number in these books, I'm sure there is more meaning to the bottles than just that task in book 1. I had a Harry Potter book club with my students last month, and a couple of them came up with the idea that each of the bottles represents one of the books. It was interesting, as your analysis of the bottles/quidditch positions/teachers is. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 00:35:04 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:35:04 -0000 Subject: Horcrux - Plot Coupon or Plot Vehicle (was: Subverting Proph, .. Horcruxes ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147939 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" wrote: > > Jen D. here, very much a neophyte in discussions of this depth but > willing to plunge in and make an idiot of myself anyway... > > From what I can gather ... the Horcruxes seem very contrived to > Neri, and possibly detract from the overall story because they > are simply plot coupons, things to be cashed in for plot movement. > ...I see the potential ..., for horcruxes to be imbued with meaning > on several levels. Horcruxes tell us something about LV. Remember > DD telling Harry ... that (Voldemort) chooses objects for their deep > significance? It could be that the horcruxes, the obtaining of them > involves Harry's willingness to delve into the personality of LV in > order to understand what he'd choose or how to obtain the horcruxes. > ...edited... bboyminn: Just a few random thoughts stimulated by Jen D. I'm sort of mentally merging McGuffins, Plot Coupons, and Horcruxes into a generalization here. In a sense, for a good writer, the Plot Coupons never really are important, but the journey to get them is. In a sense, the Plot Coupons are the McGuffins that starts the Plot Ball rolling. The usual tale start something like this. You can keep your life and/or your freedom and/or marry my daughter if you will perform seven tasks; find the Golden Fleece, bring back that sacred chalice, bring me Gladstones Staff, bring to me the Amulet of Samarkand, bring to me the Secrets of Shambhala, bring me blah-blah-blah.... Yet when the Hero accomplishes the task, what does he do? He hands the object over to the King and that is that. The device itself is not significant but the journey to retrieve it is, and the lesson learned and friends made along the way are very important. Perhaps in Harry's story, the Horcruxes themselves really are not that important. Yes, they have some significants to the story, but perhaps what Harry learns about himself and about Voldemort, and about who his allies are and who he can truly trust, are all very important. Yes, the Horcruxes themselves may be boring predictable Plot Coupons, but they may also be the stimulus that sends us on a a wonderous journey of discovery. And really... isn't that journey far more important and interesting that the object that causes the journey? Are we really more interested in Hercules handing over the Fleece to the King, or are we more interested in Hercules harrowing fight against the giant three-headed cyclops on his way to get the Fleece? Plot Coupons are standard writing fare. What distinguishes Hackney Plot Coupons from brilliant Plot Coupons is whether they send us on a mindly interesting but mostly predictable journey, or whether they send us on a wonderous adventure. I think JKR has a enough wonderous adventures on the table to make me think she can pull off at least one more. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 01:28:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 01:28:20 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's silver hand and Book 7 (Was: My 7 book 7 predictions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147940 Carol earlier: > > I predict that Peter Pettigrew will fulfill his life debt to Harry by using his silver hand to kill Fenrir Greyback (assuming that Greyback is not already in Azkaban)--two minor mysteries from Peter's character arc resolved together. > Exodusts responded: > Interestingly, there is a recent essay on livejournal about this very topic. I have to say it is NOT going to happen. JKR dismissed the idea of Peter killing Remus with his hand in the rumours section of her website, and the wording is highly suggestive that she is dismissive of the whole idea, not just that Remus will be the one to die. Carol again: I don't think that her saying that Pettigrew won't kill Lupin negates the possibility of Pettigrew killing *Greyback*, and I still think that it would be an economical use of motifs already introduced to kill two birds (the silver hand and the life debt) with one stone. I would love to see Peter (even though I despise him) do one last brave deed that justified his placement in Gryffindor, even if it didn't fully redeem him, and surely PP will at some point save Harry (as DD implies in his prediction that Harry will one day be glad of the life debt). And surely if any character deserves a painful death (strangled by a metal hand) it's Greyback. However, let's say for the sake of argument (discussion) that you're right. What do you think is the purpose of Pettigrew's silver hand, which has not yet done more than crumble a stick to dust, and which is brought back to our attention in "Spinner's End," where Pettigrew caresses it lovingly (HBP Am. ed. 23)--surely a hint that there's more to come involving the hand. Will it be used for good or for evil? Tied in with the life debt or not? And why silver, if it's not used to kill a werewolf? Silver does seem to be associated with Slytherin, BTW--note the silver goblets in 12 GP and the house colors, green and silver, which may partially account for LV's giving Pettigrew a silver hand rather than a gold one. But a Slytherin affinity for silver doesn't seem to sufficiently explain why LV gave Pettigrew a silver hand. Why not a human hand from an Inferius (brrr!) or a hand made of gold or bronze or iron? And silver is noted for its malleability, not its strength, yet PP's hand seems superhumanly strong (as well as beautiful). Carol, asking opinions on this topic from anyone who's interested, not just exodusts From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Feb 11 03:34:19 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 03:34:19 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's silver hand and Book 7 (Was: My 7 book 7 predictions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147941 Carol: > However, let's say for the sake of argument (discussion) that you're > right. What do you think is the purpose of Pettigrew's silver hand, > which has not yet done more than crumble a stick to dust, and which is > brought back to our attention in "Spinner's End," where Pettigrew > caresses it lovingly (HBP Am. ed. 23)--surely a hint that there's more > to come involving the hand. *(snip)* > Carol, asking opinions on this topic from anyone who's interested, not > just exodusts Ceridwen: I did a search. I knew about Nuada of the Silver Hand http://www.loggia.com/myth/nuada.html from Irish mythology, but did not know about Otto of the Silver Hand http://www.classicreader.com/booktoc.php/sid.1/bookid.1467/ by Howard Pyle. I browsed through the Otto story, since I didn't know it, and now have a question: Why do stories about people with silver hands always involve one-eyed warrior types? Silver isn't the strongest metal, but it's stronger than gold. Silver is associated with Slytherin House. Silver is associated with the moon, and with water, to some. Silver bullets can defeat a werewolf - distinction - silver bullets can wound or kill anyone, but only silver bullets, not ones of any other metal, can wound or kill a werewolf. Silver is cheaper than gold. Maybe Voldemort's a cheapskate? But, going back to the other silver-handed people I could find on a search, both stories involve a major character with one eye. Nuada is killed by the giant Baylor, who has a poisoned eye that he keeps closed until he is ready to aim it at someone; Otto's father has a one- eyed 'man-at-arms' sort of character named Hans. If this is a pattern, will JKR follow it? If she does, who will be the one-eyed character? Ceridwen, who feels like speculating about odd things tonight. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat Feb 11 03:58:58 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:58:58 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: References: <43EB1B3B.995.C418F9@localhost> Message-ID: <43EDFBB2.16153.1CB445C@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147942 On 10 Feb 2006 at 11:39, festuco wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > > Maybe this will make things clearer... I don't think there is > > anything inherently *wrong* with Snape's scolding Neville > > severely when he makes basic mistakes in Potions classes. I don't > > think that that is inappropriate. > > > > *BUT* I do think that it is probably counterproductive. That method > > might work with most students, but I do think that Neville as an > > individual would probably respond better to less stressful correction > > of his mistakes. And I wouldn't have any problem at all, if Snape saw > > that and decided that *with Neville specifically* a different > > approach might be a better one to use. By the same token, I believe > > that if he did that, he would be affording Neville a privilege - not > > a right. > > Actually, a really good teacher would see that his approach would be > counterproductive and would at least try and change it. It has nothing > to do with priveliges or rights but with his job requirement. A > teacher has to teach and an effective teacher is one where students > learn something. Snape is quite all right as a teacher, but he is not > flexible enough to be a truly good one. I disagree (but is that surprising to anyone?). Even the best teacher will not always be able to find a productive method of teaching a particular child. It seems to me that some people here equate the idea of a 'good teacher' with being a 'perfect teacher'. They seek to hold teachers to an impossibly high standard. To be considered a good teacher, they have to be a good teacher for every single child without a single failure. No teacher, no matter how good, can ever reasonably hope to meet that type of standard, and expecting them to actually causes a lot of problems because it makes it much harder for a teacher to admit they need help even when help is available. A teacher's job requirement is not to be an ideal teacher for every single student. I don't disagree with the idea that to be an effective teacher, students need to learn - but does that mean *every* single student needs to be always learning at their peak efficiency? I basically didn't learn much at all at school from the age of 5 to 12 - and it wasn't because I had bad teachers (for the most part - I had a couple who I think were bad), it's just that what they were offering wasn't right for me - it was right for virtually everyone else in the class. And while I have said I think Neville would respond better to a less stressful learning environment than Snape's class, that doesn't mean I don't think he's learning at all. I think he would learn *better* in a less stressful environment, but I suspect he is learning in Snape's classes, just not at peak efficiency. As for flexibility - yes, some flexibility is important in a teacher. But a good teacher often has less reason to need to be flexible than a bad one. A teacher who is successfully teaching 95% of their students using their standard methods has far less reason to embrace flexibility than one whose standard methods only teach half the class. Too often in education, flexibility is treated as a universal virtue and it isn't - it can be a sign of problems. And bear in mind that a flexible teacher can be flexible in the wrong way, just as easily as they can be flexible in the right way. Sometimes flexibility makes things worse. I'll get back to that later. > As for the Trevor incident: that was vile. There is no way a teacher > can justify that. Actually, I think that incident is extremely to justify. I have some problems justifying some other things Snape has done - but the Trevor incident - no problem. Let's go back to the very first potion class we see, just to set the scene. "Things didn't improve for the Gryffindors as the Potions lesson continued. Snape put them all into pairs and set them to mixing up a simple potion to cure boils. He swept around in his long black cloak, watching them weigh dried nettles and crush snake fangs, criticizing almost everyone except Malfoy, whom he seemed to like. He was just telling everyone to look at the perfect way Malfoy had stewed his horned slugs when clouds of acid green smoke and a loud hissing filled the dungeon. Neville had somehow managed to melt Seamus's cauldron into a twisted blob, and their potion was seeping across the stone floor, burning holes in people's shoes. Within seconds, the whole class was standing on their stools while Neville, who had been drenched in the potion when the cauldron collapsed, moaned in pain as angry red boils sprang up all over his arms and legs. 'Idiot boy!' snarled Snape, clearing the spilled potion away with one wave of his wand. 'I suppose you added the porcupine quills before taking the cauldron off the fire?'" (PS) I would point out three salient points here. (1) The students are being asked to mix a 'simple potion'. (2) Neville's mistake is an elementary one - he did not follow the correct procedure. (3) Snape can tell from looking at the results precisely what mistake Neville made. Now - let's look at the Trevor incident. In two parts. The first: ***** "A few cauldrons away, Neville was in trouble. Neville regularly went to pieces in Potions lessons; it was his worst subject, and his great fear of Professor Snape made things ten times worse. His potion, which was supposed to be a bright, acid green, had turned - 'Orange, Longbottom,' said Snape, ladling some up and allowing to splash back into the cauldron, so that everyone could see. 'Orange. Tell me, boy, does anything penetrate that thick skull of yours? Didn't you hear me say, quite clearly, that only one rat spleen was needed? Didn't I state plainly that a dash of leech juice would suffice? What do I have to do to make you understand, Longbottom?' Neville was pink and trembling. He looked as though he was on the verge of tears. 'Please, sir,' said Hermione, 'please, I could help Neville put it right -' 'I don't remember asking you to show off, Miss Granger,' said Snape coldly, and Hermione went as pink as Neville. 'Longbottom, at the end of this lesson we will feed a few drops of this potion to your toad and see what happens. Perhaps that will encourage you to do it properly.'" ***** Consider what this passage tells us. This is over two years later - and Neville has once again made an elementary mistake. He has got the procedure wrong. It isn't complicated to follow a procedure. It doesn't require great skill or intelligence. Any student should be able to do this. 'What do I have to do to make you understand, Longbottom?' It's a very good question - because obviously if Neville after two and a half years is still making the same mistake in potions classes that he made in his very first lesson, something is wrong. Obviously Snape needs to try something different if what he has done previously with Neville hasn't worked - Snape needs to be *flexible!*. I submit that the approach Snape takes - being apparently something he has not done before with regards to Neville is most definitely an example of flexibility in teaching - he's adapting and trying something else. You feel it's unjustifiable and vile. I disagree, but if we accept for a moment, for the sake of argument, that you are correct, I would just point out that this would then become an example of how flexibility is by no means always a sign of a good teacher. But back to my position - where I don't think it's unjustifiable and vile. Or at least I don't think it's unjustifiable - it's vileness is much more of a gut call I think than something I can argue against logically. Once again, from this second passage, I would raise two salient points. (1) Neville's mistake are elementary ones - he did not follow the correct procedure. (2) Snape can tell from looking at the results precisely what mistakes Neville made. I'd like to elaborate on this second point. We know that Snape can tell what is wrong from a potion from visual observation. In this case, because the potion is orange he can tell that Neville has used too many rat spleens and too much leech juice. From the colour - he knows what Neville has done wrong. The potion is meant to be *green* - it's orange and that indicates the mistake made. Now - let us look at the second part. The results: ***** "The end of the lesson in sight, Snape strode over to Neville, who was cowering by his cauldron. 'Everyone gather 'round, said Snape, his black eyes glittering, 'and watch what happens to Longbottom's toad. If he has managed to produce a Shrinking Solution, it will shrink to a tadpole. If, as I don't doubt, he has done it wrong, his toad is likely to be poisoned.' The Gryffindors watched fearfully. The Slytherins looked excited. Snape picked up Trevor the toad in his left hand and dipped a small spoon into Neville's potion, which was now green. He trickled a few drops down Trevor's throat. There was a moment of hushed silence, in which Trevor gulped; then there was a small pop, and Trevor the tadpole was wriggling in Snape's palm. The Gryffindors burst into applause. Snape, looking sour, pulled a small bottle from the pocket of his robe, poured a few drops on top of Trevor, and he reappeared suddenly, fully grown. 'Five points from Gryffindor,' said Snape, which wiped the smiles from every face. 'I told you not to help him, Miss Granger. Class dismissed.'" ***** Yes, Snape threatened Trevor. But was the threat real, or was it just a teaching tool? In my view, the evidence is reasonably strong that it is the latter. We *know* that Snape can tell what is wrong with a potion from its colour. Presumably he can also tell if the potion is right from its colour. And when he carries out this experiment with Trevor - what colour is the potion? It's green. What colour is the potion meant to be? Green. Snape knows that this potion is now correct. And that's when he gives it to Trevor. So - what do we actually see in this class? We see a boy make a careless and elementary mistake for the nth time in over two years. We see a teacher tell him *exactly* what he did wrong, and express frustration that this students is making such mistakes. We then see the teacher try something new, because obviously what has been done in the past doesn't work. We see flexibility (good or bad). He provides the student with an incentive to get it right - he doesn't punish him initially, he gives him a chance to correct the mistake that he has explicitly laid out for him. And then he lets the student correct that mistake - I'm fairly sure Snape knows that Neville is being helped by Hermione because I really would find it hard to see how he wouldn't know - and while he has expressed disapproval of the idea, he doesn't stop her from helping him. So he's letting the student who has made a careless error correct that error with the help of (probably) the most competent student in the class. And he doesn't test what the students has done until there are clear indications that the mistake has been corrected. Honestly - in terms of pedagogical theory, explicitly telling a student they have a made a mistake, explicitly telling them what that mistake is, and then given them an incentive and an opportunity to correct that mistake is something you'd find very few people disagreeing with. The precise details of how Snape did it - yes, some people would certainly object to the *specific* incentive - but the general practice is one most people would see as quite sensible. It seems to me the argument against what Snape does in this case comes from one of two places. (1) They'd utterly disagree with my scenario above and would not accept the idea that Snape might have actually been genuinely working towards a good teaching goal. Fair enough - I fully admit that I cannot prove Snape's motivations are those I describe. I merely submit that the scenario I have presented is fully compatible with the information we have. (2) *If* they accept the type of argument I present (or even if they don't) they feel ihe incentive Snape offers is a cruel one. On this point, I can understand where they are coming from, but I offer the following observations. While most modern educational theory seeks to emphasise the 'positive' when it comes to disciplining students, that doesn't necessarily mean that such emphasis is necessarily universally true, or the only way to do things. There is a place for both negative reinforcement and even punishment in schools. Now, even I, who believes in the place of punishment fairly strongly, would agree that I think the positive is a better first choice in most cases - but there is a place for the negative. Sometimes to educate children, you have to do things that they will not find pleasant. Things some teachers did to me at school, were certainly not pleasant at times. Having your dishonesty publically exposed in front of an entire class certainly wasn't pleasant - but it was justifiable - and it worked. Having a piece of work I had been grossly careless on presented to the entire class for their comment wasn't fun either - but again, it worked. Being caned really wasn't pleasant - but again, for me, it worked. And if those things hadn't been done, I really don't believe I'd have later been as successful at school as I was. The negative has a place in education. I don't believe Trevor was in any real danger. But I think Snape thought he could teach Neville a very effective lesson by letting him think that he was. Did it work? I've no idea. To work that out, I'd have to know if Neville stopped making elementary mistakes. But when what you've been trying for two years isn't getting through to a student, trying something different and drastic doesn't seem wrong to me. Once again, I think people try to judge Snape through modern eyes, through their modern views of what education should and shouldn't be. There seems to be an attitude that just because something is new and modern in education, that it's necessarily better or right. That's not really true though. Some new ideas are good ones. Some are bad ones. Some are merely different, neither good or bad. There's a place for traditional education, though - frankly I think there's a reason why many of the 'best schools' are ones that resist change to an extent and try and hang on to their old traditions. Of course, there are also very good modern schools, and very bad old schools - it's not a simple thing to know. I can say that I am *incredibly* grateful that the last few years of my schooling were spent in traditional environments, and I was harmed very badly by some of the modern ideas I encountered before that (not that I think all modern ideas are bad - but these ones were, for me at least). Educational theory is a complicated area - and a great deal of what becomes accepted in it becomes accepted not for good pedagogical reasons, but because it fits into a particular socio- political agenda. People seem to think the Wizarding World should share our views on so many things, including education, it seems. It's cultural imperialism - no wonder the Wizarding World doesn't want contact with the Muggle World. We'd all swan in and tell them exactly what was wrong with the way they do things, and how our ideas are so much better. (-8 Incidentally - for this final year of my education course, I have to write what is basically a thesis. I have lots of ideas competing as possible topics - but one I am seriously considering is a possible, proper scholarly analysis of the pedagogy of Hogwarts and what is good and bad about it. Whether I can sell my tutors on that would be another question - but I think it could be very interesting. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 03:55:58 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 03:55:58 -0000 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147943 > > CH3ed: > > >> At the end of OotP Harry had escaped LV alive 4 times > > against LV's will; > > 1. in PS/SS from the dungeon > > 2. in CoS from the Chamber of Secrets (with Tom Riddle) > > 3. in GoF from the graveyard scene > > 4. in OotP from the fight at the MoM << > > > > > > Actually 5 times if you also consider his escape as a baby when > > the AK curse failed to kill him.... > > Cat > > Geoff: > > > The 'four times' comes from canon: > " He saw > himself in you before he had ever seen you and in marking you with > that scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave you powers > and a future which have fitted you to escape him not once, but four > times so far - something that neither your parents,nor Neville's > parents, ever achieved." > (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" p.742 UK edition) hpfan_mom: Based on the precise wording of Dumbledore's quotation, I think it's got to be Godric's Hollow that doesn't fit. DD says "in marking you with that scar" he "gave you powers . . . which have fitted you to escape him . . . four times so far". GH happened, Harry was marked, THEN he had powers and escaped 4 times. That's how I read it, anyway. Here's a question - DD says that the prophecy could have applied to either Harry or Neville, "both sets of parents having narrowly escaped Voldemort three times." (OOTP p.842 US edition) But didn't James and Lily "defy" LV at GH? Was that their *fourth* time? Or had they actually only defied him twice before (despite what DD said above) and by appearing at GH he forced them to come into compliance with the prophecy? hpfan_mom From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 04:10:37 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:10:37 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy and Its Reference to LV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147944 hpfan_mom: Just looking at the prophecy again (oh yeah, another exciting Friday night), and wondered if there'd been posts on this before. Trelawney (or the prophecy for which she's the mouthpiece) does not name LV as You Know Who, or He Who Must Not Be Named, or Voldemort, or Tom Riddle. The prophecy refers to him four times as the Dark Lord. (Page 841, OOTP, US edition) IIRC, that's what the DEs call him. What could be the significance of that? And that's how the prophecy is labeled, Dark Lord and (?) Harry Potter. (Page 780) Who is the keeper of the Hall of Prophecy, the wizard who labeled the official record? (Page 842) hpfan_mom From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 04:40:29 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 04:40:29 -0000 Subject: Subverting Prophecies, Wisemen, Horcruxes (wasRe: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147945 > Jen D: > From what I can gather you two are debating, the Horcruxes seem very > contrived to Neri, and possibly detract from the overall story > because they are simply plot coupons, things to be cashed in for > plot movement. I can understand what you mean but I see the > potential at the very least, for horcruxes to be imbued with meaning > on several levels. Horcruxes tell us something about LV. Remember DD > telling Harry in one of their meetings that LV had "magpie-like > tendancies?" And that he chooses objects for their deep > significance? Neri: As I wrote upthread, this doesn't convince me because plot coupons frequently come with some excuses for their existence (typically supplied by the Wise Old Man stock character in some kind of a "plot dump") and as long as these explanations are rather arbitrary (this or that quirk of the mad arch-villain) it doesn't really give the plot coupons that much meaning. > bboyminn: > > Just a few random thoughts stimulated by Jen D. I'm sort of mentally > merging McGuffins, Plot Coupons, and Horcruxes into a generalization > here. In a sense, for a good writer, the Plot Coupons never really are > important, but the journey to get them is. In a sense, the Plot > Coupons are the McGuffins that starts the Plot Ball rolling. > > The usual tale start something like this. You can keep your life > and/or your freedom and/or marry my daughter if you will perform seven > tasks; find the Golden Fleece, bring back that sacred chalice, bring > me Gladstones Staff, bring to me the Amulet of Samarkand, bring to me > the Secrets of Shambhala, bring me blah-blah-blah.... Yet when the > Hero accomplishes the task, what does he do? He hands the object over > to the King and that is that. The device itself is not significant but > the journey to retrieve it is, and the lesson learned and friends made > along the way are very important. > > Perhaps in Harry's story, the Horcruxes themselves really are not that > important. Yes, they have some significants to the story, but perhaps > what Harry learns about himself and about Voldemort, and about who his > allies are and who he can truly trust, are all very important. > > Yes, the Horcruxes themselves may be boring predictable Plot Coupons, > but they may also be the stimulus that sends us on a a wonderous > journey of discovery. And really... isn't that journey far more > important and interesting that the object that causes the journey? Are > we really more interested in Hercules handing over the Fleece to the > King, or are we more interested in Hercules harrowing fight against > the giant three-headed cyclops on his way to get the Fleece? > Neri: This is of course a possibility, but at least in regard to JKR's story, the problem with such an approach would be that it tends to detract from the thematic importance of the plot coupons themselves. For example, the moral of the Argonauts story might very well be that the Golden Fleece itself was never worth all the horrible crimes that were needed to win it, even if it made for a good story. In the Iliad, Helen (which is used somewhat as a plot coupon) is one of the less interesting characters, in part because the reader quickly recognizes that she was hardly worth all those good people dying for her, even if it did gave us one of the greatest stories in the history of literature. The perceptive reader is usually quick to recognize, even if only subconsciously, that certain parts of the story are arbitrary, and he/she tends to ascribe less importance to these parts even when the story in general is a wonderful story. I don't think JKR wants us to feel that the Horcruxes were never really worth it, so I believe she'll choose the opposite approach, which is to give the plot coupons (or at least one of them) deeper thematic meaning, and this implies (almost by definition) *less* arbitrariness. > bboyminn: > Plot Coupons are standard writing fare. What distinguishes Hackney > Plot Coupons from brilliant Plot Coupons is whether they send us on a > mindly interesting but mostly predictable journey, or whether they > send us on a wonderous adventure. > Neri: IMO what distinguishes hackney plot coupons (or any other kind hackney plot devices) is their arbitrariness. I agree with you (and Lowe mentioned it too) that it is almost impossible to write a story, especially one with a complex and interesting plot, without *some* arbitrariness, but the arbitrary parts are those that perceived by the reader as mere structure or genre conventions (one of Lowe's good examples were Faster Than Light spaceships in interstellar SF stories). Therefore a good author would try to make sure that the really important parts of the plot won't be arbitrary. > > >>Neri: > > 1) Wise Old Man identifies Hero and his destiny. > > Betsy Hp: > Only Dumbledore doesn't. He tries to *keep* the hero from being > identified by hiding the Potters away. It's Voldemort who picks out > the Hero who will destroy him. Once Harry is forced into the hero > role by Voldemort, Dumbledore does do his best to keep him alive. > But I had the sense that Dumbledore wished that he'd been able to > subvert the whole "destiny" thing from the beginning. > Neri: Dumbledore was the one to whom the prophecy was made. For 16 years he was the only person who knew its full content. He placed a protective magic on baby Harry and gave him to his relatives as part of what he called "my plan". This is a classic Wise Old Man clich?. It's very similar to Ben Kenoby giving baby Luke to his relatives or Merlin giving baby Arthur to Sir Ector to foster. > > >>Neri: > > 2) Wise Old Man coaches Hero and gives him some key background > > information needed for the quest. > > Betsy Hp: > The subversion comes from Dumbledore's great reluctance to do the > above. > Neri: I don't see the reluctance as very important. The Old Wise Man stock character has a role given to him by the author, and whether he is content or reluctant to do it is of little importance. I seem to remember both Gandalf and Yoda reluctant to share certain secrets with the hero. > > >>Neri: > > 3) Wise Old Man steps aside, willingly or not, in order to let > > Hero have his quest alone. > > Betsy Hp: > Again, Dumbledore did this with great reluctance. Neri: Again, I don't see it as important since the author doesn't ask him. I'm certain Dumbledore was reluctant to be kicked out of Hogwarts by Lucius and Umbridge, and I'll even hazard a guess that (despite some theories to the contrary) he was reluctant to die, but the author fully admitted that she required him to do that so the Hero can stay alone in the fight. > Betsy Hp: > I still think this has the flavor of a future worry. That the last > book will end badly because of the horcruxes. They were predicted > by other readers, though. And they were forshadowed back in the > second book. And the series hasn't been tired and old yet, at least > IMO. The kind of traps Lowe mentioned haven't tripped JKR up yet. > I have confidence she won't choke in the final stretch. > Neri: I'm not saying the series is old and dry. I'm just saying that what is needed now is some deep thematic value for at least one of the Horcruxes, and I expressed my belief that JKR *will* do it, the same way she did it with the prophecy and for very similar reasons. > > >>Neri: > > I'm not sure that a stereotypic Wise Old Man should know *all* the > > information. Merlin, Gandalf and Yoda surely didn't. > > Betsy Hp: > Didn't they? Especially compared to the other characters? I'm > trying to recall a moment when Gandalf or Yoda were genuinely > stumped. I mean stumped to the point that, for example, children > under their care were being threatened by a deadly and unknown foe > for an entire year. Or stumped to the point of not knowing how to > destroy their enemy for many, many years. > Neri: Regarding Yoda, as I wrote before I avoided the last sequel, but I'm told there was some business with "younglings" that were under his care and something terrible happened to them. I can't say to what degree it was his responsibility. Regarding Gandalf, I don't remember any children characters in LotR at all, but would you accept as a replacement the two young hobbits under his command? *********************************** WARNING: LORD OF THE RINGS SPOILER FOLLOWS! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * In "The Two Towers", Ch. 11, Gandalf fails to guard the Palantir in a safe place, or alternatively warn the rest of his company about any danger of looking into it. As a result the young hobbit Pippin takes a look, wins a direct interview with the Dark Lord and nearly dies as a result. Even worse, only due to sheer luck (Sauron wrongly assuming that Pippin is Saruman's captive in Isengard) Pippin is not forced to betray all the company's secrets, including Frodo going to Mordor with the Ring. *********************************** Neri From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 05:26:07 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:26:07 -0000 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147946 hpfan_mom wrote: "Here's a question - DD says that the prophecy could have applied to either Harry or Neville, "both sets of parents having narrowly escaped Voldemort three times." (OOTP p.842 US edition) But didn't James and Lily "defy" LV at GH? Was that their *fourth* time? Or had they actually only defied him twice before (despite what DD said above) and by appearing at GH he forced them to come into compliance with the prophecy?" CH3ed: I read it the same way you do about Harry having defied LV 4 times rather than 5. And I'd say James and Lily had already defied LV 3 times before the GH attack because prior to that attack the prophecy was applicable to both Harry and Neville. After the GH attack the prophecy could only apply to Harry because only he and not Neville fulfills the 2nd part of being "marked by the Dark Lord as his equal." I guess we can possibly score the 4th defiance for James and Lily (or maybe for Lily alone, since James' fight and death, tho valiant and brave, didn't contribute to the love charm that bounced the AK back on LV) for GH. CH3ed :O) From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 05:26:08 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:26:08 -0000 Subject: James and Lily defying Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147947 hpfan_mom wrote: "Here's a question - DD says that the prophecy could have applied to either Harry or Neville, "both sets of parents having narrowly escaped Voldemort three times." (OOTP p.842 US edition) But didn't James and Lily "defy" LV at GH? Was that their *fourth* time? Or had they actually only defied him twice before (despite what DD said above) and by appearing at GH he forced them to come into compliance with the prophecy?" CH3ed: I read it the same way you do about Harry having defied LV 4 times rather than 5. And I'd say James and Lily had already defied LV 3 times before the GH attack because prior to that attack the prophecy was applicable to both Harry and Neville. After the GH attack the prophecy could only apply to Harry because only he and not Neville fulfills the 2nd part of being "marked by the Dark Lord as his equal." I guess we can possibly score the 4th defiance for James and Lily (or maybe for Lily alone, since James' fight and death, tho valiant and brave, didn't contribute to the love charm that bounced the AK back on LV) for GH. CH3ed :O) From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 05:32:42 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:32:42 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: <410-220062510181737251@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147948 Julie wrote: "I don't see any reason for a female voice either, though I suppose it could be Bellatrix." CH3ed: Nah. If Bella was there then she would know what happened to LV after he got smoked by his own AK and wouldn't need to go with her husband and brother in law..and Barty Crouch Jr to torture the Longbottoms in an "attempt to find the Dark Lord." Exodusts wrote: "5) If his big fear is death, why not just have him die? To prove that Dumbledore was right about there being things worse than death? As a neat solution to the problem of Voldemort's outright death requiring the destruction of Horcrux-Harry? (The latter could be avoided by having a Dementor, Harry's Big Fear, sucking the soul- part out through his scar)." Julie wrote: "I like the idea of the Dementor's sucking the soul part out of Harry's scar! In fact, maybe that's why they're so attracted to Harry. And if LV is soul-sucked by the Dementors, that's not really dying, but living on as a soulless shell. (Though it still seems like dying to me, unless it's analogous to being fully paralyzed with your mind intact, since how else would one know how dreadful their soul-sucked existence is?)" CH3ed: I actually think it is more of a psychological thing. There are real people who were cheerful and optimistics and then something dreadful happen to them and they die on the inside... become hopeless and empty, nothing left of their former self. The ultimate state of depression....probably just before they go jump off a cliff. A sad state, really. I think that is more what Jo has in mind than something like a lock-in, which are people who are conscious and aware, but are paralysed in their voluntary muscles. They just lay in bed without being able to move anything. That is a dreadful state, too, but it is the opposite condition of what the dementor's kiss would produce since they retain their soul but lose the ability to move and to communicate. Another state that would fit is the state of being brain dead or in permanent vegetative state like Teri Schiavo was in. The body was alive but there is no cognitive awareness anymore. Having said that, I'll go with Exodusts and say LV will just get killed. Luckdragon wrote: " 6) A Wizard(Lupin), a Witch(Bellatrix), a Centaur(Bane), and a House-elf(Winky) will die." CH3ed: Gosh, I hope Lupin survives. The other 3 are certainly candidates. I would add the bad giants that Hagrid and Mme. Maxim tried to reason with to the hit list, tho. CH3ed :O) From graverobber23 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 03:17:25 2006 From: graverobber23 at yahoo.com (graverobber23) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 03:17:25 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147949 > > > Luckdragon: > > > After reviewing the 6 books for the umpteenth time I thought it > > would be fun to make some predictions for book 7 based on little > > clues or even just hunches we have thought up from what we've read > > so far. Graverobber: I want to play too. In no particular order: 1) Snape will sacrifice himself to save Harry. He has done a lot to help keep him alive and try to teach him along the way (though unusual methods I must say)but despite the grudge between James and Snape, he knows that Harry is the key to defe- ating Voldemort. 2) Ron and Herminone will stay together and help show Harry what love is all about. i.e. both Ron and Hermione argue a lot and fight, they are always there for each other through thick and thin. 3) Greyback will die in a battle against Lupin. Greyback will try to bite a child and Lupin will step in. 4)Draco will flee from Voldemort under the protection of Snape (Unbreakable Vow Snape promised Narcissa, there was no experation to that vow as long as Draco is still under Voldemorts rule);)I'm so clever lol. 5)Harry will go back to Hogwarts for his 7th year, but will not stay all year. The first half will be research on where the horcuxes are and the second half will be finding them. 6)Luna Lovegood will be a force to be reconed with. Her character seems to be floaty, but no one has seen her when she gets mad. I am willing to bet that she has a lot more knowledge and power then she is going on about. I bet that something will happen to her family that will cause her to flare up. Something like her father dying. I just like her charachter. 7)Some members of the DA will be accepted into the Order once they become of age. I believe Neville,Harry,Ron,and Hermione will be deffinites for the Order. Who else? That is what I believe will happen. but who knows. Only JKR knows for sure till she releases the book. :) Hope this got a few minds working like mine is now. :) From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 00:38:19 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:38:19 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions LONGish -- Replying to Alla In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147950 > Alla: > > HAHA. Harry saving Snape's a** will be the very best punishment for > Snape, but unfortunately I am predicting that JKR will not go as far > as to leave Snape in Potter's life debt again. I think that Harry > will save Snape in the middle of the book and close to the end Snape > will save Harry. Lupinlore: So Harry's action will be the crux for a Snape who is redeemed *within* the book, rather than being revealed as having been redeemed all along? I think this has great possibilities. It allows Snape to stay complex while placing the emphasis on HARRY'S actions and decisions and their effects. After all, one of the greatest powers of love and forgiveness is the way in which they can be the vehicles of redemption. I think we are mostly agreed that Voldy isn't a good candidate for redemption through love. Draco seems headed in that direction already, so redeeming him that way would be anticlimactic. That leaves Snape and Peter. I do think the significance of Harry's love/forgiveness needs to be at least partly about someone OTHER than Harry. That is, for all that has been said about forgiveness being about Harry and his learning of wisdom, Harry as a character is largely defined by his concern and action for others, not himself. > Alla: > I don't even need him physically beaten, to me it would be > satisfactory enough to see him powerless and at Harry's mercy. To > make this scene plausible I can imagine that Harry at that point > already decided to forgive Snape, so Harry is not becoming LIKE Snape > but for some brief period of time Snape does not know that yet and > hates awaiting Harry's decision as to his fate ( not sure when and > how that would happen) and starts running his mouth at Harry again, > desperate and powerless. Oh, yes, I would love to see that. lupinlore: Hmmm. I'm going to reverse myself a bit here. I've just said above that Harry's love/forgiveness needs to be at least partly efficacious for someone other than Harry, at least if the true power of love is to be demonstrated. On the other hand, Harry's love has to be at least partly about Harry, as well. Don't you think it would be more dramatic for BOTH characters if Harry came to a decision about forgiveness not BEFORE having Snape in his power, but DURING that confrontation? That way, the effects of Harry's love on BOTH characters could play out simultaneously. Your scenario about Snape "running his mouth" provides some interesting possibilities. Can you imagine Harry coming to pity Snape as Snape runs his mouth, and Snape's humiliation as he realizes that Harry is not respecting or fearing him, but pitying him? The possibilities are ... interesting indeed. Lupinlore From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Feb 11 07:16:45 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 07:16:45 -0000 Subject: Subverting Prophecies, Wisemen, Horcruxes (wasRe: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147951 > Neri: > As I wrote upthread, this doesn't convince me because plot coupons > frequently come with some excuses for their existence (typically > supplied by the Wise Old Man stock character in some kind of > a "plot dump") and as long as these explanations are rather > arbitrary (this or that quirk of the mad arch-villain) it doesn't > really give the plot coupons that much meaning. > I'm not saying the series is old and dry. I'm just saying that what > is needed now is some deep thematic value for at least one of the > Horcruxes, and I expressed my belief that JKR *will* do it, the > same way she did it with the prophecy and for very similar reasons. Jen: I've been thinking about why the horcruxes don't seem completely arbitrary to me so far and then I remembered: It was JKR introducing the importance of a person's soul in HBP and her comments in a recent interview that death was a major theme in the story. She's said that before, in the A&E Biography interview most notably, but that was before HBP when the theme intensified. For me there's already thematic importance to the horcruxes because they damaged Voldemort's soul in the making and we know now that's important in Potterverse. I honestly wasn't sure how directly JKR would deal with souls after OOTP; I thought the introduction of the Veil and the children hearing voices beyond it might be the closest she would come i.e. approaching the idea of a soul metaphorically but not directly. This whole issue is deeper than the characterization or plot reasons for the horcruxes. She's saying something about the state of Harry's soul in relation to Voldemort's soul and that demands a very specific direction. Now back to a few points from your previous post #147824: Neri: > It's probably no coincidence that many of us didn't like the > Horcruxes and still try to shove them aside. I think we > immediately felt, even before we could formulate it as well as > Lowe does, that there's something disappointing about them. Jen: I'm surprised, had no idea many people didn't care for the horcrux storyline. The prophecy completely threw me out of the story and seemed like a big dud on my first read, but not once during HBP did I feel that about the horcruxes. They 'fit' for me in a way that the prophecy didn't. But I won't argue the variety of reading experiences. Like I said previously the Riddle backstory for me was well-written and meaningful whereas more than once others have referred to the Voldemort evolution as 'exposition setting up Book 7' rather than standing alone on its own merits. Neri: > Yes, JKR did manage to convince me that these specific objects > aren't arbitrary to Voldemort, but they still feel arbitrary to > *me* as a reader. After all, real evil people are rarely obsessed > with immortality, and even if they are, this obsession rarely > manifests itself in hiding objects for some hero to find. This is > why *I* as a reader get this absurd feeling that Voldemort and his > obsession only exist so our hero can have his quest. In order to > rectify this I expect JKR to make these objects (or at least one > of them) meaningful to me as the reader, and not merely because > Voldy like them. If she can do that I wouldn't feel the plot is > absurd, and I don't think Lowe would either. Jen: So wouldn't that already be a subversion if most evil people aren't obsessed with immortality and Voldemort is? Most are trying to make a power grab and this particular evil overlord has become so twisted from his original course of purifying the wizard race he can't even launch a proper 'take over the world campaign' because of his obsessions. And his obsessions become stronger and more twisted every time he rips another soul piece out it looks like to me. The cyclical nature of his downfall has little to do with Harry's quest, imo. Harry may be headed on a quest, but I think the pathetic nature of Voldemort's existence could be meaningful in its own right with or without a horcrux search. Neri: > You wrote upthread that this is a metaphysical story of two souls > being tied together. What better way to show Harry untangling > himself from Voldemort than them sharing a soul? What better way > to make the thematic point that destroying an evil soul endangers > your own soul? What better way to make the thematic point that > it's only the different choices that differentiate Harry from > Voldemort? Many of us wondered when JKR failed to show us Tom's > gradual fall into Evil in HBP, but I suspect this was intended. If > Tom's soul is described as completely and utterly "evil", then by > sharing it Harry would show that it isn't the soul, but the > different *choices* that matter. Jen: I guess the Harrycrux issue comes down to what a person can buy in a story more than anything else. If Harry has been sharing Voldemort's soul and his choices were enough to overcome that level of evil then he truly would be superhuman to me and not Harry the average kid. I think that's the way you feel about the horcruxes, you just don't buy them, they don't ring true, however you want to say it. That's how Harrycrux looks to me *at the moment* although I'm open to JKR writing it in a way that makes it believable. But right now I like that Harry is no one special but a brave kid with a big heart who got a raw deal, someone who wants to work his way out of a job as the One. Personally I'd like to see JKR go further with Voldemort than Harry over the horcruxes. Harry's set up for this quest, he 'thinks he knows what's ahead' (paraphrase from JKR comment). I just wonder who Voldemort will be without his horcruxes? Not that he will feel them being destroyed, but what happens to a person who thinks he has this inpenetrable barrier around himself only to discover the gig is up? I mean, he's the guy who's scared of the darkness and dead bodies. There are several places JKR could take the horcruxes which might not feel formulaic to people who are despairing of a video-game quest in the works. Jen R. From jhnbwmn at hotmail.com Sat Feb 11 08:51:21 2006 From: jhnbwmn at hotmail.com (johnbowman19) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:51:21 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147952 Hello All I seem to be on a bit of a posting streak, so why not play and hand or two on this discussion. 1) Harry is going to live only because I cannot see any reason why the last word of the last book should be scar, unless it was talking about Harry. I mean it could be talking about a new scar someone acquired during the last book, but let's be honest, if the last word is scar it probably has something to do with Harry's. 2) This is a bit of a joke, but I would like to see Voldemort beaten up without the use of magic. The only evidence I have to think this way is that Harry and Voldemort's wands cannot duel one another, and I believe both love their wands too much to part with them before a final battle. Another reason is I believe Olivander to be secreted away by The Order thus not allowing Voldemort to find a suitable wand to substitute in the battle with Harry. Plus I think it would be ironic and funny for "Lord" Voldemort to be killed with some muggle (not even human in Voldemort's eyes) boxing skills Harry picked up from Dudley in their numerous fights. The 17 year old Harry could surely physically abuse the 70 plus year old Voldemort based solely on youth alone. 3) I think Nagini would be a good horcrux if she is killed by Fawkes, but as a whole I just think she is meant to throw us off track. She seems to be by far the worst possible horcrux, her only saving graces being he underlying of the Slytherin connection, and Voldemort's uncanny control of her (which I believe can be explained by his uncanny magical abilities and power of possession, not his putting his soul in her). 4) A lot of characters are going to die. We have had two major deaths through Harry's eyes, and I know it is time for the cannon fodder to be used. Some included in this list, but not limited to are Charlie, Percy, and Ginny Weasley, the Hogwarts professors (excluding Hagrid), all of the international wizards we have met (including Fluer), the Dursleys (because either Miss Figg or Mr. Filtch will show the latent magical ability we are all looking for), the Malfoy family, and finally Hermione. Maybe it is just my maleness, but I want to see blood in this last book. I am a fan of anything but the "Happily ever after" ending because I want the story to be true to life (as much as possible with fantasy writing) and not a fairy tale. 5) There is an underlying connection between Snape and Lily. If we conclude that those in the same year always have certain classes with other houses each year of their education, we can conclude that Snape and Lily were probably in the same potions class for their stay at Hogwarts. Harry and the Gryffindors have had potions with the Slytherins all of their years are Hogwarts, and for tradition sake, let's say it was the same way in Lily's time. Do you think the two brightest stars in a Slughorn class on potions, would lack a relationship? I think not. Maybe Lily helped Snape too much and that is why he refused her help in the pensive scene. Whatever it is, I do not know. 6) Through the rereading of the books I feel, like all of you, that I have some idea as to what will happen. These feelings come from the general tone and direction of the books, and from this general view of the wizarding world, I would argue that there is a huge battle coming. We will see both sides accruing forces, and Harry's force will not be large enough. It will come down to some strategic battle plans by Ron (whose chess skills will come in handy again) and Harry facing Voldemort directly to end the conflict swiftly. This united magical brethren on Harry's side will fight admirably but it will come down to Harry to strike the final blow and leave the enemy without a leader to marshal the troops as it were. 7) The room of love will have to come into play somewhere, along with the veil. These two mysteries need to be answered before the end of the story. It maybe both on the same night, with Harry unlocking the room of love and using it's power to call upon his loved one's spirits to come beyond the veil and carry back with them Lord Voldemort's final piece of his soul. The two are interconnected I am sure of it. 8) Voldemort is going to hear the prophecy at last, and it will not help him. Trelawney will die, but all Voldemort will get from her death is the idea that Harry can kill him, and all Voldemort has to blame is himself for choosing Harry; thus creating a fear of Harry when Voldemort and he square off. 9) Now the most important questioning my eyes, is if Snape is DD's man. Reluctantly I would have to say that Snape is indeed DD's man. Snape simply had too many chances after he killed DD to also kill Harry. I know he stopped attacks because Potter was for the DarkLord, but if a murderous desouled scumbag really wants someone killed he will not care who kills the person. Snape in my eyes is actually trying to give Harry hints as to how he can defeat the Dark Lord such as by keeping his mind closed. 10) Fawkes will assist Harry in the end because it is DD's and Harry is DD's man. That's 10 and I have more but this post is far too long as it is Have a great night John (who would go into thousands of dollars of debt right now to know if just one of his predictions is right, it doesn't even matter if he know which is right) From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Feb 11 08:52:01 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:52:01 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: <43EB8E03.7930.1065A3F@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147953 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > In the very first Divination class, Trelawney - out of dislike for > Hermione - publically tells her that there is something wrong with > her. And that does upset Hermione - I hesitate to generalise but > there's relatively few things a teacher could say to most gifted > perfectionists (and I think Hermione is one of these) which is more > likely to cause distress. "Possobly no one's warned you, Lupin, but this class contains Neville Longbottom. I would advise you not to entrust him with anything difficult. Not unless Miss Granger is hissing instructions in his ear." Seems to me about equally nasty. Gerry From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat Feb 11 09:01:02 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:01:02 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: References: <43EB8E03.7930.1065A3F@localhost> Message-ID: <43EE427E.20461.2DFDBE2@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147954 On 11 Feb 2006 at 8:52, festuco wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > > In the very first Divination class, Trelawney - out of dislike for > > Hermione - publically tells her that there is something wrong with > > her. And that does upset Hermione - I hesitate to generalise but > > there's relatively few things a teacher could say to most gifted > > perfectionists (and I think Hermione is one of these) which is more > > likely to cause distress. > > "Possobly no one's warned you, Lupin, but this class contains Neville > Longbottom. I would advise you not to entrust him with anything > difficult. Not unless Miss Granger is hissing instructions in his ear." Actually I would say that is even nastier - because besides anything else, it involves another teacher on top of Neville's peers. My point in mentioining what Trelawney did isn't to suggest she is worse than Snape, by any means - merely to point out that Snape is hardly unique in terms of publically saying unkind things about students. Trelawney does it, McGonnagal does it - it's not that unusual at Hogwarts. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Feb 11 09:04:51 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:04:51 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147955 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > Well, we must also consider the subject. Trelawney is teaching a > subject that *requires* a certain set of mind, which Hermione does not > have. While her mindset - logic, theory, abstract - is excellent for > theoretical achievement and applying a theory, also provide excellent > grades for many subjects, her set of mind does not help her to beat > her boggart. Harry's mindset OTOH - while not making him the model > student - is the sort that helps him defeat not just a boggart, but a > dementor and deal with TimeTravel in a deep, profound understanding > which Hermione did not achieve with a year of practice. Well, Divination seems to be mostly about making up the kind of wild stories the teacher wants to hear, according to the homework grades of Harry and Ron. Or fawning over the teacher as Parvati and Lavender are doing. Being gullible and believing everything the teacher does also helps, see the rabbit incident. Actually I think this shows Hermione's sound mind and her ability to detect rubbish and being conned even if it is in the disguise of a teacher and subject. Then, where does it say that Harry understands time-travel? And that Hermione does not? Harry would have rushed in Hagrid's cabine if Hermione had not stopped him. The only reason he fought the dementor is not because of an understanding of time travel, but because he realised that when he saw himself that first time he thought it was his dad, only now, when actually time-travelling he realized he saw himself and that gave him the confidence to cast a Patronus. Gerry > > Note: Harry came to *understand* TimeTravel without theory trough ONE > practice. Hermione had theory and experience of being in 3 places at > once for a year, and yet she did not gain understanding. Seeing to the > future (Divination) is that kind of TimeTravel. It's apparent Hermione > can't deal with it (she realised it by the end of her third year). > Trelawney saw that in her - she can't deal different times - she can't > deal with Divination - and Trelawney told her so. > > Everyone can't deal with unpleasant truth (like Fudge) - or > predestination that will happen no matter what (Hermione) - but that's > what Divination is all about. Wasn't it better for Hermione to learn > that early on and having the 'it's nonsense'-defence than learn how > everyone else can do something while she can't? And Trelawney didn't > call Hermione stupid - she said her mind is 'mundane'. Snape calls ALL > students potential 'dunderheads', and presumes they don't appreciate > the subject. > > I see a difference in name-calling students including taking points > unfairly from Gryffindor-house (what was that thing with the library > book? or when Harry came in with Tonks in HBP?) and telling a student > she's not fit in the subject. > > Finwitch > From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Feb 11 09:28:52 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:28:52 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: <20060209110549.92853.qmail@web25304.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147956 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Rebecca Williams wrote: > Hermione is definitely a theory girl - she is not a > good flyer so is more comfortable with books than > anything physical and she has never been outstanding > at DADA - remember in PoA during the exams she cocked > up the boggart bit, running out screaming - her nerves > therefore get the better of her. She has never shown > herself to be outstanding in DADA, even in that year > with the best teacher they had. Doing a perfect course but one sounds still very, very good to me. Especially aas it was the first time she was up against a boggart. Harry of course had loads of practise and the rest of the class did not have as much as he but did have a go in the safe environment of the classroom. As for Hermione being a theory girl: "cool logic under pressure" earned her fifty points, she was not bad in the shrieking shack and certainly quite good in the fight at the MoM. I think she should have had the O in DADA. Gerry From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 09:58:29 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:58:29 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy and Its Reference to LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147957 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfan_mom" wrote: > > hpfan_mom: > > Just looking at the prophecy again (oh yeah, another exciting Friday > night), and wondered if there'd been posts on this before. > > Trelawney (or the prophecy for which she's the mouthpiece) does not > name LV as You Know Who, or He Who Must Not Be Named, or Voldemort, or > Tom Riddle. The prophecy refers to him four times as the Dark Lord. > (Page 841, OOTP, US edition) > > IIRC, that's what the DEs call him. What could be the significance of > that? And that's how the prophecy is labeled, Dark Lord and (?) Harry > Potter. (Page 780) Who is the keeper of the Hall of Prophecy, the > wizard who labeled the official record? (Page 842) > > hpfan_mom Doddie here: I always thought that the significance of this was that Snape is the 'Dark Lord'... If Snape has been loved and known love(for those of us that believe the "Snape loved Lilly" theory.. Harry's scar first hurt when he looked at Snape. Even with Snape's feeble excuses to Bella for his behaviors in "Spinner's End" don't ring quite true... It appears Snape labeled himself the "Half-blood Prince"...(I could see a backstory that could be explained in one book that Snape envisioned himself something of a Ruler of ALL--pure/half- bloods/muggleborns). Also, so much of Harry's experiences involve the mutual loathing between Snape and himself... It also explains why DD seldom steps inbetween Harry and Snape and even sides with Snape. It also explains why Snape could not kill Harry at the end of HBP..Snape must finish playing his hand. (Smart as Snape is...he may well have assumed that Voldy created horcruxes after treating DD's injured hand. Also he knows that it is not wise to try and kill Harry Potter.(given what happened to voldy) If Snape can dupe DD then most certainly can dupe Voldemort; and it appears he has been doing so, according to his litany to bellatrix in spinners end. Also, one nagging question in the back of my mind is that Wormtail sacrificed a hand for Voldy's rebirth....Snape did nothing..yet...we find Wormtail residing with Snape during HB. Isn't the place of the "most honored" next to the master?!?? It's this pairing of Peter Pettigrew and Snape that refrains from convincing me that Snape is solely DDM. PP is supposed to be assisting Snape with something...but we are never told what. I think an argument could be made that voldy sent PP to spy on Snape. I also wouldn't be surprised if book seven opened with a dead Cissy and Draco an essential orphan... Given all the "blood matters not" arguements they place in the books I would not be surprised at all if the Dark Lord, turned out to be snape. We must remember those who call Voldemort the Dark Lord seem to be those who were privy to hearing the portion of the prophecy Snape heard either directly or through the grapevine... Given Trelawney's description of what happened at the Hogshead that day, I think Snape may have heard more than the first part of the prophecy....(why Dd's family could be the key...Aberforth knows..) And if this is so...this opens up a whole new can of worms. It would close one can though...we know why Snape treats Neville with such disdain. (Aaahh, did snape's bullied years at Hogwarts get the best of him and he chose the potter child before the Longbottom child?) Was this due to his obsessive love for Lily? Is this what Dd see's and is duped by. And worse yet of all...could Snape have hidden an artifact of the horcrux persuasion at hogwarts and kept it safe for voldy all these years to lure Voldy into a "false sense of security"?!? Were the characters of PP and Slughorn forshadowing of "powers behind a throne"? Is Snape a combination of the two, or something completely different? Is this why Snape tried to save the trio infront of PP in POA? Did Snape call the dementors to accompany Fudge to accost Barty Crouch in GOF? Are we to take Snape at his work in 'Spinner's End' that he did play a role in the death of Sirius? Are we to believe that Snape actually AK'd DD at the end of HPB? Every book...Snape is...culpable..(except for CS...yet perhaps Snape thought he was ridding himself of Voldy's only horcrux...so let event play out as they may, knowning, that in the end Lucius would pay the price of dis-favoring Voldy). Just a few random thoughts that popped into my head after reading your post. Doddie, (Pebbles always look like pebbles until you smell them) > From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Feb 11 10:39:49 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:39:49 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147959 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > Interesting idea, but a Dementor sucking your soul doesn't kill you. Gerry You are absolutely right, but it does take you out of the picture. So there would be no > way to disguise a soul-sucking as a death. The victim's heart would > still be beating and he would still be breathing. Gerry Stroke, coma. Just make sure he goes into a Muggle hospital and let no healer near him. She is in a position to manage that. Or bribe someone to declare it the after effect of the failed AK. And are we sure a healer would diagnose soul lossfrom a dementor attack? What happened to Harry was unique. So could the strange coma be. Only seen in victims of a dementor attack, but we know that cannot have happened. Poor boy, but he was acting strangely all the year... > > Apparently Umbridge knew from someone (Fudge?) that Harry could > produce a Patronus and sent a Dementor after him to make him cast the > spell (in a Muggle neighborhood). I'm pretty sure that she wanted him > discredited, not dead (or rather, soul-sucked). How would she have known the could produce a Patronus? She would certainly have heard from Fudge what happened at the lakeside and that was that Harry almost got Kissed because the Dementors went for him and he was only saved in the nick of time. Fudge certainly did not know that it was Harry himself that cast the mysterious Patronus that saved his life, for obvious reasons. Now there is a remote chance she might have heard what happened at the Quidditch match, but then she only knows that though he might have produced a Patronus without Dementors, when the real things showed he was helpless. But I still think she does not know about that, she only knows what Fudge told her and she thought that being Kissed is the best way to deal with that nasty boy. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Feb 11 14:25:21 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:25:21 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <43EDFBB2.16153.1CB445C@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147963 r what this passage tells us. > It's a very good question - because obviously if Neville after two > and a half years is still making the same mistake in potions classes > that he made in his very first lesson, something is wrong. Gerry Yes, his fear of Snape. > So - what do we actually see in this class? > > We see a boy make a careless and elementary mistake for the nth time > in over two years. We see a teacher tell him *exactly* what he did > wrong, and express frustration that this students is making such > mistakes. Gerry Do we? I'd say we see a boy so paralyzed with fear of his teacher that he regularly goes to pieces and makes elementary mistakes. Canon says Neville goes to pieces because of his fear, not that he is a careless little boy that should be disciplined. Where is the canon that Neville is ever careless? why should he be so now? Actually I think the first disastrous lesson may have started the fear of potions which rapidly changed in a fear of Snape. And the one big mistake Snape makes in this first lesson is giving them a potion where a simple mistake will have such huge effects. It was an accident waiting to happen, as anyone with common sense could predict. Then when it happens, Snape - who is clearly shocked - lashes out at Neville. If he had acted differently, reigned in his temper that would probably already have made a difference. I also think we see a teacher here who either does not recognize that the way he bullies Neville is actually the cause of the problem or does not care about that. In both cases that makes Snape an average teacher, not a good one. Neville is obviously perfectle capabel of following instructions if Hermione gives them or when Snape is absent. Now Snape does not have to be nice to Neville. He could have tried to leave him alone. Even a completely inflexible person should be able to manage that. > > We then see the teacher try something new, because obviously what has > been done in the past doesn't work. We see flexibility (good or bad). Nothing new. Just another way of bullying and installing fear. Verbal bullying did not work, try something stronger. I'm sure Snape wants Neville to get it, but I'm equally sure goes about it entirely the wrong way. I also believe that Snape is genuinly not able to understand how anybody can make elemental mistakes. And that is a very bad thing for a teacher. Because what for most is quite elemental is for some very, very difficult. It is exactly that attitude - this is elemental and therefore you should be able to do it - that makes for traumatized students who really, really try, do not manage and instead of getting decent help from their teacher get punishments. I know at least one case where someone who was dislectic was severely harmed because he kept making the same "elemental" spelling mistakes. Now I know your opinion on modern teaching methods, but please keep in mind that the old methods were just as good in making students suicidal when they genuinly could not help their mistakes and got punisment on punisment and sarcasm on sarcasm because they had the kind of teacher that was not able to understand that for them elemental was not elemental but virtually impossible. > Honestly - in terms of pedagogical theory, explicitly telling a > student they have a made a mistake, explicitly telling them what that > mistake is, and then given them an incentive and an opportunity to > correct that mistake is something you'd find > very few people disagreeing with. The precise details of how Snape > did it - yes, some people would certainly object to the > *specific* incentive - but the general practice is one most people > would see as quite sensible. Not in this case. It is sadistic, pure and simple. Now I agree that Snape would never have let him poison his pet, it is clear from the reactions of the class everybody thinks he is capable of it and I'm sure he knows it. Otherwise his "incentive" would not have worked. So what do we have: do this right or your pet dies. > It seems to me the argument against what Snape does in this case > comes from one of two places. > > While most modern educational theory seeks to emphasise the > 'positive' when it comes to disciplining students, that doesn't > necessarily mean that such emphasis is necessarily universally true, > or the only way to do things. There is a place for > both negative reinforcement and even punishment in schools. Gerry There is a distinction between that and downright sadism. This was an example of sadism. As for negative reinforcement: when a teacher favours that he should be sure there is nothing else than attitude that prevents the student from performing rightly. Here Snape does not recognize the paralyzing ability of fear that prevents Neville from doing it right. Therefore his method is wrong and makes the problem worse. Do we see Neville doing better after that? No we do not. He needs an exam without Snape to show people what he is capable of as far as potions are concerned. Gerry Gerry From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 14:36:49 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:36:49 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's silver hand and Book 7 (Was: My 7 book 7 predictions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147964 > Carol: >What do you think is the purpose of Pettigrew's silver hand, > which has not yet done more than crumble a stick to dust, and which is > brought back to our attention in "Spinner's End," where Pettigrew > caresses it lovingly (HBP Am. ed. 23)--surely a hint that there's more > to come involving the hand. > > Will it be used for good or for evil? Tied in with the life debt or > not? And why silver, if it's not used to kill a werewolf? Why not a human hand from > an Inferius (brrr!) or a hand made of gold or bronze or iron? And > silver is noted for its malleability, not its strength, yet PP's hand > seems superhumanly strong (as well as beautiful). hpfan_mom: 30 pieces of silver for the one who betrayed the Potters? And I do agree with the post above, that JKR stating that PP will not use it to kill Lupin does NOT mean that PP won't use it to kill Greyback. The silver bullet analogy is just too appropriate. But maybe that's the Muggle way to defeat a werewolf and we need to think outside the box. hpfan_mom From exodusts at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 07:31:24 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 07:31:24 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy and Its Reference to LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147965 > hpfan_mom: > > Just looking at the prophecy again (oh yeah, another exciting Friday > night), and wondered if there'd been posts on this before. > > Trelawney (or the prophecy for which she's the mouthpiece) does not > name LV as You Know Who, or He Who Must Not Be Named, or Voldemort, or > Tom Riddle. The prophecy refers to him four times as the Dark Lord. > (Page 841, OOTP, US edition) > > IIRC, that's what the DEs call him. What could be the significance of > that? And that's how the prophecy is labeled, Dark Lord and (?) Harry > Potter. (Page 780) Who is the keeper of the Hall of Prophecy, the > wizard who labeled the official record? (Page 842) Snape also refers to Voldemort as the Dark Lord, in front of the Hogwarts students. Admittedly, he used to be a Death Eater, but he is supposed to be reformed. It seems likely that calling him that is not a complete no-no amongst non-Death-Eaters. Alternatively, the mysterious powers that grant prophecies ultimately align themselves with evil. Or JKR thought it would be awkward for Trelawney to use "He-Who-Must-Not- Be-Named" in that speech. exodusts. From exodusts at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 07:51:22 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 07:51:22 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's silver hand and Book 7 (Was: My 7 book 7 predictions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147966 > Carol: > I don't think that her saying that Pettigrew won't kill Lupin negates > the possibility of Pettigrew killing *Greyback*, and I still think > that it would be an economical use of motifs already introduced to > kill two birds (the silver hand and the life debt) with one stone. Exodusts: It doesn't entirely, but I interpret the way she framed her reply to the supposition as that the silver-kills-werewolf idea itself is not happening. That, combined with the fact that it makes no sense for her to address this speculation, if it is so close to the truth (particularly when her track record is for rejecting only stuff that is wide of the mark, and staying silent on things that aren't). > Carol: > However, let's say for the sake of argument (discussion) that you're > right. What do you think is the purpose of Pettigrew's silver hand, > which has not yet done more than crumble a stick to dust, and which is > brought back to our attention in "Spinner's End," where Pettigrew > caresses it lovingly (HBP Am. ed. 23)--surely a hint that there's more > to come involving the hand. Exodusts: As you point out, we have hints that it is super-strong. That may play a role. We know that Horcruxes need to be destroyed in book 7. We also know that (apart from Harry in book 2) doing this causes real damage to the destroyer. The fact that DDs hand was ruined might be a clue. Let's say PP is at the climactic battle. Horcruxes are flying everywhere, Harry & Co trying to destroy them. PP, cowering on the sidelines, picks one up. Voldy says: "well done, henchman-cur, bring that to me NOW!". PP realises this is his one chance to defy V forever. He tries to crush it (he probably wouldn't know any better, since he probably wouldn't know it was a Horcrux, just something Very Important to V). He squeezes, and, because his hand was made by Voldy, it is able to destroy the Horcrux, although probably with a nasty side-effect for Peter. From carodave92 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 15:19:37 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:19:37 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: <017301c62d0c$48ad1d00$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147967 > susanbones2003 wrote: > > 1. Hermione is a wonderful student. Give her a book, she'll read it > > front to back and memorize it mostly. She performs to standard and > > her standards are high so she'll always get good grades. But she > > needs the security of studies to be successful. DADA requires as she > > says, bravery and quick-thinking but it also seems to require an > > innate ability that Harry possesses but she does not. Carodave: Don't forget about the Sorcerer's Stone - where Hermione's logic equalled that of Snape - she was the only one of the trio able to understand which potion would allow Harry to continue on through the maze, and which would kill him. She's a very bright girl and talented witch, but as you say above, Harry has an innate ability for DADA that puts him above and beyond Hermione's ability. She does have a history of choking in exams for this particular subject, possibly because they are not book-driven but more practical. Maybe she didn't shine as brightly in the exam as she could have, but an E is still very good. Carodave From sopraniste at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 15:39:35 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 07:39:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060211153935.46189.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147968 > Carodave: > > Don't forget about the Sorcerer's Stone - where > Hermione's logic > equalled that of Snape - she was the only one of the > trio able to > understand which potion would allow Harry to > continue on through the > maze, and which would kill him. Flop: That's the case, but remember how Hermione reacted in the Devil's Snare! She knew what it was, she knew how to get it to back down, but she choked under the pressure of the situation, wailing that there was no wood to make a fire. *RON* had to point out that she was a witch and could bloody well use her wand! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From exodusts at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 07:20:41 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 07:20:41 -0000 Subject: My opening arguments -Lots of canon (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147969 > Randy: > Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I present my opening arguments > regarding the 7 deadly sins as the themes of the Harry Potter book > series . Exodusts: Why do I get the feeling that this is like horoscopes? For just one example, if I wanted to, I could rustle up Lust quotes from Book 6 regarding Harry's Ginny fantasies. Sorry, but if you can swap the 7 sin labels around from book to book without discernible difficulty, I think the whole theory lacks foundation. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 15:46:56 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 07:46:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can Dumbledore become invisible? Was: Question on PS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060211154656.23377.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147970 > Jutika wrote: > In PS DD says to Harry,"I don't need a cloak to become invisible." > Does this mean that DD can become invisible using magic? If this is > the case why didn't he just become invisible when Snape was about > to kill him? Dumbledore says that to Harry when he finds him sitting in front of the Mirror of Erised. Harry, in his hurry to see his family again, has rushed along the halls under his invisibility cloak (not worrying about making noise) and into the room. I took Dumbledore's comment to be a gentle hint to Harry that he was so consumed by his desire that he was unaware of what was around him in the room - including Dumbledore's presence. That Harry's intense concentration on the mirror fantasy effectively rendered Dumbledore (and everyone else in the castle who is real) invisible to him. Magda (thinking that much of Dumbledore's "barminess" lies in his ability to state simple truths that others - wizards and muggles alike - assume is obscure magic) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 10:43:33 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewijck) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:43:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Pettigrew's silver hand and Book 7 /one eyed characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060211104333.35615.qmail@web53215.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 147971 Ceridwen wrote: But, going back to the other silver-handed people I could find on a search, both stories involve a major character with one eye. If this is a pattern, will JKR follow it? If she does, who will be the one-eyed character? maria8162001: Could Mad Eye Moody fall into this category? I mean Mad Eye Moody's magical eye. Could it be? Just a thought. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 11 16:21:25 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:21:25 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147972 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: Carol: > > Apparently Umbridge knew from someone (Fudge?) that Harry could > > produce a Patronus and sent a Dementor after him to make him cast > > the spell (in a Muggle neighborhood). I'm pretty sure that she > > wanted him discredited, not dead (or rather, soul-sucked). Gerry: > How would she have known the could produce a Patronus? She would > certainly have heard from Fudge what happened at the lakeside and > that was that Harry almost got Kissed because the Dementors went > for him and he was only saved in the nick of time. Fudge certainly > did not know that it was Harry himself that cast the mysterious > Patronus that saved his life, for obvious reasons. Geoff: This takes my mind to a bit of canon which I've never considered before: '"Oh, bravo!" cried Professor Tofty, who was examining Harry again, when Harry demonstrated a perfect Boggart banishing spell. "Very good indeed! Well, I think that's all Potter... unless..." He leant forward a little. "I heard from my dear friend Tiberius Ogden that you can produce a Patronus? For a bonus point... ?" Harry raised his wand, looked directly at Umbridge and imagined her being sacked. "Expecto patronum!"' (OOTP "OWLs" p630 UK edition) >From whom did Tiberius Ogden hear this? It suggests that the fact that Harry could produce a corporeal Patronus had got into the public domain. The only problem might be, whether he had been present at the Wizengamot hearing or heard it previous to that date.... From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 18:07:55 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:07:55 -0000 Subject: Goblet of Fire Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147973 Here is some better support for the theme of Self-control versus Lust in the Goblet of Fire. Since Tom Riddle never cared about anyone else in his whole life, JKR decided to have him lust after his own body and not someone elses! p.644 "Voldemort looked away from Harry and began examining his own body....He held up his hands and flexed the fingers, his _expression rapt and exultant. He took not the slightest notice of Wormtail, who lay twitching and bleeding on the ground..." Regarding people never having lust and therefore never having any children.... Obviously, if everyone became celebate the number of people would go to zero. I don't even think the Catholic church is dumb enough to try to defend against this line of reasoning. However, lust is the excessive craving of the pleasures of the body. It really comes down to having control and balance in your life. Don't overdo it and don't lose all control in your life. Goblet of Fire could be shown to highlight other vices instead of lust such as greed.... I agree that all of the seven deadlies occur in all of the books, but one particular deadly is the main theme of each book. Here is some better evidence than my first attempt. p.49-50 Dudley eats one of the Ton-Tongue toffees that the Twins drop on purpose. This causes his tongue to enlarge and hang out of his mouth. To have one's tongue hang out is a common _expression of lust. p. 84 "...and a little farther on they saw Cho Chang, a very pretty girl who played seeker on the Ravenclaw team. She waved and smiled at Harry, who slopped quite a lot of water down his front as he waved back." p. 103 "Veela were women... the most beautiful women Harry had ever seen... and Harry stopped worrying about them not being human- in fact he stopped worrying about anything at all." "The veela had started to dance, and Harry's mind had gone completely blank. All that mattered in the world was that he kept watching the veela..." pp. 125-126 Stan Shunpike and other boys start to brag while standing around a few Veela to show off for the girls. Ron starts to brag and Hermione takes action..."Honestly!" said Hermione, and she and Harry grabbed Ron firmly by the arms, wheeled him around and marched him away." pp. 231-232 Harry has to fight the "IMPERIO" curse from Moody. In other words, he has to gain self control. Harry must fight back against the loss of control over one's actions that occurs when the "Mad-Eye" of LUST takes control over him! One thing that the "goblet of fire" inside us does is to drive us to compete. The Quidditch World Cup and the Tri-Wizard Tournament are examples of this competition. Harry must fight the inner dragon; he must save the thing that he loves from the underwater world; and he must control his desire to grab the cup at the expense of all his friends! He does so brilliantly when he asks Cedric to touch it with him. Competition is a healthy way to channel our drive (goblet of fire) unless the lust for victory overtakes us! Harry realizes the cost when Cedric dies (the man he was jealous of because of Cho Chang), and he even gives his winnings to the Twins. Randy From rkdas at charter.net Sat Feb 11 18:42:40 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:42:40 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147974 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carodave92" wrote: > > > susanbones2003 wrote: > > > 1. Hermione is a wonderful student. Give her a book, she'll read it > > > front to back and memorize it mostly. She performs to standard and > > > her standards are high so she'll always get good grades. But she > > > needs the security of studies to be successful. DADA requires as > she > > > says, bravery and quick-thinking but it also seems to require an > > > innate ability that Harry possesses but she does not. > > Carodave: > > Don't forget about the Sorcerer's Stone - where Hermione's logic > equalled that of Snape - she was the only one of the trio able to > understand which potion would allow Harry to continue on through the > maze, and which would kill him. She's a very bright girl and talented > witch, but as you say above, Harry has an innate ability for DADA that > puts him above and beyond Hermione's ability. She does have a history > of choking in exams for this particular subject, possibly because they > are not book-driven but more practical. Maybe she didn't shine as > brightly in the exam as she could have, but an E is still very good. > > Carodave Jen D. here, Hermione is very cool under pressure! She is logical in a way that many wizards, great ones, are not. I can't imagine why she's not tops in everything except that she loses focus when confronted with something she knows is supposed to be horrible, like a boggart in an exam. I don't believe her E is a bad grade. It ensures she can continue on to NEWT level. But it seems out of character for someone as focussed on good grades as she is to miss the last O. Shaun said that even the brightest students miss the high mark sometimes. It's my feeling that there is subjectivity in the exams and that examiners would have wanted Harry, whom they see as truly exceptional, to stand out from his peers. But many on the list wouldn't agree with that philosophy. Just wish we could have seen Hermione's practical exam. I know she would never fail to have an O on any writtens. Jen D., inconclusive at best... > From djklaugh at comcast.net Sat Feb 11 18:46:31 2006 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:46:31 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147975 (Snip) Geoff: > This takes my mind to a bit of canon which I've never considered > before: > '"Oh, bravo!" cried Professor Tofty, who was examining Harry again, > when Harry demonstrated a perfect Boggart banishing spell. "Very good > indeed! Well, I think that's all Potter... unless..." > He leant forward a little. > "I heard from my dear friend Tiberius Ogden that you can produce a > Patronus? For a bonus point... ?" > Harry raised his wand, looked directly at Umbridge and imagined her > being sacked. > "Expecto patronum!"' > > (OOTP "OWLs" p630 UK edition) > > From whom did Tiberius Ogden hear this? It suggests that the fact > that Harry could produce a corporeal Patronus had got into the public > domain. The only problem might be, whether he had been present at the > Wizengamot hearing or heard it previous to that date.... > Djklaugh here: From the HP Lexicon: Ogden, Tiberius Wizengamot elder (OP15) and friend of Tofty, a wizard with the Wizarding Examinations Authority. He was with Griselda Marchbanks in resigning from the Wizengamot when Umbridge was appointed as Inquisitor at Hogwarts (chapter 15 of OP, page 308 of US paperback edition). And since Harry was apparently tried before the full Wizengamot, Ogden would have been present and heard about Harry's ability to produce a Patronus. From rkdas at charter.net Sat Feb 11 18:48:55 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:48:55 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy and Its Reference to LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147976 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "exodusts" wrote: > > > hpfan_mom: > > > > Just looking at the prophecy again (oh yeah, another exciting Friday > > night), and wondered if there'd been posts on this before. > > > > Trelawney (or the prophecy for which she's the mouthpiece) does not > > name LV as You Know Who, or He Who Must Not Be Named, or Voldemort, or > > Tom Riddle. The prophecy refers to him four times as the Dark Lord. > > (Page 841, OOTP, US edition) > > > > IIRC, that's what the DEs call him. What could be the significance of > > that? And that's how the prophecy is labeled, Dark Lord and (?) Harry > > Potter. (Page 780) Who is the keeper of the Hall of Prophecy, the > > wizard who labeled the official record? (Page 842) > > > Snape also refers to Voldemort as the Dark Lord, in front of the > Hogwarts students. Admittedly, he used to be a Death Eater, but he is > supposed to be reformed. It seems likely that calling him that is not a > complete no-no amongst non-Death-Eaters. Alternatively, the mysterious > powers that grant prophecies ultimately align themselves with evil. Or > JKR thought it would be awkward for Trelawney to use "He-Who-Must- Not- > Be-Named" in that speech. > > exodusts. > Jen D. here, I have never felt at ease with anyone who called LV "the Dark Lord" since FakeMoody did so with Harry in his office at the beginning of his unveiling. It was such a clear signal in that instance that now I feel very uncomfortable when other characters, characters that we are supposed to know and understand their loyalties, use it. Snape, I am hoping uses it to maintain his cover with Draco. It's obvious that it doesn't ring bells for most characters. Harry realized it, that only DeathEaters ever call him the Dark Lord, but Harry didn't spend a lot of time pondering it, the clue when past him in the prophecy and the "wise old man" let it pass as well. We are being led somewhere with this and I haven't quite got there on my own yet. Jen D. inconclusivity becoming her trademark... From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 19:40:36 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:40:36 -0000 Subject: The Names of the Books and the Teacher's have Meaning! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147977 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "exodusts" wrote: > > > Randy: > > Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I present my opening arguments > > regarding the 7 deadly sins as the themes of the Harry Potter book > > series . > > > > Exodusts: > Why do I get the feeling that this is like horoscopes? For just one > example, if I wanted to, I could rustle up Lust quotes from Book 6 > regarding Harry's Ginny fantasies. Sorry, but if you can swap the 7 sin > labels around from book to book without discernible difficulty, I think > the whole theory lacks foundation. > Good point! Except for the names of the DADA teachers and the names of the books! Book One = Humility versus VANITY/PRIDE Quirrell (Acquire) and the Philosopher's stone Do not listen to that voice in the back of your head that tells you how much better you are than everyone else! You do not "acquire" (or get by one's own efforts or actions) immortality without humility. One must see himself in the mirror of desire as he truly is. Pride makes us see ourselves as something more than we really are. Only the pure of heart (humble) can use the Philosopher's stone. Book Two = Kindness versus ENVY Lockhart and the Chamber of Secrets Lockhart is never concerned for the true needs of others. Lockhart has a "locked heart" because hs envies the deeds of others and pretends they are his own. Tom Riddle envies Salazaar Slytherin and calls himself the Heir of Slytherin. Tom Riddle's (and Ginny's) secrets were written into his diary and stowed away in his chamber of secrets. Show kindness and concern for others and unlock your heart (or chamber of secrets) and do not envy the greatness of others. Book Three = Take Action vs. SLOTH Lupin and the Prisoner of Azkaban Lupin "pines for the Moon" (pines for la lune). Harry must take action (take flight), free the prisoner inside, and use his patronus to stop the Dementors (of sadness) from sucking away his desire for life. Do not sit idle and wait for someone else (like your father) to cast the patronus and save the prisoner! Do not allow your fears to make you fall back and do nothing! Take Flight and take action! Book Four = Self- Control versus LUST Mad-Eye Moody and the Goblet of Fire The moody individual with the mad eye of lust tries to place Harry under the "Imperio" spell that would cause Harry to lose control of his actions. Harry must fight to control himself and his goblet of fire(lust) that drives everyone to compete. The boys of Hogwarts are attracted to the Veela and the Beautiful girls of Beauxbatons, and the Hogwarts girls are attracted to the strong athletic men of Durmstrang! Channel this desire (goblet of fire) into healthy competition but do not lust only for victory at the expense of everything else! Book Five = Patience versus ANGER Umbridge and the Order of the Phoenix Umbridge (umbrage=anger) becomes angry whenever students, teachers, or Dumbledore fail to do things her way. Harry, Sirius, and Voldemort all become impatient and symbollically run down the corridor trying to open the door and unleash their emotions. The anger bursts forth like a flame than only be quieted by using patience and return to a peaceful state that causes the calm person to be reborn like a phoenix from the ashes. Book Six = Generosity vs. GREED (wanting credit or praise) Snape and the Half-Blood Prince Professor Snape (snaps and snatches=grasps for)the credit and praise that he thinks he deserves. He resents others like Harry (and his father James) using his own spells and gaining credit. He resents the fame and credit that Harry has always received. Snape was never given credit because of his half-blood status. He does not get the credit he deserves from Bellatrix for his service to Voldemort. He wants to be the prince of the royal blood whom all must acknowledge as superior (not just another half-blood). Even Slughorn does not acknowledge his potions abilities as being as good as Harry's natural talent. If only Slughorn knew that Snape deserves the credit for Harry's success! Even Draco fears that Snape will try to get credit and praise for doing the Dark Lord's deeds! Note that Draco leads the Death Eaters into Hogwarts with the "Hand of Glory". Book Seven = Temperance versus GLUTTONY A glutton for life seeks immortality! From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sat Feb 11 19:50:07 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:50:07 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147978 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carodave92" > wrote: > > > > > susanbones2003 wrote: > > > > 1. Hermione is a wonderful student. Give her a book, she'll > read it > > > > front to back and memorize it mostly. She performs to standard > and > > > > her standards are high so she'll always get good grades. But > she > > > > needs the security of studies to be successful. DADA requires > as > > she > > > > says, bravery and quick-thinking but it also seems to require > an > > > > innate ability that Harry possesses but she does not. > > > > Carodave: > > > > Don't forget about the Sorcerer's Stone - where Hermione's logic > > equalled that of Snape - she was the only one of the trio able to > > understand which potion would allow Harry to continue on through > the > > maze, and which would kill him. She's a very bright girl and > talented > > witch, but as you say above, Harry has an innate ability for DADA > that > > puts him above and beyond Hermione's ability. She does have a > history > > of choking in exams for this particular subject, possibly because > they > > are not book-driven but more practical. Maybe she didn't shine as > > brightly in the exam as she could have, but an E is still very > good. > > > > Carodave > > Jen D. here, > Hermione is very cool under pressure! She is logical in a way that > many wizards, great ones, are not. I can't imagine why she's not > tops in everything except that she loses focus when confronted with > something she knows is supposed to be horrible, like a boggart in an > exam. I don't believe her E is a bad grade. It ensures she can > continue on to NEWT level. But it seems out of character for someone > as focussed on good grades as she is to miss the last O. Shaun said > that even the brightest students miss the high mark sometimes. It's > my feeling that there is subjectivity in the exams and that > examiners would have wanted Harry, whom they see as truly > exceptional, to stand out from his peers. But many on the list > wouldn't agree with that philosophy. Just wish we could have seen > Hermione's practical exam. I know she would never fail to have an O > on any writtens. > Jen D., inconclusive at best... > > > Perhaps Hermione wants to get credit and praise for being "the smartest" in every subject. And her small amount of jealousy (greed) shows up by Harry's better mark in DADA as well as his later miraculous performance in Potions class. From agdisney at msn.com Sat Feb 11 20:19:23 2006 From: agdisney at msn.com (agdisney) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:19:23 -0000 Subject: "that awful boy" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147979 Andie here: What does anyone think of Petuna & "that awful boy?" If I remember my teenage years and girlfriends/boyfriends, if a girl really liked a certain boy & he did not feel the same, a teenage girl would do and say anything to cover up her feelings to others. Such as: Didn't you want to date John? Who him, he's a jerk or "an awful boy." Maybe Petunia actually liked that awful boy and Lily stole him away or made fun of her sister with that boy. Maybe that is one reason why Petunia hated her sister so much and since he was part of the WW she also hated him. If it was James, her treatment of Harry seems more logical. In her point of view, Harry could have been her son if Lily hadn't interfered. From rkdas at charter.net Sat Feb 11 20:46:42 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:46:42 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy and Its Reference to LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147980 SNIP > Harry's scar first hurt when he looked at Snape. > > SNIP> Just a few random thoughts that popped into my head after reading > your post. > > Doddie, > > (Pebbles always look like pebbles until you smell them) > > Hi Doddie, Just read your post (thought I'd been following this thread more carefully...) If memory serves, Harry's scar burned when he looked at Snape because Quirrellmort was sitting beside him and had turned to look back thus exposing Harry to a full frontal blast of LV. Your other thoughts are intriguing and would make for a spectacular denouement... Jen D. > > > From richter at ridgenet.net Sat Feb 11 19:36:53 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:36:53 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147981 Gerry wrote: > Do we? I'd say we see a boy so paralyzed with fear of his teacher that he regularly goes to pieces and makes elementary mistakes. SNIP SNIP SNIP . It is sadistic, pure and simple. Now I agree that > Snape would never have let him poison his pet, it is clear from the > reactions of the class everybody thinks he is capable of it and I'm > sure he knows it. Otherwise his "incentive" would not have worked. So > what do we have: do this right or your pet dies. PAR wrote: ====it's not as if there weren't other methods, even ones that were not OOC for Snape. While doing the same as Flitwick (who tolerates well Neville's errors), IF Snape were both a good teacher and truly 100% DDM, he could have done something like: "Since you are so determined to show off Miss Granger, you can tutor Neville and YOUR grade will be based on his success". Unload the problem to someone who has actually shown she can help Neville. Appear to be picking on Granger, while actually letting her do "extra credit". OR, if he's bound and determined to do it by threat: "For every error you make in potions Mr. Longbottom, I will deduct 10 points from Gryffindor". Appeals to the Malfoy crowd, does the "threat" bit, but it might actually work for Neville if he (as red hen has suggested) is trying to appear incompetent because he doesn't want to be a wizard. In regards to Snape teaching Potions well, I find HBP an interesting light on that. Here we have an individual who is apparently VERY talented and inventive (assuming he didn't copy the improvements from LILLY, which is entirely possible) but there is no indication that Snape has done any of the following: 1. TEACH the formulas he himself used. He does use a book and writes down the directions from the book -- there's no indication that his board instructions differ or Hermione would have mentioned it. 2. Encourage in any way, manner or form any discussion or inventiveness regarding either theory or in performing the potion making. It is clearly "by the book" only in his classes. 3. Indicate that other books may have different formulas/approaches for the same potions (we only hear about Moste Potent Potions as having ADDITIONAL, not different, formulas). Possibly he would have addressed "differences" or "creativity" in NEWT Potions, but there really isn't anything to indicate that. He certainly isn't doing that in NEWT DADA either. Snape may be DDM! but I don't think this extends to a willingness to truly encourage brilliance in his students and IMO this is not a teacher I would ever want to have or inflict on students. PAR From nonnymouse_X at hotmail.com Sat Feb 11 22:46:56 2006 From: nonnymouse_X at hotmail.com (ereshkigal_doom) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:46:56 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147982 Alla: > One of the possible endings for dear Voldemort I can think of ( that > was not said in this thread, but I may have seen it earlier or > discussed it with somebody) would be Voldemort turning into a baby > at the end and Harry taking a pity on him and not killing him for > that reason ( have no clue who would take care of this "baby" after > all though ? maybe St.Mungo?). It is not my favorite one by all > means, but I keep thinking about "baby face" DE at the MoM battle and > Hermione's "we cannot hurt a baby" ( paraphrase, but I think > essentially correct one) and I can see this kind of end. > I had the same idea about Voldemort becoming a baby again when I was reading the passage with the baby-faced death-eater in OOTP. I can't see Harry killing anyone really, even Voldemort. I think he will probably defeat Voldemort without killing him somehow. If Voldemort was transformed into a baby, it would be a truly hopeful end for the series. It is possibly the only thing that could restore his soul. And who knows how he would have turned out with parents to guide him? If the ending is really soppy, perhaps Harry+Ginny or Ron+Hermione could adopt baby Voldemort! But would it be worse than death? When Dumbledore says that there are worse things than death, I think he may be predicting the manner of Voldemort's defeat. It has to be something that Voldemort would consider horrific. The 'turns into baby' option is almost too nice. True, Voldemort's personality would be mostly obliterated. But he would have another chance at life, that his victims didn't have. Would it be a just ending for him? Jan From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 00:13:07 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:13:07 -0000 Subject: Subverting Prophecies, Wisemen, Horcruxes (wasRe: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147983 > >>Betsy Hp: > > The subversion comes from Dumbledore's great reluctance to do > > the above. [Fill Wise Old Man role -- see upthread] > >>Neri: > I don't see the reluctance as very important. The Old Wise Man > stock character has a role given to him by the author, and whether > he is content or reluctant to do it is of little importance. I > seem to remember both Gandalf and Yoda reluctant to share certain > secrets with the hero. Betsy Hp: I want to clarify my position, for my own sake really, because I don't want to fall into the trap of moving too far to an unsupportable extreme argument. Is Dumbledore a Wise Old Man? Yes, of course he is. As you point out, Neri, he has all the earmarks of one. He knows more than the hero, he teaches the hero, and he supports the hero. And he doesn't, cannot, fight the battle for the hero. But is he a mere cliche, or does Dumbledore have some basic characterizations unique to himself? I think he does. For one, the Wise Old Man thing is new to him. Previously, Dumbledore *was* the hero. First he felled a Dark Lord (by himself, IIRC). Second, he set up a sort of round table to take on the next Dark Lord. And it was *Dumbledore* who ran things. There wasn't another hero (like James for example) being advised by the Wise Old Man. For another, Dumbledore makes a *lot* of mistakes. His hero usually finds himself tripping into battle, unprepared and generally grossly outmatched and uninformed. (Not like Yoda and Ben telling Luke he's not ready to face Vader, but they won't stop him. Dumbledore, in a similiar position, would have either stopped Luke or gone to try and rescue his friends himself, IMO.) Often, Dumbledore himself has had to swoop in and save the day. And not because Dumbledore is standing aside, assesing his hero's strengths and weaknesses. Usually it's because in one way or another, Dumbledore has made a mistake. The main reason for Dumbledore's mistakes, I think, is his lack of experience in the Wise Old Man role. Because Dumbledore has never played the part of adviser to the hero before, he's feeling his way along as much as Harry is. More probably, because the Wise Old Man relies quite heavily on calculated judgement while the hero depends a great deal on instinct. Dumbledore, used to being the hero, is having to bring a whole new skill set into play. Being a headmaster has given him some practice, I'm sure, and I think Dumbledore is quite a stratigic thinker. But he's at his most powerful and most natural, IMO, when he's the center of the action, rather than standing at the side-lines. Above all, I disagree that Dumbledore's reluctance to become the Wise Old Man is of no importance. It provided almost all of the plot for OotP, but I think it's presence has been felt throughout the series. I've seen many a reader express the same sigh of relief that Harry does when Dumbledore finally takes him under his wing and starts fully playing the part of the Wise Old Man. It was a relief, I think, because Dumbledore fought against doing so for so long. I believe he actually states that he didn't want to be seen singling Harry out. But that's what the Wise Old Man is *supposed* to do with the hero. That's one of his basic jobs. Like the Prophecy is a prophecy, but is subverted by the introduction of choice, I think Dumbledore is a Wise Old Man, but the cliche is subverted by his not wanting the role. (Actually, it sort of reverses the old "but I don't *want* to be a hero!" cliche. Harry has been ready and willing to face down Voldemort from age eleven. It was Dumbledore who tried to hold him back.) > >>Jen D: > > From what I can gather you two are debating, the Horcruxes seem > > very contrived to Neri, and possibly detract from the overall > > story because they are simply plot coupons, things to be cashed > > in for plot movement. I can understand what you mean but I see > > the potential at the very least, for horcruxes to be imbued with > > meaning on several levels. Horcruxes tell us something about LV. > > Remember DD telling Harry in one of their meetings that LV > > had "magpie-like tendancies?" And that he chooses objects for > > their deep significance? > >>Neri: > As I wrote upthread, this doesn't convince me because plot coupons > frequently come with some excuses for their existence (typically > supplied by the Wise Old Man stock character in some kind of > a "plot dump") and as long as these explanations are rather > arbitrary (this or that quirk of the mad arch-villain) it doesn't > really give the plot coupons that much meaning. Betsy Hp: I guess the horcruxes don't bother me for two reasons: 1) They don't strike me as an arbitrary thing based on an odd quirk of Voldemort's. They are his reason for being. His entire life has been about cheating death. Here is how he's attempting it. And here is how Harry will stop him. That seems fully thematic rather than any sort of forced plot pulling the theme out of shape. 2) Their number, and what they are suspected of being fits in perfectly with the "United Hogwarts" theme, IMO. I strongly suspect Harry will need the support of all four houses to find and/or destroy the remaining horcruxes. Zacharias Smith for Hufflepuff, Luna Lovegood for Ravenclaw, Draco Malfoy for Slytherin, and I'll guess Ginny Weasley for Gryffindor (making her a bit more than a prize for Harry, and giving her bad-blood with Smith some meaning). I'm *much* more interested in seeing Hogwarts healed than the MoM cleansed of corruption or the WW and the Muggle world uniting. The first is, I think, quite doable (and rather heavily foreshadowed). The second seems impossible to achieve in just one year and by a schoolboy, at that. (Though if Hogwarts is healed I imagine some sort of good would spread through the WW.) Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 00:22:59 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:22:59 -0000 Subject: Significance of the term "Dark Lord" (Was:: The Prophecy and Its Reference to LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147984 Jen D. wrote: > I have never felt at ease with anyone who called LV "the Dark Lord" since FakeMoody did so with Harry in his office at the beginning of his unveiling. It was such a clear signal in that instance that now I feel very uncomfortable when other characters, characters that we are supposed to know and understand their loyalties, use it. Snape, I am hoping uses it to maintain his cover with Draco. It's obvious that it doesn't ring bells for most characters. Harry realized it, that only DeathEaters ever call him the Dark Lord, but Harry didn't spend a lot of time pondering it, the clue when past him in the prophecy and the "wise old man" let it pass as well. We are being led somewhere with this and I haven't quite got there on my own yet. > Carol responds: The Prophecy is spoken in a voice that is not Trelawney's. She's a conduit or oracle voicing an ambiguous prediction that may or may not come to pass. The language that she uses in Seer mode is both ominous and ambiguous. Neither Harry nor Voldemort is named. Voldemort supplies the identities for both parties (Harry's some months after hearing the Prophecy as he's not yet born when it occurs). However, Trelawney's second Prophecy also refers to the Dark Lord, and there's no question that the term in that instance refers to Voldemort. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I don't think that the use of the term "Dark Lord" in the Prophecy links either it or Trelawney to Death Eaters, and when Harry says, "I've only ever heard Death Eaters call him that" (quoted from memory), he's forgetting that the term was used in the PoA prophecy ("The Dark Lord shall rise again"). It's possible, then, that others do use the term, including the labeler of the Prophecy in the MoM (who probably did so because that was the term used in the Prophecy itself--how he knows that without hearing the Prophecy, I can't say--or perhaps from the near-universal fear of the name). Also, Voldemort or Lord Voldemort is not really a name but a title that Tom Marvolo Riddle created for himself by scrambling the letters of his birth name. So neither "Voldemort" (the invented identity) nor "Tom Riddle" (the abandoned name) would work in the Prophecy even if ambiguous wording and an ominous tone were not essential characteristics of a "real" prophecy (as I believe they are). As for why the Death Eaters use the term "Dark Lord," it's both ominous and dignified, in contrast to the awkward "He Who Must Not Be Named" (which recalls H. Rider Haggard's "She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed") and the silly "You Know Who," which reflects superstitious fear and (to me) sounds odd coming from the likes of Minerva McGonagall. Snape would, of course, be in the habit of saying "the Dark Lord" from his DE days and would have retained the habit to avoid accidentally saying the name or using some other term in front of the DEs or his Slytherin students. It also fits the rather sinister and dignified image that Snape has cultivated for himself (along with his black clothing and sweeping movements). I simply can't imagine him saying "You Know Who" as if he were *afraid* of the name. "The Dark Lord" suits him better as a euphemism, both in its ominous dignity and its use by the DEs he must associate with in his role as double agent (notably Lucius Malfoy). There is also some indication that the name itself (or discussion of the Dark Mark) cause Snape's Dark Mark to burn (the GoF scene with Fake!Moody and the first Occlumency lesson in OoP) as Snape involuntarily rubs his arm as if it hurts him on both occasions. We don't see any such thing with any other Death Eater or ex-Death Eater. It's possible (I'm not saying probable) that the Dark Mark senses Snape's disloyalty to LV. If so, his avoidance of the name "Voldemort" would have a motivation different from the fear of speaking the name that prevents, say, the Weasleys from speaking it, or the adoration of Bellatrix, who thinks that to speak Voldemort's name is to desecrate it (if I can use that word for a person who is as far from sacred as it's possible to be). I don't think that we can judge either Snape's or Trelawney's loyalties by their use of the term, and as Jen points out, DD doesn't comment on the significance of the term in the Prophecy. Nor do I think that we can assume that any new character who uses it is a Death Eater. It might suit Scrimgeour or Slughorn better than "You Know Who," or worse, "the wizard styling himself Lord Voldy-thingy" (which to me suggests "the artist formerly known as Prince"). Carol, also unsure where JKR is leading us with this term but tossing out a few thoughts on the topic for what they're worth From foodiedb at optonline.net Sat Feb 11 19:50:05 2006 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (foodiedb) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:50:05 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147985 Hi all, I have a few quesitons about Unbreakable Vows: 1. Can a person make more then one Unbreakable Vow? 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, then can a person make an Unbreakable Vow which conflicts with another? For example, what if Snape had made an Unbreakable Vow with Dumbledore not to harm Harry, and then later made an Unbreakable Vow with someone else that he would harm Harry. What would happen? Would the second vow just not "take." Would it still look like a vow was being made to an observer? Thanks, David From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 00:44:08 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:44:08 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147986 > >>PAR: > ==it's not as if there weren't other methods, even ones that were > not OOC for Snape. While doing the same as Flitwick (who > tolerates well Neville's errors), IF Snape were both a good > teacher and truly 100% DDM, he could have done something like: > "Since you are so determined to show off Miss Granger, you can > tutor Neville and YOUR grade will be based on his success". > Unload the problem to someone who has actually shown she can help > Neville. Appear to be picking on Granger, while actually letting > her do "extra credit". Betsy Hp: This is totally out of character for Snape. Or at least, as I understand him. Neville is *his* problem. Snape is the Potions teacher. To foist his responsibilities off on someone else would be the ultimate falure, and disgustingly lazy and irresponsible. Of course, I see both the Trevor incident and the subsequent "bullying" of Neville to be Snape trying to reach a difficult student. That Neville passes Potions and doesn't seem to have similar problems in the next year suggests that Snape was finally able to achieve his goal. > >>PAR: > OR, if he's bound and determined to do it by threat: > "For every error you make in potions Mr. Longbottom, I will deduct > 10 points from Gryffindor". Appeals to the Malfoy crowd, does > the "threat" bit, but it might actually work for Neville if he (as > red hen has suggested) is trying to appear incompetent because he > doesn't want to be a wizard. Betsy Hp: Two things: Causing a student to be resented by his house peers is actually more McGonagall's style. Snape is unfair to the Gryffindors, but he never tries to turn them on each other. Seeing what happened to Harry, Neville, and Hermione after the "Norbert incident" something like this would set Neville up for some rather trying times in the Gryffindor common room. Also, I interpert Red Hen's theory (which I do like) to be more of an unconscious block on Neville's part. I really don't think he was messing up in Potions class, setting himself up for personal attention from Snape, on purpose. > >>PAR: > In regards to Snape teaching Potions well, I find HBP an > interesting light on that. Here we have an individual who is > apparently VERY talented and inventive (assuming he didn't copy > the improvements from LILLY, which is entirely possible)... Betsy Hp: But opens up the can of worms that *Lily* invented the cutting curse. Which would give an interesting new read to her character. > >>PAR: > ...but there is no indication that Snape has done any of the > following: > 1. TEACH the formulas he himself used. He does use a book and > writes down the directions from the book -- there's no indication > that his board instructions differ or Hermione would have > mentioned it. Betsy Hp: But then why write the instructions on the board at all? Why not have the students turn to the appropriate page and follow the instructions from there, rather than trying to peer around each other and through the smoke and mist rising from various cauldrons? And is there any indication that Snape uses a textbook written by the same author as Slughorn's textbook? No, I think Snape *does* use his own formulas. When his directions are followed, the potions turn out correctly. As demonstrated positively by Hermione in Snape's classes, and negatively by Hermione in Slughorn's class. > >>PAR: > 2. Encourage in any way, manner or form any discussion or > inventiveness regarding either theory or in performing the potion > making. It is clearly "by the book" only in his classes. Betsy Hp: I seem to recall Snape assigning rather difficult essays on the various natures of different ingredients and methods for homework. I seem to recall Harry and Ron being rather put out by the length requested and the research involved. > >>PAR: > 3. Indicate that other books may have different > formulas/approaches for the same potions (we only hear about Moste > Potent Potions as having ADDITIONAL, not different, formulas). Betsy Hp: Why, if Snape's formulas work, would he encourage his students to look at formulas that don't? I would imagine his more creative assigments were given to his NEWT students. It's too bad we never get to see him interacting with a NEWT level Potions class. > >>PAR: > Possibly he would have addressed "differences" or "creativity" in > NEWT Potions, but there really isn't anything to indicate that. > He certainly isn't doing that in NEWT DADA either. Betsy Hp: Yeah, but there's nothing to indicate he wouldn't either. Other than the fact that he's a rather creative thinker and his NEWT students would be the only people likely to have a chance to keep up. As to DADA, I'm not sure where your certainty comes from. We were only able to see one class. Though in that one class Snape opens up with a lecture that seems to *demand* creativity. (The whole, ever changing enemy thing.) > >>PAR: > Snape may be DDM! but I don't think this extends to a willingness > to truly encourage brilliance in his students and IMO this is not > a teacher I would ever want to have or inflict on students. Betsy Hp: I don't know. Snape seemed to encourage Draco. And he certainly set a high bar for Hermione. Honestly I think Snape *is* a good teacher, of a type unfortunately dying out in these more modern times. As someone who too easily snowed or intimitated many of my own teachers (until college, thank goodness) I think I would have liked someone like him as a teacher. It would have been scary, I think. But the challenge would have been nice. Betsy Hp From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Feb 12 00:46:17 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:46:17 -0000 Subject: Significance of the term "Dark Lord" (Was:: The Prophecy and Its Reference to LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147987 Jen D.: > > I have never felt at ease with anyone who called LV "the Dark Lord" > since FakeMoody did so with Harry in his office at the beginning of > his unveiling. It was such a clear signal in that instance that now I > feel very uncomfortable when other characters, characters that we are > supposed to know and understand their loyalties, use it. Carol: > The Prophecy is spoken in a voice that is not Trelawney's. She's a > conduit or oracle voicing an ambiguous prediction that may or may not > come to pass. The language that she uses in Seer mode is both ominous > and ambiguous. Neither Harry nor Voldemort is named. Voldemort > supplies the identities for both parties (Harry's some months after > hearing the Prophecy as he's not yet born when it occurs). However, > Trelawney's second Prophecy also refers to the Dark Lord, and there's > no question that the term in that instance refers to Voldemort. *(snip)* Ceridwen: The term 'Dark Lord' could just be a designation, as in 'dictator', 'president', 'CEO', 'clerk'. I'm not sure if Grindelwald is referred to as a Dark Lord, or a Dark Wizard, but either one would be the same, I think. Like Hitler's 'Fuhrer' was a generic sort of term that he apparently liked and had people use. Or, more to my taste, 'Fearless Leader' in the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons. That can't be his name, and he wasn't truly 'fearless'. But it's what he liked his minions to call him. We know what a 'fearless leader' is, it's generic. But we know 'Fearless Leader' as a specific character in a cartoon as well. Ceridwen, making her own sextant and hoping that this time the degrees come out right. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 00:50:07 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:50:07 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147988 Randy wrote: > Lupin "pines for the Moon" (pines for la lune). Carol responds: My apologies for the huge snips, but I'm not really interested in the idea that the HP books are an allegorical exploration of the seven deadly sins. They may be *applicable* to the story, but to see the whole story as an allegory seems to me a reductionist approach. However, I did want to comment on this one point. Lupin doesn't "pine for" the moon; he fears and hates it. The full moon is his Boggart because it represents his fear of the painful monthly transformation (which could have lethal consequences if he bites someone). The name Lupin is a respelling of "lupine" (wolflike, from Latin lupus, "wolf") and is a clue, along with Remus (one of the legendary twins Romulus and Remus who were raised by a she-wolf) that he's a werewolf. Carol, noting that lupine is also a flower, apparently so named because it was believed to "wolf" down the nutrients needed for other plants to grow in the same area From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Feb 12 01:40:09 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:40:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles References: Message-ID: <014f01c62f75$430a37a0$8066400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 147989 > PAR wrote: > ====it's not as if there weren't other methods, even ones that were > not OOC for Snape. While doing the same as Flitwick (who tolerates > well Neville's errors), IF Snape were both a good teacher and truly > 100% DDM, he could have done something like: Magpie: Yes, he could have, but I think Sean's point is that while Snape is not the best teacher, or a super duper teacher, and certainly not the best teacher for Neville, what he's doing isn't completely from outer space. Plus, well, we know that Snape is not going to give Hermione a chance to earn extra credit by "showing off" because he's trying to discourage that too. Snape's a mean teacher and what he does to Neville is what a mean teacher, not a nice teacher, would do. R_K > In regards to Snape teaching Potions well, I find HBP an interesting > light on that. Here we have an individual who is apparently VERY > talented and inventive (assuming he didn't copy the improvements > from LILLY, which is entirely possible) Magpie: Possible, but as of now based on very thin evidence, imo. We know Snape is very talented at Potions, we've got notes in his handwriting showing his personality that make Harry a star, the book seems to center around the relationship between Harry and this unknown boy he later realizes is Snape...is there really any good reason to give Lily credit for Snape's accomplishments? I know you're not making a serious argument for this and it's just an aside, but this is just one of those mysteries to me, post-HBP, why "Snape was copying Lily/Lily wrote the notes in the book" has become this sort of phantom idea that hangs over the story. It's given much more weight and attention than, for instance, the opposite idea. The only evidence we have of Lily being a star at Potions at all comes from Slughorn, a character whose most notable characteristic is the blatant bias he shows for some students over others, often for arbitrary reasons. The man's spent the entire book insisting that *Harry* is a natural at Potions based on Snape's work--for all we know he did the same with Lily. I can't help but wonder if the same kind of bias could make the theory that Lily was behind the HBP attractive--it keeps all the positive stuff with the pleasant character who likes Harry and makes all the things that "attracted" Harry to young Snape stolen. It gets rid of the everything disturbing about the relationship--Harry wasn't really drawn to Snape in the form of the HBP, he was drawn to his mother, Lily. R_K: but there is no indication > that Snape has done any of the following: > 1. TEACH the formulas he himself used. He does use a book and > writes down the directions from the book -- there's no indication > that his board instructions differ or Hermione would have mentioned > it. Magpie: I don't think Rowling would think it was necessary to have Hermione point this out in earlier books. Besides, why write things on the board if they're in the book? Regardless, I think NEWT level is probably different from the earlier stuff, where he was probably teaching the basic rules of Potions that would be standard. I will say that Hermione seems to struggle more in Slughorn's class, which could, I think, indicate she's used to having better directions. Some things Harry learns from the Prince Hermione says flat out he'd already been told by Snape. R_K > > 2. Encourage in any way, manner or form any discussion or > inventiveness regarding either theory or in performing the potion > making. It is clearly "by the book" only in his classes. Magpie: But obviously Snape doesn't teach strictly "by the book" in his classes because in DADA we've got him specifically criticizing "by the book." R_K > Possibly he would have addressed "differences" or "creativity" in > NEWT Potions, but there really isn't anything to indicate that. He > certainly isn't doing that in NEWT DADA either. Magpie: Do we know that? We have very little classtime with Snape in DADA, and in that we've got one moment of Snape telling Hermione that the textbook answer doesn't cover things, and we have him talking about DADA in a way that reminds Hermione of Harry, who is anything but by the book. Snape seems to lay out his philosophy of DADA as being all about creativity and being able to think on your feet. We also hear Harry saying that he thinks he's going to get a bad grade (or something like that) because he's disagreed with Snape on the best way to handle Dementors. This could, on one hand, be seen as proof that Snape is the kind of teacher who only wants you to spit back what he tells you. However, we don't hear about what Harry gets on that essay, and otoh, this is the first time we've ever heard of Harry taking that kind of initiative in a class. So after HBP I really can't see Snape as that kind of teacher whose class is just repeating the book. On the contrary, his DADA class seems like one of the best Harry has ever had, though he won't admit it, in terms of his being challenged and engaged in the material. He gets detention for mouthing off to the teacher, but Snape doesn't seem to be just picking on him all the time, a neutral student thinks it's a good class, and Hermione even comments on the teacher's approach being in tune with Harry's on the subject. -m From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Feb 12 01:48:16 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:48:16 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: References: <43EDFBB2.16153.1CB445C@localhost> Message-ID: <43EF2E90.14644.67A2460@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 147990 On 11 Feb 2006 at 14:25, festuco wrote: > r what this passage tells us. > > > It's a very good question - because obviously if Neville after two > > and a half years is still making the same mistake in potions classes > > that he made in his very first lesson, something is wrong. > > Gerry > Yes, his fear of Snape. Shaun: All right - now please explain to me why Neville is the student who forgets he is wearing the sorting hat during the sorting ceremony; why Neville is the student who needs to be helped into the Gryffindor common room the first time they go there; why Neville is the student who according to Harry, before their first flying lesson has 'an extraordinary number of accidents even with both feet on the ground.'; Why Neville is the student who is the only one who manages to accidentally take off in their first flying lesson, and to fall and injure himself; Why Neville is the student who is found sleeping on the floor outside the Common Room because he forgot the password; why out of Ron, Hermione, Harry, and Neville, why is Neville the one who bolts and runs revealing their location to Filch, when Harry goes to duel Malfoy?' Why is Neville the student who is always losing his toad? Why is Neville the student who loses the passwords that allow Sirius Black to get into Gryffindor tower? Where is Snape in any of these instances - and I suspect there are even more, these are just ones I can think of quickly. I am not saying Neville isn't scared of Snape - he absolutely clearly is, very scared of him. But Neville makes basic mistakes, does silly things all the time - especially in the earlier books. The problems that Neville has come from who Neville is, not from other people around him. If the problem (for want of a better word) is primarily with Snape, we should be seeing this as a widespread problem across his classroom. But that is not what we see. We see plenty of students who don't like Snape - but they still don't make elementary procedural mistakes in their potions classes. What is it about Neville that makes him react differently in Snape's classes than everyone else Why if a teacher's methods seem to be working for the majority of a class, with just one obvious exception where they are not working, do people assume that the problem is with the teacher? To me, it seems obvious that the problem is with the pupil. With Neville. Blaming Snape for Neville's failures in his classes is like blaming the teacher of a dyslexic child for the fact that the child has trouble reading. Even if there is something the teacher could be doing to help that child (and often there is), the issue is with the child. Neville's problems are evident throughout the early books. Now - does Snape handle this issue particularly well? No, I don't think so - but I think it is pretty absurd to blame him for the problems Neville has. If I was going to blame anybody for that (and I really don't have the evidence for this, but it'd be my gut call) it'd be his Grandmother. > Gerry: > > Do we? I'd say we see a boy so paralyzed with fear of his teacher that > he regularly goes to pieces and makes elementary mistakes. Canon says > Neville goes to pieces because of his fear, not that he is a careless > little boy that should be disciplined. Where is the canon that Neville > is ever careless? why should he be so now? Shaun: Where in the canon is it that Neville is careless? "Professor McGonagall pulled herself back through the portrait hole to face the stunned crowd. She was white as chalk. 'Which person,' she said, her voice shaking, 'which abysmally foolish person wrote down this week's passwords and left them lying around?' There was utter silence, broken by the smallest of terrified squeaks. Neville Longbottom, trembling from head to fluffy slippered toes, raised his hand slowly into the air." (PoA) And that's just the most obvious example. We also have these - from Philosopher's stone. >From our very first encounter with Neville: "He passed a round-faced boy who was saying, 'Gran, I've lost my toad again.' 'Oh, Neville,' he heard the old woman sigh." ***** Later: "Nobody spoke much. Neville, the boy who kept losing his toad, sniffed once or twice." ***** Later again: "When Neville Longbottom, the boy who kept losing his toad, was called, he fell over on his way to the stool." (Do you get the impression that JKR is trying to tell us something about Neville?) ***** "Poor, blundering Neville." Harry's view of Neville when he comes out to warn them about Malfoy laying a trap for them. ***** Neville is careless - the canon for that is quite clear in my view. His greatest act of carelessness is leaving the passwords behind but it's mentioned all through the text. > Gerry: > > Actually I think the first disastrous lesson may have started the fear > of potions which rapidly changed in a fear of Snape. And the one big > mistake Snape makes in this first lesson is giving them a potion where > a simple mistake will have such huge effects. It was an accident > waiting to happen, as anyone with common sense could predict. Then > when it happens, Snape - who is clearly shocked - lashes out at > Neville. If he had acted differently, reigned in his temper that would > probably already have made a difference. Shaun: OK, first of all, you're assuming that potions exist where simple mistakes don't have major consequences? Personally I think that's a huge assumption. Lessons at Hogwarts are dangerous - McGonnagall stresses this in her first class that her subject is dangerous. Neville breaks his arm in his first flying lesson - should Madam Hooch have made her lesson safer? Do bear in mind this is at a school where the Matron can heal nearly all injuries very quickly, and Neville's injuries in the potions class are dealt with quickly. We are told that the potion in that first class is a 'simple potion'. Snape has deliberately given the students a simple potion to do. He hasn't given them something difficult to do. And every single other student in the class - all novices - don't have a problem with it. Whem 95% of a class are able to do something, it seems to me pretty odd to suggest the teacher has overestimated the complexity of the task at hand. I don't think Snape's reaction is from shock, personally, but if it was, that would actually indicate to me that the mistake Neville had made is shocking - ie, something that a teacher with nearly a decade of experience teaching this subject hasn't seen before. > Gerry: > > I also think we see a teacher here who either does not recognize that > the way he bullies Neville is actually the cause of the problem or > does not care about that. In both cases that makes Snape an average > teacher, not a good one. Neville is obviously perfectle capabel of > following instructions if Hermione gives them or when Snape is absent. Shaun: The first problem with that argument, in my view, is that Neville makes his very first mistake before Snape has bullied him. The second problem with it that Neville demonstrates careless behaviour out of class and in other teachers classes as well - in Chamber of Secrets I recall, he accidentally removes the leg of McGonnagall's desk during a class, and at the time he's under no stress at all. > Gerry: > > Now Snape does not have to be nice to Neville. He could have tried to > leave him alone. Even a completely inflexible person should be able to > manage that. A teacher has a duty to teach their students. They can't just decide to leave them alone. Abrogation of responsibility for educating a student is just about the worst thing a teacher can do. He has a duty to try and educate Neville. He doesn't get to choose who he teaches and who he doesn't - not until fifth year anyway when he is allowed to set minimum standards. > Gerry: > > Nothing new. Just another way of bullying and installing fear. Verbal > bullying did not work, try something stronger. I'm sure Snape wants > Neville to get it, but I'm equally sure goes about it entirely the > wrong way. I also believe that Snape is genuinly not able to > understand how anybody can make elemental mistakes. And that is a very > bad thing for a teacher. Because what for most is quite elemental is > for some very, very difficult. It is exactly that attitude - this is > elemental and therefore you should be able to do it - that makes for > traumatized students who really, really try, do not manage and instead > of getting decent help from their teacher get punishments. I know at > least one case where someone who was dislectic was severely harmed > because he kept making the same "elemental" spelling mistakes. Now I > know your opinion on modern teaching methods, but please keep in mind > that the old methods were just as good in making students suicidal > when they genuinly could not help their mistakes and got punisment on > punisment and sarcasm on sarcasm because they had the kind of teacher > that was not able to understand that for them elemental was not > elemental but virtually impossible. Shaun: I don't think you do know my opinion of modern teaching methods from what you are saying here. I have nothing whatsoever against them when they work - and they often do work. I use modern methods in my own teaching, all the time, when I find that they have merit. What I have a problem with is the attitude (and it is a very common one unfortunately) that just because a method is modern it is a good one, and which is unfortunately often accompanied by an idea that this means old fashioned methods are automatically bad. There's good and bad in the modern, there's good and bad in the old fashioned - and often what makes something good or bad depends on the precise circumstances in which it was used. If there was any evidence that Neville was suicidal as a result of being in Snape's classes, or even that he was suffering some form of general depression as a result of being in those classes, I would be inclined to agree with what you have said here. But there isn't. There is evidence that Neville is frightened by Snape, but that's an entirely different matter. Neville is frightened by *many* things. "'There's no need to tell me I'm not brave enough to be in Gryffindor, Malfoy's already done that,' Neville choked out." But over time, over the course of the books, Neville becomes braver and braver - until by the fifth book, he is a genuine hero. Has Neville reached this stage by being mollycoddled and by people removing him from situations that frighten him? No, he's faced his fears and he's learned to deal with them. When Neville reveals to his class and to his teacher, that he is scared of Professor Snape (and admitting that in itself takes coverage), does Lupin tell him he shouldn't be afraid? No - he tries to teach him a strategy to confront his fear. Does McGonnagall spare Neville from punishment that frightens him in the Philosopher's Stone? Not at all. Neville is punished in the same way as the others. This is how students learn to deal with fear at Hogwarts. Would a Neville who had been mollycoddled have turned into this young man?: "'He's dot alone!' shouted a voice from above them. 'He's still god be!' Harry's heart sank: Neville was scrambling down the stone benches towards them, Hermiones wand held fast in his trembling hand." In his trembling hand - Neville is not free of fear here. He is afraid. And he has good reason to be. But he's still standing. He's still fighting. He is not letting fear stop him from doing what he has to do. > Gerry: > > Not in this case. It is sadistic, pure and simple. Now I agree that > Snape would never have let him poison his pet, it is clear from the > reactions of the class everybody thinks he is capable of it and I'm > sure he knows it. Otherwise his "incentive" would not have worked. So > what do we have: do this right or your pet dies. Shaun: I remember a teacher when I was fifteen telling me that if I didn't get the next answer right on a test, he'd break my legs. Did I honestly believe he'd do it? Logically, objectively, I knew he'd never do that. That didn't stop the threat from working though, and didn't stop me being scared. > Gerry: > > There is a distinction between that and downright sadism. This was an > example of sadism. As for negative reinforcement: when a teacher > favours that he should be sure there is nothing else than attitude > that prevents the student from performing rightly. Here Snape does not > recognize the paralyzing ability of fear that prevents Neville from > doing it right. Therefore his method is wrong and makes the problem > worse. Do we see Neville doing better after that? No we do not. He > needs an exam without Snape to show people what he is capable of as > far as potions are concerned. Shaun: The point is I don't believe it is an example of sadism. I've seen truly sadistic teachers in action - and Snape doesn't even come close. And I've had teachers who were very like Snape in their actions, and they were not sadistic. I'd give example of what a truly sadistic teacher did to me - except I can't even bring myself to write it down. Offering to help me kill myself was just the start, though. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 03:53:56 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 03:53:56 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: <43EF2E90.14644.67A2460@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147991 > >>Gerry: > > There is a distinction between that and downright sadism. This > > was an example of sadism. > > > >>Shaun: > The point is I don't believe it is an example of sadism. I've seen > truly sadistic teachers in action - and Snape doesn't even come > close. > Betsy Hp: We're all working with the same definition of sadism, right? That it's someone who gets sexual pleasure out of causing pain? Or at the very least, gets a kick out of causing physical or mental pain? Because I don't get the idea that Snape gets any such jolt out of his interaction with Neville. When Snape tells Neville his potion will be tested on Trevor the only descriptive word JKR uses is "coldly", and that's when Snape tell Hermione to not show off. And when he feeds Trevor the potion, JKR describes his eyes as "glittering". Neither words suggest that Snape is enjoying himself to a level a sadist would. And I don't think it's because JKR is too squeamish to give us a sadistic teacher, or to describe a sadist enjoying himself. Not with Umbridge waiting in the wings. Look at what she does with Harry when she tells him that his detention will be doing lines. "You haven't given me any ink," he said. "Oh, you won't need ink," said Professor Umbridge with the merest suggestion of a laugh in her voice. [...] He let out a gasp of pain. [...] "Harry looked around at Umbridge. She was watching him, her wide, toadlike mouth stretched in a smile. (OotP Scholastic hardback p.266-267) Umbridge is very much anticipating Harry's pain, enjoying the anticipation, enjoying his actual pain, and also enjoying the power play that she is winning as he cuts into his own hand, again, and again, and again. (I haven't reread that scene for a while, and I must say it's pretty shocking seeing how blatantly abused Harry is, and how much Umbridge enjoys abusing him.) No, JKR knows how to depict a sadist. If Snape is supposed to be an example of one, she's been very coy about showing us that. At least in my opinion. Betsy Hp From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 04:03:13 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:03:13 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147992 > Geoff: > > This takes my mind to a bit of canon which I've never considered > > before: > > > '"Oh, bravo!" cried Professor Tofty, who was examining Harry > again, > > when Harry demonstrated a perfect Boggart banishing spell. "Very > good > > indeed! Well, I think that's all Potter... unless..." > > He leant forward a little. > > "I heard from my dear friend Tiberius Ogden that you can produce a > > Patronus? For a bonus point... ?" > > Harry raised his wand, looked directly at Umbridge and imagined > her > > being sacked. > > "Expecto patronum!"' > > > > (OOTP "OWLs" p630 UK edition) > Djklaugh: > From the HP Lexicon: > Ogden, Tiberius > Wizengamot elder (OP15) and friend of Tofty, a wizard with the > Wizarding Examinations Authority. > > He was with Griselda Marchbanks in resigning from the Wizengamot > when Umbridge was appointed as Inquisitor at Hogwarts (chapter 15 of > OP, page 308 of US paperback edition). And since Harry was > apparently tried before the full Wizengamot, Ogden would have been > present and heard about Harry's ability to produce a Patronus. > hpfan_mom: That name Ogden sounded so familiar . . . so I went to take a look at the Lexicon, wondering if Djklaugh had snipped the definition a little short. She didn't, but the entry just above is Bob Ogden. Who visited the Gaunts in HBP. Mark Evans, anyone? From exodusts at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 04:26:44 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:26:44 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147993 > hpfan_mom: > > That name Ogden sounded so familiar . . . so I went to take a look at > the Lexicon, wondering if Djklaugh had snipped the definition a little > short. She didn't, but the entry just above is Bob Ogden. Who > visited the Gaunts in HBP. Mark Evans, anyone? Exodusts: You mean is there any sinister significance, or was it an unconscious repetition like Mark Evans? Will Tiberius Ogden turn out to be vital to the plot of book 7 because he was related to Bob? Both Ogdens were involved with wizarding officialdom. Could Tib and Bob be the same guy? It might just be an old wizarding family name. Maybe the same people who brew the Ogden's Old Firewhiskey that Mr Weasley puts in his tea, and that Gilderoy Lockhart likes as a birthday gift? From exodusts at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 04:52:21 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 04:52:21 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: <20060211153935.46189.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147994 > Flop: > That's the case, but remember how Hermione reacted in > the Devil's Snare! She knew what it was, she knew how > to get it to back down, but she choked under the > pressure of the situation, wailing that there was no > wood to make a fire. *RON* had to point out that she > was a witch and could bloody well use her wand! Exodusts: Absolutely. But the Devil's Snare was a real life-or-death situation. The DADA exam was an exam. Hermione lives for exams. Think of the preparation she did. Exam stress didn't put her off in any other subject. It can't be the practical element that put her off, since she did Outstandingly well in other subjects requiring practical work. She should have got an O. Harry should have got an O plus some kind of special recognition from the Exam Board. That way Hermione could still be jealous, and learn to deal with imperfection; the recognition that she cannot always be the best at everything. Her E seems just a teensy bit contrived. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 05:17:26 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 05:17:26 -0000 Subject: What Hermione thinks of Snape as a teacher (LONG)? WAS: Re: Teaching Styles LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147995 > Potioncat: > We also have Hermione who often defends Snape, even though she has > enough reasons not to bother. Alla: You know, it is funny. I was thinking about "Hermione defending Snape as a teacher' argument in support of "Snape as a good teacher" and I realized that I don't remember many instances when she does so. Now in HBP she compares Snape DADA lesson to Harry's as it was discussed, I agree that this is a positive comparison, since Hermione definitely thought that Harry is a good teacher in OOP, but can we claim that based on one lesson Hermione considers Snape to be a good teacher? I don't think so, personally. In any event, I went through the books trying to find where Hermione talks about Snape as a good teacher and I can report that I did not REALLY found many instances of Hermione defending Snape as teacher, praising him as teacher, etc. I am NOT claiming with hundred percent certainty that such quotes do not exist, of course I could have missed something, but if I did it was not done intentionally and so far as I said I have not found almost any. One more thing - I recently said that I do not take the position that Hermione is always always right, especially in the evaluation matters, so to speak, but I won't deny that JKR uses her to give us correct information ( IMO not necessarily correct value judgments and THAT I will try to demonstrate too), so if she were to give us factual information about Snape's teaching abilities, I would probably be forced to acknowledge it ( NOT towards Harry and Neville, because nothing can make me be convinced that Snape is a good teacher to them, but towards other students). But so far I think that claims about Hermione supporting Snape as TEACHER seem to be not very much substantiated. IMO of course. Hermione supporting Dumbledore trust in Snape, sure, it is there, but hopefully with the end of HBP Hermione's confidence in Dumbledore's trust of Snape was shuttered Now to canon. PS/SS. "You know what this means?" he finished breathlessly. "He tried to get past that three -headed dog at Halloween! That's where he was going when we saw him ? he's after whatever it's guarding! And I'd bet my broomstick he let that troll in, to make a diversion!" Hermione's eyes were wide. "No- he wouldn't," she said. "I know he's not very nice, but he wouldn't try and steal something Dumbledore was keeping safe." ? PS/SS, p.183 So, in this quote she indeed defends Snape but NOT as a teacher, but as someone who is loyal to Dumbledore. Well, could be of course. IMO, it is doubtful in light of HBP, but possible. Keep in mind that quite soon after that her opinion changes. She is clearly worried that Snape may hurt Harry in those quotes IMO: "Rubbish," said Hagrid again. "Snape's a Hogwarts teacher, he'd nothing of the sort." "So why did he just try and kill Harry?" cried Hermione. The afternoon's events certainly seemed to have changed her mind about Snape." ? PS/SS, p.193 "Speaking quietly so that no one else would hear, Harry told the other two about Snape's sudden sinister desire to be a Quidditch referee. "Don't play" said Hermione at once. "Say you're ill," said Ron. "Pretend to break your leg," Hermione suggested. "Really break your leg," said Ron. ? PS/SS, p.217 "Little did Harry know that Ron and Hermione had been secretly practicing the Leg-Locker curse. They'd gotten the idea from Malfoy using it on Neville, and were ready to use it on Neville, and were ready to use it on Snape if he showed any sign of wanting to hurt Harry. ? PS/SS, p.222. Hmm, we KNOW that Hermione is wrong here. Snape clearly was not trying to kill Harry as we learn at the end, so why cannot she be wrong when she speaks well of Snape? Although as I said I REALLY did not find that many instances when she does speak well of Snape as a teacher, in fact I found almost nothing. This is the last quote from PS/SS I found of Hermione speaking well of Snape, but I think it is stretching to say that she praises his teaching abilities here. IMO of course. "Brilliant," said Hermione. "This isn't magic ? it's logic ? a puzzle. A lot of the greatest wizards haven't got an ounce of logic , they'd be stuck in here forever." ? PS/SS, p.285 II. CoS. Believe it or not, I have not found ONE instance in CoS when Hermione defends Snape as teacher or just as a person. III PoA. This is getting even more interesting. The only sort of value judgment Hermione gives to Snape as a teacher in this book which I was able to find was this one: "Snape's never been like this with any of our other Defense against the Dark Arts teachers, even if he did want the job," Harry said to Hermione. "Why's he got it in for Lupin? D'you think this is all because of the boggart?" "I don't know," said Hermione pensively. "Bur I really hope Professor Lupin gets better soon" ?PoA, p.173 To me it sounds that Hermione rather prefers Remus as DADA teacher to Snape. I have not found any other incidents of Hermione defending Snape in this book. IV. GoF. "Evil, he is," Ron said bitterly that night in the Gryffindor common room. "Springing a test on us in the last day. Ruining the last bit of term with the whole lot of studying." "Mmmm .. you're not exactly straining yourself, though, are you?" said Hermione, looking at him over the top of her Potions notes. . `It's Christmas, Hermione," said Harry lazily; he was rereading Flying with the Cannons for the tenth time in an armchair near the fire. Hermione looked severely over at him too. "I'd have thought you'd be doing something constructive, Harry, even if you don't want to learn your antidotes" ? GoF, paperback, p.392 Hermione encourages boys to study for Snape's test, but where did she EVER encourage them not to study, for ANY teacher? ( She even encourages Harry to not skive off Divination in OOP, ? paperback, p.364). I really don't see how Hermione is defending Snape as a teacher here. She just scolds the boys IMO ( deservingly so of course). "I don't care what Moody says," Hermione went on. " Dumbledore `s not stupid. He was not right to trust Hagrid and Professor Lupin, even though loads of people wouldn't given them their jobs, so why shouldn't he be right about Snape, even if Snape is a bit----" .. "You just want to think Snape is up to something ," said Hermione sending her cushion zooming neatly into the box" ? GoF, p.481 "So you think Snape could be up to something, then ?" asked Harry, but Hermione broke in. "Look , I don't care what you say, Dumbledore trusts Snape" ? GoF, p.530 I again don't see anything about Snape teaching abilities here, more like confidence that Snape is not up to something, IMO anyways V. OOP Here is another bit where Hermione really does not seem to be defending Snape the teacher. "This was really unfair," said Hermione consolingly, sitting the down next to Harry and helping herself to shepherd's pie. "Your potion wasn't nearly as bad as Goyle's, when he put it in his flagon the whole thing shattered and set his robes on fire" .. "I did think he might be a bit better this year," said Hermione in a disappointed voice. " I mean you know ." She looked carefully around; there were half a dozen empty seats on either side of them and nobody was passing the table" . Now he is in the Order and everything." ? OOP, p.235 In these quotes I again see Hermione defending Dumbledore's trust in Snape and nothing more. "Shut up, Ron," said Hermione angrily. "How many times have you suspected Snape, and when have you ever been right? Dumbledore trusts him, he works for the Order that ought to be enough." " Dumbledore trusts him," Hermione repeated. "And if we can't trust Dumbledore, we can't trust anyone" ? OOP, paperback, p.555 I seem to remember Hermione telling Harry to go back and ask Snape for Occlumency lessons after the disaster, but I don't think she was praising him as a teacher either, just wanted Harry to stop having the dreams ( cannot find the quote). HBP. Right, we have Hermione comparing Snape's speech to Harry's and what else do we have? Well, we have of course Hermione continuing her studies in Potions but I really believe that it does not say much except that Hermione can learn from almost anybody. After all `Hermione was immediately cleared to continue with Charms, Defense against the Dark Arts, Transfigurations, Herbology, Arithmancy, Ancient Rules, and Potions " ? p.173. Can we conclude from this that teachers who teach Arithmancy and Ancient Rules for example are good teachers? I am not so sure. I am really too tired to go through every page of HBP ? it is late here, so if I don't remember passionate defense by Hermione of Snape's teaching style in this book, or any kind of defense, then I apologize, but based on five books I went through rather carefully ( again could have missed things by accident), I make a conclusion that Hermione does defend Dumbledore trust of Snape in the books ( hopefully she will realize how wrong she is :)) but does not really defend Snape as a teacher. Of course, JMO. Alla From exodusts at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 05:20:27 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 05:20:27 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147996 > David: > Hi all, > I have a few quesitons about Unbreakable Vows: > 1. Can a person make more then one Unbreakable Vow? > 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, then can a person make an > Unbreakable Vow which conflicts with another? For example, what if > Snape had made an Unbreakable Vow with Dumbledore not to harm Harry, > and then later made an Unbreakable Vow with someone else that he would > harm Harry. What would happen? Would the second vow just > not "take." Would it still look like a vow was being made to an > observer? > Exodusts: Logically, the following MIGHT happen: Snape takes 1st vow with X: "I will never kill Dumbledore". Later, Snape takes 2nd vow with Y: "If necessary, I will carry out Draco's mission (to kill Dumbledore)". Theoretically, Unbreakable Vows are unbreakable, without incurring the consequence. Therefore, at the moment it becomes apparent (to him / whatever power triggers / arbitrates UVs) that killing Dumbledore is unbreakably possible, for him (i.e. the moment he swears the 2nd vow), he has broken the 1st. He will immediately suffer the consequences of vow 1. If he survives, he will also be bound by vow 2. A simpler magical rule might exist that a person can never be subject to more than one UV at any one time, meaning the 2nd spell would just fail, but I do not think there is anything in canon to categorically state that. PS A more amusing question to ask is why, since we know from Viktor Krum (in GoF) that Imperiused-persons can themselves cast Unforgivable Curses, Voldemort doesn't just take over the world using an army of daisy-chained Imperius victims? From foodiedb at optonline.net Sat Feb 11 19:03:47 2006 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (foodiedb) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:03:47 -0000 Subject: verbal vs non-verbal spells Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147997 I was wondering what people thought about verbal vs. non-verbal spells. For instance, which one takes precedence over the other? If they are said/thought at the same time, which one "counts?" David. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 05:30:05 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 05:30:05 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147998 Exodusts wrote: > Absolutely. But the Devil's Snare was a real life-or-death situation. > The DADA exam was an exam. Hermione lives for exams. Think of the > preparation she did. Exam stress didn't put her off in any other > subject. It can't be the practical element that put her off, since she > did Outstandingly well in other subjects requiring practical work. She > should have got an O. Harry should have got an O plus some kind of > special recognition from the Exam Board. That way Hermione could still > be jealous, and learn to deal with imperfection; the recognition that > she cannot always be the best at everything. Her E seems just a teensy > bit contrived. > Carol responds: I understand why you think it seems contrived, but it doesn't seem so to me. Harry, having completed his written exam feeling that he's done very well, easily completes all the tasks in the practical exam, is praised for his excellent work and given a chance for a single extra credti point, probably because he has already scored 100 percent (and because the examiner has heard that he can produce a corporeal Patronus, and based on what he's seen so far, is confident that he can do so). That would make his score 101 percent, definitely outstanding. (Hermione receives 112 percent on one of her OWLS, probably Transfiguration, but I'm not certain. So it's possible to receive more than 100 percent. Still, 100 percent, even without extra credit, is a perfect score if no extra credit is involved and is still an O. We know that Harry has had practical experience that the others haven't had, so even with so few good DADA teachers, his Outstanding can hardly come as a surprise to any reader. Hermione, in contrast, has had the same poor teachers and very little DADA experience--this is *before* the events in the DoM. She has only the DA lessons with Harry and some experience with minor Dark Creatures in Lupin's year. For some reason, she never had a chance to face her Boggart in his class, and so she blew that part of the exam in her third year. If a Boggart showed up on the OWL practical for her as it did for Harry, she has never learned how to deal with it (Harry doesn't bring any Boggarts into the RoM) and so she would fail it again. Let's say that 50 percent of the exam is the written portion and that she achieved full marks on that. Then she's given five spells to perform, one of which is a Riddikulus to defeat a Boggart. If she misses that one spell out of five, that's ten percent out of 50 percent, making her score 40 percent for the practical and 50 percent for the written or 90 percent overall. In an American school that would be a B (above average). In the OWL, it would almost certainly be an E (Exceeds Expectations). A very high E, very close to an O, but still an E. I'm not saying that this is how the OWLs are scored, but I think it's likely that the set-up is similar to what I described. One missed spell or one wrong answer to an essay question and you have an E, not an O. And to me it makes perfect sense that Hermione, intelligent though she is, would still get a lower score than Harry on the DADA because she lacks his personal experience, and especially as she has never learned how to face her Boggart. (Shall we blame Lupin for that one?) Carol, who doesn't understand why Hermione has to be perfect. She still got eleven OWLs, a lot more than Harry or Ron. The only one she didn't get was Divination, and that's because she dropped the subject. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Feb 12 06:00:12 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 06:00:12 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 147999 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ereshkigal_doom" wrote: > But would it be worse than death? When Dumbledore says that there are > worse things than death, I think he may be predicting the manner of > Voldemort's defeat. It has to be something that Voldemort would > consider horrific. The 'turns into baby' option is almost too nice. > True, Voldemort's personality would be mostly obliterated. But he > would have another chance at life, that his victims didn't have. Would > it be a just ending for him? Also there is no guarantee that he'd grow up decent this time. A baby is not a blank slate but has his own character. And even if the'd find a person who was willing to smother him with love, chances are he'd become again a higly charismatic man who knows he has it in him to become the greatest wizard of his age. And he knows exactly which mistakes he has to set right. Gerry From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 07:07:56 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 07:07:56 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148000 > > David: > > 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, then can a person make an > > Unbreakable Vow which conflicts with another? > > Exodusts: > Logically, the following MIGHT happen: > Snape takes 1st vow with X: "I will never kill Dumbledore". > Later, Snape takes 2nd vow with Y: "If necessary, I will carry out > Draco's mission (to kill Dumbledore)". > Theoretically, Unbreakable Vows are unbreakable, without incurring > the consequence. Therefore, at the moment it becomes apparent (to > him / whatever power triggers / arbitrates UVs) that killing > Dumbledore is unbreakably possible, for him (i.e. the moment he > swears the 2nd vow), he has broken the 1st. He will immediately > suffer the consequences of vow 1. If he survives, he will also be > bound by vow 2. zgirnius: Or, perhaps the person can take both Vows. Even though they are mutually contradictory. And nothing happens until they actually DO break the Vow. The actual Vow to kill Dumbledore which Snape took, after all, did not require him to act immediately, or even, ever. His requirement to act was contingent upon the actions of Draco and possibly, circumstance as well. The Vow which is broken would kick in when the person who had sworn the Vow actually took the action in violation of the Vow. (So, in your hypothetical, Snape's Vow would have kicked in on the Tower, after he killed Dumbledore). From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Feb 12 07:09:08 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:09:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Hermione thinks of Snape as a teacher (LONG)? WAS: Re: Teaching Styles LONG References: Message-ID: <01df01c62fa3$3a1ad6d0$8066400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 148001 Alla: Can we conclude from this that teachers who teach Arithmancy and Ancient Rules for example are good teachers? I am not so sure. Magpie: We can conclude that any teacher Hermione doesn't criticize as a teacher performs at a basic level that's okay with her. Hermione doesn't like having her time wasted in class. She seems to consider Snape a perfectly legitimate teacher. She doesn't have to give passionate defenses of Snape as a teacher (besides conversations about how X is an excellent teacher being sort of contrived) Harry himself doesn't complain about him that way most of the time anyway. As a human being Harry hates him. When Snape is behaving as an awful human being, while being a teacher, Harry criticizes him. As a teacher Snape's mainly a pain for giving too much homework that's really difficult. Hermione has no problem with that, really. She doesn't even seem to have a problem with him criticizing her answers or being a show-off, not in the way she's infuriated by Trelawney. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 07:23:12 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 07:23:12 -0000 Subject: verbal vs non-verbal spells In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148002 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "foodiedb" wrote: > > I was wondering what people thought about verbal vs. non-verbal > spells. For instance, which one takes precedence over the other? If > they are said/thought at the same time, which one "counts?" > > David. zgirnius: It seems to me the nonverbal spell should count. It is, after all, possible for a witch to say a spell incantation (say, in the middle of a lecture to her students) and have nothing happen at all. Presumably if a witch concentrates on a desired magical effect in a particular way (which is what a nonverbal spell is, after all) it should take effect, provided she is sufficiently skilled at this. From kking0731 at gmail.com Sun Feb 12 12:31:11 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 07:31:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . .) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148003 Carol snipped: However, I did want to comment on this one point. Lupin doesn't "pine for" the moon; he fears and hates it. The full moon is his Boggart because it represents his fear of the painful monthly transformation (which could have lethal consequences if he bites someone). Snow: I thought that when you are fighting a boggart you turned the object that you feared into something you thought was funny in order to confuse the boggart. The full moon would have been funny to Lupin because he remembered that it was "the best times of his life" when he transformed with his friends. Some think that what he truly saw was a prophecy orb, which is very like the shape and color of the moon. If it is the orb that Lupin fears then all he has to do is change the size and think happy thoughts about the good old times when the full moon gave him such good times. Isn't this what happened in the boggart lesson? you don't make the object that you fear go away but rather turn it into something less fearful. When Lupin finished the boggart off with Riddikulus, he said it almost "lazily" which would represent that he turned the object of his fears into something that he was not afraid of. Also in the boggart lesson the shape of his object is referred to (by Parvarti) as an orb but in the shack Lupin asks Hermione if she noticed that his boggart was the full moon. So if his counter (or the thing that he doesn't fear; his boggart) is the full moon? then the thing that the boggart saw as fear in him was an orb. This also fits with why Lupin ran from Trelawney. Snow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sun Feb 12 13:23:15 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:23:15 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148004 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy: > > And I don't think it's because JKR is too squeamish to give us a > sadistic teacher, or to describe a sadist enjoying himself. Not > with Umbridge waiting in the wings. Look at what she does with > Harry when she tells him that his detention will be doing lines. Renee: If I'm not mistaken, you don't attach much importance to JKR's own comments. But now that you're bringing her into the discussion anyway, I'd like to point out again that she's the one who called Snape `a sadistic teacher', without qualification. You may counter this by saying: "I don't care how JKR interprets her own characters; if she intended Snape to be sadistic she didn't do her job very well, because I don't see it." But you can't maintain she didn't intend Snape to be sadistic because Umbridge is a sadist. There's no reason whatsoever why the series shouldn't contain two sadistic teachers, each with their own personal brand of sadism. Personally, I do see Snape's sadism quite clearly. The Trevor incident is sadism, because Neville is obvioulsy terrified. The incident where Snape reads the Daily Prophet article about Hermione in class is sadism. Snape's "gloating pleasure" when Harry's potion drops to the floor and breaks is sadism (regardless of the question whether it was Snape who caused it to drop). I'll omit his 'horrible smile' in the Marauders Map incident in PoA, becaus he isn't teaching at the time. But its obvious enough that Snape enjoys himself when he humiliates others, or causes discomfort and fear. Admittedly, Umbridge is a worse sadist than he is. That doesn't exonerate Snape. Maybe JKRs tolerance treshhold for sadism is low. But it's obvious to me that she means Snape to be sadistic, and this, again is a possible indication of where she'll be taking him in the last book. Renee From exodusts at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 05:36:24 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 05:36:24 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's silver hand and Book 7 (Was: My 7 book 7 predictions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148005 > hpfan_mom: > > 30 pieces of silver for the one who betrayed the Potters? > > And I do agree with the post above, that JKR stating that PP will not > use it to kill Lupin does NOT mean that PP won't use it to kill > Greyback. The silver bullet analogy is just too appropriate. > > But maybe that's the Muggle way to defeat a werewolf and we need to > think outside the box. Exodusts: I think so. JKR has said (from QQQ site): "I've never, to my knowledge, lied when posed a question about the books. To my knowledge. You can imagine, I've now been asked hundreds of questions; it's perfectly possible at some point I misspoke or I gave a misleading answer unintentionally, or I may have answered truthfully at the time and then changed my mind in a subsequent book. That makes me cagey about answering some questions in too much detail because I have to have some leeway to get there and do it my way, but never on a major plot point." I interpret this to mean she would never lie OR intentionally mislead people as to what might happen in her plots. Then on her site there is this: "Rumour: Peter Pettigrew's silver hand will be used to kill Remus Lupin. JKR: Nice idea, clearly predicated on the legend that only a silver bullet can kill a werewolf - but incorrect." It does not rule out that PP might kill Greyback. You can read it as meaning just that he won't kill Remus. But you could also read it as dismissing the whole silver hand v werewolf idea. There is potential ambiguity. How to resolve that? Well, if PP does kill Greyback in book 7, then the rumour reply could still turn out to be factually correct. But it could then also be described as having been misleading. And JKR has said she doesn't do misleading. And the stuff she has dismissed in the Rumours section (e.g. "Luna is Snape's daughter") is not generally stuff that turned out to be close to the truth. She is playing a very cool game with her readers if she publicly dismisses PP-kills-Remus when she knows that PP-kills-Greyback. From exodusts at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 06:00:50 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 06:00:50 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148006 > Carol: > We > know that Harry has had practical experience that the others haven't > had, so even with so few good DADA teachers, his Outstanding can > hardly come as a surprise to any reader. Exodusts: Absolutely agreed. > Carol: > Hermione, in contrast, has had the same poor teachers and very > little DADA experience--this is *before* the events in the DoM. Exodusts: Actually, a thought strikes me that the reason fof JKR giving Hermione her E is in fact a hang-over from book 5: another attack on bad teaching, in the form of Umbridge. Maybe it is supposed to show that very able kids NEED good teaching, because Umbridge's rotten "open your books and read quietly" technique was of little use. Harry's teaching makes up for it to some extent, thus ensuring that Ron & other Dumbledore's Army kids can get a solid grade, but cannot help someone really able, like Hermione, to reach the highest levels. Unfortunately, if this was the case, then there really should have been a big issue mentioned at Hogwarts in HBP of non-DA kids failing Defence v Dark Arts and/or some really able kids in, say, Ravenclaw, complaining that their OWL grade averages were also blemished by comparatively ordinary Defence v Dark Arts marks. > Carol: > Carol, who doesn't understand why Hermione has to be perfect. She > still got eleven OWLs, a lot more than Harry or Ron. The only one she > didn't get was Divination, and that's because she dropped the subject. Exodusts: With the character that JKR has created, and given the events in the world she has created, it is BOTH suddenly inconsistent AND suddenly convenient for Hermione to be scoring an E instead of all Os. If it was one or the other (e.g. Hermione had an E in a non-Owl, non-Newt year and/or in a subject Harry was not outstanding in), we might not even have noticed. From exodusts at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 06:27:03 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 06:27:03 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148007 > Sydney: > -- a mysterious phoenix patronus will run around, leading everyone to > think Dumbledore is alive. It will in fact be Snape's patronus, > changed on account of his shock at the sacrifice of Dumbledore (love > this theory-- not mine, I hasten to say). Exodusts: I've been rudely arguing about this recently (probably offended someone on livejournal), but I don't think it is going to happen. JKR was asked, between OotP and HBP: Ernie - "I wonder if you can let us know what form will Professor Snape's Boggart and Patronus take? I am very curious." JKR - "Well, I'm not going to tell you Ernie, but that's because it would give so much away." She could have replied this way because she didn't want to reveal that it is going to change into a phoenix in book 7. But it fits better with the idea that the form of Snape's Patronus has always been significant, right from the beginning, not that it is going to change in book 7. This is because, if what is significant IS that it changes, she could simply have replied detailing his Patronus as it was then (between OotP and HBP). > Sydney: > -- Book 7 will be a magic Tardis book, fitting all this stuff in and > yet being shorter than OoP, according to JKR. Exodusts: Lol, where is De Nile not a river? She'll soon figure out it's going to end up the biggest yet. It has to be, if she is to satisfactorily tie up all the loose ends she has left, and I don't think she'll want to leave any more blanks than she absolutely has to, or she'll never get away from HP for the rest of her days: "Excuse me, aren't you J.K. Rowling? I loved your books! Do you know, my favourite wizarding object was the Blah. Can you tell me what happened to it?" From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 15:48:02 2006 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 07:48:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060212154802.13294.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148008 Snow: I thought that when you are fighting a boggart you turned the object that you feared into something you thought was funny in order to confuse the boggart. The full moon would have been funny to Lupin because he remembered that it was "the best times of his life" when he transformed with his friends. Juli: Actually the funny form is a cockroach. Here's the quote from PoA CHAPTER SEVEN THE BOGGART IN THE WARDROBE "Riddikulus!" bellowed Ron, and the spider's legs vanished; it rolled over and over; Lavender Brown squealed and ran out of its way and it came to a halt at Harry's feet. He raised his wand, ready, but -- "Here!" shouted Professor Lupin suddenly, hurrying forward. Crack! The legless spider had vanished. For a second, everyone looked wildly around to see where it was. Then they saw a silvery-white orb hanging in the air in front of Lupin, who said, "Riddikulus!" almosi lazily. Crack! "Forward, Neville, and finish him off!" said Lupin as the boggart landed on the floor as a cockroach. Crack! Snape was back. Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 16:21:57 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:21:57 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: <20060212154802.13294.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148009 Snow wrote: "I thought that when you are fighting a boggart you turned the object that you feared into something you thought was funny in order to confuse the boggart. The full moon would have been funny to Lupin because he remembered that it was "the best times of his life" when he transformed with his friends." CH3ed: I have to go with Carol on this one. The boggart turns into a silvery orb (which could be mistaken for the prophecy orb, yes, but a lot more likely the moon) when it sees Lupin. Lupin riddikuluses the orb into a cockroach (the funny aspect of which eludes me there.... what is funny about a cockroach anyway?). Anyhow, Lupin's fun experience in the full-moon didn't last long at all. A few years at best since the other marauders didn't manage to become animagi until their 5th year, then James was killed not many years post grad. The vast majority of the time since he got bitten it is torture for him turning into a werewolf each full-moon. When we see him in PoA, he no longer has his best friends to run around with him because 1 was dead, 1 was thought dead, and the other was at Azkaban. I think with that in mind, it is more likely that when he thought of the full-moon (at least during PoA year) the prospect was painful rather than fun nostalgia. Snow wrote: " When Lupin finished the boggart off with Riddikulus, he said it almost "lazily" which would represent that he turned the object of his fears into something that he was not afraid of." CH3ed: Or he is acting unafraid while in front of a large audience of students. And he did turn the orb into something else, a cockroach. :O) Snow: "Also in the boggart lesson the shape of his object is referred to (by Parvarti) as an orb but in the shack Lupin asks Hermione if she noticed that his boggart was the full moon. So if his counter (or the thing that he doesn't fear; his boggart) is the full moon then the thing that the boggart saw as fear in him was an orb. This also fits with why Lupin ran from Trelawney." CH3ed: Nah, I think Hermione had it right and Parvati wrong. Lupin's boggart is the moon. I suspect he ran from Trelawney when she offered to crystal ball for him more because he doesn't want her seeing him as a werewolf in it. CH3ed :O) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 16:37:54 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:37:54 -0000 Subject: What Hermione thinks of Snape as a teacher (LONG)/ a bit of Hermione andTrelawne In-Reply-To: <01df01c62fa3$3a1ad6d0$8066400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148010 > Alla: > > Can we conclude > from this that teachers who teach Arithmancy and Ancient Rules for > example are good teachers? I am not so sure. > > Magpie: > > We can conclude that any teacher Hermione doesn't criticize as a teacher > performs at a basic level that's okay with her. Hermione doesn't like > having her time wasted in class. She seems to consider Snape a perfectly > legitimate teacher. She doesn't have to give passionate defenses of Snape > as a teacher (besides conversations about how X is an excellent teacher > being sort of contrived) Alla: Such conversations could be contrived if they are badly written and not contrived if they are well written, IMO. As I said in my earlier posts for example I disagree with Hermione comparing Snape speech in DADA to Harry's, I see little similarities, if any, but if you are to argue that you agree with Hermione, doesn't such conversation seems like a very good way to show that Hermione likes Snape's teaching? Besides, Hermione DOES criticize Snape's teaching skills, IMO of course. I would say it is written in a very not contrived way. "Snape's never been like this with any of our other Defense against the Dark Arts teachers, even if he did want the job," Harry said to Hermione. "Why's he got it in for Lupin? D'you think this is all because of the boggart?" "I don't know," said Hermione pensively. "Bur I really hope Professor Lupin gets better soon" ?PoA, p.173 I don't know about you, but as I said in my earlier post it really seems to me that Hermione much prefers Remus to Snape as DADA teacher. And another one, which I want to repeat. "This was really unfair," said Hermione consolingly, sitting the down next to Harry and helping herself to shepherd's pie. "Your potion wasn't nearly as bad as Goyle's, when he put it in his flagon the whole thing shattered and set his robes on fire" .. "I did think he might be a bit better this year," said Hermione in a disappointed voice. " I mean you know ." She looked carefully around; there were half a dozen empty seats on either side of them and nobody was passing the table" . Now he is in the Order and everything." ? OOP, p.235 Erm... I did think he might be a bit better this year - sounds like a criticism to me. I am also saying that Hermione has very low threshold as to whom she is ready to learn from. Trelawney seems to me like an exception NOT a rule and really, I think that Hermione's mind indeed not well suited for Divination. No, that came out wrong, I think Hermione is can handle divination, but she convinced herself VERY early on in the series that Divination is not the branch of magic which is worth learning. Here is an interesting quote from PS/SS. "Harry, everyone says Dumbledore's the only one You-Know-Who was ever afraid of. With Dumbledore around, You-Know-Who won't touch you. Anyways, who says the centaurs are right? It sounds like fortune-telling to me, and Professor Mcgonagall says that's a very imprecise branch of magic" - PS/SS, p.260. THAT's curious. There is no Trelawney classes yet but Hermione already seems to make up her mind about "fortune-telling" or Divination. I am going to make a wild guess here and I know there is no way to substantiate it, but I think that Hermione would not have liked Divination no matter who would have been teaching it. I think Hermione cannot really spread her mind to the possibilities of imprecise branches of magic such as divination is yet. She calls Trelawney an old fraud in OOP. That could be, except we KNOW for sure that she is not a complete fraud, because two of her predictions were correct. So, can it be that she will turn out to not be fraud at all? Does not Dumbledore say that he himself never took Divination in HBP? I could be wrong ( cannot find the quote), but isn't it possible that Dumbledore underestimated Trelawney skills? JKR said (I think) that part of the reason she introduced Luna to the series was for her to be the opposite to Hermione. I don't think that I am always enthusiastic about Luna's character, but it seems to me that Hermione DOES have something to learn from her. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 17:01:20 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:01:20 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148011 > Renee: >But you can't maintain she didn't intend Snape to be > sadistic because Umbridge is a sadist. There's no reason whatsoever > why the series shouldn't contain two sadistic teachers, each with > their own personal brand of sadism. Alla: Yes, yes, yes. Okay, Snape is LESS sadist than Umbridge is. Does it make him NOT a sadist at all? Not in my book. Renee: > Personally, I do see Snape's sadism quite clearly. The Trevor incident > is sadism, because Neville is obvioulsy terrified. The incident where > Snape reads the Daily Prophet article about Hermione in class is > sadism. Snape's "gloating pleasure" when Harry's potion drops to the > floor and breaks is sadism (regardless of the question whether it was > Snape who caused it to drop). I'll omit his 'horrible smile' in the > Marauders Map incident in PoA, becaus he isn't teaching at the time. > But its obvious enough that Snape enjoys himself when he humiliates > others, or causes discomfort and fear. Admittedly, Umbridge is a worse > sadist than he is. That doesn't exonerate Snape. Alla: Have you noticed that he SMILES all the time when he does things to Harry? If smile is not the sign that the person enjoys himself, I really don't know what is. But here are some more examples of Snape enjoying himself: "Mr. Crouch!" Harry shouted. "From the ministry! Heis ill or something - he is in the forest, he wants to see Dumbledore! Just give me password up to --- "The headmaster is busy, Potter," said Snape, his thin mouth curling into an unplesant smile" - GoF, paperback, p.558 I really don't care if Snape was really holding Harry till Dumbledore comes up as it was argued in the past. He SMILES when he sees student in obvious distress. It is a sign of sadistic teacher in my book. IMO of course. "Put that wand away at once," he said curtly. "Ten points from Gryff- -" Snape looked toward the giant hourglasses on the walls and gave a sneering smile. "Ah, I see there are no longer any points left in the Gryffindor hourglass to take away. In that case Potter , we will simply have to- --" "Add some more?" - OOP, p.852, paperback. Putting aside the unfairness of not giving Draco any taking away points as old news, here we see it again - he smiles. Personally, I think Snape is some kind of emotional vampire ( HAHA - I know he is not a real one of course). He feeds on the negative emotions of his students. This is out landish speculation of course, nothing more, but it somehow ties for me with Snape being DE in the past and trying to figure out again ( we did have discussions in the past about it) what part of death Death Eaters are really eating - really or metaphorically. Maybe they feed their magic on people's fears? Wasn't it Neri who speculated something to that effect? That DD lets Snape "feed" on his students' fears as long as he does not "eat" too much. I maybe awfully confused here. Renee: > Maybe JKRs tolerance treshhold for sadism is low. But it's obvious to > me that she means Snape to be sadistic, and this, again is a possible > indication of where she'll be taking him in the last book. > > Alla: Yes, again. Agreed. JMO, Alla > From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 15:45:40 2006 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 07:45:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hermione as judge of Snape's character Message-ID: <20060212154540.89238.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148012 Using Hermione as a judge of if Snape is a good teacher is horribly flawed. Teachers are basically Hermone's hero's when she starts at Hogwarts. She is already predispo- sed to give them credit for being wise and powerful. Also being a very clever student she more than likely judges how good a teacher is by how they impart knowledge to her. Of course she is going to learn no matter what. Remember she went into Divination not belie- ving in the subject long before she hated Trelawney. Honestly Hermione would more pro- bably be just as good at potions if she had only had the text book for a teacher. A better judge of if Snape is a good teacher would be to ask his less talented students. Say Neville.. Joe. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Feb 12 18:02:20 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:02:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Hermione thinks of Snape as a teacher (LONG)/ a bit of Hermione andTrelawne References: Message-ID: <009901c62ffe$78e2b580$6e7e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 148013 > Alla: > > Can we conclude > from this that teachers who teach Arithmancy and Ancient Rules for > example are good teachers? I am not so sure. > > Magpie: > > We can conclude that any teacher Hermione doesn't criticize as a teacher > performs at a basic level that's okay with her. Hermione doesn't like > having her time wasted in class. She seems to consider Snape a perfectly > legitimate teacher. She doesn't have to give passionate defenses of Snape > as a teacher (besides conversations about how X is an excellent teacher > being sort of contrived) Alla: Such conversations could be contrived if they are badly written and not contrived if they are well written, IMO. As I said in my earlier posts for example I disagree with Hermione comparing Snape speech in DADA to Harry's, I see little similarities, if any, but if you are to argue that you agree with Hermione, doesn't such conversation seems like a very good way to show that Hermione likes Snape's teaching? Magpie: Look, the author has about a bajillion things that she needs to do in these books, and she can't be bothered to answer questions that aren't even related to the plot and that we should be able to see without being told just to settle things on messageboards. This issue is not as complicated as it's being made. Yes, Hermione likes Lupin as a teacher and does not defend Snape's every action in the class. That's not the point. The point is that Snape has a certain level of competence that is a given and that is not questioned by any student, including Hermione. They complain about things he does in class, they complain about things in his class. But neither Hermione nor anyone else doubts Snape the way certain other teachers are doubted (though people fight the text on that too). No, Hermione probably would not have liked Divination no matter who was teaching it, but yes, she probably would have shown respect for Firenze that she does not show for Trelawney because Trelawney is a fraud. Sometimes she makes real predictions and is not being a fraud, but in her class she makes predictions that are blatantly untrue, sometimes in order to passive-aggressively insult people and Harry and Ron submit homework that's completely made up. She sometimes gets emotional in class and takes it out on students, iirc. I think Hermione would probably lack respect for Trelawney no matter what she was teaching. We've seen Snape in class, we know he demands high acheivement, we know he gives difficult homework assignments that require a lot of work and study, we see Harry and his friends working in his class. Nobody is getting out of this school without a good grasp of Potions. Whether all the kids enjoy his classes or think he's a great teacher is not the mark of whether he's doing his job. Snape definitely has problems as a teacher, which Rowling has even spelled out in interviews: when he's picking on kids and abusing his power, the kids see through him. When Snape is picking on Harry, he is not being a teacher. There are plenty of times in canon, therefore, when Snape is not being a teacher and the kids know it. Other times he is, and the kids know that too. Hermione sees Snape as a teacher and thus gives him the respect she has for the position. She does not do this with teachers who fail to meet that minimal requirement. Neither do Harry or Ron, whose opinions on that subject actually jibe completely with Hermione's. She's just more vocal about it. The ironic thing is that despite there being no real reason for JKR to have all the characters sitting around shooting the breeze about how they actually do learn in Snape's class, really, we get this in HBP when JKR gives Ernie a throwaway line about how he thought Snape's DADA class was a good lesson. Ernie's got no reason to mean anything else than what he's saying there, he's got no reason to make Snape out to be better than he is, the narrator doesn't undercut his words like with Lavender and Parvati speaking about Trelawney, and even Harry thinks Ernie's an okay guy. Snape is capable of being a competent teacher who gives a good class. Sometimes he chooses to behave like a bully instead. The kids deal with both. > Renee: > Maybe JKRs tolerance treshhold for sadism is low. But it's obvious to > me that she means Snape to be sadistic, and this, again is a possible > indication of where she'll be taking him in the last book. Magpie: Actually, I see the opposite, that JKR's tolerance for sadism is high. There's sadism throughout the books of the type Snape shows. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Feb 12 18:35:54 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:35:54 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148014 > > CH3ed: > Nah, I think Hermione had it right and Parvati wrong. Lupin's > boggart is the moon. I suspect he ran from Trelawney when she > offered to crystal ball for him more because he doesn't want her > seeing him as a werewolf in it. Potioncat: The Hogwarts staff had been told about Lupin. (I wish I had the canon for it, but I don't recall where in PoA it shows up.) Which makes McGonagall's barb all the sharper when she says Trelawney should have known Lupin was ill. She should have known even without her inner eye. I was once strongly in favor of Lupin's Boggart being an orb and the moon as a red herring. Now I'm less sure. Some of JKR's misdirections are intended for just one book. I do hope, no matter how it turns out, that JKR has Lupin explain to us the humor of a cockroach. Potioncat, whose youngest pronounces Igor Karkaroff as "Icky Cockroach." BTW, and for a sort of HP reason, does anyone know the Gaelic word for seal? From lealess at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 18:37:06 2006 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:37:06 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy and Its Reference to LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148015 --- "hpfan_mom" wrote: > > hpfan_mom: > > Just looking at the prophecy again (oh yeah, another exciting Friday > night), and wondered if there'd been posts on this before. > > Trelawney (or the prophecy for which she's the mouthpiece) does not > name LV as You Know Who, or He Who Must Not Be Named, or Voldemort, or > Tom Riddle. The prophecy refers to him four times as the Dark Lord. > (Page 841, OOTP, US edition) > > IIRC, that's what the DEs call him. What could be the significance > of that? And that's how the prophecy is labeled, Dark Lord and (?) > Harry Potter. (Page 780) Who is the keeper of the Hall of > Prophecy, the wizard who labeled the official record? (Page 842) > > hpfan_mom > On page 779, the writing is referred to as "spidery." This leads me to believe that perhaps the person who wrote the label was Snape. Perhaps Dumbledore entrusted it to him as a test, to see if he would want to hear the whole thing. Perhaps he did hear the whole thing, and has proceeded to obscure half of it from Voldemort. Harry's name was added later by the Keeper, after Voldemort's downfall. lealess From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Feb 12 19:02:40 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:02:40 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <43EF2E90.14644.67A2460@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148016 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > All right - now please explain to me why Neville is the student who > forgets he is wearing the sorting hat during the sorting ceremony; > why Neville is the student who needs to be helped into the Gryffindor > common room the first time they go there; Gerry (snip) Well, obviously: 1) he has a bad memory 2) he has very low self esteem, tends to make mistakes because he already believes he will fail. Careless in my non-native understanding of the English language means though perfectly able to do something, not caring to be bothered to do it right. A very good example of carelessness is Harry in PoA when he, despite the danger he is in uses his invisibility cloak to pay a higly risky Hogsmead visit, he knew exactly what was at stake, yet he could not be bothered to act differently. Very, very different from Neville. Now I fully believe Snape is unable to see the difference between carelesness and being - how do you call it in English - a psychological block. But canon makes it very clear that for Neville it is not a question of 'can't be bothered' but of being unable to. A good teacher,- mind you, not an extraordinary one - should be able to recognize the difference. why Neville is the student > who according to Harry, before their first flying lesson has 'an > extraordinary number of accidents even with both feet on the > ground.'; Why Neville is the student who is the only one who manages > to accidentally take off in their first flying lesson, and to fall > and injure himself; Why Neville is the student who is found sleeping > on the floor outside the Common Room because he forgot the password; > why out of Ron, Hermione, Harry, and Neville, why is Neville the one > who bolts and runs revealing their location to Filch, when Harry goes > to duel Malfoy?' Why is Neville the student who is always losing his > toad? Why is Neville the student who loses the passwords that allow > Sirius Black to get into Gryffindor tower? > Gerry Why are all this examples of carelesness? > To me, it seems obvious that the problem is with the pupil. With > Neville. If that were the case, he would have difficulties in all his classes. Yet he is fine with charms and is outstanding in herbology, not exaclty a tame subject. And even with transformation he does not go to pieces > > Blaming Snape for Neville's failures in his classes is like blaming > the teacher of a dyslexic child for the fact that the child has > trouble reading. Even if there is something the teacher could be > doing to help that child (and often there is), the issue is with the > child. Snape makes the problem worse by his bullying. As I said before, as a teacher, Snape should be able to recognize the problem and adapt his teaching method. This means that he should stop bullying Neville, because by all this years he should have figured out it is not working and contributing hugely to the problem. > Now - does Snape handle this issue particularly well? No, I don't > think so - but I think it is pretty absurd to blame him for the > problems Neville has. If I was going to blame anybody for that (and I > really don't have the evidence for this, but it'd be my gut call) > it'd be his Grandmother. Why, if you think that Snape does not handle this situation well, do you consider him a good teacher? > Shaun: > > Where in the canon is it that Neville is careless? > > "Professor McGonagall pulled herself back through the portrait > hole to face the stunned crowd. She was white as chalk. > > 'Which person,' she said, her voice shaking, 'which abysmally foolish > person wrote down this week's passwords and left them > lying around?' > > There was utter silence, broken by the smallest of terrified > squeaks. Neville Longbottom, trembling from head to fluffy slippered > toes, raised his hand slowly into the air." Gerry Neville left the paper next to his bed, safe in the Gryffindor dormitory. No one could have foreseen that it would be stolen by Crookshanks who was in league with Sirius Black. That is not an example of carelesness. > From our very first encounter with Neville: > > "He passed a round-faced boy who was saying, 'Gran, I've lost my toad > again.' > > 'Oh, Neville,' he heard the old woman sigh." And why would that be careless? > Whem 95% of a class are able to do something, it seems to me pretty > odd to suggest the teacher has overestimated the complexity of the > task at hand. That was not what I was saying. > > I don't think Snape's reaction is from shock, personally, but if it > was, that would actually indicate to me that the mistake Neville had > made is shocking - ie, something that a teacher with nearly a decade > of experience teaching this subject hasn't seen before. Well, a melted cauldron is something quite spectacular, we see many potions mistakes throughout the book, but most of them are not any more dangerous than a potion turning the wrong colour of giving a bad smell. So yes, I do think it strange that the first potions being taught is one where a simple mistake has such huge effects. > The first problem with that argument, in my view, is that Neville > makes his very first mistake before Snape has bullied him. The second > problem with it that Neville demonstrates careless behaviour out of > class and in other teachers classes as well - in Chamber of Secrets I > recall, he accidentally removes the leg of McGonnagall's desk during > a class, and at the time he's under no stress at all. Why is this careless? Is it because it is Neville? > > > Gerry: > > > > Now Snape does not have to be nice to Neville. He could have tried to > > leave him alone. Even a completely inflexible person should be able to > > manage that. > > A teacher has a duty to teach their students. They can't just decide > to leave them alone. Abrogation of responsibility for educating a > student is just about the worst thing a teacher can do. Gerry Leaving a student alone, abstaining from nasty comments is not the same as abstaining from duty. It can be a very effective teaching method. I'm sorry, but I get the feeling Betsy had in one of the other discussions. You seem determined to excuse anything Snape does. You wanted an example of Snape being nasty to other students than Harry. Ypu even agree that the DADA class is nasty, yet suddenly it is all right because teachers do that at Hogwarts, where you use McGonnagal as an example, though both times she is very tense an stressed where Snape knows exactly what he is doing. His remaek about Hermione's teeth is again an example of a teacher being personal and cruel. Snape is not a nice man. > > know your opinion on modern teaching methods, but please keep in mind > > that the old methods were just as good in making students suicidal > > when they genuinly could not help their mistakes and got punisment on > > punisment and sarcasm on sarcasm because they had the kind of teacher > > that was not able to understand that for them elemental was not > > elemental but virtually impossible. > > If there was any evidence that Neville was suicidal as a result of > being in Snape's classes, or even that he was suffering some form of > general depression as a result of being in those classes, I would be > inclined to agree with what you have said here. But there isn't. > There is evidence that Neville is frightened by Snape, but that's an > entirely different matter. Neville is frightened by *many* things. So as long as a teacher does not make his students depressed or suicidal his teaching methods are fine? Then it does not matter that a teacher has not the wit or is too disinterested to distinguish between carelesness and inability? That is one easy excuse for bad teaching. > Shaun: > > The point is I don't believe it is an example of sadism. I've seen > truly sadistic teachers in action - and Snape doesn't even come > close. And I've had teachers who were very like Snape in their > actions, and they were not sadistic. Well, JKR calls Snape sadistic, almost everybody who reads the toad scene calls whar happens sadistic. I can only conclude you have a very strange view of sadism. Gerry From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sun Feb 12 19:08:44 2006 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:08:44 -0900 Subject: Non-Verbal Communication In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148017 I have been re-reading PS and it occurred to me that the first instance of non-verbal communication that we see is the interaction between Harry and the snake. "Harry moved in front of the tank and looked intently at the snake. ..." There is no mention of him saying anything, and yet the snake responds to his presence. "The snake suddenly opened his beady eyes. Slowly, very slowly, it raised its head until its eyes were on a level with Harry's. It winked." The first that Harry actually says something to the snake comes later and it almost seems as though the only reason Harry says it out loud is for his own benefit. The snake has already understood his thoughts. Is this the only instance of direct non-verbal communication with another animal/person? I can't recall others right now. Laura Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 19:09:33 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:09:33 -0000 Subject: What Hermione thinks of Snape as a teacher (LONG)/ a bit of Hermione andTrelawne In-Reply-To: <009901c62ffe$78e2b580$6e7e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148018 > Magpie: This issue is not as complicated as > it's being made. Yes, Hermione likes Lupin as a teacher and does not defend > Snape's every action in the class. That's not the point. The point is that > Snape has a certain level of competence that is a given and that is not > questioned by any student, including Hermione. They complain about things > he does in class, they complain about things in his class. But neither > Hermione nor anyone else doubts Snape the way certain other teachers are > doubted (though people fight the text on that too). Alla: Well, actually my initial point was specifically trying to rebute the argument that Hermione DEFENDS Snape as a teacher through the books. The argument was being made many times that Hermione's support of Snape should be seen as evidence (not exclusive, but one of the proofs) that he is good teacher. I am not saying that Snape does not have a certain level of competence, I said that he KNOWS his subjects. What I AM saying is that the argument as it was made in the past(not what you argue now, I am not even saying that you made this argument) - that Hermione DEFENSE of Snape can be used as proof of him being a good teacher has no canon support in my view. I spend several hours yesterday looking through five books (HAHA, yes, I have other things to do too) granted I did not look carefully through HBP, because it was too late by that time and failed to locate a quote which would support Hermione defending Snape as a teacher. Hermione defends his loyalty to Dumbledore, that she does, but defending Snape as a teacher, not that I could see. Of course, your argument is valid that JKR does not have book page or that we can infer that Hermione thinks Snape is Okay, etc. All that I am saying that now I am pretty sure that the argument of Hermione specifically defending Snape is weak at best and possibly not even substantiated at all. Of course I could have missed something. I am not comparing Snape with any other teachers right now, I just see no proof in the books that Hermione thinks BETTER of Snape than any other teachers excluding Trelawney and Hagrid and in the case of Trelawney, I am getting more and more convinced that it has more to do with subject than with the teacher and I am NOT calling Trelawney a good teacher either, I just think that Hermione calling her an old fraud may not be substantiated at the end either. Magpie: > No, Hermione probably would not have liked Divination no matter who was > teaching it, but yes, she probably would have shown respect for Firenze that > she does not show for Trelawney because Trelawney is a fraud. Alla: She calls Firenze a "horse". I don't see it as proof of respect, quite the contrary. Magpie: Sometimes she > makes real predictions and is not being a fraud, but in her class she makes > predictions that are blatantly untrue, sometimes in order to > passive-aggressively insult people and Harry and Ron submit homework that's > completely made up. Alla: It had been argued that what Trelawney "sees" is actually true for the most part, but she misinterprets what she 'sees". If that is true, I don't think that she is a fraud. She just lacks Seer's talent to correctly interpret her predictions. Magpie: She sometimes gets emotional in class and takes it out > on students, iirc. Alla: That she does of course, that is why I don't call her a good teacher. Magpie: I think Hermione would probably lack respect for > Trelawney no matter what she was teaching. Alla: On that I am having big doubts. I think that if Trelawney was teaching something Hermione had more faith in, Hermione would have had very little problems with her as a teacher. But I am just speculating of course. Hermione was able to tolerate Professor Binns teaching after all. Magpie: Snape definitely has problems as a teacher, which Rowling has even > spelled out in interviews: when he's picking on kids and abusing his power, > the kids see through him. When Snape is picking on Harry, he is not being a > teacher. Alla: You mean Snape not being a teacher when he picks on Harry in metaphorical sense? If so I agree, but if you mean that he only picks on Harry during the time he is not teaching, I disagree. JMO, Alla From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 19:23:34 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:23:34 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148019 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Randy wrote: > > Lupin "pines for the Moon" (pines for la lune). > > Carol responds: > My apologies for the huge snips, but I'm not really interested in the > idea that the HP books are an allegorical exploration of the seven > deadly sins. They may be *applicable* to the story, but to see the > whole story as an allegory seems to me a reductionist approach. > > However, I did want to comment on this one point. Lupin doesn't "pine > for" the moon; he fears and hates it. The full moon is his Boggart > because it represents his fear of the painful monthly transformation > (which could have lethal consequences if he bites someone). > > The name Lupin is a respelling of "lupine" (wolflike, from Latin > lupus, "wolf") and is a clue, along with Remus (one of the legendary > twins Romulus and Remus who were raised by a she-wolf) that he's a > werewolf. SNIP Yes, I have read the posts from 2000 that discovered that Remus (latin founder of Rome raised by wolves) Lupin ( from lupine = wolflike) was named to be a werewolf. Thank you for reminding me. You have forced me to abandon my laziness and take action to find the better answer. I was trying to tie sloth to Lupin with pining for the moon like a wolf howls at the moon. However, you have made me try harder, and I found something on the internet to make the connection from Norse mythology being written about by Dr. Deva Shastry . If you see this link about sloth and wolves and Fenrir . http://www.mmedia.is/odsmal/gleipnir,eotens.html You will see a connection with wolves and sloth. The wolf god Fenrir (symbol of evilness of mankind) was being tested to show his strength by breaking the fetters put on him. The fetter Dromi (inertness, sleepiness) and Laedingur (sloth, indecisiveness) were place upon Fenrir. He easily got out from under them. Lupin, the werewolf shows Harry Potter how to overcome his inability to act against the Dementors. This link also speaks about negativity (eotens= eaters) that act against the sacred realm in men. My take on this is the discussion of the seven deadly sins versus the seven virtues. They treat this as battling gods of creativity and negativity. Randy From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Feb 12 19:32:22 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:32:22 -0000 Subject: What Hermione thinks of Snape as a teacher (LONG)/ a bit of Hermione andTrel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148020 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > I am not comparing Snape with any other teachers right now, I just > see no proof in the books that Hermione thinks BETTER of Snape than > any other teachers excluding Trelawney and Hagrid and in the case of > Trelawney, I am getting more and more convinced that it has more to > do with subject than with the teacher and I am NOT calling Trelawney > a good teacher either, I just think that Hermione calling her an old > fraud may not be substantiated at the end either. Gerry Well, unless you believe that she truly knows Lavender's rabbit will get killed and that she truly foresees Neville breaking the blue cup instead of that being sheer psychology, and if you truly think greeting every class with death omens is a sign of someone being competent in their subject... I would think that a competent teacher would also spot when students make up their homework instead of really trying. So yes, old fraud seems a good definition here. > Alla: > > She calls Firenze a "horse". I don't see it as proof of respect, > quite the contrary. Gerry I see that more as being fed up with the star eyed divinations adorers who are so very impressed because he is handsome. > > Alla: > > It had been argued that what Trelawney "sees" is actually true for > the most part, but she misinterprets what she 'sees". If that is > true, I don't think that she is a fraud. She just lacks Seer's > talent to correctly interpret her predictions. Gerry Well, the only thing which remotely comes to mind is the Grim. And I think it is a huge leap between Sirius and his later death and a vague shape in a teacup, especially because she picked Harry as her death omen victim for this year. She might impress Lavender and Parvati with her seeing that he has a deadly enemy, but as Hermione says: everybody knows that. > Alla: > > On that I am having big doubts. I think that if Trelawney was > teaching something Hermione had more faith in, Hermione would have > had very little problems with her as a teacher. But I am just > speculating of course. Gerry If Trelawny would have shown mastery of the subject instead of using psychological trickery and inability to spot fake homework she might have gotten some respect for the subject. Gerry From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 19:50:30 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:50:30 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148021 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Randy wrote: > > Lupin "pines for the Moon" (pines for la lune). > > Carol responds: > My apologies for the huge snips, but I'm not really interested in the > idea that the HP books are an allegorical exploration of the seven > deadly sins. They may be *applicable* to the story, but to see the > whole story as an allegory seems to me a reductionist approach. > SNIP SNIP SNIP While you may not be interested in the allegorical exploration, I was taught that studying the underlying themes and structure of literature gave insight into the actions of the characters and the plotline. For instance, the jealous actions of Hermione in Book Six that so many people find "out of character" could be explained by her need to be praised (a form of greed) in her grades and in her reactions to Harry in Potions class in this book. She also becomes jealous (a form of greed) of Lavender Brown and her relationship with Ron. Ron becomes jealous of the Slug Club meetings that he is not invited to. Draco becomes jealous of the Slug Club too because he is not being praised by Slughorn for his status. Tom Riddle says on page 271 " I knew was special" (he wants to get praise). On the same page,Dumbledore tells him; "You are a wizard." "Riddle lifted his head. His face was transfigured: There was a wild happiness upon it, yet for some reason it did not make him better looking: on the contrary, his finely carved features seemed somehow rougher, his experession almost bestial." Riddle's greed shines through! He has been given a form of praise for his special talents! One last comment...The structure and themes of this book series is important to anyone who wants to figure out the clues in the story. Voldemort splits his soul seven times and creates seven horcruxes. The seven sins are represented by these horcruxes. Harry and Dumbledore are trying to destroy the horcruxes in this symbolic battle for the soul. Horcrux List: 1. Diary is Envy (Tom Riddle Jr. envies Salazaar Slytherin) 2. Locket is Lust (Merope for Tom Riddle Sr.) 3. Ring might be Pride (Marvolo has excessive pride in his heritage) 4. Hufflepuff Cup is a symbol of Gluttony (Hepzibah Smith collects things she does not need) Anyone have ideas for Anger, Sloth, Greed ? From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Feb 12 19:58:04 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 12 Feb 2006 19:58:04 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 2/12/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1139774284.19.5563.m31@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148022 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday February 12, 2006 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Notes: Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last. To get into Chat, just go to the group online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu. If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat". Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in. If you have an Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 19:58:17 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:58:17 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148023 Carol earlier: > > Carol, who doesn't understand why Hermione has to be perfect. She > > still got eleven OWLs, a lot more than Harry or Ron. The only one > she didn't get was Divination, and that's because she dropped the > subject. > > Exodusts: > With the character that JKR has created, and given the events in the > world she has created, it is BOTH suddenly inconsistent AND suddenly > convenient for Hermione to be scoring an E instead of all Os. If it > was one or the other (e.g. Hermione had an E in a non-Owl, non-Newt > year and/or in a subject Harry was not outstanding in), we might > not even have noticed. Carol again: But aren't O, E, A, P, D, and T(!!) specifically OWL grades (marks), perhaps also used for NEWTs? They seem to be unfamiliar to HRH when George explains them in OoP. Do we have any indication of grades other than Pass, Fail, and perhaps High Pass in other years? And note that Hermione herself points out to Harry that he received a higher mark than she did in the only year when they were both tested by a competent DADA teacher (third year, with Lupin). So Hermione, who regards Harry as her superior in DADA skills (it was she who asked him to teach them DADA in their fifth year when Umbridge was their DADA "teacher"), is not surprised that he scored higher than she did on the DADA OWL. Why, then, should we doubt that he deserved to do so? If he had scored higher on the *Potions* OWL, I'd be surprised and displeased. But DADA is Harry's forte, as Transfiguration was his father's. (Hermione's I'm guessing, is Ancient Runes, and we haven't seen the results of her expertise yet.) AFAIK, there are *no* non-OWL subjects. There are twelve subjects total, not counting Flying in the first year, or Apparation lessons in the sixth. Evidently all the fifth-year students take OWLs in each subject they're taking, and everyone takes them in the core subjects (Charms, Transfiguration, Herbology, Potions, and DADA), which are required up till their fifth year, as well as in their own chosen electives (which for Harry and Ron are Divination, CoMC, and Astronomy). Hermione, who has to study for eleven OWLs, as opposed to Ron's and Harry's eight, is at a great disadvantage despite her intelligence and book knowledge. She has more exams to study for and less time to devote to each subject, not to mention less time for sleep. And as I keep pointing out, *she never had an opportunity to learn how to deal with a Boggart* (Lupin skips her in the Boggart lesson, just as he skips Harry) and consequently fails that part of her third-year DADA exam. Since the Boggart is also a component of the DADA OWL practical (Harry vanishes his perfectly), it stands to reason that she will yet again fail to vanish hers. She's had no practice--no special lessons from Lupin, no Boggart-banishing lessons from Harry in the DA. How is she supposed to learn to do a spell she has never had the opportunity to practice? If Hermione can't vanish a Boggart and a Boggart is a component of the practical DADA OWL, it stands to reason that she can't receive an Outstanding, which is reserved for students who perform every spell perfectly. That's what Outstanding means. Carol, wondering how Harry managed to make his Dementor Boggart ridiculous (or whether a really good student can skip that step and just vanish it without laughter, as Lupin seems to do on several occasions) From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Feb 12 19:59:32 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:59:32 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148024 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > > > While you may not be interested in the allegorical exploration, I was > taught that studying the underlying themes and structure of > literature gave insight into the actions of the characters and the > plotline. > > For instance, the jealous actions of Hermione in Book Six that so > many people find "out of character" could be explained by her need to > be praised (a form of greed) in her grades and in her reactions to > Harry in Potions class in this book. There is studying underlying themes and wishful thinking and fantasy. When you want to link books to the seven sins, why suddenly link jelousy to greed instead of seeing it as the expression of the sin of envy? I'm sorry, but I think you can make up cases for every sin and every virtue in every book and it will have nothing to do with true themes, but everything with seeing what you want to see. Gerry From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Feb 12 20:09:34 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:09:34 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148025 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Hermione, in contrast, has had the same poor teachers and very little > DADA experience--this is *before* the events in the DoM. She has only > the DA lessons with Harry and some experience with minor Dark > Creatures in Lupin's year. For some reason, she never had a chance to > face her Boggart in his class, and so she blew that part of the exam > in her third year. If a Boggart showed up on the OWL practical for her > as it did for Harry, she has never learned how to deal with it (Harry > doesn't bring any Boggarts into the RoM) and so she would fail it again. Allie now: Actually, knowing Hermione, she ran right to her books after she missed that question on Lupin's exam and read extensively about boggarts. She then practiced how to defeat a boggart all summer, because less than perfect us unacceptable to her. (So excited that my thread is still going! :) ) From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Feb 12 20:22:01 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:22:01 +0100 Subject: Teaching Styles References: Message-ID: <02b901c63011$fca86730$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148026 richter_kuymal wrote: > Possibly he would have addressed "differences" or "creativity" in > NEWT Potions, but there really isn't anything to indicate that. He > certainly isn't doing that in NEWT DADA either. Miles: We do have an indication: Snape only lets students with an "Outstanding" OWL into his NEWT classes. This seems to be extraordinary, we know from Flitwick, McGonagall and Slughorn that they think an "E" is sufficient. Snape's standards leads to very, very small NEWT classes - we see Slughorn's class with only ten students, so Snape would have just four or five. Assuming that Snape does not want few students because he is a lazy teacher, the only other reason is that he teaches his students very advanced potions and potion theory. Additionally, we know that Snape loves his subject - so he will at least bear to work with the small number of students that really begin to understand potion making. richter_kuymal wrote: > Snape may be DDM! but I don't think this extends to a willingness to > truly encourage brilliance in his students and IMO this is not a > teacher I would ever want to have or inflict on students. Miles: I disagree. Though, his standards are extremely high. So, a student has to be *really* brilliant to make someone like Snape interested in him or her. But (speculation) if he would find a student who shares his love and ambition for potion making, well, I guess he would like to teach and to learn at the same time. > Gerry > To me, it seems obvious that the problem is with the pupil. With > Neville. festuco wrote: > If that were the case, he would have difficulties in all his classes. > Yet he is fine with charms and is outstanding in herbology, not > exaclty a tame subject. And even with transformation he does not go to > pieces Miles: Neville is a bad student in either Transformation and Charms. He cannot join NEWT class in Transformation, and his performance in Charms - just have a look at canon: "Neville's aim was so poor that he kept accidentally sending much heavier things flying across the room - Professor Flitwick, for instance." (GoF 26, quote from the Lexicon) His performance in DADA was poor at the beginning of the DA lessons as well, but he then (and not before!) began to improve. Neville gains self-confidence in the course of the series, but in his first years he is described as clumsy in every single class with the only exception of Herbology. Miles From sopraniste at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 20:25:01 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:25:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060212202501.20129.qmail@web35615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148027 > Allie now: > > Actually, knowing Hermione, she ran right to her > books after she > missed that question on Lupin's exam and read > extensively about > boggarts. She then practiced how to defeat a > boggart all summer, > because less than perfect us unacceptable to her. > > (So excited that my thread is still going! :) ) Flop: And ignored the Decree for the Restriction of Underage Sorcery, did she?... Besides, where would she get her hands on a boggart over the summer? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Feb 12 20:29:43 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:29:43 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148028 > Snow: > "Also in the boggart lesson the shape of his object is referred to > (by Parvarti) as an orb but in the shack Lupin asks Hermione if she > noticed that his boggart was the full moon. So if his counter (or > the thing that he doesn't fear; his boggart) is the full moon > then the thing that the boggart saw as fear in him was an orb. > This also fits with why Lupin ran from Trelawney." > CH3ed: > Nah, I think Hermione had it right and Parvati wrong. Lupin's > boggart is the moon. I suspect he ran from Trelawney when she > offered to crystal ball for him more because he doesn't want her > seeing him as a werewolf in it. Jen: Hope this doesn't stray too far off canon, but Cuaron really messed up in POA if the 'silvery orb' isn't meant to be a moon. They made it plainly obvious in the boggart scene and hopefully JKR would have set such a big error straight. About Trelawney, I figured that scene was all misdirection making us more suspcicious Lupin had something to hide. Well, he *was* hiding the secret about Sirius being an animagus, but not the thing Snape accused him of about helping Sirius get into the castle. The Trelawney scene reminded me of the scene on the train when the Sneakoscope went off but it wasn't obvious yet that Pettigrew was the reason why. Lupin came off looking suspicious both times. About the cockroach thing, JKR must think they're funny as they show up again when Harry is surprised to learn the password for DD's office is 'cockroach cluster'. Is there some Scottish or British humour in cockroaches or what?? In Texas they are the size and heft of...well I can't think of a comparison but they're BIG, and after one time of putting your shoe on and feeling a roach in there you are too squicked out to laugh much. ;) Jen R., without much to add but saw POA last night and noticed the moon boggart. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 20:42:53 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:42:53 -0000 Subject: What Hermione thinks of Snape as a teacher (LONG)/ a bit of Hermione andTrel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148029 Alla wrote: > Besides, Hermione DOES criticize Snape's teaching skills, IMO of > course. I would say it is written in a very not contrived way. > > "Snape's never been like this with any of our other Defense against > the Dark Arts teachers, even if he did want the job," Harry said to > Hermione. "Why's he got it in for Lupin? D'you think this is all > because of the boggart?" > "I don't know," said Hermione pensively. "Bur I really hope > Professor Lupin gets better soon" ?PoA, p.173 > > I don't know about you, but as I said in my earlier post it really > seems to me that Hermione much prefers Remus to Snape as DADA > teacher. Carol responds: What the students object to when Snape takes over the DADA class, Consisting entirely of Gryffindors is some points deducted from their house because Snape regards Hermione as "an insufferable Know-It-All" (funny thing, so do they), because he is jumping to the end of the book to a chapter he knows they haven't read, and because he, a substitute teacher, is assigning a long essay on werewolves. Nevertheless, Hermione completes the assigned essay, complaining only when Lupin (who has his own reasons for their not learning about werewolves at his point) does *not* require them to turn it in. But Snape's reason for assigning it has nothing to do with being mean to students or with his competence or incompetence as a teacher. He wants someone, and almost certainly that someone is Hermione, to do the assignment and figure out exactly why Lupin is absent that day, an explanation which he pointedly does not give them himself (compare Grubbly-Plank's refusing to explain why Hagrid is absent). Hermione *did* learn from Snape in this instance, exactly as he intended, but like him, she keeps quiet about Lupin's secret for most of the year, revealing it to Harry and Ron only when they actually are in danger from werewolf!Lupin. > Alla: > And another one, which I want to repeat. > > "This was really unfair," said Hermione consolingly, sitting the > down next to Harry and helping herself to shepherd's pie. "Your > potion wasn't nearly as bad as Goyle's, when he put it in his flagon > the whole thing shattered and set his robes on fire" Carol responds: She is complaining about unfair point deductions, not an inability to learn from Snape. As she has aptly demonstrated, she listens in class (she learned from Snape what Polyjuice Potion was and which book to find it in, for example, and she always does well in his class--better, as has been pointed out, than in Slughorn's, despite Slughorn's jovial manner with *some* students and her inclusion in the Slug Club among Slughorn's favorites). Hermione gets an O on her Potions OWL despite his occasional sarcastic remarks to her. She knows that he knows his subject, and unlike Ron, she does not "have better things to do in Potions class than listen to Snape." > .. Alla: > "I did think he might be a bit better this year," said Hermione in a > disappointed voice. " I mean you know ." She looked carefully > around; there were half a dozen empty seats on either side of them > and nobody was passing the table" . Now he is in the Order and > everything." ? OOP, p.235 > > Erm... I did think he might be a bit better this year - sounds like > a criticism to me. > Carol: Better in terms of fairness, not in terms of what he has to teach and what she can learn from him. Can you show any evidence that Snape's teaching style has prevented Hermione from excelling at Potions, or explain why she does better in Snape's class than Slughorn's if Slughorn is the better teacher? (*Harry* does better in Slughorn's class because he's using *Snape's* own notes, and Slughorn is still using the same textbook that he used fifty years previously when he first started teaching, whereas Snape, in Potions class, hardly seems to be using the textbook at all--except as required reading for the detailed theoretical essays he assigns.) > Alla: > I am also saying that Hermione has very low threshold as to whom she > is ready to learn from. Trelawney seems to me like an exception NOT > a rule and really, I think that Hermione's mind indeed not well > suited for Divination. Carol responds: Hermione seems willing to learn from everyone except Trelawney (including Snape), even the boring Professor Binns, who puts everyone else to sleep in five minutes. She puts up with what she, Ron, and Harry all agree is Hagrid's bad teaching for friendship's sake until sixth year, when they all drop the course. Her walking out on Trelawney is exceptional (partly the result of her contempt for the subject, partly of Trelawney's saying that she isn't suited for it). I think that ego plays a part here; she's determined from Day One in Potions to show that she isn't a "dunderhead," but she has no such ambition to show that she has what it takes to be a Seer. Could her contempt for the class result in part from her lack of natural aptitude for it? I'm not saying that Trelawney is a good teacher, though perhaps she's less of an "old fraud" than HRH seem to think. But certainly she's fooled by Ron's and Harry's made-up dream diary and seems to think that bad things happening to her students makes them interesting. But I think we're seeing with Trelawney (and Luna) a type of thinking that Hermione doesn't understand, can't do herself, and consequently dismisses contemptuously. She does no such thing with Snape, whose logical mind she appreciates ("Brilliant!" she says of his riddle in SS/PS) and whose knowledge of the unquestionably useful subjects of Potions and DADA is undeniable. We do not see her walking out of his class or demeaning his subject, only occasionally complaining about his unfairness. That she listens to him and learns from him seems to me beyond dispute--in marked contrast to her behavior in Divination. Carol, who will be interested in seeing how well Hermione casts nonverbal DADA spells in Book 7 From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 20:56:34 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:56:34 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148030 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > > > > > > While you may not be interested in the allegorical exploration, I was > > taught that studying the underlying themes and structure of > > literature gave insight into the actions of the characters and the > > plotline. > > > > For instance, the jealous actions of Hermione in Book Six that so > > many people find "out of character" could be explained by her need to > > be praised (a form of greed) in her grades and in her reactions to > > Harry in Potions class in this book. > > There is studying underlying themes and wishful thinking and fantasy. > When you want to link books to the seven sins, why suddenly link > jelousy to greed instead of seeing it as the expression of the sin of > envy? I'm sorry, but I think you can make up cases for every sin and > every virtue in every book and it will have nothing to do with true > themes, but everything with seeing what you want to see. > > Gerry > You know you are right. I mispoke on this one. Perhaps a definition of greed would help. Hermione is not getting enough attention from Ron or Slughorn in Potions Class. GREED One of the seven chief features, or stumbling blocks. Its positive pole is egotism; its negative pole is voracity. It is caused by a fear of not having enough of a particular thing, such as money, food, sex, or attention. And yes all of the seven deadlies are related to each other. That is why I think the names of the books and the names of the DADA teachers are important. Randy From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Feb 12 21:10:56 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:10:56 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148031 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > You know you are right. I mispoke on this one. Perhaps a definition > of greed would help. > > Hermione is not getting enough attention from Ron or Slughorn in > Potions Class. > > GREED Well, as she is angry because Harry gets undeserved praise while in fact she is the better student, this example is to me one more illustration that it is not so much what is there but what people want to find. To illustrate: Book 1: Philospher's Stone GREED: wanting eternal life instead of being satisfied with one's true lifespan. Book 2: Chamer of Secrets GREED: Diary Tom wanting to dominate and kill Harry Potter Book 3:Prisoner of Azkaban GREED: The dementors greedy for all that happiness during the Quidditch match. Book 4:Goblet of Fire GREED: Mme Maxine and Karakov wanting their pupils to win, greedy for succes. Book 5:Order of the Phoenix Greed: Umbridge greedy for more and more power Book 6 Half Blood Prince Greed: Mr. Greed, Slughorn alsways looking out for promising students to collect to his stall. I could easily make cases for the other sins in all the books. Does that mean JKR meant that and did couple sins to books or characters? I don't think so. I'm sure I can fit in the eight-fold path of Buddhism as well, or something similar from Islam. Gerry, who thinks these things are fun, but not to be taken too seriously From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 21:25:30 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:25:30 -0000 Subject: Significance of the term "Dark Lord" (Was:: The Prophecy and Its Reference to LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148032 > Ceridwen: > > The term 'Dark Lord' could just be a designation, as > in 'dictator', 'president', 'CEO', 'clerk'. I'm not sure if > Grindelwald is referred to as a Dark Lord, or a Dark Wizard, but > either one would be the same, I think. Like Hitler's 'Fuhrer' was a > generic sort of term that he apparently liked and had people use. > Or, more to my taste, 'Fearless Leader' in the Rocky and Bullwinkle > cartoons. That can't be his name, and he wasn't truly 'fearless'. > But it's what he liked his minions to call him. We know what > a 'fearless leader' is, it's generic. But we know 'Fearless Leader' > as a specific character in a cartoon as well. > a_svirn: Well, certainly it's generic, but this is a kind of accretion that raises more questions than it answers. To what kind of context this generic name refers? Does it mean that there has been a long line of Dark Lords to whom Voldemort succeeded? If so, were they all trying to achieve immortality (and failed)? If they didn't try to achieve immortality, then what were they about? Does the term "Dark" imply that there is also a "Light Lord" somewhere? Does the term "Lord" imply that his Death Eaters are bound to him by some sort of feudal allegiance? Or does it mean that they regard him as a supernatural being they worship (a kind of Satanist cult)? Or both? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 23:00:17 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:00:17 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148033 > >>Renee: > If I'm not mistaken, you don't attach much importance to JKR's own > comments. Betsy Hp: I don't place too much importance on her *interviews*. But I place a massive amount of importance on canon. (It's how I earned my LOON badge .) So yes, when someone decides that Snape is threatening Trevor because he gets a sexual charge, a perverse enjoyment, out of Neville's fear I look to the text to see if JKR has used any words to show Snape feeling that level of enjoyment. And she uses "coldly" and "glittering". Neither word suggests Snape is hiding a hard-on while watching Neville squirm. > >>Renee: > But now that you're bringing her into the discussion anyway, > I'd like to point out again that she's the one who called Snape `a > sadistic teacher', without qualification. > Betsy Hp: Yes, but that was a throw away comment. I honestly don't think she meant he got a sexual charge out of tormenting students. (It would rather kill the ambiguousness of his character she's tried so hard to build up, IMO.) I also suspect that JKR was using a more informal meaning for sadistic, synonymous with mean, nasty, and unfair. I get the sense that when people on this list lable Snape a sadist, they're going for the orignial Marquis De Sade meaning. > >>Renee: > But you can't maintain she didn't intend Snape to be > sadistic because Umbridge is a sadist. There's no reason whatsoever > why the series shouldn't contain two sadistic teachers, each with > their own personal brand of sadism. Betsy Hp: Of course not. I suspect Fake!Moody was a sadist as well. He seemed to rather relish beating Draco. And he held that spider under the Crucio curse, letting Neville suffer, until Hermione finally screamed at him to stop. But that wasn't my point at all. I was showing that JKR is quite capable of showing a character get pleasure out of causing another character pain. She made that very clear, IMO, with Umbridge. Yet, she described Snape as cold and glittery. He never even cracked a smile. > >>Renee: > Personally, I do see Snape's sadism quite clearly. The Trevor > incident is sadism, because Neville is obvioulsy terrified. > Betsy Hp: But that would mean Hagrid is a sadist for terrifying the Dursleys, the twins are sadists for terrifying the Dursleys, Harry is a sadist for terrifying the Dursleys (poor Dursleys!)... Merely scaring someone doesn't make one a sadist. There *must* be pleasure involved. And even then it really needs to be of a specific sort, a real enjoyment in seeing someone suffering. For example, I do not think Harry is a sadist because he enjoyed watching Draco get beaten by a teacher. I think Umbridge is a sadist because of the intensity of her enjoyment while watching Harry hurt himself. > >>Shaun: > > The point is I don't believe it is an example of sadism. I've > > seen truly sadistic teachers in action - and Snape doesn't even > > come close. And I've had teachers who were very like Snape in > > their actions, and they were not sadistic. > >>Gerry: > Well, JKR calls Snape sadistic, almost everybody who reads the toad > scene calls whar happens sadistic. I can only conclude you have a > very strange view of sadism. Betsy Hp: Sadism: Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Marquis De *Sade* 1: a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others (as on a love object) 2a: delight in cruelty b: excessive cruelty [From Merriam-Webster Online http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sadism ] There are two ways to use the word. One is rather casual and this is how I suspect JKR was using the word in her interview. Snape can be a rather nasty person, and is usually pleased to catch Harry in wrong-doing. That can be described as sadistic. Just as Harry's daydream about smashing Snape's head in with a cauldron could also be described in casual terms as sadistic. However, I get the sense that those calling Snape a sadist on the list really do think he's getting a sexual charge out of threatening Neville. That he'd love to put Harry under a Crucio for a while and watch him scream. And sure, there are lots of people who see Snape this way. (Though I seriously doubt your "almost everyone" Gerry. We Snape fans are plentiful .) But heck, there are a lot of people who think Draco races around the Slytherin dungeon in nothing by tight leather pants ready to plop down in the lap of any willing pure-blood. Popularity don't make it canon. Which is why I go back to the words used in the scene. And JKR, somewhat uncharacteristically, is very sparse with her descriptors when it comes to Snape. She uses two, one for each scene. If she honestly wanted to make it as obvious as some seem to think it is, she could have easily made Snape's pleasure clear. As she does later on with Umbridge. While I have my own opinions, I think JKR is very neutral here. She leaves the scene open to interpertation and Snape remains, as always, ambiguous. Betsy Hp From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Sun Feb 12 22:31:04 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:31:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060212223104.40385.qmail@web37006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148034 potioncat wrote: > BTW, and for a sort of HP reason, does anyone know the > Gaelic word for seal? The Scots Gaelic (which is different from the Irish Gaelic) word is "Silkie". Cat From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 23:14:14 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:14:14 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > SNIP SNIP > > I could easily make cases for the other sins in all the books. Does > that mean JKR meant that and did couple sins to books or characters? I > don't think so. I'm sure I can fit in the eight-fold path of Buddhism > as well, or something similar from Islam. > > Gerry, who thinks these things are fun, but not to be taken too seriously > You know, I don't have to disagree with you. From the internet, I just found this about Buddhism. "In Buddhism there are six realms of samsaric existence that beings are born into. The cycle is perpetrated by ignorance, greed, pride, anger and jealousy." Voldemort split his soul seven times and made horcruxes. It's about the battle for the soul. What things affect the soul? The characters tend to personify these traits. Morfin is slothful. Marvolo has alot of pride. Dudley eats like a pig. Greed, pride, anger, sloth (ignorance), jealousy (envy), and some throw in gluttony. Forgive me for thinking that JKR might structure the whole series around these themes. She just emphasizes a point in each one. Harry has to learn to overcome them all. Randy From littleleah at handbag.com Sun Feb 12 23:53:38 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:53:38 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148036 Jen R wrote:: >About the cockroach thing, JKR must think they're funny as they show >up again when Harry is surprised to learn the password for DD's >office is 'cockroach cluster'. Is there some Scottish or British >humour in cockroaches or what?? In Texas they are the size and heft >of...well I can't think of a comparison but they're BIG, and after >one time of putting your shoe on and feeling a roach in there you >are too squicked out to laugh much. ;) Here in the UK, they're just not about in homes in the same numbers as in the States- when I encountered them on a visit to NY about 20 years ago, I'd never seen one before. I think that with increased central heating, fast food etc that is changing, but they're not a day to day occurence for most people here. IIRC, cockroach cluster was one of the flavours available in a box of choolates which featured in a Monty Python sketch (another was crunchy frog), so possibly the name emerged from JKR's subconscious or DD was a Python fan. Lupin (if he ever had access to muggle TV) would certainly have been the right sort of age to appreciate the show. Leah (tongue in cheek). From catlady at wicca.net Mon Feb 13 00:06:58 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:06:58 -0000 Subject: Trelawney/BlameGame/AKpractise/CupInCave/Umbridge/OneHanded/Boggart-Dementor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148037 Kchuplis wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147854 : << The last time through OoTP and HBP I got the distinct impression that Trelawney's mutterings in the hallway while shuffling cards etc. may show more "sight" than previously believed. >> Yes! << "Two of spades: conflict," she murmured, as she passed the place where Harry crouched, hidden. "Seven of spades: an ill omen. Ten of spades: violence. Knave of spades: a dark young man, possibly troubled, one who dislikes the questioner ?" She stopped dead, right on the other side of Harry's statue. "Well, that can't be right," she said, annoyed, >> "A dark young man, possibly troubled, one who dislikes the questioner" might or might not have anything to do with the knave of spades, but it is Trelawney picking up Harry's presence near. "The questione" is herself, and Harry is troubled and does dislike her. "Well, that can't be right" is because she refuses to believe that anyone could dislike her. << HAPPY ! not happen. I give up. >> What a way to use one three posts for the day! Steve bboyminn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147863 : << In fact, everyone is so busy trying to look good while making everyone else look bad that nothing ever gets done because to do the job is to risk failure. It really is a wonderful insight into an alternate world of magicians. >> It is also a common way for real life businesses and bureaucracies to fail, caused by higher levels of management who put too much effort into punishing failure and not enough into rewarding success. An employee who puts their effort into actually FIXING whatever went wrong is not putting effort into batting off all the blame that is flying around like a Bludger and therefore gets hit by it and punished, possibly fired, making one less person to try to fix the next snafu that happens. Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147892 : << thinking that an AK, like any other spell, would require practice to master and wondering what the Durmstrang kids practiced on >> Maybe foxes, like the poor beast Bellatrix killed on the way to Snape's house. Maybe cute little kittens and puppies, to demonstrate their evilness. Tonks_op wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147906 : << HBP: In the cave DD drinks the poison from a cup. >> Last night Tim listened to the part of his cassette where Dumbledore tells Harry about the six Horcruxes, and Tim turned to me and asked: "Was that Hufflepuff's cup in the green potion in the cave?" I don't recall anyone having suggested that before. << HBP: After DD's death the glass Gryffindor hour glass had been hit by a curse and the rubies were falling out onto the floor. Some had suggested that this meant that this was the death rattle of Hogwarts. I suggest that it might also be the disguised version of the "veil in the temple being torn in two", which happened at the death of Jesus. >> But it MUST have been spilled blood, because otherwise it could have been one of the other, non-ruby (Rubeus?), hourglasses that broke. Ffred wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147924 : << Though [Umbridge]'s never actually referred to as (say) Junior Minister or even Deputy Minister. >> She is "Senior Undersecretary to the Minister". Her power comes not from her official position in the org chart, but from her control of the man at the top of the org chart. This is called 'the power behind the throne' and what Lucius Malfoy thought he was going to be when Voldemort conquered. Ceridwen wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147941 : << Why do stories about people with silver hands always involve one-eyed warrior types? >> Georges Dumezil claimed that the original tribe that spoke Proto-Indo-European and whose descendents wandered off to become the Vedic and Hellenic and Latin and Teuton and Celtic and Slavic people had a myth about a one-handed hero and a one-eyed hero, who turn up as Nuadha and Balor, as Tyr and Odin, and as early ROman 'historical' figures whose details I have forgotten. However, I think Pettigrew's hand is made of ectoplasm and only LOOKS silver. Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148023 : << wondering how Harry managed to make his Dementor Boggart ridiculous (or whether a really good student can skip that step and just vanish it without laughter, as Lupin seems to do on several occasions) >> He made the one in the Triwizard maze trip over its own robe. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 00:18:14 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:18:14 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148038 Potioncat wrote: "The Hogwarts staff had been told about Lupin. (I wish I had the canon for it, but I don't recall where in PoA it shows up.) Which makes McGonagall's barb all the sharper when she says Trelawney should have known Lupin was ill. She should have known even without her inner eye." CH3ed: You're right indeed! I totally forgot. I think it was in canon in the Shrieking Shack scene where Hermione was outraged with Lupin hugging Sirius and screamed that she had kept his being a werewolf a secret. Lupin then told her the staff were told of it. Thanks Leah for the bit about the Monty Python's cockroach cluster!! That might just be it. I'll have to go raid the local video store looking for that episode. Jen R. is right about Cuaron showing Lupin's boggart to be unmistakably a full moon in the PoA film. I really disliked the movie version of it. In the film Harry actually got to face the boggart (which then really turned into a dementor) briefly before Lupin realized it... Nothing like the cool Lupin of the text who had anticipated the matter before the start of the class and pre-solved it by having both Harry and Hermione answer questions before letting boggarts out without letting them face the monster (so he had good excuse for giving them the points like the rest of the class). Tho I do like the movie Lupin deflating the moon to get rid of it more than the text of having it turned into a cockroach (because I still don't get the joke there). CH3ed :O) wonders if Lupin didn't find the practice boggart while looking around Filch's office for the confiscated Marauders' Map. From rkdas at charter.net Mon Feb 13 00:33:12 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:33:12 -0000 Subject: Fun with doxy eggs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148039 Hi guys, I have been listening to HPB for a week now and I am really getting into the nooks and crannys and thought you all could weigh in on this little tidbit I found. Here goes: Remember the try-outs for keeper? And Cormac McLaggen's throw-away line about why he didn't try out for keeper the previous year? "I was in the hospital wing when they held trials," said McLaggen with something of a swagger. "Ate a pound of doxy eggs for a bet." p.223 Scholastic Books ed. That line somehow jumped out at me and then I remembered, the Weasleys and Harry cleaned out doxies at 12 Grimauld Place! And the twins pocketed some for their poison (for use in Skiving Snackboxes). How hard would it have been to collect some eggs? I just have this funny little feeling that despite the show of derision they put on for Ron, that the twins had a hand in that doxy egg bet! Not earth-shattering but what a laugh! Jen D. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Feb 13 00:46:42 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:46:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . References: Message-ID: <017f01c63036$fcb89400$6e7e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 148040 Randy: > Forgive me for thinking that JKR might structure the whole series > around these themes. She just emphasizes a point in each one. Harry > has to learn to overcome them all. Magpie: But she doesn't emphasize a point in each one, you've just chosen to focus on one or the other in each book. For instance, why is greed/jealousy (though jealousy is actually envy, not greed) the subject for HBP? You've claimed, for instance, that Draco and Ron are jealous of the Slug Club, but in fact both of those characters are notably less jealous than they've been in the past. Draco is annoyed when Slughorn is obviously favoring Harry (as are Hermione and Ernie) but he gets over being excluded pretty easily and is even willing to pretend to be jealous to cover up his real agenda. And if you're looking for a book about Ron being jealous, that would be GoF far more than HBP. And as for the horcruxes, why is the diary envy? Tom doesn't envy Slytherin, he's Slytehrin's heir. Why is the ring pride and not anger, since Tom killed his family out of anger? Why is the cup gluttony and not lust when Hepzibah lusted after Riddle? Why is the locket lust and not envy with Merope envying Cecelia and Tom Riddle? Personally, I like looking at some of the books as centering more on the house qualities--PoA=Gryffindor, GoF=Hufflepuff, OotP=Ravenclaw and HBP=Slytherin, but even there I wouldn't claim it's an allegory (though it's more allegorical at times, such as the way in PoA Harry's facing Dementors, which is fear itself, and boggarts, who personify your worst fear, and the core value of Gryffindor is courage). I do think there's a lot more in each of those books based around that idea. An allegory would mean that certain things or people literally *are* these sins, and I'm not seeing that. > Alla: > I am not comparing Snape with any other teachers right now, I just > see no proof in the books that Hermione thinks BETTER of Snape than > any other teachers excluding Trelawney and Hagrid and in the case of > Trelawney, I am getting more and more convinced that it has more to > do with subject than with the teacher and I am NOT calling Trelawney > a good teacher either, I just think that Hermione calling her an old > fraud may not be substantiated at the end either. Magpie: But there IS proof that Hermione thinks better of Snape than she thinks of these two, because we hear Hermione doubt the competence of these two in ways she doesn't doubt Snape. As do Ron and Harry doubt the competency of these two without doubting Snape's, even while criticizing things he does. > Magpie: >> No, Hermione probably would not have liked Divination no matter > who was >> teaching it, but yes, she probably would have shown respect for > Firenze that >> she does not show for Trelawney because Trelawney is a fraud. > > Alla: > > She calls Firenze a "horse". I don't see it as proof of respect, > quite the contrary. Magpie: She makes no comment on Firenze's teaching one way or another. She's never had him as a teacher. Hermione's "horse" remark is strictly about his looks. Lavender and Parvati are saying she probably regrets dropping the class now that there's a hot teacher, and Hermione is saying four legs and a tail don't turn her on. > Alla: > > It had been argued that what Trelawney "sees" is actually true for > the most part, but she misinterprets what she 'sees". If that is > true, I don't think that she is a fraud. She just lacks Seer's > talent to correctly interpret her predictions. Magpie: Well, we can argue anything we want, no matter how strange, but most of the stuff Trelawney has predicted in this way has not happened and her predictions are a bit too convenient to really suggest she's seeing things honestly--in fact, it seems like there's usually clear signs when she's faking and when she isn't. She also praises Harry and Ron for coming up with nonsense for homework. She's definitely made real predictions, but she's often made a lot of fake ones. She's only in control of the fake ones. > Alla: > > On that I am having big doubts. I think that if Trelawney was > teaching something Hermione had more faith in, Hermione would have > had very little problems with her as a teacher. But I am just > speculating of course. > > Hermione was able to tolerate Professor Binns teaching after all. Magpie: I do think the subject comes into it, but if Trelawney taught Charms the same way she teaches Divinations I can't imagine Hermione wouldn't be just as livid: praising Ron and Harry's made-up homework? Faking her own demonstrations in ways that were obvious? Nobody ever getting any real results in the class and her claiming they had gotten results? I can't see Hermione standing for it. Hermione finds Binns interesting at times, because he is at least droning on about actual information. > Magpie: > Snape definitely has problems as a teacher, which Rowling has even >> spelled out in interviews: when he's picking on kids and abusing > his power, >> the kids see through him. When Snape is picking on Harry, he is > not being a >> teacher. > > > Alla: > > You mean Snape not being a teacher when he picks on Harry in > metaphorical sense? If so I agree, but if you mean that he only > picks on Harry during the time he is not teaching, I disagree. Magpie: I meant it the first way. When Snape is picking on Harry he is abandoning the basic requirements of his job and acting not like a teacher but like another student. By which I don't mean that we can't judge him as a teacher during those times, because of course he's supposed to be teaching then. It would be bad enough for Snape to treat Harry like that outside of school, but the fact that he's doing it when in the position of a teacher makes it worse. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 13 00:49:56 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:49:56 -0000 Subject: Gaelic Prince? Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: <20060212223104.40385.qmail@web37006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148041 Saberbunny answered: > The Scots Gaelic (which is different from the Irish Gaelic) > word is "Silkie". > Potioncat: OK, here it is, a runaway over analysis of all things Potter. Not too long ago it was suggested that rather than looking like a giant bat, Snape more likely resembles a Hebridean Black Dragon. In a rather futile attempt to broaden my reading interests, I turned back to some Mary Stewart books. (Loved her Merlin books!) Th particular book I was reading takes place in the Hebrides and there is a little island, mentioned over and over, named Eilean na Roin. (Seal Island) I've no idea if the island is real, though I doubt it, but the similarity to the name Eileen caught my attention. If I Google the name, I get lots of hits....all in Gaelic. So, any thoughts that Eileen could be Eilean and could come from the Hebrides? Potioncat who now thinks Half blood Lupin also spent time in a Muggle neighborhood and watched Monty Python. Just as Sevvie probably watched "Bewitched." From ssattar5 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 23:45:54 2006 From: ssattar5 at yahoo.com (ssattar5) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:45:54 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148042 > > Sydney: > > -- Book 7 will be a magic Tardis book, fitting all this stuff in and > > yet being shorter than OoP, according to JKR. I think Rowling is seriously mistaken if she thinks she can tie everything together and make book 7 smaller than order of the phoenix. Seems, sort of impossible, unless she is going to leave out a whole bunch of things and leave them unfinished (a terrible thing to do). I think it will be the longest book. I hope it will be the longest book. I can't believe it there is only one more book left in the series. It'll be over before we know it (tear). Ssattar5 From ssattar5 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 12 23:48:52 2006 From: ssattar5 at yahoo.com (ssattar5) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:48:52 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148043 > > >>Renee: > > Personally, I do see Snape's sadism quite clearly. The Trevor > > incident is sadism, because Neville is obvioulsy terrified. > > > Ssattar5: Sadist is a very strong word to use. He is unfair, horrible, terrible, but a sadist..well I am not sure. It's just a very strong word. Hitler was a sadist. Is Snape as bad as Hitler. I think not. > Renee: > > Maybe JKRs tolerance treshhold for sadism is low. But it's obvious > to > > me that she means Snape to be sadistic, and this, again is a > possible > > indication of where she'll be taking him in the last book. > > Ssattar5 wrote: Really interesting analysis of Snape and his brand of sadism. However, Umbridge is far more horrible and sadistic than Snape, no doubt about that. Ssattar5 From logic_alley at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 03:30:33 2006 From: logic_alley at yahoo.com (logic_alley) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 03:30:33 -0000 Subject: Gaelic Prince? Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148044 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Saberbunny answered: > > The Scots Gaelic (which is different from the Irish Gaelic) > > word is "Silkie". > > > > > > Potioncat: > OK, here it is, a runaway over analysis of all things Potter. > > Not too long ago it was suggested that rather than looking like a > giant bat, Snape more likely resembles a Hebridean Black Dragon. > > In a rather futile attempt to broaden my reading interests, I turned > back to some Mary Stewart books. (Loved her Merlin books!) Th > particular book I was reading takes place in the Hebrides and there > is a little island, mentioned over and over, named Eilean na Roin. > (Seal Island) > > I've no idea if the island is real, though I doubt it, but the > similarity to the name Eileen caught my attention. If I Google the > name, I get lots of hits....all in Gaelic. > > So, any thoughts that Eileen could be Eilean and could come from the > Hebrides? I love the word connections in HP and anything is possible, but I just want to add these facts into the mix: Eilean is "island". It would be pronounced a bit like "island" without the "d" - sort of like "eye-lan" rather than eye-lean. Roin is seal. Eileen is usually translated as meaning "light" and deriving from Greek "Helen". So, it's not really a clear hint for "Hebrides". Even if the Eileen - island connection is meant, it could be any Scottish island, such as the Isle of Skye. From kchuplis at alltel.net Mon Feb 13 03:49:15 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:49:15 -0600 Subject: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148045 OK, at the dueling club meeting Snape whispers something to Malfoy when they are just supposed to be disarming. On the count of two instead of 3, Malfoy throws the serpensatia spell creating the snake. What was it Snape whispered to Malfoy? Do you think he gave him the spell? Why? It certainly revealed a lot about HP to him. If he is ESE!Snape, that would be a juicy tidbit for the Dark Lord. Just interesting that that "whisper" was deliberately inserted by the author. Red herring? Maybe. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 04:56:34 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:56:34 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148046 > Ssattar5 wrote: > Really interesting analysis of Snape and his brand of sadism. > However, Umbridge is far more horrible and sadistic than Snape, no > doubt about that. > Neri: I'd put it differently. I'd say Snape's sadism is far subtler than that of Umbridge ("subtlety" is something Snape is proud of) but that doesn't necessary make it less horrible. In our modern days when the cane isn't allowed anymore, there's a tendency to always see physical abuse as much worse than emotional one, but this is not necessarily so. Kids will frequently find it easier to overcome some forms of physical abuse than emotional one. I suspect that when Harry had to cut his own hand with a magic quill in Umbridge's detention, he was actually suffering much less than Neville when he had to cut and disembowel a barrel full of toads in Snape's detention (GoF, Ch. 14). And of course, Snape knew that Neville's pet is a toad and that Neville would come out of this detention "in a state of nervous collapse". Subtlety here means knowing your victim's personal vulnerabilities and exploiting them to hurt him the most, something that Umbridge really weren't very good at, if she thought to break Harry by making him cut his hand. Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148011 > Personally, I think Snape is some kind of emotional vampire ( HAHA - > I know he is not a real one of course). He feeds on the negative > emotions of his students. This is out landish speculation of course, > nothing more, but it somehow ties for me with Snape being DE in the > past and trying to figure out again ( we did have discussions in the > past about it) what part of death Death Eaters are really eating - > really or metaphorically. > > Maybe they feed their magic on people's fears? > > Wasn't it Neri who speculated something to that effect? That DD lets > Snape "feed" on his students' fears as long as he does not "eat" too > much. I maybe awfully confused here. Neri: Yes, well, this was one of many outlandish speculations from those pre-Horcrux days, when we still asked ourselves how would Voldy be immortal in a thematic way. It really should have been obvious that he simply split his soul into seven parts and hidden them in magic trinkets for the hero to find. Now why didn't we think of that? But unexpectedly JKR found another way to suggest Snape's sadism. Not only she showed him using an Unforgivable, but also taunting Harry about his inability to use them, much as Bellatrix did in the MoM battle. And as Bella told us then, the Unforgivables require sadism in order to work. Neri From sopraniste at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 05:22:53 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:22:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Horcruxes (was: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060213052253.83295.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148047 > Neri: > Yes, well, this was one of many outlandish > speculations from those > pre-Horcrux days, when we still asked ourselves how > would Voldy be > immortal in a thematic way. It really should have > been obvious that he > simply split his soul into seven parts and hidden > them in magic > trinkets for the hero to find. Now why didn't we > think of that? To be fair, I distinctly remember someone mentioning "the old heart/soul in a box trick" at some point, probably shortly after OotP came out. It was batted around briefly and then allowed to subside. Does anyone else remember this. I think it was very shortly after I joined the list.... Flop __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Feb 13 06:09:28 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (Schlobin at aol.com) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:09:28 EST Subject: wizard geneology Message-ID: <276.4c18fc1.31217c98@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148048 Okay, so my partner and I have figured out genetic theory in the Potterverse. Let's call the gene M for Magick. In order to be a witch/wizard you must have one Magick gene. You can have one to four Magick genes....1 - 2 from each parent. The more Magick genes you have the more potentially powerful a witch or wizard. A bunch of Muggles have one M gene, but never figure it out because they have Muggle parents, and their magic is not very strong so it doesn't manifest itself on its own. They never get a wand, and without a wand and training never do magic. If they marry someone with 1 M, they are more likely to have a child with 2 Ms, whose magic might manifest itself so that they get picked for Hogwarts, and get training. If you DO have parents who are a witch or a wizard and one Magick gene, you will be a witch or wizard, albeit not a very powerful one...because you will get a wand and have training. You can have witch/wizard parents who have 1 - 3 M genes each..if you get the fourth blank from each of them you'll be a Squib. Squibs are pretty rare because most kids of witches/wizards will end up with at least one M. Witches/wizards who are very powerful usually have more Magick genes, and their magic manifests itself without their control (Colin Creevy, Harry, Tom Riddle, etc have magic that acts of its own accord.) All the Weasley kids are doing magic from early childhood. There is also a Catalyst gene, called C, which is separate. You need two Cs for it to work. If you have 2Cs, it serves as a catalyst for the other magic genes you have -- strengthening them... It explains witches like Lily Evans and Hermione Granger. They have 1 or two Magic genes...one from each of their parents.....who never knew they had the gene...(Lily might have gotten one from each of her parents, while Petunia didn't get any...or maybe Petunia did get ONE .who knows...) Lily had the two catalyst genes, however, which is a gene that only works if you get one each from each parent (so their parents Catalyst gene did not act on their own M genes, but did with Lily). Petunia did not get those genes. So we have Lily who turns out to be a very powerful witch. Someone like Albus Dumbledore probably has 3- 4 Ms, and the catalyst genes, AND an amazing amount of intelligence and wisdom...his brother might have the 3Ms, but no catalyst gene..after all being a witch/wizard doesn't make you smart...Crabbe and Goyle Senior and Junior are examples... Tom Riddle probably has 3Ms (assuming one from his father), the Catalyst genes, and a ton of intelligence, ruthlessness, and ambition. BTW, we think Neville didn't really want to be a wizard and suffer the same fate as his parents, and he was using a wand not his own, and his lack of memory came from traumatic focus on his parents' fate.. Susan McGee (who should have been cast as Arabella Figg in the movie) Want to join a low volume group for fanatics over 40? _HPFGUOver40 at yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:HPFGUOver40 at yahoogroups.com) - or email me at _SusanGSMcGee at aol.com_ (mailto:SusanGSMcGee at aol.com) ) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at earthlink.net Mon Feb 13 07:01:01 2006 From: chnc1024 at earthlink.net (Chancie) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:01:01 -0000 Subject: wizard geneology In-Reply-To: <276.4c18fc1.31217c98@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148050 > Susan McGee wrote: > Let's call the gene M for Magick. In order to be a witch/wizard you must > have one Magick gene. > > You can have one to four Magick genes....1 - 2 from each parent. The more > Magick genes you have the more potentially powerful a witch or wizard. > > A bunch of Muggles have one M gene, but never figure it out because they > have Muggle parents, and their magic is not very strong so it doesn't manifest > itself on its own. They never get a wand, and without a wand and training never > do magic. If they marry someone with 1 M, they are more likely to have a > child with 2 Ms, whose magic might manifest itself so that they get picked for > Hogwarts, and get training. ************************************************************* Chancie: Just wanted to comment a bit. While you have the POTENTIAL having a combination of any 4 genes, you would only get 1 from your mom and 1 from your dad. It's kinda like a pick and choose situation, not an all for all. If you got all your Parents genes, then with in a few generations you'd have like 16 genes for only 1 trait! JKR has said that the magical gene is dominate, so you are either magic or you aren't. If you have ANY magical abilities, then you are offered a place at Hogwarts, but aren't forced to attend obviously. She has also said the "Magic Gene" is a type of Mutation, and that is why it can come out of an otherwise Muggle family. I got this quote from JKR's website. It was in response to a question about squibs, but I'm sure you will see that it applies to this as well. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SQUIBS I have been asked all sorts of questions about Squibs since I first introduced the concept in `Chamber of Secrets'. A Squib is almost the opposite of a Muggle-born wizard: he or she is a non-magical person born to at least one magical parent. Squibs are rare; magic is a dominant and resilient gene. Squibs would not be able to attend Hogwarts as students. They are often doomed to a rather sad kind of half-life (yes, you should be feeling sorry for Filch), as their parentage often means that they will be exposed to, if not immersed in, the wizarding community, but can never truly join it. Sometimes they find a way to fit in; Filch has carved himself a niche at Hogwarts and Arabella Figg operates as Dumbledore's liaison between the magical and Muggle worlds. Neither of these characters can perform magic (Filch's Kwikspell course never worked), but they still function within the wizarding world because they have access to certain magical objects and creatures that can help them (Arabella Figg does a roaring trade in cross-bred cats and Kneazles, and if you don`t know what a Kneazle is yet, shame on you). Incidentally, Arabella Figg never saw the Dementors that attacked Harry and Dudley, but she had enough magical knowledge to identify correctly the sensations they created in the alleyway. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chancie: I hope that helps clear things up a bit. From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Sun Feb 12 23:41:44 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:41:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: <20060212223104.40385.qmail@web37006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060212234144.82126.qmail@web37011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148051 > potioncat wrote: > BTW, and for a sort of HP reason, does anyone know the > Gaelic word for seal? Cat: > The Scots Gaelic (which is different from the Irish Gaelic) > word is "Silkie". Actually, I think I am mistaken, the Scots word is Silkie, not the Gaelic word. I only get this from another series that I'm reading that has a lot of Scots and Gaelic in it. Sorry about 2 post on the subject.... Cat From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Mon Feb 13 00:12:54 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 19:12:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <43EDFBB2.16153.1CB445C@localhost> Message-ID: <20060213001254.19735.qmail@web37001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148052 Shaun wrote: >> (1) The students are being asked to mix a 'simple potion'. (2) Neville's mistake is an elementary one - he did not follow the correct procedure. (3) Snape can tell from looking at the results precisely what mistake Neville made. Consider what this passage tells us. This is over two years later - and Neville has once again made an elementary mistake. He has got the procedure wrong. It isn't complicated to follow a procedure. It doesn't require great skill or intelligence. Any student should be able to do this. 'What do I have to do to make you understand, Longbottom?' It's a very good question - because obviously if Neville after two and a half years is still making the same mistake in potions classes that he made in his very first lesson, something is wrong. << I think what most people are forgetting is that Neville suffers from poor self-esteem, first of all. Secondly he has what could pretty much be deamed a deep-seated *phobia* of Snape. His Boggart is Snape, not a severed hand, giant spider, monster or anything else. His fear is absolutely true, and being so fearful *never* lets someone live up to their potential. It's not the pressure of Snape classes that do Neville in as demonstrated by him actually doing OK during his Potions Owl. Not everyone is good at following "simple directions". How is it that one person can bake a cake perfectly using a particular recipe, and another fail miserably following the exact same recipe? What may be simple to you, might not be simple to another. Right from the beginning Neville says he didn't think he was "magic enough" to get in to Hogwarts. Snape on the other hand, is simply not a nice person. Can he teach? Yes. Does everybody like him? No. Would I want my children to have him as a teacher? Absolutely not. Some people will respond well to his methods (which I see as being one of two things: favoritism and bullying) The ones he favors will either do well because of it (Malfoy, Nott perhaps?), or do horribly (Crabbe and Goyle) and be left in peace. The ones he bullies will either fall to pieces (Neville) defy to do well depsite of his attitude (Hermione) or just suck it up as long as is necessary and try to do your best (Harry, Ron). Unfortunately, we only see how he treats Slyhterins and Gryffindors. But only 3 Ravenclaws (the most intellectual) and 1 Hufflepuff (the hardest working) managed an Owl in the subject, or decided to continue with Potions thinking that Snape would be teaching. That to me says more than any offhand quote someone may have made about him. Either not many people did well in Potions to receive an Owl in it, or not many people wanted to continue with Potions because they didn't like him. jmo, Cat From foodiedb at optonline.net Mon Feb 13 00:47:47 2006 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (foodiedb) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:47:47 -0000 Subject: verbal vs non-verbal spells In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148053 > zgirnius: > It seems to me the nonverbal spell should count. It is, after all, > possible for a witch to say a spell incantation (say, in the middle > of a lecture to her students) and have nothing happen at all. > Presumably if a witch concentrates on a desired magical effect in a > particular way (which is what a nonverbal spell is, after all) it > should take effect, provided she is sufficiently skilled at this. David: After posting my original question, I recalled tha OoP Dolohov curses Hermione, and then later, Mme. Pomfrey says something like it might have killed her if he had been able to speak. So maybe it's possible that an spell which is spoken will have more power. From sstraub at mail.utexas.edu Mon Feb 13 01:25:18 2006 From: sstraub at mail.utexas.edu (orzchis) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:25:18 -0000 Subject: Gaelic Prince? Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148054 > Saberbunny answered: > > The Scots Gaelic (which is different from the Irish Gaelic) > > word is "Silkie". That's dialect English. (or Lowland Scots, or Lallans if you like) > Potioncat: [snip] >. . .Mary Stewart books. (Loved her Merlin books!) Th particular > book I was reading takes place in the Hebrides and there is a > little island, mentioned over and over, named Eilean na Roin. > (Seal Island) ( == Island of the Seal [roin would be the genitive case I think -- see below]) > I've no idea if the island is real, though I doubt it, but the > similarity to the name Eileen caught my attention. If I Google > the name, I get lots of hits....all in Gaelic. Not the same word. I think the girl's name Eibhl?n (Eileen) is just an Irish form of "Helen", which makes it ironic in the Potterverse because Eileen Prince isn't much of a looker. > So, any thoughts that Eileen could be Eilean and could come from > the Hebrides? Don't think so! Some here might remember the movie "The Secret of Roan Inish," by John Sayles. Set in Donegal. Roan Inish is the Irish Gaelic for Seal Island (not even sure if the grammar is right) respelled for English-speakers. The film was based on a book by Canadian author Rosalie K. Fry called "The Secret of the Ron Mor Skerry," which was set in the Hebrides, so Sayles changed the location, I have no idea why. R?n m?r == Big Seal (really, Seal Big); I think it works in either Scots or Irish Gaelic. And no, I don't think Ron Weasley has anything to do with it either. Ronald comes from R?gnvald, a Norse name meaning Noble Power, as far as I can figure. sandy name geek From makalia_us_99 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 01:43:46 2006 From: makalia_us_99 at yahoo.com (Christina Becker) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:43:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060213014346.69394.qmail@web36110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148055 > Ssattar5 wrote: > Really interesting analysis of Snape and his brand of sadism. > However, Umbridge is far more horrible and sadistic than Snape, > no doubt about that. I have to agree that Umbridge is far more horrible and sadistic than Snape (I wanted to jump into the book and give Umbridge a once over b/c of her methods of discipline) but to me Snape is more methodical in making Harry's life unpleasant which is putting it mildly. The only time I saw Snape wonder about Harry was in COS when Malfoy conjured a snake and Harry spoke to the snake in Parsel tongue. That's all I have to say for now. Makalia From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Mon Feb 13 07:37:08 2006 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:37:08 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's silver hand and Book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148056 Ceridwen speculates intelligently about the value and virtue of silver, compared to other metals suited to the manufacture of artificial hands ... I assume that the silver = moonlight connection is behind the vulnerability of werewolves to silver. Which is trite, but it works. One nice point was made in a 70s kiddy fantasy novel called, I think, Red Moon and Black Mountain and written by a woman called Joy Chant who had obviously, er, read widely in the field. But her nice point was that the children from our world who end up elsewhere in the universe in order to save this magical planet from the baddies assume that gold should be the royal and most precious metal there, as it is here. And get smacked down! Gold is unchanging, and therefore suitable for merchants ? silver needs ongoing maintenance to keep its beauty and integrity, and is therefore the royal and magical metal par excellence. Taking this further, the Slytherin colours of green and silver actually suggest ongoing maintenance of what one values, as vegetation fails to thrive without constant attention as well. Perhaps part of the 'good Slytherin' scenario that people are hoping for could be a realisation of the value of honest toil if one's highest aspirations are to be met. Deborah, thinking about Hufflepuff golden honey, still for tea From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 13 07:42:34 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:42:34 -0000 Subject: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148057 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen wrote: > > OK, at the dueling club meeting Snape whispers something to Malfoy > they are just supposed to be disarming. On the count of two instead > of when 3, Malfoy throws the serpensatia spell creating the snake. > What was it Snape whispered to Malfoy? Do you think he gave him the > spell? Why? It certainly revealed a lot about HP to him. If he is ESE! > Snape, that would be a juicy tidbit for the Dark Lord. Just > interesting that that "whisper" was deliberately inserted by the > author. Red herring? Maybe. Geoff: Just to be absolutely and irritatingly pedantic at 7.41 in the morning: in the duelling club scene, Malfoy casts his first curse on the count of two and we do not know which curse he uses. The "Serpensortia" spell was cast correctly, time wise. 'Harry and Malfoy barely inclined their heads, not taking their eyes off each other. "Wands at the ready!" shouted Malfoy. "When I count to three, cast your charms to disarm your opponent - only to disarm them - we don't want any accidents. One... two... three..." Harry swung his wand over his shoulder but Malfoy had already started on 'two': his spell hit Harry so hard he felt as if he'd been hit over the head with a saucepan.' (COS "THe Duelling Club" p.143 UK edition) 'Lockhart cuffed Harry merrily on the shoulder. "Just do what I did, Harry." "What, drop my wand?" But Lockhart wasn't listening. "Three - two - one - go!" he shouted. Malfoy raised his wand quickly and bellowed, "Serpensortia!"' (ibid. p.145) At least this time, he wasn't jumping the gun - I think he didn't have time to.... From exodusts at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 04:10:17 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:10:17 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148058 > Carol: > But aren't O, E, A, P, D, and T(!!) specifically OWL grades (marks), > perhaps also used for NEWTs? They seem to be unfamiliar to HRH when > George explains them in OoP. Do we have any indication of grades > other than Pass, Fail, and perhaps High Pass in other years? And > note that Hermione herself points out to Harry that he received a > higher mark than she did in the only year when they were both > tested by a competent DADA teacher (third year, with Lupin). So > Hermione, who regards Harry as her superior in DADA skills (it was > she who asked him to teach them DADA in their fifth year when > Umbridge was their DADA "teacher"), is not surprised that he scored > higher than she did on the DADA OWL. Why, then, should we doubt > that he deserved to do so? Exodusts: You are quite right that the letter grades don't seem to be used in non-Owl years, but I never said that we SHOULD doubt Harry's superiority - I am sure, like you, that Harry should have done better than Hermione, and that this should have been demonstrated in some way by JKR. I just don't think it should have been done in the way it was - by Hermione not reaching the highest level. I'd have preferred a special award for Harry. In OotP, Harry tells Hermione she has beaten him in every test except the third year one. OK, these tests may not have been set by "a teacher who actually knew the subject" (Hermione's words), but that still doesn't sound like a girl who will have trouble achieving "Outstanding" results in the subject. > Carol: > If he had scored higher on the *Potions* OWL, I'd be surprised and > displeased. But DADA is Harry's forte, as Transfiguration was his > father's. (Hermione's I'm guessing, is Ancient Runes, and we haven't > seen the results of her expertise yet.) Exodusts: Yes, but her score relative to Harry's isn't the issue. The issue is whether she should have received an O, given what we know about her character and circumstances. > Carol: > AFAIK, there are *no* non-OWL subjects. There are twelve subjects > total, not counting Flying in the first year, or Apparation lessons > in the sixth. Evidently all the fifth-year students take OWLs in > each subject they're taking, and everyone takes them in the core > subjects (Charms, Transfiguration, Herbology, Potions, and DADA), > which are required up till their fifth year, as well as in their > own chosen electives (which for Harry and Ron are Divination, CoMC, > and Astronomy). Hermione, who has to study for eleven OWLs, as > opposed to Ron's and Harry's eight, is at a great disadvantage > despite her intelligence and book knowledge. She has more exams to > study for and less time to devote to each subject, not to mention > less time for sleep. Exodusts: These are reasons that would count against her success in any subject, not DADA specifically. She deals with them successfully in every other area. I never meant to invent the idea of non-OWL subjects (I think the hyphenated/slashed sentence might have confused, I meant YEARS other than the OWL year, when I said "non- OWL"). > Carol: > And as I keep pointing out, *she never had an opportunity to learn > how to deal with a Boggart* (Lupin skips her in the Boggart lesson, > just as he skips Harry) and consequently fails that part of her > third-year DADA exam. Since the Boggart is also a component of the > DADA OWL practical (Harry vanishes his perfectly), it stands to > reason that she will yet again fail to vanish hers. She's had no > practice--no special lessons from Lupin, no Boggart-banishing > lessons from Harry in the DA. How is she supposed to learn to do a > spell she has never had the opportunity to practice? > > If Hermione can't vanish a Boggart and a Boggart is a component of > the practical DADA OWL, it stands to reason that she can't receive > an Outstanding, which is reserved for students who perform every > spell perfectly. That's what Outstanding means. Exodusts: That is a good theoretical explanation, but there are problems with it. After the Ancient Runes OWL, Hermione complains about a tiny mistake she has made. IIRC, she has a habit of over-analysing and worrying about her exam performances. If she had done with her OWL Boggart as she did with her third year Boggart, or even just not Riddikulus-ed it very well, why didn't we hear about it at the time? (Btw, a Boggart-banishing spell is required in Harry's OWL, but whether an actual Boggart is used is not made entirely clear). Thinking about her third year performance, if there was a problem, wouldn't a girl with Hermione's attitude toward exams, having realised it two years before, take every preparatory measure to improve areas where she knows she has a weakness? Finally, my reading of her cock-up in the third year (I admit that it could be read differently) is that she thought the Boggart really WAS Professor McGonagall, and that is the only reason she failed to defeat it. She couldn't possibly make that mistake again. From exodusts at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 04:31:33 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:31:33 -0000 Subject: Cup In Cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148059 > Catlady (Rita Prince Winston): > Last night Tim listened to the part of his cassette where Dumbledore > tells Harry about the six Horcruxes, and Tim turned to me and asked: > "Was that Hufflepuff's cup in the green potion in the cave?" I don't > recall anyone having suggested that before. Dumbledore conjures that goblet, and it is made of crystal: "Almost absentmindedly, Dumbledore raised his wand again, twirled it once in midair, and then caught the crystal goblet that he had conjured out of nowhere." Whereas Hufflepuff's Cup is small, golden, has two handles and a badger on it. Would Dumbledore be summoning Transfigured Horcruxes? And there is no mention of it after DD & Harry left the cave. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 13 07:43:48 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:43:48 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148060 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > Forgive me for thinking that JKR might structure the whole series > around these themes. She just emphasizes a point in each one. Harry > has to learn to overcome them all. > > Randy > And that is where we differ. I've seen posts about the seven deadly sins before, and all of them are different. So if JKR was really doing this, she does not make a very good job of it, because it is so totally unrecognizalbe and multi-interpretable. So no, I don't think JKR structured the books around the seven deadly sins. From brahadambal at indiatimes.com Mon Feb 13 04:48:35 2006 From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:48:35 -0000 Subject: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148061 Karen wrote: > OK, at the dueling club meeting Snape whispers something to Malfoy > when they are just supposed to be disarming. On the count of two > instead of 3, Malfoy throws the serpensatia spell creating the > snake. What was it Snape whispered to Malfoy? Do you think he gave > him the spell? Why? It certainly revealed a lot about HP to him. > If he is ESE!Snape, that would be a juicy tidbit for the Dark Lord. > Just interesting that that "whisper" was deliberately inserted by > the author. Red herring? Maybe. Maybe, he told Malfoy to cheat and take HP by surprise by casting his spell on the count of two rather than on the count of three? HP definitely wasn't expecting to be attacked on the count of two -- not in a dueling coaching class. It is a class scenario none-the-less, so you expect the opponent to stick to rules. Or it may be something of a HP study that Snapey was doing at that time. As he tells Bellatrix (and LV) that he thought HP was also a dark wizard as the rumours were so at the time and he wanted to find out himself. So, he may have give Malfoy the spell or maybe he already knew that Malfoy knows the spell. So he may have just told Malfoy to use it. Brady -- hoping JKR doesn't leave any questions unanswered in book seven. From exodusts at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 04:49:51 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:49:51 -0000 Subject: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148062 > Karen wrote: > OK, at the dueling club meeting Snape whispers something to Malfoy > when they are just supposed to be disarming. On the count of two > instead of 3, Malfoy throws the serpensatia spell creating the > snake. What was it Snape whispered to Malfoy? Do you think he gave > him the spell? Why? It certainly revealed a lot about HP to him. If > he is ESE!Snape, that would be a juicy tidbit for the Dark Lord. > Just interesting that that "whisper" was deliberately inserted by > the author. Red herring? Maybe. Exodusts: Consider this from Snape in HBP Ch2: "I should remind you that when Potter first arrived at Hogwarts there were still many stories circulating about him, rumours that he himself was a great Dark wizard, which was how he had survived the Dark Lord's attack. Indeed, many of the Dark Lord's old followers thought Potter might be a standard around which we could all rally once more. I was curious, I admit it, and not at all inclined to murder him the moment he set foot in the castle. Of course, it became apparent to me very quickly that he had no extraordinary talent at all." Snape probably set out to discover if Harry could speak Parseltongue, like Voldemort, although that doesn't necessarily indicate that he was still loyal to Voldemort. Note this from the CoS chapter: "Snape stepped forward, waved his wand and the snake vanished in a small puff of black smoke. Snape, too, was looking at Harry in an unexpected way: it was a shrewd and calculating look, and Harry didn't like it." Incidentally, some have argued that the sentence: "Of course, it became apparent to me very quickly that he had no extraordinary talent at all." is evidence that Snape is really Good, because he is essentially lying to Bellatrix. Harry's Parseltongue alone, which we KNOW Snape knows about, contradicts it, without having to consider anything else about Harry's abilities. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 07:51:55 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:51:55 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148063 > Neri: I suspect that when Harry had to > cut his own hand with a magic quill in Umbridge's detention, he was > actually suffering much less than Neville when he had to cut and > disembowel a barrel full of toads in Snape's detention (GoF, Ch. 14). > And of course, Snape knew that Neville's pet is a toad and that > Neville would come out of this detention "in a state of nervous > collapse". Subtlety here means knowing your victim's personal > vulnerabilities and exploiting them to hurt him the most, something > that Umbridge really weren't very good at, if she thought to break > Harry by making him cut his hand. Ginger: I actually agree with your general assessment of Snape being more subtle that Umbridge, but I wanted to point out that Neville had to disembowl horned toads (Phrynosoma, aka horned lizards) whereas Trevor is a toad (Bufonidae). They're not the same animal. The horned toad is actually a lizard. Not that disembowling is so much more pleasant on lizards, but at least it isn't his pet. I can't take credit for this. Someone pointed this out once upon a yesteryear and it stuck in my head. Isn't it great all the things we learn here? Ginger, who would rather Snape had given Neville detention disembowling toad-like DADA teachers, but, alas, it was one book too soon. From brahadambal at indiatimes.com Mon Feb 13 05:42:22 2006 From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 05:42:22 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape's Culpability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148064 > brady: > > I also have a feeling that Snape knows the complete prophecy. > > He only told LV what DD told him to tell. > > houyhnhnm: > I have been coming around to this belief. I can't figure out any > other explanation for the fact that Trelawney knew Snape was > present. He must have still been present when she came out of her > trance, therefore he must have heard the entire prophecy. (or > course that also means DD wasn't telling Harry the truth in the > broom shed--either that or Snape really was the spider on his hat) brady: :) Spider on the hat! Good one that. Yes, indeed, I came to that conclusion only because Trelawney knew Snape was there. She said he interrupted her interview. But there is no way she could have known of anything at that time. She goes into a trance and she loses consciousness of the outer world. And when she comes around, doesn't remember about the trance part of it. So, DD knew something about Snape that he used to blackmail him or something that we have not yet been told about that stopped Snape from giving the entire prophecy to LV. Anyways, it is definitely going to be such a long painful wait till we get our answers. I love thrillers, but hate suspenses. Brady. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 08:11:33 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:11:33 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes (was: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles)) In-Reply-To: <20060213052253.83295.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148065 Flop wrote: > To be fair, I distinctly remember someone mentioning > "the old heart/soul in a box trick" at some point, > probably shortly after OotP came out. It was batted > around briefly and then allowed to subside. Does > anyone else remember this. I think it was very shortly > after I joined the list.... Ginger: I remember it, but can't find the early discussion. Meriaugust wrote about the Prydain Chronicles (in which a man cuts off his pinky with his life force in it and hid it in a tree) in post #132181, posted 7/7/05, but I believe someone had written earlier about a man hiding it in an egg or something. My memory tells me it was Steve (bboymn) who wrote about it, but I may be wrong on that as I can't find the post. Steve? Anyone else? Ginger, who doesn't remember her memory being this bad. From littleleah at handbag.com Mon Feb 13 09:04:41 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:04:41 -0000 Subject: Gaelic Prince? Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148066 Potioncat wrote: >OK, here it is, a runaway over analysis of all things Potter. >Not too long ago it was suggested that rather than looking like a >giant bat, Snape more likely resembles a Hebridean Black Dragon. >In a rather futile attempt to broaden my reading interests, I turned >back to some Mary Stewart books. (Loved her Merlin books!) Th >particular book I was reading takes place in the Hebrides and there >is a little island, mentioned over and over, named Eilean na Roin. >(Seal Island) >I've no idea if the island is real, though I doubt it, but the >similarity to the name Eileen caught my attention. If I Google the >name, I get lots of hits....all in Gaelic. So, any thoughts that Eileen could be Eilean and could come from the Hebrides? Leah: I agree with Saberbunny's reply that Eileen is a version of Helen, and perhaps there is a subtle joke at the expense of Ms Prince's looks. Googling on Eileen and myths doesn't produce anything of interest, and I suspect the name was used because it was quite fashionable in England at the time our Eileen could have been born- turn of the last century. I had a couple of aunt Eileens and know of relatives of friends with the same name, none of whom had any discernable Irish/Scottish connections. I also have an aunt Kathleen, born 1916, again no Gaelic connection in the family. Possibly the names became trendy because of Yeats poetry, Celtic revival etc. Shame really because silkies could change into human form and a man who hid a silkie's seal skin could prevent her return to the sea and keep her as a human wife, which has some resonance perhaps with Eileen and Tobias. Leah (noting that Biblically, Tobias was a man who had to cast a demon out of his wife before marrying her) From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Feb 13 09:18:08 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:18:08 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: > > > Jen R wrote:: > >About the cockroach thing, JKR must think they're funny as they show > >up again when Harry is surprised to learn the password for DD's > >office is 'cockroach cluster'. Is there some Scottish or British > >humour in cockroaches or what?? In Texas they are the size and heft > >of...well I can't think of a comparison but they're BIG, and after > >one time of putting your shoe on and feeling a roach in there you > >are too squicked out to laugh much. ;) > > > Here in the UK, they're just not about in homes in the same numbers > as in the States- when I encountered them on a visit to NY about 20 > years ago, I'd never seen one before. I think that with increased > central heating, fast food etc that is changing, but they're not a > day to day occurence for most people here. > > IIRC, cockroach cluster was one of the flavours available in a box > of choolates which featured in a Monty Python sketch (another was > crunchy frog), so possibly the name emerged from JKR's subconscious > or DD was a Python fan. Lupin (if he ever had access to muggle TV) > would certainly have been the right sort of age to appreciate the > show. > > Leah (tongue in cheek). > Goodness... I never encountered a cockroach in the U.S. until I went to college in Washington, D.C....they certainly are not common outside of the big cities... Susan From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 10:20:06 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:20:06 -0000 Subject: Cup In Cave and perhaps one better In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148068 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "exodusts" wrote: > > > Catlady (Rita Prince Winston): >> "Was that Hufflepuff's cup in the green potion in the cave?" I don't recall anyone having suggested that before. > Exodusts wrote: > Dumbledore conjures that goblet, and it is made of crystal: > "Almost absentmindedly, Dumbledore raised his wand again, twirled it once in midair, and Doddiemoemoe here: While I do not believe that Dd conjured a horcrux to "dip" the potion out... you both have me wondering if by using the "goblet" it could become a horcrux once it has made contact with the potion. (hence, the horcrux was, in fact the potion...not the locket--so the locket would be a massive red herring...so the horcrux could either be 1. the goblet--still in the cave, or 2. the horcrux was destroyed when DD who had imbibed the potion died. tee-hee How's that for a theory? Even I do not know the answer..I feel so rotten posting my theories before discussing them in chat and researching the entire cannon, but first the football season...and now the olympics. *heavy sigh* Wouldn't this theory be even better if Snape had brewed said potion DD drank in the cave and this is why he feels so "close" to the dark lord (i.e. lucious feels close to the dark lord because voldy gave him the diary to care for, and apparently he entrusted something to Bella)...only to learn in book seven that he(Snape) destroyed his own "status" with the dark lord--even though it resulted in DD's death? Better yet...the "memories" DD relives while drinking said potion are actually Snape's? Doddiemoemoe (who has compelled herself to examine cannon in this matter From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Mon Feb 13 11:48:48 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:48:48 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148069 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > >>Renee: > > But now that you're bringing her into the discussion anyway, > > I'd like to point out again that she's the one who called Snape `a > > sadistic teacher', without qualification. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Yes, but that was a throw away comment. I honestly don't think she > meant he got a sexual charge out of tormenting students. (It would > rather kill the ambiguousness of his character she's tried so hard > to build up, IMO.) I also suspect that JKR was using a more > informal meaning for sadistic, synonymous with mean, nasty, and > unfair. I get the sense that when people on this list lable Snape a > sadist, they're going for the orignial Marquis De Sade meaning. Renee: You sense this? I'd be a lot more convinced if presented with some hard evidence. Which people on this list who called Snape sadistic have suggested he got a sexual charge out of tormenting students? I can't remember anyone making such a claim, but even if I missed a post or two, it can't have been many. Nevertheless, I'd be interesting in reading their arguments, so maybe you could point me to some of these posts? As for the meaning of sadistic: `deriving sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others' isn't the only official definition; `the deriving of pleasure from cruelty' is another one, and I daresay one that is used more often. I don't doubt most of the people who accuse Snape of sadism, JKR included, are thinking of this second one. (I even found a third definition: 'extreme cruelty', but I wouldn't go as far as calling Snape *extremely* cruel.) Anyway, the second definition goes further than just mean, nasty and unfair: it says you like being that way. To me, Snape's glittering eyes definitely point towards enjoyment. Betsy: > I was showing that JKR is quite > capable of showing a character get pleasure out of causing another > character pain. She made that very clear, IMO, with Umbridge. Yet, > she described Snape as cold and glittery. He never even cracked a > smile. Renee: Obviously, we have a different interpretation of "glittery". I suppose that can't be helped. But the toad incident wasn't the only incident I mentioned in my post, though it's the only one you address. Snape does crack a smile, and a horrible one at that, when he is about to torment Harry over the Marauder's Map, for instance, and I believe Alla mentioned yet another example. Renee From brahadambal at indiatimes.com Mon Feb 13 08:13:57 2006 From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:13:57 -0000 Subject: Etymology of Lupin's name (Was: The Names of the Books and the Teachers . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148070 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > > SNIP SNIP > You know, I don't have to disagree with you. From the internet, I just > found this about Buddhism. > > "In Buddhism there are six realms of samsaric existence that beings are > born into. The cycle is perpetrated by ignorance, greed, pride, anger > and jealousy." > Excuse me, but I think you left out the "lust" out of the list. In Hinduism, it is six sins : Kama(lust), krodh(anger), lobh(greed), moh (attachment), madh(pride) and matsar(not sure, but i think it is a arrogance). > Forgive me for thinking that JKR might structure the whole series > around these themes. She just emphasizes a point in each one. Harry > has to learn to overcome them all. > > Randy > If Harry learns to overcome all that, he will God. sure. This is what the scriptures say in hinduism. if a man can overcome the six shortcomings, then he has attained God-hood. He is God. my tuppence. Brady. (just notice that Randy and I have a great affinity to Brandy -- Randy misses the B and miss the N) :)) From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 12:51:55 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:51:55 -0000 Subject: What Hermione thinks of Snape as a teacher (LONG)/ a bit of Hermione andTrel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148071 > Gerry > Well, unless you believe that she truly knows Lavender's rabbit will > get killed and that she truly foresees Neville breaking the blue cup > instead of that being sheer psychology, and if you truly think > greeting every class with death omens is a sign of someone being > competent in their subject... I would think that a competent teacher > would also spot when students make up their homework instead of really > trying. Finwitch: About the rabbit: During their first class, Trelawney tells Lavender that the thing she dreads will happen -- (I forget the date, but she gave it, and that was the date Lavender recieved news her rabbit had been eaten by a fox). When Lavender mentions that, Hermione turns the subject into Lavender having 'dreaded' this event of Binky dying and then goes on saying that the event happened earlier and Lavender only found out about it on that day. However -- you know -- *what* do you think Lavender was dreading as Trelawney gave that prediction? Not about her rabbit specifically, no. She was dreading recieving bad news, which *did* happen on preset date. It's Hermione who got things confused over the rabbit, twisting things to "prove" the wrongness of Divination. As much of psychological trickery as any to me. As for Trelawney not spotting fake homework -- well, there's a few things to consider: Ron "predicted" what sort of essay would get full marks from Trelawney, and he and Harry acted on it. Trelawney praised their acceptance of upcoming misery, particularly death, which I believe is the red thread in her teachings. More importantly, if someone sees nothing but misery in the foreseeable future for themselves, they might well be on the verge of suicide. Snapping about 'fake' homework when someone writes about miserable future -- could have serious consequences. Also, I think that Trelawney's prediction-practice - as much as it may seem like nonsense, to make up as miserable future as possible - doesn't thinking of that sort of thing in advance also mentally prepare you for it? I actually think that it might have - in a very roundabout way - helped Harry to cast his patronus in the face of Dementors. You know - prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 13 13:50:28 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:50:28 -0000 Subject: Gaelic Prince? Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148072 Leah: > Shame really because silkies could change into human form and a man > who hid a silkie's seal skin could prevent her return to the sea and > keep her as a human wife, which has some resonance perhaps with > Eileen and Tobias. > > Leah (noting that Biblically, Tobias was a man who had to cast a > demon out of his wife before marrying her) Potioncat: Thank you one and all. I had the feeling Eileen and Eilean only looked similar. Now, on to Tobias's name. I ever knew about the Biblical connection. The Book of Tobias doesn't appear in all translations. Again I went to Google and did get a brief mention of Tobias burning something like heart-liver-gall to cast out a demon before marrying his wife. The story of the silkie reminds me of another idea: that Tobias somehow bound Eileen to him. I remember looking for stories of mortals overpowering witches but didn't find any...except for the silkie story. And a third Half-Baked Plot: Because JKR often describes characters in animal-like ways, some list members (that is, not just me) considered different animals that have oily fur or feathers as part of their normal condition as one way to describe Snape. Seals came up, as I recall. (As did a host of others.) HBP---Half-Brained Potioncat From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 13:59:39 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:59:39 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148073 > Ginger: > I actually agree with your general assessment of Snape being more > subtle that Umbridge, but I wanted to point out that Neville had to > disembowl horned toads (Phrynosoma, aka horned lizards) whereas > Trevor is a toad (Bufonidae). They're not the same animal. The > horned toad is actually a lizard. Not that disembowling is so much > more pleasant on lizards, but at least it isn't his pet. > Neri: Well, I'm not sure if JKR knows at all that "horned toads" is actually an American incorrect term for horned lizards, or if she meant here several species of (real) toads that also have horns, or if horned toads are magical creatures. But I am sure of one thing: JKR thought the horned toads that Neville had to disembowel belonged to the order Anura (frogs and toads) and *not* lizards, since when Neville returns from his detention she tells us that Hermione was teaching him "a Scouring Charm to remove the frog guts from under his fingernails". Now, here is a worthy challenge for Snape apologists: prove that the frog guts under Neville's fingernails did not come from the lizards that Snape had made him disembowel. I can hardly wait Neri From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 13 14:22:15 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:22:15 -0000 Subject: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148074 > Neri: I suspect that when Harry had to > cut his own hand with a magic quill in Umbridge's detention, he was > actually suffering much less than Neville when he had to cut and > disembowel a barrel full of toads in Snape's detention (GoF, Ch. 14). > And of course, Snape knew that Neville's pet is a toad and that > Neville would come out of this detention "in a state of nervous > collapse". Subtlety here means knowing your victim's personal > vulnerabilities and exploiting them to hurt him the most,.... Potioncat: Contrast this with the DADA lesson later in the same chapter. Crouch! Moody uses the Cruciatus on a spider, causing Neville to go into a state, so that C!M could "comfort" him later and give him the book Harry would need for the challenge. That's sadistic! No apologies, Snape is mean. Why did Snape choose that particular punishment for Neville? I don't know. Maybe he needed a supply of bowel-free frogs, or a supply of frog entrails for a Potions class and gave the job to Neville. How do you think Potion Makers get eye of this and tongue of that? Witchcraft isn't pleasant. I've always thought the frogs were dead. Just like the big container of cats we had to use for dissection in my anatomy class when I was studying nursing. Did it break my heart to see all those sweet little cats? Yep. Did I continue with the course? Yep. (We named our cat, Frills) Potioncat From kchuplis at alltel.net Mon Feb 13 14:34:28 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:34:28 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape References: Message-ID: <001c01c630aa$98ae4850$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 148075 Sorry you are right, it was late when I was reading and writing last night. Mea culpa. However, Snape does whisper to Malfoy right before he casts the serpensortia curse: Snape moved closer to Malfoy, bent down, and whispered something in his ear. Malfoy smirked, too. Harry looked up nervously at Lockhart and said, "Professor, could you show me that blocking thing again?" "Scared?" muttered Malfoy,so that Lockhart couldn't hear him. "You wish," said Harry out of the corner of his mouth. Lockhart cuffed Harry merrily on the shoulder. "Just do what I did, Harry!" "What, drop my wand?" But Lockhart wasn't listening. "Three..two..one..go!" he shouted. Malfoy raised his wand quickly and bellowed "Serpensortia!" I just find that very interesting, since it is likely that he told Malfoy to use that spell. For what reason? (It also annoys me that Harry hears the counter curse for tarentella legs here and in one other place (I believe, have to keep my eye out) and doesn't think to use it on Neville in the MoM battle of OOP. ----- Original Message ----- From: Geoff Bannister To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:42 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen wrote: > > OK, at the dueling club meeting Snape whispers something to Malfoy > they are just supposed to be disarming. On the count of two instead > of when 3, Malfoy throws the serpensatia spell creating the snake. > What was it Snape whispered to Malfoy? Do you think he gave him the > spell? Why? It certainly revealed a lot about HP to him. If he is ESE! > Snape, that would be a juicy tidbit for the Dark Lord. Just > interesting that that "whisper" was deliberately inserted by the > author. Red herring? Maybe. Geoff: Just to be absolutely and irritatingly pedantic at 7.41 in the morning: in the duelling club scene, Malfoy casts his first curse on the count of two and we do not know which curse he uses. The "Serpensortia" spell was cast correctly, time wise. 'Harry and Malfoy barely inclined their heads, not taking their eyes off each other. "Wands at the ready!" shouted Malfoy. "When I count to three, cast your charms to disarm your opponent - only to disarm them - we don't want any accidents. One... two... three..." Harry swung his wand over his shoulder but Malfoy had already started on 'two': his spell hit Harry so hard he felt as if he'd been hit over the head with a saucepan.' (COS "THe Duelling Club" p.143 UK edition) 'Lockhart cuffed Harry merrily on the shoulder. "Just do what I did, Harry." "What, drop my wand?" But Lockhart wasn't listening. "Three - two - one - go!" he shouted. Malfoy raised his wand quickly and bellowed, "Serpensortia!"' (ibid. p.145) At least this time, he wasn't jumping the gun - I think he didn't have time to.... 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 Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! SPONSORED LINKS Half-blood prince Adult education Culture club Organizational culture ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 13 14:42:15 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:42:15 -0000 Subject: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape In-Reply-To: <001c01c630aa$98ae4850$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148076 Karen wrote: > > However, Snape does whisper to Malfoy right before he casts the >serpensortia curse: > > Snape moved closer to Malfoy, bent down, and whispered something in >his ear. Malfoy smirked, too. Harry looked up nervously at Lockhart >and said, "Professor, could you show me that blocking thing again?" >snip< Potioncat: A long time ago this group discussed the Snape-Malfoy relationship. How did Snape know Malfoy knew the spell? Did Snape teach Malfoy? Does Snape teach the Slytherins spells in general? Now I see this scene with the first HBP-DADA class in mind. Harry doesn't know how to duel and has Lockhart as a teacher. He's facing a nasty oponent who has Snape for a teacher. (Had it been me, I would have said, "Forget this club," and run away.) A snake appears and Harry has to react. He reacts much the way he will need to for DADA. He is resourceful and while he cannot work a counterspell, he can control the result of Malfoy's spell. I think Snape learned two things about Harry's abilities that day: his resourcefulness and his being a Parselmouth. From literature_Caro at web.de Mon Feb 13 13:29:21 2006 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:29:21 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My 7 book 7 predictions- to Alla In-Reply-To: <20060211000020.28129.qmail@web53307.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060211000020.28129.qmail@web53307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8510538140.20060213142921@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 148077 Alla: > Also what if LV finds a way to use Tonks to get to Lupin. That > is the whole reason Harry set his relationship with Ginny aside for > the time being. Caro: Well LV would make use of Ginny because he wants Harry to snuff it so badly. I don't know how much trouble Remus caused in the "wolfs-herd", but it could not be too much that would be too obviously, or it would have been known to us. And btw. all the members of the Order might say so for they are on the top of the "better be dead today"-list. Alla: I think any new open relationship right now could be > detrimental to one of the parties, particularly when one has a hairy > little problem and his aid is no longer available. Caro: Well I think the Ministry doesn't approve too much on those hairy problems, but at least if they offered to provide those people with the potion when necesairy they would for sure avoid for sure a problem with the wizzarding community. I mean not every body has a shack with a woomping willow at their front doors. So why not offer the potion to be collected at St. Mungo's and at the same time try to "tame" as many werewolfs at the same time, so that the general endangerment is as little as possible. The only problem would be that not many would have the courage to confess they suffer from this illness, like Remus shows, regarding the general reaction of the society on those. But Snape was surely not the only one to be able to brew it. He only did it for a better cover up for Remus (I am very sure reporters like Rita Skeeter would have found out that there was either a regular diliverance of something from the hospital to Hogwarts or that a teacher paid St. Mungo's regular visites to fetch something) and Severus surely actually did the potionon on DD's orders but just as I said to cover the whole thing up. Yours Caro From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 13 14:53:37 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:53:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060213145337.98458.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148078 > > Now, here is a worthy challenge for Snape > apologists: prove that the > frog guts under Neville's fingernails did not come > from the lizards > that Snape had made him disembowel. I can hardly > wait > > Neri > Why on earth would I want to prove that? So what if Snape made him disembowel frogs, or toads or lizards? Or any other animal that provides ingredients for Potions? It would be an illegitimate punishment only if the ingredients were in themselves illegal or required Dark Magic to produce them. Or do you mean Snape should have cared that these animals remind Neville of his pet? I'm not sure McGonagall would. Irene ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 15:14:15 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:14:15 -0000 Subject: Can Dumbledore become invisible? Was: Question on PS In-Reply-To: <20060211154656.23377.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148079 Magda Grantwich > Dumbledore says that to Harry when he finds him sitting in front of > the Mirror of Erised. Harry, in his hurry to see his family again, > has rushed along the halls under his invisibility cloak (not worrying > about making noise) and into the room. > > I took Dumbledore's comment to be a gentle hint to Harry that he was > so consumed by his desire that he was unaware of what was around him > in the room - including Dumbledore's presence. Finwitch: Well, it *might* be as simple as that, *but* considering that Hogwarts library has *whole* section devoted to invisibility (mentioned in CoS), the amount of creatures that can become invisible (such as the Demiguise and house-elves, or even Thestrals), or even the Invisible Book of Invisibility mentioned in PoA etc. The whole series has invisible this or that everywhere, and Dumbledore I'd certainly consider as one able to become Invisible at w?ll. You may remember that when Dumbledore appeared to Privet Drive (or disappeared for that matter) there wasn't that sound linked to apparation involved. However, Dumbledore might have gone inavisible (as well as McGonagall became a cat). Don't forget that wizards began to *hide* themselves from Muggles centuries ago. Invisibility would certainly help in that, you know... Finwitch From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 15:24:32 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:24:32 -0000 Subject: Cup In Cave and perhaps one better In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148080 > Doddiemoemoe here: > (hence, the > horcrux was, in fact the potion...not the locket--so the locket would > be a massive red herring...so the horcrux could either be 1. the > goblet--still in the cave, or 2. the horcrux was destroyed when DD who > had imbibed the potion died. zgirnius: A couple problems with this theory: 1) Voldemort, we learn, prefers top make "important" objects his Horcruxes. Does the Potion qualify? Perhaps...at least,its location has personal significance to him. 2) Is the fake locket and note set there by Voldemort? Why? If not, then what happened with RAB? Also, I find it interesting you like this as an ESE!Snape theory. If the Potion (like the Diary before it) had the ability to possess the one who used it (which woul dbe drinking it it, in the case of a Potion) then Dumbledore's odd symptoms were quite possibly a (losing?) struggle to avoid possession by Voldemort's soul piece. This makes the killing necessary rather more convincingly than other theories of why Good!Snape had to do it.. We all know Dumbledore believes there are things worse than death. I would imagine being turned into Voldie, Mark 2 would be one of them. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Feb 13 15:35:39 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:35:39 -0000 Subject: What Hermione thinks of Snape as a teacher (LONG)/ a bit of Hermione andTrel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148081 > Finwitch: > About the rabbit: During their first class, Trelawney tells Lavender > that the thing she dreads will happen -- (I forget the date, but she > gave it, and that was the date Lavender recieved news her rabbit had > been eaten by a fox). When Lavender mentions that, Hermione turns > the subject into Lavender having 'dreaded' this event of Binky dying > and then goes on saying that the event happened earlier and Lavender > only found out about it on that day. > > However -- you know -- *what* do you think Lavender was dreading as > Trelawney gave that prediction? Not about her rabbit specifically, > no. She was dreading recieving bad news, which *did* happen on > preset date. It's Hermione who got things confused over the rabbit, > twisting things to "prove" the wrongness of Divination. As much of > psychological trickery as any to me. Magpie: Going on your description since I can't remember what happened exactly, "the thing you dread" is a standard fake-out for a psychic. She didn't tell Lavender anything. She let Lavender herself fill in the blanks after the fact and decide she was dreading bad news. Anything bad that happened Lavender would have claimed was the prediction. Lavender is a particularly willing assistant in Trelawney's charade. Unfortunately, Hermione, for all she's supposed to be smart, is really very bad at explaining why things don't work--I'm not sure we're supposed to see this or whether JKR actually thinks Hermione's being smart in these kinds of scenes. She's going at this all wrong by making any reference to when Binky died or not, missing the fact that Trelawney didn't make any prediction so of course whatever happened will do. Sort of like how Hermione challenges Slinkhard's textbook with a total non-sequitor that doesn't prove Slinkhard wrong at all. (Luckily Umbridge isn't any better at defending his views so just tells Hermione to shut up, making it seem like Hermione's argument actually had some merit.) Finwitch: > As for Trelawney not spotting fake homework -- well, there's a few > things to consider: > > Ron "predicted" what sort of essay would get full marks from > Trelawney, and he and Harry acted on it. > > Trelawney praised their acceptance of upcoming misery, particularly > death, which I believe is the red thread in her teachings. More > importantly, if someone sees nothing but misery in the foreseeable > future for themselves, they might well be on the verge of suicide. > Snapping about 'fake' homework when someone writes about miserable > future -- could have serious consequences. Magpie: I don't see the point in trying to prove that scenes of Ron and Harry making stuff up knowing the teacher will fall for it because the whole thing's a joke are actually examples of true divination. Or in making Trelawney a Muggle teacher following modern ideas about teenagers and therefore worried they might be suicidal. If she was one of those, then I think these sorts of predictions would get Ron and Harry a trip to a therapist, not encouragement. If a 13-year- old is suicidal, why would it be a good idea to praise him for accepting his impending death? The very fact that Trelawney praises their fortitude without, you know, having any practical response about avoiding the impending accidents suggests she's not taking this seriously. Finwitch: > Also, I think that Trelawney's prediction-practice - as much as it > may seem like nonsense, to make up as miserable future as possible - > doesn't thinking of that sort of thing in advance also mentally > prepare you for it? I actually think that it might have - in a very > roundabout way - helped Harry to cast his patronus in the face of > Dementors. You know - prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Magpie: No, I don't think it did Harry much good, and if it did it still doesn't make Trelawney any more of a Seer or make her class any less of a waste of time. Harry's got enough real reasons to think he's going to be in danger without someone telling him to look out for falling pianos or whatever. catherine higgins: But only 3 Ravenclaws (the most intellectual) and 1 Hufflepuff (the hardest working) managed an Owl in the subject, or decided to continue with Potions thinking that Snape would be teaching. Magpie: We don't know how many people managed an OWL. Getting an OWL only takes an A. Snape only accepted people with O's, which is a much higher grade. I get the impression O's are supposed to be pretty rare and impressive. It seems as if Slughorn's class is made up of all students who got O's, plus two E students (Ron and Harry, the only two who hadn't bought their textbooks beforehand). So that's one O Hufflepuff (hard-working, but also apparently considered "duffers"), four Slytherins and four (not three) Ravenclaws. That's half of Slytherin and half of Ravenclaw getting O's, which are not easy to get. (And yes, I say half because there's 40 kids in the class because that's all the ones that actually exist, imo.) Slughorn's class seems like a pretty normal- sized NEWT class to me, given the high requirements for getting in, and Harry doesn't seem to think it's particularly small. Ron and Harry seem to be the only kids in the class for whom the change of teacher was a factor. If Snape required O's in his DADA class, even Hermione wouldn't have gotten in--it might have been just Snape and Harry, for all we know. -m From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 13 16:18:26 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:18:26 -0000 Subject: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148082 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > Contrast this with the DADA lesson later in the same chapter. Crouch! > Moody uses the Cruciatus on a spider, causing Neville to go into a > state, so that C!M could "comfort" him later and give him the book > Harry would need for the challenge. That's sadistic! > > No apologies, Snape is mean. I'd say that is pragmatic. Yes, it is awful and evil, but says far more about how 'creative' fake!Moody is in manipulation people to get what he wants than about how he gets his kicks. As far as we know he could not care less in what way he got a one on one with Neville and to him this was just the easiest way to create an opportunity. I can very well imagine Barty being the kind of person who does not care one bit one way or the other about the pawns in his game, as long as they lead him to capture the king. Gerry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 16:53:28 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:53:28 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles)/ quick question to Neri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148083 > > Neri: > I suspect that when Harry had to > > cut his own hand with a magic quill in Umbridge's detention, he was > > actually suffering much less than Neville when he had to cut and > > disembowel a barrel full of toads in Snape's detention (GoF, Ch. > 14). > > And of course, Snape knew that Neville's pet is a toad and that > > Neville would come out of this detention "in a state of nervous > > collapse". Subtlety here means knowing your victim's personal > > vulnerabilities and exploiting them to hurt him the most,.... Alla: Ooo, BRAVO, Neri. I completely forgot about this example. You know , this example also seems IMO of course to rebut the idea that "toad lesson" did anything to improve Neville's performance in Potions since this detention occurs well after "toad lesson". > Potioncat: > No apologies, Snape is mean. Alla: And your fairness is another reason I love your posts so much. :-) (This was serious despite a smiley face) Potioncat: > Why did Snape choose that particular punishment for Neville? I don't > know. Maybe he needed a supply of bowel-free frogs, or a supply of > frog entrails for Potions class and gave the job to Neville. How do > you think Potion Makers get eye of this and tongue of that? > Witchcraft isn't pleasant. Alla: I think Neri's point (sorry if I am wrong) is that Snape gave the job to Neville specifically because it will remind him of his pet. Of course witchcraft isn't pleasant, but toads are not the only things, supply of which Snape may need. Did he have to give THIS job (cutting toads) to the boy who has toad pet? I mean, as far as we know Neville is the ONLY one who has toad as a pet (maybe some other people do, but we don't see them to the best of my recollection). It cannot be that someone else could not have been assigned THAT detention and Neville could have been cutting something else. Irene: > Or do you mean Snape should have cared that these > animals remind Neville of his pet? I'm not sure > McGonagall would. Alla: Yes, I think that was he meant ( Again, sorry Neri if I am wrong). Mcgonagall treated Neville very badly couple of times, no question about it. But since she changed her behavior (like IMO truly good FLEXIBLE teacher would), I am able to respect her. But still I don't remember McGonagall ever asking Neville to transfigure his toad into something awful. > Renee: > As for the meaning of sadistic: `deriving sexual gratification from > Inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others' isn't the only official > definition; `the deriving of pleasure from cruelty' is another one, > and I daresay one that is used more often. I don't doubt most of the > people who accuse Snape of sadism, JKR included, are thinking of this > second one. (I even found a third definition: 'extreme cruelty', but I > wouldn't go as far as calling Snape *extremely* cruel.) Anyway, the > second definition goes further than just mean, nasty and unfair: it > says you like being that way. To me, Snape's glittering eyes > definitely point towards enjoyment. Alla: You know, Renee, I would like to read those posts too. I absolutely see Snape as sadist, but I did not even THINK once about Snape getting sexual kick out of Harry and Neville's, and maybe some other student's sufferings (whom we don't see). I absolutely use your second definition of sadism "the deriving a pleasure from cruelty". I don't know if Snape derives sexual pleasure from it (that IMO seems like fanfic oriented argument, I don't think canon tells us one way or another). I just see in the books that he LIKES to watch Harry and Neville suffer and THAT leads me to think that he is a sadist. > Alla wrote earlier : but it somehow ties for me with Snape being DE in the past and trying to figure out again ( we did have discussions in the past about it) what part of death Death Eaters are really eating - really or metaphorically. Maybe they feed their magic on people's fears? Wasn't it Neri who speculated something to that effect? That DD lets Snape "feed" on his students' fears as long as he does not "eat" too much. I maybe awfully confused here.<< > > Neri: > Yes, well, this was one of many outlandish speculations from those > pre-Horcrux days, when we still asked ourselves how would Voldy be > immortal in a thematic way. It really should have been obvious that he > simply split his soul into seven parts and hidden them in magic > trinkets for the hero to find. Now why didn't we think of that? But unexpectedly JKR found another way to suggest Snape's sadism. Not > only she showed him using an Unforgivable, but also taunting Harry > about his inability to use them, much as Bellatrix did in the MoM > battle. And as Bella told us then, the Unforgivables require sadism in > order to work. Alla: Yes, it seems such widely accepted argument that Snape was teaching Harry at that moment, but really I see nothing in the text that excludes the possibility that he was simply taunting the boy, nothing more than that. JMO of course, Alla From babyhrndz at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 16:59:11 2006 From: babyhrndz at yahoo.com (Amanda Shoffner) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:59:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Punishment for Voldemort Message-ID: <20060213165911.92071.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148084 Renee: ...DD was right all the time, that there are,indeed, worse things than dying. And logi- cally, in order to find this out, he needs to be in a situation where he all he wants is to die, and then finds that he can't. It would also be a perfect example of the karmic punishment that JKR seems so fond of in the series. ~Amanda This brings to mind the Dementor's kiss... after all..the only reason they are on his side is the free reign that they get. What if they were offered something better/had no choice for the sake of staying alive, to kiss LV? IMO, that would be 'worse than death', to have my soul sucked out..yet know what happened with a cold, empty feeling the rest of my life. ~Amanda From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Feb 13 17:03:46 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:03:46 -0000 Subject: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148085 Gerry: > I'd say that is pragmatic. Yes, it is awful and evil, but says far > more about how 'creative' fake!Moody is in manipulation people to get > what he wants than about how he gets his kicks. As far as we know he > could not care less in what way he got a one on one with Neville and > to him this was just the easiest way to create an opportunity. I can > very well imagine Barty being the kind of person who does not care one > bit one way or the other about the pawns in his game, as long as they > lead him to capture the king. Magpie: Was it? I was originally going to agree with you (despite Barty's plan being actually incredibly impractical!) but thinking about it it occured to me that it might not have been pragmatic at all, because didn't Moody offer to comfort Neville after Harry was speaking to him in the hall, thus making Fake!Moody think he and Harry were friends and so think Neville was a good way to get the book to Harry? Had *Harry* not seen the state Neville was in and spoken to him Fake!Moody might not have targetted Neville at all. I think there are signs that sometimes Barty just gets a little carried away. I'd be tempted to lean more the opposite way on Barty than you've described and say that getting his kicks sometimes might be a priority. Of course, I like to think that the little tea Neville and Crouch had was a sick little sadistic game on its own, with Crouch going on and on about what happened to Neville's parents and "not noticing" Neville's distress. After my last re-read of GoF I started to wonder if that wasn't an important moment in Neville's arc and the moment he started mentally preparing for his role in OotP. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 17:03:36 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:03:36 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148086 > Renee: > But the toad incident wasn't the only incident I > mentioned in my post, though it's the only one you address. Snape does > crack a smile, and a horrible one at that, when he is about to torment > Harry over the Marauder's Map, for instance, and I believe Alla > mentioned yet another example. zgirnius: Poor BetsyHP has been working hard lately...I think she deserves a break . You read the "horrible smile" and "terrible grin" (the latter appearing after "Snape's sallow skin had gone the color of sour milk") as indicators of pleasure, or the anticipation thereof? I don't find this consistent with the descriptions in the text. For one thing, I find the actual construction of the two sentences highly suggestive of something forced, and not pleasureable. "Snape's thin mouth curled into a horrible smile." "I would hate for you to run away with a false idea of your father, Potter," he said, a terrible grin twisting his face. In both quotations, it is not Snape who is the actor (syntactically speaking). Snape does not smile horribly or grin terribly. His mouth curls, and the terrible grin twists his face. Snape actually starts the scene (PoA, "Snape's Grudge", starting p. 282 US Paperback) off with a businesslike and emotion-free interrogation of Harry. He has good reason to suspect Harry has been off to Hogsmeade without permission (Draco saw him, or at least, his head, there). And the matter is serious, because Sirius Black has already made two incursions into the castle itself (with, everyone presumes, the intention of getting to Harry). If this was all about the chance to bother Harry, this is where we ought to start seeing his enjoyment. Harry decides to brazen it out. He feigns innocence. Snape *knows* Harry is lying to him. Something I missed in my first reading. But post HBP, it is the only reasonable conclusion to draw: Harry tried to look mildly surprised. "I don't know, Professor." Snape's eyes were boring into Harry's. It was exactly like trying to stare down a hippogriff. Clearly, Snape was using Legilimency here. It is after this point that Snape's demeanor changes. He starts to speak softly (indication of growing anger, with Snape.) When Harry suggests Draco is hallucinating (!) this escalates to snarling. And then we get the "horrible grin" and Snape launches into the speech about famous Harry Potter and how he is just like James. Snape finds himself, I would say, in a position he finds ironic to a painful degree. Here he is, James' despised old enemy/target/victim/insert favorite descriptor here, trying to protect James Potter's son from James Potter's traitorous `best friend'. (Statement not true, but presumably an accurate reflection of Snape's beliefs at the time). Who is not cooperating, in a manner Snape finds reminiscent of James's. That's what I get from the "horrible smile", anyway. And the second "terrible grin" is all about Snape's memory of the `werewolf incident', not about enjoying the pain he is causing Harry. I think Snape becomes far too wrapped up in this scene in his own emotions and issues to be giving much thought to the effect he is having on Harry, let alone enjoying it. I would like to make clear that I am not suggesting this was the correct way to talk to Harry under the circumstances, or nice, or excusable, or any of the above. I am not saying he had a `right' to talk to Harry like this. All I am trying to say here is that Snape was NOT having a swell time tormenting Harry. From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 15:32:28 2006 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:32:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Significance of the term "Dark Lord" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060213153228.58488.qmail@web42206.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148087 Carol wrote (amid major snippage): Peg now: While it does seem to have Death Eater connotations, I suspect "Dark Lord" is also occasionally used by the good guys as a short-hand term to describe LV. (Agreed, Carol -- "He Who Must Not Be Named" becomes tedious after a while!) Even Ginny has been known to use it -- the last line of the singing valentine she sent Harry in CoS was "The hero who conquered the Dark Lord." ...Or maybe that was a really clever clue about her posession! :-) Peg. From monalila662 at earthlink.net Mon Feb 13 18:45:46 2006 From: monalila662 at earthlink.net (dillgravy) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:45:46 -0000 Subject: Where oh where is Mr. Ollivander... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148088 Any theories on the whereabouts of Mr. Ollivander? I really love this character and would hate to see him doing terrible things under the imperious curse. There's only a quick mention of his dissappearance in HPB. I think that Voldesnort or one of his rotten little cronies has kidnapped him in an effort to fix the problem with the two pheonix feather wands, or maybe they've taken him purely because he knows too much--- like what everyone's wands are good for, and what they are capable of doing. OR MAYBE it is the key to what will happen in Book 7! Any thoughts? -Lisa From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 18:53:04 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:53:04 -0000 Subject: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chancie" wrote: > > > Susan McGee wrote: > > Let's call the gene M for Magick. In order to be a witch/wizard > > you must have one Magick gene. > > > > You can have one to four Magick genes....1 - 2 from each parent. > > The more Magick genes you have the more potentially powerful a > > witch or wizard. > > > > A bunch of Muggles have one M gene, but never figure it out > > because they have Muggle parents, and their magic is not very > > strong so it doesn't manifest itself ... > > > ************************************************************* > > Chancie: > > > Just wanted to comment a bit. While you have the POTENTIAL having > a combination of any 4 genes, you would only get 1 from your mom > and 1 from your dad.If you got all your Parents genes, then with > in a few generations you'd have like 16 genes for only 1 trait! > ... > > I hope that helps clear things up a bit. > bboyminn: I'm certainly no expert, or even a novice, in the field of genetics, but don't we all have ALL genes. I was pretty sure the number was fixed, and whether a particular gene was active depended on the combinations of that genes from your parents. I don't remember the exact total, but I think the mathematical number of combinations is somewhere around 7 billion. Unless I'm mistaken the DNA chain splits in half length-wise, and half of your mother's combines with half of your fathers. That is all of your fathers 'halves' combine with all of your mother's halves, and the combination creates a complete DNA ladder. When two specific DNA halves mate, they create the genetic characteristic of blue eyes, brown eyes, prone to cancer, or whatever. So, if there are four magic genes they can either be active or dormant. Let me represent 'active' genes with CAPITAL letters and dormant genes with lower case letters. Now say the Father is ABcd and the mother is aBCd, the son would surely be, at bare minimum, aBcd. Both parents are 'B' active, that guarantees that the son would be 'B' active. Now however, the father is 'A' active while the Mother is 'C' active, but the Mother is 'a' inactive and the Father is 'c' inactive. I think those genes are somewhat luck of the draw. Though not necessarily mathematically correct, in general, the son has a 50/50 chance of either being 'A' active, 'C' active, or both. So the son is guaranteed to be aBcd but could potentially also be any one of the following ABcd aBCd ABCd The comination is guaranteed to always produce 'B' active and 'd' inactive, and 'ac/AC' are luck of the draw. I think a Squib is created when an 'aBcD' father marries a 'AbCd' mother, and by luck of the draw, the son turns out to be 'abcd', or all magic genes are 'inactive'. The most powerful wizard would be created by the combination of an 'ABCd' Father and an 'aBCD' mother, and luck of the draw produce an 'ABCD' son (or daughter). The minimum the son could be, would be 'aBCd'. Now, the various combinations could reflect the nature of the wizards skill. Perhaps, 'ABcd' active would lean more toward Charms, and 'abCD' would lean more toward Tranfiguations, and 'aBCd' would be good at both. Allowing for 'luck of the draw', I calculate that there could be 256 combinations of four genes. (4^4=256). Muggle parents could produce a mutation where an 'abcd' Father and an 'abcd' Mother accidently producted an 'Abcd' child. I suspect that typically two genes are active (AbCd, ABcd, abCD, etc...). This represents a normal magical person. A single active gene would be magical but weak. Three active genes would produce a gifted magical person, and four active genes would produce a magical genius. Keep in mind that no one is defined by a small cluster of genes. A person with three active magic genes but low inteligence and motivations (genetically) will not do as well as a person with the standard two active genes and a high intelligence and one who is also stongly motivated. Is there anyone who is more knowledgable in genetics than I am who could tell me if I'm on to something, or if I'm full of baloney? Just curious. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 19:16:56 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:16:56 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes - The One Who Got It Right? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148090 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > > Flop wrote: > > To be fair, I distinctly remember someone mentioning > > "the old heart/soul in a box trick" at some point, > > probably shortly after OotP came out. It was batted > > around briefly and then allowed to subside. Does > > anyone else remember this. I think it was very shortly > > after I joined the list.... > > Ginger: I remember it, but can't find the early discussion. > > Meriaugust wrote about the Prydain Chronicles (in which a man cuts > off his pinky with his life force in it and hid it in a tree) in > post #132181, posted 7/7/05, but I believe someone had written > earlier about a man hiding it in an egg or something. My memory > tells me it was Steve (bboymn) who wrote about it, but I may be > wrong on that as I can't find the post. Steve? Anyone else? > > Ginger, who doesn't remember her memory being this bad. > bboyminn: No it wasn't me, thought I have spoken on the subject a time or two. Just before HBP was released someone on this list proposed the idea of hiding a persons soul or heart in an object. They even sited examples of mythology and legend from various cultures around the world; amoung them Russian, I believe. The idea generated very little discussion, and I personally thought it was extremely unlikely. But then I was the person who said that the one person who absolutely could not and would not die in OotP was Sirius Black. I don't think any would mind if that person stepped forward and took a well deserved bow, and if possible, referenced us back to that original post. I've searched for it in the past, but haven't been able to find it. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From rh64643 at appstate.edu Mon Feb 13 18:51:16 2006 From: rh64643 at appstate.edu (truthbeauty1) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:51:16 -0000 Subject: Where is Fawkes? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148091 As I re read HBP, and was browsing thru some editorials, a question stood out to me. Where did Fawkes go? Harry seems to think he simply left because Dumbledore was dead. But that isn't characteristic of what we have known of Fawkes up until now. In COS, Fawkes is clearly there to aid Harry, even though Dumbldore has left the school. Fawkes is there to assist someone who is loyal to Dumbldore. However, on the night of DD's death, he leaves the castle, which is full of individuals, including Harry, who are loyal to Dumbledore. What if Fawkes left to aid someone who was loyal to Dumbldore and in a desperate situation? In short, what if Fawkes is currently with Snape? I have often wondered, if Snape is loyal to Dumbledore, what is going to convince Harry of that. Harry already hates Snape, and he saw with his own two eyes, Snape kill his beloved mentor. It would take more than words to convince Harry that Snape is still working against Voldemort. What better sign could there be than Fawkes showing up in a defensive role for Snape? I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this. If this has already been brought up, I apoplized for being repetitive. truthbeauty1 From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 13 19:46:31 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:46:31 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles)/ quick question to Neri In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148092 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > You know, Renee, I would like to read those posts too. I absolutely > see Snape as sadist, but I did not even THINK once about Snape > getting sexual kick out of Harry and Neville's, and maybe some other > student's sufferings (whom we don't see). > > I absolutely use your second definition of sadism "the deriving a > pleasure from cruelty". I don't know if Snape derives sexual pleasure > from it (that IMO seems like fanfic oriented argument, I don't think > canon tells us one way or another). I just see in the books that he > LIKES to watch Harry and Neville suffer and THAT leads me to think > that he is a sadist. Actually, I don't think he likes to watch Neville suffer. I think he is almost perpetually angry with Neville because he is not able to understand Neville's problems and that he takes it out on Neville. Just as he takes out his hatred of James on Harry which fluently transfers to hating Harry for his own sake and acting accordingly. I think Snape often acts sadistic because he is emotionally warped and he is far less in control of his emotions as he likes to think. I don't know if I'm right, but Snape gives me the feeling that he perceives himself as the injured party and as the emotional teenager he is, he acts by hitting back. I think he is in a perpetual revenge against all teenagers for what others did to him when he was a student. Umbridge is different, she actually derives pleasure of her power trips. Just as Barty Crouch I think has amused himself highly all year long by all his actions being interpreted the wrong way, people trusting him while he is actually betraying them. Gerry From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Feb 13 19:47:10 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:47:10 -0000 Subject: Where oh where is Mr. Ollivander... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148093 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dillgravy" wrote: > > Any theories on the whereabouts of Mr. Ollivander? I really love this character and would hate > to see him doing terrible things under the imperious curse. There's only a quick mention of > his dissappearance in HPB. > > I think that Voldesnort or one of his rotten little cronies has kidnapped him in an effort to fix > the problem with the two pheonix feather wands, or maybe they've taken him purely because > he knows too much--- like what everyone's wands are good for, and what they are capable > of doing. OR MAYBE it is the key to what will happen in Book 7! > > Any thoughts? > -Lisa > Hickengruendler: My guess is that he is safe. I think Voldemort wanted to kidnap him to solve "the wand problem" or to make more powerful wands for his allies or something like that, but that Dumbledore protected him and hid him. Hopefully we'll learn more in book 7. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 20:06:54 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:06:54 -0000 Subject: Where is Fawkes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148094 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "truthbeauty1" wrote: > > As I re read HBP, and was browsing thru some editorials, a > question stood out to me. Where did Fawkes go? ... In COS, Fawkes > is clearly there to aid Harry, even though Dumbldore has left the > school. Fawkes is there to assist someone who is loyal to > Dumbldore. bboyminn: Here I think is the first flaw in your logic. Fawkes is NOT there to assist anyone who is loyal to Dumbledore. Fawkes himself bonded with Dumbledore and by Fawkes own choice, he is loyal to Dumbledore. But, given the nature of Phoenix's, we must consider that Dumbledore does not OWN Fawkes, instead, in a manner of speaking, Fawkes own Dumbledore. Fawkes chooses whether to stay or go. Now, Fawkes certainly does assist Harry as an extension of Dumbledore, and futher Fawkes is called to Harry by Harry's expressions of Loyalty to Dumbledore. But Fawkes appearance was an extension of his loyalty to Dumbledore and indeed may have done it at Dumbledore's request. That is, before he left, Dumbledore ask Fawkes to come to Harry's aid, if Harry should need help. Further, in my opinion, Phoenix can't fooled. They may have tricked Harry into believing Dumbledore was dead, but they never would have been able to trick Fawkes. So, when Fawkes cried and sang his mornful lament to Dumbledore's death, it was real. He felt his bond to Dumbledore broken and knew Dumbledore was gone. So, with his connection to Dumbledore no longer there to hold him, Fawkes simply left. That place no longer had meaning for him without Dumbledore. So, Fawkes is off on his own. > truthbeauty1: > > ... What if Fawkes left to aid someone who was loyal to > Dumbldore and in a desperate situation? In short, what if > Fawkes is currently with Snape? I have often wondered, if > Snape is loyal to Dumbledore, what is going to convince Harry > of that.... > > truthbeauty1 > bboyminn: While I think Fawkes is gone, I don't think he really is gone. Fawkes chose Dumbledore as his companion, he has no loyalty to anyone else. However, I get the sense that Fawkes sensed and shared Dumbledore's affection for Harry. While Fawkes may not be bonded to Harry the way he was to Dumbledore, that doesn't mean that Fawkes doesn't feel a sense of affection and connection to Harry. I believe that at some point in the next book Fawkes will once again come to Harry's aid as Fawkes own reflection of affection and loyalty to Dumbledore. Fawkes will sense that Harry is avenging the death of Dumbledore, and once again, that expression of loyalty to Dumbledore will bring Fawkes to him. While I can't say NO, I do have trouble with the idea of Fawkes coming specifically and directly to Snape's aid. I can see Snape being indirectly aided by Fawkes, but we have seen no signs of affection that would indicate that Fawkes is even remotely bonded to Snape or that he cares one way or another what happens to Snape. Remember Phoenix are very solitary creatures. For them to bond or become the companion to a wizard is very rare. There would have to be some sense of or at least clue to their affection, for the Phoenix to assist anyone. I am convinced that Fawkes is not gone from the story. Although, I am equally convinced that, at this point, Fawkes is not bonded to anyone. Still for Fawkes to have bonded with Dumbledore, he clearly saw something very special in him, and would greatly feel that loss. So, Fawkes is still around, and I suspect in some major confrontation, Fawkes will come to Harry aid. Just a few thoughts. STeve/bboyminn From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 13 20:12:40 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:12:40 -0000 Subject: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148095 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Magpie: > Was it? I was originally going to agree with you (despite Barty's > plan being actually incredibly impractical!) but thinking about it it > occured to me that it might not have been pragmatic at all, because > didn't Moody offer to comfort Neville after Harry was speaking to him > in the hall, thus making Fake!Moody think he and Harry were friends > and so think Neville was a good way to get the book to Harry? "didn't you realise that the book you needed was in your dormitory all along? I planted it there early on, I gave it to the Longbottom boy, don't you remember? magical Meditteranean Water-Plants and Their Properties. It would have told you all you needed about Gilyweed. I expected you to ask everyone and anyone you could for help. Longbottom would have told you in an instant." Gof p. 587-577 Bloomsbury edtion. That is why I think he planned it beforehand. He questioned Sprout who of Harry's classmates was good in herbology and then found a way to get the book in that kids hands. It turned out to be Neville, and oh boy, he just knew the right thing. > Of course, I like to think that the little tea Neville and Crouch had > was a sick little sadistic game on its own, with Crouch going on and > on about what happened to Neville's parents and "not noticing" > Neville's distress. After my last re-read of GoF I started to wonder > if that wasn't an important moment in Neville's arc and the moment he > started mentally preparing for his role in OotP. Actually I do think he got a kick out of it, but not that kind of kick. I think he relished comforting Neville, playing Mr. Understandig Teacher and all the while relishing in the fact that he was actually one of the architects of Neville's misery. Gerry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 20:16:03 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:16:03 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles In-Reply-To: <20060213001254.19735.qmail@web37001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148096 Cat wrote: But only 3 Ravenclaws (the most intellectual) and 1 Hufflepuff (the hardest working) managed an Owl in the subject, or decided to continue with Potions thinking that Snape would be teaching. > Carol responds: First, it's four Ravenclaws, not three (HBP Am. ed., 182). More important, an OWL is not necessarily an O (the mark required by Snape for this NEWT Potions students.) A student receives an OWL for *any* Passing grade, not just the top mark (O). An OWL can be an O (Outstanding), an E (Exceeds Expectations), or an A (Acceptable). Any mark below that (P for Poor, D for Dreadful, or T for Troll) is considered a Failing grade and they don't get the OWL. We know that Snape "takes only the very best" in his NEWT Potions classes. Those who get Os are accepted if they want to be or need to be; those who get As or Es *get the OWL* but can't take the course (if Snape is teaching it). We can conclude from HBP that four Slytherins, four Ravenclaws, one Hufflepuff, and one Gryffindor received Os. That is four out of ten in two houses, one out of ten in the other two. And since the Potions OWL was not administered by Snape, we can conclude that these students deserved those high marks. They learned in Snape's classes and from his assigned essays what they needed to learn to receive an Outstanding mark--most likely a perfect potion and close to 100 percent on the essay exam. Since Harry and Ron, despite their dislike of Snape and their occasional slacking off, received Es, it seems likely that other students in their house, such as Parvati or Seamus or Dean (none of whom are shown as melting cauldrons or making elementary mistakes like Neville's), and other Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs, and Slytherins, received Es as well. Even Neville apparently receives an A. We can bet that Goyle received a D or a T, and Crabbe not much better, but they are not typical of the students in Harry's year. Of the twenty-eight students in Harry's year who are not in Slughorn's class, I can't think of any others likely to have failed the Potions OWL. The E students, like Ron and Harry, would have been accepted into *Slughorn's* NEWT Potions class but evidently chose not to do so, either because their career plans didn't require it or because they didn't like Potions. (Not liking Snape can't be a reason if he's not teaching the class.) Or perhaps, unlike Ron and Harry, they didn't know that Slughorn, unlike Snape, would allow them to take the class. We don't know their reasons, but we can't assume that no one except the people in Slughorn's NEWT Potions class received an OWL in Potions. Those people (except for Ron and Harry) received an O. How do we know? Because, unlike Ron and Harry, they brought their own books and scales and cauldrons to class. Ten out of forty is a high percentage of Outstanding students. Ask any teacher. Carol, who is of course basing her estimates on the canonical evidence that there are forty students in Harry's year (twenty broomsticks for the flying class, twenty sets of earmuffs, etc.) From chnc1024 at earthlink.net Mon Feb 13 20:17:31 2006 From: chnc1024 at earthlink.net (chnc1024 at earthlink.net) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:17:31 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney? Message-ID: <410-220062113201731296@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148097 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chancie" wrote: > > > > > Susan McGee wrote: > > > Let's call the gene M for Magick. In order to be a witch/wizard > > > you must have one Magick gene. > > > > > > You can have one to four Magick genes....1 - 2 from each parent. > > > The more Magick genes you have the more potentially powerful a > > > witch or wizard. > > > > > > A bunch of Muggles have one M gene, but never figure it out > > > because they have Muggle parents, and their magic is not very > > > strong so it doesn't manifest itself ... > > > > > > ************************************************************* > > > > Chancie: > > > > > > Just wanted to comment a bit. While you have the POTENTIAL having > > a combination of any 4 genes, you would only get 1 from your mom > > and 1 from your dad.If you got all your Parents genes, then with > > in a few generations you'd have like 16 genes for only 1 trait! > > ... > > > > I hope that helps clear things up a bit. > > > > bboyminn: > > I'm certainly no expert, or even a novice, in the field of genetics, > but don't we all have ALL genes. I was pretty sure the number was > fixed, and whether a particular gene was active depended on the > combinations of that genes from your parents. I don't remember the > exact total, but I think the mathematical number of combinations is > somewhere around 7 billion. > *************************************************** Chancie: Yes, you are right we do have A LOT of different genes, I was simply talking about the genes for 1 trait. For example, brown eyes are more dominate that blue eyes. So if 2 people with brown eyes have a baby, it is possible for that child to have blue eyes, if both parents are carriers of the recessive "blue eye" trait. Kinda like this. Lets use B for brown eyes (dominant genes are USUALLY shown as caps) and b for blue eyes. B b B [BB] [Bb] b [Bb] [bb] The above shows that if these two people had a child, they would have a 3 in 4 chance of having a child with brown eyes, and a 1 in 4 chance of having a brown eyed baby. ***************************************************** > bboyminn again: > Unless I'm mistaken the DNA chain splits in half length-wise, and half > of your mother's combines with half of your fathers. That is all of > your fathers 'halves' combine with all of your mother's halves, and > the combination creates a complete DNA ladder. When two specific DNA > halves mate, they create the genetic characteristic of blue eyes, > brown eyes, prone to cancer, or whatever. > ******************************************************* Chancie: Absolutely correct! ******************************************************* > bboyminn again: > So, if there are four magic genes they can either be active or > dormant. Let me represent 'active' genes with CAPITAL letters and > dormant genes with lower case letters. > > Now say the Father is ABcd and the mother is aBCd, the son would > surely be, at bare minimum, aBcd. Both parents are 'B' active, that > guarantees that the son would be 'B' active. Now however, the father > is 'A' active while the Mother is 'C' active, but the Mother is 'a' > inactive and the Father is 'c' inactive. I think those genes are > somewhat luck of the draw. Though not necessarily mathematically > correct, in general, the son has a 50/50 chance of either being 'A' > active, 'C' active, or both. > I think a Squib is created when an 'aBcD' father marries a 'AbCd' > mother, and by luck of the draw, the son turns out to be 'abcd', or > all magic genes are 'inactive'. The most powerful wizard would be > created by the combination of an 'ABCd' Father and an 'aBCD' mother, > and luck of the draw produce an 'ABCD' son (or daughter). The minimum > the son could be, would be 'aBCd'. ****************************************************** Chancie: Now I'm not a genetic expert, but the way I was taught is that you get 1 gene from each parent for a specific trait. And JKR said that Magic is dominate, and Squibs are VERY rare, and that if you have any magical abilities, then you are admitted to Hogwarts. I'm quite sure that you are right that wizards/witches would posses a "how gifted in magic" gene, but I don't believe it would be combined with the "Magic or Not" gene, but then again I could be wrong of course, wouldn't be the first and I'm certain it wouldn't be the last, however this is my take on the situation. From rkdas at charter.net Mon Feb 13 20:54:04 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:54:04 -0000 Subject: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148098 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Karen wrote: > > > > However, Snape does whisper to Malfoy right before he casts the > >serpensortia curse: > > > > Snape moved closer to Malfoy, bent down, and whispered something in > >his ear. Malfoy smirked, too. Harry looked up nervously at Lockhart > >and said, "Professor, could you show me that blocking thing again?" > >snip< > > Potioncat: > A long time ago this group discussed the Snape-Malfoy relationship. > How did Snape know Malfoy knew the spell? Did Snape teach Malfoy? > Does Snape teach the Slytherins spells in general? Now I see this > scene with the first HBP-DADA class in mind. > > Harry doesn't know how to duel and has Lockhart as a teacher. He's > facing a nasty oponent who has Snape for a teacher. (Had it been me, > I would have said, "Forget this club," and run away.) A snake appears > and Harry has to react. > > He reacts much the way he will need to for DADA. He is resourceful > and while he cannot work a counterspell, he can control the result of > Malfoy's spell. I think Snape learned two things about Harry's > abilities that day: his resourcefulness and his being a Parselmouth. Hi, Thanks for bringing Harry's resourcefulness up because it brings to mind his last encounter with Snape and how completely outgunned he was. No matter what he did, Snape seemed two steps ahead of him. I don't know what to give credit to. Was it that he was so completely discombobulated by DD's death. I would be too! Or was it that Harry's mind is an open book to Snape (If so, that doesn't bode well for his next encounter with LV, the world's best legilimens I think it is) and so Snape was literally 2 steps ahead or is Snape just that good at fighting? If you think it is emotion that kept Harry from being more successful at fighting Snape, does Harry have to detach himself from the world to do this monstrous task? His complete helplessness in the face of Snape was just such a contrast from his GOF encounter with LV. It doesn't bode well for another physical encounter with Snape. I hope we don't see one. Jen D., wondering what Snape has that Lv doesn't... > From newbrigid at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 17:42:38 2006 From: newbrigid at yahoo.com (Lia) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:42:38 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Boggart (Was: Re: Etymology of Lupin's name) In-Reply-To: <20060212223104.40385.qmail@web37006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148099 Cat wrote: > The Scots Gaelic (which is different from the Irish Gaelic) > word is "Silkie". Lia adds: I believe that in Irish Gaelic it's much the same: "selkie". This implies a person who is transfigured, though, I think. The Irish word for seal is "ron" (with an accent over the o). Also, the Irish name "Ronan" means "little seal". :-) Lia, whose name is another word for "stone" in Gaelic From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 21:30:47 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:30:47 -0000 Subject: Glittering eyes (Was: Sadistic Teachers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148100 Renee wrote: > > As for the meaning of sadistic: `deriving sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others' isn't the only official definition; `the deriving of pleasure from cruelty' is another one, and I daresay one that is used more often. To me, Snape's glittering eyes definitely point towards enjoyment. Carol responds: While I agree that your definition of "sadism" is likely to be the one that JKR has in mind (this is, after all, a children's series), I don't think we can safely take "glittering eyes" as an indication of sadistic pleasure. In fact, the description is used (along with paleness) at least twice (once for Harry and once for Snape) to indicate something like a fierce determination to overcome fear or to go into danger. JKR actually departs momentarily from Harry's POV to describe him as he tells Ron and Hermione that he intends to enter the forbidden corridor: "The other two stared at him. He was pale and his eyes were glittering" (SS Am. ed. 270). This description is very similar to that of Snape (from Harry's POV) as Snape is about to leave Hogwarts on a perilous mission (returning to Voldemort on DD's orders): "'Severus,' said Dumbledore, turning to Snape. 'You know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready. . . . If you are prepared. . . .' "'I am,' said Snape. "He looked slightly paler than usual, and his cold, black eyes glittered strangely" (GoF Am. ed. 713). I think it's safe to say that neither Harry nor Snape is about to receive sadistic pleasure from inflicting cruelty on another person in these examples. In fact, both are about to go into great danger. There is no link whatever to sadism here, unless it's the sadism of Voldemort that each will be facing. I would also like to point out, without quoting, that the descriptions of Bellatrix about to Crucio Neville (successfully) in OoP and of Umbridge about to Crucio Harry (unsuccessfully, because she's interrupted) in the same book have no parallel in any description of Snape. But I don't want to stray from my main point, which is that "glittering eyes" in the HP books are not necessarily an indication of sadism and should not be taken as such in the absence of other evidence. Carol, noting (as I did in an earlier post) that the parallel between Snape and Harry in these passages may not be accidental From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Feb 13 21:38:04 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:38:04 -0000 Subject: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney? In-Reply-To: <410-220062113201731296@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148101 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chnc1024 at ..." wrote: > > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Chancie" wrote: > > > > > > > Susan McGee wrote: > > > > Let's call the gene M for Magick. In order to be a witch/wizard > > > > you must have one Magick gene. > > > > > > > > You can have one to four Magick genes....1 - 2 from each parent. > > > > The more Magick genes you have the more potentially powerful a > > > > witch or wizard. > > > > > > > > A bunch of Muggles have one M gene, but never figure it out > > > > because they have Muggle parents, and their magic is not very > > > > strong so it doesn't manifest itself ... > > > > > > > > > ************************************************************* > > > > > > Chancie: > > > > > > > > > Just wanted to comment a bit. While you have the POTENTIAL having > > > a combination of any 4 genes, you would only get 1 from your mom > > > and 1 from your dad.If you got all your Parents genes, then with > > > in a few generations you'd have like 16 genes for only 1 trait! > > > ... > > > > > > I hope that helps clear things up a bit. > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > I'm certainly no expert, or even a novice, in the field of genetics, > > but don't we all have ALL genes. I was pretty sure the number was > > fixed, and whether a particular gene was active depended on the > > combinations of that genes from your parents. I don't remember the > > exact total, but I think the mathematical number of combinations is > > somewhere around 7 billion. > > > *************************************************** > > Chancie: > > Yes, you are right we do have A LOT of different genes, I was simply > talking about the genes for 1 trait. For example, brown eyes > are more dominate that blue eyes. So if 2 people with brown eyes have > a baby, it is possible for that child to have blue eyes, if both parents are > carriers of the recessive "blue eye" trait. Kinda like this. > > > Lets use B for brown eyes (dominant genes are USUALLY shown as caps) > and b for blue eyes. > > B b > > B [BB] [Bb] > > b [Bb] [bb] > > > The above shows that if these two people had a child, they would have > a 3 in 4 chance of having a child with brown eyes, and a 1 in 4 chance > of having a brown eyed baby. > > > ***************************************************** > > > bboyminn again: > > > Unless I'm mistaken the DNA chain splits in half length-wise, and half > > of your mother's combines with half of your fathers. That is all of > > your fathers 'halves' combine with all of your mother's halves, and > > the combination creates a complete DNA ladder. When two specific DNA > > halves mate, they create the genetic characteristic of blue eyes, > > brown eyes, prone to cancer, or whatever. > > > ******************************************************* > > Chancie: > > Absolutely correct! > > > ******************************************************* > > > bboyminn again: > > So, if there are four magic genes they can either be active or > > dormant. Let me represent 'active' genes with CAPITAL letters and > > dormant genes with lower case letters. > > > > Now say the Father is ABcd and the mother is aBCd, the son would > > surely be, at bare minimum, aBcd. Both parents are 'B' active, that > > guarantees that the son would be 'B' active. Now however, the father > > is 'A' active while the Mother is 'C' active, but the Mother is 'a' > > inactive and the Father is 'c' inactive. I think those genes are > > somewhat luck of the draw. Though not necessarily mathematically > > correct, in general, the son has a 50/50 chance of either being 'A' > > active, 'C' active, or both. > > > > > I think a Squib is created when an 'aBcD' father marries a 'AbCd' > > mother, and by luck of the draw, the son turns out to be 'abcd', or > > all magic genes are 'inactive'. The most powerful wizard would be > > created by the combination of an 'ABCd' Father and an 'aBCD' mother, > > and luck of the draw produce an 'ABCD' son (or daughter). The minimum > > the son could be, would be 'aBCd'. > ****************************************************** > > Chancie: > > Now I'm not a genetic expert, but the way I was taught is that you get > 1 gene from each parent for a specific trait. That was the way I was taught..but it's a little simplistic..if you look at the genes for certain diseases, for example, it's not so clear cut...Genes can combine to do various things... Susan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 22:29:24 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:29:24 -0000 Subject: Tom/Voldemort/Dark Lord - what is in a name? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148102 TR/LV/DL I have been thinking about the many name of the evil one in HP. Also wondering if the fact that he has 3 names is significant? What is the symbolic significance of the #3 here? Is it the 3 aspects of evil, as the opposite of the Christian trinity? What do we know of the three names and the personhood of each? (help me out here, please) *Tom Riddle*: Half Blood. Conceived by trickery, not by love. Wizard family line of S. Slytherin Mother abandoned by his father Mother died in childbirth Raised in Muggle Orphanage Scared other children (and perhaps adults) with his magical nature appears to have been a `Conduct Disordered' child Unloved as child (we assume) Never loved another Went to Hogwarts ? Slytherin Attracted to the Dark Arts Was Head Boy DD saw him for his true nature Asked Slughorn about Dark Arts and preventing death, learned about Horcuxes Explored Dark Arts when left Hogwarts *Lord Voldemort* Was Tom Riddle ? Tom took his name and transformed it into LV Expert in the Dark Arts Powerful wizard Gathered a band of followers So evil even the mention of his name causes fear Most wizard refer to him as "He who must not be named" *Dark Lord* The name/distinction given him by his followers His followers apparently only use this title when speaking of him (why?) What IS a Dark Lord? Is there more than one? Is the "Dark Lord" a part of ancient magic that comes into existence in a new person with each generation? Is it the end result of a negative (alchemical) transformation? (If we think of a person like DD as the end result of a positive alchemical transformation.) (Of course, if we follow this line of thinking then instead of Eternal Life the Dark Lord would get Eternal Death, so..??) Someone here said once that I did not understand the concept of the "Dark God" in the occult. Maybe that person can add some thought to what I am about to say, because it may not be in accord with the concept of "Dark God". But isn't the Dark God and the Dark Lord the same? Isn't the Dark God, death? Is it possible that Tom has become the thing that he fears? Tom seeks Eternal Life and has tried to find it through death (killing others), so in a sense he has become death. He is certainly equated with death and feared as much by other wizards. Any thoughts? Tonks_op From kkersey at swbell.net Mon Feb 13 22:41:01 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:41:01 -0000 Subject: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney? In-Reply-To: <410-220062113201731296@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148103 FYI I posted a reply over on the OT list, since my reply didn't seem to be particually relevant to canon... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/29573 Elisabet From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 22:42:43 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:42:43 -0000 Subject: Where oh where is Mr. Ollivander... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148104 Lisa wrote: "Any theories on the whereabouts of Mr. Ollivander? I really love this character and would hate to see him doing terrible things under the imperious curse. There's only a quick mention of his disappearance in HPB. I think that Voldesnort or one of his rotten little cronies has kidnapped him in an effort to fix the problem with the two Phoenix feather wands, or maybe they've taken him purely because he knows too much--- like what everyone's wands are good for, and what they are capable of doing. OR MAYBE it is the key to what will happen in Book 7! " CH3ed: I agree with Hickengruendler. I think Mr. O went into hiding from LV and his DEs with the aid of Albus Dumbledore (who offered the same service to Draco on the Tower). DD was very good at anticipating what LV wanted to do, and so DD must have realized when Harry told him of the priori incantatem effect in the graveyard scene (GoF), that LV must have been alerted then to the fact that his and Harry's wands share a core. DD then knew that would put Mr. O the wand-maker in trouble with LV. The way Bill told it in HBP, Mr. O's shop showed no sign of struggle (quite unlike Florean Fortescue's shop) so that they couldn't tell if Mr. O left voluntarily or not. He just vanished. At any rate, if Mr. O has been hiding with the aid of DD, DD hadn't told it to his OotP since Bill and Lupin don't know. But that is neither evidence for or against considering DD's aptitude in keeping secrets and not telling anyone more than DD thought they should know. I think Mr. O is quite a smart man all by himself.... his unblinking grey eyes stick in my head quite a bit (like Luna's). So I'm betting he went into hiding very competently (letting DD know of it but nobody else, pretty much). I don't think he has gone to LV's side since he seems to have a good relationship with DD (sent DD an owl to inform him of Harry's purchase of the second wand, was employed to examine the wands at Triwizard Tournament... and kept quiet about Harry's wand in front of others). CH3ed :O) Would love to have Mr. Ollivander hide out at my house... and make me a wand that'd keep my cat from using the sofa as a claw sharpener. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 23:21:17 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:21:17 -0000 Subject: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148105 Gerry wrote: > I'd say that is pragmatic. Yes, it is awful and evil, but says far > more about how 'creative' fake!Moody is in manipulation people to get > what he wants than about how he gets his kicks. As far as we know he > could not care less in what way he got a one on one with Neville and > to him this was just the easiest way to create an opportunity. I can > very well imagine Barty being the kind of person who does not care one > bit one way or the other about the pawns in his game, as long as they > lead him to capture the king. Carol responds; I don't think Crouch!Moody is indifferent to Neville's pain. I think he enjoys Neville's suffering during the Cruciatus Curse demonstration, and the spider's as well, which explains why it's unnecessarily prolonged. This is the same man, after all, who at age nineteen helped to Crucio the Longbottoms into insanity, and who later kills his own father and Imperios Krum to make him Crucio Cedric. (I think we can trust the Cruciatus expert, Bellatrix Lestrange, when she says that you have to enjoy inflicting pain to cast a successful and sustained Cruciatus Curse.) He also has the will to dominate, required for casting the Imperius Curse, which IMO he casts as much for his own amusement as to see how Harry reacts to it. (He can play with Harry, almost force him to master fighting it off despite nearly breaking his knees, because Harry, he believes, will be dead before the end of the year.) He may very well enjoy his own cleverness, pulling the wool over everyone's eyes for the sake of serving his master, but he also uses Unforgiveable Curses at every opportunity. (If Dumbledore really gave him permission to demonstrate the Curses, even use them one of them on the students, he must have been very surprised by the request. I'm not at all convinced that Crouch!Moody was telling the truth here.) In any case, I'm wondering if he gave the same lesson in all his other classes, none of which included either Harry Potter or Neville Longbottom. How would he explain his belief that only the fourth-year Gryffindors needed this lesson? Most likely he gave it to all his students from the fourth year up. IOW, he Imperio'd some 160 students (not to mention Imperioing, Crucioing, or AKing some 48 spiders, if my math is correct). After some twelve years under the Imperius Curse, this man is still able to dominate, torture, and kill effortlessly and, IMO, take pleasure in doing so. If he didn't sadistically enjoy bouncing the Transfigured Draco, I'm a ferret. (Okay, that's a bit strong and just my opinion, but I feel it strongly.) Carol, whose least favorite character after Umbridge and Fenrir Greyback is Barty Crouch Jr. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Feb 13 23:24:32 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:24:32 +0100 Subject: DD and Snape's Culpability References: Message-ID: <013501c630f4$a5c19ac0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148106 latha279 wrote: > Yes, indeed, I came to that conclusion only because Trelawney knew > Snape was there. She said he interrupted her interview. But there is > no way she could have known of anything at that time. She goes into a > trance and she loses consciousness of the outer world. Miles: And that means that Snape really interrupted her interview (as far as she could know). What I don't believe is, that he interrupted the prophecy. Canon is this: "'... and I remember I was starting to feel a little odd, I had not eaten much that day... but then...' (...) '...but then we were rudely interrupted by Severus Snape. (...) 'Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, who was waffling about having come the wrong way up the stairs, although I'm afraid that I myself rather thought he had been apprehended eavesdropping...'." (HBP 25) First, I think we are to believe what Trelawny says, with the exception that she doesn't know about the prophecy. Instead, she remembers feeling "odd". So, what she says is, that the commotion and the interruption took place *after* the entire prophecy. Some listies had the idea of an interrupted prophecy, so that Trelawny again fell into trance after the interruption. I don't see this compatible with canon, so I'd like to rule this version out. That leaves two possibilities: a) Snape only heard the first part of the prophecy. Then he was disturbed by the barman, and because of this Snape could only hear the first part of the prophecy. This is absolutely possible, but I don't think it is probable. Trelawny heard commotion outside the door after the entire prophecy, and only after that both Snape and the barman entered the scene. Why should it last longer than three or four seconds for the barman to see Snape, shout at him and open the door? Only if the commotion lasted considerable longer, this would have been long enough to prevent Snape from hearing the entire prophecy. b) Snape heard the entire prophecy. *After* the prophecy he was disturbed by the barman, so Trelawny could hear the commotion and notice that Snape was eavesdropping her interview (that, what we know but she not, included the prophecy). I like this version much better. Because, if it is true, than this would be the reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape - and a very good reason indeed. If Dumbledore and Snape agreed, that it would be good if Voldemort knew about the first, but not the second part of the prophecy (maybe in order to set a snare for Voldemort or to lead him to carelessness?), and if Snape really managed to mislead Voldemort for 14 years, always in danger because of it - yes, this would be a start for DDM!Snape, and a reason for continuing trust. There are two problems with b). b1) We know by now that this would be a very bad mistake on Dumbledore's part - with the result of James' and Lily's death. I don't think Dumbledore foresaw this or something like that (no Puppetmaster!Dumbledore). But maybe this is not a real problem, but a solution for another puzzle? "'It's all my fault, all my fault,' he sobbed, 'please make it stop, I know I did wrong, oh, please make it stop and I'll never, never again...'" (Dumbledore in The Cave HBP 26) b2) If "my" version is true, than Dumbledore lied at Harry: "Snape (...) heard the first half of Professor Trelawney's prophecy. He hastened to tell his master what he had heard" (HBP 25). Now, I really don't think that Dumbledore usually lies at Harry, or likes to do it. But if he did it this time - who wants to blame him? Harry is supposed to face Voldemort sooner or later. Voldemort is able to break into Harry's mind again. It would be most dangerous for Snape if Harry knew exactly why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and knows that Snape has betrayed Voldemort (and is still doing it). So, this would be a white lie - and I think it is possible and no real argument against this theory. Miles From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Feb 13 23:39:15 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:39:15 +0100 Subject: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape References: <001c01c630aa$98ae4850$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: <014c01c630f6$b4154a20$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148107 Karen wrote: > I just find that very interesting, since it is likely that he told > Malfoy to use that spell. For what reason? potioncat wrote: > I think Snape learned two things about Harry's > abilities that day: his resourcefulness and his being a Parselmouth. Miles: And I think at least the second information he tried to reveal. He could suspect Harry being a Parselmouth and tries to find out it by letting Draco cast a snake. Possibly it is not Snape's, but Dumbledore's idea that Harry is a Parselmouth. But I think it is interesting that Draco succeeded in casting the snake. As far as we know, it is not enough to know the incantation of a spell to perform it. So obviously Draco knew the spell, and Snape just told him to use it. We don't have background information (and I doubt we will get it), so we can speculate - maybe "Serpensortia" is kind of House speciality of Slytherin, the House of the Snake? Miles From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 13 23:42:17 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:42:17 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148108 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I get the sense that when people on this list lable Snape a > > sadist, they're going for the orignial Marquis De Sade meaning. > Renee: > You sense this? I'd be a lot more convinced if presented with some > hard evidence. Which people on this list who called Snape sadistic > have suggested he got a sexual charge out of tormenting students? > Betsy Hp: Yes, that's the sense I get. And I get that sense because of the *insistence* on using that particular word. We can all agree that Snape is cruel at times, that's he's nasty at times, and that he's unfair (with Gryffindors pretty much all the time). But there's still a demand by some that Snape be labeled a sadist. The one difference between that word and the others I've used is that a sadist *enjoys* his cruelty. That he really relishes watching someone else in pain. The English language has a lot of words that mean *almost* the same thing but have subtle differences. The difference between "mean" and "sadistic" is one example. If the word "mean" isn't good enough, if "sadistic" is being insisted upon, then I think it's safe to assume that folks are going for the more exact meaning of the word "sadistic". > >>Renee: > As for the meaning of sadistic: `deriving sexual gratification from > inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others' isn't the only > official definition; `the deriving of pleasure from cruelty' is > another one, and I daresay one that is used more often. I don't > doubt most of the people who accuse Snape of sadism, JKR included, > are thinking of this second one. > Betsy Hp: Right. And I used that part of the definition too. I have no idea how *much* pleasure Umbridge got out of watching Harry hurt himself. But it was certainly a disturbing amount. There's no hint in the Trevor scene that Snape was deriving a disturbing amount of pleasure out of the situation. There's nothing to suggest he was pleased with the situation at all. Also, I still disagree that JKR meant "sadistic" in the offical sense. I feel that if someone asked her, "Is Snape a sadist," she'd either answer no, or (as she usually does) tap-dance her way into a non-answer. She's worked too hard at maintaining Snape's ambiguousness to destroy it all in an interview. > >>Renee: > > But the toad incident wasn't the only incident I mentioned in my > post, though it's the only one you address. Snape does > crack a smile, and a horrible one at that, when he is about to > torment Harry over the Marauder's Map, for instance, and I believe > Alla mentioned yet another example. Betsy Hp: I agree with Zgirnius' post on the Marauder's Map question, found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148086 (Thanks, Zgirnius! ) And Carol answers the glittering eyes question really well here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148100 And Alla's examples of Snape smiling when he either lectures Harry or takes away points, etc., do not, to my mind rise to the level of sadism. Snape enjoys catching Harry in wrong doing, but I think it's more of an "Aha! I was *right* about you!" than an enjoyment of Harry's suffering. Actually, at a time where he knew Harry was suffering (after Sirius's death) Snape was remarkably restrained when he could have really twisted the knife. (This is actually similar to the reason why I doubt Snape hates Neville, or enjoys making him suffer. Snape knows all about Neville's parents, and he *never* mentions them or even alludes to them at all. Such a bright shiny button would be irresistable to a true sadist.) > >>Gerry: > Actually, I don't think he likes to watch Neville suffer. I think > he is almost perpetually angry with Neville because he is not able > to understand Neville's problems and that he takes it out on > Neville. > Betsy Hp: I pretty much agree with this Gerry. Snape is not a sadist, so he doesn't like watching Neville suffer. I also think most of his interactions with Neville in PoA are based on his frustration with Neville not learning as he should. I'm not sure I'd take it all the way up to *angry*. Because I think Snape is attempting (in his Snape-like way) to reach Neville, to get him over his problem with Potions. I don't think he's acting emotionally with Neville (as he does when he's truly angry). I think Snape's "bullying" of Neville, that Harry mentions briefly after the boggart incident have more to do with trying to push Neville onwards rather than any vengence over the boggart. And I don't think Neville enjoyed a minute of it, and I doubt Snape enjoyed a minute of it either. But I think it worked in the end. Because we don't hear about (as far as I can recall) Snape continuing to bully Neville in the later books, and I also believe we don't hear about Neville's potions going quite as wrong as they had done in the past. I don't think this was the best method of dealing with Neville's issue, whatever it was. And I don't think Snape was acting out of the goodness of his own heart. (I suspect Snape dislikes failure.) But I also doubt Snape attacked Neville because he's a sadist seeking an easy target. Betsy Hp From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Feb 13 23:46:09 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:46:09 +0100 Subject: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) References: Message-ID: <016001c630f7$aad7e9d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148109 justcarol67 wrote: > This is the same man, after all, who (...) Imperios Krum to make him > Crucio Cedric. (I > think we can trust the Cruciatus expert, Bellatrix Lestrange, when she > says that you have to enjoy inflicting pain to cast a successful and > sustained Cruciatus Curse.) Miles: Just let me ask one small question then: Why can Krum perform Crucio on Cedric, while he has no will of his own (being imperiused), so he is not able to enjoy or "really want" to hurt Cedric? Can this joy really been imperiused as well? Or is this just a flaw on JKR's part? Miles From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Feb 13 23:48:54 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:48:54 -0000 Subject: Discrepancy of skills In-Reply-To: <20060212202501.20129.qmail@web35615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148110 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maria Holub wrote: > > Flop: > > And ignored the Decree for the Restriction of Underage > Sorcery, did she?... Besides, where would she get her > hands on a boggart over the summer? > Allie: Oh yeah! Next semester then. She wouldn't need to practice on an actual boggart, as we saw with the DA, there are ways to learn to fight dark creatures without them actually being around. From agdisney at msn.com Mon Feb 13 23:52:49 2006 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:52:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape References: <001c01c630aa$98ae4850$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> <014c01c630f6$b4154a20$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148111 Miles But I think it is interesting that Draco succeeded in casting the snake. As far as we know, it is not enough to know the incantation of a spell to perform it. So obviously Draco knew the spell, and Snape just told him to use it. We don't have background information (and I doubt we will get it), so we can speculate - maybe "Serpensortia" is kind of House speciality of Slytherin, the House of the Snake? Miles Andie: We think that Draco cast the Serpensortia spell, but we didn't know about non-verbal spells back then. Snape could have told Draco what to say and then cast the spell himself. Who would know the difference? Lockhart wouldn't know the difference and the rest of the group were just students. There wouldn't be anyone there to catch the "secret" spell. 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 Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br Tue Feb 14 00:20:27 2006 From: lucianam73 at yahoo.com.br (lucianam73) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:20:27 -0000 Subject: What's with all the parchment and DD's wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148112 Here's some thoughts on parchment. I think it's remarkable how all those messages to Harry are minutely described throughout HBP. We're always told five things about them: 1- who wrote the message 2- contents of message 3- who hands Harry the message 4- who actually passed the roll of parchment to the messenger 5- time and place of delivery to Harry. And, well, it is always a roll of parchment but no surprise in that I guess as they (people in Potterverse) actually use those a lot. In all messages wrote by Dumbledore and Snape (supposedly written by them, but I'm not questioning this as I see no reason why I should), the messenger is identified. They're all Gryffindors and mostly people from the Gryffindor Quidditch team, with the exception of Luna. (Oh, and if you count Dumbledore's letter to Harry in chapter 3, it was delivered by owl. The only owl-delivered message Harry gets in HBP, btw, except for his OWLS.) The other two messages in HBP_ not counting OWLS and Dumbledore's letter in chapter 3_ were delivered by unidentified students. One, by a "breathless third yead girl" and the other by "a girl". Respectively, messengers of Slughorn's invitation to the Slug Club meeting in the Hogwarts express and of Hagrid's letter asking Harry to attend the burial. It all smells fishy to me. I wonder why JKR would go all through this trouble? All through this simetrical trouble? If anyone wants to check on the messages, they are eight, in pages 135 of chap. 7, 172 of chap. 9, 222 of chap. 11, 228 of chap. 12, 329 of chap.17, 397 of chap.20, 440 of chap.22 and 504 of chap. 25, children's British edition. Answers to items 1,2,3,4 and 5 are respectively (yes I'm having fun!): 1- Slughorn, DD, Snape, DD, DD, DD, Hagrid, DD (hints of authenticity are mentions of DD's writing, or mention of Harry recognising the letter as DD's in all of Dumbledore's rolls of parchment. In Hagrid's roll of parchment_ maybe I should call them RP, it's easier_ there are mentions to blotches suggesting tears, but it is also said, upon reception of RP, that asking Harry to leave school at night is not consistent with Hagrid's usual behavior. I think this was perhaps done on purpose, as to leave doubt of the message's authenticity.) 2- invitation to Slug Club, scheduling Harry's next lesson with DD, fixing a new time for Harry's detention, also scheduling lesson with DD, same as previous, same as previous, asking Harry to attend Aragog's burial, scheduling lesson with DD. 3- 3rd year girl, Jack Sloper, Demelza Robbins, Ginny, Hermione, Luna, a girl, Jimmy Peakes. 4- not mentioned, with the probable exception of message #3, very likely sent by Snape. We know this because Harry asks Demelza: "From DD?" and she answers "No, from Snape." In NONE of the other cases the person who sent the message is mentioned by the messenger, all they ever say is "I'm supposed to give you this" or a similar combination of words. 5- Hogwarts's express September 1st, just outside DADA class and just after that class, Gryffindor's common room in the evening of the day Quidditch trials were held, breakfast table just before leaving for the first Hogsmeade weekend, Gryffindor's common room just after Harry arrived from Christmas holidays, seventh floor corridor just after Ron left the hospital wing, courtyard after lunch in the day of Aragog's burial, Gryffindor's common room in the evening right before Harry and DD went searching the Horcrux. I don't have a proper theory, but maybe DD was worried about the Ministry's lack of honor when their political interests are concerned. Scrimgeour wouldn't feel too bad about opening and reading Harry's private letters, for instance. So DD could have thought of an alternative way of informing Harry of his lessons, perhaps with the help of Snape. I think it is possible Snape was helping DD with the messages because HIS own message was delivered in the exact same manner, perhaps it was Snape himself who had the idea of using Harry's Quidditch team members and close friends, so they's find Harry easily and quickly. I don't think using, say, a random Hufflepuff would be as efficient as using a student close to Harry and who would already know where to find him. Snape also saw Harry with Luna at Slughorn's party and assumed they were close, so he used her as well. I find it interesting, if all this could ever be true, that Snape used Jack Sloper. It makes such sense, after all Sloper was a beater in the previous year so Snape assumed he still was. It's just too much to expect Snape to be on every detail about Gryffindor's Quidditch team, right? I can easily imagine Snape handing the kids a RP, telling them to give it to Potter and slightly Confunding them or blurring their memories so they wouldn't remember to say who gave them the RP. A precaution unnecessary in the case of Harry's detention, obviously. Well. On a lighter note, does anybody know what happened to Dumbledore's wand? Was it burned with his body? Was it mentioned after the tower, I really don't remember. lucianam From carodave92 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 00:21:36 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:21:36 -0000 Subject: Non-Verbal Communication In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148113 Carodave: Does anyone think that when Sirius was in hiding during PoA, he may have communicated non-verbally with Crookshanks. They were 'allies' and also Crookshanks withdrew money from Sirius' Gringott's account for Harry's broom. Unless Crookshanks understands English...which is possible...he does stop the Whomping Willow when Hermione asks for help...any thoughts? Carodave Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > I have been re-reading PS and it occurred to me that the > first instance of non-verbal communication that we see > is the interaction between Harry and the snake. > > "Harry moved in front of the tank and looked intently at > the snake. ..." > > There is no mention of him saying anything, and yet > the snake responds to his presence. > >snip > The first that Harry actually says something to the snake > comes later and it almost seems as though the only reason > Harry says it out loud is for his own benefit. The snake > has already understood his thoughts. > > Is this the only instance of direct non-verbal communication > with another animal/person? I can't recall others right now. > > > From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 00:25:35 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:25:35 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148114 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > That he really relishes watching someone else in pain. > I feel that if someone asked her, "Is Snape a sadist," she'd > either answer no, or (as she usually does) tap-dance her way into a > non-answer. She's worked too hard at maintaining Snape's > ambiguousness to destroy it all in an interview. I stand by my reading of Snape as a sadist in the "enjoys the discomfort of others" meaning, which means I don't have to do the "oh JKR didn't mean it" tap dance. :) But I think there's something interesting here, which I'd argue for (and have repeatedly): While JKR is often quite ambiguous about actions and events, so as not to give away the plot, she's rarely been too ambiguous about her evaluation of the fundamental character of her characters. She's never been terribly cagey about Snape on that front. She's continually hammered at the "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them," saying she hesitates to say that she loves him, saying he's a sadistic teacher, ad nauseam. Where she has been openly cagey and refused to answer questions explicitly is about what he has done in the past and his greater role in the plot--so as not to spoil the next book. These are two very different things. I guess it's just hard for many listies to reconcile the idea that Snape might be and remain presented as a thoroughly nasty and unpleasant person in his character, but still have some major plot role that JKR wants kept under wraps until the end. :) For myself, one of the grand ironies of Snape's character is lost if he's not doing what he does partially because he enjoys it. Here's the kid who was, for at least part of his school career, the object of pranks of others, at least sometimes from an outnumbered position. (Although we are told in several places that this was mutual, and Snape sure was...inventive.) Is there not a kind of bitter and galling irony that he's now someone who uses his own position to exercise power over others? That he has, in his scenario, not embraced the idea "It was bad when it happened to me, so I won't be cruel to others?", but instead enjoys being in the superior spot--and a spot that is solidly superior, unlike the classmates situation vis-a-vis the Marauders. If anyone has missed the forgiveness and learning from the past train, in thematic terms, it's Snape. I like seeing that theme in toto and not defanged, although it may well not prove out. But since I don't do the JKR didn't meeeean it dance, I hope it will. -Nora returns from a weekend of ungroomed powder and baby air From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 00:25:51 2006 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:25:51 -0000 Subject: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148115 > bboyminn: > >> Unless I'm mistaken the DNA chain splits in half length-wise, and half > of your mother's combines with half of your fathers. That is all of > your fathers 'halves' combine with all of your mother's halves, and > the combination creates a complete DNA ladder. When two specific DNA > halves mate, they create the genetic characteristic of blue eyes, > brown eyes, prone to cancer, or whatever. > Kelleyaynn: Not quite. The DNA chain splits in half during the formation of new cells so it can replicate itself. The DNA has to replicate so extra cells have all the DNA they need. In mitotic cell division (like the kind that repairs wounds), the DNA must copy itself so each of the two daughter cells have the requisite chromosomes. In meiosis, which creates eggs and sperm, the DNA also replicates, since from one germ line cell you get four sperm (you only get one egg, but that is because the other three basically disintegrate). In meiosis, there are two cell divisions: one to half the number of chromosomes, and the other to split the replicated chromosomes apart (hence the four cell result instead of two). There are only twenty-two types of chromosomes in humans (plus the X and Y chromosomes), but we have two of each type. One of each pair comes from the mother, the other from the father. So in reality, we have two copies of every gene, and it is the combination of which copies we get that determines the actual result. It isn't that the halves come together (the DNA chain pretty much forms the new half right as the chain splits in half), but a pair of chromosomes is found in each cell (and they do not physically associate with each other except during cell division). That's a simplified version. I hope it makes sense. Genetics can be quite complicated, though it is endlessly fascinating (at least to me!) >bboyminn: > So, if there are four magic genes they can either be active or > dormant. Let me represent 'active' genes with CAPITAL letters and > dormant genes with lower case letters. > Kelleyaynn: Genes are neither active nor dormant. They are dominant or recessive. Recessive does NOT mean that it doesn't do anything. It just means that when it comes to actually seeing the physical result of the two gene copies, you only notice the dominant result. In fact, for most traits, dominant and recessive is irrelevant, and geneticists rarely talk about dominant and recessive alleles (the gene copies) - what happens is usually more complicated than simple Mendelian genetics. >bboyminn: > Now say the Father is ABcd and the mother is aBCd, the son would > surely be, at bare minimum, aBcd. Both parents are 'B' active, that > guarantees that the son would be 'B' active. Now however, the father > is 'A' active while the Mother is 'C' active, but the Mother is 'a' > inactive and the Father is 'c' inactive. I think those genes are > somewhat luck of the draw. Though not necessarily mathematically > correct, in general, the son has a 50/50 chance of either being 'A' > active, 'C' active, or both. > > So the son is guaranteed to be > > aBcd > > but could potentially also be any one of the following > > ABcd > aBCd > ABCd > > The comination is guaranteed to always produce 'B' active and 'd' > inactive, and 'ac/AC' are luck of the draw. > > I think a Squib is created when an 'aBcD' father marries a 'AbCd' > mother, and by luck of the draw, the son turns out to be 'abcd', or > all magic genes are 'inactive'. The most powerful wizard would be > created by the combination of an 'ABCd' Father and an 'aBCD' mother, > and luck of the draw produce an 'ABCD' son (or daughter). The minimum > the son could be, would be 'aBCd'. > > Kelleyaynn: Not sure how to address this and ignore the "active" and "inactive" terms. There could be four genes that determine magic, with each gene having at least two different alleles. However, what makes magic and genetics tricky is that genes ONLY control the proteins made by a cell. I won't go into how proteins affect behavior, but suffice it to say, they do. However, thinking of a way that proteins could make one magical or not is purely wild speculation, and I haven't come up with anything that is satisfactory to me. So, since muggles would also have to have the same genes that code for magic proteins, but somehow only have the recessive alleles that lead to proteins that do not give any magical ability. That would make squibs and muggles genetically identical. So squibs would really be muggles. But I don't think that JKR meant for squibs to actually be muggles, so I don't think this is an adequate explanation for squibs. Ignoring the protein basis for magic difficulty, I'm more inclined to go with magic being only one gene with only two alleles (so there are only two types of protein - one that makes you magical and one that does not). And, magic is recessive. Having one magical allele will not produce enough protein to make you magical (something called haploinsufficiency in genetics). Squibs are the result of what I would liken to a severe learning disability - there is something else that interferes with magical ability, say like ADD. Whew! I hope this helped some. Kelleyaynn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 01:00:31 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:00:31 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148116 > Betsy Hp: > I pretty much agree with this Gerry. Snape is not a sadist, so he > doesn't like watching Neville suffer. I also think most of his > interactions with Neville in PoA are based on his frustration with > Neville not learning as he should. I'm not sure I'd take it all the > way up to *angry*. Because I think Snape is attempting (in his > Snape-like way) to reach Neville, to get him over his problem with > Potions. I don't think he's acting emotionally with Neville (as he > does when he's truly angry). a_svirn: No, why should we take "it all the way up to angry". No doubt Snape tried to reach him in his Snape-like way. Crouch, too, tried to reach him in his Crouch-like way ? and it worked, did it not? He certainly managed to get under his skin as much as Snape had ever done! Then, too, McGonagall. She regularly reached Neville in her McGonagall-like way. And it cannot be said that she failed to do so, either. By the OooP Neville showed all signs of being able to memorise a password. And when he is out of reach of his kind preceptors he has his granny to reach him in her very own way ? just to keep him in good trim. Lucky Neville. From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Feb 14 01:45:51 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:45:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore doubles (Re: DD and Snape's Culpability) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148117 brady: > Anyways, it is definitely going to be such a long painful wait till > we get our answers. I love thrillers, but hate suspenses. houyhnhnm: Serial fiction was great (I'm sure) when it came out in the _Strand_ once a month. Two years *is* a long time to wait. Sometimes I think future readers of the Potter series will have it better because they will be able to read all the books straight through. On the subject of reconciling the evidence for Snape's knowing the entire prophecy with Dumbledore's statement in the broom shed, there is a crazy idea I have not been able to get out of my head lately. It's just wild speculation. I'm not prepared to write a treatise to support it, but what if ... HBP is filled with DD doubles (kind of like Saddam doubles) either to draw off suspicion as DD hunts for the horcruxes, or because Dumbledore did die of the ring curse and the Order doesn't want either Voldemort or the rest of the WW (It might cause panic) to know that he's dead. So different members of the Order (or anyone else that can be coerced--Pettigrew perhaps) take turns being polyjuiced or transfigured to impersonate him. So, maybe it was Snape *under* the hat, in the broom shed. I know. It's even more over-the-top than Snape the spider animagus on DD's hat (which I can't take credit for, but I like it a lot). From exodusts at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 01:53:49 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:53:49 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes - The One Who Got It Right? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148118 > bboyminn: > > No it wasn't me, thought I have spoken on the subject a time or two. > > Just before HBP was released someone on this list proposed the idea of > hiding a persons soul or heart in an object. They even sited examples > of mythology and legend from various cultures around the world; amoung > them Russian, I believe. > > The idea generated very little discussion, and I personally thought it > was extremely unlikely. But then I was the person who said that the > one person who absolutely could not and would not die in OotP was > Sirius Black. > > I don't think any would mind if that person stepped forward and took a > well deserved bow, and if possible, referenced us back to that > original post. I've searched for it in the past, but haven't been able > to find it. > > Exodusts: I had a look, and I think the credit goes to Vivian/vmonte, in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/132161 ***START*132161*** Saraquel wrote: In the Edinburgh interview, JK said this is what we should think about: "There are two questions that I have never been asked but that I should have been asked, if you know what I mean. "Why didn't Voldemort die?" Not, "Why did Harry live?" but, "Why didn't Voldemort die?" The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn't he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he did to make sure that he did not die? but you should be asking yourself that question, particularly now that you know about the prophesy." vmonte responds: Isn't there a legend or fable that talks about a man that becomes immortal because he keeps his soul hidden in a box? (Did I make this up?) Vivian ***END*132161*** Follow up replies mention similar things, in the Firebird story and the Chronicles of Prydain, but Karen Barker gets closest to the truth with this speculation indirectly fingering the Diary as a Horcrux: "Well Lucius Malfoy apparently has a lot of LV's "old school stuff" and Harry and Ron know where it's hidden too, after the polyjuice episode: under the floorboards in 'Malfoy Towers'. Perhaps he is Voldy's secret keeper and soul storer." From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Mon Feb 13 23:59:53 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:59:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: <016001c630f7$aad7e9d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: <20060213235953.51597.qmail@web37015.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148119 Miles: Just let me ask one small question then: Why can Krum perform Crucio on Cedric, while he has no will of his own (being imperiused), so he is not able to enjoy or "really want" to hurt Cedric? Can this joy really been imperiused as well? Or is this just a flaw on JKR's part? Cat wrote: The students at Durmstrang are taught the Dark Arts, which might just include a few unforgivable curses too. He probably already had the ability to cast the curse, making him the one to be imperiused instead of Fleur. Another thought I had about Draco and the duelling club scene....Personally, I believe he knew how to do that before he even entered Hogwarts. I highly doubt his father, who makes sure that Draco knows way more information than any other of the kids at Hogwarts, would have let him set foot in Hogwarts without a few or more tricks up his sleeve. Cat From exodusts at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 02:16:07 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:16:07 -0000 Subject: Krum under Imperio WAS: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers In-Reply-To: <016001c630f7$aad7e9d0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148120 > Miles: > Just let me ask one small question then: > Why can Krum perform Crucio on Cedric, while he has no will of his own > (being imperiused), so he is not able to enjoy or "really want" to hurt > Cedric? Can this joy really been imperiused as well? > Or is this just a flaw on JKR's part? > Exodusts wrote: I'd say probably a flaw. I've never been entirely happy with Imperiused Krum using that Unforgivable Curse because it effectively means a wizard can indirectly cast spells VIA another wizard, even if he or she doesn't know them, and it suggests that (as I mentioned in an earlier post) Krum could Imperius someone else, who could Imperius someone else, and so on ad infinitem, enabling one wizard who knows the Imperius curse to indirectly control an infinite number of others. From exodusts at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 02:04:33 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:04:33 -0000 Subject: Cup In Cave and perhaps one better In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148121 > zgirnius: > Also, I find it interesting you like this as an ESE!Snape theory. If > the Potion (like the Diary before it) had the ability to possess the > one who used it (which woul dbe drinking it it, in the case of a > Potion) then Dumbledore's odd symptoms were quite possibly a (losing?) > struggle to avoid possession by Voldemort's soul piece. This makes the > killing necessary rather more convincingly than other theories of why > Good!Snape had to do it.. Exodusts: My money is on the green liquid in the cave being a sample of the stuff from the Brain Room in the Department of Mysteries. Maybe the brains are kept alive by the liquid, but their thoughts contaminate it, so if you drink a load you are subjected to them. The question then arises: whose were the brains, and why are they being stored? From ms-tamany at rcn.com Tue Feb 14 02:36:53 2006 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:36:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD and Snape's Culpability In-Reply-To: <013501c630f4$a5c19ac0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: <4iore0$63qpca@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148122 latha279 wrote: > Yes, indeed, I came to that conclusion only because Trelawney knew > Snape was there. She said he interrupted her interview. But there is > no way she could have known of anything at that time. She goes into a > trance and she loses consciousness of the outer world. Miles wrote : And that means that Snape really interrupted her interview (as far as she could know). a) Snape only heard the first part of the prophecy. Then he was disturbed by the barman, and because of this Snape could only hear the first part of the prophecy. b) Snape heard the entire prophecy. *After* the prophecy he was disturbed by the barman, so Trelawny could hear the commotion and notice that Snape was eavesdropping her interview (that, what we know but she not, included the prophecy). b2) If "my" version is true, than Dumbledore lied at Harry: "Snape (...) heard the first half of Professor Trelawney's prophecy. He hastened to tell his master what he had heard" (HBP 25). Now, I really don't think that Dumbledore usually lies at Harry, or likes to do it. But if he did it this time - who wants to blame him? Harry is supposed to face Voldemort sooner or later. Voldemort is able to break into Harry's mind again. It would be most dangerous for Snape if Harry knew exactly why Dumbledore trusts Snape, and knows that Snape has betrayed Voldemort (and is still doing it). So, this would be a white lie - and I think it is possible and no real argument against this theory. Miles Now Tammy says: Actually, if we want to go splitting hairs (that *is*, after all, an Olympic Event on this list, isn't it?), Dumbledore did NOT lie to Harry about Snape hearing the first half of Trelawney's prophecy. After all, if Snape heard the whole thing, then, by definition, he heard the first half, as well as the second half. DD may be using the truth to mislead Harry into believing something false yet vital, perhaps, but it's still the truth. If Snape indeed heard the whole thing, then DD is still sticking with facts, just not ALL of them. It is one thing to tell a falsehood or an untruth in an effort to decieve someone, and something else to use true words to let someone mislead himself to the conclusion required for the safety of others. Dumbledore has used this technique on others in the past (PoA comes to mind, with Fudge at Buckbeak's execution, as well as at the end, with Fudge again and Snape, after Harry and Hermione have set Sirius free). My personal take on it has always been (well, since reading Trelawney's account of the event) that Snape probably DID only hear the first part, because HE was interrupted at his keyhole and took those few seconds covering the last part of the prophecy to try to explain himself to Aberforth, before Aberforth opened the door and revealed the situation to Dumbledore. After all, even using a spoooookey voice, it only takes mere moments to finish the prophecy, which could easily be taken up on the other side of the door with repeated protestations of innocently losing one's way, which protestations rise in volume until there's a scene. Tammy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Feb 14 02:43:37 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:43:37 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Krum under Imperio WAS: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148123 On Monday, February 13, 2006, at 08:16 PM, exodusts wrote: > > Miles: > > Just let me ask one small question then: > > Why can Krum perform Crucio on Cedric, while he has no will of his > own > > (being imperiused), so he is not able to enjoy or "really want" to > hurt > > Cedric? Can this joy really been imperiused as well? > > Or is this just a flaw on JKR's part? > > > > > Exodusts wrote: > I'd say probably a flaw. I've never been entirely happy with Imperiused > Krum using that Unforgivable Curse because it effectively means a > wizard can indirectly cast spells VIA another wizard, even if he > or she doesn't know them, and it suggests that (as I mentioned in an > earlier post) Krum could Imperius someone else, who could Imperius > someone else, and so on ad infinitem, enabling one wizard who knows the > Imperius curse to indirectly control an infinite number of others. > kchuplis: I don't think that is an unreasonable assumption. I do think that the curse would not be as effective and would definitely decrease per number of imperiused by one person and depend highly upon *that* wizards ability or innate power. We know Crouch Jr. was a tremendous student (per Crouch's rantings to Harry) and we know that Barty Sr. was considered very powerful magically, so it is not without reason to assume that even a weakend version of his cruciatus curse would be very effective. IMO. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 03:05:42 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 03:05:42 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148124 Jan: > If Voldemort was transformed into a baby, it would be a truly hopeful > end for the series. It is possibly the only thing that could restore > his soul. And who knows how he would have turned out with parents to > guide him? If the ending is really soppy, perhaps Harry+Ginny or > Ron+Hermione could adopt baby Voldemort! Alla: Oh, please, please, JKR, please no. If Voldemort has to turn into a baby at the end, I think having Harry and Ginny taking care of him would go well beyond turning Harry into a saint. IMO of course. I mean, I can totally see Harry not killing him in this situation showing his nobility and goodness of the soul, but to take care of the man (even if it is now a baby) who is responsible for all pain and misery in Harry's life? I am crossing my fingers that it won't happen. Again, just me. Jan: > But would it be worse than death? When Dumbledore says that there are > worse things than death, I think he may be predicting the manner of > Voldemort's defeat. It has to be something that Voldemort would > consider horrific. The 'turns into baby' option is almost too nice. > True, Voldemort's personality would be mostly obliterated. But he > would have another chance at life, that his victims didn't have. Would > it be a just ending for him? Alla: Absolutely,Jan. I don't think that it would be a just ending for Voldemort that is why I said it is NOT my favorite one. He is responsible for so much pain and misery and killing so many people that to give him another chance at life is not "justice being served" in my book. But I do think that this is a possibility, especially if JKR will go with stressing different personas of Tommy and Voldemort, BUT in HBP IMO she went out of her way to show that they are one in the same. > Alla: > > Also what if LV finds a way to use Tonks to get to Lupin. That > > is the whole reason Harry set his relationship with Ginny aside for > > the time being. > > Caro: > Well LV would make use of Ginny because he wants Harry to snuff it so > badly. I don't know how much trouble Remus caused in the "wolfs- herd", > but it could not be too much that would be too obviously, or it would > have been known to us. And btw. all the members of the Order might say > so for they are on the top of the "better be dead today"-list. > > Alla: > I think any new open relationship right now could be > > detrimental to one of the parties, particularly when one has a hairy > > little problem and his aid is no longer available. > > Caro: > Well I think the Ministry doesn't approve too much on those hairy > problems, but at least if they offered to provide those people with > the potion when necessary they would for sure avoid for sure a problem > with the wizzarding community. I mean not every body has a shack with > a woomping willow at their front doors. Alla: Caro, that is a very interesting argument, but I have not said any of the above. :-) I think you missatributed Lucky Dragon's words to me. I LIKE Remus having a girlfriend ( my more preferred SHIP was Remus/Sirius), but I certainly don't want Remus to suffer in misery all his life. I am THRILLED actually that JKR gave him a love interest. It helped put my final doubts about ESE! Remus far away. So, as I wrote earlier, one of the scenes I want to see in the epilog would be Remus and Tonks having kids and Harry babysitting them. > Lupinlore: Don't you think it would be more > dramatic for BOTH characters if Harry came to a decision about > forgiveness not BEFORE having Snape in his power, but DURING that > confrontation? That way, the effects of Harry's love on BOTH > characters could play out simultaneously. Your scenario about > Snape "running his mouth" provides some interesting possibilities. > Can you imagine Harry coming to pity Snape as Snape runs his mouth, > and Snape's humiliation as he realizes that Harry is not respecting > or fearing him, but pitying him? The possibilities are ... > interesting indeed. Alla: You see, I would LOVE for Harry to come into confrontation between those two while being incredibly angry and let Snape have it and then the possibilities of forgiveness to play out. So, yes it would be more dramatic for both characters for Harry to decide to forgive Snape during confrontation not before. I am just not sure how plausible it will be for Harry to switch his POV completely around during ONE final confrontation. Am I making sense to you? In order for Harry to see Snape in new light ( and by new light I only mean as someone who deserves pity, I am not even sure about respect), some VERY dramatic information needs to be revealed during this confrontation, no? Otherwise why would Harry decide to suddenly forgive Snape? There should be a reason for that, IMO. That is why I went with prediction of Harry already deciding to forgive Snape before the confrontation, since he supposedly learns something about Snape, because I don't know what information may cause Harry to change his POV about Snape that SUDDENLY. But sure I agree with you. I would love to see your scenario if played well. And as you know I am optimistic about JKR's writing skills. JMO, Alla From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Feb 14 03:06:41 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 03:06:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's memories of that night at Godric's Hollow (was Re: Petunia and Dementors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148126 Jen D: > But now I just don't think any of the trio > has the expertise to probe a person's memory. It's very confunding > that the two most accomplished people have both left the scene. Ceridwen: I'm not convinced that DD and Snape are the only two people in the WW who know how to use a Pensieve (this time I think I spelled it right!). That wouldn't make a lot of sense in a world full of adult witches and wizards. Only two out of how many thousands? And, one in his hundred and fifties, the other in his thirties? Someone else may be able to do it. Heck, maybe the Pensieve salesman can demonstrate? Jen D.: > And another question. How do wizard memories work? They seem > somewhat omniscient. After all, in "Snape's Worst Memory" Harry > could spend time where he wanted to be, near his dad and Sirius, not > simply with Severus. Does that mean that Severus gave the Marauders > such close attention or that a wizard memory is more like a video > camera, taking in the whole scene? Ceridwen: Here again, I'm not sure if it's only wizarding memories that would act like this when put into a Pensieve. Too bad we don't have Pensieves to do it with! But, yes, the memories that are floated in a Pensieve are omniscient. According to the Leaky Cauldron/Mugglenet interview posted after HBP: *** ES: I thought for sure that it was your interpretation of it. It didn't make sense to me to be able to examine your own thoughts from a third- person perspective. It almost feels like you'd be cheating because you'd always be able to look at things from someone else's point of view. MA: So there are things in there that you haven't noticed personally, but you can go and see yourself? JKR: Yes, and that's the magic of the Pensieve, that's what brings it alive. ES: I want one of those! JKR: Yeah. Otherwise it really would just be like a diary, wouldn't it? Confined to what you remember. But the Pensieve recreates a moment for you, so you could go into your own memory and relive things that you didn't notice the time. It's somewhere in your head, which I'm sure it is, in all of our brains. I'm sure if you could access it, things that you don't know you remember are all in there somewhere. http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml *** (me again) So I do think that a baby's memory would be just as 'third-person' as anyone else's. Even though the baby can't speak, or put actual meaning even to the words they may catch, their brain picks it all up and records it in the form of a viewable memory. And someone who didn't understand a foreign language would also retain the memory of the words, which a later viewer who speaks that language would be able to understand, as Harry understood the Parseltongue in Bob Ogden's memory. Ceridwen. From grega126 at aol.com Tue Feb 14 03:20:17 2006 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 03:20:17 -0000 Subject: Will Harry *beat* Voldemort? (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148127 So in the HBP, Dumbledore tells Harry that even after destroying all of Voldemort's Horcruxes Harry will still have to deal with Voldemort's magical skill and knowledge. This brings up the obvious question of how is Harry actually going to be able to do that. I think I've come up with three options. Option 1: Super! Harry This is an option I've chosen to name after all of the Super! Harry pieces of fan fiction out there. Inside this option, I'm including any sort of through no real effort of his own, Harry suddenly becomes much more powerful/intelligent/magical. Now, while Super! Harry fics are pretty well derided across the whole of the internet, I don't think that this option can be completely discarded. Based on the fact that Dumbledore said that the reason that Harry could go with him on the boat across the lake was because he was not yet 17. This seems to, IMHO, imply that something doese happen on the night of your 17th birthday, other than just becoming a day older. Option 2: Harry actually earns it This is the option where Harry spends all summer with Alastor Moody, Kingsley Shaklebolt, Tonks, Remus or a combination of the three and actually becomes good enough in magic and magical duelling to stand toe to toe with Voldemort and win. This is the option I'm rooting for, but also the one I consider to be the least likely. I just find it hard to believe that in addition to all the other stuff JKR has to fit into the book, there's going to be time for this. Also, while Harry has from time to time shown the ability to do some extraordinary things (beating Voldemort in a battle of wills at the graveyard, Patronus at 13, etc.) the fact that Snape so roundly trounced him in their impromptu duel at the end of HBP really seems to rule this option out. I mean, the absolutely only reason that Snape didn't kill Harry was just because he didn't seem to want to. Regardless of your opinion (Good Snape vs. Bad Snape), anyone who reads that chapter can come to the obvious conclusion that the only thing that kept Harry alive was Snape's good will. Considering how far he has to go, and the fact that he only has 1 year to get there, really seems to rule out this option. Option 3: Harry gets lucky I've saved this option for last, because it's the option that I personally like the least, but also think is the most likely. First, the above 3 options don't really seem to fit JKR's style. Some radical increase of Harry's abilities would seem to imply that you can't get by on what you have today, you need to wait until the power comes to you, which definately isn't one of her themes throughout these books. And, as previously mentioned, there just doesn't seem to be enough time for option 2. Second, parallels to other epics. Luke didn't beat the Emporer, he was just their when his dad threw him overboard. The good guys didn't 'win' in the Lord of the Rings so much as they distracted the bad guys and threw the ring away when they weren't paying attention. Third, how did Lily/Harry beat Voldemort the first time? Not by standing up to him, but by kind of 'cheating'. I don't mean to take away anything from Lily's sacrifice, but to the best of our knowledge we don't even know if she did it on purpose. This seems to me to be the way that Harry's going to win. Either he's going to dive in front of Ginny and then when Voldemort tries to kill her he's going to get the curse rebouneded, but w/o his Horcruxes not going to survive, or something along those lines. So, opinions? grega126 From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Feb 14 03:29:26 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:29:26 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1977107A-9D0A-11DA-B6E2-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148128 On Monday, February 13, 2006, at 02:54 PM, susanbones2003 wrote: > > Potioncat: > > > > He reacts much the way he will need to for DADA. He is resourceful > > and while he cannot work a counterspell, he can control the result > of > > Malfoy's spell. I think Snape learned two things about Harry's > > abilities that day: his resourcefulness and his being a > Parselmouth. Jen D. > > Hi, > Thanks for bringing Harry's resourcefulness up because it brings to > mind his last encounter with Snape and how completely outgunned he > was. No matter what he did, Snape seemed two steps ahead of him. I > don't know what to give credit to. Was it that he was so completely > discombobulated by DD's death. I would be too! Or was it that > Harry's mind is an open book to Snape (If so, that doesn't bode well > for his next encounter with LV, the world's best legilimens I think > it is) and so Snape was literally 2 steps ahead or is Snape just > that good at fighting? If you think it is emotion that kept Harry > from being more successful at fighting Snape, does Harry have to > detach himself from the world to do this monstrous task? His > complete helplessness in the face of Snape was just such a contrast > from his GOF encounter with LV. It doesn't bode well for another > physical encounter with Snape. I hope we don't see one. > Jen D., wondering what Snape has that Lv doesn't... > > > > kchuplis: I think it is entirely possible that Harry's mental state, perhaps the most vulnerable we have seen in all the books has a very bad effect on his ability here against Snape. I think Harry would have less of a difficulty with LV than Snape. Yes, Harry hates LV, but he did not know his parents; not in an intimate manner. He has no real history with his parents personally. Harry's hate for LV stems from a kind of idealized idea of what was taken from him. The taking of Albus Dumbledore along with his history of personal hate for Snape is a very intimate and immediate kind of hate that is different from his idealized hatred of LV. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 04:40:33 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 04:40:33 -0000 Subject: Death Eating, Horcruxes, and Potterverse Souls (was: Sadistic Teachers ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148129 > Alla: > Neri. I have a question for you. > Do you think that in "after Horcrux world" the name "Death Eaters" is > still significant for thematic reasons or there is really nothing > important to be implied from it? "Death Eaters" they are, because > they like the name or something like that? Neri: This is a very good question. I had so many outlandish speculations about the Death Eaters and the Dark Mark that now seem to be completely outdated. I think the most outlandish, which I didn't even dare to publish, was that the scar on Dumbledore's left knee (the one that looks like a map of the London Underground) was actually the Dark Mark. This was based on Dumbledore saying in Karkaroff's trial that "Snape is now no more a Death Eater than I am". I even tried to prove that the London Underground map looks like the Dark Mark. Here, take a look at this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:London_Underground_Zone_1.svg and tell me that the Black Line doesn't look like a skull and the Green/Yellow Line like a snake coming out of its mouth. I wasn't sure what to make of the fact that the MoM and Diagon Alley seem to be located in the mouth area, but the general idea was that the Dark Mark scars are used as some kind of a network to ensure the DEs' connection to Voldy, and that Snape was able to hack it because he was also connected with Dumbledore's scar, which Dumbledore himself had burned on his own knee for exactly that purpose. Or something. Now, what can we still do with the DEs and the Dark Mark today? How can we connect them to the darn Horcruxes? Well, probably most of the DEs had killed somebody, so they have their souls nicely ripped. What if Voldy made himself their Horcrux? He put their soul parts inside himself, instead of his own soul parts. This looks like a reasonable deal ? the DEs would be immortal as long as Voldy is alive, not a bad way to ensure loyalty. The problem with this is that Dumbledore thought that Lucius never had any idea what the diary really was. OK, another speculation. Maybe living without most of your soul makes you feel so completely and horribly hollow, and you simply must fill this empty space. So after making the Horcruxes, Voldy became hungry for souls and consumed some of the DEs' souls, the same way that Diary!Riddle (who also had only a 1/7 of a soul) feasted on Ginny's soul. So the DEs, robbed of part of their souls, in turn felt empty, and they had to suck souls from poor victims. And perhaps the Dark Mark scars are used as a channel for all this soul consuming. Now, let us assume that in the Potterverse, when you are really scared of something, you lose a tiny part of your soul. This would be consistent with what we are told about the dementors (at last! It really annoyed me that there seemed to be no connection between souls in the Horcruxes story and souls in the dementors story). So dementors actually feast on souls all the time, but usually in small chunks. They make you scared and depressed in order to leech on something of your soul. Only when they get really hungry they suck the whole thing at once, kind of like eating the whole chicken when you get tired of the eggs. So the DE's, lacking some of their soul and feeling hungry and empty, became something like human dementors. This is why they put a big Dark Mark above the house whenever they kill. Anybody who sees the Mark get scared, and tiny bits of soul are sucked through the Dark Mark sign into the scars on the DEs hands. Of course, this would mean the Death Eaters should have been more properly called Soul Eaters. But maybe JKR felt that this would be a giveaway, so she invented the dementors instead. Or maybe she just liked the name. Neri From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 14 06:31:50 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:31:50 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape's Culpability. In-Reply-To: <4iore0$63qpca@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148130 "Tammy Rizzo" wrote: > My personal take on it has always > been (well, since reading Trelawney's > account of the event) that Snape probably > DID only hear the first part I think Snape heard every word of the entire prophesy but Dumbledore sincerely believed he only heard half; we know for a fact he only told Voldemort half but I think the reason is that Snape knew attacking the baby Harry would be very dangerous and he wanted Voldemort dead. I think Snape wants to rule the world but 2 wizards stand in his way, Dumbledore and Voldemort. One down one to go. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 14 06:48:56 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:48:56 -0000 Subject: Will Harry *beat* Voldemort?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148131 "greg_a126" wrote: > the fact that Snape so roundly > trounced him in their impromptu > duel at the end of HBP really > seems to rule this option out. What I got from that is that Snape is far far more powerful than we knew, only Dumbledore and Voldemort could match him. Harry had little difficulty dealing with the other Death Eaters that night, but Snape was another matter. > I mean, the absolutely only reason > that Snape didn't kill Harry was > just because he didn't seem to want to. I agree, and the reason Snape didn't want to kill Harry is that he knew from the prophesy that Harry was the only one who had a chance of killing Voldemort and Snape wants Voldemort dead so he can be top dog. Eggplant From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 07:20:37 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:20:37 -0000 Subject: Trelawney In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148132 > Magpie: > Going on your description since I can't remember what happened > exactly, "the thing you dread" is a standard fake-out for a > psychic. She didn't tell Lavender anything. She let Lavender > herself fill in the blanks after the fact and decide she was > dreading bad news. Anything bad that happened Lavender would have > claimed was the prediction. Lavender is a particularly willing > assistant in Trelawney's charade. Finwitch: That's the thing - Hermione may think so. When Lavender filled in the blank, that 'thing she dreaded' became Binky's death due to Hermione's question. 'I was obviously dreading him dying, wasn't I?' And then Hermione puts an end to the thing by pointing out that Binky didn't die that day, Lavender only recieved the news of it that day. But in truth, when I (re-)read the description of the situation when Trelawney gave that prediction... She had done that grandmother-thing with Neville, told Parvati to beware a redheaded man, etc. So, when she turned to Lavender, Lavender (quite obviously IMO) expected to hear bad news and dreaded that. However, Trelawney merely asked her to pour the tea and then said: 'By the way, that thing you are dreading will happen...'. The prediction was about hearing bad news, which came true. Both Lavender and Hermione erred in interpreting it to be 'Binky being eaten by a fox/dying'. And note, it was Hermione who began it. Personally, I wonder if Luna took Divination... Finwitch From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Tue Feb 14 07:57:02 2006 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:57:02 -0000 Subject: What's in Snape'sname? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148133 I've been skipping a lot of Snape postings lately. Not that I don't enjoy him greatly as a character ... but there's been too much chewing over too many old bones to hold my interest. Sorry, but there it is. So, in the hopes of opening up a branch line, has there been any discussion (if there was, I missed it) on the significance of Snape's schoolboy nickname? Why, of all things, call the lad Snivellus? We've seen nothing to indicate that he was prone to self-pity, showed his sensitivity to criticism by crying, or even had sinusitis that the best efforts of magical Healers couldn't cure. Because the Marauders wouldn't attack a target that wasn't there. They'd go for whichever bit of the jugular would give them the best results. Any suggestions? All the best Deborah From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 08:45:36 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:45:36 -0000 Subject: What's in Snape'sname? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148134 Deborah: Why, of all things, call the lad Snivellus? -- > > Because the Marauders wouldn't attack a target that wasn't there. > They'd go for whichever bit of the jugular would give them the best > results. Finwitch: Well, to start with, I think it was that Snape was constantly on his way to 'get them into trouble', by spying and "snivelling" to teachers. (much like Draco in the Norbert incident). As for what indicates that Snape did that-- look at the way he talks about Lupin "forgetting" his potion. Snape was supposed to bring it so he can't very well blame Lupin for forgetting it...? And where was that cup then? Or, whatever it was that happened when Sirius was 16-- all the 'Sirius Black was capable of murder at age 16'... Goading Sirius etc. He's still doing it in OOP... I actually believe the 'oh, that trick' of Lupin's referred to Snape's ability to make others look bad. A bit like Rita Skeeter, you know. Finwitch From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Feb 14 09:58:57 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:58:57 -0000 Subject: Trelawney In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148135 > Finwitch: < Personally, I wonder if Luna took Divination... > Hickengruendler: Yes, she does. Trelawney asked her on Slughorn's Christmas party, why she wasn't in her classes anymore, and Luna answered, that she had classes with Firenze this year. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 10:06:34 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:06:34 -0000 Subject: Where oh where is Mr. Ollivander... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148136 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dillgravy" Lisa wrote: > > Any theories on the whereabouts of Mr. Ollivander? I really love this character and would hate > to see him doing terrible things under the imperious curse. There's only a quick mention of > his dissappearance in HPB. --snip-- > -Lisa > Doddie here: I think a huge clue as to what really happened to Olivander is the disappearance of Florean Fortescue. I think Olivander went into hiding.(perhaps he has that "Ravenclaw Horcrux" with him...that wand in his shop window in SS/PS) I think when Voldemort realized Olivander was gone, Voldemort sent the DE's to kidnap Fortescue and torture him for information--alas poor Fortescue. D From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 14 11:39:32 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:39:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's in Snape'sname? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060214113932.77957.qmail@web86202.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148137 Deborah wrote: > > Why, of all things, call the lad Snivellus? -- > > > > Because the Marauders wouldn't attack a target > that wasn't there. > > They'd go for whichever bit of the jugular would > give them the best > > results. > It wouldn't surprise me if they'd managed to bring him to tears (once, during the first year :-)) and kept using the code word even when it stopped working. I'm so glad that Snape managed to have that one scene in OoTP when he was so much cooler than Sirius, hopefully it gave him some sense of closure before Sirius had died. Irene ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Feb 14 12:03:00 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:03:00 -0000 Subject: What's in Snape'sname? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148138 Deborah wrote: > I've been skipping a lot of Snape postings lately. Not that I don't > enjoy him greatly as a character ... but there's been too much chewing > over too many old bones to hold my interest. Sorry, but there it is. >Why, of all things, call the lad Snivellus? Potioncat: There's nothing new under the sun, this is another "old bone." If you want to see some real bone cracking conversation, you should look waaaay back to some snivelling discussions between Valky, Carol and myself, (and a few others). It was dictionaries at 10 paces! The two main views have already shown up in replies to your question, but that doesn't stop me from explaining them: One was that Severus, in violation of the schoolyard rule, ran crying to teachers with complaints about the Marauders. This would be the "snivelling coward" view. We do have Sirius's statement that Snape was always trying to get them in trouble so he may have tattled quite a bit. The other view is that at some time for some unknown reason, the Marauders either made him cry or found him crying and stuck him with the name Snivelus. JKR has used the word snivelling in the sense of crying in SS/PS. Dudley is described as snivelling in the back seat when Vernon rushed everyone into the the car and drove like a maniac. So, until we find out for sure, if we ever do, you can take your pick. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Feb 14 12:18:45 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:18:45 -0000 Subject: Trelawney In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148139 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > The prediction was about hearing bad news, which came true. Both > Lavender and Hermione erred in interpreting it to be 'Binky being > eaten by a fox/dying'. And note, it was Hermione who began it. > > Personally, I wonder if Luna took Divination... > > Finwitch > Why would Lavender dread hearing bad news? She might equally be afraid that Trelawny would tell some personal secret, might tell something nasty would happen to Lavender herself, might tell her she should be afraid of a black haired man or any other thing. We don't know what Lavender is thinking. Gerry From kelleyaynn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 12:57:40 2006 From: kelleyaynn at yahoo.com (kelleyaynn) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:57:40 -0000 Subject: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney? In-Reply-To: <410-220062113201731296@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148140 > Chancie: > > And JKR said that > Magic is dominate, and Squibs are VERY rare, and that if you have > any magical abilities, then you are admitted to Hogwarts. > Kelleyaynn: With all due respect to JKR, she doesn't apparently understand genetics at all. Magic CANNOT be dominant. If that were so, you couldn't get a magical child from muggle parents - at least they would be INCREDIBLY rare, even more so than squibs, and that just isn't the case. Trying to work out the genetics of magic makes much more sense if magic is recessive. From exodusts at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 03:49:10 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 03:49:10 -0000 Subject: Will Harry *beat* Voldemort? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148141 > grega126: > Third, how did Lily/Harry beat Voldemort the first time? Not by > standing up to him, but by kind of 'cheating'. I don't mean to take > away anything from Lily's sacrifice, but to the best of our knowledge > we don't even know if she did it on purpose. This seems to me to be > the way that Harry's going to win. Either he's going to dive in > front of Ginny and then when Voldemort tries to kill her he's going > to get the curse rebouneded, but w/o his Horcruxes not going to > survive, or something along those lines. Exodusts: You might have just hit the nail on the head. Call it the Harry loses- on-purpose theory. Assume Harry IS a Horcrux. Assume that he discovers this fact, in the course of destroying all the other Horcruxes. Assume Voldy arrives on the scene and makes Harry an offer he can't refuse: serve me forever or I kill Ginny. Harry refuses, saying: "I'd rather die, kill me now" KNOWING that this is a deliberate sacrifice on behalf of Ginny, because he knows, if it IS, what will happen next. And because it IS a deliberate sacrifice, after Voldemort AK's him (releasing the last Horcrux), Voldemort tries to AK Ginny, the curse rebounds, no Horcruxes are left, and Voldy is toast by his own hand. Harry engineers a sort of a self- fulfilling victory through faith. Talk about killing two parts of the uber-villain's soul with one piece of circular logic... From richter at ridgenet.net Tue Feb 14 02:50:09 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 02:50:09 -0000 Subject: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148142 In RL I actually do some practical application of genetics and AFAIK, the statement that the wizard gene is a dominant has to be a FLINT. In all the genetic scenarios I can come up with, even using "modifying" genes to activate the dominant "wizard" gene, you just end up with far too many squibs or too many wizards compared to Muggles. The only way it really works is if the wizard gene is actually a RECESSIVE (or even better, if it is two recessive genes). In this case Muggles would very rarely have the "right" pair of parents producing wizard offspring. Such parents would have a higher percentage of producing multiple wizard children but it wouldn't be a guarantee. Hence the Creavey brothers and Petunia/Lily. A squib would occur only if the recessive gene of the wizard parents somehow "reverted" to the more "normal" Muggle mode. And genes "reverting" does occur (at least in dogs, where a genetic verification of parentage proved it)-- but it is VERY RARE. I think genetics probably is in the same league as math with JKR. PAR From dradamsapple at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 05:19:58 2006 From: dradamsapple at yahoo.com (dradamsapple) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 05:19:58 -0000 Subject: Hello and a Question regarding Bk 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148143 Hello all! It's been a looong time since I visited this site, but I figured I'd give you all a try out, since I haven't really been discussing things lately. In the HP Lexicon, it states some theories about book 7. One of the things mentioned is that the events of this book will take place between July 31, 1997 and the end of the following school year, presumably, June 1998. Also, Harry must return to the Durselys' one more time before his 17 birthday, and he will be attending Bill and Fleur's wedding in July. Now; if book 7 events won't start till July 31, how in the world is he going to attend the wedding? I guess we won't see that?? And, how does one know that book 7 won'd start till after July 31? Is this a guess? The reason I'm asking is that I'm writing a short peice starting after HBP, and I'm curious to know/ guess how long Harry will be at the Durselys', before he leaves for good. Does anyone know when school ends in June? I've looked and looked, and perhaps not looked in the right places but I can't find anything definitive. Any help, much appreciated. Anna From bbwnstpete33702 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 09:01:45 2006 From: bbwnstpete33702 at yahoo.com (*~*~Cat*~*~*) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:01:45 -0000 Subject: Something I have been thinking about Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148144 I am new to this site, so it is nice to net meet you all. But have been thinking about something ever since the 4th book and everytime I bring it up it gets ignored. I was wondering if anyone has thought about Peter Pettigrew (Scabbers). In Harry Potter book 3, When Harry saved Peter from Sirius and Remus, Dumbledore said that when a wizard saves another there is a bond between until it is repaid. So the thing I have been wondering for several years now is, Does anyone else think that Peter is going to help Harry out somehow in the end when Harry and Voldemort come face to face? Cat From brahadambal at indiatimes.com Tue Feb 14 11:02:02 2006 From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:02:02 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape's Culpability. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148145 Tammy Rizzo wrote: > > My personal take on it has always been (well, since reading > > Trelawney's account of the event) that Snape probably DID only > > hear the first part Eggplant: > I think Snape heard every word of the entire prophesy but Dumbledore > sincerely believed he only heard half; we know for a fact he only > told Voldemort half but I think the reason is that Snape knew > attacking the baby Harry would be very dangerous and he wanted > Voldemort dead. I think Snape wants to rule the world but 2 wizards > stand in his way, Dumbledore and Voldemort. One down one to go. Now this is interesting. But another problem now is: there is another wizard in his way - Harry Potter. But how good/bad an enemy he will prove to be, we have seen it already. Apart from the one-off incident of the shield-curse working in occlumency class, Harry has never gotten the better of Snapey. So according to you, we may count it as one more to go, yes indeed! I personally believe in a DDM!Snape. So, sorry, I do not agree with your point that Snape wanted both DD and LV dead. DD was a sacrifice made for the larger good of mankind. And Severus Snape, however bitter and cruel he may be, did not relish making that sacrifice. He killed the one man who knew he was good at heart and that is a huge loss for him personally. And even in that moment of loss, he still could think of Harry's safety and leave him hints to improve - makes him an incredibly lovable person. JMPO, brady. From brahadambal at indiatimes.com Tue Feb 14 11:10:04 2006 From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:10:04 -0000 Subject: Chamber of Secrets and Snake err.... Snape In-Reply-To: <1977107A-9D0A-11DA-B6E2-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148146 kchuplis: > I think it is entirely possible that Harry's mental state, perhaps > the most vulnerable we have seen in all the books has a very bad > effect on his ability here against Snape. I think Harry would have > less of a difficulty with LV than Snape. Yes, Harry hates LV, but > he did not know his parents; not in an intimate manner. He has no > real history with his parents personally. Harry's hate for LV stems > from a kind of idealized idea of what was taken from him. The taking > of Albus Dumbledore along with his history of personal hate for Snape > is a very intimate and immediate kind of hate that is different from > his idealized hatred of LV. That is indeed a correct observation. Also, LV doesn't understand love. He underestimates it. Whereas Snape understands it and hence does not underestimate it. But how exactly love would shield Harry is something comprehensible only to JKR. I can't see how it would be able to save him in the end. He is more prone to sacrificing himself because of this love factor than do the other any kind of harm. my tuppence. brady. From mudblood68 at yahoo.de Tue Feb 14 12:39:00 2006 From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:39:00 -0000 Subject: What's in Snape'sname? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148147 I have another question, regarding Snape's first name: "Severus" strongly reminds of the word "severe", one meaning of it being "serious". And "serious" sounds very much like "Sirius" (at least to me not-native-English-speaker). Do you think JKR has made a point in giving the two enemies a similar first name? Or am I completely on a wrong track here? (Or did I miss the chewing of this bone, too?) Claudia From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 14:04:58 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:04:58 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148148 > Neri: > Well, I'm not sure if JKR knows at all that "horned toads" is actually > an American incorrect term for horned lizards, or if she meant here > several species of (real) toads that also have horns, or if horned > toads are magical creatures. But I am sure of one thing: JKR thought > the horned toads that Neville had to disembowel belonged to the order > Anura (frogs and toads) and *not* lizards, since when Neville returns > from his detention she tells us that Hermione was teaching him "a > Scouring Charm to remove the frog guts from under his fingernails". > > Now, here is a worthy challenge for Snape apologists: prove that the > frog guts under Neville's fingernails did not come from the lizards > that Snape had made him disembowel. I can hardly wait > > Neri Ginger, somewhat hesitantly, replies: Hmm, a challenge. Well, may as well have a go at it. No promises, of course. So what we have here is the narrator stating that Neville returned from having been made to disembowel a barrelful of horned toads, and then, in the very next paragraph, the same narrator has Hermie teaching Neville a scouring charm to remove frog guts. Possibilities: 1) We have a FLINT. 2) The narrator is not a veteranarian. 3) JKR is not a veteranarian. 4) Neville was told to disembowel the horned toads, but Neville is a horticulturist, not a veteranarian, and, not knowing that horned toads were actually lizards, he grabbed a barrel of frogs by mistake. 5) After realizing his mistake in #4, Snape made him disembowel the horned toads, which did not stick under his nails as his nails were already filled with frog goo. 6) Snape made him disembowel both animals, but only frog guts are sticky. There may be others. Let's not rule out the possibility that they all taste like chicken and that Snape was not having the disemboweling done for scholarly reasons, but for culinary ones. So it really didn't matter in the end. The main point, I think, was whether or not the resemblance to Trevor was a sign of Snape's alleged sadism. Had it been an actual toad, it would have been a freaky. A frog would have been close enough. A lizard wouldn't count in my book. Since you have pointed out the frog guts, I have to alter my opinion and say that it was probably intentional. Does that make him a sadist? Going by the definition of "one who enjoys cruelty" minus the sexual part, I'd say he probably did enjoy giving Neville that particular detention. It's still a close call, so others may not see it as sadistic, or may only see it as a bit. I'd bet he'd rather Neville wasn't melting cauldrons in the first place so he didn't have to give him the detentions. My final opinion? Moderately sadistic. YMMV, everyone's does. Of course if we had seen Hermie gutting a kneazle or Draco gutting ferrets, I'd give him an upgrade. Ginger, who freely admits to sadistic glee when I used to send home notes for kids' parents telling them of their child's misbehaviour. But only as a last resort, of course. From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Feb 14 14:53:27 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:53:27 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Something I have been thinking about References: Message-ID: <004501c63176$698c6b70$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 148149 From: *~*~Cat*~*~* I am new to this site, so it is nice to net meet you all. But have been thinking about something ever since the 4th book and everytime I bring it up it gets ignored. I was wondering if anyone has thought about Peter Pettigrew (Scabbers). In Harry Potter book 3, When Harry saved Peter from Sirius and Remus, Dumbledore said that when a wizard saves another there is a bond between until it is repaid. So the thing I have been wondering for several years now is, Does anyone else think that Peter is going to help Harry out somehow in the end when Harry and Voldemort come face to face? kchuplis: I think that is the general idea that at *some* point, this will come into play helping Harry. Didn't help him in the graveyard, but I would guess that card is saved for the highly dangerous horcrux hunt. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Sherry at PebTech.net Tue Feb 14 15:10:24 2006 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:10:24 -0000 Subject: Hello and a Question regarding Bk 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148150 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dradamsapple" wrote: > > In the HP Lexicon, it states some theories about book 7. One of the > things mentioned is that the events of this book will take place > between July 31, 1997 and the end of the following school year, > presumably, June 1998. Also, Harry must return to the Durselys' one > more time before his 17 birthday, and he will be attending Bill and > Fleur's wedding in July. > > Now; if book 7 events won't start till July 31, how in the world is > he going to attend the wedding? I guess we won't see that?? > > And, how does one know that book 7 won'd start till after July 31? > Is this a guess? > Amontillada: I'd call it an "educated guess." The pattern set by the first six books is that the main events fall within one year of school at Hogwarts and of Harry's life. However, as I said, that is a BROAD guideline. It's quite common for the book to begin during the summer, before Harry's birthday on the 31st of July. I don't have the books at hand right how, but the day-to-day calendars on the various books in the HP Lexicon indicate that PS/SS, PoA and HBP all began before Harry's birthday. In fact, HBP began in early July. By definition, Harry has to return to the Dursleys' BEFORE his birthday of 31 July. So I think the book will probably begin earlier in July, although most of the story will happen after he turns 17. Amontillada From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Feb 14 15:52:37 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:52:37 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148151 Ginger: The main point, I think, was whether or not the resemblance to Trevor was a sign of Snape's alleged sadism. It's still a close call, so others may not see it as sadistic, or may only see it as a bit. I'd bet he'd rather Neville wasn't melting cauldrons in the first place so he didn't have to give him the detentions. My final opinion? Moderately sadistic. YMMV, everyone's does. Dungrollin: I just thought I'd drop my opinion into the mix, since I haven't seen anyone else post my take on it. I'm happy to label some of Snape's actions sadistic (in the enjoying- others'-discomfort sense rather than anything sexual). But then, I'm also happy to label some of Harry's actions (mostly words, though the Crucios he was throwing around count too) sadistic, along with Ron and the twins, Umbridge, James, Sirius etc. I'm not going through all six books picking out every time some character enjoys the misfortune of another; for one thing there are too many. Frankly, when you don't like someone it's hard to hide a smile when they get their comeuppance, and canon is chock-full of people who don't like each other. This is *normal*. There is a distinction that I would make, however, because there is a difference in taking pleasure in someone's suffering (whether caused by you or not), and causing someone suffering *specifically so that you can enjoy it*. My problems therefore start when posters label Snape as an unqualified sadist, because I think that some mention needs to be made of his intentions. If Snape *only* gave horrible detentions, humiliated students in class, and all the other nasty things he does because he enjoys watching people suffer, then I would admit that what we had on our hands was an out-and-out sadist. However (you knew that was coming, surely), I have a hunch that this is not the case. Sure, he enjoys watching them suffer, but is that why he does it? Call me a Snape Apologist if you must, I feel damn sorry for him. He's such an emotional ****-up. I know people like that in real life, (I even went out with one for three years), people who hold grudges *forever*, who can't forgive anything, who are so wrapped up in their own injuries that they're insensible to the injuries of others. I'd bet you (if it could ever be proven either way) that Snape would be able to logically justify every single punishment and every single harsh word he's ever given out. (Possibly with the exception of smashing Harry's potion in OotP, which I found hilariously funny*, but utterly indefensible if we're pretending that Snape is real.) Now those justifications would undoubtedly fall into the category of rationalising the irrational, but we're all guilty as hell of that too. Everybody does it; people are not rational creatures. Even when we try our best (in science) we have to force ourselves to abide by extremely strict rules in order to stop ourselves seeing what we want to see, and concluding what we want to conclude. I think Snape genuinely believes that if he's horrible enough to his students they'll finally get it right out of fear ? perhaps because this is what worked on him as a child. Leading back into the good- teacher/bad-teacher debate, I cut Snape some slack in his lack of flexibility with Neville because I don't think he can change the way he is. He is `damaged', and severely so. Time after time Neville still fails to get it right, and Snape assumes it's his own fault for not frightening Neville enough. So ok, if I can't frighten him into getting it right by humiliating him in class (given how sensitive teenagers are to embarrassment it doesn't surprise me in the least that this is Snape's most frequently-used tactic), I'll give him a detention that he'll never forget. In conclusion, I'd say that Snape reacts sadistically (as do many other canon characters) and that he acts sadistically (as do many other canon characters, but I would stop short of labelling him a sadist, because although he can be sadistic, he doesn't cause others suffering *purely for enjoyment*. The few times he does, when there's no other obvious reason for his behaviour (Snape-bashers would say `excuse'), are equalled by Harry's flinging around of the Cruciatus Curse, and his tormenting of Dudley. And I wouldn't label Harry a sadist, either. Dungrollin * because it's such a classic insight into Snape's character, not because I'm a sadist myself, or anything... From rkdas at charter.net Tue Feb 14 18:09:31 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:09:31 -0000 Subject: Something I have been thinking about In-Reply-To: <004501c63176$698c6b70$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148152 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Karen" wrote: > > > > From: *~*~Cat*~*~* > > > I am new to this site, so it is nice to net meet you all. But have > been thinking about something ever since the 4th book and everytime I > bring it up it gets ignored. > > I was wondering if anyone has thought about Peter Pettigrew > (Scabbers). In Harry Potter book 3, When Harry saved Peter from > Sirius and Remus, Dumbledore said that when a wizard saves another > there is a bond between until it is repaid. So the thing I have been > wondering for several years now is, Does anyone else think that Peter > is going to help Harry out somehow in the end when Harry and Voldemort > come face to face? > > > kchuplis: > I think that is the general idea that at *some* point, this will come into play helping Harry. Didn't help him in the graveyard, but I would guess that card is saved for the highly dangerous horcrux hunt. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Hi guys! This will have been said before, no doubt but perhaps Peter Pettigrew let Barty Crouch Sr. escape suspecting he'd head for Hogwarts (or try to warn someone at any rate)in an attempt to aid Harry. Jen D. > From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 14 18:13:06 2006 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:13:06 -0000 Subject: What's in Snape'sname? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148153 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "deborahhbbrd" wrote: > > So, in the hopes of opening up a branch line, has there been any > discussion (if there was, I missed it) on the significance of Snape's > schoolboy nickname? Why, of all things, call the lad Snivellus? We've > seen nothing to indicate that he was prone to self-pity, showed his > sensitivity to criticism by crying, or even had sinusitis that the > best efforts of magical Healers couldn't cure. > > Because the Marauders wouldn't attack a target that wasn't there. > They'd go for whichever bit of the jugular would give them the best > results. Marianne: I see that Potioncat has summarized the previous Snivellus discussion. I'll add one thought that has only a nodding acquaintance with canon. I lean towards the sniffling, crying meaning for "snivelling." This sort of perceived weakness is something James and Sirius would have gone for like sharks scenting blood in the water. I can imagine that something happened to young Snape which pushed him to tears. This was then not only turned into a nasty nickname by the Marauders, but was something which I think caused them to accuse him of cowardice. Being called a coward is such a hot-button issue for Snape that I think it has deep-seated roots. I can't help but feel he did something, or didn't do something, and that (non)action became labelled as cowardly by Snape's hated enemies, as in "you snivelling coward." Unfortunately for Snape the nickname stuck. Marianne From deliquescehp at googlemail.com Tue Feb 14 16:00:37 2006 From: deliquescehp at googlemail.com (Shelley) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:00:37 +0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98ff2d890602140800l5091f3a1j@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148154 quigonginger wrote: > The main point, I think, was whether or not the resemblance to > Trevor was a sign of Snape's alleged sadism. > Had it been an actual toad,it would have been a freaky. A frog > would have been close enough. Since you have pointed out > the frog guts, I have to alter my opinion and say that it was > probably intentional. Does that make him a sadist? Going by > the definition of "one who enjoys cruelty" minus the sexual part, > I'd say he probably did enjoy giving Neville that particular > detention. Shelley: Ok, I've been reading this avidly and I'm going to weigh in. I think it was brilliant of Neri to point out the cruelty of the Toad disembowling. And while I am admittedly a DDM!Snape apologist, I will wholeheartedly agree that Snape is mean. He is particularly and unnecessarily mean to Harry and his friends. And for some of his meanness, there is no pedagogical or keeping-his-cover-with-the-Slytherins justification. The incident of gratuitous Snape meanness that always leaps to my mind is the Harry/Draco dueling scene in Book 4, where Draco's toothgrowing curse hits Hermione accidentally, and Snape's response to Hermione's need to go to the infirmary is to say 'I see no difference.' There is *nothing* Snape was teaching anybody with that incredibly cutting remark. And I do appreciate that as a potential spy Snape has a reputation to keep as a Gryffindor hater, espcially while Malfoy Jr is around to observe. But he could have simply barked at Hermione to go to the hospital wing in his usual foul tone, and that would have been more than sufficient to keep his cover with the Malfoys of the world. BUT...that having been said...on the issue of the toad detention, I'd like to point out that these books are written from the point of view of a student. And thus they partake to some degree of a perceptual/psychological fallacy common to students. Students tend to think that their teachers think about them as much as they think about their teachers. While the opposite is actually true-- teachers, from sheer necessity of teaching many students and having lives outside of their classes, spend much less time thinking about individual students than students spend thinking about their various teachers. It seems so much more likely to me that Snape needed toads disembowled that evening and insensitively made Neville do it-- with perhaps a malicious smirk when he remembered that Neville had a pet toad-- than that he saved up this particular task to inflict on Neville for the malicious pleasure of it. Bracketing his individual interactions with Harry, who is special case, Snape's general gratuitious meanness to the Gryffindors still seems to me to be more the off-the-cuff product of irritation and a very damaged personality than a calculated pursuit of pleasure through cruelty. And I say this because it seems to me, from my limited experience teaching at University, that the psychology of teacher-student relations is just not set up to give off that kind of charge. As a teacher, I cared about my students and my class, I wanted my class to be good and my students to learn. But the teacher student relationship isn't a relationship of equals. I didn't go home at night and worry about what my students thought of me, I didn't dwell on my interactions with them (though I did dwell on how my lectures could be better)...there's a distance and objectivity in a teacher's view of students that really lessens the emotional impact that any interaction has on a teacher. And while Snape is a very flawed teacher, he is *enough* of teacher that I think that is true of him. Which is to say, I suppose, that Ron, Hermione and Neville are just not central enough to Snape's life or world for him to care if he hurts them (again, Harry is separate case). And I think you have to *care* to actually get pleasure from cruelty. Shelley (hoping you don't all think I'm a horrible person and teacher for being honest about this) -- In his experience, no good had ever come of happy and smiling Gryffindors. _Pansy's Volcano_ by BlueMidget [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 20:30:24 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:30:24 -0000 Subject: Hello and a Question regarding Bk 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148155 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dradamsapple" wrote: > > ...edited... > > In the HP Lexicon, it states some theories about book 7. One ... > mentioned is that the events of this book will take place > between July 31, 1997 and ..., June 1998. Also, Harry must > return to the Durselys' one more time before his 17 birthday, > and he will be attending Bill and Fleur's wedding in July. > > Now; if book 7 events won't start till July 31, how in the world > is he going to attend the wedding? I guess we won't see that?? > > And, how does one know that book 7 won'd start till after July 31? > Is this a guess? > bboyminn: Well, it is all speculation. People are just making a guess using previous books as a model. However, as others have pointed out, not all books start on Harry's birthday. Further the most recent book tends to break the pattern. Note that we do not see Harry return on the Hogwart's Express back to London. Some have interpreted this break in a standard pattern as indicating that the last book will open at the end of the previous book. Harry, Ron, and Hermione will still be at Hogwarts waiting for the train to leave. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but I'm very sure we will see Harry as soon as he returns to the Dursleys. > Anna continues: > > The reason I'm asking is that I'm writing a short peice starting > after HBP, and I'm curious to know/guess how long Harry will be at > the Durselys', before he leaves for good. > bboyminn: Fandom is speculating or assuming two things relative to Harry's stay at the Durselys. First that Ron and Hermione will be there with him, and second that their will be an attack on Privet Drive. For this to work, I submit the following speculation. First, Harry, Ron, and Hermione will spend two weeks at the Dursley and hilarity will ensue. Then they will go to Bill's wedding. Then they will be off to Godrics Hollow. Then back to the Dursley where Harry prepares to leave them forever. Immediately after Harry's 17th Birthday, the DEs will attack and the Trio will be forced to defend the Dursleys. Now that the Dursley's have been attacked, Harry will have to take them in and protect them. So, instead of Harry living with the Dursley's, the Dursley's will be living with Harry. I call that Karmic justice and great wonderful irony. I suspect, Harry will quarter the Dursleys at the Black House, since it is about the only place that Harry can go and still be independant. >From there, the story will move on to the Horcrux Hunt and Harry preparing himself for the last battle. > Anna concludes: > > Does anyone know when school ends in June? I've looked and looked, > and perhaps not looked in the right places but I can't find anything > definitive. > > Any help, much appreciated. > > Anna > bboyminn: I don't know for an absolute fact, but I'm under the impression that the school year is always from the first of September to the end of June (June 30) regardless of the day of the week that those days fall on. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 21:01:50 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:01:50 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148156 "Harry lay curled on the dark grass, clutching his wand and panting; somewhere overhead Snape was shouting, "Have your forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord -- we are to leave him!"" HBP, US hardback at 603. I understand that if Snape is really working for the Order (which I believe he is) that he would not want to take Harry to LV, but that is not what he says. He says "Have your forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord -- we are to leave him!" I understand that LV wants to be the one to kill Harry. What I don't understand is why LV wouldn't want them to bring Harry to him, given the chance. Why "must" they leave him???? Why go to all the trouble to break into Hogwarts and then leave Harry behind when clearly, they could have taken him with them? Angie From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 20:48:11 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:48:11 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement -- Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148157 Is it possible that LV hid one of the horcruxes, the necklace in particular, in the Room of Requirement when he spoke to DD about teaching there? The text says that Harry saw "jewels" and a tiara in the ROR when he was hiding his potions book. Made me wonder: why would jewels be hidden unless they were stolen or were cursed or something like that? If Hogwarts is supposed to be the safest place to hide something, then surely the ROR is the safest place in Hogwarts (next to DD's office, of course) to hide something. That seems to be one of the reasons for the room's existence, after all. Hmmm. My mind just wandered. Trewlawney wears a lot of jewelry and she also uses the ROR to hide her sherry bottles. What if she spotted Slytherin's necklace and treated it with "light-fingered contempt?" Wouldn't that be ironic? Angie (who hasn't posted in a good while) From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 21:23:27 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:23:27 -0000 Subject: Who Knows How Many Horcruxes Other Wizards Have Made? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148158 How did LV know that he had "gone farther than anybody living down the path that leads to immortality?" How does he know that other wizards haven't created multiple horcruxes? I would think that would be something the other wizards wouldn't brag about. Does his comment imply that other wizards who have since died ("anybody living")have created multiple horcruxes? DD told Harry that he did not believe any other wizard had ever made plural horcruxes, but how does he know? Seems odd to me that the MOM would keep tabs on underage magic, which is generally harmless, but does not keep tabs on something like the use of Unforgiveable Curses of the creation of a horcrux. Angie From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Feb 14 21:41:03 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:41:03 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148159 Angie wrote: >snipped the quote< > I understand that if Snape is really working for the Order (which I > believe he is) that he would not want to take Harry to LV, but that is > not what he says. He says "Have your forgotten our orders? Potter > belongs to the Dark Lord -- we are to leave him!" Potioncat: I don't think Snape had any idea that Draco was bringing the DEs into Hogwarts. Or if he did, he didn't know how Draco was planning to do it, or that he was so close. The group of DEs seem to look to Snape as the leader as soon as he shows up, and they may think he knows more than he really does. It could be that LV's standing orders are that no one is to kill Harry; LV plans to do that himself. In that case, Snape is perhaps embellishing the orders a bit to Harry's advantage. I doubt that LV would mind anyone working a bit of Cruciatus on Harry, but Snape makes it sound as if that is off limits too. Such a considerate man. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 21:56:10 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:56:10 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148160 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Angie wrote: > >snipped the quote< > > I understand that if Snape is really working for the Order (which I > > believe he is) that he would not want to take Harry to LV, but that > is > > not what he says. He says "Have your forgotten our orders? Potter > > belongs to the Dark Lord -- we are to leave him!" > > Potioncat: > I don't think Snape had any idea that Draco was bringing the DEs into > Hogwarts. Or if he did, he didn't know how Draco was planning to do it, > or that he was so close. > > The group of DEs seem to look to Snape as the leader as soon as he > shows up, and they may think he knows more than he really does. It > could be that LV's standing orders are that no one is to kill Harry; LV > plans to do that himself. In that case, Snape is perhaps embellishing > the orders a bit to Harry's advantage. I doubt that LV would mind > anyone working a bit of Cruciatus on Harry, but Snape makes it sound as > if that is off limits too. > > Such a considerate man. Angie responds: Oh, I agree he protected Harry (yet again). But regardless of that, and regardless of whether Snape was aware of Draco's plan, seems to me there are two options: either LV had given the orders to leave Harry or he had not. If he had given such orders -- well, I can't fathom why he would when his top priority is killing Harry himself. Theories, anyone? But Snape is playing a dangerous game if LV didn't give such orders and he left Harry behind. If LV had not given orders to leave Harry, then how is Snape going to explain to LV that he left Harry behind when he could have brought him? Snape didn't have to kill Harry to bring him with him. He could have floated his body (Locomotor Harry!) to outside of the gates and then Apparated Harry with him. Or something like that. From GAP5685 at AOL.com Tue Feb 14 22:54:51 2006 From: GAP5685 at AOL.com (gwen_of_the_oaks) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:54:51 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement -- Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148161 gelite67 wrote: > > Is it possible that LV hid one of the horcruxes, the necklace in > particular, in the Room of Requirement when he spoke to DD about > teaching there? > The text says that Harry saw "jewels" and a tiara in the ROR when >he was hiding his potions book. > I've thought along those same lines. Once Harry put the "tarnished tiara" on the bust of the warlock, I was convinced it would be important again somehow. I want very badly for it to be the Ravenclaw artifact, but can find nowhere in cannon that describes Rowena wearing a tiara. Whats harder to find believable, though, is that LV could find the Ravenclaw artifact, turn it into a Horcrux, and then want to leave it in a room full of junk that others have easy access to. Even if there was a good reason to leave it in the ROR, he would have had to done all this while still a student, which is unlikely. And, if he did want to plant a Horcrux at Hogwarts, and managed to do so in his interview with DD - wouldn't the Chanber of Secrets have been a much better hiding place than the ROR? As for the necklace Horcrux, I'm more inclined to believe the heavy locket at Grimmauld Place is the Slytherin necklace - but if so, I'm a little disappointed that everyone could find the locket, inspect it, try and fail to open it, and through all of that not realize that it had Slytherin's mark on it. Gwen From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Feb 14 23:03:33 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:03:33 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Room of Requirement -- Horcrux References: Message-ID: <002e01c631ba$e0f10dd0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 148162 Gwen: I've thought along those same lines. Once Harry put the "tarnished tiara" on the bust of the warlock, I was convinced it would be important again somehow. I want very badly for it to be the Ravenclaw artifact, but can find nowhere in cannon that describes Rowena wearing a tiara. Whats harder to find believable, though, is that LV could find the Ravenclaw artifact, turn it into a Horcrux, and then want to leave it in a room full of junk that others have easy access to. Even if there was a good reason to leave it in the ROR, he would have had to done all this while still a student, which is unlikely. And, if he did want to plant a Horcrux at Hogwarts, and managed to do so in his interview with DD - wouldn't the Chanber of Secrets have been a much better hiding place than the ROR? As for the necklace Horcrux, I'm more inclined to believe the heavy locket at Grimmauld Place is the Slytherin necklace - but if so, I'm a little disappointed that everyone could find the locket, inspect it, try and fail to open it, and through all of that not realize that it had Slytherin's mark on it. kchuplis: And *I* wonder if Harry will need to go back and get that potions book. Obviously right now he doesn't want to go near it, but if he thinks Snape is the enemy, it's good to know your enemy and that book may hold some keys. I'm expecting *something* because of the very clear detail given in how he marked its location. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 23:08:54 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:08:54 -0000 Subject: Ambiguous Snape (was:Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148163 > >>Nora: > I stand by my reading of Snape as a sadist in the "enjoys the > discomfort of others" meaning, which means I don't have to do > the "oh JKR didn't mean it" tap dance. :) Betsy Hp: And here I am thinking I'm just enjoying *her* dancing. > >>Nora: > But I think there's something interesting here, which I'd argue > for (and have repeatedly): > While JKR is often quite ambiguous about actions and events, so as > not to give away the plot, she's rarely been too ambiguous about > her evaluation of the fundamental character of her characters. > She's never been terribly cagey about Snape on that front. She's > continually hammered at the "Who on earth would want Snape in love > with them," saying she hesitates to say that she loves him, saying > he's a sadistic teacher, ad nauseam. > Betsy Hp: Ad nauseam? Really? I thought she's said it like, once or twice. (Though, I tend to read her interviews once and then move on, so I could be wrong.) And I would classify that particular answer about who'd want Snape to love them as *very* cagey. What does it even mean? Does it mean he's bad luck and if he loves you you may well turn up dead? Does it mean that he's a horrible date? And why does she hesitate to say she loves him? Because he's eeevil? Because she does love him, but she doesn't want to give away that he's really a good guy because then she'll be asked, why and she'll have to say, read book 7 and find out and give away a plot twist? I honestly don't see that JKR has *ever* openly evaluated Snape's character. Instead she answers questions with questions or gives rather slippery answers, or really obvious answers ("Snape's a very strict teacher. He can be quite unfair." Oh really, Jo? Thanks for the insight. ) Especially compared to how she chats about what makes Sirius tick and how Dumbledore tackles a problem. > >>Nora: > I guess it's just hard for many listies to reconcile the idea that > Snape might be and remain presented as a thoroughly nasty and > unpleasant person in his character, but still have some major plot > role that JKR wants kept under wraps until the end. :) > Betsy Hp: Especially after the great Slytherin book that was HBP. Not that I think Snape will turn out to be a big fluffy bunny in the end (*that* would be an unpleasant surprise), but I doubt he's just a walking "mean teacher" cliche either. There's too much tragedy in him. And I think JKR is much more character oriented than she's given credit for. I mean, she is a plot writer, that's true. But her characters, especially her main characters, have far too much life to them to just be players in an elaborate mouse trap, IMO. And then there's the surprise element. I just can't see her going for a fizzle when there's a boom to be had. If Snape isn't operating out of a genuine loyalty or even love for Dumbledore then there won't be much there to knock Harry for a loop. And I'm positive Harry has a loop or two coming for him. Harry related to the half-blood Prince he met in the Potions book. JKR drove it home again and again that the two of them really understood each other on a level Harry and Ron couldn't even reach. Any evaluation of Snape's character has to include the boy Harry met in his text-book. The surface Snape has presented to Harry as his teacher doesn't include it, and neither does JKR's faints and dodges in her answers about Snape in her interviews. Betsy Hp From hambtty at triad.rr.com Tue Feb 14 23:20:18 2006 From: hambtty at triad.rr.com (hambtty) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:20:18 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement -- Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148164 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gwen_of_the_oaks" wrote: > > gelite67 wrote: > > > > Is it possible that LV hid one of the horcruxes, the necklace in > > particular, in the Room of Requirement when he spoke to DD about > > teaching there? > > > The text says that Harry saw "jewels" and a tiara in the ROR when > >he was hiding his potions book. > > > > > I've thought along those same lines. Once Harry put the "tarnished > tiara" on the bust of the warlock, I was convinced it would be > important again somehow. I want very badly for it to be the > Ravenclaw artifact, but can find nowhere in cannon that describes > Rowena wearing a tiara. > > Whats harder to find believable, though, is that LV could find the > Ravenclaw artifact, turn it into a Horcrux, and then want to leave it > in a room full of junk that others have easy access to. > > Even if there was a good reason to leave it in the ROR, he would have > had to done all this while still a student, which is unlikely. And, > if he did want to plant a Horcrux at Hogwarts, and managed to do so > in his interview with DD - wouldn't the Chanber of Secrets have been > a much better hiding place than the ROR? > > As for the necklace Horcrux, I'm more inclined to believe the heavy > locket at Grimmauld Place is the Slytherin necklace - but if so, I'm > a little disappointed that everyone could find the locket, inspect > it, try and fail to open it, and through all of that not realize that > it had Slytherin's mark on it. > > Gwen olive's cousin writes: Quite a few items had a snake imprinted on it at the Black House and I don't think that they were paying that much attention to what were handling. Does anyone beside DD really know what Slytherin's mark is? Kreacher or Mundungus have the locket I'm sure. RAB took it home with him and was killed before he could destroy it. I agree we'll see the Chamber of Secrets again too. At least one horcrux is there and probably one in the ROR as well. Tom Riddle/LV knew that no one goes snooping through the ROR where people hide things - they hide them and get out ASAP just like Harry did. What do you think Moaning Myrtle knows? She was a classmate of Tom Riddle and I bet had a crush on him as she did on Harry and Draco. She spied on Cedric - she probably spies on a few boys. We know she can go wherever the plumbing can take her. She likes to be needed and she likes the boys - I think we'll see more of her in Book 7 too. And what did she do at Olive Hornby's brother's wedding that was so awful that the MOM got involved? Just wondering. > From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 23:39:03 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:39:03 -0000 Subject: Ambiguous Snape (was:Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Ad nauseam? Really? As in, she has a continual string of these qualified statements about Snape, going back quite a ways in the interview archives. (And every time a new one comes out, it is swiftly spun into insignificance by the valiant defenders.) And as for the really obvious answers, well-- you'd be amazed (or not) what 'obvious' things listies keep doubting or arguing against. I've witnessed more than one "Snape actually isn't genuinely unfair" argument in my time (to use what you bring up as an obvious statement on JKR's part). > ...but I doubt he's just a walking "mean teacher" cliche either. > There's too much tragedy in him. I fail to see where I've implied that Snape is only a walking mean teacher cliche, if that's what's being imputed. If anything, she's given him more depth than "oh, he's just mean" or even "oh, he's just damaged" if his barbs and targeting of students are deliberate actions. See, I like me some tragic!Snape. But I also like to give him enough credit and agency to consider himself the primary agent and architect of his own personal tragedy. > Any evaluation of Snape's character has to include the boy Harry > met in his text-book. Okay, why? Why take it for granted that the boy Harry met in the textbook is *still* an essential part of Snape's character? If you mean that Harry has to take that boy into account to understand Snape's history, then we have something like the situation with young Tom Riddle being the key to understanding adult Voldemort. But just as Voldemort is no longer Tom Riddle, Snape is no longer the boy in the textbook. Perhaps the brutal story here is precisely *that* Snape is no longer the boy in the textbook, who could come across as so sympathetic and interesting, someone who Harry would have wanted to have met. Maybe the book is a representation of what has been lost in a sea of bitterness and unwillingness to move forwards. There's some loose set of analogies connecting Harry, young!Snape, and Voldemort. The unpleasant possibility (for your position) is that the Snape/Voldemort axis is the dominant one, and not the Snape/Harry parallelism. Then we can shed a tear for the tragedy of Snape's life and his fall back into evil. Tragic! BANGy! Opportunity for the exercise of pity! > The surface Snape has presented to Harry as his teacher doesn't > include it, and neither does JKR's faints and dodges in her answers > about Snape in her interviews. So, does she need some smelling salts? -Nora can't resist an opening for a pun (good-natured, natch) From saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 02:09:02 2006 From: saraquel_omphale at yahoo.com (saraquel_omphale) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:09:02 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148166 Angie Wrote: > either LV had given the orders to leave > Harry or he had not. > > If he had given such orders -- well, I can't fathom why he would when > his top priority is killing Harry himself. Theories, anyone? > > But Snape is playing a dangerous game if LV didn't give such orders > and he left Harry behind. If LV had not given orders to leave Harry, > then how is Snape going to explain to LV that he left Harry behind > when he could have brought him? Saraquel: Ah but Angie - who says Snape has apparated to LVs feet? Who knows where Snape has gone? Who knows where Malfoy has gone? How about Malfoy waits at the gates for Snape, other DEs disapparate back to LV, Snape grabs Malfoy and does sidelong apparition to secret hiding place for both of them? IMO, Snape is definitely NOT LV's Man. I'm not quite sure where he stands. I did a detailed post a v loooong time ago speculating that Snape was OFH at the start of the series and was gradually drawn onto DD's side. I think there are reasons yet to be revealed, why Snape acts and acted as he does/did. But I do think that it is a strong possibility that the "you expect too much" conversation with DD was Snape trying to drop the double agent role. Now DD is dead, he might well drop the overt stuff, even though he seems almost ideally placed to rise in the ranks of LVs army. If he does do a dispappearing act, then that is about as direct a message as he can make to the Order about his loyalties. Saraquel From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 02:51:53 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:51:53 -0000 Subject: Krum's Crucio (Was: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers) In-Reply-To: <20060213235953.51597.qmail@web37015.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148167 > Cat wrote: > The students at Durmstrang are taught the Dark Arts, which might just include a few unforgivable curses too. He [Krum] probably already had the ability to cast the curse, making him the one to be imperiused instead of Fleur. Carol responds: Surely the Unforgiveable Curses are unforgiveable when used on human beings throughout the WW, and even ex-DE Karkaroff (who was clearly trying to hide his Dark wizard status at Hogwarts) would not have broken that ban by having students kill, torture, or even Imperio other students. However, it does seem that Krum had some experience with the curse or he couldn't have Crucio'd Cedric. I'm guessing that they practice the Unforgiveables on animals, much as Hogwarts students learn Transfiguration on animals. (We don't see many animal rights activists in the WW.) At any rate, that's the best explanation I can come up with. Krum doesn't seem like the type enjoy torturing others, and he seems thoroughly ashamed of having Crucio'd Cedric even though he did so under the Imperius Curse. Carol, who agrees with Cat's snipped comment that Draco knew Serpensortia before coming to Hogwarts From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 03:22:39 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:22:39 -0000 Subject: Will Harry *beat* Voldemort? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148168 > > grega126: This seems to me to be the way that Harry's going to win. Either he's going to dive in front of Ginny and then when Voldemort tries to kill her he's going to get the curse rebouneded, but w/o his Horcruxes not going to survive, or something along those lines. > > Exodusts: > You might have just hit the nail on the head. Call it the Harry loses-on-purpose theory. Assume Harry IS a Horcrux. Assume that he > discovers this fact, in the course of destroying all the other > Horcruxes. Assume Voldy arrives on the scene and makes Harry an offer he can't refuse: serve me forever or I kill Ginny. Harry refuses, saying: "I'd rather die, kill me now" KNOWING that this is a deliberate sacrifice on behalf of Ginny, because he knows, if it IS, what will happen next. And because it IS a deliberate sacrifice, > after Voldemort AK's him (releasing the last Horcrux), Voldemort > tries to AK Ginny, the curse rebounds, no Horcruxes are left, and > Voldy is toast by his own hand. Harry engineers a sort of a self- > fulfilling victory through faith. Talk about killing two parts of > the uber-villain's soul with one piece of circular logic... > hpfan_mom: But would Voldemort forget the power of a love sacrifice and allow Harry to die protecting Ginny? LV knows how Harry survived the first time: "His mother died in the attempt to save him - and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not foreseen . . . . I could not touch the boy." . . . "This is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it." GOF, pp 652-653, US edition. I just don't think LV will overlook it in Book 7. Also, Lily's sacrifice was "unwitting" and we don't know if that matters. Of course, my opinion could be colored by the fact that I Just Don't Want Harry to Die at the End. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Feb 15 03:41:15 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:41:15 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148169 Angie: > I understand that LV wants to be the one to kill Harry. What I > don't understand is why LV wouldn't want them to bring Harry to > him, given the chance. Why "must" they leave him???? Why go to > all the trouble to break into Hogwarts and then leave Harry behind > when clearly, they could have taken him with them? Jen: Your post made me think of another question rather than an answer: What exactly *was* Voldemort's goal in HBP? We can piece together he expected Draco to fix the Vanishing Cabinent under threat of death to himself and parents, even though likely he didn't expect Draco would be capable of killing DD. For that job, his 'spy' placed at Hogwarts for 16 years was the more likely of the two to complete the job. That's speculative from Snape's words but fits with Voldemort's thinking. So Voldemort's goal was to get Dumbledore out of the way, but not in order to kidnap Harry. In fact, it's possible Dumbledore was even aware Voldemort had another goal because when you think about it, Dumbledore didn't make any obvious attempt to protect Harry after his death. Fawkes left, Snape left. The Order didn't immediately spring into action and take Harry to a secure location. For whatever reason Dumbledore seemed to believe Harry was safe even if he died. It's interesting. Makes you wonder if there are some other protections he set up which are activated upon his death or the like. Saraquel (hi,SQ!) suggested maybe Snape wasn't going back to Voldemort, that he and Draco instead went to some protected location and that's why Snape pretended the DE's weren't to touch Harry as a means of protecting him. I'm thinking Snape's use to the good side is as a spy though, and if he can't spy and he's a wanted man, what good will he be to the Order except protecting Draco? It's the harsh world of spying that you are only as good as your information and Snape seems to have accepted that arrangement if he's loyal to Dumbledore. So I do think he *was* following orders not to bring Harry, and that Voldemort must have had another goal in mind with getting Dumbledore out of the way. I guess LV could have found out Dumbledore was chasing the horcruxes and thought he could get rid of him before he told someone else. Or he wants something at Hogwarts and needs Dumbledore out of there. Trelawney maybe? He does seem awfully obsessive about knowing the prophecy. Didn't someone already propose that the DE's actually *did* take Trelawney with them when they left because she wasn't at the funeral? It was odd there was no mention of her; I figured she was partying in the Room of Requirement and lost track of time. But maybe a couple of DE's never left the ROR and simply kidnapped Trelawney back through the Vanishing Cabinent before it was disabled by the Order. Jen, letting her mind wander aimlessly, wondering why Voldemort was so quiet in HBP... From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Feb 15 03:58:57 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:58:57 -0000 Subject: horcruxes plural, unforgivables In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148170 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > Seems odd to me that the MOM would keep tabs on underage magic, which > is generally harmless, but does not keep tabs on something like the use > of Unforgiveable Curses of the creation of a horcrux. > > Angie > Allie: I agree, especially since the use of an unforgivable curse earns a life sentence in Azkaban. Surprising that they don't seem to have a way to detect them. If they DID have a way, we would have seen someone from the Ministry arrive after the AK of Cedric in the graveyard, Harry's attempted Crucio (attempted unforgivable, does that earn you less time in Azkaban?), and the AK that dear demented Bella used on the fox (I doubt that they would know what received the curse.) From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Feb 15 04:05:02 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:05:02 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement -- Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148171 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hambtty" wrote: > > What do you think Moaning Myrtle knows? She was a classmate of Tom > Riddle and I bet had a crush on him as she did on Harry and Draco. > She spied on Cedric - she probably spies on a few boys. We know she > can go wherever the plumbing can take her. She likes to be needed > and she likes the boys - I think we'll see more of her in Book 7 > too. And what did she do at Olive Hornby's brother's wedding that > was so awful that the MOM got involved? Just wondering. > > > > Allie: Another very interesting question. Myrtle died in the bathroom. The bathroom is the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets. A SINK is the entrance, to be more accurate. Myrtle travels all around in the plumbing - has she been down there? If not, why not? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 04:08:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:08:32 -0000 Subject: What's in Snape'sname? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148172 Potioncat wrote: > There's nothing new under the sun, this is another "old bone." If you want to see some real bone cracking conversation, you should look waaaay back to some snivelling discussions between Valky, Carol and myself, (and a few others). It was dictionaries at 10 paces! > > The two main views have already shown up in replies to your question, but that doesn't stop me from explaining them: > > One was that Severus, in violation of the schoolyard rule, ran crying to teachers with complaints about the Marauders. This would be the "snivelling coward" view. We do have Sirius's statement that Snape was always trying to get them in trouble so he may have tattled quite a bit. > > The other view is that at some time for some unknown reason, the Marauders either made him cry or found him crying and stuck him with the name Snivelus. JKR has used the word snivelling in the sense of crying in SS/PS. Dudley is described as snivelling in the back seat when Vernon rushed everyone into the the car and drove like a maniac. > > So, until we find out for sure, if we ever do, you can take your pick. > Carol adds: And just to throw another little thought into the mix, kids often create cruel nicknames that somewhat resemble real names but have no connection with actual events. Snivellus has the same initial and final sounds and the same number of syllables as Sirius, erm, Severus, and also has a "v" in the middle. So maybe the sound of the nickname has no real significance, like "loony" for "Luna" (except that Luna, admittedly, is rather odd). But what about Peeves's "loony, loopy Lupin" or Draco Malfoy's "Potty and the Weasel"? I think we should at least *consider* the possibility that there's nothing more to the nickname than a rather nasty desire on the part of Sirius and James to inflict pain on a "greasy little oddball up to his eyes in the Dark Arts." Either that or we should figure out what Harry did to deserve the nickname "Potty." Carol From dradamsapple at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 02:40:57 2006 From: dradamsapple at yahoo.com (dradamsapple) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:40:57 -0000 Subject: Hello and a Question regarding Book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148173 Anna wrote previously: > > Now; if book 7 events won't start till July 31, how in the world is > > he going to attend the wedding? I guess we won't see that?? > > > > And, how does one know that book 7 won'd start till after July 31? > > Is this a guess? > > > Amontillada: > > I'd call it an "educated guess." The pattern set by the first six > books is that the main events fall within one year of school at > Hogwarts and of Harry's life. > In fact, HBP began in early July. By definition, Harry has to return > to the Dursleys' BEFORE his birthday of 31 July. So I think the book > will probably begin earlier in July, although most of the story will > happen after he turns 17. > Thanks Amontillada! That's what I figured, that the book *has* to start before Harry's birthday, that's why I was surprised to read in the Lexicon that it will start after July 31. I know it's only speculation on everyone's part, (only JKR knows for sure!), but it seems reasonable to assume that if Harry has to go back to the Dursleys' before his birthday, then we will see that in some capacity. Thanks, that makes me feel more confident about my theories! :) Anna From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 04:58:54 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:58:54 -0000 Subject: It's "blood" that counts (Was: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148174 "richter_kuymal" (PAR) wrote: > I think genetics probably is in the same league as math with JKR. Carol responds: I agree. JKR was certainly not thinking about genetics when she first created the WW, which operates along the old-fashioned idea of bloodlines. (Note the importance of "blood" to people as diverse as Dumbledore, Draco, Mrs. Black, and Hagrid.) In simplest terms, it's possible, and not all that uncommon, for two Muggles to have a magical child. It's possible, but very uncommon, for two magical people to have a nonmagical child (a Squib). Generally, if either parent is magical, and especially if both are magical, the child is magical. that, I think, is what JKR meant when she made her wholly unscientific statement about the gene for magic being "dominant and resilient." It doesn't matter if the genetics don't work according to known scientific principles, Mendelian or otherwise. That's how it works in the WW. This idea of bloodlines (rather than genetics) has important implications in the books, especially for certain purebloods. For example, the "blood" of a Muggleborn, inherited from two Muggle parents, in nonmagical despite the Muggleborn's ability to perform magic, which is why Harry is a "half blood" despite having two magical parents. A half blood, however, has magical blood from one parent and is therefore almost as good as a pureblood in the Slytherin view--"good" enough to become a Slytherin or even a DE, and possibly even good enough to marry if no pureblood partner can be found. Marrying a Muggleborn, however, makes you a blood traitor and you get burned off the family tree (if the Blacks' reaction is typical). Muggle blood, even in a Muggleborn, is "dirty" even though the Muggleborn is magical because, in the WW view, there's no magic in it. It's "common," to use Voldemort's word. He, however, is *uncommon* (enough to glorify himself with an invented lordship). His blood is magical and his father's common blood drops out of the equation. (Note that LV used the bone, not the blood, of his father, and the blood of another half-blood wizard, which was, like his own, unquestionably magical.) I am pretty sure, too, that the Slytherin revulsion toward marriages to "Mudbloods" stems at least in part from the fear of producing a Squib child by marrying a husband or wife with no magical blood. There's a lot more to say about "blood" than I have room for here, but I just want to point out the rather surprising views on blood of two characters, Hagrid and Phineas Black. Hagrid abuses Mr. Dursley for being a Muggle and Filch for being a Squib yet is himself a "half breed," only half human (but magical). He also refers to the centaurs as "nags" after an argument with them, surely no more respectful of them than Umbridge except that he's not insulting them to their faces, yet he's enraged when Draco calls Hermione a "mudblood" and gushes over the importance of "blood" and cries in his beer over his lost parents and the importance of "blood" when he's really thinking of "Grawpy," his nonmagical, nonhuman half-brother. Apparently nonmagical blood or nonmagical status is bad as long as it isn't his or his family's or a friend's. Is he a hypocrite or is there a logic to his prejudices and namecalling that I'm unable to find? Why is "Squib" or "nag" an acceptable insult when "Mudblood" isn't? If Draco had called her a "stupid Muggleborn" instead of a "filthy little Mudblood," would that have been okay? And Phineas Nigellus, proud great grandfather of both of Sirius Black's parents (second cousins, according to the recently published partial photograph of the Black family tree--which explains Mrs. Black's "blood of my fathers" rants) abuses Mundungus Fletcher as a "filthy half blood" yet strenuously objects whenever Harry shows disrespect for Severus Snape, whom we readers know to be the Half-Blood Prince. Would Phineas's view of Snape change if he knew Snape isn't a pureblood? Or is Phineas simply throwing out a term of abuse at an absent thief and pilferer which he wouldn't use toward a Slytherin HOH regardless of his bloodlines? Carol, who thinks that Muggle/Wizard genetics may be an interesting mental exercise but throws no light on the books From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 15 07:50:52 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:50:52 -0000 Subject: What's in Snape'sname? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148176 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > And just to throw another little thought into the mix, kids often > create cruel nicknames that somewhat resemble real names but have no > connection with actual events. Snivellus has the same initial and > final sounds and the same number of syllables as Sirius, erm, Severus, > and also has a "v" in the middle. So maybe the sound of the nickname > has no real significance, like "loony" for "Luna" (except that Luna, > admittedly, is rather odd). But what about Peeves's "loony, loopy > Lupin" or Draco Malfoy's "Potty and the Weasel"? I think we should at > least *consider* the possibility that there's nothing more to the > nickname than a rather nasty desire on the part of Sirius and James to > inflict pain on a "greasy little oddball up to his eyes in the Dark > Arts." Either that or we should figure out what Harry did to deserve > the nickname "Potty." Geoff: Could be a number of things. Quite often, names just get shortened or scrambled: I have known Smith becoming Smithy, Henderson becoming Hend, Ryan becoming Raz etc. Potty could be a similar example. "Potty" is also a mild way of suggesting that someone is a bit eccentric - "loony" falls into the same category. I had a couple of nicknames as a teen - the first was "Min" - after a character in the Goon Show - and, after my namesake ran the first four-minute mile, I became "Roger" to many of my peers. Interestingly, in my earlier years of teaching, I had a James Potter as a pupil who was a real extrovert type. When he first joined the school as a First Year, I was taking names and asked - as I often did, "Do you prefer James or Jim" to which I got the stunning reply, "Please sir, I like to be called Jampot"! From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 09:44:08 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:44:08 -0000 Subject: It's "blood" that counts (Was: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148177 > Carol: > There's a lot more to say about "blood" than I have room for here, but > I just want to point out the rather surprising views on blood of two > characters, Hagrid and Phineas Black. Hagrid abuses Mr. Dursley for > being a Muggle and Filch for being a Squib yet is himself a "half > breed," only half human (but magical). He also refers to the centaurs > as "nags" after an argument with them, surely no more respectful of > them than Umbridge except that he's not insulting them to their faces, > yet he's enraged when Draco calls Hermione a "mudblood" and gushes > over the importance of "blood" and cries in his beer over his lost > parents and the importance of "blood" when he's really thinking of > "Grawpy," his nonmagical, nonhuman half-brother. Apparently nonmagical > blood or nonmagical status is bad as long as it isn't his or his > family's or a friend's. Is he a hypocrite or is there a logic to his > prejudices and namecalling that I'm unable to find? Why is "Squib" or > "nag" an acceptable insult when "Mudblood" isn't? If Draco had called > her a "stupid Muggleborn" instead of a "filthy little Mudblood," would > that have been okay? a_svirn: I don't think that "nags" for Centaurs fall into the same category with "mudblood" or "pureblood". Blood only comes into play when it can be mixed. Hence all this discourse of pollution, purity etc. Centaurs are simply too different, too apart from humans for it to be an issue. As for other insults ? I'd say Hagrid as much a bigot in his way as Draco and Co in theirs. Come to think of it, he's even worse, because muggles and Squibs are powerless and can't respond in kind. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 09:50:52 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:50:52 -0000 Subject: Death Eating, Horcruxes, and Potterverse Souls (was: Sadistic Teachers ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148179 > Neri: > Now, let us assume that in the Potterverse, when you are really scared > of something, you lose a tiny part of your soul. This would be > consistent with what we are told about the dementors (at last! It > really annoyed me that there seemed to be no connection between souls > in the Horcruxes story and souls in the dementors story). So dementors > actually feast on souls all the time, but usually in small chunks. > They make you scared and depressed in order to leech on something of > your soul. Only when they get really hungry they suck the whole thing > at once, kind of like eating the whole chicken when you get tired of > the eggs. So the DE's, lacking some of their soul and feeling hungry > and empty, became something like human dementors. This is why they put > a big Dark Mark above the house whenever they kill. Anybody who sees > the Mark get scared, and tiny bits of soul are sucked through the Dark > Mark sign into the scars on the DEs hands. > > Of course, this would mean the Death Eaters should have been more > properly called Soul Eaters. But maybe JKR felt that this would be a > giveaway, so she invented the dementors instead. > > Or maybe she just liked the name. > a_svirn: [Enters a DE] DE: I wouldn't spurn a hearty dish Of rice, or fruit, or flesh or fish, Yet what I crave above them all Is a nutritious, healthy soul! Live souls are better than the dead Because they're emanating dread And much more tricky sort of game. But then again, what's in a name?! "Death-Eater" sounds somewhat harsh, But not without certain dash! From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Feb 15 10:59:26 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:59:26 +1100 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) Message-ID: <43F3A43E.7680.67413C9@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 148180 This may turn out fairly long as I may be replying to quite a few people's posts at once in this long post, but I've been following this with interest, as well as participating at times, and I am seriously considering the idea of examining in detail the teaching styles and practices seen at Hogwarts for my final year thesis if I can convince my tutors of the idea, so I've been doing a lot of thinking about this, and I'd like to salute all those posting in this thread for giving such a wide range of perspectives. > Alla: > > You know, it is funny. I was thinking about "Hermione defending > Snape as a teacher' argument in support of "Snape as a good teacher" > and I realized that I don't remember many instances when she does > so. Now in HBP she compares Snape DADA lesson to Harry's as it was > discussed, I agree that this is a positive comparison, since > Hermione definitely thought that Harry is a good teacher in OOP, but > can we claim that based on one lesson Hermione considers Snape to be > a good teacher? I don't think so, personally. Shaun: I really congratulate you on the effort you've put into this post, and I think you've made a very strong case to counter the claim that Hermione defends Snape as a teacher. Personally, I'm not sure I've ever made that claim myself - although I do think there's a good possibility that Hermione considers Snape to be a good teacher. Mainly because she doesn't criticise him. Hermione does criticise teachers she considers to be bad ones. I don't think Hermione defends Snape as a teacher - but I find her lack of criticism, telling. Hermione expresses criticism of the teaching methods of Hagrid, Umbridge, and Trelawney. When Hermione thinks that a teacher has problems teaching, she doesn't seem to me to conceal her views. Even when it's someone she likes - such as Hagrid. She is capable of making at least some distinction between a person's ability as a teacher and her feelings about them personally - although this might not be entirely true with Trelawney. The thing is Hermione has adequate reason to dislike Snape. He's not that likeable anyway, but he is mean to one of her closest friends in Harry, and to another reasonably close friend in Neville. He's also mean to her on occasion. If Hermione really thought Snape was a bad teacher, I'd have expected to have heard it from her at some stage. In my view, the absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence - the fact that we don't see Hermione criticising Snape *as a teacher* suggests to me she doesn't have major problems with Snape *as a teacher*. Moving away from canon for a moment, just to general observations of the way I believe Hermione probably operates psychologically. This is not a canon based argument, except in the most limited sense, but as it's coming in a post that I intend to contain a lot of canon, I don't think that's a major problem. And it is important to why I think Hermione probably has few problems with Snape as a teacher (this is totally different and separate from problems she has with him as a person). I believe Hermione is either exceptionally or profoundly intellectually gifted. This is a population of children I know a great deal about. I've worked with such children all my adult life, and I was one myself. I'm published in the field, and I'm considered to be a reasonable authority on such children. I am also specifically qualified with regards to teaching gifted children, though that will not become officially active until I complete my degree at the end of this year. As a technical definition, an exceptionally gifted child is one with an IQ of at least 160. Precisely how common these children are is subject to debate. Theoretically we should be talking about something fewer than 1 in 10,000 children, but in fact they do seem to be a little more common than that. These kids are individuals, of course, but they do still have some range of common characteristics and Hermione presents as a fairly typically example of an exceptionally gifted academic high achievers (you also get underachievers - and I sometimes suspect that Harry might fall into that category - very smart, not as worried about doing as well as Hermione except if he deems something important to him). I can't prove Hermione is an exceptionally gifted child - I can just tell you that as someone who works with such kids, she comes across as one. Lupin's statement that she is the cleverest witch of her age he has ever met, suggests she is rare, as does her performance in subjects which involve quite a lot of intellectual exercise as well as magical talent. But for the sake of argument, understand that I do believe Hermione to be an exceptionally gifted academic high achiever type. Such children, generally speaking, are not well catered to in most schools in the western world. Obviously for Hermione, England is the most relevant setting and I can tell you that across most of England, most of these children were not well catered to in classrooms during the 1980s. I don't want to go too much into the politics of why this was so as it gets seriously off topic, but the problems were largely created by certain social and political theories in education that gained sway in Britain (as in many other places) from the late 1960s onwards. These theories weren't, by any means, universally bad - but they were generally not positive for the small number of exceptionally gifted children around, no matter whether they were in general positive or negative. My point is that, in all probability, Hermione probably went through her primary schooling, prior to coming to Hogwarts, within a school environment that did not meet her educational needs. She may have done very well in that environment compared to other students (indeed as an achiever type she probably did) - but she almost certainly wasn't being educated to anywhere near her level of potential. The point is - most exceptionally gifted children (in fact, most gifted children in general - it's just more intense and less common for the exceptionally gifted) crave intellectual challenge. They crave the chance to push themselves intellectually. They *want* teachers who push them to their limits - and generally speaking things like what those teachers are like in terms of personality are very much secondary issues. They will typically look at a teacher very solidly in terms of their ability to teach. Things like whether the teacher is nice, or friendly, or even fair tend to be very much secondary considerations - real bonuses if the teacher fits into those categories, but not generally that important. What these kids want is competence above all else. Now, the thing is - I suspect very strongly that J.K. Rowling was also a highly gifted child. Her success as an author indicates a high intelligence, just by itself - you need to be more than just intelligent to be a successful author, but intelligence is certainly part of the requirement, given the breadth of what she is writing. She has, I believe, stated that Hermione is quite like herself in many ways. I'd say she is quite likely to understand all the above as well. That is speculation on my part, but I do think it is likely and it does inform my views. It's for this reason I don't see any real conflict between JKR saying she thinks Snape is a sadist (and I will address that later) whatever she means by that, and the possibility that she may still see him as a good teacher - in terms of his *competence in teaching*. Maybe this is where part of the argument comes from. I see those things as two different things as well. I believe they can be divorced. I think a lot of people don't see it that way. They think that if a person is 'sadistic' (for whatever meaning they give the term), they can't be a competent teacher. That's a different way of seeing things. What I can say in that regard is that some of the worst teachers I ever had in terms of their competence in teaching were among the nicest people I've ever known. And some of the best teachers I ever had in terms of their competence in teaching were genuinely nasty. I think Hermione is likely to be able to see the same distinction I see. Anyway - on with the post. > Renee: > > If I'm not mistaken, you don't attach much importance to JKR's own > comments. But now that you're bringing her into the discussion anyway, > I'd like to point out again that she's the one who called Snape `a > sadistic teacher', without qualification. You may counter this by > saying: "I don't care how JKR interprets her own characters; if she > intended Snape to be sadistic she didn't do her job very well, because > I don't see it." But you can't maintain she didn't intend Snape to be > sadistic because Umbridge is a sadist. There's no reason whatsoever > why the series shouldn't contain two sadistic teachers, each with > their own personal brand of sadism. Well, for my part, I do attach reasonable importance to JKR's own comments. And I think I can understand why she would call Snape sadistic. I wouldn't use that term myself, but even as someone who defends Snape as a teacher, I believe he's a very nasty man. And I would say that Umbridge is most definitely a sadist. To me the distinction is that I believe a sadist is someone who isn't just nasty or cruel, but is wantonly nasty and cruel primarily for their own enjoyment. My test... if Snape was a genuine sadist (by my understanding of the term) he would *like* having Neville Longbottom in his class. He would *want* Neville to be there, because Neville gives him the perfect excuse to be mean and nasty. He wouldn't make any effort to try and get Neville to improve in class, because that would get rid of his foil - his perfect tool to express his sadism and get pleasure out of it. But when I look at Snape, I see someone who is actually trying to get Neville to improve in his classes. I think Snape misjudges the situation with regards, but I do think that is his motivation. Neville *annoys* him by his lack of performance and Snape doesn't like being annoyed. He is trying to make Neville competent because that will stop him annoying him. Anecdote from my own life... when I was 14, and in Form III at school, I had one of my most Snape like teachers for two different subjects that year - Latin and Ancient Greek. In Latin (a subject I had chosen to do voluntarily) I did quite well. In Ancient Greek (a subject I was forced to do against my will, even though it was supposed to be elective - they moved me from my choice of Drama into Ancient Greek) I did incredibly poorly. To give you an idea - from memory my results in Latin for the first half of that year were around 85%, and my mark in Ancient Greek was 7%. Now this teacher was *extremely* strict, and really was a rather nasty man in terms of personality. And my Ancient Greek classes were hell for me. The way he treated me was pretty much every bit as harshly as Snape treats Neville - and he had methods at his disposal that Snape doesn't seem to have available. The thing is, I really do think the reason he treated me that way in those classes was out of sheer frustration at how badly I was doing, how I couldn't do the most basic things right. And I really think Snape sees Neville in the same way. Now in my case, this teacher knew that I could do better. And he was nasty to me, and very very severe with me because he believed I could do better, and he believed that he could encourage me to do better by making things very unpleasant for me if I did not. Now he had good reason to believe that - teaching me two very similar subjects and seeing the difference in performance in both - and perhaps Snape doesn't have as good reason. But every other child in the class can do it - and though Neville does seem to have problems in other classes, they are not to the same extent he does in Snape's I can to an extent understand why Snape might genuinely believe that Neville is capable of more if he has an incentive to do better. And Snape doesn't do positive incentives - anymore than my Classics Master did. I frustrated my teacher - he wasn't going after me because he *wanted* to make me miserable. He went after me because he wanted me to learn, so I would stop frustrating him! If Snape was a genuine sadist, he would welcome Neville's presence in his class - but frankly, I think Snape would be much happier if Neville just ceased to exist in his classes. > Renee: > > Personally, I do see Snape's sadism quite clearly. The Trevor incident > is sadism, because Neville is obvioulsy terrified. This is where we get into problems - why does the fact that Neville is terrified indicate that Snape is a sadist. I don't see that. When I got -3/10 in a Greek vocab test (and yes, that mark was serious - each week we had a vocab test of ten words - you got 0 for a wrong answer, and lost 1/2 a mark for each subsequent mistake - so getting the root word wrong *and* the conjugation *and* the tense, yielded a net mark of -1 for that question), you'd better believe I was utterly terrified of what this teacher would do to me. But that terror made sure I *never* did it again. The fact that a teacher makes a child frightened doesn't make them a sadist. And the fact that a particular child may be so sensitive that something that would make another child mildly apprehensive instead makes that child terrified doesn't make the teacher a sadist either. Neville has made two very basic mistakes he shouldn't have made in that class. Snape doesn't target him for no reason - he's done something wrong, something that he shouldn't have. He's got in trouble for it. It's normal for a child to feel a little afraid in such cases. > Joe: > > A better judge of if Snape is a good teacher > would be to ask his less talented students. Why? Why are the least talented students the best judges of whether or not a teacher is a good teacher or not? This is actually a recurring problem with education in the real world. There's a great tendency to focus our attention on the lowest performing students as if they are somehow more important than other students. They are important. They are as entitled to an education that meets their needs as any other students are - but they are not more important than other students, and they should be no more entitled than other students to such an education. The opinion of the least talented students in a class as to whether or not a a teacher is a good teacher is no more important than the opinion of the most talented students in the class. It should be no less important either, but there's no reason to suppose that these students can judge a teachers ability than any others. They can, probably, say whether or not the teachers methods work well for them personally, and that's useful information. But that doesn't make the teacher a good teacher in general - just a good teacher for them. Because all teachers are individuals and all students are individuals, some teachers will be a good match for some students, but maybe not for other students. Expecting a teacher to be able to teach all students, as individual as they are, with equal efficacy is totally unrealistic. There may be some *very* rare teachers who can teach all children at peak efficiency, but if so they are very rare indeed. Some teachers are especially good with struggling students. Some teachers are especially good with brilliant students. Some teachers are especially good with the mid range of students. And *none* of these teachers are superior to the others simply on that basis. You can get some idea of a teachers *general* ability as a teacher by looking at their class as a whole (assuming a reasonably diverse student population in terms of ability and learning styles). Our indications are that most students Snape teaches do adequately, and some do very well. Overall, the class is advanced beyond the standards apparently expected by the ministry. > Shaun: > > > All right - now please explain to me why Neville is the student who > > forgets he is wearing the sorting hat during the sorting ceremony; > > why Neville is the student who needs to be helped into the Gryffindor > > common room the first time they go there; > > Gerry > (snip) > Well, obviously: > 1) he has a bad memory > 2) he has very low self esteem, tends to make mistakes because he > already believes he will fail. Shaun: Two good points, but they do not excuse his carelessness. If Neville has a poor memory, he should write down the process as it is explained to the class. That's assuming that Snape doesn't write it down on a board, or it's not being read out of a book. As for poor self esteem, yes, he does have that - but he needs to come to terms with it. Allowing it to be an excuse for his poor performance isn't going to help him. As we see through the books, Neville gradually grows in confidence and courage by being expected to be brave, not by having his lack of self esteem indulged. He is simply expected to get over this - and he does. I think Snape expects the same thing - probably not specifically, but he expects Neville to improve over time. And he doesn't. > Gerry: > > Careless in my non-native understanding of the English language means > though perfectly able to do something, not caring to be bothered to do > it right. I think we are running up against a language issue here, though your English is excellent and I didn't realise it wasn't your native tongue. Your definition of careless is correct in a precise sense, but when teachers use the term they are not being quite that precise. A careless mistake in a classroom situation is one that could be avoided with care. Sometimes it requires *special* care. Especially if the student is being asked to do something difficult for them. Being careless is not a matter of just not being bothered which would imply no effort at all. You can be careless even if you are putting some effort into something, if it's not *enough* effort. Schoolwork *should* require a student to exercise a reasonable degree of care (otherwise it's too easy). It shouldn't be something that they can accomplish without any effort. So some degree of effort can be assumed. But if a student isn't putting in enough effort to do what they need to do, they are being careless. The fact that they may be making some effort, even if it's not enough, doesn't stop them being careless. Adding ingredients in the right order, adding the right amount of ingredients should not be beyond Neville's abilities. OK - here's actually a good example of carelessness in a potions class. "They were making a new potion today, a Shrinking Solution. Malfoy set up his cauldron right next to Harry and Ron, so that they were preparing their ingredients on the same table. 'Sir,' Malfoy called, 'sir, I'll need help cutting up these daisy roots, because of my arm -' 'Weasley, cut up Malfoy's roots for him,' said Snape without looking up. Ron went brick red. 'There's nothing wrong with your arm,' he hissed at Malfoy. Malfoy smirked across the table. 'Weasley, you heard Professor Snape; cut up these roots.' Ron seized his knife, pulled Malfoy's roots toward him, and began to chop them roughly, so that they were all different sizes. 'Professor,' drawled Malfoy, 'Weasley's mutilating my roots, si'.' Snape approached their table, stared down his hooked nose at the roots, then gave Ron an unpleasant smile from beneath his long, greasy black hair. 'Change roots with Malfoy, Weasley.' 'But, sir -!' Ron had spent the last quarter of an hour carefully shredding his own roots into exactly equal pieces. 'Now,' said Snape in his most dangerous voice. Ron shoved his own beautifully cut roots across the table at Malfoy, then took up the knife again." (PoA) This is a perfect example. Ron does cut Malfoy's roots - he does do the basic task required. *But* he does it carelessly. Just doing the basics isn't enough. You have to take enough care to do it properly. > Gerry: > > A very good example of carelessness is Harry in PoA when he, > despite the danger he is in uses his invisibility cloak to pay a higly > risky Hogsmead visit, he knew exactly what was at stake, yet he could > not be bothered to act differently. I would say that is more recklessness than carelessness. But that is getting into semantics. > Gerry: > > Very, very different from Neville. > Now I fully believe Snape is unable to see the difference between > carelesness and being - how do you call it in English - a > psychological block. But canon makes it very clear that for Neville it > is not a question of 'can't be bothered' but of being unable to. A > good teacher,- mind you, not an extraordinary one - should be able to > recognize the difference. Shaun: Not necessarily - and I am speaking as a teacher. Sorting out the psychological issues involved with a student can be quite complex. Sometimes it's obvious - often it's not. Working out that a student has a problem is often easy. Working out what it is is often very hard. Most teachers in most modern school environments (and this is a place where I think modern education does something very right) have access where needed to psychologists and similar to help work this out when they can not. Because it's not easy. > Gerry: > > > To me, it seems obvious that the problem is with the pupil. With > > Neville. > > If that were the case, he would have difficulties in all his classes. > Yet he is fine with charms and is outstanding in herbology, not > exaclty a tame subject. And even with transformation he does not go to > pieces Shaun: He does blow McGonnagal's desk to pieces (actually he just blows a leg off) (-8 Neville is depicted as having problems in a lot of classes, herbology being a noteable exception. And in general terms as well. Things seem to happen to Neville - to me that is a clear indication that the problem is with Neville. Even in Harry's DA classes in Sixth Year, Neville has issues. *But* he overcomes them. That's the point - he is capable of overcoming them. There not a sign of pathology. They are something within his power to deal with. "'You cannot pass an OWL,' said Professor McGonagall grimly, 'without serious application, practice and study. I see no reason why everybody in this class should not achieve an OWL in Transfiguration as long as they put in the work.' Neville made a sad little disbelieving noise. 'Yes, you too, Longbottom,' said Professor McGonagall. There's nothing wrong with your work except lack of confidence." (OotP) Note that - even in Fifth Year, far from doing well in other subjects, Neville still has doubts that he will get an OWL in Transfiguration. And McGonagall points out that his problem is with him - it's his lack of confidence. > Gerry: > > Why, if you think that Snape does not handle this situation well, do > you consider him a good teacher? Shaun: Because I don't believe any teacher on this planet, no matter how good, always succeeds with every single situation every single time. A teacher who was able to do that would not be a good teacher, they'd be a perfect teacher. And there's a difference. To be a good teacher a teacher doesn't have to always get it right with every single student they teach. One of my teachers from when I was 13, a couple of years ago won an award as one of Australia's best teachers. She's very well regarded. She made some mistakes when it came to me, though, she got some things rather significantly wrong (and, no, she's not one of the teachers I would describe as a bad teacher I had - she was a decent teacher even for me where she made some mistakes - but she did make mistakes). Saying that Snape is a good teacher doesn't mean I think he's perfect and never makes mistakes. I do think he makes mistakes with regards to Neville. But a teacher should *not* be judged on the basis of their mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes in their job at times. What makes someone good or bad at their job is their general performance most of the time, not their worst performance. > Gerry: > > Neville left the paper next to his bed, safe in the Gryffindor > dormitory. No one could have foreseen that it would be stolen by > Crookshanks who was in league with Sirius Black. That is not an > example of carelesness. Shaun: It most certainly is. You should never write passwords down - it defeats the purpose of them - and if for some reason, you are foolish enough to do so, you would never leave them anywhere anyone could just pick them up. You should always assume that written down passwords can fall into the wrong hands. He was careless - Professor McGonnagal certainly thought he was and punished him for it. Now, if we assume that he wasn't careless, then that would become an example of Professor McGonnagal making a very serious mistake about Neville - does that make her a bad teacher? Again, no. I don't think she made a mistake - I think he was very careless - but if she did, again, you can't assess the general competence of a teacher based on their mistakes. You have to look at their general competence. > Gerry: > > Well, a melted cauldron is something quite spectacular, we see many > potions mistakes throughout the book, but most of them are not any > more dangerous than a potion turning the wrong colour of giving a bad > smell. So yes, I do think it strange that the first potions being > taught is one where a simple mistake has such huge effects. Shaun: I don't think we do see many potions mistakes through the books. The next incident I can find where a mishap in the potions class is described is in the second book - and there it is not a mishap - Harry deliberately ensures people are splashed by using a firework. But what happens to the students who are splashed? "Goyle's potion exploded, showering the whole class. People shrieked as splashes of the Swelling Solution hit them. Malfoy got a faceful and his nose began to swell like a balloon; Goyle blundered around, his hands over his eyes, which had expanded to the size of a dinner plate - Snape was trying to restore calm and find out what had happened. Through the confusion, Harry saw Hermione slip quietly into Snape's office." Then we have the Trevor incident in the third book. While Neville's mistake is not spectacular in that class, it does seem that the concoction he makes by mistake could kill anyone who drinks it. Minor mistakes have serious consequences in potions classes, whether they are spectacular or not. Yes, we have non-spectacular incidents as well - but I don't think spectacular reactions are likely to be that unusual. Fred and George also cause a lot of explosions at home with their experiments (-8 > Shaun: > > > The first problem with that argument, in my view, is that Neville > > makes his very first mistake before Snape has bullied him. The second > > problem with it that Neville demonstrates careless behaviour out of > > class and in other teachers classes as well - in Chamber of Secrets I > > recall, he accidentally removes the leg of McGonnagall's desk during > > a class, and at the time he's under no stress at all. > > Gerry: > > Why is this careless? Is it because it is Neville? "But something happened in their first lesson, Transfiguration, that drove the Chamber of Secrets out of their minds for the first time in weeks. Ten minutes into the class, Professor McGonagall told them that their exams would start on the first of June, one week from today. 'Exams?' howled Seamus Finnigan. 'We're still getting exams?' There was a loud bang behind Harry as Neville Longbottom's wand slipped, vanishing one of the legs on his desk. Professor McGonagall restored it with a wave of her own wand, and turned, frowning, to Seamus." It's careless because - without any sign that he is under particular stress, Neville's wand slips and accidentally removes the leg of his desk. A slip without a reason that causes that type of damage - I can't see any reason not to call it carelessness. Unless the wand slipped all by itself, somehow. It'd be careless whoever it happened to. > Gerry: > > Gerry > Leaving a student alone, abstaining from nasty comments is not the > same as abstaining from duty. It can be a very effective teaching > method. I'm sorry, but I get the feeling Betsy had in one of the other > discussions. You seem determined to excuse anything Snape does. You > wanted an example of Snape being nasty to other students than Harry. > Ypu even agree that the DADA class is nasty, yet suddenly it is all > right because teachers do that at Hogwarts, where you use McGonnagal > as an example, though both times she is very tense an stressed where > Snape knows exactly what he is doing. His remaek about Hermione's > teeth is again an example of a teacher being personal and cruel. Snape > is not a nice man. Shaun: I have never said that Snape is a nice man and I've made it quite clear in the past that I think his remark about Hermione's teeth is completely and utterly inexcusable. I disagree entirely with the suggestion that I try to excuse anything that Snape does. I have made it quite clear that I think his treatment of Harry is wrong, I have made it quite clear that I think Snape was wrong to tell Lupin about what had happened in his class with Neville, and I really think what Snape said with regards to Hermione's teeth was very wrong. When I think Snape has done something wrong, I have most certainly said so. But as someone who had his childhood ruined to the extent that I was suicidal at the age of 12, because people had decided that the methods of education that worked for me were unacceptable for politically correct reasons - and that we had to have nice kind teachers whether they could teach or not - frankly, I have a bit of a problem with the fact that, in my view, some people seem to believe that the forms of education they like and that may have been good for them are school are somehow inherently superior to old fashioned ideas of education of the type that helped save my life and restore me to some semblance of mental health. Hogwarts is a school of a particular style - it is modelled on the great British Public Schools - and teachers like Snape are a not uncommon feature of those schools. And for about a century and a half, these schools were generally regarded over a fair swathe of the world as providing the best education available. This is why copies of them were set up in countries all over the world (including one that I was fortunate enough to attend). The schools that grew out of this tradition are still regarded as excellent schools, and people pay a fortune to send their children to them. Yes, they are a bit softer than they once were (and some have changed a lot) but generally speaking, these are good schools. My point is that I believe that this type of education, no matter how unfashionable it may be with certain people has stood the test of time and proven itself. So, honestly, I find it very odd to see people who don't seem to understand it in many cases, constantly criticising it. I can understand that they believe that the things that worked for them at school, or that they think would have worked for them are good things - and I believe that they are probably right. But I also think that *I* am qualified to say what worked for me and to regard what worked for *me* as a good thing as well. I had my childhood ruined by modern educational ideas. OK - maybe I was a freak of nature. But honestly, it's hard enough in real life to see the type of schooling that worked for me derided as having something wrong with it. Yet, at least in real life, I can understand that the people who attack that type of schooling are genuinely sincere people who believe they are helping kids. I may disagree with them but I can understand their motives. But we're talking about a work of fiction here. Criticising Snape as a teacher isn't going to change anything that matters anywhere. He's not teaching real children, even if he is a sadist (and I don't think he is), he's not really hurting anybody real. OK - the people who want to change schools in the real world - right or wrong, they are normally trying to work for the benefit of kids (as they are given to see it). So I won't really argue with them in real life (except in very specific formats). But in fiction, I don't see the harm. And so I will defend here the type of school that kept me sane, and the type of teachers who kept me alive. Please note - I am not saying for a moment that people shouldn't attack Snape, just because this is fiction. That's fine. It's fun! At least, I assume it is, as this is just for fun. All I am saying is that I do accept in some cases that Snape has done things wrong. But it's hard for me to see the only type of education that I was every happy in and learning in derided by people because they don't believe in it - especially when I believe their opposition is based on a belief that modern methods of education are automatically better than those of the past. I think the traditional methods are worth defending. And maybe if people had defended them in real life here, I wouldn't have wound up a clinical depressive at the age of 12. But I don't believe these methods are perfect. They're not. I've never claimed they are. But I will defend them when I think they are, overall, good for at least some students. > Gerry: > > So as long as a teacher does not make his students depressed or > suicidal his teaching methods are fine? Then it does not matter that a > teacher has not the wit or is too disinterested to distinguish between > carelesness and inability? That is one easy excuse for bad teaching. No, that's not what I said at all. I believe that to be a good teacher, a teacher has to do a great deal more than just ensure their students are not depressed or suicidal. *But* I don't think a good teacher necessarily needs to be a good teacher for every single student. If a teacher is a good teacher for *most* of their students, then they meet the first criteria to be a good teacher. I don't think a good teacher has to be *perfect*. *But* having said that, of course, that doesn't mean you can ignore what's happening to the other students for whom they are not a good teacher. You do have to look at that. And *if* those students are *suffering* to a significant extent from the teaching methods, then that would invalidate the teacher's general efficiency. Let me use numbers, let's look at a class of twenty. If a teacher with twenty children is teaching 15 of them very well, 4 of them, OK, and 1 of them not at all - but isn't actually causing that last child serious harm - then I would say they are a good teacher. However, if a teacher with twenty children is teaching 15 of them very well, 4 of them, OK, and the last wants to kill themselves - then that's a *very* real problem. I acknowledge fully that Neville is uncomfortable in Snape's classes and that they are less than optimal for him. I wish he wasn't in that situation. But I don't believe the level of discomfort experienced by that one student is enough to invalidate the teaching skill of the teacher. If Neville was close to suicide, I would think that. Now understand this - after a year of suboptimal teaching at the age of 12, I *was* suicidal with regards to my school. Believe me I take this issue very seriously indeed. But out of all my teachers that year, really just one of them caused me to be that deeply depressed. Most of the others made me unhappy, yes - but the unhappiness I experienced was not enough to invalidate the good work they did with most of my class of 30. Yes, it was bad for me. But they weren't bad teachers. That last one though... she was another matter. > Catherine: > > I think what most people are forgetting is that Neville suffers from > poor self-esteem, first of all. Secondly he has what could pretty > much be deamed a deep-seated *phobia* of Snape. His Boggart is Snape, > not a severed hand, giant spider, monster or anything else. His fear > is absolutely true, and being so fearful *never* lets someone live up > to their potential. It's not the pressure of Snape classes that do > Neville in as demonstrated by him actually doing OK during his > Potions Owl. Not everyone is good at following "simple directions". > How is it that one person can bake a cake perfectly using a > particular recipe, and another fail miserably following the exact > same recipe? What may be simple to you, might not be simple to > another. Right from the beginning Neville says he didn't think he > was "magic enough" to get in to Hogwarts. Shaun: Well, I am not forgetting for a moment that Neville suffers from low self esteem. I suffered from it as a child myself and I take it seriously. But I had to learn to deal with it. And Neville has to learn to deal with it, as well. It's not a nice thing to have in your corner - but if you don't learn to overcome it, it will control you for ever and that is not in your interest. And children do not develop self esteem by being mollycoddled. They learn it by being placed in situations where they can develop resilience. That's what worked for me - and it's what works for Neville. Over time, over the books, Neville *does* develop a better self image - and he doesn't develop it by having his low self esteem indulged. (Please note - I am aware that for some children, it's not as easy as I've just implied - some kids need a lot of help with this and certainly they should get it. And if Neville hadn't developed better self esteem over time, I would say he was one of these - but generally speaking pushing Neville to develop greater confidence and courage *has* worked. It may not have worked as well in Snape's class - but as it works in general, I definitely think it's a valid strategy.) As for Neville having a phobia about Snape - honestly I don't think he does. A phobia is an irrational fear. Something you are afraid of without good reason. And again, I suffer from phobias - I absolutely fear having my photograph taken, irrational though that is (this comes from some bullying I experienced as a child). The thing is Neville *does* have a rational reason to be afraid of Snape. The man is nasty to him. I think Neville's fear is disproportionate to the cause, but that's different from being irrational. But even if it was a phobia, you don't indulge a phobia. A person who has a phobia has to learn to deal with it. Failing to learn to deal with it, doesn't help anyone, least of all the victim. Sometimes it's so severe a person can't learn to deal with it - it's not weakness if you can't, it can be that debilitating. But generally the best way to deal with it is to confront it. Neville confronts his fears through the books. He can do this with Snape. Your cake analogy is interesting - because it's true, even if two people follow a cake recipe perfectly they can get different results. But the point is Neville doesn't even follow the recipe perfectly. While your cake may not turn out all right even if you do follow the recipe, there is a difference between following it correctly and failing to do so. Not everyone can produce a perfect cake. But everyone should be able to do the steps outlined. > Catherine: > > Snape on the other hand, is simply not a nice person. Can he teach? > Yes. Does everybody like him? No. Would I want my children to have > him as a teacher? Absolutely not. Some people will respond well to > his methods (which I see as being one of two things: favoritism and > bullying) The ones he favors will either do well because of it > (Malfoy, Nott perhaps?), or do horribly (Crabbe and Goyle) and be > left in peace. The ones he bullies will either fall to pieces > (Neville) defy to do well depsite of his attitude (Hermione) or just > suck it up as long as is necessary and try to do your best (Harry, > Ron). Unfortunately, we only see how he treats Slyhterins and > Gryffindors. But only 3 Ravenclaws (the most intellectual) and 1 > Hufflepuff (the hardest working) managed an Owl in the subject, or > decided to continue with Potions thinking that Snape would be > teaching. Well, I can say categorically that I responded very well to Snape like teachers and their methods - and it had nothing to do with them bullying me or favouring me. I was a victim of extreme bullying in my time at school - including by teachers, unfortunately, and believe me I recognise bullying. That isn't what these Snape like teachers did. And they certainly didn't favour me. This is what I responded to. And that's part of my point. Different people respond to different types of teaching. Methods that worked for most of my classmates at 12, made me clinically depressed. And Snape like methods worked. I'd also point out that it's not true that only 3 Ravenclaws and 1 Hufflepuff managed an Owl in the subject. To get into Slughorn's NEWT level potions classes requires an E grade (Exceeds Expectations). His standards aren't as high as Snape's for entry, but they are higher than just passing. > Catherine: > > That to me says more than any offhand quote someone may have made > about him. Either not many people did well in Potions to receive an > Owl in it, or not many people wanted to continue with Potions because > they didn't like him. Or maybe they just made the choices that suited their career paths. My two best subjects in my second last year of school (and I was the best student across my entire Form in one of those subjects - I didn't drop a single mark all year - and third out of about two hundred and fifty boys in the second one) were ones I dropped for my final year. Because they weren't going to be useful to me in terms of my employment choices. We know students get careers advice in Fifth year that tell them what subjects they need. Many may have dropped Potions purely because they didn't need the NEWT in them. This really isn't that uncommon when your secondary schooling system provides genuine credentials for further study (which is true in some places and not true in others). > Irene: > > Why on earth would I want to prove that? So what if > Snape made him disembowel frogs, or toads or lizards? > Or any other animal that provides ingredients for > Potions? > It would be an illegitimate punishment only if the > ingredients were in themselves illegal or required > Dark Magic to produce them. > Or do you mean Snape should have cared that these > animals remind Neville of his pet? I'm not sure > McGonagall would. I agree entirely, Irene. I think the person who first made the link between disembowelling horend toads and Trevor, and thought this might have been a deliberately chosen punishment to cause Neville pain was very clever - but I think it's an utterly unproven theory. I was punished quite a few times at school with having to do certain menial tasks and they just tended to be whatever needed to be done. Shifting 500 100-year old copies of Nixon's Geometry in Space from one bookshelf at one side of a room to another at the other side of the room, one at a time because they were fragile was the one that sticks in my mind (actually it sticks in my mind because the teacher who assigned it came into the room to discover me and the other boy involved had decided the books weren't fragile despite their age and we were throwing them across the room!). Maybe Snape did this deliberately - but they do use these toad in potions. Besides - even if horned toads were closely related to toads (which they are not as someone else has pointed out - though I agree it's possible that JKR probably didn't know that), they would still be a separate species - and any boy with enough of an understanding of taxonomy to get so involved in a Mimbulus mimbletonia - honestly, I think he understands the difference between species. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Feb 15 11:44:31 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:44:31 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148181 Jen: Your post made me think of another question rather than an answer: What exactly *was* Voldemort's goal in HBP? Dungrollin: ('Lo, Jen!) I reckon he had three goals (most important first). 1. Test Snape's loyalty. 2. Get rid of DD. 3. Punish Lucius. Actually 1 and 2 are pretty equal in terms of importance, I think; getting Draco involved was just the icing on the cake. Voldy's already tried to kidnap/kill Harry, twice before, and neither time worked out great, so he switched strategy, and decided (particularly after it became obvious in that duel in the MoM that he couldn't beat DD in a straight fight) to get DD out of the way by more Slytherin means. I think, after two failed attempts on Harry Potter's life, he was justified in changing tic-tacs. Jen: We can piece together he expected Draco to fix the Vanishing Cabinent under threat of death to himself and parents, even though likely he didn't expect Draco would be capable of killing DD. For that job, his 'spy' placed at Hogwarts for 16 years was the more likely of the two to complete the job. That's speculative from Snape's words but fits with Voldemort's thinking. Dung: I was under the impression that it was all Draco's idea (at least the vanishing cabinet was), his task as presented was simply "kill Dumbledore". Obviously, Voldy's best chance, once he's decided that DD has to go, is Snape. Snape is highly competent (he has the means), he his perfectly positioned at Hogwarts, with Dumbledore's trust (he has the opportunity), and he is a loyal Death Eater (he has a motive) ? isn't he? Jen: So Voldemort's goal was to get Dumbledore out of the way, but not in order to kidnap Harry. In fact, it's possible Dumbledore was even aware Voldemort had another goal because when you think about it, Dumbledore didn't make any obvious attempt to protect Harry after his death. Fawkes left, Snape left. The Order didn't immediately spring into action and take Harry to a secure location. For whatever reason Dumbledore seemed to believe Harry was safe even if he died. It's interesting. Makes you wonder if there are some other protections he set up which are activated upon his death or the like. Dung: I think you're right, that Snape and DD knew all along that DD was the target, and that Harry wasn't in too much danger (except the usual being in the wrong place at the wrong time stuff that he always gets up to). You can bet your best hat + stuffed vulture that if Bella doesn't quite trust Snape, neither does Voldy. Voldy doesn't trust anyone. Many posters (or perhaps just a few ? it's so difficult to tell, sometimes) want to make Snape unaware of Draco's task. They read him as bluffing in Spinner's End when he said that he knew what it was, trying to get Bella and Narcissa to give him information. I don't buy that at all. I think Snape knew all about it before Narcissa came to visit him, and he'd already discussed it with Dumbledore. ("He intends me to do it in the end...") I therefore hypothesise that before Snape took the vow, DD was aware that a) Draco had been instructed to kill DD, b) Voldemort was doing this to punish Lucius, c) Voldemort never expected Draco to succeed, and d) Snape was expected to fulfil the task when Draco failed. Jen: So I do think he *was* following orders not to bring Harry, and that Voldemort must have had another goal in mind with getting Dumbledore out of the way. I guess LV could have found out Dumbledore was chasing the horcruxes and thought he could get rid of him before he told someone else. Or he wants something at Hogwarts and needs Dumbledore out of there. Trelawney maybe? He does seem awfully obsessive about knowing the prophecy. Dung: I don't think Voldy found out that DD knew about the Horcruxes, that would (to my mind) count as a major emergency, and he wouldn't hang about for a year letting Draco fail, he'd have got Snape on the job immediately, or launched a full-on assault on Hogwarts. You know, try to kill DD before he *told* anyone or anything... As for orders to leave Harry alone, it seems perfectly plausible that Voldy had had enough of failing to kill him, but was angry enough about it to not want anyone else to have the pleasure. Going at it piecemeal, getting rid of DD The Protector first sounds sensible to me. Plus the fact that Voldy's now using Occlumency against Harry, makes it rather look like The Harry Problem was put on hold for a year. Regarding the prophecy, it does seem a little odd, doesn't it? To spend an entire year and a lot of effort trying to find out its contents and then the next year petulantly stamp your foot and shriek "I didn't want to know anyway, and I'm going to have the man it was told to murdered, so there!" Has Voldy got over his obsession? Has he decided it doesn't matter any more? Or has someone already told him what he needs to know? Argh, don't ask me to fathom the way an evil overlord's mind works... Dungrollin Btw, can anyone tell me off the top of their head whether the following has been proposed: Instead of Time-Turned!Ron = Dumbledore, Time-Turned!Gred&Forge are Albus and Aberforth. 'Spect someone must have done, but thought I'd ask, becuase it would turn DD's comment about G&F's beards when they crossed the age line into a fine bit of foreshadowing. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Feb 15 13:10:03 2006 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:10:03 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: <43F3A43E.7680.67413C9@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148182 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: Shaun: > I do attach reasonable importance to > JKR's own comments. And I think I can understand why she > would call Snape sadistic. I wouldn't use that term myself, > but even as someone who defends Snape as a teacher, I > believe he's a very nasty man. And I would say that Umbridge > is most definitely a sadist. > To me the distinction is that I believe a sadist is someone > who isn't just nasty or cruel, but is wantonly nasty and > cruel primarily for their own enjoyment. > My test... if Snape was a genuine sadist (by my > understanding of the term) he would *like* having Neville > Longbottom in his class. He would *want* Neville to be > there, because Neville gives him the perfect excuse to be > mean and nasty. He wouldn't make any effort to try and get > Neville to improve in class, because that would get rid of > his foil - his perfect tool to express his sadism and get > pleasure out of it. But when I look at Snape, I see someone > who is actually trying to get Neville to improve in his > classes. I think Snape misjudges the situation with regards, > but I do think that is his motivation. Neville *annoys* him > by his lack of performance and Snape doesn't like being > annoyed. He is trying to make Neville competent because that > will stop him annoying him. Renee: If you understand why JKR calls him sadistic, but you can't see any real sadism in his treatment of Neville, doesn't that imply you think she used the term incorrectly or sloppily? Or does it mean you do see him being sadistic, just not in the case of Neville? But I see at least one instance where Snape does use Neville as an excuse to be nasty: Lupin's Boggart lesson in PoA. Assuming you don't believe he wanted to warn his old friend Lupin from the goodness of his heart, what reason did he have to take Neville down the way he did, except that he liked to do so? It's gratuitous, except if you assume he enjoyed it. Shaun: > If Snape was a genuine sadist, he would welcome Neville's > presence in his class - but frankly, I think Snape would be > much happier if Neville just ceased to exist in his classes. Renee: If Neville merely annoyed him, he could have ignored him before the Boggart lesson and just left. > > Renee: > > > > Personally, I do see Snape's sadism quite clearly. The Trevor incident > > is sadism, because Neville is obvioulsy terrified. > > This is where we get into problems - why does the fact that > Neville is terrified indicate that Snape is a sadist. I > don't see that. > > When I got -3/10 in a Greek vocab test (and yes, that mark > was serious - each week we had a vocab test of ten words - > you got 0 for a wrong answer, and lost 1/2 a mark for each > subsequent mistake - so getting the root word wrong *and* > the conjugation *and* the tense, yielded a net mark of -1 > for that question), you'd better believe I was utterly > terrified of what this teacher would do to me. But that > terror made sure I *never* did it again. The fact that a > teacher makes a child frightened doesn't make them a sadist. > And the fact that a particular child may be so sensitive > that something that would make another child mildly > apprehensive instead makes that child terrified doesn't make > the teacher a sadist either. Neville has made two very basic > mistakes he shouldn't have made in that class. Snape doesn't > target him for no reason - he's done something wrong, > something that he shouldn't have. He's got in trouble for > it. It's normal for a child to feel a little afraid in such > cases. > Renee: Neville is terrified because he fears for his beloved pet. Your example, however illustrating, is about inevitable tests. The Trevor incident is about playing a *game* with someone's love for another being. A cruel game, and not inevitable. Renee From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 13:27:52 2006 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:27:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Krum's Crucio (Was: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060215132752.81359.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148183 Carol: Surely the Unforgivable Curses are unforgiveable when used on human beings throughout the WW, and even ex-DE Karkaroff would not have broken that ban by having students kill, torture, or even Imperio other students. However, it does seem that Krum had some experience with the curse or he couldn't have Crucio'd Cedric. I'm guessing that they practice the Unforgiveables on animals, much as Hogwarts students learn Transfiguration on animals. Juli now: Not necessarily. I remember when Neville was under Imperio in GoF, he performs some physical activities he wouldn't have been able to do in his normal state. If Neville acquires extraordinary abilities (like performing pirouettes), why can't Viktor acquire the ability to perform an Unforgivable? JMO Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr --------------------------------- Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From literature_Caro at web.de Tue Feb 14 21:23:50 2006 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:23:50 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Something I have been thinking about In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <624577951.20060214222350@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 148184 > I am new to this site, so it is nice to net meet you all. But have > been thinking about something ever since the 4th book and everytime I > bring it up it gets ignored. > I was wondering if anyone has thought about Peter Pettigrew > (Scabbers). In Harry Potter book 3, When Harry saved Peter from > Sirius and Remus, Dumbledore said that when a wizard saves another > there is a bond between until it is repaid. So the thing I have been > wondering for several years now is, Does anyone else think that Peter > is going to help Harry out somehow in the end when Harry and Voldemort > come face to face? > Cat Hi Cat! Some (long) time before I have been thinking the same way as you do. But I even went further: Pettigrew ows his life to Harry and when brewing the potion to revive LV he gave his right hand, the one with the missing finger. So I think that there might be something to this (an incomplete hand and Harry's blood, to which he has a life dept). But what the exact answer would be I don't know though it might save Harry's life if Pettigrew would want to pay this life dept back ... but who knows except for JKR ... Yours Caro From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 15:56:23 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:56:23 -0000 Subject: A new resource when searching for canon Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148185 hpfan_mom: My dad just alerted me to a new Harry Potter resource, http://www.potterindex.com/. The site has indexed every word in the US editions (they're working on the UK versions) into a searchable database (also includes Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch Through the Ages). It provides results by book and page number. Here are some quotations from the site: "The Potter Index contains a complete catalog of every word and phrase in every Harry Potter book. This site does not display the Harry Potter books in any way. What it does do is let you enter specific search criteria and tells you exactly where this text can be found in the Harry Potter books." "Please do not hesitate to put the Potter Index through its paces, testing it against words or phrases in your Harry Potter books. Please let us know if the system fails any of your tests!" Forgive me if this has been mentioned before, but I searched HPfGU back about 6 months and didn't see any reference to it. I have no financial or other interest in the site (except to use it for finding canon, of course). My dad heard about it because he has a grad degree in information science and one of his colleagues emailed a group he's in about this new resource for teachers. Let the searching begin! hpfan_mom From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 18:56:08 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:56:08 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement -- Horcrux In-Reply-To: <002e01c631ba$e0f10dd0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148186 Gwen wrote: As for the necklace Horcrux, I'm more inclined to believe the heavy locket at Grimmauld Place is the Slytherin necklace - but if so, I'm a little disappointed that everyone could find the locket, inspect it, try and fail to open it, and through all of that not realize that it had Slytherin's mark on it. Carol responds: I don't find it odd at all since they were sorting through various Dark trinkets and knew nothing of Horcruxes at the time. The fact that the locket had Slytherin's mark on it doesn't seem out of place to me at all in a house where everything from the door knocker to the chandeliers is in the shape of a serpent. The Blacks may not be descended from Salazar Slytherin, but they have strong connections with his house. Phineas Nigellus Black, former headmaster of Hogwarts, dresses in Slytherin colors and was most likely the Slytherin HOH (and Potions master ;-) ) before becoming headmaster. Most of the Blacks, Sirius and possibly Andromeda excepted, were sorted into Slytherin House and hold a pureblood ethic similar to Salazar Slytherin's own. I don't think anyone gave a second thought to the presence of a locket with a Slytherin symbol on it. It was in keeping with all the other reminders of the Blacks as Dark wizards with strongly held Slytherin values. The fact that the locket could not be opened may have marked it as something dangerous to be gotten rid of, but I don't see why anyone present--Mrs. Weasley, Bill, Lupin, or Sirius Black--would have noticed it particularly, mixed as it was among all the other Dark artifacts and not given any special protection that would call attention to it. (Obviously Mr. and Mrs. Black had no idea what it was or where their dead son had obtained it or they would not have left it on a shelf along with a box of wartcap powder.) Mundungus, who IIRC was also present, probably noticed both the Slytherin symbol and the quality of the gold and saw the locket as having market value in Knockturn Alley, but he wouldn't have suspected its true nature and had (not very admirable) reasons for keeping any suspicions that it had belonged to Slytherin himself out of the conversation. (Besides, a *locket* is a rather odd possession for a Dark *wizard*, isn't it? If Slytherin had been a witch, they might have been more likely to connect it with him. As it is, it's just another Dark artifact with a snake marking to be discarded as soon as possible.) Now if Snape had been present, it might have been a different story. He, I think, would have suspected a direct link to Salazar Slytherin, especially if he witnessed Regulus's death, even if he did not yet know about the Horcruxes (and, being Snape and trusted by DD, I think he did). But JKR has carefully made him absent from the scene, and no one present would have had any reason to see anything special in the locket. It does strike me as strange that the locket is made of gold given what appears to be the Slytherin affinity for silver ("Is this real silver, mate?"), which also makes me wonder if Dung was a Slytherin in his youth. Carol, positing Mundungus Fletcher, Madame Rosmerta, Sturgis Podmore, and Portrait!Phineas as candidates for ESE! if we really must have a surprise traitor or spy in Book 7 (and, no, I don't seriously believe that any of them is a traitor) From kkersey at swbell.net Wed Feb 15 19:08:08 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:08:08 -0000 Subject: It's "blood" that counts (Was: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148187 Carol, brilliant analysis - I think you are reight about the genetics as a mechanism being irrelevant to the story, but that the idea of "bloodlines" is of crucial importance to many characters and to some degree drives the plot. (Did I get that right?) --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: < snipping several paragraphs of brilliant stuff> > I just want to point out the rather surprising views on blood of two > characters, Hagrid and Phineas Black. Hagrid abuses Mr. Dursley for > being a Muggle and Filch for being a Squib yet is himself a "half > breed," only half human (but magical). He also refers to the centaurs > as "nags" after an argument with them, surely no more respectful of > them than Umbridge except that he's not insulting them to their faces, > yet he's enraged when Draco calls Hermione a "mudblood" and gushes > over the importance of "blood" and cries in his beer over his lost > parents and the importance of "blood" when he's really thinking of > "Grawpy," his nonmagical, nonhuman half-brother. Apparently nonmagical > blood or nonmagical status is bad as long as it isn't his or his > family's or a friend's. Is he a hypocrite or is there a logic to his > prejudices and namecalling that I'm unable to find? Why is "Squib" or > "nag" an acceptable insult when "Mudblood" isn't? Looking at the examples you cite, it has struck me that there is a distinction between the terms like "muggle", "muggleborn", and "squib", which are based on fairly objective criteria having to do with an individual's (in)ability to perform magic, and the "blood" terms, which rely on an underlying definition of wizarding blood which is, when it comes to it, a cultural construct. (The idea of "race" is a similar cultural construct; scientifically it is pretty much meaningless, but culturally (and legally in many parts of the world, even today) it has tremendous significance. I think there has been discussion on this list in the past about various rules or laws that determined whether or not an individual was considered a member of this or that particular race; it doesn't matter what an individual looks like, just whether or not their ancestors were defined as members of a particular race.) >From your list it seems that Hagrid's insults are never based on the idea of "blood". He is contemptuous of muggles and squibs, who have no magical ability, but makes no distinction among those who are magical. Even the "nags" remark has to do with a rather obvious physical characteristic, not with an artificially defined cultural one. Not that I'm defending Hagrid, here, BTW! Just noting that the lines that he has drawn between "us" and "others" are different than, say, Mrs. Black's... >If Draco had called her a "stupid Muggleborn" instead of a "filthy >little Mudblood," would that have been okay? ... or for that matter, Draco's. And where does Harry draw the line? Maybe at the door to the Slytherin common room? Hmmmm... Carol continues: > And Phineas Nigellus, proud great grandfather of both of Sirius > Black's parents (second cousins, according to the recently published > partial photograph of the Black family tree--which explains Mrs. > Black's "blood of my fathers" rants) abuses Mundungus Fletcher as a > "filthy half blood" yet strenuously objects whenever Harry shows > disrespect for Severus Snape, whom we readers know to be the > Half-Blood Prince. Would Phineas's view of Snape change if he knew > Snape isn't a pureblood? Or is Phineas simply throwing out a term of > abuse at an absent thief and pilferer which he wouldn't use toward a > Slytherin HOH regardless of his bloodlines? Oh, I don't think Phineas Nigellus would have the slightest compunction with insulting or abusing Severus Snape, though I'll concede that the question of whether or not he'd do it to his face is up in the air. Don't think he would do it in front of a student, either. What Phineas Nigellus objects to is Harry, a *student*, showing disrespect for a *teacher*. PN was a headmaster, so I can't imagine him doing otherwise. In fact, other than Sirius, is there any adult who tolerates Harry speaking disrespectfully of *Professor* Snape? PN to Mundungus, though, that's adult-to-adult, a different matter entirely. > Carol, who thinks that Muggle/Wizard genetics may be an interesting > mental exercise but throws no light on the books > As I mentioned over on OT, yep. Totally agree with you there. Elisabet From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 11:30:31 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewijck) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 03:30:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ambiguous Snape (was:Sadistic Teachers ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060215113031.70846.qmail@web53210.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148188 Betsy Hp: Not that I think Snape will turn out to be a big fluffy bunny in the end but I doubt he's just a walking "mean teacher" cliche either. There's too much tragedy in him. And I think JKR is much more character oriented than she's given credit for. maria8162001: I'm really quite certain if my reply is appropriate for this topic and if I've snipped correctly. But anyhow, I just want to say that, I read on some of JKR's interviews and she answered on one of the questions tossed to her that Snape's going to have some redemptive pattern in book 7. I guess that redemptive pattern conconcerns his action in book6(killing DD). So maybe he's really going to help Harry in book 7 wether Harry like it or not. Just my opinion. Any thoughts? maria8162001 From louisemccabe88 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 15 16:06:57 2006 From: louisemccabe88 at hotmail.com (louisemccabe88) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:06:57 -0000 Subject: Krum's Crucio (Was: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers) In-Reply-To: <20060215132752.81359.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148189 > Carol: > Surely the Unforgivable Curses are unforgiveable when used on human beings throughout the WW, and even ex-DE Karkaroff would not have broken that ban by having students kill, torture, or even Imperio other students. However, it does seem that Krum had some experience with the curse or he couldn't have Crucio'd Cedric. I'm guessing that they practice the Unforgiveables on animals, much as Hogwarts students > learn Transfiguration on animals. Lou: Harry performs a Crucio on Bellatrix at the end of OOTP without - as far as I am aware - any practice of this. I do hope they are not torturing little fluffy things, or even scaley ones, at Durmstrang! Lou From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 20:14:44 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:14:44 -0000 Subject: Snape, "blood," and Phineas Nigellus (Was: It's "blood" that counts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148190 Elisabet wrote: > Carol, brilliant analysis - I think you are reight about the genetics as a mechanism being irrelevant to the story, but that the idea of "bloodlines" is of crucial importance to many characters and to some degree drives the plot. (Did I get that right?) Carol responds: Thanks. Yes, exactly. Elisabet: > Looking at the examples you cite, it has struck me that there is a distinction between the terms like "muggle", "muggleborn", and "squib", which are based on fairly objective criteria having to do with an individual's (in)ability to perform magic, and the "blood" terms, which rely on an underlying definition of wizarding blood which is, when it comes to it, a cultural construct. Carol: Yes. Good. You're probably right. I still think Hagrid is a hypocrite, but probably an unwitting one, and he does place a high value on his "blood" connection to Grawp, for what it's worth. (Anyone agree or disagree about the hypocrisy?) Also, I stand by my argument that the prejudice against Muggleborns is blood-based (see upthread), and the "Mudblood" epithet brings the basis for the prejudice out into the open. Elisabet: PN to Mundungus, though, that's adult-to-adult, a different > matter entirely. Carol: Actually, Phineas makes the remark about Mundungus being a "mangy old half-blood" in DD's office when he hears that Mundungus has stolen some artifacts from 12 GP (HBP chap. 13, incidentally one of two chapters in which Phineas is affronted by Harry's refusal to respect Snape). So it really isn't an adult-to-adult insult; it's behind Mundungus's back (and, for that reason, probably reflects Phineas's real opinion of Mundungus). So, again, I wonder what Phineas would think if he knew that Snape was also a half-blood. Would that affect his views on the respect due to Snape, HOH of Slytherin though he is? Or are those views based on Snape's loyalties as Phineas perceives them, regardless of his blood status? I think, and of course I could be wrong, that there's more to Phineas's defense(s) of Snape than merely the respect due a professor from a cheeky adolescent. Unfortunately, Phineas could not have overheard the argument between Snape and DD in the woods after Ron is accidentally poisoned (an incident that both DD and Snape can't help but associate with Draco) and consequently can't enlighten us as to the full conversation, but Phineas has certainly overheard Snape's many reports to DD over the years--and just possibly his original confession of remorse, the one Harry doubts so strongly. If we're going to find out Snape's true loyalties and the secrets about him that DD has kept from him and us, Phineas Nigellus may just be a key witness. And, unless the death of DD changes his perspective, it seems clear to me that he will argue (if he argues at all) in defense of Snape. Carol, thinking that Phineas would probably have preferred Severus to Sirius as a great-great-grandson, half-blood or no From kkersey at swbell.net Wed Feb 15 21:36:44 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:36:44 -0000 Subject: Snape, "blood," and Phineas Nigellus (Was: It's "blood" that counts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148191 Carol: > still think Hagrid is a hypocrite, > but probably an unwitting one, and he does place a high value on his > "blood" connection to Grawp, for what it's worth. (Anyone agree or > disagree about the hypocrisy?) Elisabet takes this on: Hmmm. My feeling is that Hagrid doesn't see the relationship with Grawp as one of blood, but as *family*. Not exactly the same thing. I think Hagrid is hungry for a family connection, and to have someone to care for. For Hagrid, the blood relationship is just an excuse to take charge of his "little" brother. We see that longing when Hagrid is forced to hand over baby Harry; no blood there. In any case, immediate family is a little different from "blood", which is a more generic sort of thing. Being proud of being a pureblood is different than being proud of being a member of a particular family, or even being proud of being distantly related to a particular person. So, no, I don't think he's particularly hypocritical in this case. Carol: > Also, I stand by my argument that the prejudice against Muggleborns > is blood-based (see upthread), and the "Mudblood" epithet brings > the basis for the prejudice out into the open. Elisabet again: I totally agree. My point was that the term "Muggle-born" could be (and is!) used in a neutral way - e.g. in OotP by Sirius when discussing the Black family tree with Harry, and by Hermione describing herself in HBP (when she explains to Slughorn why she couldn't be related to some famous Wizard named Granger). It's sort of like someone saying that my family is from the Ozarks, which is rather a far cry from calling me a hillbilly. Unlike the term mudblood, which as you point out "brings the basis for the prejudice out into the open", the word Muggle-born is neutral. If it is used offensively, it is in the context of who is using the term and *why* - Harry picks up on Slughorn's prejudice when he describes him as being "much too suprised that a Muggle-born should make a good witch." (HBP Ch4) Incidentally, I do think there is a hint of embarrassment in the way Hermione tells Slughorn that she's Muggle-born. Not saying she is actually embarrassed at her parentage, but she is sensitive to the awkwardness of the subject in that case, and is aware that it might lower her status in his eyes. I think she'd have preferred that he didn't know. She's always walking the line between assimilation into the wizarding world and its values and rebellion against its injustices... Elisabet From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Feb 15 22:16:10 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:16:10 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: References: <43F3A43E.7680.67413C9@localhost> Message-ID: <43F442DA.16616.8DFB9FE@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 148192 On 15 Feb 2006 at 13:10, Renee wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > > > Shaun: > > I do attach reasonable importance to > > JKR's own comments. And I think I can understand why she > > would call Snape sadistic. I wouldn't use that term myself, > > but even as someone who defends Snape as a teacher, I > > believe he's a very nasty man. And I would say that Umbridge > > is most definitely a sadist. > > To me the distinction is that I believe a sadist is someone > > who isn't just nasty or cruel, but is wantonly nasty and > > cruel primarily for their own enjoyment. > > > My test... if Snape was a genuine sadist (by my > > understanding of the term) he would *like* having Neville > > Longbottom in his class. He would *want* Neville to be > > there, because Neville gives him the perfect excuse to be > > mean and nasty. He wouldn't make any effort to try and get > > Neville to improve in class, because that would get rid of > > his foil - his perfect tool to express his sadism and get > > pleasure out of it. But when I look at Snape, I see someone > > who is actually trying to get Neville to improve in his > > classes. I think Snape misjudges the situation with regards, > > but I do think that is his motivation. Neville *annoys* him > > by his lack of performance and Snape doesn't like being > > annoyed. He is trying to make Neville competent because that > > will stop him annoying him. > > Renee: > If you understand why JKR calls him sadistic, but you can't see any > real sadism in his treatment of Neville, doesn't that imply you think > she used the term incorrectly or sloppily? Or does it mean you do see > him being sadistic, just not in the case of Neville? Shaun: I think she used the term colloquially, rather than precisely. It's one of that words that is quite often used in a colloquial sense, rather than being used in *precisely* the way it is formerly defined. As some people have pointed out, for example, technically the word implies a person gets sexual pleasure out of inflicting pain if you want to get really precise. Over time, it has come to be used more loosely. Personally I find the statement (made at the same time that JKR made the 'sadistic teacher' comment) that Snape abuses his power much more telling. Because in that case, I think JKR means exactly what she's saying. Those are simple words and simple concepts. The point is, though, there's sometimes a fine line between 'use' and 'abuse'. I experienced corporal punishment in my schooling. To me, it's use was appropriate in the circumstances, it was fully legal (still is in private schools here, till the end of this month at least), it was a fairly accepted practice (although it had already become unfashionable and had been banned in state schools here a few years earlier). To other people, though, it was by definition 'abuse'. Now I respect their views, and I respect their right to express their views in their writing. However, that doesn't mean I concede that they are right. Different people see different things as abusive. JKR sees Snape as a teacher who abuses his power - fine, she has every right to do so. That doesn't mean she is right, because other people's definitions differ. JKR is not the fount of all wisdom. Her definitions of things like abuse are not unchallengable, just because she's a writer. I also think people can make too much of precise words used in interviews. I don't think all that many people have been interviewed by the media really. I have been on several occasions, although on only one of those occasions did the details of that interview wind up in the media. I don't think that using a word imprecisely in a media interview is a sign that a person is sloppy, it's just a reflection of the fact that you are having to think on your feet and often condense quite complex ideas into a fairly few words. I've also written a number of articles about my childhood and educational experiences (one of which is going to be in a book published in the US this year). There are teachers that, based on my experiences of them, I would describe as having abused their power. But other people who were taught by them would totally disagree. The difference is that we are different people, and we see the world differently. A pupil who never learned from a teacher who was harsh with them, is much more likely to see that teacher as abusing power, than another student who got the same treatment and learned from it. And that does happen. People have a tendency to think their experiences are far more universal than they are. Hypothetically - and this is utterly hypothetical - let's say you could find the teacher that JKR modelled Snape on (she said there was one in the 'sadistic' quote). If you managed to track down every student he taught, and 90% disagreed with her assessment of that teacher, would that make her assessment wrong? As I say, that's hypothetical - you might just as easily find that 90% agreed with her. But my point is, though, that different people see the same people differently, they see them through various lenses. If a writer feels a teacher was cruel, then naturally any teacher they base on that person will be one that they think was cruel. But someone else writing about the same teacher who sees them differently, will also see the literary construct differently. I've recently been reading a history of the school I attended at the age of 13. I can recall four of my teachers from that year being described in that book - now the people who wrote this book are professional historians - many school histories are written by people who attended the schools in question, these authors had no contact with the school at all, until they were commissioned to write the history at which point they interviewed dozens of people associated with the school to try and build up an overall picture. As I say, I can recall four of my teachers from that year being described in that book - and I really don't agree with the descriptions of any of them. *But* at the same time, reading them I can appreciate that they are probably an accurate amalgam of opinions across the board, and objectively are probably pretty accurate. It's just the way we see people are so coloured by our experiences and beliefs. > Renee: > > But I see at least one instance where Snape does use Neville as an > excuse to be nasty: Lupin's Boggart lesson in PoA. Assuming you don't > believe he wanted to warn his old friend Lupin from the goodness of > his heart, what reason did he have to take Neville down the way he > did, except that he liked to do so? It's gratuitous, except if you > assume he enjoyed it. Shaun: No, it's not - not in my view at least. This is what I mean by things being coloured by our experiences and beliefs. To you it seems that there's no reason for Snape to do this except out of pleasure. I can see other reasons based on my own experiences as a student and a teacher. Let me make clear that I don't think Snape should have done this. I think it's inappropriate. But I can see reasons a teacher does this. And that is pure frustration. Teachers did do it to me - and I've seen teachers do it in the staffroom. When a student has *really* frustrated you, one of the first things a lot of teachers want to do is tell a colleague about it - to get it off their chest by telling someone else who'll understand what it feels like to be banging your head against a wall trying to teach a child something. You go into a typical school staffroom at recess or lunch and you will often hear teachers criticising their students quite heavily. It's unprofessional, and it's generally frowned upon today - but it's not at all uncommon. That is what we see in that scene with Lupin. This event occurs soon after the potion class. Snape has gone to an empty staffroom. It seems very likely that Lupin is simply the first teacher Snape sees. Under the circumstances, sheer frustration is an absolutely common reason for a teacher to sound off about a student. Doing it in front of other students, doing it in front of the student in question - that's something Snape should not have done. But I think to say he did it because he enjoyed it, is putting a very particular spin on it. To me this is exactly something that a teacher might do out of sheer frustration - and I do think Neville frustrates Snape. > Renee: > > Neville is terrified because he fears for his beloved pet. Your > example, however illustrating, is about inevitable tests. The Trevor > incident is about playing a *game* with someone's love for another > being. A cruel game, and not inevitable. Shaun: Sorry, no. My example is not inevitable tests. It wasn't the tests I feared at all. What I feared was the punishment I would receive because I hadn't done what I was supposed to (which in my case was failing to study the vocabulary and grammar I needed for the tests). I wasn't afraid of the inevitable tests. I was utterly terrified by the punishment I was facing for my failures. And that is exactly the situation Neville is placed in. He's failed to do what he is supposed to do - and his fear comes out of a fear that he is going to be punished for that failure. The threatened punishment is harsh, yes, very harsh. But as I've said before, I don't think Snape is going to carry it out - *and* he also gives Neville the chance to correct his mistake and tolerates the best student in the class helping him to do so. Snape isn't playing a game. He is trying to find *something* that motivates a student who is still making the same mistake after two years that he was making in his very first class - not following basic instruction. This isn't a game. It's deadly serious. Now just as an additional comment - I rewatched one of my favourite movies last night on television - Kes, based on the novel 'A Kestrel for a Knave' by Barry Hines. I commend the movie to anyone who wants to see a truly sadistic teacher in action - Mr Sugden, the sports master - and a truly ineffectual teacher in action who isn't so much sadistic as seems to have given up - Mr Gryce. (Incidentally both these teachers were played by real teachers - who were apparently nothing like their characters). Sugden really is a truly sadistic teacher in my view. (I am now having visions of Ken Loach being asked to direct a Harry Potter film - now *that* would be an interesting take. I think he'd do a superb job with 'Half-Blood Prince' (-8 though I am not sure that the kids would like being in the film! He'd be likely to really cut Harry's hand open, given what he did in Kes - having boys really caned on camera, and trying to make one young actor seriously believe the animal he'd grown close to had been killed for the sake of realism in the film. Nasty.) Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From agdisney at msn.com Wed Feb 15 22:19:06 2006 From: agdisney at msn.com (agdisney) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:19:06 -0000 Subject: Umbridge Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148193 Hi gang. I remember reading this part of a sentance & it only took me a week to find it again. Did JKR fortell the coming of Umbridge in the SS when Malfoy "tried to get everyone laughing at how a wide-mouthed tree frog would be replacing Harry as Seeker next." pg 195 US version It didn't happen immediately but Umbridge (the person who reminded Harry of a frog) did make the Gryffindor team find a new seeker (& new beaters). From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 22:32:44 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:32:44 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: <43F442DA.16616.8DFB9FE@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148194 Shawn: JKR sees Snape as a teacher who abuses his power - > fine, she has every right to do so. That doesn't mean she is right, > because other people's definitions differ. > > JKR is not the fount of all wisdom. Her definitions of things like > abuse are not unchallengable, just because she's a writer. Alla: Well, I understand your POV. Sure, one can disagree with JKR in her definition of abuse. I don't, but I understand if other people do, but what I do disagree with is the argument JKR did not really mean it. JKR called Snape a sadistic teacher. Her definitions of sadism and abuse can differ from yours and other people's, that is easy to understand with, but as I said what is hard for me to understand is the defense "she did not mean it". Unfortunately we cannot get in her head :-), all that we can go on are her words and to me her words are clear enough. Snape may not be sadistic to you, but at least to me the fact that JKR called him as such helps to figure out the author's intentions somewhat, you know. IMO of course. Shawn: > I also think people can make too much of precise words used in > interviews. I don't think all that many people have been > interviewed by the media really. I have been on several occasions, > although on only one of those occasions did the details of that > interview wind up in the media. I don't think that using a word > imprecisely in a media interview is a sign that a person is sloppy, > it's just a reflection of the fact that you are having to think on > your feet and often condense quite complex ideas into a fairly few > words. Alla: See, I don't understand this at all. How do you know that JKR used the word imprecisely? IMO it is more logical to assume that she meant precisely what she said. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 23:15:26 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:15:26 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148196 > >>Shaun: > > I also think people can make too much of precise words used in > > interviews. I don't think all that many people have been > > interviewed by the media really. I have been on several > > occasions, although on only one of those occasions did the > > details of that interview wind up in the media. I don't think > > that using a word imprecisely in a media interview is a sign > > that a person is sloppy, it's just a reflection of the fact that > > you are having to think on your feet and often condense quite > > complex ideas into a fairly few words. > >>Alla: > See, I don't understand this at all. How do you know that JKR used > the word imprecisely? IMO it is more logical to assume that she > meant precisely what she said. Betsy Hp: For me, there are two reasons. One, it's spoken word used, as Shaun points out, in an interview format. It's not a formal speech for which JKR has prepared her thoughts. She's answering questions off the cuff, while at the same time trying not to give away too much. And while I have heard people (a very few) who are able to speak extemporaneously in full sentences and paragraphs, every word carefully chosen, JKR is not one of them. She starts and stops, she digresses, she doesn't always complete a sentence. In other words, she does not speak how she writes. (As most people do not. I'm not trying to insult JKR at all.) So I do not give her spoken words the weight I do her written words. Second, it's not borne out in the books. If Snape is so *obviously* supposed to be a sadist that JKR feels free to comment that of course he is, than why is doesn't she make it clear in the books? Why not clearly show the most casual reader that this man enjoys seeing others in pain? She does so with Umbridge. She fails to do so with Snape. So we have a spoken comment that doesn't precisely fit with the books. In that sort of situation choosing the colloquial definition over the precise seems the more logical move, IMO. Betsy Hp From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Feb 15 23:25:28 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:25:28 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: References: <43F442DA.16616.8DFB9FE@localhost> Message-ID: <43F45318.19255.91F2FC4@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 148197 On 15 Feb 2006 at 22:32, dumbledore11214 wrote: > Shawn: > > I also think people can make too much of precise words used in > > interviews. I don't think all that many people have been > > interviewed by the media really. I have been on several occasions, > > although on only one of those occasions did the details of that > > interview wind up in the media. I don't think that using a word > > imprecisely in a media interview is a sign that a person is sloppy, > > it's just a reflection of the fact that you are having to think on > > your feet and often condense quite complex ideas into a fairly few > > words. > > Alla: > > See, I don't understand this at all. How do you know that JKR used > the word imprecisely? IMO it is more logical to assume that she meant > precisely what she said. Shaun: Two reasons. First of all, it's because if she used the word precisely, she would be claiming that Snape got sexual pleasure out of what he does. That is the precise definition of sadism. And, frankly, I don't think there's even a shred of indication in the text that Snape gets sexual pleasure out of anything. So at the very least, I think she must be using the term in a non-sexual sense, which is already showing a lack of precision (admittedly a very common lack of precision when it comes to that word). But secondly and more importantly, it's because she doesn't just say that Snape is a sadistic teacher. That's not the whole quote. "Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don?t think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power. He?s not a particularly pleasant person at all." She doesn't just say he's a sadistic teacher. She goes on to clarify this point, and explain in more detail the ways she sees Snape. As somebody who abuses their power. As someone who isn't a particularly pleasant person. In context, it seems to me from this quote that when JKR calls Snape sadistic, she's referring to the fact that he (in her view) abuses his power, and that's he not particularly pleasant. Neither abusing power, nor being unpleasant are definitional of sadism. They are similar concepts (especially the first) but they are not the same concept. When you look at the whole quote, it seems clear to me that JKR is using that word as shorthand for what she elaborates on later in the quote, she's not using it with a precise dictionary definition. Could I be wrong. Easily. But I think focusing on one word in one interview is assuming an awful lot. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 23:33:13 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:33:13 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148198 > Alla: > > See, I don't understand this at all. How do you know that JKR used > the word imprecisely? IMO it is more logical to assume that she meant > precisely what she said. zgirnius: Well, we don't KNOW precisely what she meant anyway, the word she chose was not one with a single, narrow definition which all agree on. So we can't simply accept she meant what she said, we need first to decide what it WAS that she said. And the logical way to do that is to consider what it is reasonable for her to have meant, given who she is talking about (by looking at the character's actions as she has described them in the book). >From Dictionary.com...(two other dictionaries I checked give very much the same three meanings for this word). sa?dism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sdzm, sdz-) n. 1. The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others. 2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty. 3. Extreme cruelty. I think definition 1. here is NOT what she meant, and I venture to guess that you would agree. She has certainly not given us depictions of his actions which would support that interpretation of her words. Is it then definition 2.? Because I do not see much evidence for this, either. (Perhaps you do...certainly, I know others who have participated in this discussion recently do think this was the motive for the Trevor incident, the nasty comment about Neville to Lupin, his conversation with Harry about the Map, his horned toead detention, and possibly other acts I am forgetting). I tend to agree with those posters who have explained their ideas about Snape's motives for these various acts, and it was not because he enjoyed these actions. Or, finally, is it 3.? I am personally figuring she meant 3. But 3. is the least informative definition of the word. "Snape is an extremely cruel teacher". OK, fine, I agree. He is in fact, wihtout any doubt in my mind, the most cruel teacher at Hogwarts, in the first, second, third, and sixth years of the series. What does this tell me that I did not already know? From angelarene at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 00:33:59 2006 From: angelarene at yahoo.com (Angela Farrow) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:33:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: What's in Snape's name? In-Reply-To: <1139908133.990.56501.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20060215003359.21471.qmail@web35308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148199 Ok, here's my two knuts on this: I know that this is NOT canon but a fanfic I read had a very reasonable explanation for the nickname Snivellous. Sorry I don't remember the title. Only read it once and this was ages ago. Snape as a child was one of those unfortunate people who when they experience strong emotions they cry. Not the sobbing, wailing boo hoo hoo's but tears stream from their eyes. I can picture heated words being echanged between Black and Snape and through no fault of his own Snape's tears start to flow. Black seeing this as a weakness latches onto it and exploits it. Perhaps this unfortunate reaction is why Severus keeps such tight control on his emotions. Can you imagine the sheer amount of will necessary to halt involuntary functions of your body? I think this is one reason Snape gets so frustrated with Potter. Let's face it for six years Harry has just coasted along not really applying himself to anything but Quidditch if you can call natural talent applying oneself. Just my thoughts on this. Angel --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 23:39:57 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:39:57 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148200 > > >>Alla: > > See, I don't understand this at all. How do you know that JKR used > > the word imprecisely? IMO it is more logical to assume that she > > meant precisely what she said. > > Betsy Hp: > For me, there are two reasons. One, it's spoken word used, as Shaun > points out, in an interview format. It's not a formal speech for > which JKR has prepared her thoughts. She's answering questions off > the cuff, while at the same time trying not to give away too much. > a_svirn: All that is very true, of course, but it doesn't mean that she used the word in error. Some people can be woefully dyslectic on occasion, but Rowling doesn't strike me as one of them. If she said that Snape is sadistic she obviously meant it. I'll go with Wittgenstein's common rule that "Meaning just is use." Her usage of the word "sadistic" may not coincide precisely with the appropriate entry in the Oxford Dictionary, but that's apparently the meaning she herself allocates to it. From catwoman1683 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Feb 15 23:35:01 2006 From: catwoman1683 at yahoo.co.uk (Charlene Jones) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:35:01 -0000 Subject: Do you think one of the Trio will die in book seven? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148201 Hi all. Is anyone else expecting one of the Trio to die in book seven? To be honest, I'm really surprised they're all still in one piece. Since book five, I've been really convinced that one of them is going to die (likely Ron, IMHO, since all too often it's the local best friend/sidekick that gets bumped off). I think it would make the War seem a whole lot more hard hitting if one of the Trio lost their life for the Cause. And so far everyone who has died (bar Cedric) has been really close to Harry. Sirius, Dumbledore...it would make sense for one of his closest friends to go next, given the pattern so far. Losing Sirius and Dumbledore were such massive blows to Harry, imagine the impact if Ron or Hermione died. And with book seven being the last, it would sure be a memorable way for JKR to end the series. And IMHO Ron really seems like the type who would go fighting for his friend, with last words and a tragic ending. I don't think at all that Hermione will be killed off...I just have a feeling that she'll survive it thanks to her smarts and because important female characters that we know well in the HP universe are so few. Not that I, personally, want any of them to die. Dumbledore's death was horrible and I'm still in serious denial about it (Sirius' didn't effect me, I think it was because of the way it was so quick and non- graphic). I'm really curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this issue. Take care, Charlie. From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 23:52:11 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:52:11 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148202 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Second, it's not borne out in the books. If Snape is so *obviously* > supposed to be a sadist that JKR feels free to comment that of > course he is, than why is doesn't she make it clear in the books? > Why not clearly show the most casual reader that this man enjoys > seeing others in pain? She does so with Umbridge. She fails to do > so with Snape. Maybe JKR honestly thinks that she's shown it well enough? After all, she seems to have been genuinely poleaxed by the shipping wars, past a certain point--she thought she made *that* one absolutely crystal clear, and yet a significant number of people chose to invest in a different reading. Being absolutely direct tends to end up looking like preaching to the audience, and there's a classic hallmark of what's generally considered 'bad writing' in the modern novel. There are any number of other things which she's generally counted on us-the-readers 'getting', and gets more than a little 'wot?' about some of the questions that she gets. So if she were to speak directly, she may well go "You guys read that scene like that? I thought it was clear that..." -Nora wonders what the reaction would be if JKR were to outright deep six some of the explanations for actions/alternative readings that listies have posited on this subject From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 23:56:01 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:56:01 -0000 Subject: Ambiguous Snape (was:Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148203 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Any evaluation of Snape's character has to include the boy Harry > > met in his text-book. > >>Nora: > Okay, why? Why take it for granted that the boy Harry met in the > textbook is *still* an essential part of Snape's character? Betsy Hp: Because JKR went through so much trouble to introduce him to us. If young!Snape is unimportant, why bring him up? Young!Dumbledore is probably unimportant, as is young!McGonagall, so we've never met them. But young!Snape was important enough to be snuggled into bed with Harry and defended to his friends. > >>Nora: > If you mean that Harry has to take that boy into account to > understand Snape's history, then we have something like the > situation with young Tom Riddle being the key to understanding > adult Voldemort. But just as Voldemort is no longer Tom Riddle, > Snape is no longer the boy in the textbook. Betsy Hp: Hmm, but unlike Tom Riddle, Harry really learns nothing about young! Snape's history (Hermione is the one to find out some bare bones facts) but he learns a whole lot about the inner workings of the boy. (Importance of character?) With Tom Riddle, Harry learns enough of his history to understand the man and even sympathize a little. But Harry's also had a chance to confront Tom Riddle and see that he is repulsed by all he stands for. Harry is not so replused by young!Snape's character. And at this point Harry neither understands Snape, neither does he see anything worthy of sympathy. There's very much a sort of reverse mirroring going on here in Harry's relationship to Voldemort and Harry's relationship to Snape. > >>Nora: > Perhaps the brutal story here is precisely *that* Snape is no > longer the boy in the textbook, who could come across as > so sympathetic and interesting, someone who Harry would have > wanted to have met. Maybe the book is a representation of what > has been lost in a sea of bitterness and unwillingness to move > forwards. Betsy Hp: It could be. But then I expect JKR is setting up Harry to heal Snape, to find that lost boy and bring him out. Which seems a fairly formidable task, but I suspect Dumbledore has been about it for a while now. But there's a reason Harry related so strongly to young!Snape. For it to be a mere object lesson seems... a waste almost. So much effort was put into making that introduction for the payoff to be so small. Especially for Harry. > >>Nora: > There's some loose set of analogies connecting Harry, young!Snape, > and Voldemort. The unpleasant possibility (for your position) is > that the Snape/Voldemort axis is the dominant one, and not the > Snape/Harry parallelism. Then we can shed a tear for the tragedy > of Snape's life and his fall back into evil. Tragic! BANGy! > Opportunity for the exercise of pity! Betsy Hp: Would that even work though? As a bang or even a tragedy, I mean. If Snape is as bad as Harry has suspected all along, would any but the most fervent Snape supporters shed a tear? Feel any pity or sense of loss? If Snape is a Voldemont-lite then won't most readers say, "good riddance to bad rubbish," and move on? I think a Snape/Voldemort axis would be boring and repetitive. (So yeah, a bit unpleasant .) Voldemort is enough, I think. Plus, if the shift takes us away from Harry than where would Harry's place in the story be? Suddenly he'd be an observer rather than an actor in the events. > >>-Nora can't resist an opening for a pun (good-natured, natch) Betsy Hp: "He who'd pun would pick a pocket." Yeah, I don't even know what that means. Betsy Hp From literature_Caro at web.de Thu Feb 16 00:14:46 2006 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:14:46 +0100 Subject: LV and Dickens In-Reply-To: <624577951.20060214222350@web.de> References: <624577951.20060214222350@web.de> Message-ID: <1512607851.20060216011446@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 148204 Relistening HBP it stroke me that there are parallels between LV and Charles Dickens' "Oliver Twist": Merope and Oliver's mother died giving birth to a child in a public institution for the poor and lost (orphanage - workhouse). They were both without family. But other than Oliver LV turned into a cruel boy which is a psychological consequence Dickens overlooked. A child that experiences no love and motherly care lacks primal trust (as we call it in German). This leads to serious damage that usually is traceable throughout this persons whole life. Such a situation is described in Oliver Twist and to those who know the book can easily find the parallels between the scene in the branch-workhouse at the countryside and DD's visit to the orphanage which is shown in the pensive. The difference is that, as I already explained, is that LV turned out to be the worst wizard for ages and additionally that the ones who offer him education are honest people with the best intention for him in mind. Also LV's family seems not to care about him at all and neglect him until death. So LV stays alone and is not able to build up a single positive personal relationship to anyone. It almost seems to me as though this is a scientific correction to Dickens' erroneous presentation an a good explanation why LV becomes what he is. What do you think? Yours Caro From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 00:22:40 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:22:40 -0000 Subject: Ambiguous Snape (was:Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148205 > Betsy Hp: > It could be. But then I expect JKR is setting up Harry to heal > Snape, to find that lost boy and bring him out. Which seems a > fairly formidable task, a_svirn: Not just formidable ? entirely futile. You can't bring out someone who is no more. Or do you go with the assumption that Snape conceals more than one personality within himself? Something like horcrux-hidden-in- his-own-body theory? The best one can hope is that Harry brings about yet another change ? this time for the better. Not that he's likely to rise to this particular challenge, though. (But then, why should he?) From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Feb 16 00:48:39 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:48:39 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148206 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > zgirnius: > Well, we don't KNOW precisely what she meant anyway, the word she chose > was not one with a single, narrow definition which all agree on. So we > can't simply accept she meant what she said, we need first to decide > what it WAS that she said. And the logical way to do that is to > consider what it is reasonable for her to have meant, given who she is > talking about (by looking at the character's actions as she has > described them in the book). > > From Dictionary.com...(two other dictionaries I checked give very much > the same three meanings for this word). > > sa?dism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sdzm, sdz-) > n. > 1. The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive > sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others. > 2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from > cruelty. > 3. Extreme cruelty. > > I think definition 1. here is NOT what she meant, and I venture to > guess that you would agree. She has certainly not given us depictions > of his actions which would support that interpretation of her words. > > Is it then definition 2.? Because I do not see much evidence for this, > either. (Perhaps you do...certainly, I know others who have > participated in this discussion recently do think this was the motive > for the Trevor incident, the nasty comment about Neville to Lupin, his > conversation with Harry about the Map, his horned toead detention, and > possibly other acts I am forgetting). I tend to agree with those > posters who have explained their ideas about Snape's motives for these > various acts, and it was not because he enjoyed these actions. > > Or, finally, is it 3.? I am personally figuring she meant 3. But 3. is > the least informative definition of the word. "Snape is an extremely > cruel teacher". OK, fine, I agree. He is in fact, wihtout any doubt in > my mind, the most cruel teacher at Hogwarts, in the first, second, > third, and sixth years of the series. What does this tell me that I did > not already know? > Just giving my opinion on Snape and sadism here. I wonder if calling Snape a sadist is overreaching but also true if that makes any sense. I don't think that Snape is a sadist with most people but the devil is in the details and the words "most people" are important. My idea is that in calling Snape a sadist an important connection should be made...to the Marauders (IMO Snape is closely tied with them). We have almost the same problem explaining the Marauders actions during SWM and the Prank (and other unheard of incidents no doubt)...how could people that seem to be well-liked and remembered have done something(s) so terrible? I believe that Lupin says that Snape was a "special case" (or was it Sirius?). IMO the same rule should really apply to Snape and sadism...Harry, Neville, maybe a few other students are Snape's "special cases" that he likes to see suffer. An example of this would be the when Ron and Harry arrive at school during CoS...Snape is described as "looking like Christmas had arrived early" (I'm going by memory here)...now Snape knows Dumbledore isn't going to kick Harry out so the only thing that can be making him so happy is the thought of Harry thinking he's going to be kicked. Another scene is during GoF when Harry rushes up and says Barty Sr. is in the Forest...Snape seems to toy with Harry (again I'm going by memory here)...even Harry notes that Snape likes to squirm or takes pleasure from denying Harry (is that the word...sorry I don't have my book). Another example would be when Snape makes Harry walk into the Great Hall without changing into robes and without finding out why Harry isn't in robes. However to a certain extent all the feuds and conflicts that we have seen in the books have contained a certain amount of sadism (is it possible to have a feud without sadism involved). The difference is that Harry/Snape relationship towers over most others and a certain amount of that relationship is based on sadism (from both sides really) and Snape has been the one with more power (if you will) for most of it...so it only makes sense, IMO, to call him sadistic (I believe that Harry has stated that Snape likes to see him suffer...several times...again off the top of my head). As for Snape and Neville...way more complex in my opinion. I don't think that Snape is really that sadistic to Neville (of course I'm less sure on this one). So I'd vote for 2. "The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty" as being a good description of Snape when he's being cruel to Harry (or one of Harry's friends in Harry's presence). Quick_Silver (wishing his books were handy) From tiamat at aapt.net.au Thu Feb 16 00:59:00 2006 From: tiamat at aapt.net.au (Fiona) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:59:00 +1100 Subject: Do you think one of the Trio will die in book seven? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43F3CE54.30306@aapt.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 148207 Charlene Jones wrote: > Hi all. > Is anyone else expecting one of the Trio to die in book seven? To be > honest, I'm really surprised they're all still in one piece. Since book > five, I've been really convinced that one of them is going to die > (likely Ron, IMHO, since all too often it's the local best > friend/sidekick that gets bumped off). Fiona: This is my first post to the list, so I hope I'm getting it right. I worry more about Neville in this context than about the Trio. I've always had high expectations for Neville (borne out by his performance in the Ministry at the end of OoTP), and am almost expecting that he will do something spectactular to save/help Harry and the others in Book 7 and either die or (worse) meet the same fate as his parents. FIona From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 01:45:11 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:45:11 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148208 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "saraquel_omphale" wrote: > > Angie Wrote: > > either LV had given the orders to leave > > Harry or he had not. > > > > If he had given such orders -- well, I can't fathom why he would > when > > his top priority is killing Harry himself. Theories, anyone? > > > > But Snape is playing a dangerous game if LV didn't give such > orders > > and he left Harry behind. If LV had not given orders to leave > Harry, > > then how is Snape going to explain to LV that he left Harry behind > > when he could have brought him? > > Saraquel replied: > Ah but Angie - who says Snape has apparated to LVs feet? Who knows > where Snape has gone? Who knows where Malfoy has gone? How about > Malfoy waits at the gates for Snape, other DEs disapparate back to > LV, Snape grabs Malfoy and does sidelong apparition to secret hiding > place for both of them? > > Angie again: It makes no sense to me that Snape would apparate anywhere else but LV's feet. He can't go near anyone in the Order (unless DD told someone specifically why he trusts Snape and we are unaware of it). If he hides Draco to protect him, LV will see that as an act of betrayal, I would think. If he wants to leave the Order, the time has never been better. If he doesn't want to leave the Order, he has to report to LV. I know there are people who are neither DE or in the Order, but Snape cannot be one of them. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 01:54:22 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 01:54:22 -0000 Subject: Did DD tell Anyone Else Why He Trusts Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148209 Does anyone besides me wonder if DD told anyone the truth about why he trusts Snape? I personally think it's more than him being sorry that he was the one who set LV on Lily and James (Haven't figured it out yet, of course). But my point is: isn't it rather risky for DD to keep that info all to himself? Looks like he could have told Harry, if no one else. If anyone deserves to know, it's Harry. Like some of you, I'm wondering if DD's brother Aberforth is alive and masquerading as the barkeeper at the Hog's Head. In OOP it stated that Tom looked vaguely familiar to Harry and then nothing more was mentioned about that. Wasn't Aberforth in the picture of the Order that Moody thrust on Harry in OOP, well before before the "vaguely familiar" reference? Even if Tom isn't Aberforth, Aberforth seems a likely confidant for DD, if we can find him! Anyway, I digress. DD always seems to be such a meticulous planner, I just can't believe that no one besides DD and Snape knows the real reason. But, I think we can count out all of the members of the Order that were at Hogwarts when the school was attacked -- they didn't seem to know. Angie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 02:19:38 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:19:38 -0000 Subject: Snape and Draco (Was: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148210 Angie wrote: > > It makes no sense to me that Snape would apparate anywhere else but > LV's feet. He can't go near anyone in the Order (unless DD told > someone specifically why he trusts Snape and we are unaware of it). > If he hides Draco to protect him, LV will see that as an act of > betrayal, I would think. Carol responds: I agree. If Snape is ESE! or OFH!, it's a given that he would return to LV. But I think DDM!Snape would do the same thing. Almost the sole advantage he has gained from killing Dumbledore is maintaining his cover with Voldemort, and going anywhere else would destroy the illusion of loyalty. Also, it appears that Draco Disapparated as soon as he passed the gates, and Snape, IMO, would follow Draco, who (unless he wants to share the fate of Karkaroff) wouldn't dare to do anything else except return. And Snape, even if the UV is no longer in effect, is bound by his promise to Narcissa (and, I think, by his own wish) to protect Draco. My guess--and at this point, it is only a guess--is that Snape persuaded LV that even though Draco failed to Kill DD, he succeeded in his task of helping the DEs into Hogwarts, which made the death of DD possible. So even if LV doesn't reward Draco for fixing the vanishing cabinet, he may forego punishing him--or settle for a Crucio rather than killing Draco and his mother. What will happen from there is anyone's guess. Draco is seventeen as of June 5 (JKR's website) and a "man" by WW standards. Will he understand how much he owes to Snape and stay with him? Can Snape continue to protect him, whether the UV still holds or not, or will Draco choose to hide with Aunt Bellatrix rather than ex-Professor Snape (whom he treated disrespectfully in the conversation Harry overheard)? One thing's certain--Draco has committed some serious crimes (two attempted murders resulting in grave danger to innocent students, an Imperius Curse, aiding and abetting murder and mayhem by helping the DEs into Hogwarts). He can't return to Hogwarts or walk free in the WW any more than Snape can. And Snape can't safely return to Spinner's End, with or without Draco. So unless LV provides him with a new hiding place and orders him to train Draco as a DE, I don't think they'll stay together. But if they do, and if Draco lets Snape read his real thoughts, LV might just be surprised at what Snape actually teaches and Draco actually learns--*if* Draco is repentant and *if* Snape is DDM!. Carol, pretty sure that Draco and Snape returned to Voldemort but not at all sure what will happen next From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 02:23:44 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:23:44 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: <43F45318.19255.91F2FC4@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148211 > > Alla: > > > > See, I don't understand this at all. How do you know that JKR used > > the word imprecisely? IMO it is more logical to assume that she meant > > precisely what she said. > > Shaun: > > Two reasons. > > First of all, it's because if she used the word precisely, she > would be claiming that Snape got sexual pleasure out of what he > does. That is the precise definition of sadism. And, frankly, I > don't think there's even a shred of indication in the text that > Snape gets sexual pleasure out of anything. So at the very least, I > think she must be using the term in a non-sexual sense, which is > already showing a lack of precision (admittedly a very common lack > of precision when it comes to that word). Alla: I am sorry but I still do not understand it. Earlier in this thread Renee brought up THREE definitions of sadism and Zara brought them up downthread again. Sure, the one about getting sexual pleasure is the original definition, but I COMPLETELY disagree with you that it is more precise one. Often words' meanings changes through the time OR the words acquire another definition ( so many words in Russian language for example pronounced the same, but have many different meaning either similar to each other or even completely opposite ones). What I am trying to say is that I of course agree that JKR did not use the first definition, but IMO it is clear that she used the second one ( 2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty.). If she used this one, could you explain to me how is she being not precise in any way? Are you saying that the second definition is less valid or less widespread? ( I am just trying to get clarification, I am not saying that this is what you are saying :-)) Come to think of it, this second definition is certainly the first meaning of the word "sadism" I learned and funnily enough it stayed with me as primary one. I know it could be just my strange experiences, since the book of Markis De Sad certainly was not widely available for reading in Soviet Union when I was growing up, BUT at some point it became available and when I learned the original definition of this word, as I said funnily enough in my mind it became just a secondary definition. Shawn: > But secondly and more importantly, it's because she doesn't just > say that Snape is a sadistic teacher. That's not the whole quote. > > "Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I > myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we > are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that > teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher > does abuse his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at > all." > > She doesn't just say he's a sadistic teacher. She goes on to > clarify this point, and explain in more detail the ways she sees > Snape. As somebody who abuses their power. As someone who isn't a > particularly pleasant person. Alla: Yes, I know the whole quote. But I read it as her characterizing Snape as BOTH sadistic teacher and the one who abuses his power. I think those two qualities can go well together. :-) Shawn: > Could I be wrong. Easily. But I think focusing on one word in one > interview is assuming an awful lot. Alla: As I said above, I really don't focus on one word. I think he is all of that - sadistic teacher, teacher who abuses his power, deeply horrible person, etc. I don't focus on one word, but I cannot ignore this word either. > zgirnius: > From Dictionary.com...(two other dictionaries I checked give very much > the same three meanings for this word). > > sa?dism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sdzm, sdz-) > n. > 1. The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive > sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others. > 2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from > cruelty. > 3. Extreme cruelty. > Is it then definition 2.? Because I do not see much evidence for this, > either. (Perhaps you do...certainly, I know others who have > participated in this discussion recently do think this was the motive > for the Trevor incident, the nasty comment about Neville to Lupin, his > conversation with Harry about the Map, his horned toad detention, and > possibly other acts I am forgetting). I tend to agree with those > posters who have explained their ideas about Snape's motives for these > various acts, and it were not because he enjoyed these actions. Alla: Yes, I see plenty of evidence in the books that she meant definition two ( maybe she also meant definition three, but not definition one). As you can guess I find the explanation for those incidents other than Snape's enjoinment of tormenting Neville and Harry not to be convincing, EXCEPT your explanation about Marauder's Map. I still think that the fact that Snape had a "horrible smile" on his face can point out to the fact that he WAS having a swell time tormenting Harry, but sure I find your explanation to be entirely plausible. I actually don't see how ANY " not sadistic" explanation can be given to the Neville's detention with "horned toads'. I think Ginger said that JKR really meant "lizards", but Neri very convincingly IMO pointed that Neville had some parts of frogs under his fingernails and I think Guinger agreed. I find it an awfully funny coincidence that at the time of NEVILLE's detention after which he came in state of nervous collapse (paraphrase), Snape needed to cut frogs AND that he gave this task to Neville ( who as far as we know THE ONLY student who has toad as pet). That is IMO of course, but to me it is clear that Snape gave this task to Neville specifically to upset him. I also think that no other explanation other than "deriving pleasure from cruelty" can be given to Snape tormenting Harry when Harry comes to ask for Dumbledore's help about Barty Sr. As I said before I really don't care whether Snape was stalling Harry till Dumbledore comes out, what matters to me is that he smiles while taunting the student in the obvious distress, IMO. I could have bought Shawn's argument about Snape sharing his frustration over Neville with Lupin if..... any other teacher but Lupin was in Remus' place. IMO considering their history Remus will be the very LAST person Snape would share any kind of frustration about any student, unless of course his motivation was to hurt Neville some more. Snape fought with Dumbledore over Lupin's appointment. I think he preferred not to share one more word than necessary with Remus, especially not sharing his frustrations over student. Betsy Hp: > > Second, it's not borne out in the books. If Snape is so > *obviously* > > supposed to be a sadist that JKR feels free to comment that of > > course he is, than why is doesn't she make it clear in the books? Nora: > Maybe JKR honestly thinks that she's shown it well enough? Alla: YES, Nora. Me too. Just wanted to say it. :-) JMO of course, Alla From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Thu Feb 16 00:26:07 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:26:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Room of Requirement -- Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060216002607.29447.qmail@web37013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148212 Carol: >> Now if Snape had been present, it might have been a different story. He, I think, would have suspected a direct link to Salazar Slytherin, especially if he witnessed Regulus's death, even if he did not yet know about the Horcruxes (and, being Snape and trusted by DD, I think he did). But JKR has carefully made him absent from the scene, and no one present would have had any reason to see anything special in the locket. << Hi Carol, I think you make some excellent points, but I have o disagree on one thing. I don't think Dumbledore told anyone else about the Horcruxes except Harry. I don't even think he's told MgGonagall about them, and I don't think he'd tell Snape either. Especially if Snape is DDM, spying on old Voldie, I think it would be extrememly dangerous for him to have told Snape. No matter how good an Occlumens he is, Voldie is a powerful Legilimens. No matter how much he trusted Snape, I don't think he would have taken that chance with such important information. Catherine From exodusts at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 02:21:42 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:21:42 -0000 Subject: Where is Fawkes? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148213 > bboyminn: > > I believe that at some point in the next book Fawkes will once > again come to Harry's aid as Fawkes own reflection of affection > and loyalty to Dumbledore. Fawkes will sense that Harry is > avenging the death of Dumbledore, and once again, that expression > of loyalty to Dumbledore will bring Fawkes to him. Exodusts: Popular choices for return-of-Fawkes might include: when Harry is being harassed by Inferi, to offer fiery protection, and/or as a funky intro for the return-from-the-dead of Dumbledore: "Harry saw something blazing shooting out of the air towards him. He recognised it as Fawkes. The phoenix circled twice, then settled on to the shoulder of a shadowy figure who had appeared in the doorway. It was Dumbledore. 'Yes, Harry... I have come back.'" (Shock end of penultimate chapter)? From exodusts at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 02:30:31 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 02:30:31 -0000 Subject: Where oh where is Mr. Ollivander... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148214 > CH3ed: > I agree with Hickengruendler. I think Mr. O went into hiding from LV > and his DEs with the aid of Albus Dumbledore (who offered the same > service to Draco on the Tower). > > DD was very good at anticipating what LV wanted to do, and so DD > must have realized when Harry told him of the priori incantatem > effect in the graveyard scene (GoF), that LV must have been alerted > then to the fact that his and Harry's wands share a core. DD then > knew that would put Mr. O the wand-maker in trouble with LV. The way > Bill told it in HBP, Mr. O's shop showed no sign of struggle (quite > unlike Florean Fortescue's shop) so that they couldn't tell if Mr. O > left voluntarily or not. He just vanished. At any rate, if Mr. O has > been hiding with the aid of DD, DD hadn't told it to his OotP since > Bill and Lupin don't know. But that is neither evidence for or > against considering DD's aptitude in keeping secrets and not telling > anyone more than DD thought they should know. > > I think Mr. O is quite a smart man all by himself.... his > unblinking grey eyes stick in my head quite a bit (like Luna's). So > I'm betting he went into hiding very competently (letting DD know of > it but nobody else, pretty much). I don't think he has gone to LV's > side since he seems to have a good relationship with DD (sent DD an > owl to inform him of Harry's purchase of the second wand, was > employed to examine the wands at Triwizard Tournament... and kept > quiet about Harry's wand in front of others). > Exodusts: The hot Ollivander theories have got to be, in descending order of likelihood: a) Ollivander realised Voldy might be furious with him for selling Harry the matching core wand OR might demand he make him a new one (this assumes Ollivander knows about the Priori Incantatem events in GoF, or the risk of them), so he has run away himself. b) Ollivander has been snatched to make Voldy a new wand, to avoid Priori Incantatem problems in the future, OR has gone voluntarily (remember O talking about Voldemort doing "great things" from book 1, BUT remember also the letter to Dumbledore, so snatching is marginally more likely). c) Ollivander realises Voldy might be furious with him for selling Harry the matching core wand OR might demand he make him a new one, SO he requested help and was hidden by Dumbledore. PROBLEM with this is why didn't he leave evidence of his "death". The wand shop should have been made to look like it was raided. AND, there are stronger candidates for fake!death e.g. R.A.B./Emmeline Vance. JKR can't use this idea again and again. d) (GETTING WACKY) Ollivander had a wand on a pillow in the shop window in book 1. It was a Ravenclaw Horcrux? He realised it was bad news, sold it to Neville to get rid of it (it wouldn't matter that it wasn't a perfect match for Neville, since Neville generates poor wizarding results, and was used to using another's wand - his dad's - anyway). He then went into hiding to avoid questions from either side. e) (BARKING) There is a tunnel under Ollivander's shop, leading to Sirius' Black's bank vault in Gringotts. This is the tunnel Quirrell used when he raided Gringotts - how else could he have got in? Quirrell had been told about it by Voldemort, who had learned of it from Regulus Black. Ollivander has turned the shop over to his Death Eater allies, for them to use secretly whenever they need to get in and out of the bank. He himself has left for a long vacation away from the conflict. Problems with the last theory include WHY would the Blacks let a tradesman like Ollivander guard the entrance to their treasure? I heartily endorse the Secret-Tunnel-Into-Gringotts idea, since we know Quirrell had to be in the vicinity of the bank when he broke in. If he had used a magical method of entry, he could have travelled from anywhere. And how could he have got past the guardians if he went in via the main entrance? BUT I don't think it comes out in Ollivander's shop. I think Charing Cross Tube Station (just outside the Leaky Cauldron on the Muggle side) is far more likely, since we know Gringotts is under the Underground. Dumbldedore knows about it too, and that is why he has his Underground Map scar (did he work for the Goblins in his youth? Is the tattoo part of the Health and Safety requirements for non-Goblins, an emergency exit plan in case of getting lost, or did he have it done on his own?). Harry and chums might make use of this secret tunnel at some point in book 7. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Feb 16 02:44:14 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:44:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) References: <43F442DA.16616.8DFB9FE@localhost> <43F45318.19255.91F2FC4@localhost> Message-ID: <00ed01c632a2$e1a53830$acba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 148215 Jumping in randomly at this spot, but I think part of the problem here is the genre soup aspect of Rowling's writing. There's a tradition in English comedy to exaggerate the teachers at boarding school--Evelyn Waugh, for instance, has a hilarious running joke about a kid who gets shot in a race and slowly falls ill, loses a foot and then dies during the book and nobody cares. Sometimes Rowling's teachers are regular teachers, but sometimes I think they're riffs on teacher types. Snape is sadistic because he's one of those mean teachers who seems to live for surprise quizzes, tons of homework and beating the answers into the heads of terrified students. When Harry is studying antidotes, since he lives in the WW, Snape really can hint that the quiz is going to be his giving them poison and seeing if they can save themselves. (Is that as bad as Trevor?) In that way he's a riff on teachers and he's not the only one--the kind of teacher who's so boring he might just drone on into eternity? In Rowling's world he actually is dead and droning on into eternity. The nice guy who's a great friend but sucks as a teacher? In Rowling's world his "fun ideas" he hasn't really thought out come with teeth. So yes, I definitely think she's using sadistic in the colloquial sense, just as people who say they're so depressed when their sports team loses are not really depressed. But I also think she's written someone more understandable than that type of teacher usually is to kids. This is a guy who bemoans his class for being dunderheads on the very first day, who as a kid seemed to be already beyond NEWT level. Teaching school must be a horrible job for him, and teaching Neville the worst of all. Some teachers would get extra pleasure out of teaching Neville--Lupin might have enjoyed teaching him more than anyone, even Harry. Snape's, imo, probably angered by him all the time. I imagine any teacher has dealt with more than one Neville in their career; some warm to him like Lupin, some hate him like Snape. (Similarly, I'm sure teachers have had some Hermione's and defintely some Draco's--I've seen plenty of Draco's who were teacher's favorites.) Does Snape enjoy making Neville suffer? Probably in the sense that it's a way of showing his anger (just as so many many people in canon enjoy opportunities like that), but I agree with the suggestion that Snape does not enjoy having Neville in class because he likes to see him afraid. When he's randomly picking on someone in class, it's Harry, for personal reasons. There's plenty of scenes where Snape is getting something out of terrorizing or picking on Neville or Harry. This is not to play down the moments when he's terrorizing Neville, but I still seem some hints of Monty Python in their interactions. Ironically, I could swear the real teacher Snape is based on was interviewed once and when asked how he felt about Rowling's using him for Snape he called it a very "elegant revenge." Sounds a little like fanon!Snape to me.:-) Still, I think just this much goes along with Rowling's general attitude about Snape in interviews. No matter what his story, he's obviously not a romantic lead (especially by her standards, that is, she tends to be pretty simplistic on who's good dating material and hwo isn't, at least when talking about the books). Snape's the mean chemistry teacher with yellow teeth and greasy hair--that alone is enough to be shocked at the question of whether he's ever been in love and say, "Who on earth would want Snape to love them?" It avoids the question in case it's important (which after HBP for the first time seems like it could be), and brings it back to something she's always comfortable talking about because it's kind of random: is he attractive? Would you want to date him? -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 03:11:46 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:11:46 -0000 Subject: Where oh where is Mr. Ollivander... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148216 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "exodusts" wrote: > The hot Ollivander theories have got to be, in descending order > of likelihood: > Snipped list of interesting theories. Tonks: Here is another idea (bit of a mix of others): Having been told of the grave yard events by Harry and about the Priori Incantatem, DD knew that Ollivander would be in serious trouble. Ollivander did not know about the events, but may have know that Priori Incantatem could happen, or not. It could be just some high ancient magic that only a few wizards like DD knew about. DD went to Ollivander, told him about the situation and helped him go into hiding. Ollivander doesn't need to appear dead, he just needs to disappear for awhile. Later when LV is vanquished Ollivander can go back to his business. If it looked like he was dead he would lose the store, to his heirs if he had any or to the state if he didn't. And there might be things in the store that should not be found. DD is Ollivander's secret keeper. Tonks_op From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Feb 16 03:31:43 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:31:43 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: References: <43F45318.19255.91F2FC4@localhost> Message-ID: <43F48CCF.206.A00AA53@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 148217 On 16 Feb 2006 at 2:23, dumbledore11214 wrote: > > Shaun: > > > > Two reasons. > > > > First of all, it's because if she used the word precisely, she > > would be claiming that Snape got sexual pleasure out of what he > > does. That is the precise definition of sadism. And, frankly, I > > don't think there's even a shred of indication in the text that > > Snape gets sexual pleasure out of anything. So at the very least, > I > > think she must be using the term in a non-sexual sense, which is > > already showing a lack of precision (admittedly a very common lack > > of precision when it comes to that word). > > Alla: > > I am sorry but I still do not understand it. Earlier in this thread > Renee brought up THREE definitions of sadism and Zara brought them > up downthread again. Sure, the one about getting sexual pleasure is > the original definition, but I COMPLETELY disagree with you that it > is more precise one. Often words' meanings changes through the time > OR the words acquire another definition ( so many words in Russian > language for example pronounced the same, but have many different > meaning either similar to each other or even completely opposite > ones). > What I am trying to say is that I of course agree that JKR did not > use the first definition, but IMO it is clear that she used the > second one ( 2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive > pleasure, from cruelty.). If she used this one, could you explain > to me how is she being not precise in any way? Shaun: Well, for a start, I don't think she did use that definition. I don't see any sign that Snape derives pleasure from cruelty. I really do not. I see no sign of that whatsoever in the text. I've gone into why I see no sign of it in considerable detail in another post and I won't restate that completely here - but in simple terms the reason I disagree with that defition is because if Snape got pleasure from having Neville in his classes, and that is why he treats Neville the way he does, then Snape would *welcome* Neville's presence in his classes because it would give him the opportunitity for self gratification. In my view, it seems absolutely clear that giving a free choice, Snape would get rid of Neville from his classes. He doesn't want him there. A sadistic teacher who gained pleasure from the presence of poor students in his classes because he had the opportunity to abuse them for his own pleasure is not the type of teacher who would impose very high standards for entry to his NEWT level classes. He wouldn't *want* to get rid of these students, he'd want to keep them in his classes. It seems to me very clear that Snape doesn't want the 'dunderheads' in his classes. A sadistic teacher who was able to derive pleasure from their presence would want them there. Snape clearly wants to get rid of them. I focused on the first definition in my last message, not because I don't have serious problems with applying the second to Snape as well, but because the point I was trying to make there was made more easily if I looked for common ground on definitions. > Alla: > > Are you saying that the second definition is less valid or less > widespread? ( I am just trying to get clarification, I am not saying > that this is what you are saying :-)) Shaun: Actually I think it is less valid, but *more* widespread. I think it's an example of a definition that has been used carelessly so often that large numbers of people came to believe that it was an accurate definition. I would say that today, it is a reasonable definition, because I most wholeheartedly agree that the meanings of words can change over time, and I believe this one now has to the extent that that second definition is reasonable for use in that way. But I do think it is less valid (though not invalid). Having said that, I think JKR could reasonably use that definition - however for reasons I have described above, I don't think it's accurate in the case of Snape. A sadistic teacher would welcome the opportunity to practice their sadism in class - not set policies that deliberately limit their opportunities to do so. To me it seems quite clear that Snape doesn't want these children in his classes. Because he doesn't enjoy their presence. > Alla: > > Come to think of it, this second definition is certainly the first > meaning of the word "sadism" I learned and funnily enough it stayed > with me as primary one. I know it could be just my strange > experiences, since the book of Markis De Sad certainly was not > widely available for reading in Soviet Union when I was growing up, > BUT at some point it became available and when I learned the > original definition of this word, as I said funnily enough in my > mind it became just a secondary definition. Shaun: Sure, and that's not uncommon. As I have said, I believer that definition is the more common one, even if I believe it's a less valid definition. > Alla: > > Yes, I know the whole quote. But I read it as her characterizing > Snape as BOTH sadistic teacher and the one who abuses his power. I > think those two qualities can go well together. :-) Shaun: Yes, they could go together. But in my view, the way she talks has her describing these as all part of the same thing - not as separate connected things. > Alla: > > Yes, I see plenty of evidence in the books that she meant definition > two ( maybe she also meant definition three, but not definition > one). As you can guess I find the explanation for those incidents > other than Snape's enjoinment of tormenting Neville and Harry not to > be convincing, EXCEPT your explanation about Marauder's Map. I still > think that the fact that Snape had a "horrible smile" on his face > can point out to the fact that he WAS having a swell time tormenting > Harry, but sure I find your explanation to be entirely plausible. Shaun: The thing is while I disagree with both definitions 1 and 2 as describing Snape, I'd have little problem with definition 3. The only problem is I don't believe definition 3 is valid. Interestingly the main dictionary I use - the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary only has two definitions for sadism. 1. form of sexual perversion marked by love of cruelty to others. 2. deriving of pleasure from inflicting or watching cruelty. Similar to the first two definitions in those given here. But it doesn't have a definition that corresponds to 'extreme cruelty'. And frankly, I do think that type of definition for sadism is too broad. If you start defining words too broadly, you wind up robbing them of all meaning. And I really do think that sadism is a lot more than cruelty, a lot more than even extreme cruelty. I think it has to involve pleasure on some level, and while people may colloquially use it without that qualifier, I believe that they are incorrect to do so. While it's true that useage over time can change the definition of a word, misuse, no matter how common, does not automatically do so. It's time for the big guns - the Oxford English Dictionary. Not the concise, not the abridged - the big one. This is the closest thing we have in the English language to a definitive dictionary. Wikipedia describes it in these terms (and, yes, I know Wikipedia has issues - but just so people realise I am not the only person who gives the OED primacy): "The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is a dictionary published by the Oxford University Press (OUP). Generally regarded as the most comprehensive and scholarly dictionary of the English language, it includes about 301,100 main entries, as of November 30, 2005, comprising over 350 million printed characters. In addition to the headwords of main entries, the OED contains 157,000 combinations and derivatives in bold type, and 169,000 phrases and combinations in bold italic type, making a total of 616,500 word-forms. There are 137,000 pronunciations, 249,300 etymologies, 577,000 cross- references, and 2,412,400 illustrative quotations. "The policy of the OED is to attempt to record all known uses and variants of a word in all varieties of English, worldwide, past and present. To quote the 1933 Preface: "The aim of this Dictionary is to present in alphabetical series the words that have formed the English vocabulary from the time of the earliest records down to the present day, with all the relevant facts concerning their form, sense-history, pronunciation, and etymology. It embraces not only the standard language of literature and conversation, whether current at the moment, or obsolete, or archaic, but also the main technical vocabulary, and a large measure of dialectal usage and slang. "The OED is the starting point for much scholarly work regarding words in English." and here is what the OED (online edition) has to say about the words in question: Sadism: A form of sexual perversion marked by a love of cruelty. Now understood as cruelty that evidences a subconscious craving and is apparently satisfied, sexually or otherwise, by the infliction of pain on another by means of aggressive or destructive behaviour or the assertion of power over that person; also loosely, deliberate or excessive cruelty morbidly enjoyed. Sadist: An individual affected with sadism (Syd. Soc. Lex. 1897); more generally, someone who derives satisfaction from inflicting pain or asserting his or her power over others. Also as adj. These are, I believe, the closest thing we get to a definitive definition. And every single part of that definition requires enjoyment, or craving, or satisfaction. Cruelty (in whatever form) alone is *not* enough. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 03:40:27 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:40:27 -0000 Subject: Did DD tell Anyone Else Why He Trusts Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148218 Angie wrote: "Does anyone besides me wonder if DD told anyone the truth about why he trusts Snape? I personally think it's more than him being sorry that he was the one who set LV on Lily and James (Haven't figured it out yet, of course)." CH3ed: I agree with you that DD was a meticulous planner and I wouldn't be surprised if DD had left his memory of Snape's repentence with Aberforth to be revealed to Harry 'when the time is right.' Harry does deserve to know the truth, but DD has seen how Harry takes certain 'truths' not so rationally sometimes... especially when it has to do with Snape (he still wants to skew the truth to make Snape responsible for the death of Sirius, for example). So I think DD had to weigh when Harry is receptive to a certain information. Hypothetically. If we assume that Snape loved Lily, and it was her death (not James, as Harry assumed) that caused him enough regret to return from LV's side, then it was wise of DD to not correct Harry in HBP after Harry heard from Trelawney that Snape was the one who overheard the prophecy. Can you imagine how much worse Harry would have taken the news that that slimy git he so hated loved his mother? Just before DD and Harry were to go on a Horcrux hunt? Definitely not the right time to tell there. Anyhow, I favor the notion that DD did tell Aberforth or left some memories with him to be given to Harry if DD dies before the "right time" for Harry to learn of them come. Angie wrote: "I'm wondering if DD's brother Aberforth is alive and masquerading as the barkeeper at the Hog's Head. In OOP it stated that Tom looked vaguely familiar to Harry and then nothing more was mentioned about that. Wasn't Aberforth in the picture of the Order that Moody thrust on Harry in OOP, well before before the "vaguely familiar" reference? Even if Tom isn't Aberforth, Aberforth seems a likely confidant for DD, if we can find him!" CH3ed: I think JKR pretty much confirmed it (tho not directly) in an interview that Aberforth is indeed the Hog's Head barkeeper. We don't know his name/alias there tho. Tom; on the other hand, is the barkeeper at The Leaky Cauldron in London. CH3ed :O) From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 03:50:42 2006 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:50:42 -0000 Subject: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148219 The Gryffindor horcrux. What could it be? JKR has said it is not the hat. It could be the sword. It could be something we haven't seen yet. But here is my guess - I think it is Godric's Hollow itself. I think Voldy intended to build a horcrux into the Godric's ancestral house and intended to populate it with Harry's death. I think he got through the preparations and then got, um, interrupted, resulting in the destruction of the broken horcrux. This would answer a question the readers have had since the first book - why did the house collapse under the failed killing curse? We have seen the results of two horcruxes which were destroyed. The diary ruptured and bled ink. The ring cracked. When a horcrux is destroyed, it loses its structure. The collapsed house sounds like it has had something similar happen, yes? And I think creating a horcrux in Griffindor's house would appeal to Voldy's sense of irony. He, as the last member of the House of Slytherin, maintaining immortality with the aid of the house of Gryffindor. Also, the house would likely to be held in a degree of reverence by Voldy's enemies. They would be likely to want to protect this place at all costs. Something has been bothering me about the horcrux count, though. If Voldy was going to make his 6th and final horcrux with the killing of Harry, and that failed, then there should be two Voldy bits floating around, no? The bit that didn't become the horcrux and the one he intended to keep in his body. I'm thinking that now that he is corporeal again, he could have made horcruxes to replace the lost ones, if he knows they are lost. But in his first pass, I'm thinking there must have been one less horcrux than Dumbledore thinks. Does anyone agree? CV From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 03:51:39 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:51:39 -0800 Subject: No canon for why Snape knows about Horcrux Message-ID: <700201d40602151951g6c8955fdteb71f050b89c2004@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148220 Catherine: I think you make some excellent points, but I have o disagree on one thing. I don't think Dumbledore told anyone else about the Horcruxes except Harry. I don't even think he's told MgGonagall about them, and I don't think he'd tell Snape either. Especially if Snape is DDM, spying on old Voldie, I think it would be extrememly dangerous for him to have told Snape. No matter how good an Occlumens he is, Voldie is a powerful Legilimens. No matter how much he trusted Snape, I don't think he would have taken that chance with such important information. .. . Kemper now: I agree that DD may not have told Snape anything about what he was doing. However, I believe we are given evidence enough about Snape's intelligence for him to put that together without talking with Dumbledore. I am of course assuming Snape knows what a Horcrux is, given that knowledge, I find it hard for Snape to be at a loss for Voldemort's survival. Snape is a brooder, or that's my impression based off what is gleaned from Snape during Occulemency lessons and his worst memory, so it would seem like he would have given Voldemort's rebirth some thought. Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 03:51:52 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:51:52 -0000 Subject: Where oh where is Mr. Ollivander... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148221 Tonks wrote: " Having been told of the grave yard events by Harry and about the Priori Incantatem, DD knew that Ollivander would be in serious trouble. Ollivander did not know about the events, but may have know that Priori Incantatem could happen, or not. It could be just some high ancient magic that only a few wizards like DD knew about. DD went to Ollivander, told him about the situation and helped him go into hiding. Ollivander doesn't need to appear dead, he just needs to disappear for awhile. Later when LV is vanquished Ollivander can go back to his business. If it looked like he was dead he would lose the store, to his heirs if he had any or to the state if he didn't. And there might be things in the store that should not be found. DD is Ollivander's secret keeper." CH3ed: I like Tonks' theory (read upthread). I would add that perhaps Ollivander disappeared after OotP instead of after GoF because he didn't learn of what transpired in the graveyard scene (priori incantatem between Harry and LV) until he read Harry's interview in the Quibbler. There was no point of faking death by Ollivander anyway... If the DEs had gotten to him there would have been a dark mark hovering over his shop (the same reason I don't think Regulus Black faked his death... the good guys wouldn't have thought he was killed by LV or the DEs had there not been a dark mark over him like in Karkaroff's case). And if the DEs didn't take him, LV would know it. So I think Ollie went into hiding either by himself or with DD's aid. CH3ed :O) From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 03:55:05 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:55:05 -0000 Subject: Where Is Trelawney? (WAS: Re: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148222 Jen wrote: "Didn't someone already propose that the DE's actually *did* take Trelawney with them when they left because she wasn't at the funeral? It was odd there was no mention of her; I figured she was partying in the Room of Requirement and lost track of time. But maybe a couple of DE's never left the ROR and simply kidnapped Trelawney back through the Vanishing Cabinet before it was disabled by the Order." CH3ed: Nah. If it was odd that the presence of Trelawney wasn't mentioned at DD's funeral, it would be doubly odd that her absence from the school since the DEs' raid on Hogwarts had gone totally unnoticed and unmentioned by anyone. Had Trelawney been abducted then her disappearance would have been big news, ay? CH3ed :O) From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Feb 16 03:56:23 2006 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:56:23 -0900 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: <43F48CCF.206.A00AA53@localhost> References: <43F45318.19255.91F2FC4@localhost> <43F48CCF.206.A00AA53@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148223 >Shaun: > >.... I >don't see any sign that Snape derives pleasure from cruelty. I >really do not. I see no sign of that whatsoever in the text. I've >gone into why I see no sign of it in considerable detail in another >post and I won't restate that completely here - but in simple terms >the reason I disagree with that defition is because if Snape got >pleasure from having Neville in his classes, and that is why he >treats Neville the way he does, then Snape would *welcome* >Neville's presence in his classes because it would give him the >opportunitity for self gratification. In my view, it seems >absolutely clear that giving a free choice, Snape would get rid of >Neville from his classes. He doesn't want him there. Laura: The only aspect of this that I disagree with is the following: It is a given that Snape MUST have Neville in his class - he has no choice for the first few years, since Potions is a REQUIRED class. Thus, it could be said that he DOES derive some satisfaction from proving that he doesn't belong in that class. I am not sure I would call it deriving satisfaction from cruelty. He certainly seems to enjoy pointing up the errors that some students make in a rather vicious and sarcastic manner. The fact that this is cruel to some students may not be his goal, but his manner of pointing out the errors certainly IS. And the effect is cruel, even if the intention is not. The fact is, he doesn't seem to care if the effect is cruel. He would say that the emotional state of his students is completely unimportant. So, I guess I am treading a fine line. He is deriving pleasure from acts whose effects are cruel. That is pretty close to being sadistic, by the latter definitions you were discussing. IMO. Hermione makes a similar "mistake" when she is discussing the death of Lavendar's rabbit. She is interested only in proving her point about Trelawny's prediction. Lavendar's emotional state is much less important to her. That is why the other student see her as cruel. Laura Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 03:48:54 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:48:54 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148224 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > > Maybe JKR honestly thinks that she's shown it well enough? After > all, she seems to have been genuinely poleaxed by the shipping wars, > past a certain point--she thought she made *that* one absolutely > crystal clear, and yet a significant number of people chose to invest > in a different reading. Being absolutely direct tends to end up > looking like preaching to the audience, and there's a classic > hallmark of what's generally considered 'bad writing' in the modern > novel. There are any number of other things which she's generally > counted on us-the-readers 'getting', and gets more than a > little 'wot?' about some of the questions that she gets. > I agree that this is definitely one of JKR's problems. She really is a wonderful example of how what she thinks she writes, what she really writes, and what people read are three very different things. I also think she suffers from the problem that she knows her characters so well that statements and actions that seem absolutely clear to her are anything but to readers -- the best example possibly being her horrible mistep with regard to Dumbledore's speech at the end of OOTP. However, I would tend to disagree that being absolutely clear is always a hallmark of bad writing. Rather, being absolutely clear in a way that is "preachy" is bad writing, but there are ways of being very clear without preaching. I think Tolkien was very clear about his opinions of Gollum and Saruman, but made those opinions clear in ways that don't strike most readers as preaching. Thus my preference for karmic retribution. This is the way you can make yourself, as a writer, very clear as to themes and judgments without being preachy. And I do think that JKR is under the burden in Book VII of making herself very, indeed absolutely, clear on a great number of important subjects, perhaps especially subjects having to do with Snape and his abusive ways. Lupinlore From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Feb 16 04:15:19 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 04:15:19 -0000 Subject: Krum's Crucio (Was: Frogs, Cats and Sadistic Teachers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148225 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "louisemccabe88" wrote: > Lou: > Harry performs a Crucio on Bellatrix at the end of OOTP without - as > far as I am aware - any practice of this. > I do hope they are not torturing little fluffy things, or even > scaley ones, at Durmstrang! > > Lou > Harry doesn't actually perform a Crucio. He tries, but all he does is knock Bellatrix back because he doesn't really *mean* the spell. (Or maybe because he's never practiced). Allie, who also hopes there is no torture of the Durmstrang animals! From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 04:22:33 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 04:22:33 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement -- Horcrux In-Reply-To: <20060216002607.29447.qmail@web37013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148226 Catherine wrote: > I don't think Dumbledore told anyone else about the Horcruxes > except Harry. I don't even think he's told MgGonagall about them, and I > don't think he'd tell Snape either. Especially if Snape is DDM, spying > on old Voldie, I think it would be extrememly dangerous for him to have > told Snape. No matter how good an Occlumens he is, Voldie is a powerful > Legilimens. No matter how much he trusted Snape, I don't think he would > have taken that chance with such important information. zgirnius: I agree with you entirely about the security risks of discussing Horcruxes with Snape. But I think it is entirely possible Snape has independent knowledge of the subject...and if he's DDM, he would have said something to Dumbledore. If he already knows, it makes senzse to discuss this with him, since he is in a position to perhaps gain useful information, if he knows what he is looking for mroe specifically. Why do I think Snape may know? 1) He was interested in Dark Arts as a student. I think he's read the same book Hermione found in the library which mentions the subject. ANd it doubtless made him curious. As a young adult he would have had opportunities Hermione did not have to investigate (trips to Knockturn Alley, talking to fellow Death Eaters and/or reading books form their libraries, etc.) I think Snape would ahve learned what a Horcrux is. 2) Snape is the likely source of some of Dumbledore's knowledge about the Diary. In the "Horcruxes" chapter, Dumbledore discusses Voldemort's great anger at Lucius Malfoy over the destruction of the diary. He says 'he was told' about this...Snape would be a logical source for this info, due to his closeness to the Malfoys and l;ack of any other source that we know of. 3) Snape helped to heal the effects of the Ring Horcrux. I don't know whether he needed to know exactly how the damage came about to heal it, but even if he did not it might raise his suspicions. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 05:29:49 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 05:29:49 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148227 A lot is being made of Rowling's interpretation of Snape. It sounds radical, but Rowling's impression of her own characters doesn't really matter all that much. Authors are notoriously bad sources of information as to what to make of their own characters and books. Now, if Rowling were hinting about plot details she was going to reveal, etc., that might be something else. But in the realm of literary criticism, Rowling's opinion is not the trump card. Not at all. It just tells you what SHE thinks of her work, not what's necessarily there. From exodusts at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 05:59:08 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 05:59:08 -0000 Subject: Ollivander / Fortescue / Krum's Crucio / Horcrux / Bk7 Opening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148228 > Tonks: > Having been told of the grave yard events by Harry and about the > Priori Incantatem, DD knew that Ollivander would be in serious > trouble. Ollivander did not know about the events, but may have > know that Priori Incantatem could happen, or not. It could be just > some high ancient magic that only a few wizards like DD knew about. > DD went to Ollivander, told him about the situation and helped him > go into hiding. Ollivander doesn't need to appear dead, he just > needs to disappear for awhile. Later when LV is vanquished > Ollivander can go back to his business. If it looked like he was > dead he would lose the store, to his heirs if he had any or to the > state if he didn't. And there might be things in the store that > should not be found. DD is Ollivander's secret keeper. Exodusts: The problem with this idea is that it still doesn't resolve the principal weakness with the DD-hides-Olivander theory. Here is the quote, from the American edition of HBP, that deals with DD's proposed methods of hiding: "He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right side Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine. What is more, I can send members of the Order to your mother tonight to hide her likewise. Nobody would be surprised that you had died in your attempt to kill me -- forgive me, but Lord Voldemort probably expects it. Nor would the Death Eaters be surprised that we had captured and killed your mother -- it is what they would do themselves, after all. Your father is safe at the moment in Azkaban...When the time comes we can protect him too." Now that tells us one thing very clearly: DD's method of hiding involves faking death. Not just spiriting the person away (note "captured AND killed", not "captured OR killed"). If DD had hidden Ollivander, he would have left some false evidence of a demise. But Ollivander just vanished from his shop one day. If Ollivander had worried about losing his title deeds, because people thought he was dead, DD could surely have funded a purchase of the shop (from the "late" Ollivander's inheritors), to keep it safe (Weasley's Wands, anyone?). > CH3ed: > I like Tonks' theory (read upthread). I would add that perhaps > Ollivander disappeared after OotP instead of after GoF because he > didn't learn of what transpired in the graveyard scene (priori > incantatem between Harry and LV) until he read Harry's interview in > the Quibbler. Exodusts: Could be, but there is a substantial time gap between the publication of that article and the disappearance of Ollivander. > CH3ed: > There was no point of faking death by Ollivander anyway... If the > DEs had gotten to him there would have been a dark mark hovering > over his shop (the same reason I don't think Regulus Black faked his > death... the good guys wouldn't have thought he was killed by LV or > the DEs had there not been a dark mark over him like in Karkaroff's > case). And if the DEs didn't take him, LV would know it. So I think > Ollie went into hiding either by himself or with DD's aid. Exodusts: I don't follow. Are you saying the good guys can't fake a Dark Mark? DD reproaching Slughorn for his failure to fake it (early on in HBP) suggests that Slughorn for one, who is not a Death Eater, knows the spell. And how do we know that there was no Dark Mark when Regulus "died"? Regulus WAS a Death Eater. He could surely have cast one if it was needed. You are right to say that LV would find a Death- Eater-murder odd if he had not ordered anyone to kill Ollivander. But DD could have arranged other "deaths". An accidental creature rampage out of Knockturn Alley? A wand robbery gone wrong? An Order- infiltrated magical law enforcement squad turning up on a tip-off, and Ollivander being accidentally "killed" in a shoot-out? It is clear that DD could have come up with some kind of fake death if needed. The fact that he didn't suggests that Ollivander is not under his protection, but is out on his own somewhere. > Doddie: > I think a huge clue as to what really happened to Olivander is the > disappearance of Florean Fortescue. I think Olivander went into > hiding.(perhaps he has that "Ravenclaw Horcrux" with him...that wand > in his shop window in SS/PS) I think when Voldemort realized > Olivander was gone, Voldemort sent the DE's to kidnap Fortescue and > torture him for information--alas poor Fortescue. Exodusts: It's possible, but why would Fortescue know more than anyone else? Just because they shared nearby shop premises? I prefer the Fortescue-Portrait connection. Voldemort has been in DD's office - see HBP - and later realised that the ice cream seller in Diagon Alley was the descendant of the portly wizard in the portrait above DD's desk. Consequently, he captured Florian and got word to the portrait, via other portraits in Florian's house, that unless it starts passing information on what goes on in DD's office, the relative will suffer gruesome torments. > Lou: > Harry performs a Crucio on Bellatrix at the end of OOTP without - as > far as I am aware - any practice of this. I do hope they are not > torturing little fluffy things, or even scaley ones, at Durmstrang! Exodusts: They probably are, unless the Imperius really does illogically enable you to do magic you normally can't. When Harry tries the curse in OotP: "Hatred rose in Harry such as he had never known before; he flung himself out from behind the fountain and bellowed, 'Crucio!' Bellatrix screamed: the spell had knocked her off her feet, but she did not writhe and shriek with pain as Neville had - she was already back on her feet, breathless, no longer laughing." Bellatrix suggests it is only because Harry doesn't mean to harm, but I would imagine that the lack of practice wouldn't help his chances of achieving the right state of mind and/or just casting it well. When Krum uses it in GoF, Cedric yells, jerks and twitches, and this continues for the whole length of time it takes Harry to reach them through the hedge. It only stops when Harry intervenes. Does a neophyte Krum just get lucky because he really, really wants to inflict pain on Cedric? Why? He's only doing it under magically compelled orders. Remember Fake!Moody demonstrating on spiders in GoF. He admits he isn't supposed to do it, but there isn't an investigation or any comeback for him. And that is at Hogwarts. I can easily imagine a more relaxed regime, that Durmstrang's Karkaroff operated under, allowing older students to "experience" Crucio-ing insects or arachnids (incidentally , I wonder if, in Real Life, they even have sufficient nervous system to be suitable for this)? > CV: > The Gryffindor horcrux. What could it be? JKR has said it is not the > hat. It could be the sword. It could be something we haven't seen > yet. But here is my guess - I think it is Godric's Hollow itself. I > think Voldy intended to build a horcrux into the Godric's ancestral > house and intended to populate it with Harry's death. I think he got > through the preparations and then got, um, interrupted, resulting in >the destruction of the broken horcrux. Exodusts: My guess: LV intended to make the Sword into a Horcrux with Harry's death. The Sword was hidden in Godric's Tomb, somewhere in a barrow in or under Godric's Hollow, in good Arthurian fashion. LV failed, so the Sword remained where it was until Harry pulled it through space out of the Sorting Hat. (Unless there is any mention of that Sword having been in Hogwarts before the events in CoS?). Harry in book 7 may discover that the secret of Godric's Hollow is that it is Godric's resting place (if Harry's parents turn out to have graves, I would guess that the secret entrance to the Tomb will be near to them, in the graveyard). He will go down into it with R and H, have a quick Adventure and find that the Tomb has a big Sword-shaped space on top of it. He will figure out that the reason it isn't there is because he himself obtained it via the Hat. Hermione will then suggest that kids at Hogwarts in other houses might be able to help Harry to get the missing Horcruxes through the Hat. Cue Zacharias Smith. PS Harry will find a bouquet / some kind of strange and recently-placed anonymous gift or dedication on Lily's grave. This will be the First Clue regarding Snape-loves-Lily, although Harry won't realise that at the time. > CV: > If Voldy was going to make his 6th and final horcrux with the > killing of Harry, and that failed, then there should be two Voldy > bits floating around, no? The bit that didn't become the horcrux and > the one he intended to keep in his body. I'm thinking that now that > he is corporeal again, he could have made horcruxes to replace the > lost ones, if he knows they are lost. But in his first pass, I'm > thinking there must have been one less horcrux than Dumbledore > thinks. Does anyone agree? Exodusts: Not if the spare bit went into Harry OR if the split never occurred because Harry didn't die. > bboyminn: > Fandom is speculating or assuming two things relative to Harry's > stay at the Durselys. First that Ron and Hermione will be there > with him, and second that their will be an attack on Privet Drive. > For this to work, I submit the following speculation. > > First, Harry, Ron, and Hermione will spend two weeks at the Dursley > and hilarity will ensue. Then they will go to Bill's wedding. Then > they will be off to Godrics Hollow. Then back to the Dursley where > Harry prepares to leave them forever. Immediately after Harry's 17th > Birthday, the DEs will attack and the Trio will be forced to defend > the Dursleys. > > Now that the Dursley's have been attacked, Harry will have to take > them in and protect them. So, instead of Harry living with the > Dursley's, the Dursley's will be living with Harry. I call that > Karmic justice and great wonderful irony. I suspect, Harry will > quarter the Dursleys at the Black House, since it is about the only > place that Harry can go and still be independant. > > From there, the story will move on to the Horcrux Hunt and Harry > preparing himself for the last battle. Exodusts: It's not clear from HRH's conversation at the end of HBP exactly what order things are going to happen in. HRH could end up going to the Dursleys, then to the Wedding, or vice versa (Ron says: "But, mate, you're going to have to come round my mum and dad's house before we do ANYTHING else", but then adds: "even Godric's Hollow", which Harry had talked about going to AFTER the Dursleys). Try this for an opening - HRH go to The Burrow 1st. This enables LV to launch a mass attack, attempting to kill Harry now that DD is dead. This is the perfect time for such an event, plot-wise, because Harry would be too safe at the Dursleys with their protection, but not safe enough at the Burrow UNLESS there were enough wedding guests to tragically sacrifice themselves in the battle, driving the Dementors et al away. Naturally, Harry is packed off straight back home after the wedding, for his own (and everyone else's) good. Ron and Hermione go with him. He gets to Privet Drive and finds Dudley alone, terrified. Dudley tells Harry that Vernon & Petunia went to London, to check out the value of 12 GOP (remember that DD told them about it, and that the enchantments on the property may now be gone). LV had set a watch on the Dursleys to watch for Harry or follow their movements and/or Snape has told LV the location of 12 GOP now that DD is dead - Snape has to, because if LV finds out DD was the secret-keeper, and Snape hadn't revealed the location after DD's death, it would look mighty suspicious. Anyway, HRH end up having to go to 12 GOP with or without a sad, repentant Dudley, and rescue V & P from a Death Eater ambush at 12 GOP. Snape might even be among the captors, giving he and Harry another opportunity to reacquaint themselves before the Death Eaters flee. V, P and Dudley finally reconcile with Harry, P spills the beans about Lily, Dudley reveals what he experiences under Dementor influence (JKR has said that is notable), and HRH get to poke about 12 GOP again to get on track of the locket. Kreacher reveals that it has gone from his salvage-pile; next stop Azkaban Mundungus- rescue attempt. From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Feb 16 08:19:06 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:19:06 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Did DD tell Anyone Else Why He Trusts Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004801c632d1$a8109310$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 148229 CH3ed: I agree with you that DD was a meticulous planner and I wouldn't be surprised if DD had left his memory of Snape's repentence with Aberforth to be revealed to Harry 'when the time is right.' Harry does deserve to know the truth, but DD has seen how Harry takes certain 'truths' not so rationally sometimes... especially when it has to do with Snape (he still wants to skew the truth to make Snape responsible for the death of Sirius, for example). So I think DD had to weigh when Harry is receptive to a certain information. Sherry now: Commenting on two things in your post. First of all, I have a suspicion that Hagrid might know why Dumbledore thought he could trust Snape. More than anyone but DD, Hagrid has always defended Snape to Harry, but never explained it. Secondly, since Chapter 2 of HBP, can we really say Harry is skewing the truth completely about Snape's role in the death of Sirius? He may be wrong about the how, but I am not convinced that he is wrong. After all, Snape does take credit for somehow contributing to the death of Sirius. If it wasn't true, Narcissa and Bella would certainly have known that, because Kreacher went to Narcissa with his information. So, if it was only Kreacher, I'm sure one of the sisters would have challenged Snape on his claim. Sherry From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 09:14:25 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:14:25 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: <43F3A43E.7680.67413C9@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148230 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > ... I've been following this with interest, ..., and I am > seriously considering the idea of examining in detail the > teaching styles and practices seen at Hogwarts for my final > year thesis ..., so I've been doing a lot of thinking about > this, and I'd like to salute all those posting in this > thread for giving such a wide range of perspectives. > > > Alla: > > > > You know, it is funny. I was thinking about "Hermione defending > > Snape as a teacher' argument in support of "Snape as a good > > teacher" and I realized that I don't remember many instances > > when she does so. ... Hermione definitely thought that Harry is > > a good teacher in OOP, but can we claim that based on one > > lesson Hermione considers Snape to be a good teacher? I don't > > think so, personally. > > Shaun: > > I really congratulate you on the effort you've put into this > post, and I think you've made a very strong case to counter > the claim that Hermione defends Snape as a teacher. > Personally, I'm not sure I've ever made that claim myself - > although I do think there's a good possibility that Hermione > considers Snape to be a good teacher. Mainly because she > doesn't criticise him. ...edited... bboyminn: Although, my view is somewhat dated, I don't think Britian, or Hermione, judge teachers in the same way we do here in the USA. In Britian, knowing your subject is more important than having taken classes in how to be a teacher. In some ways, the teacher training requirements are one of the drawbacks to the USA educational system. It tends to produce a lot of teachers who really don't know much about anything other than how to speak to groups, how to effectively write on blackboards, and how to organize lessons and grade books. They are knowledgable in how to function as a teacher, but don't really have any indepth knowledge of any particular subject. Snape is the opposite of that, he knows all his subjects in great depth and detail, though he may not have the best 'teaching techniques'. I think Hermione would clearly see Snape's depth of knowledge and admire him for that. I also think people like Shaun and other gifted students might view him the same way. They would admirer Snape because he lectures with great depth and detail, and demands that you keep up with the flow of knowledge. In a sense, that demanding nature is the challenge to a gifted student, and in a way, miserable as the teacher may be, they see a kindred spirit. Finally, they have come across someone who has the intellect and depth of knowledge worthy of their own intellect. As to Snape's and Snape-like teachers teaching technique, I think it is to 'follow the path of least resistance'. In a sense, slack off or screw up and I will make your life hell; apply yourself, achieve, and excel to the best of your abilities and your life will be pleasant. You choose for yourself which path you want to follow. I do see a flaw in this plan though. For most intelligent adults, you can usually determine what is happening. But it's not so easy for kids. They lack experience, and from experience comes perspective, and lacking perspective, they may not understand the circumstance. They may see it as a personal attack, or a mean teacher being mean for the sake of being mean, or it may manifest itself in a sense of unworthiness, or as their own lack of ability. If a harsh demanding teacher doesn't make the 'path' clear, and take the time to re-enforce the idea that there really is a easy and rewarding 'path' to follow, a lot of students can be lost. Still even with that flaw, it is far better for a teacher to demand that his/her students achieve, than it is to give them all smiley faces or gold stars and let them get away with slacking off. So, my point is that Hermione would see Snape as a good teacher because he knows all his subjects to extreme depth and detail, and the far above average test results of his students would seem to confirm that. Though, while Hermione would see him as a good and knowledgable teacher, she would still see him as a mean, nasty, and unfair person. On the subject of Snape being 'sadistic', I'm afraid I'm going to have to once again agree with Shaun. People don't talk in pure absolutes. We all generalize; we make broad sweeping statements that our audience generally interpret based on the tone and context of the conversation and (as Shaun pointed out) on our follow up qualifying statements. When JKR made that statement about Snape being sadistic, I believe she was just making a general acknowledgement that Snape is a mean and nasty guy. I don't believe she meant he was literally and absolutely sadistic. On the subject of Neville, I think we have a clear case of a student and teacher who are ill suited for each other. Snape's teaching methods tend to push Neville away, whereas, I'm sure the same methods make many students fiercely determined to achieve, if for no other reason than spite. I can understand and sympathize with Neville because at times in my life I have felt the same strain that I think he is likely under. Stress, tension, anxiety, and lack of self-confidence aren't just annoying, they can be disabling. When you body becomes tense and anxious, you become physically clumsy. In a sense, it is like your mind and body are short-circuited. Movements tend to be quick and jerky. Beyond physically movement, your brain also become clouded. You are stuggling so hard to maintain against the onslaught of stress and strain that there is little room left in your brain for intellectual processes. That makes your mind as clumsy as your body. I really feel sorry for Neville because I know he is going though a living hell, but you have to give him credit. As miserable as the stress, strain, tension, and depression are making him, he remains tenacious. He fights his way through every miserable day and never complains. He stuggles against overwhelming forces to TRY and achieve, and in a way, he is successful. No he doesn't have the greatest grades, but he passes Potions and Transfiguration, not enough to get into NEWTs, but I'm sure he still got his OWL in those classes. Further, away from Snape's overbearing glare, Neville seems to be able to brew potions nicely. By forcing Neville to such a high to impossible standard in the classroom, the OWL test seem easy by comparison. I would even go so far as to say that that is Snape's intent. By demanding that every student achieve to the highest most demanding standard, even the poorest student is still an adequate potions makers. Snape doesn't really give a damn if his students like him, or even if they hate him, as long as when they leave his class, they can brew potions. That seems to be what Shaun was saying about his Snape-like teachers; they didn't give a damn what you thought about them as long as you left knowing the subject. Well, it's getting late now, and that's about all my brain can handle. bboyminn/Steve From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Feb 16 11:57:45 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:57:45 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148231 bboyminn: > > Although, my view is somewhat dated, I don't think Britian, or > Hermione, judge teachers in the same way we do here in the USA. In > Britian, knowing your subject is more important than having taken > classes in how to be a teacher. In some ways, the teacher training > requirements are one of the drawbacks to the USA educational system. > It tends to produce a lot of teachers who really don't know much about > anything other than how to speak to groups, how to effectively write > on blackboards, and how to organize lessons and grade books. They are > knowledgable in how to function as a teacher, but don't really have > any indepth knowledge of any particular subject. Ceridwen: I'd like to add my own $0.02 here. I just went back to school after a hiatus of 33 years. I take two courses on campus, and three over the internet. Which explains why I don't say much here any more. The younger students in my classes are amazing. I mean that in a bad sense. They want to be coddled and excused. One leaves class for a smoke break less than an hour through class time. Several don't like the math teacher because she 'dresses funny'. Of the two teachers I actually see, the English teacher is the most Snape-like. The math teacher is more of a McGonagall. bboyminn: > Snape is the opposite of that, he knows all his subjects in great > depth and detail, though he may not have the best 'teaching > techniques'. I think Hermione would clearly see Snape's depth of > knowledge and admire him for that. I also think people like Shaun and > other gifted students might view him the same way. Ceridwen: So would other students who actually want to learn instead of just take up space in the classroom. The subjects I'm taking are required for the degree, though not part of the degree. I'm going for an Associate in Arts, so Math and Astronomy are superfluous to what I actually need. I'm no genius in math, but I get peeved off at the students who viciously backbite the math teacher for her methods (which work just fine for me, and for them, too, judging by the recent test) based on her sense of fashion. If words were weapons, these kids would cause multiple bloodbaths. bboyminn: *(snip)* > As to Snape's and Snape-like teachers teaching technique, I think it > is to 'follow the path of least resistance'. In a sense, slack off or > screw up and I will make your life hell; apply yourself, achieve, and > excel to the best of your abilities and your life will be pleasant. > You choose for yourself which path you want to follow. Ceridwen: Which brings us to English. The first day, the teacher talked about seatbelt wearing. One student admitted that he doesn't wear his. She jumped all over him. It was like focusing a burn-light from a magnifying glass straight on his nose. He wouldn't defend his position, and he wouldn't cave and say she was right. As Steve says below, these kids don't have the life experience to see what's going on. Even a 50 year old doesn't necessarily know the root reason at the time, going by myself as an example. I thought she was incredibly mean. But the entire point of the class is effective writing. Why do we hold a particular opinion? The Seatbeltless One had his reason for not wearing his seatbelt in his truck, which as far as I can see, is the only place he doesn't wear it. But he wouldn't, or couldn't, defend his reason no matter what 'abuse' the teacher dished out. We're supposed to be learning how to adequately present an idea. She wanted a debate, he wouldn't oblige. And, for not calling on Hermiones, guess whose hand is usually up? Guess who doesn't get called on? I suppose the fact that I actually read the selections and do the homework has something to do with my Hermionesque behavior. But it's frustrating to sit in class with everyone else reading what I read days ago, and furiously scratching out answers that I've already typed and printed. The English teacher doesn't just ignore me all the time, she'll sometimes give a wink and motion for me to put my hand down. I get it, she wants the others to answer, too. bboyminn: > On the subject of Snape being 'sadistic', I'm afraid I'm going to have > to once again agree with Shaun. People don't talk in pure absolutes. > We all generalize; we make broad sweeping statements that our audience > generally interpret based on the tone and context of the conversation > and (as Shaun pointed out) on our follow up qualifying statements. Ceridwen: I'll add my vote to this. JKR handles on-her-feet interviews better than I ever could. But she won't necessarily be precise on the fly. She knows the general use of the term 'sadistic', so she uses it. Then she qualifies, sets up her argument. 'Snape is sadistic' is reinforced by 'abuses authority' and 'mean'. It's a 'because clause' without the because. 'Snape is sadistic' (because) 'he abuses his authority; he is mean'. Maybe I'm reading too much into this since we're studying this in English (or, we're supposed to be, if the rest of the class will ever do the readings!). bboyminn: > On the subject of Neville, I think we have a clear case of a student > and teacher who are ill suited for each other. Snape's teaching > methods tend to push Neville away, whereas, I'm sure the same methods > make many students fiercely determined to achieve, if for no other > reason than spite. Ceridwen: I've seen this in English. Seatbeltless One hates the teacher, and has a poor attitude for the class. He has admitted that he is only taking the class because it is required. He sees no use for it otherwise, any more than I see the need for me to learn Algebra or How To Use MSWord (Computer class). S.O. doesn't have the life experience I do. So we'll demonstrate our feelings in different ways. I would love to see the spiteful student in English, because that would mean someone doing their work. But, no. *sigh* I'm sure the students see the teacher as mean. I don't. But I have a very different background than they do. bboyminn: > When you body becomes tense and anxious, you become physically clumsy. > In a sense, it is like your mind and body are short-circuited. > Movements tend to be quick and jerky. Beyond physically movement, your > brain also become clouded. You are stuggling so hard to maintain > against the onslaught of stress and strain that there is little room > left in your brain for intellectual processes. That makes your mind as > clumsy as your body. Ceridwen: I love you. You've just explained my score on my math test. *g* But, this is very true. Neville doesn't do well in Potions because he's nervous anyway. His entire life he's been identified as nearly a squib. His grandmother is overbearing. Now here's another WW soul who is just as overbearing, and this person has a direct effect on Neville's future. Neville doesn't think he's good enough, so he messes up under scrutiny. He's good at Herbology, but that isn't like Potions. Will he ever need Potions for his life goal? Or would it just be easier to give up and pretend to be a Squib? bboyminn: > Further, away from Snape's overbearing glare, Neville seems to be able > to brew potions nicely. By forcing Neville to such a high to > impossible standard in the classroom, the OWL test seem easy by > comparison. I would even go so far as to say that that is Snape's > intent. By demanding that every student achieve to the highest most > demanding standard, even the poorest student is still an adequate > potions makers. Snape doesn't really give a damn if his students like > him, or even if they hate him, as long as when they leave his class, > they can brew potions. That seems to be what Shaun was saying about > his Snape-like teachers; they didn't give a damn what you thought > about them as long as you left knowing the subject. Ceridwen: Neville is more capable as the books progress. Maybe he's finally getting a sense of self after being overshadowed by the impossible standards set down by his grandmother, which is the example of his parents. What kid wants to end up in the mental ward? Isn't that what his grandmother is asking? And by extension, isn't that what Snape, McGonagall, and the other teachers are asking of him? Aurors? Didn't they have to do well in Potions, then? And, Snape is fearsome. I wouldn't like my English teacher targeting me. Even in a good way, which she has done. Single out a student, set them up, as an example of good, or bad. But the people this last paragraph remind me of the most are my former drill sergeants. Snape's got nothing on them for mean. Sarcastic, biting, petty, nitpicking, their goal is to break down the civilian and raise up a soldier. That is the intention. And 'nice' doesn't cut it. No cuddly 'I understand', except possibly in counselling, and we don't see Snape counselling anyone but Draco, and that's six books forward, in HBP. Once. A student we're led to believe he favors. Neville, Harry, and the other students haven't got the experience behind them to see through the head games. I joined the army when I was 32, so I had both a stronger sense of self, and an idea of what was actually going on. I'm back in school at 50, and I can handle a lot of things the younger students think are just horrific (like bright orange socks). Without life experience, kids will be overly critical. And they'll be worried about their *selves*, to an extent that an older person won't. Neville's worried, and maybe even hopeful in a way, that he'll actually turn out to be magically impotent and no good to anyone... Until OotP, when he suddenly realizes there's a fire lit under him. I think that was the turning point for Neville. But he had a solid foundation of being pushed aside roughly so he could handle some of the nastiness of Bellatrix and the other DEs. I'm very hopeful for Neville. As a student who seemed inept from the beginning, he has a steeper slope to climb. But since that slope is more noticeable, he'll probably come to terms with it sooner than Harry, who is obviously gifted in ways Neville isn't. Harry's struggling with some things, and he doesn't realize why; Neville knows he's climbing a mountain. My two cents, as much as I can give it, with tests coming up, and school on campus later today. Yuck. Ceridwen. From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 13:00:58 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:00:58 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148232 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > But in the realm of literary criticism, Rowling's opinion is not > the trump card. Not at all. It just tells you what SHE thinks of > her work, not what's necessarily there. This has some truth to it. However, there is a contrary and equally strong principle: never bet against the author in a work in progress. Rowling's opinions of her characters may well come even more solidly to the forefront in the conclusions to the novels, depending on what kind of ending or even just endgame plot she feels like writing. And one thing she could easily do is destroy a large number of currently viable alternative interpretations. Any work is open to a number of interpretations, or it usually wouldn't be worth reading--but there comes a point where, if you value the ability to support your argument with citations and don't want to have to work too hard to explain away concrete facts you don't like, some interpretations fall away. If you take JKR's comments about her characters seriously, some possibilities begin to strike one as less likely. And then the room is open that a reading of a character may not only never come into the forefront and be confirmed (such as the 'Snape is only being mean to keep his cover'), but may actually be shot down. It all depends on what each reader is reading for, as well. Lots of people are happier with fanon than canon. But 'author is dead' is hardly an overwhelmingly dominant critical position anymore. -Nora hopes that the author in question stays decidedly not dead From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Thu Feb 16 13:55:17 2006 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:55:17 -0000 Subject: LV and Dickens In-Reply-To: <1512607851.20060216011446@web.de> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148233 I really think that the two genres are so far apart - the real worlds of the two authors and their two fictional worlds as well - that it's a mistake to go that route. As I understand Caro, she thinks that an orphanage child would naturally become more Tom Riddle than Oliver Twist. Not really. But from a fictional point of view, it's simply more dramatic to have a hero/antihero at one or other extreme. Look at Anne of Green Gables! Anyway, Oliver is seen by most people as a peg on which to hang several stories: the street children of London; organised child crime; corrupt orphanage staff; benevolent rich people; the power of coincidence, with Oliver being (re)united with the family he never knew; greed leading to criminality; I won't go on! The child himself is pretty lacking in personality ... which one can't say for LV. And we should also consider how Oliver is always depicted, bizarrely, as not just speaking in educated middle-class English but actually thinking and behaving like a child from a respectable family. In other words, he aspires to the condition in which he will best fit. Tom Riddle was intent upon creating a world in which only he fitted, and compelling everyone else to do things his way or take the consequences. Dramatic, but not necessarily more true to life than Oliver's aspirations. Though, as writers of big, sprawling stories, Dickens and JKR would probably have a lot to say to each other, behind the veil ... Deborah, going back to the Peter Ackroyd biography soon to check things out From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 14:33:01 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:33:01 -0000 Subject: Where oh where is Mr. Ollivander... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148234 > > Tonks: > > Here is another idea (bit of a mix of others): -- DD is Ollivander's secret keeper. Finwitch: Well, it might be that Ollivander has a Secret Keeper and he never left his wandshop. Particularly as he seems to be just disappeared. And I do believe that the SK is someone at Hogwarts, but my guess is McGonagall. That way, Ollivander appears gone to all adults (except McGonagall), *but* the children recieving their first Hogwarts letters WILL know. They're the primary customers for new wands, after all. Finwitch From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Feb 16 16:03:41 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:03:41 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148235 > Ceridwen: > I love you. You've just explained my score on my math test. *g* > But, this is very true. Neville doesn't do well in Potions because > he's nervous anyway. His entire life he's been identified as nearly > a squib. His grandmother is overbearing. Now here's another WW soul > who is just as overbearing, and this person has a direct effect on > Neville's future. Neville doesn't think he's good enough, so he > messes up under scrutiny. He's good at Herbology, but that isn't > like Potions. Will he ever need Potions for his life goal? Or would > it just be easier to give up and pretend to be a Squib? Magpie: This gets to something that I've always thought played into the Snape/Neville dynamic as well. I want to be careful not to give the impression this is a "Snape is really helping Neville according to a secret plan" thing because it isn't, but if you look at Neville's response to life, he often gets out of things by accepting the judgment that he's just no good at anything. That's a defense. You can see why he does this with his grandmother. It must be impossible to argue with her unless you're more Sirius Black than Neville Longbottom. His grandmother not only holds him up to the impossible standard of a father who's dead, but she pushes him to excel in things that he's not good in (like Transfig) and puts down things that he's better in (Charms is a soft subject). Neville seems to have decided on a passive approach to this--he accepts that he's inadequate and lives with it, doing his own thing under the radar. Unfortunately with Snape this doesn't do. I think a lot of the anxiety Neville feels about Snape's class comes from the fact that there's no escape. He's *admitted* that he's crap at Potions, but Snape still expects him to produce results. He takes away Neville's natural defense in situations like this. McGonagall, ironically, may be easier on him because she sort of shakes her head and just tells him to do better. Snape gets angry at his failure and forces him to do it again until he gets it right. I don't think Snape ever thinks about it this way, of course. I think he's literally just angered by Neville sitting there being all clumsy and helpless (and weak) about it, so when he messes up Snape's just going to make him do it again. This is where I'm wary of making it sound like Snape is good for Neville because he's getting around defenses that aren't always good for Neville. I wouldn't go that far, but perhaps learning to deal with Snape has had some good effects on Neville. It took guts for Neville to put himself in the DA, I suspect, knowing he was the poorest student. He may have worried about annoying Harry or just being a nuisance. I don't give Snape credit for giving him courage to do that--I think he was mostly pushed by an internal decision that this was important and he had to try. But had he never had to deal with Snape he might have gotten more discouraged in the DA and just thought he couldn't do it. (Heh--now I'm imagining Neville mentally kicking himself in a Snape-ish way if he was tempted to quit.) Nrenka: Rowling's opinions of her characters may well come even more solidly to the forefront in the conclusions to the novels, depending on what kind of ending or even just endgame plot she feels like writing. And one thing she could easily do is destroy a large number of currently viable alternative interpretations. Any work is open to a number of interpretations, or it usually wouldn't be worth reading--but there comes a point where, if you value the ability to support your argument with citations and don't want to have to work too hard to explain away concrete facts you don't like, some interpretations fall away. Magpie: That's definitely true, though with characters like Snape I don't trust our ability to really get where she's going based on comments about his general character. I had one idea of what Rowling was saying about characters in the past and then subsequent canon put a whole different spin on it. It wasn't that she was lying at all, just that the general conclusions fandom drew from her statements weren't really right. I think once the last book is out all her statements about Snape will be consistent with his character, but maybe not in ways we think they must be now. -m From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 16:13:29 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:13:29 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148236 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > If you take JKR's comments about her characters seriously, some > possibilities begin to strike one as less likely. And then the room > is open that a reading of a character may not only never come into > the forefront and be confirmed (such as the 'Snape is only being mean > to keep his cover'), but may actually be shot down. Yup. And this is where I think her comments are most valuable--in trying to predict how the books will end. She has not struck me as someone who wants to deliberately lead her readers astray. She just stops talking if she thinks she's giving too much away. So, when she says that there's a redemptive pattern to Snape, I believe her. As I do when she says that she thinks he's a sadistic teacher. I'm assuming that the denouement will be some combination of the two. > It all depends on what each reader is reading for, as well. Lots of > people are happier with fanon than canon. But 'author is dead' is > hardly an overwhelmingly dominant critical position anymore. Not according to the vast majority of contemporary literary critics. This doesn't mean that the author isn't relevant at all. It just calls into question that the author is the "authority" on their own work. Much of the time, authors are not consistently in control of of their own meanings or intentions. D.H. Lawrence said "Trust the tale, not the teller." In that mode, I find Snape far more complicated, sympathetic, and compelling that Rowling herself seems to. She, in fact, always expresses shock and a certain degree of horror when her fans confess an attraction to Snape as a person. But that Snape is there, most *obviously* there, whether she "means" him to be or not. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 16 16:30:01 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:30:01 -0000 Subject: It's "blood" that counts (Was: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148237 Carol wrote: snip Apparently nonmagical > blood or nonmagical status is bad as long as it isn't his or his > family's or a friend's. Is he a hypocrite or is there a logic to his > prejudices and namecalling that I'm unable to find? Why is "Squib" or > "nag" an acceptable insult when "Mudblood" isn't? If Draco had called > her a "stupid Muggleborn" instead of a "filthy little Mudblood," would > that have been okay? Potionat: I wrote a reply that was eaten by the Mugglemade yahoomort! So here's a shorter version. (But do read the longer one if it shows up.) Hagrid doesn't like Muggles. He likes Centaurs, but doesn't hesitate to use a slur when he's angry at one. He's the type of person who might end up saying something like, "Muggles are so stupid (crude, dishonest fill in the blank)! Of course, your parents aren't like that, Hermione." He may actually like a Muggle or a Mugggleborn, but in general expects someting inferior from Muggles as a group. Mrs. Black on the other hand, would have nothing to do with any Muggle or Muggleborn. Hagrid wouldn't bait a Muggle for the heck of it, but wouldn't hesitate to use magic on one. >Carol: > And Phineas Nigellus, proud great grandfather of both of Sirius > Black's parents (second cousins, according to the recently published > partial photograph of the Black family tree--which explains Mrs. > Black's "blood of my fathers" rants) abuses Mundungus Fletcher as a > "filthy half blood" yet strenuously objects whenever Harry shows > disrespect for Severus Snape, whom we readers know to be the > Half-Blood Prince. Would Phineas's view of Snape change if he knew > Snape isn't a pureblood? Or is Phineas simply throwing out a term of > abuse at an absent thief and pilferer which he wouldn't use toward a > Slytherin HOH regardless of his bloodlines? Potioncat: Mrs. Black doesn't like someone if they are Muggleborn, or half-blood just on principle. Phineas wasn't complaining that Mundungus was a Half-blood. He was complaining that Mundungus had stolen from the house and he used "Half-blood" in the same way Hagrid used "nag." (Not that I'm excusing it.) If he learns that Snape killed DD he might exclaim, "that traitorous half-blood!" even though he didn't hold the half-blood status against Snape before. Potioncat: who thinks Phineas is Snape's great-great grandfater as well as Sirius's. From silmariel at telefonica.net Thu Feb 16 16:54:46 2006 From: silmariel at telefonica.net (silmariel) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:54:46 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200602161754.13824.cualquier@servidor.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148238 > Kelleyaynn: > > With all due respect to JKR, she doesn't apparently understand > genetics at all. Magic CANNOT be dominant. If that were so, you > couldn't get a magical child from muggle parents - at least they would > be INCREDIBLY rare, even more so than squibs, and that just isn't the > case. Trying to work out the genetics of magic makes much more sense > if magic is recessive. By sheer dumb luck I've found a note with this post number, it treats magic as dominant, using 3 genes. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/76090 Silmariel From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 16:54:35 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:54:35 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148239 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: giving too much away. > Not according to the vast majority of contemporary literary > critics. Err, not according to my friends over in English, any more. I do try to ask them what the trends in that field are, although it tends to involve too much beer. I've been told that deconstruction is mostly dead, 'cultural studies' is where it's at. My own discipline has mostly passed through a variety of the dead author but has resurrected him (or her), largely because if you follow someone like Barthes through, you can't do history anymore. There are a number of analysts (not the same thing as critics, I think) who have also solidly lost the concept, because they want to be able to read from context. > But that Snape is there, most *obviously* there, whether she "means" > him to be or not. But would you agree that the Snape you want to see, the blindingly complex one, is a very fragile creation? The genius of Rowling in creating Snape is that he's not a character made from page time or deep psychological exploration: we certainly never get into his head, he has no monologues, we never know what he's thinking. To claim to 'know' him is a slippery proposition at best. Snape exists as a complex creation largely from the efforts of the reader. I would never say that's not profound and significant--it's essential to the act of reading, which is a cooperative enterprise between the reader and his assumptions and the text which the author has created. But it is something which can be crushed by the author, if she chooses to break her pattern and, for once, lets Snape talk directly to the audience (via the medium of an audience on the page, of course). She could, for instance, have Snape himself scoff at the idea that he felt genuine remorse. She could have him talk about how single- mindedly he's been motivated by one or two things. As she wants to give us answers to questions, I can easily see a scene like this somewhere in the future. She's already played a slow game of revelations with Snape which cut off any number of interpretive options. That's both the beauty and the danger of the withhold. Just as, in many ways, Sirius Black was created as a character so that he would fall behind the Veil and mean certain things to Harry, it looks more and more like Severus Snape has been built ambiguous to create tension before the ultimate denoument. I just won't be surprised if the ambiguity doesn't survive it. -Nora offers her suspicions as one option possibly garnering support From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 16 17:01:04 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:01:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060216170104.83669.qmail@web86210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148240 --- nrenka wrote: > That's both the beauty and the danger of the > withhold. Just as, in > many ways, Sirius Black was created as a character > so that he would > fall behind the Veil and mean certain things to > Harry, it looks more > and more like Severus Snape has been built ambiguous > to create tension > before the ultimate denoument. > > I just won't be surprised if the ambiguity doesn't > survive it. That's very possible, but if that's the truth, I don't understand Rowling's game at all. If she wanted Snape to be ambigous, and his treason in book 6 to be surprising, then she didn't do such a great job, did she? Certainly Harry (together with the majority of the readers) had never expected from Snape any better. Surely she didn't wrote the whatever ambiguity is there just to surprise the small number of Snapeophiles among us? :-) Irene ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Photos NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com From kkersey at swbell.net Thu Feb 16 17:34:45 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:34:45 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: <43F48CCF.206.A00AA53@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148241 < snipping everthing up to the point where Shaun hauls out the OED and slams it on the table... [1]> > It's time for the big guns - the Oxford English Dictionary. Not the > concise, not the abridged - the big one. This is the closest thing > we have in the English language to a definitive dictionary. < once again snipping the supporting evidence, up to this endorsement from Wikipedia: > > "The OED is the starting point for much scholarly work regarding > words in English." Now Elisabet chimes in: Shaun, I couldn't agree with you more about the OED being one terrific reference source, and it certainly is the *starting* point for much scholarly research. Depends on what kind of research you're doing, though; for etymological and historical data you can't beat it. But, but, but - Well, here's an article by Michael Quinion, a researcher who collects evidence of new usage for the OED, addressing the question of the authority of the OED, and of dictionaries in general: http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/howdowords.htm Read the whole thing, but here is a sample: "In the world of today's lexicography, usage is king. We are, in the language of the business, descriptive dictionary makers: we record, we collate, we analyse, and we describe what people actually say and write. If enough English speakers decide that some word or phrase has value...then it is put into new editions. Not always very quickly....if enough speakers decide that a word no longer means what the dictionaries say it means but something else entirely, then we have to note that, too. You may feel that such changes amount to misuse?and certainly terms do change because of ignorance or misunderstandings?but that's largely irrelevant to the job of the dictionary maker. "This standpoint is sometimes misunderstood, and as often disliked. People who consult dictionaries most commonly want the tablets of the law, not a mirror to language." My points being: 1) Dictionaries respond to changes in usage; 2) generally they do so slowly; 3) the dictionary definition derives its authority from its ability to conform to usage, not the other way around. In short, I'm with the descriptivists. Much as I love the OED, it's a great place to start, not always a great place to end your research. And as Michael Quinion noted, it is not a "tablet of law", particularly for current usage. The chief editor himslef explicitly cautions against the myth of the dictionary being the final arbiter of "proper English" in the preface to the Third Edition. [2] In a previous post, you insisted that the "precise" definition of sadism requires that the perpetrator experience some degree of sexual pleasure - well, sure, I'll grant you that *if* the word is being used in a psychiatric context. But it wasn't. It was being used in colloquial conversation by a writer with no medical training that I've ever heard of. And come to think of it - to be more *precise*, she didn't use the word "sadism", she used the word "sadist". So, once again, the OED definition of "sadist": "...more generally, someone who derives satisfaction from inflicting pain or asserting his or her power over others." Satisfaction? Sounds like Snape to me, on any number of occasions. Now I'm going to veer off-course and bring up the way JKR used a certain word in a book, as opposed to an off-the-cuff interview remark. Despite Arthur Levine's dictionary-citation defense [3], I still have a problem with "fug" being left on a window in HBP Ch3. "Fog" would work fine in that sense, but has "fug" *ever* been used anywhere else to mean condensed vapor? Not saying it hasn't, but as far as I can tell, e.g. by searching on news.google, it is always used to described a close, smokey or stinky atmosphere - e.g. that of a smoke-filled tavern. It's a great word, but surely there was a better place to use it - perhaps at the Hogshead. Incidentally, the OED definition of "fug" is "A thick, close, stuffy atmosphere, esp. that of a room overcrowded and with little or no ventilation", and alternatively indoor football. No citations come close to using it to refer to anything that could form on a window, but then, there's no mention at all of the widespread usage of the word as a euphemism for - well, I'm sure most of you can figure that one out. ;-) One other thing, while the OED is still sitting on the table here: definitions are in *chronological* order, not in the typical most-to-least common usage order you find in most dictionaries. It's a historical dictionary. More about that here: http://www.oed.com/about OK, I'll stop now... Elisabet, who intended to stay out of the dictionary wars [4] but couldn't help herself [1] Yeah, I know it's currently only published electronically or in a 20 volumme set, either of which is hard to slam on a table. Grant me some poetic license here. :-) [2] http://www.oed.com/about/oed3-preface/distractions.html [3] http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/faq.asp [4] c.f. the hugely entertaining essay by David Foster Wallace: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html (Well, *I* had fun reading it, but then I grew up in a family of SNOOTS myself. And for those not familiar with DFW, don't skip the footnotes or you'll miss everything.) From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 17:39:05 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:39:05 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: <20060216170104.83669.qmail@web86210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148242 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > That's very possible, but if that's the truth, I don't understand > Rowling's game at all. If she wanted Snape to be ambigous, and his > treason in book 6 to be surprising, then she didn't do such a great > job, did she? > > Certainly Harry (together with the majority of the readers) had > never expected from Snape any better. Surely she didn't wrote the > whatever ambiguity is there just to surprise the small number of > Snapeophiles among us? :-) I feel like I've written this before--wait, I have--but I'll go once again. :) Harry hasn't, and readers who strictly follow his viewpoint are therefore not terribly shocked, although I still think the events are BANGy to Harry out of sheer horror. But she's played a trust card with Snape very hard with two characters who are often The Voice of Exposition--those being Dumbledore and Hermione. As Dumbledore is the Headmaster with infinite titles and a considerable amount of wisdom, many readers are going to take his assertions as being far more valid and trustable than the naive intuitions and biases of Harry. And he asserts with categorical firmness that he trusts in Snape, and refuses to gratify Harry's angry inquiries. We are, I think, generally meant to take what Dumbledore says as true and well-thought through, although this did take some slag in OotP. Whether that's ultimately going to connect, whether it was foreshadowing for HBP, remains to be seen. Hermione is often presented as the voice of reason and the voice of diagnosis; she solves problems and offers her perspective on what is actually going on. Scrap of paper in her hand provides the essential information in CoS, for instance. And she trusts wholeheartedly in Dumbledore, saying that if we can't trust him, who can we trust. (That set off red flags for me, but probably not for all readers.) These are, IMO, pretty powerful things to play against Harry's distrust card, as these are two characters often cited as authorities on facts, and readers prize their evaluations of things highly. After all, Harry's always been suspicious, and he's often been wrong both about facts and motivations. Add in what many listies consider the "Harry filter" and their conscious attempts to read against it, and there is a lot of material encouraging us not to take his side on this issue. And that, for me, is what made it BANGy. I didn't predict a traitor! Snape, either real or fake, after OotP--although if I searched the archives, I'd probably recall my buzzers starting to go off about the trust with no evidence issue. I don't think this proposed setup takes a Snape-centered reading, or even an essentially positive view of Snape, to work. -Nora runs off to class on something far messier and complicated than the case of one Snapeykins From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 16 17:58:11 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:58:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent References: Message-ID: <003901c63322$8cfc7de0$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 148243 ----- Original Message ----- From: nrenka I feel like I've written this before--wait, I have--but I'll go once again. :) Harry hasn't, and readers who strictly follow his viewpoint are therefore not terribly shocked, although I still think the events are BANGy to Harry out of sheer horror. kchuplis: Agreed. It is one thing to dislike and mistrust someone, even to a great degree, and see that person (who, even with Harry's feelings, he *does* know has been for an unknown reason, protective of Harry upon occassion) blow away the most revered wizard in ages as well as your mentor. I think that in our era of TV cop and court shows, as well as murder mystery novels, etc. we tend to just say "oh that's the bad guy. I knew that. I saw that coming" and that is a different thing than a character POV of someone in that moment. That's kind of the whole point of horcruxes too. We discuss them almost as though they are common (what did LV plan; which murder was meant for which horcrux; oh, maybe you just give a little spell to accomplish it) while in the actuality of Potterverse, this is practically an unheard of device to use once, let alone multiple times. It is regarded (or would be if more knew of it) as highly heinous. We, the reader, have gotten used to that device but to DD and Harry, this is enormous in its implications. I rather think that Snape offing DD has become kind of well, casual to us, but for Harry, it was as big of a step as LV making horcruxes. One thing to think about or imagine happening and another to see it in action. I truly believe that to JKR it is not casual either. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Feb 16 18:03:25 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:03:25 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: <20060216170104.83669.qmail@web86210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003e01c63323$491d80a0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 148244 Irene That's very possible, but if that's the truth, I don't understand Rowling's game at all. If she wanted Snape to be ambigous, and his treason in book 6 to be surprising, then she didn't do such a great job, did she? Certainly Harry (together with the majority of the readers) had never expected from Snape any better. Surely she didn't wrote the whatever ambiguity is there just to surprise the small number of Snapeophiles among us? :-) Sherry now: I think that most of us who don't like Snape were still shocked by his murdering Dumbledore in HBP. I never liked him and I do consider him a mean man who does indeed enjoy taunting Harry and does hate a child he'd never met purely on the basis of who that child's long dead father was. The height of immaturity. however, I believed in Dumbledore's trust in Snape, and though I detested the man, Snape, I never in a million years expected him to kill DD. So, to say that we who don't like Snape were not surprised by what happened is not quite true. at least not for me. i could dislike him and still believe he was ultimately on DD's side, if for no other reason than loyalty to Dumbledore. now, as I've said before, there's nothing that can excuse his actions to me, and I believe Dumbledore's trust was sadly misplaced. However, when Snape did the foul deed, I had to stop the CD and say, what the hell? i couldn't even continue reading for a while I was so shocked! Sherry From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 16 18:05:07 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:05:07 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape and authorial intent. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148245 "nrenka" wrote: > Surely she didn't wrote the whatever > ambiguity is there just to surprise > the small number of Snapeophiles among us? Small number of Snapeophiles? I think Snape is and always has been pond scum, but I am a tiny minority. Every time I mention something he's done that isn't very nice, like murdering Dumbledore 10 people write elaborate excuses to explain away his behavior. However even I, confirmed Snape hater that I am, didn't take chapter 2 of HBP at face value the first time I read it, I certainly didn't expect him to murder Dumbledore. JKR's genius was to make us think there was more going on in that chapter but by the end of the book we realize that Snape meant exactly what he said and that surprised us, at least it surprised me. Talk about hiding in plain sight! Eggplant From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 16:19:48 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:19:48 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148246 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > This has some truth to it. However, there is a contrary and equally > strong principle: never bet against the author in a work in progress. > True. However, one should never forget that interpretation of anything, be it a novel or the U.S. Constitution, is a profoundly political act. As I've said before, in a very real way the books are about certain things, in my case child abuse, because we say they are about child abuse, just as Tolkien's work was about WWII because people said it was. The problem is what to do with the notorious "original intent" of the author/framer/creator? How does the author's intent, in so far as it can even be determined, play into the politics of interpretation? How much should it play into those politics? I take your point that, in a work that is not yet finished and where the author is still around, the author's intent has profound practical weight. After all, who in the end will determine Snape's motivations? JKR. Who will determine what punishment he has to bear for his multitude of sins? JKR. Therefore, how she sees him will have, as you say, a front and center place in how his story arc is completed. So, what I guess I'm saying is that while it's true that JKR really has much less say in what the books are ABOUT than many would like to grant her, she does have the ultimate say in WHAT HAPPENS. I, for instance, only have a moderate interest in what JKR thinks Snape is ABOUT, as in the end her opinions concerning Snape and his abusive ways are no more important than anyone elses. However, I do have a great interest in WHAT HAPPENS. And in that sense, her comments about Snape do lead me to warm chuckles on most occasions. Lupinlore From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 18:50:51 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:50:51 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148247 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > I've been told that deconstruction is mostly dead, 'cultural > studies' is where it's at. Yah. But "cultural studies" doesn't favor authorial intent much more than poststructuralism. > But would you agree that the Snape you want to see, the blindingly > complex one, is a very fragile creation? The genius of Rowling in > creating Snape is that he's not a character made from page time or > deep psychological exploration: we certainly never get into his > head, he has no monologues, we never know what he's thinking. To > claim to 'know' him is a slippery proposition at best. We never know what Beowulf is thinking either, and don't get into his head. And personally I believe I know him quite well. We get to know Snape (and Beowulf) as we would get to know a person, not a character in a book. We have to judge him by what he says and does, and via the opinions of others, not through his interior thoughts spread across a screen for us to peruse. If you hang around someone long enough, and pay close enough attention, you figure out quite a lot. Far more than you could even if they "tell" you what they're about, and what they're thinking. > Snape exists as a complex creation largely from the efforts of the > reader. Well, the reader sees the complexity. The reader doesn't create it. > I would never say that's not profound and significant-- > it's essential to the act of reading, which is a cooperative > enterprise between the reader and his assumptions and the text > which the author has created. But it is something which can be > crushed by the author, if she chooses to break her pattern and, for > once, lets Snape talk directly to the audience (via the medium of > an audience on the page, of course). That doesn't have to be the case at all. Just like a real person, Snape may not be aware of his own motivations. > She could, for instance, have Snape himself scoff at the idea > that he felt genuine remorse. She could have him talk about how > single-mindedly he's been motivated by one or two things. Snape lies. I would find such a "revelation" suspect. > As she wants to give us answers to questions, I can easily see a > scene like this somewhere in the future. We've had scenes like that already. He "reveals" to Harry the essence of his reasons for spying during the Occlumency lessons. He reveals something entirely different to Bella and Narcissa. As for us suddenly getting completely into his head, I don't think she'll do that, but it would be fascinating. Because it wouldn't surprise me if he lies to himself as well. Most people are notoriously bad at judging their own characters. > That's both the beauty and the danger of the withhold. Just as, in > many ways, Sirius Black was created as a character so that he would > fall behind the Veil and mean certain things to Harry, it looks > more and more like Severus Snape has been built ambiguous to create > tension before the ultimate denoument. > > I just won't be surprised if the ambiguity doesn't survive it. I would not be surprised, either. But I would be gravely disappointed. Rowling is a better writer than that. From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Thu Feb 16 17:30:38 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:30:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060216173038.58437.qmail@web37005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148248 Constance Vigilance wrote: If Voldy was going to make his 6th and final horcrux with the killing of Harry, and that failed, then there should be two Voldy bits floating around, no? The bit that didn't become the horcrux and the one he intended to keep in his body. I'm thinking that now that he is corporeal again, he could have made horcruxes to replace the lost ones, if he knows they are lost. But in his first pass, I'm thinking there must have been one less horcrux than Dumbledore thinks. Does anyone agree? Catherine wrote: But there's one bit of crucial infomation we're missing. When exactly do you cast the Horcrux-creating spell? I got the impre- ssion from Slughorn's memory that it had to be done *after* the killing curse (I could have misinterperated it though). And DD seems to think that a Horcrux could not have been created at that time since Voldie got hit by the rebounded curse before finalising the Horcrux-creating spell. I think HRH (and we) will have to find out more about how to make a Horcrux (Horcruxes for Dummies?) before figuring out if one was made at Godric's Hollow. Catherine From maribelnm63 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 10:40:42 2006 From: maribelnm63 at yahoo.com (maribelnm63) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:40:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's Crucio WAS: Re: Krum's Crucio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148249 > > Lou: > > Harry performs a Crucio on Bellatrix at the end of OOTP without - as > > far as I am aware - any practice of this. > > I do hope they are not torturing little fluffy things, or even > > scaley ones, at Durmstrang! > > > > Allie: > Harry doesn't actually perform a Crucio. He tries, but all he does is > knock Bellatrix back because he doesn't really *mean* the spell. (Or > maybe because he's never practiced). > Hello: I would like to apologize in advance for my english. English is not my mother tongue, but I hope I will not make many mistakes. "Hatred rose in Harry such as he had never known before; he flung himself out from behind the fountain and bellowed, `Crucio!'" That is why I do not fully agree with Allie. I think that Harry actually meant to perform the cruciatus curse, the thing is that the result was not as effective as he thought it would be. IMO to cast an effective cruciatus curse, three "ingredients" are needed: skill, hatred and enjoynment. No doubt that Harry was full of hatred when he casted the curse but he did not have the skill (it was his first unforgivable curse) and I can?t imagine Harry having a great time while torturing someone, not even Bellatrix. Uuumm, this makes me think that Harry was hit by the most excrutiatingly painful cruciatus curse ever casted in the WW. I am talking about the graveyard in GoF... Maribel From deliquescehp at googlemail.com Thu Feb 16 19:21:23 2006 From: deliquescehp at googlemail.com (Shelley) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:21:23 +0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98ff2d890602161121i199f940bm@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148250 Nora wrote: > > Err, not according to my friends over in English, any more. I do try > to ask them what the trends in that field are, although it tends to > involve too much beer. I've been told that deconstruction is mostly > dead, 'cultural studies' is where it's at Shelley: Hi Nora, I'm an historian currently employed as a research fellow at an English Department, so I hang out with literary sorts a bit. And I agree with you that Deconstructionism and post-structuralism are no longer dominent trends in and of themselves in most departments. But rather than saying Deconstructionism and post-structuralism are dead, I'd say literary theory has incorporated certain insights offered by such theorists as Derrida and Foucault, and moved on. I have a hard time imagining cultural studies existing without notions of texts being multivalent, intertextual, etc. And before that, Leslie wrote: > It just calls > > into question that the author is the "authority" on their own work. > > Much of the time, authors are not consistently in control of of their > > own meanings or intentions. > > I think there would be very few literary scholars currently in the field who would disagree with that statement. In fact, if there were only a single, author-imposed reading of a text, literary studies as a field wouldn't exist. Nora/nrenka: > Snape exists as a complex creation largely from the efforts of the > reader. I would never say that's not profound and significant--it's > essential to the act of reading, which is a cooperative enterprise > between the reader and his assumptions and the text which the author > has created. > Shelley: Well, exactly, and the range of interpretations a reader can walk away with are a product of that process and the multivalency of any good piece of fiction. And yes, Shape's ambiguity is due in no small part to JKR's craft and intentions and I agree with you totally in the way you astutely unpacked her process of creating that ambiguity through the contrast of Harry's pov and DD & Hermione's verbalized alternate opinions. And certainly, JKR may close down some speculative possibilities about all of these characters in the next book. And I think you're right, the ambiguity probably won't survive book seven. But I bet you anything violently disparate readings of Snape still will-- because opening up multiple meanings is nature of how texts work. And I'd like to, as an aside, point out that I've recently seen fans have radically different readings of DD's character and Harry's-- who is the POV character... Shelley -- In his experience, no good had ever come of happy and smiling Gryffindors. _Pansy's Volcano_ by BlueMidget [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 20:21:01 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:21:01 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148251 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" wrote: > Yah. But "cultural studies" doesn't favor authorial intent much > more than poststructuralism. Intent as it was in the pre-Wimslatt days, no. But context, yes--and some forms of intent often end up sneaking in the backdoor when you start factoring in things like the author's ethnic/cultural background, class, etc. > Well, the reader sees the complexity. The reader doesn't create it. I have to disagree. For instance, it is up to the reader to furnish all of the varying motives we've thrown into the mix for Snape. In the past week and one thread, we see readings which are mutually exclusive: Snape pushes Neville because he thinks it will get the kid to learn, Snape pushes Neville the way that he does because he enjoys watching the kid suffer, Snape doesn't really care one way or the other. There's nothing in the text which says it must be one of these three, plain and simple: the reader could well say "He's just an ass of a character" and leave it at that, which is a very simple reaction, but which does cover everything textually. We are the ones who spin the stories of Snape's profoundly conflicted nature and his struggle to do the right things despite his hatred. Every reader tells himself a different story, which leads me to believe that it's more the readers than the story. Or rather, it's a story which is constructed to encourage readers to spin stories. > Snape lies. I would find such a "revelation" suspect. Yes, one can always apply the "character X is lying" function to get rid of anything unwanted or inconvenient. > We've had scenes like that already. He "reveals" to Harry the > essence of his reasons for spying during the Occlumency lessons. > He reveals something entirely different to Bella and Narcissa. None of those, though, are in the same structural position in the story as what I'm guessing might take place. Often in stories of this type, we finally get to the "cut the crap and cards on the table" point. I grant you that not all authors play that game, but given JKR's love for book-ending explanations of What Really Happened (which listies love to complicate more than ever gets borne out in future installments), it's a possibility. > I would not be surprised, either. But I would be gravely > disappointed. Rowling is a better writer than that. It depends on what she's interested in. If she collapses Snape to bring her story to what she feels is a satisfying close, it wouldn't be a surprise, given that Harry is the most important character--he keeps his complexity in this scenario, because we've actually gotten so much more on him. This is a constant lurking danger in reading, that what author cares about and what readers do is so different. -Nora thinks: who cares about that Siegfried guy, anyways... From rkdas at charter.net Thu Feb 16 20:31:26 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:31:26 -0000 Subject: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is. In-Reply-To: <20060216173038.58437.qmail@web37005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148252 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catherine higgins wrote: > > Constance Vigilance wrote: > If Voldy was going to make his 6th and final horcrux with the > killing of Harry, and that failed, then there should be two Voldy > bits floating around, no? The bit that didn't become the horcrux and > the one he intended to keep in his body. I'm thinking that now that > he is corporeal again, he could have made horcruxes to replace the > lost ones, if he knows they are lost. But in his first pass, I'm > thinking there must have been one less horcrux than Dumbledore > thinks. Does anyone agree? > > Catherine wrote: > But there's one bit of crucial infomation we're missing. When > exactly do you cast the Horcrux-creating spell? I got the impre- > ssion from Slughorn's memory that it had to be done *after* the > killing curse (I could have misinterperated it though). And DD > seems to think that a Horcrux could not have been created at that > time since Voldie got hit by the rebounded curse before finalising > the Horcrux-creating spell. I think HRH (and we) will have to find > out more about how to make a Horcrux (Horcruxes for Dummies?) > before figuring out if one was made at Godric's Hollow. > Catherine > Hi there, This point is an aside but it does have something to do with your point. Dumbledore theorizes that LV made Nagini a horcrux with the death of an old muggle man (Frank Bryce) and this was when he only had the tiny scaly baby body. That to me seems very amazing. I was under the impression he was pretty much helpless at that point. I certainly understand he couldn't have created a horcrux after the AK rebounded onto him and left him less than the meanest ghost, but I was amazed at the thought that the scaly baby could do such a thing. Am I missing another muggle that DD could have been refering to? I have wracked my brain and the text, and don't come up with any other muggle murder. If this is the murder, it definitely seems that Peter would have had to have helped. Makes you wish Harry's dream could have gone on another few minutes. Jen D. floating another one of those little bits roaming around in her brain... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 20:38:11 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:38:11 -0000 Subject: Ollivander / Fortescue /... / Horcrux / Bk7 Opening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148253 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "exodusts" wrote: > > Tonks: > > ... Ollivander doesn't need to appear dead, he just needs > > to disappear for awhile. Later when LV is vanquished > > Ollivander can go back to his business. ... > > Exodusts: > > The problem with this idea is that it still doesn't resolve the > principal weakness with the DD-hides-Olivander theory. Here is > the quote, from the American edition of HBP, that deals with > DD's proposed methods of hiding: > > "...edited quote..." > > Now that tells us one thing very clearly: DD's method of hiding > involves faking death. Not just spiriting the person away > (note "captured AND killed", not "captured OR killed"). If DD > had hidden Ollivander, he would have left some false evidence > of a demise. But Ollivander just vanished from his shop one day. ... > bboyminn: I think we have fallen into a fandom trap here, the same trap we always fall into, and that is, once a new 'thing' is introduced in the books, it becomes the end-all be-all solution to every problem. When Time-Turning was introduce, it became the solution to every problem. Mysterious all-knowing Dumbledore is really Ron time-turning. In the end, Harry will time-turn back and save himself from Voldemort. Now, today, everything under the sun is a Horcrux. Dumbledore says he can hide Draco and family by faking their death, suddenly faked-death has to be the solution to every problem. Ollivander can just be gone, gone because gone is all that is need to solve his problem. Dumbledore may or may not have helped Ollivander escape, but there really is no need to fake Ollivander's death nor to fake the death of each and every character who is now or who will be missing. It is fun speculation, but it doesn't necessarily apply to every problem encountered. > >...edited... > > Exodusts: > > ... I prefer the Fortescue-Portrait connection. Voldemort has > been in DD's office - see HBP - and later realised that the ice > cream seller in Diagon Alley was the descendant of the portly > wizard in the portrait above DD's desk. Consequently, he captured > Florian and got word to the portrait, via other portraits in > Florian's house, that unless it starts passing information on > what goes on in DD's office, the relative will suffer gruesome > torments. > bboyminn: Sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that you can coerce, extort, or blackmail a Portrait, something that is hardly more than a well made animated object. > > > > CV: > > If Voldy was going to make his 6th and final horcrux with the > > killing of Harry, and that failed, then there should be two Voldy > > bits floating around, no? ... > > Exodusts: > Not if the spare bit went into Harry OR if the split never occurred > because Harry didn't die. > bboyminn: Just my opinion, but I think you have a distorted view of the nature of soul bits. Logically Voldemort has killed many many more people than he has made Horcruxes, so do you claim that all those soul bits are wandering free somewhere looking for a living body or inanimate object to inhabit? I don't think so. Any soul bit that is not specifically and intentionally removed from the core soul for purposes of a Horcrux, remains with the core soul as part of the seventh and final Horcrux which is Voldemort himself. When Voldemort was Vapormort, any soul-bit that may have existed remained with the core-soul in the forest of Albania. I believe that it is the nature of the soul, even a damaged soul, to stay together in something approximating one piece. It doesn't seem in the nature of the soul to allow itself to be separated. That takes a conscious, direct, and willfull act on the part of the soul owner; it is a very unnatural state for the soul. I'm quite sure the various and many soul-bits didn't go wandering off on their own, but again, that's just my opinion. > > bboyminn: > > ... > > For this to work, I submit the following speculation. > > > > First, Harry, Ron, and Hermione will spend two weeks at the > > Dursley and hilarity will ensue. Then they will go to Bill's > > wedding. Then they will be off to Godrics Hollow. Then back to > > the Dursley where Harry prepares to leave them forever. > > Immediately after Harry's 17th Birthday, the DEs will attack > > and the Trio will be forced to defend the Dursleys. > > > > ...edited... > > Exodusts: > > It's not clear from HRH's conversation at the end of HBP exactly > what order things are going to happen in. HRH could end up going > to the Dursleys, then to the Wedding, or vice versa ... Try this > for an opening - > > HRH go to The Burrow 1st. This enables LV to launch a mass attack, > attempting to kill Harry ... because Harry would be too safe at > the Dursleys with their protection, but not safe enough at the > Burrow ... > > Naturally, Harry is packed off straight back home after the > wedding, .... Ron and Hermione go with him. ... Dudley tells > Harry that Vernon & Petunia went to London, to check out the > value of 12 GOP .... LV had set a watch on the Dursleys ... > Anyway, HRH end up having to go to 12 GOP with or without a sad, > repentant Dudley, and rescue V & P from a Death Eater ambush > at 12 GOP. ... > bboyminn: That's a perfectly good alternative scenario, though I could quibble with some small bits of it. I'm not trying to dictate what /will/ happen, merely trying to come up with a sequence of event that allows events that we think are likely to happen...to happen. Personally, I don't like the idea of the attack happening at Grimmauld Place. That would pretty much eliminate the Black House from the story, even though we know that some significant events will likely occur there, like finding the Locket Horcrux. I think an early attack at the Black House would force them to abondon it, since clearly the Death Eaters would know where it is and would be watching it. Also, as a side note, while Dumbledore's Secret Keeper Charm may have been broken, we know that the Black House is thoroughly protected by Sirius's ancestors with ever muggle repelling and protection charm known to man. Even without the Secret Keeper Charm, which can be re-instated with a new Secret Keeper, the Black House is more thoroughly protected than most magical places...or so I speculate. So overal, your idea is as good as any, and certainly makes a reasonable account of the time and events, which may other speculations fail to do. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From drednort at alphalink.com.au Thu Feb 16 20:53:55 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 07:53:55 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: References: <43F48CCF.206.A00AA53@localhost> Message-ID: <43F58113.5091.2C1C8E@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 148254 On 16 Feb 2006 at 17:34, kkersey_austin wrote: Elisabet: > My points being: 1) Dictionaries respond to changes in usage; 2) > generally they do so slowly; 3) the dictionary definition derives its > authority from its ability to conform to usage, not the other way > around. In short, I'm with the descriptivists. Shaun: So am I, in general. And normally I wouldn't bring a dictionary into the discussion, unless there was a need to define a word people really didn't know. But in this case, other people have brought dictionaries into the discussion, and I think that some of the definitions given in those dictionaries are *way* too loose. Many modern dictionaries seem to try to put in 'simple definition' of a word because they are trying to a broad market that includes people with relatively poor literacy skills, or who are trying to use a dictionary to look up words in their second language. Older dictionaries, generally catered to a market that was better able to handle complex and precise definitions and didn't feel this need. My point is that just because a definition is listed in a dictionary that doesn't make it precise. A large number of modern dictionaries seem to act almost as if they are thesauruses as well - as if synonym means equality of meaning rather than similarity of meaning. With regards to definitions of sadism, I think a definition that gets down to the level of saying 'sadism' means 'extreme cruelty' is such a definition. It's so broad as to be meaningless in terms of using the word properly, though it's a useful definition for somebody who encounters a word they have never seen before and need a quick and dirty understanding so they can get on with reading something. Useage does determine meaning. But taken to extremes, that leads to Humpty Dumpty English - "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'" And that renders language useless. Words can still be misused. And in my view, I really do believe that when people use the word sadism to merely refer to cruelty (or even extreme cruelty) they are misusing that word. Maybe in another twenty years or so, language will have changed to the extent that sadism is just another word for cruelty, but I don't believe it's happened yet, even if some people are using it that way. Even in a world where useage does dictate language, misuse can still occur. They may as well use the word cruelty. One of the great strengths of English is that we do have so many synonyms in our language - words with similar meanings, but which differ in nuance. And while it might be unreasonable to expect the average person in the street to always get the nuance right, when you're discussing a novel or a series of books in detail, the nuances are often significant. > Much as I love the OED, it's a great place to start, not always a > great place to end your research. And as Michael Quinion noted, it is > not a "tablet of law", particularly for current usage. The chief > editor himslef explicitly cautions against the myth of the dictionary > being the final arbiter of "proper English" in the preface to the > Third Edition. [2] > > In a previous post, you insisted that the "precise" definition of > sadism requires that the perpetrator experience some degree of sexual > pleasure - well, sure, I'll grant you that *if* the word is being used > in a psychiatric context. But it wasn't. It was being used in > colloquial conversation by a writer with no medical training that I've > ever heard of. And come to think of it - to be more *precise*, she > didn't use the word "sadism", she used the word "sadist". Elisabet: > So, once again, the OED definition of "sadist": "...more generally, > someone who derives satisfaction from inflicting pain or asserting his > or her power over others." > > Satisfaction? Sounds like Snape to me, on any number of occasions. Shaun: And as I've said a number of times, that doesn't sound like Snape to me. I don't see real evidence that Snape derives satisfaction from inflicting pain. But I think I can understand why others see that, and if so, then yes, they are using the word 'sadist' correctly. Bringing up definitions though, in my case, wasn't meant to address that idea. I don't have a problem with that definition (I just don't believe it applies). It's just that somebody has presented a dictionary definition that merely says 'extreme cruelty' - and that's a definition I do have a problem with. It's just too broad to be meaningful. > Now I'm going to veer off-course and bring up the way JKR used a > certain word in a book, as opposed to an off-the-cuff interview remark. > > Despite Arthur Levine's dictionary-citation defense [3], I still have > a problem with "fug" being left on a window in HBP Ch3. "Fog" would > work fine in that sense, but has "fug" *ever* been used anywhere else > to mean condensed vapor? Not saying it hasn't, but as far as I can > tell, e.g. by searching on news.google, it is always used to described > a close, smokey or stinky atmosphere - e.g. that of a smoke-filled > tavern. It's a great word, but surely there was a better place to use > it - perhaps at the Hogshead. > > Incidentally, the OED definition of "fug" is "A thick, close, stuffy > atmosphere, esp. that of a room overcrowded and with little or no > ventilation", and alternatively indoor football. No citations come > close to using it to refer to anything that could form on a window, > but then, there's no mention at all of the widespread usage of the > word as a euphemism for - well, I'm sure most of you can figure that > one out. ;-) Shaun: Actually, I think that's because that 'most widespread usage of the word' is actually considered to be a obfuscation mispronunciation, rather than a euphemism (and I'm also surprised at the idea that it's the most widespread useage - maybe where you live it is, but I've actually *never* heard that useage at all, and only encountered it in reading in the last couple of years. I also assumed that JKR's use of fug in referring to the window was intentional descriptive metaphorical use, rather than a misuse of the word. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 21:13:51 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:13:51 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: <43F58113.5091.2C1C8E@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148255 > Elisabet: > > > So, once again, the OED definition of "sadist": "...more generally, > > someone who derives satisfaction from inflicting pain or asserting his > > or her power over others." > > > > Satisfaction? Sounds like Snape to me, on any number of occasions. > > Shaun: > > And as I've said a number of times, that doesn't sound like Snape > to me. I don't see real evidence that Snape derives satisfaction > from inflicting pain. But I think I can understand why others see > that, and if so, then yes, they are using the word 'sadist' > correctly. Bringing up definitions though, in my case, wasn't meant > to address that idea. I don't have a problem with that definition > (I just don't believe it applies). It's just that somebody has > presented a dictionary definition that merely says 'extreme > cruelty' - and that's a definition I do have a problem with. It's > just too broad to be meaningful. Alla: Gah. I feel bad for myself to waste the post solely for self- clarification purposes, but I think I have to, just to make my position absolutely clear. I also don't think that sadism equals "excessive cruelty". I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that I think that JKR primarily used definition two of sadism ( what Elisabeth just brought up) and MAYBE definition three, but that was, really just in case sort of comment, to cover all my bases, so what I DO see in the books is Snape enjoying Harry and Neville suffer, not in the sexual sense, no, but suffer nevertheless. And I don't want to bring all the canon examples again ( will if necessary, but I had been parroting myself a lot as it is :-), but IMO and IMO Snape does do it. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 21:24:27 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:24:27 -0000 Subject: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black Was: Did DD tell Anyone Else Why He Trusts Snape In-Reply-To: <004801c632d1$a8109310$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148256 Sherry wrote: > First of all, I have a suspicion that Hagrid might know why Dumbledore thought he could trust Snape. More than anyone but DD, Hagrid has always defended Snape to Harry, but never explained it. > > Secondly, since Chapter 2 of HBP, can we really say Harry is skewing the truth completely about Snape's role in the death of Sirius? He may be wrong about the how, but I am not convinced that he is wrong. After all, Snape does take credit for somehow contributing to the death of Sirius. If it wasn't true, Narcissa and Bella would certainly have known that, because Kreacher went to Narcissa with his information. So, if it was only Kreacher, I'm sure one of the sisters would have challenged Snape on his claim. Carol responds: First, I'm sure you're right that Hagrid knows at least part of the reason why DD trusted Snape (I won't say "thought he could trust" because I suspect that DD was right to trust him) and I hope to hear from Hagrid and possibly Aberforth (or even Phineas Nigellus) in that regard. Someone has to be able to provide the reader and Harry with that information, and you're right that Hagrid, alone of the Order members and Hogwarts teachers, steadfastly defended Snape until it *seemed* to be impossible to do so. As for what Snape could have revealed to LV about Sirius Black, Black himself points out that Wormtail would have revealed to LV that he (Black) was an Animagus. (No doubt he also revealed that Lupin was a werewolf if he had not already done so.) We know that Kreacher revealed the bond between Black and Harry. And we know that Snape could not reveal the location of Order Headquarters. What could he have revealed that would have helped to develop LV's trust in him (or what passes for LV's trust) without betraying Dumbledore and the Order? I think he revealed when he returned to LV after the events in the graveyard that Black had returned to England and was working with Dumbledore. That, combined with Wormtail's previous revelation, would have been sufficient for Lucius Malfoy to figure out the identity of the big black dog (which acted a little too human) on Platform 9 3/4. Malfoy passed on this tidbit to Snape, who passed it on (rather smugly and sarcastically) to Black. So SB *knows* that "his big disguise is useless" and that LV (and the Death Eaters) know he's in the Order. He knows that his own safety requires him to stay at 12 GP. And Snape tells him on the night of the Battle at the DoM to remain at 12 GP and wait for Dumbledore. That he ignores this advice is the result of Black's desperate need for action combined with his affection for Harry and is no fault of Snape's despite their mutual antipathy. So I would say that, yes, Snape can truthfully claim to have provided some sort of information to LV about Black, but since Snape gives Bellatrix full credit for the murder of her cousin, she doesn't stop to ask what the information was or to determine whether it really contributed to her cousin's death. The fact remains that if Black had remained in 12 GP he would still be alive because Snape could not reveal his whereabouts, regardless of anything else that LV knew about him from Snape or Wormtail or Kreacher. IOW, he could even reveal to LV (under cover of his animus against Black) that Black was staying at Order HQ without any harm to Black, who was protected from detection by the Fidelius Charm as long as he remained there. It was his own decision to leave 12 GP and his own bravado in fighting his cousin too close to the Veil that enabled her to kill him. Had he listened to Snape (not that he would have done so), he would still be alive. As for Narcissa not challenging Snape's claim, her mind was on one thing only, the desperate danger her son was facing. Nothing Snape said to Bellatrix would have mattered to her. She was already convinced of Snape's loyalty to LV, and all she wanted from him was his help in protecting Draco from the terrible consequences of failing to complete his assigned task. Little things like the information he had given LV or why he hadn't killed Harry Potter were of no consequence to her. All that mattered was Draco's plight. Carol, who thinks that Snape relies on partial truths and suppressed information to persuade his hearers (not just Bellatrix but Draco, LV, the DEs, and quite possibly Harry) to draw the conclusions he wishes them to draw From rkdas at charter.net Thu Feb 16 21:25:41 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:25:41 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148257 SNIPPED Lupinlore wrote: She really is a > wonderful example of how what she thinks she writes, what she really > writes, and what people read are three very different things. I also > think she suffers from the problem that she knows her characters so > well that statements and actions that seem absolutely clear to her are > anything but to readers -- the best example possibly being her horrible > mistep with regard to Dumbledore's speech at the end of OOTP. SNIPPED AGAIN> > > Lupinlore Hi Lupinlore: I found this comment, the last sentence very interesting because I didn't understand it. I wasn't on the list much in the wake of OOTP and the famed "yahoo search engine" revealed nothing for my troubles. Could you enlighten me as to the disaster that was DD's speech at the end of OOTP? If you have a post or something to point me to, that would be fine too. Thanks! Jen D. > From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 21:43:09 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:43:09 -0000 Subject: Ollivander / Fortescue / Krum's Crucio / Horcrux / Bk7 Opening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148258 exodusts wrote: " Are you saying the good guys can't fake a Dark Mark? And how do we know that there was no Dark Mark when Regulus "died"? DD could have arranged other "deaths". It is clear that DD could have come up with some kind of fake death if needed. The fact that he didn't suggests that Ollivander is not under his protection, but is out on his own somewhere." CH3ed: I think the good guys could have faked the dark mark, maybe (very iffy.... Arthur said in GoF that only the DEs knew how to cast that spell)... and quite risky, there may be a requirement of being branded by a dark mark scar in order to cast a perfect dark mark, and the fake ones would be not exactly the same (maybe). But I actually said that 'the good guys wouldn't have thought Regulus was killed by the DEs or LV had there been no dark mark hovering over his body'. So I mean there must have been a dark mark over him, or Sirius and others wouldn't have attributed his death to the DEs. Yep, I agree that DD could have arranged it so that he faked Ollivander's death by accident or other causes from the DEs, but I don't think we know enough to conclusively say that because that didn't happen then DD must not have had anything to do with Mr. Ollivander's disappearance. The offer DD made to Draco on the top of the tower was specific to Draco and could have been pulled off in context. It would have been entirely plausible and likely that Draco would have been killed in a face to face duel with DD. Even LV would believe it. In fact LV expected it. With Ollivander the circumstance is quite different. I was surprised that nothing happened to him right after GoF. He was in business as usual through out OotP (long after LV had that priori incantatem experience with Harry), so that he sold a replacement wand to Neville after the battle at the MoM. So there was plenty of time for Ollivander with or without the help of DD to plan his own disappearance. I'm curious to see how it all turns out in Book 7. Exodusts wrote: " I prefer the Fortescue-Portrait connection. Voldemort has been in DD's office - see HBP - and later realised that the ice cream seller in Diagon Alley was the descendant of the portly wizard in the portrait above DD's desk. Consequently, he captured Florian and got word to the portrait, via other portraits in Florian's house, that unless it starts passing information on what goes on in DD's office, the relative will suffer gruesome torments." CH3ed: I like this scenario. That would force ex-Headmaster Fortescue to breach his loyalty to the current Headmaster, tho. In OotP we heard one of the portraits (don't have the books with me, but it could have been Fortescue himself) say that they are bound by honor to serve the current headmaster. So I don't know if there is a magical contract there or is it really an honor thing. I imagine the portrait Fortescue could have told DD the whole scenario and trusted DD to come up with a solution. CV wrote: " If Voldy was going to make his 6th and final horcrux with the killing of Harry, and that failed, then there should be two Voldy bits floating around, no? The bit that didn't become the horcrux and the one he intended to keep in his body. I'm thinking that now that he is corporeal again, he could have made horcruxes to replace the lost ones, if he knows they are lost. But in his first pass, I'm thinking there must have been one less horcrux than Dumbledore thinks. Does anyone agree?" CH3ed: Nah. I think DD is right. Besides, LV already killed 2 people at GH that night before he turned his wand on Harry (James and Lily were murdered by LV too). LV had killed way more people than the number of Horcruxes he wants. I think 7 may turn out to be the limit of the number of time one's soul can be divided. Murdering is so bad that after 7 intentional murders one is pretty much as bad as a person can get. Also, I don't think soul pieces can just float off from the main soul without being forcibly detached by the Horcrux making spell (I don't buy the Harry is a Horcrux theory at all). As far as I've read, DD's count makes the most sense. CH3ed :O) From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 21:27:36 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:27:36 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: <20060216170104.83669.qmail@web86210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148259 Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > > That's very possible, but if that's the truth, I don't > understand Rowling's game at all. If she wanted Snape > to be ambigous, and his treason in book 6 to be > surprising, then she didn't do such a great job, did > she? > Certainly Harry (together with the majority of the > readers) had never expected from Snape any better. > Surely she didn't wrote the whatever ambiguity is > there just to surprise the small number of > Snapeophiles among us? :-) > The mysteries about Snape have to come to an end sooner or later. Given the divided nature of the fandom, however the mysteries end, there are going to be people saying, "But that's not a surprise!" If Snape turns out to be ESE many people will shrug and say they knew it all along. If he is OFH some of us will say, "Sure, isn't it obvious?" And if he's DDM lots of people will say "I knew THAT all along, where's the surprise?" However the mysteries end, people who enjoy spinning explanations for Snape and his behavior will probably never be able to read the books in the same way again. In fact even people who don't care much about Snape will have that reaction. They'll read a particular passage and say "Well, now I know what that means," and move on, rather than mulling and chewing and spinning. It's like reading an Agatha Christie novel for the second time. Now that you know who dunnit, the novel's "feel" is irrevocably different. And, once again, I think that's going to happen regardless of how JKR parts the veil on Snape. It's just the nature of a mystery solved and a secret revealed. Lupinlore From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 22:10:06 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:10:06 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148260 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > some forms of intent often end up sneaking in the backdoor when > you start factoring in things like the author's ethnic/cultural > background, class, etc. Yes, but the question is whether that's a matter of "intent" or a result of the author's background. > > Well, the reader sees the complexity. The reader doesn't create it. > I have to disagree. For instance, it is up to the reader to > furnish all of the varying motives we've thrown into the mix for > Snape. In the past week and one thread, we see readings which are > mutually exclusive: Snape pushes Neville because he thinks it will > get the kid to learn, Snape pushes Neville the way that he does > because he enjoys watching the kid suffer, Snape doesn't really > care one way or the other. There's nothing in the text which says > it must be one of these three, plain and simple: the reader could > well say "He's just an ass of a character" and leave it at that, > which is a very simple reaction, but which does cover everything > textually. As a teacher, I don't think those motives are mutually exclusive at all. In fact, I've felt all three at once. In a general sense, I "don't care" whether a student passes or not because I can't afford to care. I have had thousands of students and if I cared that hard, I'd lose my mind. In another sense, I do occasionally like to make my students suffer--I particularly enjoy making a point of not letting them get away with pulling any crap. I am not "sadistic" but some students do think I'm "mean". However if they evolve and learn because of that, I am happy for them and it's part of the learning process. > We are the ones who spin the stories of Snape's profoundly > conflicted nature and his struggle to do the right things despite > his hatred. Every reader tells himself a different story, which > leads me to believe that it's more the readers than the story. Or > rather, it's a story which is constructed to encourage readers to > spin stories. Well, that's true...the problem is that some interpretations hold water and some don't. Not all are equally supportable. The "Snape is a vampire" theory, for example. There's nothing in the text to support that. Likewise, there's nothing to suggest he's having a sexual relationship with Harry, or anyone else for that matter. No evidence to support that either. But support for the notion that he's conflicted, working for good, working for evil, punishing his students, teaching his students, doesn't care, does care, or all of the above... Plenty of support for all those things. > > > Snape lies. I would find such a "revelation" suspect. > > Yes, one can always apply the "character X is lying" function to get > rid of anything unwanted or inconvenient. Especially, of course, if that character happens to be a proven and habitual liar. > This is a constant lurking danger in reading, > that what author cares about and what readers do is so different. That's part of the fun! > > -Nora thinks: who cares about that Siegfried guy, anyways... > You mean Sigmund, don't you? Unless you're talking about that guy who got attacked by the lion.... ;^) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 22:46:58 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:46:58 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: <43F58113.5091.2C1C8E@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148261 > Shaun: > > So am I, in general. And normally I wouldn't bring a dictionary > into the discussion, unless there was a need to define a word > people really didn't know. But in this case, other people have > brought dictionaries into the discussion, and I think that some of > the definitions given in those dictionaries are *way* too loose. zgirnius: Well, I thought the discussion was about what Rowling means when she calls Snape a 'sadistic teacher' in that one interview. It seems quite plausible to me that she might not adhere exclusively to usages which have the iprimatur of the OED, especially when speaking extemporaneously. Perhaps it is not correct to use 'sadistic' when one means 'extremely cruel'. But it is apparently a common enough usage to make it into three different online dictionaries. Which is why I brought it up. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 22:58:43 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:58:43 -0000 Subject: Faking Ollivander's Death by Death Eater Attack? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148262 Can't find the exact spot to make this point so I just make it as an independant thought. Many people seem to think that Dumbledore would have faked Ollivander's death to look like a Death Eater attack, but doesn't that seem extremely unlikely? Again, at this point, I'm not arguing whether Ollivander's death was faked, only questioning the wisdom of doing so by a fake Death Eater attack. If anyone would know what the Death Eaters are doing it would be Voldemort and the Death Eaters. So, if they knew that they had not attacked Ollivander, then wouldn't the fake attack seem pretty...well, you know...FAKE? I think for the members of the wizard world, a certain degree of ambiguity and uncertainty would have a much greater effect. With that uncertainty, nothing could be done. Ollivander couldn't be declared dead because there was no proof, yet he could not be declared alive, because there was no proof of that either. His estate and property would remain unsettled for a significant period of time. The wizard world, like us, would probably speculate that he had gone into hiding on his own, others would speculate that the Ministry was hiding him, others would speculate that Voldemort had killed or kidnapped him, others would speculate that he had merely gone on holiday until the trouble was over, other would speculate that he had emigrade to America where he planned to set up a new wizard wand shop, other would speculate that he had retired, etc.... Meanwhile, Voldemort and his crew would be going through their own set of similar speculations. I think this /uncertainty/ carries far more dramatic weight both inside the wizard world, and out here in the world of the reader. Plus, it mixes it up a bit. We already had two significant people killed outright (Bone and Vance), so a couple of disappearances, one uncertain and one with a clear struggle provide some variety to the story. Further, disappearances were certainly part of what was happening during Voldemort's first reign of terror. So, to some extent, JKR is just fullfilling themes she had set up earlier in the story. It is certainly fun to speculate on what might have happened to Fortescue and Ollivander. I desperately hope they are all right, because I like them both and need them for my fan fiction (pardon me for being greedy). But, I think the absolute LEAST likely thing to have happened to either one of them is a fake DE attack staged by Dumbledore. That simply would not work on any level. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 23:38:32 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:38:32 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148263 justcarol wrote: > Black > himself points out that Wormtail would have revealed to LV that he > (Black) was an Animagus. (No doubt he also revealed that Lupin was a > werewolf if he had not already done so.) Snipping the rest of Carol's post because this just jumped out at me... how can Lupin be spying on the werewolves? Surely Peter's told Voldemort that he's a member of the Order? And even if we hold our noses and guess that he DIDN'T, why would Dumbeldore send him on a spying gig when his cover would have been pre-blown? Fernir Greyback is both a werewolf and a DE, and I have a hard time picturing him refraining from ripping Lupin's throat out if he knows that he's a spy for the Order. Maybe Lupin is pretending to be a double-agent like Snape but I don't really see how he could pull that off. -- Sydney, confused in Culver City From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 23:49:12 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:49:12 -0000 Subject: Ambiguous Snape (was:Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148264 > >>Betsy Hp: > > It could be. But then I expect JKR is setting up Harry to heal > > Snape, to find that lost boy and bring him out. Which seems a > > fairly formidable task, > >>a_svirn: > Not just formidable ? entirely futile. You can't bring out someone > who is no more. Or do you go with the assumption that Snape conceals > more than one personality within himself? Something like horcrux- > hidden-in-his-own-body theory? The best one can hope is that Harry > brings about yet another change ? this time for the better. Not that > he's likely to rise to this particular challenge, though. (But then, > why should he?) Betsy Hp: Just to clarify: I was riffing off of Nora's suggestion (see up- thread). I don't really think the good in Snape (represented by the boy in the potions text-book) is lost or buried or anything like that. I think Snape has evolved, certainly, but he's still got that core to his character that is quite similar to Harry's. It's what led him to the path of redemption he's been walking down for so many years, it's what led him to have such a deep loyalty to Dumbledore, and, ironically, it's what leads him to judge himself so harshly. (Leading to those punishing cross-country runs, the Clash blasting in his ipod... hee!) So I do agree that Harry won't waste his time trying to make Snape into something he's not. Instead, Snape will use all of his strength to help Harry become what he must. Oh my God, the humanity!! ::snuggles Snape some more, with feeling:: At least, that's my opinion. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 00:06:28 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:06:28 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148265 > >>Sydney: > Snipping the rest of Carol's post because this just jumped out at > me... how can Lupin be spying on the werewolves? Surely Peter's told > Voldemort that he's a member of the Order? And even if we hold our > noses and guess that he DIDN'T, why would Dumbeldore send him on a > spying gig when his cover would have been pre-blown? > Fernir Greyback is both a werewolf and a DE, and I have a hard time > picturing him refraining from ripping Lupin's throat out if he knows > that he's a spy for the Order. Maybe Lupin is pretending to be a > double-agent like Snape but I don't really see how he could pull > that off. Betsy Hp: This is totally the story of Lupin!! He is confusing from beginning to end. First he comes across as gay and madly in love with Sirius (how else to explain his willingness to let Sirius kill Harry), and then suddenly he's shacking up with Sirius's cousin. And being such a killer lover she's heart-broken after their, what, week-long? affair. Then he's supposed to be the "sensitive" Marauder, the most grown-up, etc., etc., and yet here's Harry suffering like crazy, and not word one from Lupin. Has Harry *ever* received a letter from that man? And he was cold as ice when it came time to kill Peter. Just a "sorry, Peter, but you can't possibly be surprised, and shall it be on three, Sirius?" like killing's his life work. There's all this talk that Snape is this man of mystery and once the mystery's solved, blah, blah, blah. But we know *tons* about Snape when we compare him to Lupin. Most of the stuff people claim to be true about Lupin is totally based on assumption and fanon. Not that I'm going for ESE!Lupin. I'm not going for *anything* with Lupin, because he's just so darn hard to get a read on. And this impossible to believe spying job is only part of it. I can't tell if he's JKR's ace in the hole, or just an afterthought. Betsy Hp From sopraniste at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 00:14:22 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:14:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060217001422.29416.qmail@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148266 > Betsy Hp: > (how else to explain his willingness to let Sirius > kill Harry) I snipped the hell out of this, because I'm not willing to discuss your sexual delusions. WHA??? Where did you get the idea that Remus was willing to let Sirius kill Harry???? Or are you labouring under the same misapprehension Snape was in the Shrieking Shack? Please explain. Flop __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Fri Feb 17 00:21:39 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:21:39 +0100 Subject: definitions in discussing Harry Potter (was: multiple Snape!) References: <43F48CCF.206.A00AA53@localhost> <43F58113.5091.2C1C8E@localhost> Message-ID: <00b201c63358$1fbfcd00$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148267 Shaun Hately wrote: > My point is that just because a definition is listed in a > dictionary that doesn't make it precise. A large number of modern > dictionaries seem to act almost as if they are thesauruses as well > - as if synonym means equality of meaning rather than similarity of > meaning. > > With regards to definitions of sadism, I think a definition that > gets down to the level of saying 'sadism' means 'extreme cruelty' > is such a definition. It's so broad as to be meaningless in terms > of using the word properly, though it's a useful definition for > somebody who encounters a word they have never seen before and need > a quick and dirty understanding so they can get on with reading > something. Miles: We had this problem before, and I'm afraid we won't solve it in this case. The reason is simple: this list mirrors real life ;). Remember the discussions on the term "child abuse" we had? Some people tried to introduce correct (that means scientific) definitions of it to show that there is no child abuse on Snape's side. Some listies simply sticked to their own "private" definitions of child abuse, some members interpretated those definitions very wide (IMO incorrectly) to support their opinion that Snape *is* a child abuser. The discussion ended (or paused) in disagreement. I agree with you that we should try to use words in a correct way, but I'm afraid that we neither will come to an agreement about it on this list, nor that we all would read the same definitions in the same way even if we agreed on it. Shaun Hately wrote: > Words can still be misused. And in my view, I really do believe > that when people use the word sadism to merely refer to cruelty (or > even extreme cruelty) they are misusing that word. > One of the great strengths > of English is that we do have so many synonyms in our language - > words with similar meanings, but which differ in nuance. And while > it might be unreasonable to expect the average person in the street > to always get the nuance right, when you're discussing a novel or a > series of books in detail, the nuances are often significant. Miles: You address a general problem not only affecting English, but German as well (and I suppose most other languages in "our" cultural environment): some words seem to blur, nuances seem to vanish, simplicity abounds. Maybe this observation is wrong (like the ancient Greeks who considered the modern youth worthless), but I think it is partly a result of democratising of language. There are much more people who actually *write* in public than only ten years ago - this list is part of the reason: the internet. People are encouraged to express their thoughts not only privately, they write on lists, they write blogs, they participate in forums etc. Discussing literature is not a domain of (more or less) well educated people any more - so maybe insisting on most exact definitions is a lost battle. Frankly - I think that some blurred definitions are a fair price for reading those interesting opinions that noone would have noticed only ten years ago. Ahm... and I'm afraid there is a special problem in English as well, and I'm a part of it. English is second or third language for many people, who have (or like) to write in English - in business, science, and discussions on literature. Just speaking of myself, it's often difficult for me to find the word that really matches the nuance I want to express. Although I work with several dictionaries that mostly offer a long list of meanings (try German "Bedeutung" here: http://dict.leo.org/) it is almost impossible to always find the correct word. And I don't think that the problem are the dictionaries ;). Miles, apologising for being slightly off topic From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Feb 17 00:26:03 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:26:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black References: <20060217001422.29416.qmail@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01e301c63358$bd046bc0$4b92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 148268 >> Betsy Hp: >> (how else to explain his willingness to let Sirius >> kill Harry) > > I snipped the hell out of this, because I'm not > willing to discuss your sexual delusions. Maria Holub: > > WHA??? Where did you get the idea that Remus was > willing to let Sirius kill Harry???? Or are you > labouring under the same misapprehension Snape was in > the Shrieking Shack? Please explain. Magpie: I thought she was referring to the rest of PoA where Remus holds the dominant view on Sirius--that he's a traitor who killed 12 Muggles and betrayed James and Lily and killed Peter and is now trying to kill Harry--yet still keeps the important information that perhaps Sirius is slipping into the school in his dog form to himself. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 00:34:12 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:34:12 -0000 Subject: Ambiguous Snape (was:Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148270 Betsy Hp: > Just to clarify: I was riffing off of Nora's suggestion (see up- > thread). I don't really think the good in Snape (represented by the > boy in the potions text-book) is lost or buried or anything like > that. I think Snape has evolved, certainly, but he's still got that > core to his character that is quite similar to Harry's. a_svirn: What can you possibly tell about the boy in the textbook, except that he's talented in Potions and Dark Arts? Unlike the Pensive Episode or Riddle's Diary, it does not reveal much about his personality. Certainly there is nothing to suggest that he's "good" much less "like Harry". Admmitely, there is nothing to suggest that he's "bad" either, but still it's hardly a key to his soul. > Betsy Hp: It's what led > him to the path of redemption he's been walking down for so many > years, it's what led him to have such a deep loyalty to Dumbledore, > and, ironically, it's what leads him to judge himself so harshly. a_svirn: How do you know that he judges himself harshly? Then again, if he does, it's not to be wondered at: the road of redemption he'd been walking for so many years led him straight into the dead (spinner's?) end. It's seems to me that something is not quite all right with his brand of redemption ? one that cannot be achieved without committing a murder. From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 17 00:37:02 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:37:02 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <83529D9A-9F4D-11DA-ADEA-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148271 On Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 06:06 PM, horridporrid03 wrote: > He is confusing from beginning > to end.? First he comes across as gay and madly in love with Sirius > (how else to explain his willingness to let Sirius kill Harry) ??? I have never seen any indication of this whatsoever. Please provide canon. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 16 21:37:21 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:37:21 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148272 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" wrote: > > Could you enlighten me as to the disaster that was DD's speech at the > end of OOTP? If you have a post or something to point me to, that > would be fine too. > Thanks! Hmmm. Well, to make a long, long, long story very short, many people found Dumbledore's speech in OOTP to be cold and unsympathetic, particularly when he was talking about Harry and the Dursleys. He seemed to brusquely cut Harry off when Harry protested that Petunia didn't love him, and to generally have the attitude "You're alive kid, so you don't have any right to complain about anything." Worse, perhaps, he gave the impression that he was fully aware of the situation at the Dursleys and even expected it, and that he either did not care or actually approved. This all was the subject of several extremely loooooooooooooooooooong and viciously contested threads having to do with Dumbledore's attitudes and plans, the Dursleys, the nature of the abuse they inflicted on Harry, etc. The threads were pretty much closed off when JKR clarified all this with Dumbledore's confrontation with the Dursleys -- a confrontation that in some ways seemed to repeal part of his speech in OOTP. Lupinlore From deliquescehp at googlemail.com Thu Feb 16 22:24:03 2006 From: deliquescehp at googlemail.com (Shelley) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:24:03 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ollivander / Fortescue / Krum's Crucio / Horcrux / Bk7 Opening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98ff2d890602161424h281f45f2h@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148273 > > Exodusts wrote: > The problem with this idea is that it still doesn't resolve the > principal weakness with the DD-hides-Olivander theory. Here is the > quote, from the American edition of HBP, that deals with DD's > proposed methods of hiding: > > "He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right > side Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly > imagine. What is more, I can send members of the Order to your mother > tonight to hide her likewise. Nobody would be surprised that you had > died in your attempt to kill me -- forgive me, but Lord Voldemort > probably expects it. Nor would the Death Eaters be surprised that we > had captured and killed your mother -- it is what they would do > themselves, after all. Your father is safe at the moment in > Azkaban...When the time comes we can protect him too." > Shelley: I was shocked when I read this-- I didn't remember the suggestion that DD would fake the Malfoy's deaths AT ALL. And sure enough, when I went to my edition of HBP, this is * exactly* what I found: 'Come over to the right side, Draco, and we can hid you more completely than you can possibly imagine. What's more, I can send member sof the Order to your mother tonight to hide her likewise. Your father is safe at the moment in Azkaban...when the time comes we can protect him too...come over to the right side, Draco...you are not a killer...' (UK adult ed, 552-553) [ellipses as in text] Are the UK and American editions *that* different? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gsopko at stratos.net Thu Feb 16 22:32:27 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (sir_lafayette2000) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:32:27 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148274 I am new to HP for Grownups so forgive me if this matter has been resolved. In re-reading the books I have noticed something regarding McGonagal and her relationship to Dumbledore. In the opening scene, she has been standing guard outside of Number 4 Privet Drive, apparently since early in the morning possibly 6 or 7 hours after James and Lily Potter were killed. The timing seems right as Minerva possibly may have just arrived as she is reading a map and looking at the street sign just as Dursley is leaving for work, presumably early in the morning. I believe that McGonagall arrived way too early at Privet Drive and this may well be a clue that Rowling has planted right at the get go of the books. Dumbledore did not know she was there based on his comment when he spots her about "I might have known". Her response as to why she was there was that Hagrid had told her. She also did not know that the rumors were true that James and Lily were dead nor that Voldemort was gone. Hagrid had been at Godric's Hollow, knew that they were dead yet failed to tell her more than Harry apparently was to be taken to 4 Privet Drive. In the scene in the Hospital Wing in H-BP after Dumbledore has died, when everyone is being transfixed by the phoenix song, it is McGonagall's entrance that breaks the "magic" of this moment. Further Harry refuses to tell her where he and Dumbledore have been or what his plans are, even tho she is a member of the Order of the Phoenix. I suspect that McGonagall was not entirely trusted by Dumbledore and may well be a spy for the Ministry of Magic. Which might also explain her contempt for the High Inquisitor earlier in the story. Given Rowling's penchant for placing clues, this may well become more important to the story in Book 7. "sir_lafayette2000" From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Fri Feb 17 00:52:47 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:52:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060217005247.87858.qmail@web37003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148275 Jen D.: >> Dumbledore theorizes that LV made Nagini a horcrux with the death of an old muggle man (Frank Bryce) and this was when he only had the tiny scaly baby body. That to me seems very amazing. I was under the impression he was pretty much helpless at that point. Am I missing another muggle that DD could have been refering to? If this is the murder, it definitely seems that Peter would have had to have helped. Makes you wish Harry's dream could have gone on another few minutes. << Hi Jen, I believe it was indeed Frank that he was talking about (as he was the only muggle out of Voldie's wand during the graveyard scene in GoF). I re-read the passage about Frank's death, and it was indeed Voldemort who cast the AK spell on Frank (in his baby-esque form). Then Harry wakes up, so we don't know if the Horcrux-creating spell was preformed or not. But this is what makes me think it was: It was Voldemort himself that used his wand to kill Frank. In the graveyard scene, it was Wormtail using Voldemort's wand to AK Cedric. Why not just make Wormtail kill Frank? It must have taken a lot of energy to AK Frank and possibly Horcrux his soul into Nagani, why weaken himself further? He had already mentioned to Wormtail how weak he (Voldie) was. He killed Frank for a reason, instead of making his croonie do the deed. I have another question about the Riddle house. Who is "the wealthy man that owned the Riddle house" (pg 10, GoF, UK edition)? Any ideas? Will it be important later on? Whoever it is still pays (paid) Frank to tend it. Catherine From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 01:32:55 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:32:55 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: <83529D9A-9F4D-11DA-ADEA-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148276 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 06:06 PM, horridporrid03 wrote: > > > He is confusing from beginning > > to end. First he comes across as gay and madly in love with Sirius > > (how else to explain his willingness to let Sirius kill Harry) > > ??? I have never seen any indication of this whatsoever. Please provide > canon. > Sydney: I don't have canon to hand, but I thought JKR was hinting at Lupin having a thing for Sirius too! By his 'willingness to let Sirius kill Harry', I think, like Sister Magpie, that Betsy was referring to Lupin keeping all the info he had on how Sirius could get into the castle (the animagus thing and the secret passages) to himself. Lupin attributes this to his fear of disappointing Dumbledore by revealing the Marauder's escapades some 20 years back. This seemed like a bit of thin excuse to me. It's hard to find specific canon for the R/S thing of course (although the joint christmas present to Harry was suggestive), but it was a very popular theory before HBP. I confess I was a bit disappointed at JKR slamming shut the speculation. Although... Tonks was VERY persistent, and, well, we do know how much Remus hates to DISAPPOINT people... LOL, to me he reads so much like the closested guy who marries the lovely girl and is the perfect husband except for there's always something a little.. off. Anyways, my original question, of how Lupin could be spying if Peter knows he was in the Order, still stands... it's enough to make one an ESE!Lupiner! Not that I am (I don't feel the story going that way at all), but like so much about Lupin it all seems hunky-dory until you have a close look. Maybe the cover story is that Lupin's switched sides since back in the day, on account of being outed by Snape? -- Sydney, who uses way too many elipses... From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Fri Feb 17 01:34:18 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:34:18 -0000 Subject: Umbridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148277 > > Carol responds: > Interesting idea, but a Dementor sucking your soul doesn't kill you. > As Lupin explains in PoA, your brain and other organs continue to work > and your body remains alive. It's just your soul that's irretrievably > lost, which is why Lupin tells Harry that having your soul sucked out > is *worse* than death. > La Gatta Lucianese: This is why I think Voldemort is going to be dealt with by that "snack- happy" dementor. He will be left alive (and conscious, if the brain continues to function) in his monstrously deformed shell of a body until he dies of old age. Or more karmic yet, Harry, instead of destroying the last Horcrux, will be forced to leave it in some place no one, including Voldemort, can get to it. So his soulless body will continue to live forever, or as long as the Horcrux-soulbit survives, rather like Gollum, whom, coincidentally, the movies show him to resemble. I think this is what Dumbledore means by "there are things much worse than death" (OotP.36). I interpret the aftermath of a Dementor's Kiss to be a form of extreme depression that leaves the victim without happiness, hope, purpose, or will. As Lupin tells Harry (PoA.10), "Get too near a dementor and every good feeling, every happy memory will be sucked out of you....You'll be left with nothing but the worst experiences of your life." The Kiss itself leaves the victim with "...no sense of self, no memory, no...anything....You'll just--exist. As an empty shell..." (PoA.12). From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 17 01:49:48 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:49:48 -0600 Subject: Character behaviour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148278 On Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 03:37 PM, lupinlore wrote: > > > Hmmm.? Well, to make a long, long, long story very short, many > people found Dumbledore's speech in OOTP to be cold and > unsympathetic, particularly when he was talking about Harry and the > Dursleys.? He seemed to brusquely cut Harry off when Harry protested > that Petunia didn't love him, and to generally have the > attitude "You're alive kid, so you don't have any right to complain > about anything."? Worse, perhaps, he gave the impression that he was > fully aware of the situation at the Dursleys and even expected it, > and that he either did not care or actually approved. > (only leaving Lupinlore's post in because it leads me to these thoughts. This is not aimed at anyone in particular but some fans in general) kchuplis: I am once again absolutely boggled by the expectations of some people as to how characters are supposed to behave or act. This is just plain silly. Dumbledore had two choices; leave Harry with a wizarding family where he could be tracked down in about two seconds flat or leave him with the Dursleys. If I was him I would have made the same decision. I don't quite know either, when the entire end of OoTP revolved around DD's feelings FOR Harry, made plainly clear that it could be considered cold in any manner. But I am equally baffled how people assume that because Lupin loved his schoolmates, probably the ONLY people who had ever shown him compassion and kindness and gone to considerable risk for him has to be IN love in order to achieve this. Or because he lived in #12 (What, Lupin is supposed to live in the gutter when one of his best friends, who is desperately lonely after 13 years of isolation with only dementors around has lodgings and most likely offered #1 because he was lonely and #2 because Lupin has no home, no job, no nothing. Is he supposed to say "Sorry, old chum, wouldn't be seemly." Would any of you not do this for someone who was your BEST friend??) . Do people have NO close friends whom they aren't IN love with but still love?? Am I so unique in this regard to understand one can feel loyalty and love for someone and yet not want to be jumping into bed with them? To be honest, some of the things I read utterly befuddle me in regards to how egoistic people become in regards to how characters should behave or express themselves. It seems ultimately self defeating as well. If all characters behaved just as we would like, how boring a book would THAT be? I, at any rate, am more interested in complex relationships than having things all nice and neat. Look at the choices these "people" have. Is it so easy? Should DD just risk it that Harry can be protected by wizards when his own parents, powerful wizards with more vested in Harry's welfare than any other family, could not? And Lupin, should he have told DD about SIrius ability? Yes, but we know he doesn't have a great deal of backbone, that he is downtrodden and doesn't even fight for himself. Yet, he is going to tell DD this when he feels it will demean him in DD's eyes (right? no, but human, yes.), PLUS, it's pretty hard to cut old ties, old beliefs. He may accept what the MoM says of Sirius, the reports, but if it was me, I'd have a hard time believing it of MY close friends especially when it runs contrary to what I know of that person's character (everyone seems to agree that NO one would have believed it of Sirius). I don't think so, but Lupin also isn't the type that would be marching around the MoM with the sign "Free Sirius Black". And is Lupin any different than everyone else who seem to feel as long as Harry is with DD at Hogwarts, no matter how close Sirius gets he's safe? This thought is expressed over and over. But suddenly Lupin is supposed to expose his secret, his friends secrets as easily as you open a jar of spaghetti? That's what is so lovely, to me, about all these characters. They make real choices, mistakes and decisions and they aren't some cardboard cut out of the citizens of Happy Peachy land. A book could be written about each of them. If they were all just really nice folks who always did the right thing these books wouldn't be worth opening. IMO. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 01:58:23 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:58:23 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: <20060217001422.29416.qmail@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148279 > >>Betsy Hp: > > (how else to explain his willingness to let Sirius > > kill Harry) > >>Flop: > I snipped the hell out of this, because I'm not > willing to discuss your sexual delusions. Betsy Hp: Heh. Okay. A bit rude, I think, but okay. > >>Flop: > WHA??? Where did you get the idea that Remus was > willing to let Sirius kill Harry???? Or are you > labouring under the same misapprehension Snape was in > the Shrieking Shack? Please explain. Betsy Hp: Sirius came into Hogwarts with a knife and stood right next to Harry's bed. Lupin knew how Sirius may have gotten into the castle, and he knew how Sirius might have gotten past the Dementors. He said nothing. Why? Betsy Hp From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 17 01:58:36 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:58:36 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148280 On Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 07:32 PM, Sydney wrote: > This seemed like a bit > of thin excuse to me.? kchuplis: See my "character behavior" post. Syndey: > It's hard to find specific canon for the R/S > thing of course (although the joint christmas present to Harry was > suggestive), but it was a very popular theory before HBP.? kchuplis: OK, my last post for the night as I have trespassed upon the elves enough but just where was Lupin supposed to get money for a gift? And was Sirius supposed to say "it's MINE MINE alone to Harry". If Sirius and Lupin were a "thing", Sirius would have delved into the coffers and bought poor Lupin some clothes. THAT would be more convincing to me than the things everyone brings up. I would buy that one. Otherwise, I guess I just have discovered that few people have close platonic relationships in real life apparently. (And I point out that I have numerous gay friends and am in no way shy about it. I just think folks are doing an *awful* lot of wishful thinking here.) From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Fri Feb 17 02:04:17 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:04:17 -0000 Subject: My 7 book 7 predictions In-Reply-To: <227.5fa66ea.311d4c62@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148281 > ... > > > > Luckdragon: > > > 3) Snape will be redeemed. > ... > > Exodusts: > 3) He will be simultaneously mortally wounded/redeemed in a vital > strike against Voldemort, saving Harry. Just time for a > reconciliatory chat with his last breath. > > Julie: > That's what I expect also. Nothing else to add ;-) > I still like the idea of Snape being saved at the last minute by Neville. It would be the ultimate pay-back--Snape having to live with the thought that he owes a life debt to Neville Longbottom. > > > > Luckdragon: > > > 4) Someone utterly shocking will be revealed as ESE! > ...> > Exodusts: > 4) No. Snape being revealed as ESG! is the "big twist" of book 7. > > Julie: > LOL, but I don't think so. Snape will remain ESC!, or ever-so- conflicted, > too steeped in bitterness to slough off his nastier traits, but compelled > by his loyalty to Dumbledore and his own conscience (yes, I do think > he has one) to do the right thing (when it comes to the bigger picture > anyway). He will also be revealed as DDM!, which will be an eye- opener > for Harry. Hmm, Snape and Harry, two sides of the DDM coin ;-) > La Gatta Lucianese: I also like the idea of him turning out to be not only DDM but Harry's cousin on the distaff side. Interesting excuse for rapprochement, and Harry would learn the reasons (besides Snape's hatred of James) for all the sniping, detentions, and other meanness during Harry's stay at Hogwarts. Also what really happened that night on the Astronomy Tower. > > > > Luckdragon: > > > 5) LV will succumb to the Dementor's Kiss after Harry destroy's > > > the > > > Horcruxes. > ... > > Julie: > I like the idea of the Dementor's sucking the soul part out of Harry's > scar! In fact, maybe that's why they're so attracted to Harry. And if > LV is soul-sucked by the Dementors, that's not really dying, but > living on as a soulless shell. (Though it still seems like dying to me, > unless it's analogous to being fully paralyzed with your mind intact, > since how else would one know how dreadful their soul-sucked > existence is?) > La Gatta Lucianese: See my last post. I think dying is too good for Voldemort. I don't think it's Harry's place to kill him, any more than it was Frodo's to kill Gollum, though Harry may want to out of pity when he sees what Voldemort has become. I doubt Harry is a Horcrux; this has been argued against well and thoroughly in previous posts. I don't think Harry will turn into Frodo Potter. He has too much resilience. If nothing else, his horrible childhood has taught him to bounce back. Perhaps that's why he's such a good dementor fighter. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 02:10:42 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:10:42 -0000 Subject: Ollivander / Fortescue / Krum's Crucio / Horcrux / Bk7 Opening In-Reply-To: <98ff2d890602161424h281f45f2h@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148282 > Shelley: > Are the UK and American editions *that* different? > zgirnius: Yes, they are. The US edition includes the statement "He cannot kill you if you are already dead." From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 01:48:34 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:48:34 -0000 Subject: The Fidelius Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148283 Hi all, I have a question. In The Prisoner of Azkaban Professor Flitwick explains this charm to Madam Rosmerta. His explanation for this charm is that it is a very complex charm to conceal a secret inside a living soul. My question is this -- if this charm is what was used on Pettigrew then what was the consequences of his actions for breaking this promise? I know the consequences for breaking an Unbreakable Vow is death as defined in HBP, but I can't find where the consequences of this one is; does any one know? Fuzz876i From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Fri Feb 17 01:49:59 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:49:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Lupin and Sirius??? Was: Re: Lupin's Spying, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060217015000.31895.qmail@web37011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148284 Sydney: (mercilessly snipped...) I don't have canon to hand, but I thought JKR was hinting at Lupin having a thing for Sirius too! (although the joint christmas present to Harry was suggestive) Catherine: Hi... I never saw anything between Lupin and Sirius. The joint gift from them was because Lupin has no money to buy a present for Harry being a werewolf and unable to find work. I don't think it was any more than that. And I do believe that a person can be in denial so much so that they can even justify situations that happen because they are in denial. "Sirius can't be using the old passageways into the castle. Filch must know about them by now. How could a great big black dog get into Honeydukes without anyone noticing. He must have found another way" "Nobody got hurt when he broke in, no harm was done." Someone as lonely and desperate as Lupin must have been the last 13 years, I can easily see that happening. Catherine (who really loves Lupin, and would be heartbroken if he was ESE!) (And I'd still love him if he were in love with Sirius...) From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 02:40:56 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:40:56 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148285 > > This seemed like a bit > > of thin excuse to me. > > kchuplis: > See my "character behavior" post. I read your character behaviour post. I was especially fond of the bit about people being egotistical about how characters should behave... I think you were reading WAAAY more into my post than I meant. > kchuplis: (*snippage of anti-gay-Lupin arguments*) Otherwise, I > guess I just have discovered that few people have close platonic > relationships in real life apparently. (And I point out that I have > numerous gay friends and am in no way shy about it. I just think folks > are doing an *awful* lot of wishful thinking here.) Well, I never said OMG how could JKR lead us on like that?!?! I said it was a popular theory, which is was, and the very obliqueness of the 'clues' is what made it a fun theory. Obviously that's not where JKR was going with it. But I honestly don't see where it was a CRAZY theory, given that Lupin was still 'keeping his friend's secrets' after being pretty sure his friend had murdered another friend and his wife and twelve people and was now after some kid. You'd think ANY information would be, uh, pertinent, particularily information on, like, secret passages and impenetrable dog-disguises. And then they move in together and start giving joint Christmas presents. Like I said, oblique, sure, but not CRAZY. Or 'egotistical'. Don't get me wrong, I LIKE Lupin. I have no problem seeing him as a lovely guy with issues about confrontation. I don't see where his character would be that different if he was gay or straight. I wasn't that attached to the gay Lupin theory, I just enjoyed people's arguments in support of it, thought it seemed plausible, and thought it would be rather like JKR to slide something in like that in an allusive manner. -- Sydney, who STILL wants an answer to the spying!Lupin conundrum. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Feb 17 02:41:16 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:41:16 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148286 kchuplis: > OK, my last post for the night as I have trespassed upon the elves > enough but just where was Lupin supposed to get money for a gift? And > was Sirius supposed to say "it's MINE MINE alone to Harry". If Sirius > and Lupin were a "thing", Sirius would have delved into the coffers and > bought poor Lupin some clothes. THAT would be more convincing to me > than the things everyone brings up. I would buy that one. Otherwise, I > guess I just have discovered that few people have close platonic > relationships in real life apparently. (And I point out that I have > numerous gay friends and am in no way shy about it. I just think folks > are doing an *awful* lot of wishful thinking here.) Ceridwen: I will jump in on this myself. Don't people have close friends? Friends in a non-sexual context? We just studied about this in Sociology, Alexander's relationship with Hepaistion. Alexander referred to his friend as Philalexandros, Friend of Alexander. An article at http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?paraID=42 ends with this: "Greek philia included a level of friendship that was particularly intense, one which is sometimes difficult for us now to grasp. In our societies, friendship all too often exists on the boundaries of other relationships --- those with our family or lovers. For the Greeks, though, such was not the case, and perhaps they were richer for it. " I've got a particularly close friend. We've known each other since we were five. Great stories of close friendships were often written in the past, with no further meaning than that the main characters were close friends. Period. Why does everything have to boil down to this one thing, when the emotional bonds of friendship can be so deep, deep enough to transcend the physical? My own feeling is that we started swinging the other direction when we (okay, hippies, yippies and flower children) started rebelling against the closed-mouth attitude toward sex we saw in our parents. Fine and good, but then it became everything is about sex instead of the other extreme. As for Remus and Sirius, and James as well, these are people who shared common interests, a common dorm room, common classes. They had similar outlooks on life though different personalities. They lived in close quarters for ten months out of every year, for seven years. They were probably as close as brothers. Of course Sirius would take Remus in when he was destitute. How could he do anything else and still live with himself? Remus would most definitely be Philsirius. Even if Sirius got Remus clothes, I wouldn't assume a gay relationship. Until HBP, the books didn't seem to be about 'ships, other than the usual adolescent crushings, so there was no reason, other than exploring all types of relationships through the physical in fandom, to look beyond the obvious. Giving clothes to the needy would be a charitable act if they didn't know each other. It would be almost expected, I think, for such close friends. Remus might react with some shame at needing such a gift, and Sirius might respect his feelings on this. People do have pride. An afterthought: Another thing they shared, which Remus was reluctant to divulge even to Dumbledore, was their monthly transfomations together. This had to be extremely bonding between them. To learn something that is difficult just to keep a friend company is showing true friendship. And doing something the wrong side of the law together (becoming Animaguses but not registering) bound them in yet another way, through secrecy. I expect that Lupin had a lot of issues about this - the potential danger to his friends, breaking the law, being the cause of their breaking the law, having this problem that his friends rose to comfort, just to name a possible few. Which makes PP's defection even more shocking, IMO. After all of this, after bonding in these ways, how could he deliberatly turn the Potters over to Voldemort? But this leads to wondering why Remus would believe such a thing, even partially, about Sirius. Though, evidence was there, down to eyewitnesses. I do have to agree with Karen, that it's hard to imagine that people don't have such close friendships these days. It's a shame, really. And the friendship between the Marauders, and between Harry, Ron and Hermione, are part of the reason I like the HP series so well: Because it's such a nice thing to see! Ceridwen. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 02:47:38 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:47:38 -0000 Subject: It's "blood" that counts (Was: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148287 Potioncat wrote: > Hagrid doesn't like Muggles. He's the type of person who might end up saying something like, "Muggles are so stupid (crude, dishonest fill in the blank)! Of course, your parents aren't like that, Hermione." > > He may actually like a Muggle or a Mugggleborn, but in general expects someting inferior from Muggles as a group. Mrs. Black on the other hand, would have nothing to do with any Muggle or Muggleborn. Hagrid wouldn't bait a Muggle for the heck of it, but wouldn't hesitate to use magic on one. Carol responds: So are you arguing that his prejudice is based on the absence of magic rather than the absence of magical blood, and that somehow makes it better than Mrs. Black's, if only because he doesn't scream his insults as soon as the Squib or Muggle enters his presence? Granted, he refrains from calling a Muggleborns "Mudbloods," suggesting that he doesn't view their blood as polluted, but he would certainly consider the Muggle *parents* inferior even while acknowledging their *child's* magical abilities. And surely the use of magic against a Muggle, especially a child, is worse than calling a Muggleborn (who has the power to defend herself against more than mere words) a "Mudblood." It's as if he viewed women as inferior and hesitated to use sexual slurs against them but did not hesitate to take advantage of his greater physical strength. That's hypocrisy at best. Or, if that's a flawed analogy, I fail to see how it's better to insult a person for being nonmagical (a Squib or Muggle) than to insult their blood. Maybe the difference is simply that Hagrid's prejudice is not as maniacal as Mrs. Black's (at least the portrait version of her, which is all we're allowed to see). He has likeable qualities and she has none, so maybe it's easier to excuse him. Potioncat wrote: > Mrs. Black doesn't like someone if they are Muggleborn, or half-blood just on principle. Phineas wasn't complaining that Mundungus was a Half-blood. He was complaining that Mundungus had stolen from the house and he used "Half-blood" in the same way Hagrid used "nag." (Not that I'm excusing it.) If he learns that Snape killed DD he might exclaim, "that traitorous half-blood!" even though he didn't hold the half-blood status against Snape before. > Carol responds: Or maybe Phineas just assumes that with Snape's obvious intelligence and talents, he must be a pureblood? I like Phineas Nigellus, but he *is* using "half-blood" as a term of abuse, and I really don't see how that's much better than "Mudblood." If he knows that Snape is a half-blood but refrains from mentioning it when he thinks that Snape is a good guy but uses it against him when he learns that Snape killed DD, wouldn't that make him a hypocrite, not regarding Snape but regarding his choice of insults? (BTW, I don't expect anything of the sort to happen, because Phineas has witnessed a great many conversations between Snape and DD and would consequently know a lot more than Harry does about their relationship. I only hope that JKR puts that knowledge to use in Book 7.) > > Potioncat: who thinks Phineas is Snape's great-great grandfater as > well as Sirius's. > Carol: I thought when I read OoP that Snape must be on that tapestry somewhere, but for some reason not in Harry's line of sight when he looked at it with Sirius, and after HBP I'm almost certain of a Prince/Black connection. Let's say that one of Phineas Black's granddaughters married a Prince and produced Eileen. If Eileen had married a pureblood, Severus would have shown up on the tapestry as "1 s" (one son) since Eileen's maiden name wasn't Black. But since she married a Muggle, she would have been burned off the tapestry. Still, if that's the case, we should be able to find her specific burn mark when we see the complete tapestry. Even if I'm wrong about the exact relationship, I do hope to see a clear connection between the Black and Prince bloodlines. I'm guessing that the Princes were purebloods with a family history of placement in Slytherin. That's the only explanation I can come up with for Severus's precocious knowledge of hexes. (If Eileen had been a boy named Edward with a Prince father and a Black mother, would she have been Edward the Black Prince? ;-) ) Carol, hoping that Potioncat is right about Sirius and Severus being at least third cousins but not sure how it would fit into the plot of Book 7 From kkersey at swbell.net Fri Feb 17 02:56:21 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:56:21 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148288 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sir_lafayette2000" wrote: > > I am new to HP for Grownups so forgive me if this matter has been > resolved. Elisabet here: Welcome! I've just recently returned after a long absence, myself, but I've lurked off and on for years now. Trust me, just about any matter you can think of has been discussed, but very, very few resolved. ;-) Since you are new, you may not be aware of the classic ESE!McGonagall post by the late, great Elkins (well, she's still around somewhere, I'm sure, just not on this list): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39470 (It's a TBAY post, a style popular on this list back in the day - I can't begin to explain how to make sense of the narrative parts, but I think there's a guide around here somewhere that makes a stab at it. Just skip to the theory and supporting canon.) Read and enjoy! Elisabet From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 02:57:41 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 02:57:41 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148289 > >>Syndey: > > It's hard to find specific canon for the R/S > > thing of course (although the joint christmas present to Harry > > was suggestive), but it was a very popular theory before HBP.? > >>kchuplis: > OK, my last post for the night as I have trespassed upon the elves > enough but just where was Lupin supposed to get money for a gift? > > Otherwise, I guess I just have discovered that few people have close > platonic relationships in real life apparently. (And I point out > that I have numerous gay friends and am in no way shy about it. I > just think folks are doing an *awful* lot of wishful thinking here.) Betsy Hp: Hmm, I'm afraid I kind of set the cat amongst the pigeons here, and I apologize for that. I was, rather flippantly I'll admit, trying to enumerate the many ways Lupin confuses me. Just when I think I've got a bead on him, he does something I'd have labeled as completely out of character. A less provoking example would be his general mildness with Harry compared with his ability to coldly face executing Peter. However, it's insulting to suppose that those of us who saw signs of Lupin being a gay man (and it *was* a subtle, coded, thing) are incapable of either recognizing or having platonic friendships. It kills any sort of conversation dead. Which should not be the point on this sort of list. Speaking of which.... > >>Sydney: > Anyways, my original question, of how Lupin could be spying if Peter > knows he was in the Order, still stands... it's enough to make one an > ESE!Lupiner! Not that I am (I don't feel the story going that way at > all), but like so much about Lupin it all seems hunky-dory until you > have a close look. Maybe the cover story is that Lupin's switched > sides since back in the day, on account of being outed by Snape? Betsy Hp: Lupin tells Harry that he's amongst the werewolves when Harry asks what he's been up to "lately". He uses it to excuse his not writing Harry any letters. (HBP Scholastic p.334) Which suggests this is a new thing. Also, Lupin was amongst the Order members who faught at the MoM. Could his presence have gone unnoticed? Could he have been sure enough it went unnoticed to feel even semi-secure joining Fenrir? However, there's a bit about the laws tightening down on werewolves in OotP, so it could be that more "passing" werewolves are joining the rebel packs. He does say he's having difficutly gaining their trust, so it doesn't sound like he's in the inner circle. Which also leads me to wonder if he's had a chance to even meet Fenrir. How big are these packs anyway? The way Fenrir goes about things there could be a greater number of werewolves running around than we've been lead to believe. Also, Fenrir, as the "face" of the werewolves may try and keep away from the pack to help keep them well hidden. But that's sheer speculation. Betsy Hp (fourth post, sorry) From Nanagose at aol.com Fri Feb 17 03:08:09 2006 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:08:09 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148290 > Sydney > Snipping the rest of Carol's post because this just jumped out at > me... how can Lupin be spying on the werewolves? Surely Peter's > told Voldemort that he's a member of the Order? And even if we hold > our noses and guess that he DIDN'T, why would Dumbeldore send him on > a spying gig when his cover would have been pre-blown? > > Fernir Greyback is both a werewolf and a DE, and I have a hard time > picturing him refraining from ripping Lupin's throat out if he knows > that he's a spy for the Order. Maybe Lupin is pretending to be a > double-agent like Snape but I don't really see how he could pull > that off. Christina: Well your answer is right in your question - Lupin is spying on the *werewolves*, not on Voldemort. He presumably doesn't have any contact with him. What reason does Fenrir Greyback have for telling Voldemort the names of his entire werewolf pack? What reason does Peter have for informing Voldemort of the names of people in the Order? A completely plausable story for Lupin to give Greyback would be to say that after Sirius's death, he became disillusioned with the "good" side. Think of all that Lupin has lost during the two wars - I don't think it would be difficult for him to spin a story of "Sirius's death was the last straw" to get in Fenrir's good graces. Even if Fenrir discussed Lupin with Voldemort (and I see no reason why he would), Voldemort and Peter have no proof that Lupin is *still* in the Order. Peter only knows that Lupin was a good guy back in the first war, and up through the events of PoA. Moreover, Peter's knowledge is obsolete, because we know that Fenrir bit Lupin (a planned attack on a boy whose name he knew) and probably knew his loyalties from back in the first war anyway. Some such remorse story must have been spun to get Lupin in the werewolf pack in the first place. The whole concept of spying in the HP Universe (and in general, really) rests on "change of heart" scenarios. Regardless of which side Snape is really on, he "spun a tale of deepest remorse" when he turned to Dumbledore. I doubt Peter grew up a vile child who dreamed of one day helping to murder his best friend - he had a change of heart also, and switched his loyalties. It doesn't matter if Lupin's loyalties from the first war are common knowledge, because it's completely plausable that he has since had a change of heart. It is Lupin's enthusiastic participation in the battle at the end of HBP that outs him to the werewolves, not his previous participation in the Order. Christina From gsopko at stratos.net Fri Feb 17 02:41:29 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (Gregory Sopko) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:41:29 -0500 Subject: Ambiguous Snape (was:Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) References: Message-ID: <002c01c6336b$abc0e2e0$190cd6d8@magnumtwdmyxdv> No: HPFGUIDX 148291 Betsy Hp: > I think Snape has evolved, certainly, but he's still got > that core [of good] to his character that is quite similar > to Harry's. > > It's what led him to the path of redemption he's been walking > down for so many years, Gregory: I believe that what led Snape down the path to redemption is that he was with Voldemort in Godric's Hollow the night James and Lily were killed. Snape tried to save Lily and failed which is why he turned to Dumbledore. It also explains why Snape hates Harry so much as it reminds him that Lily loved James and not Snape. Snape's love also explains why Dumbledore trusts Snape because he knows how much Snape truly hates Voldemort for killing Lily. From gsopko at stratos.net Fri Feb 17 02:55:00 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (Gregory Sopko) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:55:00 -0500 Subject: "Can't kill you if you're already dead...", Snape's redemption (was Re: Ollivander / Fortescue / Krum's Crucio / Horcrux / Bk7 Opening) References: Message-ID: <007201c6336d$8bb059c0$190cd6d8@magnumtwdmyxdv> No: HPFGUIDX 148292 > Shelley: > Are the UK and American editions *that* different? > zgirnius: > Yes, they are. The US edition includes the statement "He > cannot kill you if you are already dead." Gregory: It occurs to me that that statement about 'You can't kill someone who is already dead', is the key to Snape's eventual redemption. DD was dying from the poison left by Voldemort which also probably killed RAB. So Dumbledore is saying Snape didn't really kill DD despite the unforgiveable curse. From gsopko at stratos.net Fri Feb 17 03:14:01 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (Gregory Sopko) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:14:01 -0500 Subject: Minerva McGonagall References: Message-ID: <009401c63370$3416a1d0$190cd6d8@magnumtwdmyxdv> No: HPFGUIDX 148293 Elisabet here: Since you are new, you may not be aware of the classic ESE!McGonagall post by the late, great Elkins (well, she's still around somewhere, I'm sure, just not on this list): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39470 Gregory: Thanks for the link, I found it highly interesting, and very much along my own lines of thinking; it's hard for me to believe I missed the fact that McGonagall often wore Slytherin colors. Interesting. I am more convince tho that she is a Ministry spy like a Percy Weasley type rather than a Death Eater. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Fri Feb 17 03:37:59 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:37:59 -0000 Subject: "that awful boy" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148294 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "agdisney" wrote: > > Andie here: > > What does anyone think of Petuna & "that awful boy?" > If I remember my teenage years and girlfriends/boyfriends, if a girl > really liked a certain boy & he did not feel the same, a teenage girl > would do and say anything to cover up her feelings to others. > Such as: Didn't you want to date John? Who him, he's a jerk or "an > awful boy." > > Maybe Petunia actually liked that awful boy and Lily stole him away or > made fun of her sister with that boy. Maybe that is one reason why > Petunia hated her sister so much and since he was part of the WW she > also hated him. > > If it was James, her treatment of Harry seems more logical. In her > point of view, Harry could have been her son if Lily hadn't interfered. > La Gatta Lucianese: It may have been James, or it may have been Snape, or it may have been someone completely off the roster (Lupin?). Whoever it was, it sounds as if Petunia expressed an interest and was rebuffed or ignored because the young man had eyes only for Lily. By the way, what kind of parents name one of their daughters Lily and the other Petunia? The lily is the emblem of purity; hence its presentation to Mary at the Annunciation; whereas the petunia in the Language of Flowers stands for resentment and anger, and at the very least the name is a sort of joke used in name-calling. It sounds at the very least as if they were guilty of a certain amount of favoritism. Does canon ever indicate which of the girls is older? I have a feeling, but only a feeling, that Lily was. From Nanagose at aol.com Fri Feb 17 03:42:05 2006 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:42:05 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148295 > Betsy Hp: > > However, it's insulting to suppose that those of us who saw signs of > Lupin being a gay man (and it *was* a subtle, coded, thing) are > incapable of either recognizing or having platonic friendships. It > kills any sort of conversation dead. Which should not be the point > on this sort of list. Christina I personally have never understood the exasperation concerning platonic friendship that comes with the suggestion of Lupin/Sirius. Canon is clear that Lupin had several male platonic friends - James and Peter, of course, and he seems to get on well with Moody and Bill and Arthur Weasley also. The suggestion of Lupin/Sirius is to suggest that Lupin is together with one of his friends, not all of them. Hermione is together (err..sort of) with one of her male friends, but nobody screams out in exasperation, "Don't people understand that friendships can be platonic?!" because Hermione, like Lupin, has other platonic friendships that are satisfying and contain no sexual undertones whatsoever (Harry, Neville). Even more ridiculous than the notion that friendships *must* have sexual undertones, is the suggestion that no friendships *ever* have sexual undertones. Just because platonic friendships exist, does not mean that all of one's friendships are platonic. Some of a person's close relationships are bound to have sexual or romantic undertones, just by chance. Which isn't to say that Lupin-as-gay or Lupin/Sirius are airtight theories (or well-rounded theories at all) because they aren't, but there are avenues of objection that make a whole lot more sense than saying, "Can't they just be friends?" because in real life, a lot of friendships do grow into something more. It's just a matter of theory and preference, like LOLLIPOPS (or ACID POPS, if they're more your style) or ESE!Anybody. > Betsy Hp: > Which also leads me to wonder if he's had a chance to even meet > Fenrir. How big are these packs anyway? The way Fenrir goes about > things there could be a greater number of werewolves running around > than we've been lead to believe. > > Also, Fenrir, as the "face" of the werewolves may try and keep away > from the pack to help keep them well hidden. But that's sheer > speculation. Christina: I do think he's probably met Fenrir, just because Fenrir would recognize his name (and probably his face also, considering Lupin's lycanthropy is pretty much public knowledge now), and want to welcome him into the pack or whatever. But I think you're right about Fenrir not being around the werewolves a lot (and not having much contact with Lupin) - I think his status as a Death Eater gives him other work to do that is away from his "pack." Lupin is just one guy in the entire pack. Why would Fenrir even see a reason to take a special interest in him? Christina From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Feb 17 03:53:39 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 03:53:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's speech (Re: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148296 Lupinlore: > Hmmm. Well, to make a long, long, long story very short, many > people found Dumbledore's speech in OOTP to be cold and > unsympathetic, particularly when he was talking about Harry and the > Dursleys. He seemed to brusquely cut Harry off when Harry protested > that Petunia didn't love him, and to generally have the > attitude "You're alive kid, so you don't have any right to complain > about anything." Worse, perhaps, he gave the impression that he was > fully aware of the situation at the Dursleys and even expected it, > and that he either did not care or actually approved. Jen: Since the topic came up again and I missed my chance on the last go-round, there's something I wanted to add here. More information in HBP spurred an 'aha' moment for me about that speech in OOTP. No, not Dumbledore's talk with the Dursleys but the interesting information about how Merope died and the interview after HBP when JKR said Voldemort was 'never loved'. That new information made me decide a purely literal take on that speech cuts out the metaphorical value of Dumbledore's words. Dumbledore speaks of Lily's love as a literal protection from Voldemort which flows in Harry's veins. But I'm speculating once Godric's Hollow is revealed and Harry sees the moment Lily sacrificed herself, he will see an actual physical manifestation of her love enclosing him and protecting him from the AK (which seems like how JKR might write i.e. similar to the golden phoenix light in GOF or the Patronus protecting him in POA). I think Harry will then understand Dumbledore's charm prolonged for 17 years not only the physical protection against Voldemort, but Lily's very real feelings of love inside of him as well. I think Harry will believe Lily's love was worth more than a different family to live with just as Dumbledore did when he sealed the charm. And not just in defeating Voldemort but something that protected and sustained Harry all the hard years at the Dursleys and during stressful times at Hogwarts, the same very real emotional protection any live parent's or guardian's love offers a child. Basically I just don't think we're at the end of the line for that crucial part in the story as Lily's main importance is yet to be revealed. Jen R. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Feb 17 04:46:08 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 04:46:08 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148297 Jen wrote: "Didn't someone already propose that the DE's actually *did* take Trelawney with them when they left because she wasn't at the funeral? It was odd there was no mention of her; I figured she was partying in the Room of Requirement and lost track of time. But maybe a couple of DE's never left the ROR and simply kidnapped Trelawney back through the Vanishing Cabinet before it was disabled by the Order." CH3ed: Nah. If it was odd that the presence of Trelawney wasn't mentioned at DD's funeral, it would be doubly odd that her absence from the school since the DEs' raid on Hogwarts had gone totally unnoticed and unmentioned by anyone. Had Trelawney been abducted then her disappearance would have been big news, ay? Jen: Wait, I think it would be the other way around wouldn't it? No one noticed Trelawney wasn't at the funeral because she's typically absent. So then her absence from kidnapping could be overlooked for quite awhile. Her walking the halls in HBP kept her in Harry's (and our) view for the later drama of her kidnapping , but wouldn't necessarily mean staff or students would expect her for the funeral instead of holing up in her tower. Hmmm, it does get into a circular argument though, doesn't it? ;) > Jen: Your post made me think of another question rather than an > answer: What exactly *was* Voldemort's goal in HBP? Dungrollin: > ('Lo, Jen!) > I reckon he had three goals (most important first). > 1. Test Snape's loyalty. > 2. Get rid of DD. > 3. Punish Lucius. > Actually 1 and 2 are pretty equal in terms of importance, I think; > getting Draco involved was just the icing on the cake. > > Voldy's already tried to kidnap/kill Harry, twice before, and > neither time worked out great, so he switched strategy, and > decided (particularly after it became obvious in that duel in the > MoM that he couldn't beat DD in a straight fight) to get DD out of > the way by more Slytherin means. I think, after two failed > attempts on Harry Potter's life, he was justified in changing tic- > tacs. Jen: Hey Dung! Hope you're still there as it took me a couple of days to get back to this one. Still, why didn't Voldemort take advantage of Dumbledore's death to swipe Harry when he was unprotected? Voldemort said in the graveyard Harry is protected at his relatives because of Lily's sacrifice and protected at Hogwarts by Dumbledore. So you'd think the moment he got Dumbledore out of the way would be the perfect moment to take Harry away to an undisclosed location again even if not planning to immediately kill him. Unless Harry's many escapes are making Voldemort wonder if he *can* kill Harry. I still think it's plausible he's wondering about the prophecy and whether there's something in there to explain Harry's many escapes from certain death, or what his protection may be beyond Lily. I do agree LV's minor goals were your #'s 1 & 3 above. > Jen previous: > So Voldemort's goal was to get Dumbledore out of the way, but not > in order to kidnap Harry. In fact, it's possible Dumbledore was > even aware Voldemort had another goal because when you think about > it,Dumbledore didn't make any obvious attempt to protect Harry > after his death. Fawkes left, Snape left. The Order didn't > immediately spring into action and take Harry to a secure > location. For whatever reason Dumbledore seemed to believe Harry > was safe in the short-term even if he died. > Dung: > Many posters (or perhaps just a few ? it's so difficult to tell, > sometimes) want to make Snape unaware of Draco's task. They read > him as bluffing in Spinner's End when he said that he knew what it > was, trying to get Bella and Narcissa to give him information. I > don't buy that at all. I think Snape knew all about it before > Narcissa came to visit him, and he'd already discussed it with > Dumbledore. ("He intends me to do it in the end...") Jen: Do you mean Snape was actually referring to Dumbledore there and not Voldemort when he said 'he intends me to do it in the end'? Now that would shed a new light on the tower! I may be misreading and you are simply using that quote to back up that Snape did know the task. My guess is Snape was placed at Hogwarts as a spy way back when 16 years ago for the eventual purpose of killing Dumbledore, so he was well aware what his use to Voldemort was. Narcissa and Bellatrix weren't giving him new information except perhaps the part about Draco being involved. Not sure about that. > Dung: > I don't think Voldy found out that DD knew about the Horcruxes, > that would (to my mind) count as a major emergency, and he > wouldn't hang about for a year letting Draco fail, he'd have got > Snape on the job immediately, or launched a full-on assault on > Hogwarts. You know, try to kill DD before he *told* anyone or > anything... Jen: You're probably right. Voldemort would consider safeguarding the horcruxes the first priority beyond any other plan. Dung: > As for orders to leave Harry alone, it seems perfectly plausible > that Voldy had had enough of failing to kill him, but was angry > enough about it to not want anyone else to have the pleasure. > Going at it piecemeal, getting rid of DD The Protector first > sounds sensible to me. Plus the fact that Voldy's now using > Occlumency against Harry, makes it rather look like The Harry > Problem was put on hold for a year. Jen: So getting rid of Dumbledore with the eventual plan of getting to Harry. It seems almost too rational for Voldemort. He obsesses about the prophecy, about killing Harry. I guess he was shaken up by not being able to possess Harry and thus is employing Occlumency against him. But it seems like that would make him even *more* intent on a way to kill Harry, which leads back to the prophecy in his eyes, which leads back to.....Trelawney. Dung: > Regarding the prophecy, it does seem a little odd, doesn't it? To > spend an entire year and a lot of effort trying to find out its > contents and then the next year petulantly stamp your foot and > shriek "I didn't want to know anyway, and I'm going to have the > man it was told to murdered, so there!" > > Has Voldy got over his obsession? Has he decided it doesn't matter > any more? Or has someone already told him what he needs to know? > Argh, don't ask me to fathom the way an evil overlord's mind > works... Jen: Hehehe. Now we do know how his mind works, though--very irrationally and with fixations to say the least. He was irrationally obsessed with the prophecy and I still think he very much wants and needs that information. In his mind it holds the key to Harry's ability to defy him four times because he sets so much store by it. Dung: > Btw, can anyone tell me off the top of their head whether the > following has been proposed: > Instead of Time-Turned!Ron = Dumbledore, Time-Turned!Gred&Forge > are Albus and Aberforth. 'Spect someone must have done, but > thought I'd ask, becuase it would turn DD's comment about G&F's > beards when they crossed the age line into a fine bit of > foreshadowing. Jen: I read that on another site but not here--you have a theory? I think it was at Leaky Lounge. There was actually quite a bit of canon for it including all the muggle things Fred/George included in their magic shop and Dumbledore's sweet tooth in there somewhere. More I can't remember. The counter was that both Fred and George can read. :) Jen, who still likes the theory she read somewhere that Dumbledore is actually the Head House Elf who wants socks to free his people...er, creatures. *tongue totally in cheek here but the theory was interesting* From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Feb 17 05:28:54 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:28:54 -0000 Subject: It's "blood" that counts (Was: wizard geneology - Genius or Baloney?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148298 Potioncat: Blood doesn't really mean the red stuff in our veins. It means the make-up of who we are. It's the older version of genetics. Blood is who our family is. It's Smith blood or Jones blood. That has meaning if you think there is a "Smith-ness" that is passed to the children. Smiths are brave and strong and loyal....or whatever virtues the Smith family values. Smiths might also have a weakness for drink or a bit of laziness or whatever vices they've seen in themselves; or sometimes that others have seen in them. (fill in name of your choice for Smith.) Blood is also where we came from. England or Ireland or China. The blood of warriors, the blood of builders...or whatever virtues we see in our culture. It's not popular to think that way now. The dark side is that one can then decide that some other type of blood is bad. It can be Jones blood or (fill in name of different culture)blood. > snip > Carol responds: > So are you arguing that his prejudice is based on the absence of magic > rather than the absence of magical blood, and that somehow makes it > better than Mrs. Black's, if only because he doesn't scream his > insults as soon as the Squib or Muggle enters his presence? Potioncat: I think the prejudice, whether it seems based on blood or magic, is the difference between us and them. Us and them can change depending on who is in the room. In Hagrid's case it seems to be magic-folk and some giants, and a few non-wizard, magical types. Within the WW, he doesn't care for Slytherins, even though he defends Snape quite a bit. DD is the only one I can think of who hasn't shown prejudice. Ron showned to toward giants and werewolves. McGonagall toward Muggles. Hermione toward Centaurs. (In a different way than Umbridge has.) Carol: That's hypocrisy at best. Potioncat: And I'd bet most of us have some. (Well, not me of course.) The difference between McGonagall and Mrs. Black is that McG doesn't judge someone by what their parents are. She treats Hermione as well as she does any other student. She does harbor some ill will toward Muggles in general.(I know, you asked about Hagrid vrs Mrs. Black, but this one is clearer.) Besides, although Hagrid used magic on a Muggle and he really shouldn't have, he didn't do it because the person was a Muggle, but because of the way Harry was being treated. I'm not at all justifying any of this. I think JKR has done a very good job of showing different degrees of prejudice with a dose of human nature thrown in. > Carol, hoping that Potioncat is right about Sirius and Severus being > at least third cousins but not sure how it would fit into the plot of > Book 7 Potioncat: Oh, it probably won't. As JKR has drawn the chart for the charity, the female/nonBlack line isn't followed. So it would be easy enough for Eileen to not appear even if she is a grand or great-grandaughter of Phineas. There's a slightly different chart over at the Lexicon, but I swear, it doesn't seem to make much sense with what I thought we knew. (the chart, not the Lexicon) I've decided that Severus and Sirius aren't closely related afterall, but Phineas could still be Snape's ancestor. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Fri Feb 17 05:41:15 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:41:15 -0000 Subject: Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148299 > > Betsy Hp: > Sadism: > Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Marquis De > *Sade* > 1: a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the > infliction of physical or mental pain on others (as on a love object) > 2a: delight in cruelty b: excessive cruelty > [From Merriam-Webster Online http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sadism ] > > There are two ways to use the word. One is rather casual and this > is how I suspect JKR was using the word in her interview. Snape can > be a rather nasty person, and is usually pleased to catch Harry in > wrong-doing. That can be described as sadistic. Just as Harry's > daydream about smashing Snape's head in with a cauldron could also > be described in casual terms as sadistic. > La Gatta Lucianese: If you want an example of JKR doing the other sort, I offer you OotP.32, in which Umbridge has Harry and his friends at her mercy: "'Very well,' she said, and she pulled out her wand. 'Very well...I am left with no alternative.... This is more than a matter of school discipline.... This is an issue of Ministry security.... Yse...yes...' "She seemed to be talking herslf into something. She was shifting her weight nervously from foot to foot, staring at Harry, beating her wand against her empty palm and breathing heavily. Harry felt horribly powerless without his own wand as he watched her. "'You are forcing me, Potter.... I do not want to,' said Umbridge, still moving restlessly on the spot, 'but sometimes circumstances justify the use...I am sure the Minister will Understand that I had no choice....' "Malfoy was watching her with a hungry expression on his face. "'The Cruciatus Curse ought to loosen your tongue,' said Umbridge quietly. "'No!' shrieked Hermione. 'Professor Umbridge--it's illegal--' but Umbridge took no notice. There was a nasty, eager, excited look on her face that Harry had never seen there before. "'The Minister wouldn't want you to break the law, Professor Umbridge!' cried Hermione. "'What Cornelius doesn't know won't hurt him,' said Umbridge, who was now panting slightly as she pointed her wand at different parts of Harry's gody in turn, apparently trying to decide what would hurt the most...." Now *that* is sexual sadism at its most disgusting. And Draco know it and is getting a charge out of it too. *Not* a nice kid. Nothing in canon shows Snape behaving even remotely like that. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Fri Feb 17 06:54:47 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:54:47 -0000 Subject: Glittering eyes (Was: Sadistic Teachers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148300 > > Carol responds: While I agree that your definition of "sadism" is > likely to be the one that JKR has in mind (this is, after all, a > children's series), I don't think we can safely take "glittering eyes" > as an indication of sadistic pleasure. In fact, the description is > used (along with paleness) at least twice (once for Harry and once for > Snape) to indicate something like a fierce determination to overcome > fear or to go into danger. > La Gatta Lucianese: Sometimes glittering eyes can be caused by sheer exasperation. The episode with Trevor, I think, is Snape very close to losing it. (This is after Neville has caused how many disasters and near disasters in his class?) Neville's chronic incompetence has the same effect on him that Harry's cheekiness does. They are both in their different ways goof-offs from Snape's point of view, and Snape does not suffer goof- offs gladly, especially in his beloved Potions class. Admittedly, the man is easily irritated (witness his periodic blow-ups at Hermione), but let's face it, Harry and Neville are extremely irritating, whether or not intentionally. It is not in Snape's nature to stop and ask himself *why* Neville keeps messing up. He simply sees a kid who repeatedly creates mayhem because he can't seem to follow a series of straightforward instructions, and forms his own conclusions. From exodusts at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 05:04:46 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:04:46 -0000 Subject: Snape, Snape, Loverly Snape...and authorial intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148301 > Lupinlore: > > True. However, one should never forget that interpretation of > anything, be it a novel or the U.S. Constitution, is a profoundly > political act. As I've said before, in a very real way the books > are about certain things, in my case child abuse, because we say > they are about child abuse, just as Tolkien's work was about WWII > because people said it was. > > The problem is what to do with the notorious "original intent" of > the author/framer/creator? How does the author's intent, in so far > as it can even be determined, play into the politics of > interpretation? How much should it play into those politics? Exodusts: Just a quick point that is getting off-topic: to Tolkien, his own work was very much about his life just before, during and after World War One, and that is probably the single strongest interpretation to bear in mind when reading it (whatever anyone else brings to the mix). Author's intent is not the only tool to understanding a work, but is often the most powerful and most obvious. From exodusts at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 05:30:07 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 05:30:07 -0000 Subject: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is. In-Reply-To: <20060217005247.87858.qmail@web37003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148302 > Catherine: > I re-read the passage about Frank's death, and it was indeed > Voldemort who cast the AK spell on Frank (in his baby-esque form). > Then Harry wakes up, so we don't know if the Horcrux-creating spell > was preformed or not. But this is what makes me think it was: It > was Voldemort himself that used his wand to kill Frank. In the > graveyard scene, it was Wormtail using Voldemort's wand to AK > Cedric. Why not just make Wormtail kill Frank? It must have taken > a lot of energy to AK Frank and possibly Horcrux his soul into > Nagini, why weaken himself further? He had already mentioned to > Wormtail how weak he (Voldie) was. He killed Frank for a reason, > instead of making his cronie do the deed. Exodusts: That is a decent point. However, I think DD is wrong about Nagini being a Horcrux for the reason that he is wrong about the details of Frank's death. DD tells Harry that LV "used Nagini to kill" the old man. We know this is flat wrong, from the opening of GoF, LV did it himself. If DD is wrong about that, he could be wrong about Nagini full stop. Unless that was a mistake by JKR (pretty embarassing if it was). Maybe LV killed Frank himself because he was angry or annoyed with Frank's backtalk, but left Pettigrew to kill Cedric because it was just an administrative job (to get rid of the spare). > Catherine: > I have another question about the Riddle house. Who is "the wealthy > man that owned the Riddle house" (pg 10, GoF, UK edition)? Any > ideas? Will it be important later on? Whoever it is still pays > (paid) Frank to tend it. Exodusts: The quote reads: "The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither lived there nor put it to any use; they said in the village that he kept it for 'tax reasons', though nobody was very clear what these might be. The wealthy owner continued to pay Frank to do the gardening, however." In the light of what we have learnt since GoF, that throwaway passage does look more suspicious. Maybe LV bought the house, through an agent, at the most recent of its sales? Especially given his propensity to collect stuff important to him, and the fact that it would be meaningful for him to own the great house that once lorded it over the neighbourhood where his mother grew up in squalor. Ravenclaw Horcrux hidden in the Riddle House, perhaps - although that would be mighty close to the Ring that was hidden at the Gaunts? And wouldn't DD have searched it already? From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Feb 17 12:56:15 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:56:15 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148303 Jen: Hey Dung! Hope you're still there as it took me a couple of days to get back to this one. Dung: Yes, still here. And since there's nowhere else to put this comment, kudos to Shaun for having filled the message index with more repetitions of the word Snape than I've ever seen! Jen: Still, why didn't Voldemort take advantage of Dumbledore's death to swipe Harry when he was unprotected? Voldemort said in the graveyard Harry is protected at his relatives because of Lily's sacrifice and protected at Hogwarts by Dumbledore. So you'd think the moment he got Dumbledore out of the way would be the perfect moment to take Harry away to an undisclosed location again even if not planning to immediately kill him. Dung: Well, he's tried that, and it didn't go very well, both at the end of GoF, where it seemed that Harry wasn't just lucky, there was something intrinsic about him that was going to make him difficult to dispose of (which, since Voldy believes the prophecy, he may have suspected, or desperately hoped against). At the end of OotP: he got Harry away from DD *again*, and still failed to get the job done. So he decided this time to make it very easy for his half-witted minions, and give them one simple instruction at a time. Voldy (and I'm betting the other DEs agree with him) didn't think that Draco was going to be able to kill DD, Draco was expected to die in the attempt; could you imagine the guffaws if someone suggested that he be put in charge of a joint kill-DD/Kidnap-Harry mission? It would never work. And you couldn't expect Snape to pull something complex like that out of the hat at the last minute when Draco fails, it's the sort of operation that would have to be extremely carefully planned. Harry was supposed to be asleep in his dormitory the night that DD was killed, not gallivanting around after Horsecrutches, it was definitely not a part of Draco's plan that Harry and the DA be anywhere near the tower. Jen: Unless Harry's many escapes are making Voldemort wonder if he *can* kill Harry. I still think it's plausible he's wondering about the prophecy and whether there's something in there to explain Harry's many escapes from certain death, or what his protection may be beyond Lily. Dung: Well... I think it's quite reasonable after the duel with DD at the end of OotP (where DD saved Harry's skin) for Voldy to decide that he's not going to get anywhere with all these plans until DD is firmly out of the way. Once DD's gone, both Trelawney and Harry are much easier targets. Voldy *could* have set up a plan to do the whole lot in one go, but it would have *had* to involve Snape if he wanted it to succeed, and Snape could have slithered out of action again (with DD's help) by making sure that the plan failed. One of Voldy's goals was to test Snape's loyalty; a plan like that could easily have ended up with DD escaping, Snape having kept his true allegiance under wraps *again*, and possibly even with Draco not getting punished for Lucius' mistakes. No, Voldy's a Slytherin! I'm also 99% convinced that Voldy prompted Bella and Cissy's visit to Spinner's End ? not explicitly, but Bella could easily have been lying when she told Cissy "I know the Dark Lord trusts him". Voldy may have hinted that Snape might need an extra motive to make sure that Draco didn't mess up too badly. Cue the sisters. See, I reckon Voldemort's been reading the evil overlord handbook in the holidays. No "bring him to me so I can challenge him to a duel and have the pleasure of proving myself to be the stronger", no "give him a long and painful death (from which he can heroically escape) so the old fool can really appreciate just how much I hate him"... Just a nice and simple "get the job done and I won't kill you and your family" to Draco, and a "you'd better be on my side after all Snape, or you're dead," via Bella and Cissy. Neat, no? Using Draco to set up the plan to kill DD, while keeping what he's doing from Snape (I think Draco was prompted to do that by Bella, who taught him Occlumency, and who was prompted to do that by Voldy) and making sure that Snape knows he's got to finish the job, but can't interfere with the plan at a more fundamental level is a good way to test his loyalty. Voldy didn't bank on DD willingly giving up his life though. > Dung, previously: > Many posters (or perhaps just a few ? it's so difficult to tell, > sometimes) want to make Snape unaware of Draco's task. They read > him as bluffing in Spinner's End when he said that he knew what it > was, trying to get Bella and Narcissa to give him information. I > don't buy that at all. I think Snape knew all about it before > Narcissa came to visit him, and he'd already discussed it with > Dumbledore. ("He intends me to do it in the end...") Jen: Do you mean Snape was actually referring to Dumbledore there and not Voldemort when he said 'he intends me to do it in the end'? Now that would shed a new light on the tower! I may be misreading and you are simply using that quote to back up that Snape did know the task. Dung: No that's not what I meant ? but I like it! Jen: My guess is Snape was placed at Hogwarts as a spy way back when 16 years ago for the eventual purpose of killing Dumbledore, so he was well aware what his use to Voldemort was. Narcissa and Bellatrix weren't giving him new information except perhaps the part about Draco being involved. Not sure about that. Dung: Oh yes, I'm in complete agreement there, except that I think Snape (and DD) knew about Draco's task already, before Bella and Cissy's visit. It would mean that both Snape and DD had had an awful long time to ponder what would happen when Voldemort returned and asked Snape to finish the task he'd been put in place to carry out. (I'd still love to know why Voldy was so insistent that Snape spied on DD while teaching DADA rather than potions; I'm sure that's why Snape applied for the position year after year. It's probably either something to do with the nature of the DADA curse, or the same reason that Voldy himself wanted to teach DADA.) Dung: > As for orders to leave Harry alone, it seems perfectly plausible > that Voldy had had enough of failing to kill him, but was angry > enough about it to not want anyone else to have the pleasure. > Going at it piecemeal, getting rid of DD The Protector first > sounds sensible to me. Plus the fact that Voldy's now using > Occlumency against Harry, makes it rather look like The Harry > Problem was put on hold for a year. Jen: So getting rid of Dumbledore with the eventual plan of getting to Harry. It seems almost too rational for Voldemort. He obsesses about the prophecy, about killing Harry. I guess he was shaken up by not being able to possess Harry and thus is employing Occlumency against him. But it seems like that would make him even *more* intent on a way to kill Harry, which leads back to the prophecy in his eyes, which leads back to.....Trelawney. Dung: Too rational for Voldemort? Hmm. It seems to me (off the top of my head and after absolutely no perusal of canon) that Voldy's evil overlord mistakes are always in the heat of the moment ? giving Harry back his wand, turning up to the MoM in person etc. His planning doesn't seem to suffer too much. The GoF and OotP plans were really remarkably clever, they failed through last minute problems, not through being badly organised. But you might disagree... Dung: > Regarding the prophecy, it does seem a little odd, doesn't it? To > spend an entire year and a lot of effort trying to find out its > contents and then the next year petulantly stamp your foot and > shriek "I didn't want to know anyway, and I'm going to have the > man it was told to murdered, so there!" > > Has Voldy got over his obsession? Has he decided it doesn't matter > any more? Or has someone already told him what he needs to know? > Argh, don't ask me to fathom the way an evil overlord's mind > works... Jen: Hehehe. Now we do know how his mind works, though--very irrationally and with fixations to say the least. He was irrationally obsessed with the prophecy and I still think he very much wants and needs that information. In his mind it holds the key to Harry's ability to defy him four times because he sets so much store by it. Dung: Fixations, certainly, but has he not shown that he can be remarkably patient? Got any good canon for the irrationality? Not that I think you haven't, I just think that given his goals, his fixations and obsessions are really quite rational, but he's cunning enough not to let them obscure his other goals. Dung: > Btw, can anyone tell me off the top of their head whether the > following has been proposed: > Instead of Time-Turned!Ron = Dumbledore, Time-Turned!Gred&Forge > are Albus and Aberforth. 'Spect someone must have done, but > thought I'd ask, becuase it would turn DD's comment about G&F's > beards when they crossed the age line into a fine bit of > foreshadowing. Jen: I read that on another site but not here--you have a theory? I think it was at Leaky Lounge. There was actually quite a bit of canon for it including all the muggle things Fred/George included in their magic shop and Dumbledore's sweet tooth in there somewhere. More I can't remember. The counter was that both Fred and George can read. :) Dung: Well, no. Not a theory... though some thoughts occur. It would make sense how DD knew some stuff but not other stuff, much more sense than Ron being DD. And the 'but I'm not sure he can read' would be exactly the sort of thing one twin would say about the other, particularly if in book 7 the twins stop acting as a unit and take different paths (choices etc). But didn't JKR say that no characters had returned from the future? I'm too lazy to look up the quote, I think it's somewhere on her website. I just have this suspicion that in the way that HBP was all about Snape, Harry Potter and the Key to Everything will be all about Dumbledore. But just what we're going to find out about him is anyone's guess... Dungrollin From exodusts at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 06:18:53 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 06:18:53 -0000 Subject: Ollivander / Fortescue / Horcrux / Bk7 Opening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148304 > bboyminn: > I think we have fallen into a fandom trap here, the same trap we > always fall into, and that is, once a new 'thing' is introduced in the > books, it becomes the end-all be-all solution to every problem. When > Time-Turning was introduce, it became the solution to every problem. > Mysterious all-knowing Dumbledore is really Ron time-turning. In the > end, Harry will time-turn back and save himself from Voldemort. Now, > today, everything under the sun is a Horcrux. > > Dumbledore says he can hide Draco and family by faking their death, > suddenly faked-death has to be the solution to every problem. > Ollivander can just be gone, gone because gone is all that is need to > solve his problem. Dumbledore may or may not have helped Ollivander > escape, but there really is no need to fake Ollivander's death nor to > fake the death of each and every character who is now or who will be > missing. > > It is fun speculation, but it doesn't necessarily apply to every > problem encountered. Exodusts: You are quite right that it is all to some degree speculation, and that DD could have hidden Ollivander, without faking Ollivander's death. The only thing to do is go with whatever evidence we do have, however slim that may be. When DD talked about hiding, he talked about faking death. In the absence of him talking about hiding people without faking death, we have to lean towards the conclusion that when DD hides someone, he probably fakes their death. It may be only a small weight in the balance, but for now it ought to tip that balance in favour of Ollivander having hidden by himself, not with DD's help. Although it could all be contradicted when book 7 comes out. > bboyminn: > Sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that you can coerce, extort, > or blackmail a Portrait, something that is hardly more than a well > made animated object. Exodusts: Fair enough, but there are many examples in the books of wizarding portraits having an emotional response to things said or done. I reckon you could induce sufficient fear in one to coerce it into obeying an order (especially if the Fortescue of the portrait and Florian Fortescue were close). > bboyminn: > Just my opinion, but I think you have a distorted view of the nature > of soul bits. Logically Voldemort has killed many many more people > than he has made Horcruxes, so do you claim that all those soul bits > are wandering free somewhere looking for a living body or inanimate > object to inhabit? I don't think so. Exodusts: The discussion did assume that the "spare" soul bit had been split off during a deliberate Horcrux creation. I absolutely concur that the core "Voldy-bit" remained floaty, and became the thing that ended up possessing Quirrell. > bboyminn: > Personally, I don't like the idea of the attack happening at Grimmauld > Place. That would pretty much eliminate the Black House from the > story, even though we know that some significant events will likely > occur there, like finding the Locket Horcrux. I think an early > attack at the Black House would force them to abondon it, since > clearly the Death Eaters would know where it is and would be > watching it. Exodusts: As part of my theory, I propose that HRH, probably with Order help, kick some mid-ranking DE's out of the House, so the location wouldn't get instantly written off. Harry would have time to do whatever he needs to do there, before it is shut up and abandoned for good by the Order. > bboyminn: > Also, as a side note, while Dumbledore's Secret Keeper Charm may have > been broken, we know that the Black House is thoroughly protected by > Sirius's ancestors with ever muggle repelling and protection charm > known to man. Even without the Secret Keeper Charm, which can be > re-instated with a new Secret Keeper, the Black House is more > thoroughly protected than most magical places...or so I speculate. Exodusts: I had considered the possibility that 12 GOP was protected from discovery (by Muggles or Wizards) by more than just DD's relatively recent protections. But then I remembered this, from the same conversation in which DD reveals 12 GOP to the Dursleys: "We do not know whether the enchantments we ourselves have placed upon it, for example, making it Unplottable, will hold now that ownership has passed from Sirius's hands." This tells us that an Unplottable charm was the Order's doing (maybe even DD himself). It also mentions multiple enchantments. One would be the Fidelius charm. Yet others could be Invisible-to-Muggles, or Muggle-repellent. Thus, when DD died the house might have lost all of these protections. Alternatively, if the anti-Muggle charms were originals of the Blacks, they might have been lost when Sirius (the last Black) died, as DD says. Oddly, Sirius says this in OotP: "My father put every security measure known to wizardkind on it when he lived here. It's unplottable, so Muggles could never come and call - as if they'd ever have wanted to - and now Dumbledore's added his protection, you'd be hard put to find a safer house anywhere." This suggests a) that the Unplottability was NOT DD's work (which contradicts what DD says in HBP), and b) that the Unplottable charm does more than just ensuring that something cannot appear on a map (which seems to contradict Hermione's explanations, to Ron, about the various magics used to hide buildings, in GoF). Ultimately, I can't believe that JKR drew attention to Uncle Vernon's avaricious interest in Harry's House simply to reinforce Vernon's character. We know his character already. Logically, it ought to be foreshadowing for book 7. exodusts From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 17 14:57:50 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:57:50 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ollivander / Fortescue / Horcrux / Bk7 Opening References: Message-ID: <004301c633d2$858b3780$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 148305 ----- Original Message ----- From: exodusts This suggests a) that the Unplottability was NOT DD's work (which contradicts what DD says in HBP), and b) that the Unplottable charm does more than just ensuring that something cannot appear on a map (which seems to contradict Hermione's explanations, to Ron, about the various magics used to hide buildings, in GoF). kchuplis: There appear to be different varieties of charms and to my mind this would be one. An Unplottable to avoid appearing on maps (or probably satellite images too), unplottable to make eyes slide past it, unplottable to make the building appear as something other than it is (Hogwart's, St. Mungo's). I suspect that part of "getting better" at magic would include being able to subtly vary a main charm/spell/curse. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 16:04:59 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 08:04:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060217160459.43035.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148306 --- gelite67 wrote: > Oh, I agree [Snape] protected Harry (yet again). But regardless of > that, and regardless of whether Snape was aware of Draco's plan, > seems to > me there are two options: either LV had given the orders to leave > Harry or he had not. > > If he had given such orders -- well, I can't fathom why he would > when > his top priority is killing Harry himself. Theories, anyone? I think one of the advantages that Snape brought to the anti-Voldemort fight (and yes, he's DDM!Snape - live with it already) is that he has a pretty solid understanding of how to manipulate DE's, especially the fairly low-grade specimens that seem to be populating the Dark Lord's ranks these days. So when he yells out "remember our orders!" they all respond instantly - and later on, in the DE staff cafeteria, they might compare notes and say "what orders?" "do you remember the boss giving any orders like that?" "nope, not me." "me neither." "then what the heck is Snape smoking?". But it does serve the purpose of getting them all to do what he wants them to do (ie, run and leave the school). Of course, V would much rather a petrificus-totalis-ed Harry were brought along with them but Snape can plausibly claim that he had his hands full salvaging the fiasco the other DE's had brought about by their incompetence in not being able to fight off the Order properly and then getting everyone away before being captured. Magda (who thinks that jerking dumb-ass DE's around is one of the very few enjoyable aspects of the whole thing for Snape) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 17:37:07 2006 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (jlnbtr) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:37:07 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Sirius??? Was: Re: Lupin's Spying, In-Reply-To: <20060217015000.31895.qmail@web37011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148307 > Catherine: > Hi... > I never saw anything between Lupin and Sirius. The joint gift from them was because Lupin has no money to buy a present for Harry being a werewolf and unable to find work. I don't think it was any more than that. > And I do believe that a person can be in denial so much so that they can even justify situations that happen because they are in denial. "Sirius can't be using the old passageways into the castle. Filch must know about them by now. How could a great big black dog get into Honeydukes without anyone noticing. He must have found another way" "Nobody got hurt when he broke in, no harm was done." Someone as lonely and desperate as Lupin must have been the last 13 years, I can easily see that happening. Juli: i've posted about a million posts about this subject. You can see some old threads, check message #131180 and #137276. They are both Pre-HBP, and by then we didn't know that Remus has a Girlfriend. I've never even considered the idea of them as a couple, and I really don't like it... I fell in Love with Sirius long ago, and I hope he's straight. I wonder what the R&S Shippers think now? One of their main arguments was that there was never a female companion for either one, well now we know Remus is dating Tonks... Juli From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 17:49:47 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:49:47 -0800 Subject: The missing text: US v UK editions: was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ollivander / Fortescue / Krum's Crucio / Horcrux / Bk7 Opening Message-ID: <700201d40602170949i467830d3ic5b39d93262c40c4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148308 On 2/16/06, zgirnius wrote: > > > Shelley: > > Are the UK and American editions *that* different? > > > > zgirnius: > Yes, they are. The US edition includes the statement "He cannot kill > you if you are already dead." .. . Kemper now: Zgirnius is referring to DD's speech to Draco on the tower, but there's even more from that speech in the US version than in the UK: . wikipedia has the differences easily discerned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_blood_prince scroll down to Missing Text . Lexicon has the differences as well though not as easily discerned: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/differences-hbp.html scroll down to pg 552-553 of UK version [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Feb 17 20:05:57 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:05:57 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall In-Reply-To: <009401c63370$3416a1d0$190cd6d8@magnumtwdmyxdv> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148309 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Gregory Sopko" wrote: > Gregory: > Thanks for the link, I found it highly interesting, and very much > along my own lines of thinking; it's hard for me to believe I missed > the fact that McGonagall often wore Slytherin colors. Interesting. > I am more convince tho that she is a Ministry spy like a Percy > Weasley type rather than a Death Eater. > Allie: I believe that much more readily than I do the ESE!Lupin theories. *IF* ESE!McGonagall is indeed true, does anyone have any ideas why Snape doesn't seem to know she is on Voldemort's side? Voldemort has kept her identity from Snape? If Snape's ESE, then there's no reason for him to bring it up to Dumbledore, but if he's *not*... (Off topic but why are there always 7 pages of intro before a journey into TBAY?) From mudblood68 at yahoo.de Fri Feb 17 10:19:55 2006 From: mudblood68 at yahoo.de (Claudia) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:19:55 -0000 Subject: Owner of Riddle House (WAS: Re: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is.) In-Reply-To: <20060217005247.87858.qmail@web37003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148310 > Catherine: > I have another question about the Riddle house. Who is "the wealthy > man that owned the Riddle house" (pg 10, GoF, UK edition)? Any ideas? > Will it be important later on? Whoever it is still pays (paid) Frank > to tend it. Sounds very much like Lucius Malfoy, doesn't it? Claudia From mferminco at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 13:38:52 2006 From: mferminco at yahoo.com (Mauricio Contreras) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:38:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060217133852.48960.qmail@web34210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148311 Hi, this is my first posting. DDs wisdom will be available at Hogwarts. His portrait is at the Headmasters office. I wonder if this will be a link to him in the 7th book and if Harry really needs to leave Hogwarts in Book 7? Mauricio Buenos Aires, Argentina. From gsopko at stratos.net Fri Feb 17 15:50:31 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (Gregory Sopko) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:50:31 -0500 Subject: Owner of Riddle House (was Re: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is.) References: Message-ID: <001e01c633d9$e2262bb0$9800000a@Toshiba> No: HPFGUIDX 148312 > Catherine: > Who is "the wealthy man that owned the Riddle house" (pg 10, > GoF, UK edition)? Exodusts: > Maybe LV bought the house, through an agent, at the > most recent of its sales? Gregory: Since Voldemort killed his father and grandparents, he inherited the house and would be the wealthy owner, would he not? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 20:28:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:28:41 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Tonks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148313 Note to List Elves: Yahoo ate my first version of this post, so I'm trying again. I'll delete the duplicate if there is one. I recently noticed something that escaped me on previous rereadings of HBP: In "A Very Frosty Christmas," Mrs. Weasley is playing Celestina Warbeck *love songs* on the wireless. This can't be for the benefit of Bill and Fleur, who don't need encouragement, thank you, and Fleur in any case is contemptuous of the music. But Lupin is there, and his reaction is to stare into the depths of fire "as though he could not hear Celestina's voice, either hiding or suppressing his feelings (Am. ed. 330). Meanwhile, Ginny thinks that Mrs. Weasley is trying to interest Bill in Tonks by frequently inviting her to dinner (94, obviously a futile endeavor), but Mrs. Weasley, who has been giving Tonks "tea and sympathy" (83), may be trying to provide her with opportunities to be with Lupin. "Dear, why not come to dinner at the weekend. Remus and Mad-Eye are coming--?" (82). Tonks can't be depressed, as Harry thinks, by Sirius Black's death (although the changed Patronus, a large four-footed animal, is probably a red herring to make the reader think he's right). Nor can she be suffering from survivor's guilt, as Hermione suggests (95). After her recovery from the mysterious green-lit spell (either a non-AK or a failed nonverbal AK), she's her old self again, pink hair and all, in the final chapter of OoP. The mousy brown hair appears some two or three weeks later at the opening of HBP. Hermione says tha Lupin tried to talk to her (95), but his misunderstanding of her reasons for being depressed could have made matters worse, particularly if she confessed her feelings for him at that point and was rejected. Apparently, she's done so more than once, if not exactly the "million times" she claims to have done so in "The Phoenix Lament" (shouldn't that be "Phoenix's"?), p. 624. When Tonks suddenly appears in the seventh-floor corridor, claiming to have tried to see Dumbledore (has she been hiding there in one of the Invisibility Cloaks, watching Harry under DD's orders, perhaps on Snape's information?), her eyes fill with tears as she tells Harry that the Daily Prophet's articles about catastrophes in the WW are not up to date (466)--and the next incident we hear about (from Hermione) is the murder of the five-year-old Montgomery boy by the werewolf Fenrir Greyback, the same one who bit Lupin (473). Almost certainly that's the incident Tonks is referring to (she asks whether Harry has had any letters from Order members, presumably Lupin). I'm guessing that the incident has hardened Lupin's resolve not to enter a relationship with Tonks, perhaps for fear that without his Wolfsbane Potion and in company with other werewolves, he may do something equally horrible. (Another of the "million times" she's told him that it doesn't matter?) (On a side note, I don't doubt that Tonks tried to see Dumbledore and that it related to Lupin, which explains her emotional state, but I think she may have been in the hallway chiefly to keep an eye on Harry, under the Invisibility Cloak as previously indicated. It seems to me very unlikely that Snape is deceived by Draco's polyjuiced friends, but it's impossible for him to watch them himself without being detected, which may have been one of the things that he and DD were arguing about it the forest. DD could have sent Tonks to watch for Harry in the seventh-floor corridor as an alternative without necessarily providing any additional information. I don't think she's in the corridor by accident or coincidence, if only because, as Harry points out, DD's office is on the other side of the castle [465], so she'd be unlikely to take that route to return to the entrance hall, and because her appearance is so sudden and silent. "Walking toward him as if she often strolled down this corridor" [same page] could also be a clue, although Harry would probably have seen her on the Marauder's Map had she done so previously.) Why JKR should keep Tonks's reasons for being depressed mysterious until the end of HBP is unclear (yes, it ties in with Merope's loss of powers and the devastating effects of unrequited love; it introduces the changed Patronus motif, which may be important in Book 7; and it shows Harry being wrong again, but none of this seems a sufficient explanation for the Tonks/Lupin subplot). Maybe she just wanted to make the fans of those two characters happy and give readers and Order members something to celebrate (in case Bill/Fleur is insufficient). More likely we'll see a happier, more magically efficient Tonks and Lupin working together to help Harry in Book 7. In any case, just as Harry is wrong that she's mourning the death of her cousin, I think that readers who suspect a polyjuiced Tonks are also misreading the evidence. And although I think she was in the seventh-floor corridor for a reason, to watch over Harry, I think she also had a reason to talk to Dumbledore (the Fenrir Greyback incident). Maybe she hoped to persuade him to find a less dangerous assignment for Lupin, and his absence explains why she's even more tearful and depressed than usual on that occasion. Carol, not labeling this as a SHIPping post because my concern is a close reading of the text to determine what's up with Tonks and not whether Tonks should or shouldn't love Lupin From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 21:01:49 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:01:49 -0000 Subject: Did DD tell Anyone Else Why He Trusts Snape? In-Reply-To: <004801c632d1$a8109310$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148314 Sherry wrote: "I have a suspicion that Hagrid might know why Dumbledore thought he could trust Snape. More than anyone but DD, Hagrid has always defended Snape to Harry, but never explained it." CH3ed: I think you're right there. I think it's got to be something both DD and Hagrid thought would be hard for Harry to handle or that something of the nature that Harry will be apt to misinterpret because Hagrid has successfully kept quiet about it all this time.... and he demonstrably isn't good at keeping secrets. Sherry wrote: "Since Chapter 2 of HBP, can we really say Harry is skewing the truth completely about Snape's role in the death of Sirius? He may be wrong about the how, but I am not convinced that he is wrong. After all, Snape does take credit for somehow contributing to the death of Sirius. If it wasn't true, Narcissa and Bella would certainly have known that, because Kreacher went to Narcissa with his information. So, if it was only Kreacher, I'm sure one of the sisters would have challenged Snape on his claim." CH3ed: I wouldn't say "completely", but when it comes to Snape I don't think we can trust Harry to be objective. I think Snape does a lot of creative talking in Spinner's End.... almost a la DD. When DD misdirects you he doesn't flat out tell you lies... He just tells or speculates the truth it in such a way that it can be misinterpreted. I think it's been rubbing off on Snape some. ;O) I think especially in that chapter of HBP we are supposed to read between the spoken lines as much as we read what is actually said. Some people were convinced of ESE!Snape after their first read of that chapter, some were just as convinced of DDM!Snape, and the rest became totally confused about Snape. That's a fine piece of writing (because I think the effect is intentional)! Anyhow, I think Carol did a fine job of explaining how Snape could have falsely claimed some roles in Sirius' death without alerting the sisters' suspicion. CH3ed :O) From kchuplis at alltel.net Fri Feb 17 21:16:18 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:16:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Owner of Riddle House (WAS: Re: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is.) References: Message-ID: <000e01c63407$6484fb90$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 148315 > Catherine: > I have another question about the Riddle house. Who is "the wealthy > man that owned the Riddle house" (pg 10, GoF, UK edition)? Any ideas? > Will it be important later on? Whoever it is still pays (paid) Frank > to tend it. Claudia: Sounds very much like Lucius Malfoy, doesn't it? kchuplis: Wouldn't it be something if the house was a horcrux? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Fri Feb 17 20:55:15 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:55:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Owner of Riddle House (was Re: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is.) In-Reply-To: <001e01c633d9$e2262bb0$9800000a@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20060217205515.23882.qmail@web37006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148316 Gregory Sopko wrote: Since Voldemort killed his father and grandparents, he inherited the house and would be the wealthy owner, would he not? Catherine: But he has nothing really proving that he is indeed related to the Riddle's. It's not like he can just walk around the muggle world looking as he does (or did, hadn't his features been very snake-like before trying to AK Harry?) claiming relations with the Riddle's. He wouldn't have been in the Riddle's will, since they didn't know (or care) of his existance prior to their deaths. (BTW, that must have been quite a scene when he went and killed them all. 16 y o Tom looking exactly like his father. He must have toyed with them a bit). Catherine From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Feb 17 21:22:44 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:22:44 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148317 Betsy Hp: > Hmm, I'm afraid I kind of set the cat amongst the pigeons here, and I > apologize for that. I was, rather flippantly I'll admit, trying to > enumerate the many ways Lupin confuses me. Just when I think I've got > a bead on him, he does something I'd have labeled as completely out of > character. A less provoking example would be his general mildness > with Harry compared with his ability to coldly face executing Peter. > > However, it's insulting to suppose that those of us who saw signs of > Lupin being a gay man (and it *was* a subtle, coded, thing) are > incapable of either recognizing or having platonic friendships. It > kills any sort of conversation dead. Which should not be the point on > this sort of list. Ceridwen: Sorry I went so totally OTT on that! It's one of my pet peeves. There really are people in the world who can't envision a close friendship that doesn't include physical release. Between opposite sexes, and between the same sex, too. Having been the recipient of such accusations, I tend to get a bit... loud. Again, sorry! I never meant anything personal against you. I can see your point about Lupin's apparent split. His kindness and his mildness, and then his calculating ability to size PP up as soon-to- be Dogmeat, do seem at odds with each other. In all of his interactions, he does seem mild, except in that one. But, I would offer a different take. Even still waters have their rapids. Lupin has learned to overlook a lot in his life, and he can probably roll with most punches. This has probably helped him to keep a low profile. But the one thing he cannot accept is what PP did to the Potters. A close friend? As I said, it was completely unexpected and unlooked-for. How *could* he do such a thing to someone he lived with, sat with, and seemed to almost worship, all those years? I can see Lupin, or just about anyone, going off the deep end on that. All of us fight off such responses every day, at much less provocation. I'd say that his reaction to PP was a sudden, surprised, gut reaction to something that I hope I'll never have to deal with. Truce? Ceridwen. From agdisney at msn.com Fri Feb 17 21:32:37 2006 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:32:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Draco (Was: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148318 Angie wrote: > > It makes no sense to me that Snape would apparate anywhere else but > LV's feet. He can't go near anyone in the Order (unless DD told > someone specifically why he trusts Snape and we are unaware of it). > If he hides Draco to protect him, LV will see that as an act of > betrayal, I would think. Carol responds: I agree. If Snape is ESE! or OFH!, it's a given that he would return to LV. But I think DDM!Snape would do the same thing. Almost the sole advantage he has gained from killing Dumbledore is maintaining his cover with Voldemort, and going anywhere else would destroy the illusion of loyalty. Also, it appears that Draco Disapparated as soon as he passed the gates, and Snape, IMO, would follow Draco, who (unless he wants to share the fate of Karkaroff) wouldn't dare to do anything else except return. And Snape, even if the UV is no longer in effect, is bound by his promise to Narcissa (and, I think, by his own wish) to protect Draco. Carol, Andie: Just a thought but why couldn't Snape & Draco apparate to the Malfoy home. At least this way Narcissa would know what happened to her son and that Snape kept his UV. Bella would be around and she could add her 2 cents to the other DE's that DD was taken care of. Maybe there is some hidden area in the Malfoy house that Snape & Draco could hide in for a while. For all the times Mr. Weasley raided the house on information that Harry gave him and then found nothing while Harry knew there were things to find there has to be a concealed area that no one knows of. Just a thought. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 21:58:29 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:58:29 -0000 Subject: Owner of Riddle House (was Re: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is.) In-Reply-To: <20060217205515.23882.qmail@web37006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148319 > Catherine: > > But he has nothing really proving that he is indeed > related to the Riddle's. It's not like he can just > walk around the muggle world looking as he does > (or did, hadn't his features been very snake-like > before trying to AK Harry?) claiming relations with > the Riddle's. He wouldn't have been in the Riddle's > will, since they didn't know (or care) of his existance > prior to their deaths. (BTW, that must have been quite > a scene when he went and killed them all. 16 y o Tom > looking exactly like his father. He must have toyed > with them a bit). zgirnius: His mother was legally married, in the usual Muggle manner, to Tom Riddle Sr. A record of this certainly exists in the Muggle legal system somewhere. I would guess that Tom Sr. may not have written a will at the time of his death, he was pretty young at the time. And he was probably named heir to his parents' property in their will. I think the Muggle legal system would consider his claim a very strong one. If Voldemort wanted the house, I do not think he would have had that much trouble getting it. He could have done so before his appearance became odd (and even that is probably not a problem for a wizard, it can probably be altered temporarily when necessary). From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 22:25:51 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:25:51 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148320 > >>Ceridwen: > Sorry I went so totally OTT on that! It's one of my pet peeves. > There really are people in the world who can't envision a close > friendship that doesn't include physical release. Between > opposite sexes, and between the same sex, too. > Betsy Hp: I totally understand, I've my hot button issues too. > >>Ceridwen: > I can see your point about Lupin's apparent split. > > But, I would offer a different take. Even still waters have their > rapids. Lupin has learned to overlook a lot in his life, and he > can probably roll with most punches. This has probably helped him > to keep a low profile. But the one thing he cannot accept is what > PP did to the Potters. > > I'd say that his reaction to PP was a sudden, surprised, gut > reaction to something that I hope I'll never have to deal with. Betsy Hp: I can totally understand Lupin being driven to a murderous rage. But it's chilling how... *calm* he is about it. I don't really lean towards ESE!Lupin, but I feel like I cannot get a handle on him. He's slippery. And he's very, very subtle. Snape seems to see him as the most dangerous of the Marauders, being sure not to turn his back on him in PoA. That's interesting to me. And yet when McGonagall was listing off the Marauders in PoA, Lupin never came up. Was he never caught in their various escapades? Was he not considered one of the gang by the staff? Or was JKR simply trying to hide his connection with James and Sirius? (I believe Lupin tells Harry that he was their friend around this time though, so I'm not sure why JKR didn't have McGonagall say anything.) He's strangely weak, caving into peer pressure with disturbing ease. And yet, he spends most of PoA making subtle little digs at Snape. So he's not totally controlled by a need to be liked. But he's been the only surviving and free Marauder since the Potters were killed and he's never, that we know of, attempted to contact Harry. Why was he so willing to leave Harry to the Dursleys? Why was he so reluctant to let Harry know that he was a friend of James? And again (and most disturbingly) why was he willing to let Harry die rather than share the secrets of dead or traitorous friends? It makes me wonder about the depths of loyalty he felt for James. And then there's that crack he makes about sinking to his true level when he joined with the werewolf pack. He's horribly down on himself. And he seems rather bitter about Dumbledore. (That whole, well he needed a spy and there I was...) It's like Lupin really sees himself as something lesser than, and at the same time he's angry that he is that way. It's funny, because he's got this reputation of being this sweet, intelligent, calm and rational man. But I suspect that this is a mask. It's a comfortable mask, and one he uses easily, but in the end, I don't think we've really met the real Lupin. Hell, I'm not sure *Lupin* knows who the real Lupin is. Betsy Hp From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Fri Feb 17 23:07:47 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:07:47 +0100 Subject: Owner of Riddle House References: Message-ID: <00fc01c63416$f80ffcc0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148321 > Catherine: > I have another question about the Riddle house. Who is "the wealthy > man that owned the Riddle house" (pg 10, GoF, UK edition)? Any ideas? > Will it be important later on? Whoever it is still pays (paid) Frank > to tend it. > > Claudia wrote: > Sounds very much like Lucius Malfoy, doesn't it? > Claudia Miles: "The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither lived there nor put it to any use; they said in the village that he kept it for "tax reasons," though nobody was very clear what these might be. The wealthy owner continued to pay Frank to do the gardening, however." (GoF 1, quoted from Lexicon) Now, this doesn't sound like a magical owner at all. Those wouldn't pay taxes in the muggle world, so there weren't any tax reasons. Maybe this is just a rumour - but why should a wizard bother to pay a muggle to care for the house? He'd have much better (and cheaper) ways to protect the house and keep it intact. IMO the owner of this house is not important for the story. Miles From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 17 23:20:05 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:20:05 -0000 Subject: The missing text: US v UK editions: was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ollivander / Fortescue / Krum's Crucio / Horcrux / Bk7 Opening In-Reply-To: <700201d40602170949i467830d3ic5b39d93262c40c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148322 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > On 2/16/06, zgirnius wrote: > > > Shelley: > > > Are the UK and American editions *that* different? > > zgirnius: > > Yes, they are. The US edition includes the statement "He cannot kill > > you if you are already dead." > Kemper now: > Zgirnius is referring to DD's speech to Draco on the tower.. Geoff: This was discussed to some extent way back in a thread "Dumbledore and Malfoy conversation. Is that a clue?" starting at message 134170. From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br Fri Feb 17 23:27:31 2006 From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:27:31 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148323 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > Allie: > > I believe that much more readily than I do the ESE!Lupin > theories. *IF* ESE!McGonagall is indeed true, does anyone have any > ideas why Snape doesn't seem to know she is on Voldemort's side? > Voldemort has kept her identity from Snape? If Snape's ESE, then > there's no reason for him to bring it up to Dumbledore, but if he's > *not*... (Off topic but why are there always 7 pages of intro before > a journey into TBAY?) > I would like to delurk to present my hunches on this issue. Based on what we know about JKR's style, especially from the first 4 books, I bet there will be major surprises in book 7. Snape is so obviously suspicious that almost nothing concerning him counts as a major surprise any more. I think he will turn out to be loyal to DD, and either he killed DD on his orders or, my favorite theory, did not kill him at all but accepted to stage it so that the WW will believe him to be DD's murderer (and loyal to LV) --- in fact, the potion killed DD (so it might be said that Harry killed DD on his orders). But this is not the major surprise, nor the main point of this post: the major surprise will be that someone Harry (and the reader) knows and trusts will betray him. Now, I see external reasons to exclude several characters. Lupin is a good example: he is mistrusted by the WW for being a werewolf: if it turned out that he *should* be mistrusted, this sends the rather unpleasant message that prejudices often have a point, not a message I think JKR would like to pass. For similar reasons, I can not see the half-giant Hagrid, the part-goblin Flitwick or the half-mad Moody being traitors. Sirius and DD are dead (I think) and therefore also out of question. Minerva is almost the only major adult left and her behaviour on Chapter 1 of PS *is* suspicious (as the TBAY post so well explains). JKR may be ignorant about snakes to the point of making one wink, but can she possibly be so ignorant about cats to make a cat wag its tail out of pure joy, like a dog? So, I see plot holes in the ESE!Minerva theory but I would not trust her too much. Nicolau From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 23:46:26 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:46:26 -0000 Subject: Owner of Riddle House (was Re: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148324 > zgirnius: > His mother was legally married, in the usual Muggle manner, to Tom Riddle Sr. A record of this certainly exists in the Muggle legal system somewhere. I would guess that Tom Sr. may not have written a will at the time of his death, he was pretty young at the time. And he was probably named heir to his parents' property in their will. I think the Muggle legal system would consider his claim a very strong one. If Voldemort wanted the house, I do not think he would have had that much trouble getting it. He could have done so before his appearance became odd (and even that is probably not a problem for a wizard, it can probably be altered temporarily when necessary). > Carol responds: I see at least three problems with this assumption. First, I doubt very much that the Muggle legal system knew of his existence or he'd have been the primary suspect in the murder of his father. He had a motive and Frank Bryce reported seeing a teenage boy running from the scene of the crime. To claim the house as his inheritance at that time, when he could prove his identity, would have been both foolish and dangerous for that reason. (The Muggle authorities wouldn't know that the Aurors had arrested Morfin Gaunt for the crime and sent him to Azkaban.) Second, there were two Muggle owners before the current one, meaning that enough time passed for his appearance to change dramatically. It would be very hard for someone who looks as he does to prove his identity. If he had any Muggle identification, it would be for his teenage self. Even if he could magically the proper papers (or bewitch a paper to look like proper documentation), I seriously doubt that he could, or would, change his appearance. Third, he has renounced his Muggle ancestry and doesn't want any connections with the Riddles (except to use their abandoned house as a hideout when he's Baby!mort and his father's bone to restore his body). He certainly would not want to use the Muggle name he hates so much to buy the house he father refused to let him live in. Fourth, he could not have used the house as his headquarters in VW1 or for any other purpose, or Frank would have tried to investigate (as he does in GoF) and been killed much sooner. And there's no point in LV's paying for a house (through, say, a Squib go-between) even if he has the money (galleons converted to pounds) if he's not going to use it. I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are sufficient to make me doubt that LV is the legal owner of the Riddle house. He may, however, be occupying it now illegally, with enchantments placed on it to hide the DEs' coming and going. But if so, it's odd that Dumbledore would not have mentioned it to Harry. Carol From maidne at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 00:55:40 2006 From: maidne at yahoo.com (maidne) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:55:40 -0000 Subject: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148325 Maybe someone has already thought of this but ... could one of the horcruxes have been "bone of the father"? V'mort did use it to bring himself back from his "half-life". Susan From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Feb 18 01:06:42 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 01:06:42 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148326 > ... > > So, I guess I am treading a fine line. He is deriving pleasure > from acts whose effects are cruel. That is pretty close to being > sadistic, by the latter definitions you were discussing. IMO. > > Hermione makes a similar "mistake" when she is discussing > the death of Lavendar's rabbit. She is interested only in > proving her point about Trelawny's prediction. Lavendar's > emotional state is much less important to her. That is why > the other student see her as cruel. > > Laura Walsh lwalsh at ... > La Gatta Lucianese: I think that Hermione and Snape are more similar that a lot of people realize in that they are both inclined to put logic ahead of empathy. Snape gets so irritated with Neville precisely because he cannot understand why Neville cannot follow a simple sequence of instructions without getting something wrong. Hermione is more sympathetic not because she understands Neville but because he's in her house and she thinks Snape is picking on him. She is very unsympathetic with what she sees as Lavender's gullability and fundamental silliness. Snape and Hermione differ (and I think it is this that makes him exasperated with her) in that he is imaginative (the Half-Blood Prince), while she is by-the-book and uncomfortable when she has to improvise (or when somebody does better than she does because they are improvising). From gsopko at stratos.net Fri Feb 17 20:29:57 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (Gregory Sopko) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:29:57 -0500 Subject: Minerva McGonagall References: Message-ID: <002301c63400$eb6161f0$9800000a@Toshiba> No: HPFGUIDX 148327 > Gregory: > it's hard for me to believe I missed the fact that > McGonagall often wore Slytherin colors. Interesting. I > am more convince tho that she is a Ministry spy like a > Percy Weasley type rather than a Death Eater. Allie: > I believe that much more readily than I do the > ESE!Lupin theories. *IF* ESE!McGonagall is indeed true, > does anyone have any ideas why Snape doesn't seem to know > she is on Voldemort's side? Voldemort has kept her identity > from Snape? If Snape's ESE, then there's no reason for him > to bring it up to Dumbledore, but if he's *not*... Gregory: It's not hard for me to believe than any DE would not know all the names of every DE. Despite that fact, I don't believe that McGonagall is DE, as I said, she is more likely to be a MoM type spy along the lines of a Percy Weasley. It's entirely plausible that Snape might not know that either or frankly care. Why would Snape bring either of those things to DD's attention anyways? Snape doesn't care who DD trusts as his major goal in life is to kill Voldemort for killing Lily Potter, at least thats the way I see it. I believe strongly that it will come out in book 7 that the surprise about Lily Evans-Potter is that Snape was in love with Lily. Remember that Lupin says that Lily was a remarkable woman who could see the good in people even when they couldn't see it themselves. I know that's in the movie, but even Rowling admits that the director was foretelling something important about the story. I further am speculating that Snape went to Godric's Hollow to protect Lily and that may well be the reason Voldemort "graciously" gave Lily the chance to live which in turn was Voldemort's downfall. I believe that Snape's love for Lily is why DD trusted Snape explicitly as love is a magic that Voldemort never understood. Lastly, because Harry is James' son and not his, that would explain Snape's hatred for Harry because he is a living reminder to Snape that Lily loved James and not Snape. From adzuroth at hotmail.com Sat Feb 18 02:06:49 2006 From: adzuroth at hotmail.com (Adzuroth) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:06:49 -0000 Subject: My thoughts on some things....... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148328 Hey there! This is my first post on here and I've been itching to find out if any of you have some answers to some questions of mine as well as opinions to a few of my theories. Let's start off with the Half-Blood Prince: After reading Dumbledore's death scene a few times I couldn't help but think that Dumbledore (DD) might have tried faked his death. Why else would he have deliberately immobilized Harry so he couldn't interfere? I say deliberately because Harry couldn't have been between DD and the tower door when DD fired that jinx. If he was then Draco would've bumped into him when he walked out onto the tower's rooftop. Although there's no canon for this, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to make an illusion of a spell like the killing curse, or perhaps casting a different spell with the same visual characteristics as Avada Kedavra (which sounds suspiciously like Abracadabra........anyone know why?). In all previous castings of that killing curse, the victim simply crumbled to the ground, dead as a doorknob, and that was the end of it. However, for some unknown reason DD got blasted into the air and over the tower wall when he was hit with the "curse". That sounds more like a jinx of some kind than an unforgivable curse. As to how DD managed to survive the fall without his wand is up to pure speculation, but how did his half-moon specticles manage to cling to his face when he hit the ground? Perhaps he had two wands(I know that's never been proven, but as far as I know no wizard is limited to only one wand in his lifetime.) and used his other wand to slow his fall. Perhaps Fawkes was flying around at night and happened to grab DD's wand in his beak then handed it to him when he fell. In any event, there are too many anomalies here to say conclusively that DD is dead. On the other hand, who's to say that DD is not an unregis- tered phoenix animagus? Perhaps Harry wasn't imagining things after all when he "thought" he saw a phoenix fly joyfully into the sky, leaving a white tomb encasting DD's remains? In any case the reason DD wanted the world to think he was dead is obvious: it would draw Lord Voldy out into the open where Harry could finish him off once and for all (after finding all the Horcruxes of course. One other thing of note is that after DD's "death" Snape could've easily killed Harry anytime he wanted to, but chose not to. Anyone think they know why? On a side note, I was wondering a little something about book four. What would have happened if Harry simply refused to compete in the Triwizard Tournament? Granted, he was in a magical contract of sorts, but since when are minors allowed to enter legally binding contracts? If the legal system is different in the magical world, and there is no age limit, then what would keep unscrupulous adults from getting children to sign all their future earnings over to them? Here's another angle for you: Harry could've simply done something to get himself disqualified, and he would be out of the contract, simple as that. Oh yeah, one other little detail. In the first triwizard challenge, why didn't Harry simply say "accio dragon egg" instead of "accio firebolt"? Any of the champions could've done it since there was no mention of any spells preventing that. If the dragon was holding onto the egg, all one had to do was distract it long enough for the dragon to take its claws off the egg, then nail it with the accio spell. On the fifth book, I have one little question. If Umbridge had the first, last, and only word on discipline at Hogwarts, why didn't she simply expel Harry? On that note, what happens to a budding young wizard who's unfortunate enough to get expelled from Hogwarts? Can they try their luck at another school like Durmstrang or Bouxbaton? If their wand gets snapped in half, so what? Hagrid had no problems performing spells in books one and six (putting the pig tail on Dudley and putting out the housefire, respectively). That's all for now............hope to hear from you all soon! Adzuroth From gsopko at stratos.net Fri Feb 17 21:49:21 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (sir_lafayette2000) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:49:21 -0000 Subject: Snape and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148329 > Angie wrote: > > > > It makes no sense to me that Snape would apparate anywhere else but > > LV's feet. He can't go near anyone in the Order (unless DD told > > someone specifically why he trusts Snape and we are unaware of it). > > If he hides Draco to protect him, LV will see that as an act of > > betrayal, I would think. > Gregory wrote: I would agree that Snape went to LV to tell him that DD was dead. There is no compelling reason to believe that Draco went to LV and may well not have since he didnt kill DD. DD trusted Snape and the big question is why. Love is the magic that Voldemort does not understand. I believe that Snape loved Lilly Potter and thats why DD trusts Snape, because Snape hates LV for killing her. Snape may well have been at Godric's Hollow and helped persuade LV to give Lilly a chance to live, which by her refusal, set the magic in place to protect Harry and nearly destroy a supposedly immortal being who had 6 horcruxes protecting him. Harry's existence also reminds Snape that Lilly loved James and not Snape which explains the animosity towards Harry. Snape didn't want to kill Harry. He could have easily during his escape from Hogwarts. Thats also why Snape didn't take Harry with him, because he is protecting Harry. But his real goal is to kill Voldemort, at least in my opinion. Snape is not Voldemort but he is not totally good either. Gregory From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Feb 18 03:07:03 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 03:07:03 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148330 Betsy Hp: > I can totally understand Lupin being driven to a murderous rage. > But it's chilling how... *calm* he is about it. I don't really lean > towards ESE!Lupin, but I feel like I cannot get a handle on him. > He's slippery. And he's very, very subtle. Ceridwen: I don't have a problem with him in this context. He's always kept his head down. I don't think he's the type to get worked up. He's calm because that's just the way he is. Even with the Dementors on the train, though he jumps right into action, he doesn't seem flustered; he keeps his cool. And, look at him under the tree in Snape's memory. He's a prefect, but he's got his nose in a book, pretending not to notice. Pretty cool there, too. Some people don't show feelings very much. Anyway, that's how I see him in the SS scene. Betsy Hp: > Snape seems to see him as the most dangerous of the Marauders, being > sure not to turn his back on him in PoA. That's interesting to me. > And yet when McGonagall was listing off the Marauders in PoA, Lupin > never came up. Was he never caught in their various escapades? Was > he not considered one of the gang by the staff? Or was JKR simply > trying to hide his connection with James and Sirius? (I believe > Lupin tells Harry that he was their friend around this time though, > so I'm not sure why JKR didn't have McGonagall say anything.) Ceridwen: I didn't notice that about Snape. Now I'm curious. I'll have to look through PoA again, with an eye to that. On why McG didn't mention him, I think it might be a mixture of reasons. First, of course, is JKR not wanting the reader in on the secret too early. But, how is this justified in the story? I think the answer comes in OotP, when Lupin is under the tree, ignoring what his friends are doing. He doesn't get involved in their pranks. He's a prefect, so doesn't want to present a bad image for the younger students. And, he's already got the staff noticing him for being a werewolf (or at least the staff who know). Again, keeping a low profile. So, while he was one of them, he didn't necessarily go pranking with them other than their nights in the SS. IMO. Betsy Hp: > He's strangely weak, caving into peer pressure with disturbing > ease. And yet, he spends most of PoA making subtle little digs at > Snape. So he's not totally controlled by a need to be liked. But > he's been the only surviving and free Marauder since the Potters > were killed and he's never, that we know of, attempted to contact > Harry. Why was he so willing to leave Harry to the Dursleys? Why > was he so reluctant to let Harry know that he was a friend of > James? And again (and most disturbingly) why was he willing to let > Harry die rather than share the secrets of dead or traitorous > friends? It makes me wonder about the depths of loyalty he felt for > James. Ceridwen: I think his need to be liked only covers people he actually likes and gets along with, which would leave Snape out. But he's consistent in turning a blind eye to what his friends are doing, as you say, caving into peer pressure. I think you may have adequately answered why he didn't contact Harry earlier on, with your paragraph below: Betsy Hp: > And then there's that crack he makes about sinking to his true level > when he joined with the werewolf pack. He's horribly down on > himself. Ceridwen: He may actually feel that he isn't worthy to contact Harry, or that his 'furry little problem' would be too much of a problem, especially for a boy raised in a Muggle home. Again, keeping to the shadows, hugging the walls. Betsy Hp: > And he seems rather bitter about Dumbledore. (That whole, > well he needed a spy and there I was...) It's like Lupin really > sees himself as something lesser than, and at the same time he's > angry that he is that way. Ceridwen: Yes. I agree wholeheartedly. He does seem to see himself as throw- away baggage, but he still likes himself just enough to resent that. It might also explain the ragged writing on his suitcase - he doesn't think he deserves nice, new lettering, but he deserves recognition. Betsy Hp: > It's funny, because he's got this reputation of being this sweet, > intelligent, calm and rational man. But I suspect that this is a > mask. It's a comfortable mask, and one he uses easily, but in the > end, I don't think we've really met the real Lupin. Hell, I'm not > sure *Lupin* knows who the real Lupin is. Ceridwen: Yes, again. He keeps it bottled up, but some random frustration escapes. He might go ballistic in book 7, let it all out. Or, he might cave in again and have a genuine crisis. He isn't as theatrical as Snape, but he's another ambiguous character who might provide some surprises before the end of the series. Ceridwen. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 03:16:30 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 03:16:30 -0000 Subject: Owner of Riddle House In-Reply-To: <00fc01c63416$f80ffcc0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148331 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > > Catherine: > > I have another question about the Riddle house. Who is "the wealthy man that owned the Riddle house" (pg 10, GoF, UK edition)? Any ideas? > Miles: > "The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither lived there nor put it to any use; they said in the village that he kept it for "tax reasons," though nobody was very clear what these might be. The wealthy owner continued to pay Frank to do the gardening, however." (GoF 1, quoted from Lexicon) > (Snip)> > IMO the owner of this house is not important for the story. > Tonks: Very interesting now that you mention it. I always thought that the wealthy man was a front for LV, or someone acting on his behalf without knowing who he was. Like a Muggle lawyer who really has never met his client face to face. ;-) But he could just be a Muggle with some tie to the Riddle family. He could be Lucius Malfoy. Since it is too late in the series for any new characters, it is probably true that he is not important. What is important is why is the house still important to LV? Is there something in the house, or perhaps the house itself that is a Horcrux? Yes I know, I know, we are seeing Horcruxes everywhere. Just a thought. Tonks_op From gsopko at stratos.net Fri Feb 17 20:55:07 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (Gregory Sopko) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:55:07 -0500 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? References: <20060217133852.48960.qmail@web34210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003a01c63404$6f85a1a0$9800000a@Toshiba> No: HPFGUIDX 148332 Mauricio: DD?s wisdom will be available at Hogwarts. His portrait is at the Headmaster?s office. I wonder if this will be a link to him in the 7th book and if Harry really needs to leave Hogwarts in Book 7? Gregory: I think Harry will spend sometime at Hogwarts despite what he says at the end of book 6, but his pursuit of the horcruxes will take him away for long periods of time much the same as it did for DD. From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Feb 18 04:28:56 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 04:28:56 -0000 Subject: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148333 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Adzuroth" wrote: > > Oh yeah, one other little detail. In the first triwizard challenge, > why didn't Harry simply say "accio dragon egg" instead of "accio > firebolt"? Allie: ROFLMAO!!!! We question every little canon point, but so far I've never seen anyone suggest *that*! From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sat Feb 18 04:32:38 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 04:32:38 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148334 > > Why does everything have to boil down to this one thing, when the > emotional bonds of friendship can be so deep, deep enough to transcend > the physical? My own feeling is that we started swinging the other > direction when we (okay, hippies, yippies and flower children) started > rebelling against the closed-mouth attitude toward sex we saw in our > parents. Fine and good, but then it became everything is about sex > instead of the other extreme. > > Ceridwen. > La Gatta Lucianese: Actually, I think it started with Freud, whom I put right up there with Paul of Tarsus as responsible for most of the hooey abroad in the world today. There's a wonderful little Grook by Piet Hein that pretty much sums up my take on these things: Everything's either Concave or -vex, So whatever you dream Will be something with Sex. From sopraniste at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 04:55:43 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:55:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060218045543.73785.qmail@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148335 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Adzuroth" > wrote: > > > > Oh yeah, one other little detail. In the first > triwizard challenge, > > why didn't Harry simply say "accio dragon egg" > instead of "accio > > firebolt"? I agree! That was MY first thought when he started working on summoning charms. Silly Harry! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Feb 18 05:28:27 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 05:28:27 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148336 La Gatta Lucianese: > I think that Hermione and Snape are more similar that a lot of people > realize ... houyhnhnm: I see them as similar in many ways and I think this is the personal reason Snape picks on Hermione (aside from the fact that she is Harry's friend, a Gryffindor, and Snape is maintaining his cover--if that is the case--and so forth). He sees Hermione as an overachiever, someone who knows-it-all out of books, an unpopular oddball (if she weren't friends with the Great Harry Potter), very much like the young Snape, in fact. I'll bet Snape was called a know-it-all more than once while he was a student at Hogwarts. I even see Snape's projection of his own self-hatred at the bottom of his most egregiously cruel remark in all six books: "I see no difference". Having been taunted because of his looks all through school, an unattractive feature (the Hermione of the books is no where near as pretty as Emma Watson) would not only remind him of what he hated about himself as a teenager, he would probably even be able to rationalize it by telling himself he is helping her. It's a mean, hard, dangerous world and the sooner you learn to take your lumps and get-over-it, the better. And I agree that Hermione's lack of originality--in class that is; she shows plenty of originality outside of class when she is helping Harry--the quality that Snape most admires in himself, exaccerbates the problem. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Feb 18 05:57:49 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 05:57:49 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148337 Dung: > Voldy *could* have set up a plan to do the whole lot in one go, > but it would have *had* to involve Snape if he wanted it to > succeed, and Snape could have slithered out of action again (with > DD's help) by making sure that the plan failed. One of Voldy's > goals was to test Snape's loyalty; a plan like that could easily > have ended up with DD escaping, Snape having kept his true > allegiance under wraps *again*, and possibly even with Draco not > getting punished for Lucius' mistakes. No, Voldy's a Slytherin! > > I'm also 99% convinced that Voldy prompted Bella and Cissy's visit > to Spinner's End ? not explicitly, but Bella could easily have > been lying when she told Cissy "I know the Dark Lord trusts him". > Voldy may have hinted that Snape might need an extra motive to > make sure that Draco didn't mess up too badly. Cue the sisters. Jen: At the very least I think Voldemort was aware Narcissa planned to ask Snape for help and didn't intervene. At the most I'd say Voldemort had a hand in the Unbreakable in some form, although that's hard to prove so far. From the plotting of the other books, LV has a history of handing over the rope for a person to hang him/herself and it seems likely to me *someone* in the room at Spinner's End was being manipulated. As you pointed out, it's putting an awful lot to chance to risk Snape not following through. So I do agree with a scenario where at least one of the party at Spinner's End appeared to be acting completely independently but was being pulled by a string in the back. Maybe it was LV finally forcing Dumbledore's hand with the DADA job by demanding Snape find a way to get it 'or else'. Maybe it was Voldemort using Narcissa's desperation for Draco to suggest Snape might be of service to Draco during the year. Heck, I personally wouldn't put it past Narcissa to be lying to both Snape and Bella and she was actually sent to get the Unbreakable in exchange for Draco's life! If Snape tried to legilimens her he would likely see only her fears for Draco in that moment. I mean, Bella along for the ride when Narcissa ostensibly didn't want her there was convenient when it came time for the bonding ritual. Dung: > See, I reckon Voldemort's been reading the evil overlord handbook > in the holidays. No "bring him to me so I can challenge him to a > duel and have the pleasure of proving myself to be the stronger", > no "give him a long and painful death (from which he can > heroically > escape) so the old fool can really appreciate just how much I hate > him"... Just a nice and simple "get the job done and I won't kill > you and your family" to Draco, and a "you'd better be on my side > after all Snape, or you're dead," via Bella and Cissy. > Neat, no? Jen: Neat, yes. I like. I like any plot which incorporates Voldemort more in Spinner's End. To me that would follow what we're supposed to believe about Voldemort, that he is the master behind all these plans and is incorporating his 'gift for spreading discord and enmity' among his DE's here. That the DE's, even Snape, are pawns in his game. > Dung: > Too rational for Voldemort? Hmm. It seems to me (off the top of my > head and after absolutely no perusal of canon) that Voldy's evil > overlord mistakes are always in the heat of the moment ? giving > Harry back his wand, turning up to the MoM in person etc. His > planning doesn't seem to suffer too much. The GoF and OotP plans > were really remarkably clever, they failed through last minute > problems, not through being badly organised. But you might > disagree... Fixations, certainly, but has he not shown > that he can be remarkably patient? Got any good canon for the > irrationality? Not that I think you haven't, I just think that > given his goals, his fixations and obsessions are really quite > rational, but he's cunning enough not to let them obscure his > other goals Jen: I meant that his plans fail because they are based on irrational fixations to begin with. Like going to the MOM or attempting to kill Harry as a baby. Both plans were likely well thought out and carefully organized, but in each case his basis for making the plan is due to an obsessive fixation with faulty wiring: He must kill Harry because the prophecy is true; he must obtain the prophecy to find out why he can't kill Harry; he must have Harry and only Harry sent to the graveyard to be reborn; he must be the one to kill Harry even though he's failed four times. Do you know what I mean, even if you don't agree? For this reason I tend to think killing Dumbledore will *not* serve the purpose Voldemort thinks it will. There will be something about DD's death he is overlooking as he did with Lily or with taking Harry's blood, etc. And it might be as simple as he's made a mortal enemy out of Snape who will do anything to defeat him even if it means siding with Harry (not amicably of course). Or it could be something more magical at work which will come back to haunt him. Dung: > I just have this suspicion that in the way that HBP was all about > Snape, Harry Potter and the Key to Everything will be all about > Dumbledore. But just what we're going to find out about him is > anyone's guess... Jen: Oh, I hope so. I seriously thought HBP would give us insight into Dumbledore, not Voldemort. Maybe it did and it's hard to recognize until the story is complete? I mean, Voldemort is not the only obsessed person in the series . When we finally hear about Grindelwald, perhaps the root of Dumbledore's obsession with bringing down dark lords will have more meaning. Mostly I think he's doing it for the good of the WW, but he wasn't *always* the greatest sorcerer in the world with only the good of humanity on his mind, was he? At one time maybe he was a boy and young man a bit like Harry, a reluctant hero making mistakes and leaning on others for help. Might be an interesting addition for Harry to hear about as he faces a seemingly insurmountable task. Jen R. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 18 07:54:57 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 07:54:57 -0000 Subject: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: <20060218045543.73785.qmail@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148338 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maria Holub wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Adzuroth" > > wrote: Adzuroth: > > > Oh yeah, one other little detail. In the first > > triwizard challenge, > > > why didn't Harry simply say "accio dragon egg" > > instead of "accio > > > firebolt"? Maria Holub: > I agree! That was MY first thought when he started > working on summoning charms. Silly Harry! Geoff: Just think how we might have reacted. The obvious sometimes passes us by. Crouch!Moody had suggested to Harry that he played to his strengths and had planted the idea in his head that flying was one of them. Hence, Harry went out with the plan firmly in his head to summon his broom. Secondly, the eggs might have been protected against Accio spells; it might not have escaped the minds of the organisers that the spell existed. :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 08:08:05 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:08:05 -0000 Subject: Owner of Riddle House - House of Mystery? In-Reply-To: <001e01c633d9$e2262bb0$9800000a@Toshiba> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Gregory Sopko" wrote: > > > Catherine: > > Who is "the wealthy man that owned the Riddle house" (pg 10, > > GoF, UK edition)? > > Exodusts: > > Maybe LV bought the house, through an agent, at the > > most recent of its sales? > > Gregory: > Since Voldemort killed his father and grandparents, he inherited the > house and would be the wealthy owner, would he not? > bboyminn: Well, I can say for certain, but I have a theory ....HA! Like you didn't already know that. I have always suspected there were people who acted as 'go betweens' between the muggle and magic worlds. Perhaps a green grocer who is aware of the magic world (for whatever reason) uses his business to funnel fresh produce into the magic world. There could be similar real estate agents who, for example, helped Mr. Weasley buy his farm. If you are willing to accept this premise, then it is logical that there would be 'go between' people who help wizard with muggle legal problems. Logically, with no clear and immediate heir to the Riddle Estate, the government would get involved in settling the estate. I'm not sure of the details of how it works in the U.K., but I think it is still a reasonable assumption. So, Tom Riddle would send lawyer in advance to make his case and lay his claim to the estate. At the last minute, after all the evidence and necessary documentation had been produced, he would show up in person to sign the documents and claim the estate. They couldn't really accuse him of murder because the books clearly tell us that there was no proof at all that the Riddles had been murdered. Indeed, it was that very fact that got Frank Bryce off. Voldemort, through his 'go between' agents quickly claimed the money and turned the real assets into cash, and used the money to finance his quest for the Dark Arts and Immortality. This could have been done within a year after the Riddles had been murdered. Since that time, the house has been sold and resold. Each new owner rejecting the house because it had a nasty feel to it. And why would a perfectly good house have a nasty feel? Because some small bit of Voldemort's soul is residing there. Hey, it could happen. Though, I will admit, it goes against Dumbledore's speculation regarding /what/ the Horcruxes are, but it doesn't necessarily go against Voldemort's idea of hiding Horcruxes in significant places. The place where he killed his parents would certainly be viewed as a significant part of Voldemort's personal history. I think he is much more likely to have hid a Horcrux at or near the Riddle house than he is to have hidden one at Godrics Hollow. I'm not saying all this is true, only that it is a relatively reasonable speculation of the sequence of events. In previous discussions of this subject, the names that have most often come up as current owners are Malfoy (on Voldemort's behalf) and Dumbledore (because he understands the significants). Maybe, Harry will inherit the Riddle House from Dumbledore, and IT will become his new 'home base'. Just a few rambling thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Feb 18 12:06:48 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:06:48 -0000 Subject: Owner of Riddle House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148340 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > Catherine: > > > I have another question about the Riddle house. Who is "the > wealthy man that owned the Riddle house" (pg 10, GoF, UK edition)? > Any ideas? Miles: > > "The wealthy man who owned the Riddle House these days neither > lived there nor put it to any use; they said in the village that he > kept it for "tax reasons," though nobody was very clear what these > might be. The wealthy owner continued to pay Frank to do the > gardening, however." (GoF 1, quoted from Lexicon) > > > (Snip)> > > IMO the owner of this house is not important for the story. > > > Tonks: *(snip)* > Since it is too late in the series for any new characters, it is > probably true that he is not important. What is important is why is > the house still important to LV? Is there something in the house, > or perhaps the house itself that is a Horcrux? Yes I know, I know, > we are seeing Horcruxes everywhere. Just a thought. Ceridwen: Wouldn't it be funny if Dumbledore was the rich investor, and now Harry owns the house? Ceridwen. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 12:51:13 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 04:51:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Faking Ollivander's Death by Death Eater Attack? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060218125113.69262.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148341 --- Steve wrote: > Can't find the exact spot to make this point so I just make it as > an independant thought. Many people seem to think that Dumbledore > would have faked Ollivander's death to look like a Death Eater > attack, but doesn't that seem extremely unlikely? > > .....If anyone would know what the Death Eaters are doing it > would be Voldemort and the Death Eaters. So, if they knew that > they had not attacked Ollivander, then wouldn't the fake attack > seem pretty...well, you know...FAKE? I don't own a copy of HBP yet (I refuse to pay hardcover prices; I buy paperback) so I can't check the text for the description of Ollivander's disappearance, whether it was DE or not. But I can think of one reason why Dumbledore would have faked the attack to look like a DE one: if whacking Ollivander was something that Snape was assigned to do to prove that he was indeed still a DE. (Nothing like shared guilt for homicide to bind a group together.) In that situation, I can readily believe Dumbledore going to great lengths to ensure that Snape is accepted back into Voldemort's confidence and would sell Ollivander himself on the need to vanish for a couple of years. Otherwise, I agree with Steve. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 12:56:57 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:56:57 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148342 Betsy Hp: Snape seems to see him as the most dangerous of the Marauders, being sure not to turn his back on him in PoA. That's interesting to me. And yet when McGonagall was listing off the Marauders in PoA, Lupin never came up. a_svirn: But McGonagall wasn't "listing off the Marauders", she was telling a thrilling tale of true friendship and betrayal, and from where she stood Lupin simply did not feature in it. For the simple reason that he didn't take his part in the final showdown. Which, in turn, poses another question: just why didn't he take his part in it? Betsy Hp: He's strangely weak, caving into peer pressure with disturbing ease. And yet, he spends most of PoA making subtle little digs at Snape. So he's not totally controlled by a need to be liked. a_svirn: But where do you see the contradiction? He could hardly indulge an idle hope of being liked by Snape, could he? And by "making subtle little digs" he won almost universal admiration at his expense. Betsy Hp: Why was he so willing to leave Harry to the Dursleys? a_svirn: Most likely Dumbledore neglected to ask his consent. And anybody else's. Betsy Hp: And again (and most disturbingly) why was he willing to let Harry die rather than share the secrets of dead or traitorous friends? a_svirn: Yes, I agree, this is one thing which is quite impossible to explain away. Betsy Hp: And he seems rather bitter about Dumbledore. (That whole, well he needed a spy and there I was...) It's like Lupin really sees himself as something lesser than, and at the same time he's angry that he is that way. a_svirn: Well, of course he does and he is. This is, at least, something that is quite understandable, however unfair it might be. Ceridwen: And, look at him under the tree in Snape's memory. He's a prefect, but he's got his nose in a book, pretending not to notice. Pretty cool there, too. Some people don't show feelings very much. Anyway, that's how I see him in the SS scene. a_svirn: Do you know, I think Fudge is even more cool. Lupin was simply a prefect who pretended not to notice the most outrageous case of bullying. But Fudge has quite outdone him in the art of detachment. Why, he was a minister who pretended not to notice the return of the greatest Dark Wizard of All! Guess, it's the British Stiff Upper Lip at work. From kkersey at swbell.net Sat Feb 18 13:49:31 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:49:31 -0000 Subject: Owner of Riddle House (was Re: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148343 Carol presents a compelling argument against the possibility that Tom Riddle could or would lay claim to the Riddle home as his inheritance. I'm going to borrow a snippet here to argue against the theory that Dumbledore is the mysterious owner: Carol: > Fourth, he could not have used the house as his headquarters in VW1 > or for any other purpose, or Frank would have tried to investigate > (as he does in GoF) and been killed much sooner. Elisabet now: On the one hand, it would be in character for Dumbledore to provide for poor Frank Bryce by keeping him on as caretaker... but on the other, if Dumbledore had really acquired the property so he could keep an eye on it just in case LV decided to show up there again - well, anyone could guess what Frank's fate would be the moment LV showed up. I just can't see Dumbledore using anyone, much less a helpless muggle, as a canary in a coal mine like that. Of course, DD could probably assume that any magical alarms would be detectable by LV, and he wouldn't want LV to know he was watching the place if he really did think it was important. So that leaves using Muggles to keep an eye on the place, which perhaps DD is (passively) doing via the newspapers. If LV wanted to make sure that the house was empty and available he could have easily enough gone through a third party - even a rich muggle looking for a tax shelter - with a confundus charm or two to get the paperwork in order. Even if he bought it himself (unlikely, for reasons Carol has noted) - and he'd have to have used an alias, as there is no way the Riddle name could have passed unnoticed - there's no reason he'd have to show his face at Little Hangleton or anywhere else. Elisabet From vidarfe at start.no Sat Feb 18 15:35:54 2006 From: vidarfe at start.no (vidar_fe) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:35:54 -0000 Subject: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148344 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Adzuroth" wrote > On a side note, I was wondering a little something about book four. > What would have happened if Harry simply refused to compete in the > Triwizard Tournament? Granted, he was in a magical contract of > sorts, but since when are minors allowed to enter legally binding > contracts? If the legal system is different in the magical world, > and there is no age limit, then what would keep unscrupulous adults > from getting children to sign all their future earnings over to > them? Here's another angle for you: Harry could've simply done > something to get himself disqualified, and he would be out of the > contract, simple as that. vidar_fe: I think you are confusing magically binding contracts and legally binding contracts. As an example of what I mean, I will use the Unbreakable Vow: As far as we know, Unbreakable Vows are not legally binding in any way. Of course we don't no much wizard law, but we know that the law is not the reason why you don't wanna break an Unbreakable Vow. The magic of the vow is a force of nature that operates independently of the law, and it will kill you if you don't. I can't prove this, but I think a magically binding contract operates in more or less the same way. Thus, if Harry had refused to compete, it would have severe consequences for him, possibly even death. Not because the law says so, but because of the magic in the Goblet. Adzuroth: > Oh yeah, one other little detail. In the first triwizard challenge, > why didn't Harry simply say "accio dragon egg" instead of "accio > firebolt"? Any of the champions could've done it since there was no > mention of any spells preventing that. If the dragon was holding > onto the egg, all one had to do was distract it long enough for the > dragon to take its claws off the egg, then nail it with the accio > spell. vidar_fe That's a very good question. Probably, he didn't think of it. Adzuroth: > On the fifth book, I have one little question. If Umbridge had the > first, last, and only word on discipline at Hogwarts, why didn't she > simply expel Harry? > > On that note, what happens to a budding young wizard who's > unfortunate enough to get expelled from Hogwarts? Can they try > their luck at another school like Durmstrang or Bouxbaton? > If their wand gets snapped in half, so what? Hagrid had no > problems performing spells in books one and six (putting > the pig tail on Dudley and putting out the housefire, > respectively). vidar_fe: Well, Hagrid had his very special umbrella.... :-) From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sat Feb 18 15:52:39 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:52:39 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148345 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > I can totally understand Lupin being driven to a murderous rage. > But it's chilling how... *calm* he is about it. I don't really lean > towards ESE!Lupin, but I feel like I cannot get a handle on him. > He's slippery. And he's very, very subtle. > He's strangely weak, caving into peer pressure with disturbing > ease. And yet, he spends most of PoA making subtle little digs at > Snape. So he's not totally controlled by a need to be liked. But > he's been the only surviving and free Marauder since the Potters > were killed and he's never, that we know of, attempted to contact > Harry. Why was he so willing to leave Harry to the Dursleys? Why > was he so reluctant to let Harry know that he was a friend of > James? And again (and most disturbingly) why was he willing to let > Harry die rather than share the secrets of dead or traitorous > friends? It makes me wonder about the depths of loyalty he felt for > James. Cutting and pasting here Besty I'd like to comment on this. There a scene in PoA (If I remember correctly) where Lupin is telling Harry about the Dementors and the Dementor's Kiss and Harry notes that Lupin is smiling in an ironic way. That's interesting because I think that it reveals something about Lupin...Lupin is the type of guy that worries about the means to the end. And often I think that Lupin will tolerate a bad "mean" if it brings about the "end" that he wants. For instance you say that Lupin caved to peer pressure and let James and Sirius bully Snape but that's assuming that Lupin wanted to stop it. The fact that Lupin is still taking subtle digs at Snape 20 years later means that Lupin could have disapproved of James and Sirius "means" (the fact that everyone could see it and it undercut Lupin's position) rather then the "end" (bullying Snape/giving Snape what he). As an aside...do we ever hear Sirius call the Prank a "joke" (I'm certain that Snape and Lupin do)? I've always wondered about Lupin's role in that (most people assume that he had no actual input but I'm no longer sure). > Snape seems to see him as the most dangerous of the Marauders, being > sure not to turn his back on him in PoA. That's interesting to me. > And yet when McGonagall was listing off the Marauders in PoA, Lupin > never came up. Was he never caught in their various escapades? Was > he not considered one of the gang by the staff? Or was JKR simply > trying to hide his connection with James and Sirius? (I believe > Lupin tells Harry that he was their friend around this time though, > so I'm not sure why JKR didn't have McGonagall say anything.) Interesting...I would have said that Snape seemed slightly disdainful of Lupin but Snape actually seemed leery of Sirius. I personally would have said Snape was most weary of Sirius and I actually think that they may have had a fair measure of each other (isn't it odd that Sirius calls Snape Lucius's lap-dog and then in HBP Spinner's End happens). Quick_Silver From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sat Feb 18 18:17:55 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:17:55 +0100 Subject: Owner of Riddle House References: Message-ID: <00cc01c634b7$a4e37f30$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148346 Tonks wrote: > What is important is why is > the house still important to LV? Is there something in the house, > or perhaps the house itself that is a Horcrux? Yes I know, I know, > we are seeing Horcruxes everywhere. Just a thought. Miles: I wouldn't totally rule out that there is a Horcrux in the house. But I don't see why you think that it is important for LV? After returning to England, he needed shelter. Being very weak and still hiding, it would have been dangerous for him to return to the wizarding world, so he chose to live in the muggle world. And he probably knew, that the Riddle House was abandoned due to the murders he himself had committed. So why not hiding in his father's house, that he might think was his righteous possession? Additionaly, the house should be near the grave of his father, which he knew he would need - so this hiding place is a good one for him for obvious reasons - no need to look for mysteries here IMO. Miles From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Feb 18 18:58:02 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 13:58:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Faking Ollivander's Death by Death Eater Attack? In-Reply-To: <20060218125113.69262.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060218125113.69262.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43F76E3A.1010606@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148347 Magda Grantwich wrote: > I don't own a copy of HBP yet (I refuse to pay hardcover prices; I > buy paperback) so I can't check the text for the description of > Ollivander's disappearance, whether it was DE or not. Bart: Don't they have libraries where you come from? While I have all the books in hardcover, I don't want to buy a number of the secondary works, but have been interested in reading them. The local library has been a wonderful source (especially when I take advantage of the interlibrary loan system). Bart From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 19:27:54 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:27:54 -0000 Subject: Why I'm not convinced DD is dead (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148348 I know others have offered their opinion on whether DD is dead. Since I'm iced in this weekend and can't go anywhere, I thought I'd offer mine (while the electricity in on!). I hope I'm not merely repeating what others have said previously. I will admit that I don't want DD to be dead. I'm tired of Harry losing people, period. I won't say for certain I believe DD's alive, but I'm not fully convinced that he's dead, for the following reasons: First, simply because Snape pointed the wand directly at DD's chest, uttered the AK curse, and a green jet of light shot from his wand and hit DD in the chest doesn't mean the AK curse was actually and successfully performed. Bella told Harry in OOP that you have to really mean an Unforgivable Curse. IMO, Snape didn't want to kill DD. Second, I don't believe canon supports that ONLY the AK curse produces a green jet of light. I can easily envision some sort of scenario in which Snape, alone or acting with DD, could have produced a fake AK-curse with a green jet of light. I know DD was wandless and weak (and I believe, dying), but surely the most powerful wizard of the age could have used a nonverbal spell without his wand. It's also possible that Snape performed a nonverbal spell at the same time the did he fake AK. Especially given the emphasis that is placed on nonverbal spells in HBP, I really think this is a strong possibility. It's also possible DD at some point had taken the Draught of Living Death (also emphasized for the first time since SS in HBP), but that the effect of the spell could only be activated by Snape performing the AK-type curse. In addition, nowhere else in the books did an AK curse blast someone in the air. I suppose it could, like the disarming spell, if uttered with enough force. But why have DD go over the rampart? It just seems to fishy to me, like it was just done "for effect" and to keep anyone from immediately examining DD's body. Others have posted, noting that the Riddles, for example, died with their eyes open, as did Cedric. DD's eyes were closed. While the blood could have come from hitting the ground, I suppose, again, it seems to be mentioned "for effect" and doesn't jive with what we've previously been told about the AK curse. For example, Harry noted when FakeMoody AK the spider that it was unblemished. The book also says that except for the odd angle of his arms and legs, DD could have been asleep. Couldn't that have been arranged, as well? Nor am I convinced the fact that DD's portrait is in now in the Headmaster's office means that he is dead. It may be that all of the former headmasters prior to DD are dead (although has it ever actually been established that all of the former headmasters are dead?), but a former headmaster is not necessarily a dead headmaster. Simply because all of the pictures are of former headmasters who are dead doesn't mean that the portraits were hung only after the former headmasters died. We don't know when they died; the portraits could have been hung after they retired but before they died. Certainly if DD was going to make it appear he was dead, he would arrange to have his portrait hung -- it would have been a very glaring omission had he not done so. Not the sort of thing Anal Albus would overlook. Interestingly, when Harry first ventured into DD's office in COS, his POV was that "the walls were covered with portraits of old headmasters and headmistresses." U.S. edition, softcover, at 205. Note: old headmasters and mistresses, not dead ones. Of course, Harry's POV changed in HBP, which reads: "And a new headmaster had joined the ranks of the dead headmasters and headmistresses at Hogwarts." U.S. edition, hardback at 626. That is the way Harry views DD's portrait joining the other portraits b/c apparently the other headmasters/mistresses are dead. If the point of having the former headmaster/mistresses' portraits is to advise and give service to the present headmaster, why wait until they die to hang their portraits? If someone is alive, of course, they could be summoned and consulted in person or consulted by other means, but wouldn't having their portrait on hand be easier and quicker both on the current headmaster and on the former, who probably wouldn't relish having his retirement disrupted? Seems like JKR has been conditioning us to come to the conclusion that portrait=dead, but if it says somewhere definite that only dead headmasters/mistresses may have their portraits hung, I missed it. On a more corporeal note, even though we didn't see DD's actual body at the funeral, I do believe that it was DD's body that Hagrid carried at the funeral. I don't know what wizard custom is in regard to viewing a body. We don't know who prepared the body. We only know that Hagrid moved DD's body and at the funeral carried what he obviously thought was DD body. I'll admit that Hagrid at least thought he was carrying DD's body because I don't think he is sophisticated enough to fake his grief. But primarily, I believe it was DD's body b/c Harry thought he saw a pheonix arise from the flames (see below). The impression I got was that DD's body bursting into flames and then somehow becoming encased in a white tomb was not the ordinary funeral service (which it shouldn't be, given DD's exalted status in the wizarding world). But how very clever of JKR, in literary series replete with wizard deaths, to give us no other funeral service to compare DD's to. We could have Harry asking about this parents' service, or Harry asking Ron if he'd ever attended a funeral. It's not inconceivable that Hermione knows all about it, since she seems to know so much about the WW. But no, we are left in the dark on this subject, and deliberately so, I believe. It seems odd to me that when DD's "body" burst into flames, several people screamed. Even if it were expected, I would understand gasps but wouldn't it only be shocking enough to cause people to scream if it was unexpected? The book says that the "white" flames, which seems odd itself, spiraled into the air and made strange shapes" (U.S. edition, hardback at 645). And of course, Harry thought he saw a phoenix fly from the flames. We know from SS that a potion will prevent you from being consumed by flames and from one book (can't remember which) that a freezing charm will do the same (re Wendelin the Weird, who enjoyed being burned at the stake) Anyway, after Harry thought he saw the phoenix, the flames vanished and a white marble tomb encased DD's body. We don't know who or what caused this to happen. In short, DD's whole service to me seems designed to convince the WW that he is dead without actually allowing those present to see his body. On another note, Snape knew, which means LV knew, that DD's reactions were getting slower ? or at least DD wanted it to appear that way. DD's cursed black hand could have been for show as well. I think this is important b/c otherwise, it would have been hard for anyone to believe that Snape got the drop on DD. Seems important for Harry in particular to believe this. JKR, especially in OOP, made clear that Harry began to see DD as an aging wizard and I wondered why. Now I think I know. Harry's belief in DD's ability/power had to change so that he would believe DD was dead and not spend his time (as we in fandom do) pondering about it. I can't ignore the benefit to the Order if LV and the DE think that DD is dead, but he, in fact, is not. Harry is convinced that DD is dead, in part, b/c the freezing charm was lifted on him after DD "died." But if DD didn't die, of course, he would have lifted the freezing charm. Or perhaps Snape did it nonverbally. To me, the lifting of the freezing charm is weak evidence, but in Harry's shoes, I probably would have concluded the same thing. I also can't ignore JKR's unquestioned ability to write an unequivocal death scene, if she had wanted to do so. But no. She gave us more than enough to question DD's death, far more than in Sirius's death scene. She made it appear that Snape did not want to kill DD. If she wanted an unequivocal death scene, she would have had another DE or Draco do it and would have described the traditional AK curse and results (of which we are aware based on the Riddles' deaths and Cedric's deaths). All of the above combined with all of the statements DD has made about death (especially right before he "died" telling Draco how well they could make the other side believe he was dead), certainly leaves room for speculation, which is what I believe JKR intended, even if it turns out that DD is truly dead. On the other hand, I will concede that all of the phoenix references and imagery support DD coming back from the dead, not the appearance of being dead. Hmmmm . . . . Angie (still pondering) From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 18 19:42:37 2006 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:42:37 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] My thoughts on some things....... References: Message-ID: <006501c634c3$7a4a6200$c9340152@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 148349 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adzuroth" Subject: [HPforGrownups] My thoughts on some things....... > killing curse, or perhaps casting a different spell > with the same visual characteristics as Avada Kedavra > (which sounds suspiciously like Abracadabra........anyone > know why?). The similarity isn't accidental. We associate Abracadabra with stage magicians these days but in earlier days it was a very powerful magical word used by charmers and cunning folk - stage magicians only took it over when cunning folk started to die out and be considered to be part of "superstition". Before then, it wasn't a word that anyone used lightly and a word that had been part of magical usage for centuries before, often on talismans and charms, written like this ABRACADABRA ABRACADABR ABRACADAB ABRACADA ABRACAD ABRACA ABRAC ABRA ABR AB A (can't do it as a proper triangle on Outlook but you get the general idea) hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Sat Feb 18 17:11:50 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:11:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hermione Message-ID: <20060218171150.27798.qmail@web37014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148350 Hi, Just a quick thought. As I was re-reading CoS again, I noted something interesting. In Ch 11 "The Duelling Club" pg 138 (U.K. edition) yet another mention about Hermione's ability to make portable water-proof fires. Skipping ahead to HBP, fire is the one thing that stops the Inferi. I'm thinking a water-proof fire will end up being quite useful in book 7. Catherine (who is reading CoS again looking for all the clues for book7) From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 03:29:48 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 03:29:48 -0000 Subject: Origins of Avada Kedavra WAS:Re: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148351 Adzuroth wrote: > > Although there's no canon for this, it wouldn't be too > far-fetched to make an illusion of a spell like the > killing curse, or perhaps casting a different spell > with the same visual characteristics as Avada Kedavra > (which sounds suspiciously like Abracadabra........anyone > know why?). > Fuzz876i wrote: Avada Kedavra (uh-VAH-duh kuh-DAH-vruh) "Killing Curse" Aramaic: "adhadda kedhabhra" - "let the thing be destroyed". NOTE: Abracadabra is a cabbalistic charm in Judaic mythology that is supposed to bring healing powers. One of its sources is believed to be from Aramaic avada kedavra, another is the Phoenician alphabet (a- bra-ca-dabra). I found this on the Harry Potter Lexicon I hope this helps you understand the pronunciation of this spell. I can't find anything else that might help but this is why it sounds like Abracadabra. Fuzz876i From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Feb 18 20:04:52 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:04:52 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why I'm not convinced DD is dead (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008301c634c6$955480f0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 148352 Angie I know others have offered their opinion on whether DD is dead. Since I'm iced in this weekend and can't go anywhere, I thought I'd offer mine (while the electricity in on!). I hope I'm not merely repeating what others have said previously. I will admit that I don't want DD to be dead. I'm tired of Harry losing people, period. I won't say for certain I believe DD's alive, but I'm not fully convinced that he's dead, for the following reasons: Sherry now: Excellent post, Angie. i don't agree with it, but you did a masterful job of putting together all the arguments that have come here since HBP. i agree with you that I'm tired of Harry losing people. But if anyone comes back from the dead, i hope it's Sirius. Sirius is the person Harry's parents appointed to be his guardian, his father's best friend. i think his return would be more meaningful in the long run for Harry, because he is a connection to his parents, because he's young enough to be in Harry's life for a good long time. i also find Sirius' death more ambiguous than Dumbledore's. After all, we never saw any body of Sirius after he fell through the veil. Though I have worked hard to convince myself that when JKR says dead means dead, that really means those who die will not come back, a small part of my heart hopes for Sirius to return and be the guardian and godfather Harry wants. Ok, not a guardian anymore legally, but that person who can be his parental figure. Dumbledore, if alive, is too powerful and important in a way. He can't be the family, the parent Harry would like to have. Another thing for me is that I think Dumbledore coming back would be too cheesy and actually predictable. Too many people half believe it, and so there would be no bang associated with it at all. It would be like, ok, yeah, Gandalf came back, so of course Dumbledore would come back. I loved Dumbledore as a character, except in OOTP, and I hated him dying. I so wanted all the predictions to be wrong. but now that he is dead, I would actually be disappointed if he's the one to make the big resurrection scene, just as has been done in so many fantasies before. I expect JKR to do something to shock me again in the last book. Sherry From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Feb 18 20:29:03 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:29:03 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione In-Reply-To: <20060218171150.27798.qmail@web37014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3377046C-A0BD-11DA-98AB-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148353 On Saturday, February 18, 2006, at 11:11 AM, catherine higgins wrote: > ? Just a quick thought. As I was re-reading CoS again, I noted > something interesting. In Ch 11 "The Duelling Club" pg 138 (U.K. > edition) yet another mention about Hermione's ability to make portable > water-proof fires. Skipping ahead to HBP, fire is the one thing that > stops the Inferi. I'm thinking a water-proof fire will end up being > quite useful in book 7. > ?? > kchuplis: I agree. Not only does she use it frequently, but I *think* it is referred to as "Hermione's specialty" isn't it? Which makes me think maybe she rediscovered an old spell or invented it. It doesn't seem like something most wizards do at any rate. That to, might prove a huge benefit. Sometimes I wonder if the "end" of LV won't be through many simple means not something gigantic and complex. From Sherry at PebTech.net Sat Feb 18 20:31:59 2006 From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:31:59 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148354 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sir_lafayette2000" wrote: > > I believe that McGonagall > arrived way too early at Privet Drive and this may well be a clue > that Rowling has planted right at the get go of the books. > ... > Hagrid had been at Godric's Hollow, knew that [James and Lily] were dead yet failed to tell her more than Harry apparently was > to be taken to 4 Privet Drive. > ... Amontillada: How exactly do we judge "way too early"? She might be considered "too early" because she was there far before Dumbledore, but her early arrival might also be considered wisely scouting out the territory, or to use the French (and American military) term, reconnaisance. Hagrid probably thought he should McGonagall only the crucial information that she needed to know immediately. Moving quickly and staying hidden were vital for him, so he couldn't spare the time to tell her more; and Hagrid has often shown that he sees Dumbledore as being the best one to tell important information. > In the scene in the Hospital Wing in H-BP after Dumbledore has died, > when everyone is being transfixed by the phoenix song, it is > McGonagall's entrance that breaks the "magic" of this moment. Amontillada: I read this as a classic example of McGonagall's practical, "do what must be done" personality. As deeply as she feels the loss, she feels the responsibility for continuing the actions that Dumbledore considered vital. > Further Harry refuses to tell her where he and Dumbledore have been > or what his plans are, even tho she is a member of the Order of the > Phoenix. Amontillada: >From the very beginning of HBP, Dumbledore had encouraged Harry to share information specifically with Hermione and Ron. Harry has been close-mouthed with others, not with McGonagall in particular. > I suspect that McGonagall was not entirely trusted by Dumbledore and > may well be a spy for the Ministry of Magic. Which might also > explain her contempt for the High Inquisitor earlier in the story. Amontillada I'm confused about what you mean. I don't understand how spying for the MM might "explain" her contempt for Umbridge. Can you explain more about what you mean? I like to discuss McGonagall. As you may have guessed, I see her as on the side of good. Amontillada From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 20:43:50 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:43:50 -0000 Subject: How Does LV Communicate with Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148355 I've been wondering how LV communicates with Snape at HW. We've seen numerous methods of communication - owls, patronuses, heads- in-the-fireplace, pictures that hang in more than one place, Protean coins. (What else?) I'm assuming that the heightened security for HW in HBP included the same security that we saw in OOP(and more). If so, I don't see how LV could have communicated by owl or the fireplaces. Or by pictures for that matter. Nor do I see how LV's or a DE's patronus could penetrate HW (even if it could, how does a Patronus communicate???). The Protean coins seem to have limited communicative effect; they seem to act more as a signal that anything substantive. So how would LV communicate some urgent, substantive message to Snape? Is there anything in canon to support that the Dark Mark can be used to transmit holographic messages? Would the security measures also limit Snape's ability to send contact LV? I'm also wondering if the WW has methods of communication to which we have not yet been introduced. Parchment that Apparates, perhaps? I've always been curious as to the WW's equivalent of a telephone, something that would allow instant, two-way communication (other than the fireplace, which seems so awkward to me). Ideas anyone? Angie From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Feb 18 21:17:27 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:17:27 -0000 Subject: Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148356 Jen: > I mean, Voldemort is not the only obsessed person > in the series . When we finally hear about > Grindelwald, perhaps the root of Dumbledore's > obsession with bringing down dark lords will have > more meaning. Mostly I think he's doing it for the > good of the WW, but he wasn't *always* the greatest > sorcerer in the world with only the good of humanity > on his mind, was he? At one time maybe he was a boy > and young man a bit like Harry. houyhnhnm: Or a bit like Snape? The earliest information we have about Dumbledore, apart from the fact that, as a teenager, he "did things with a wand I'd never seen before ..." is from the time he went to see Tom Riddle at the orphanage. He would already have been close to 100 years old at that time. We know that his knowledge of *all* forms of magic is formidable. ******************** "You flatter me," said Dumbleddore calmly. "Voldemort had powers I will never have." "Only because you're too--well--*noble* to use them." (SS, Scholastic pbk, p. 11) "Just because a wizard *doesn't* use Dark Magic doesn't mean he *can't*, Miss Pennyfeather," snapped Professor Binns. "I repeat, if the likes of Dumbledore--" (CoS, Scholastic pbk, p. 152) "[Snape] is now no more a Death Eater than I am." (GoF, Scholastic, p. 591) "And Kreacher told you all this ... and laughed?" [Harry] croaked. "He did not wish to tell me," said Dumbledore. "But I am a sufficiently accomplished Legilimens myself to know when I am being lied to and I -- persuaded -- him to tell me the full story, before I left for the Department of Mysteries." (OotP, Scholastic pbk, p. 832) ******************** That dash *persuaded* dash has an ominous ring to it. And the "he is now no more a Death Eater than I am" fairly screams to be interpreted with a double meaning. Could Dumbledore, as a young man, have had his own infatuation with Dark Magic, long before the appearance of either Grindelwald or Voldemort? Did he have an epiphany in which he realized that Love was the greater magic, turned his back on the Dark Arts, and dedicated the rest of his life to fighting them? If so, then his ravings under the influence of the cave potion could be a memory from that time. It would also be another reason for his faith in Snape's reformation. From rkdas at charter.net Sat Feb 18 22:34:44 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:34:44 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148357 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sir_lafayette2000" > wrote: > > > > I believe that McGonagall > > arrived way too early at Privet Drive and this may well be a clue > > that Rowling has planted right at the get go of the books. > > ... > > Hagrid had been at Godric's Hollow, knew that [James and Lily] > were dead yet failed to tell her more than Harry apparently was > > to be taken to 4 Privet Drive. > > ... > > Amontillada: > How exactly do we judge "way too early"? She might be > considered "too early" because she was there far before Dumbledore, > but her early arrival might also be considered wisely scouting out > the territory, or to use the French (and American military) term, > reconnaisance. > > Hagrid probably thought he should McGonagall only the crucial > information that she needed to know immediately. Moving quickly and > staying hidden were vital for him, so he couldn't spare the time to > tell her more; and Hagrid has often shown that he sees Dumbledore as > being the best one to tell important information. > > > In the scene in the Hospital Wing in H-BP after Dumbledore has > died, > > when everyone is being transfixed by the phoenix song, it is > > McGonagall's entrance that breaks the "magic" of this moment. > > Amontillada: > I read this as a classic example of McGonagall's practical, "do what > must be done" personality. As deeply as she feels the loss, she > feels the responsibility for continuing the actions that Dumbledore > considered vital. > > > Further Harry refuses to tell her where he and Dumbledore have > been > > or what his plans are, even tho she is a member of the Order of > the > > Phoenix. > > Amontillada: > From the very beginning of HBP, Dumbledore had encouraged Harry to > share information specifically with Hermione and Ron. Harry has been > close-mouthed with others, not with McGonagall in particular. > > > I suspect that McGonagall was not entirely trusted by Dumbledore > and > > may well be a spy for the Ministry of Magic. Which might also > > explain her contempt for the High Inquisitor earlier in the story. > > Amontillada > I'm confused about what you mean. I don't understand how spying for > the MM might "explain" her contempt for Umbridge. Can you explain > more about what you mean? > > I like to discuss McGonagall. As you may have guessed, I see her as > on the side of good. > > Amontillada Hi all, This was a very hard post to decide where to snip so I didn't. Forgive me List Elves. I do not really suspect McGonagall of being anything untoward. I couldn't conceive of it but I do see now at the end of 6 books that she has been left out of the loop on things a few times. Specifically, she was sent to do an errand for DD during the multi- layered denoument in GOF so that she didn't find out that Sirius was the black shaggy dog. She was so "in and out" of the action, I'd have to go back and diagram the action to tell you just what other details she missed but it struck me as odd that she should not be in on things squarely. I also found it interesting, perhaps odd, that Harry so resolutely refused to divulge the nature of his work with DD during their meeting in her new Headmistress's office. Could it be that DD gave these instructions to protect others in the Order? After all, finding those horcruxes is the secret to defeating LV and it would be horrible if a spy alerted LV to the plan. Even so, it seems that Harry is indeed taking great pains to seperate himself from a post-DD Hogwarts. She isn't stepping into any position of mother-confessor for Harry, just the the new head of a school. I do wonder if this has any greater meaning but again, I can't even contemplate a McGonagall of less than the purist motives. Jen D. getting out her GOF and re-reading the section after the return.> From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 22:37:50 2006 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:37:50 -0000 Subject: Origins of Avada Kedavra WAS:Re: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148358 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fuzz876i" wrote: > > Adzuroth wrote: > Avada Kedavra > > (which sounds suspiciously like Abracadabra........anyone > > know why?). > > > > Fuzz876i wrote: > Avada Kedavra (uh-VAH-duh kuh-DAH-vruh) > > "Killing Curse" > > Aramaic: "adhadda kedhabhra" - "let the thing be destroyed". > NOTE: Abracadabra is a cabbalistic charm in Judaic mythology that is > supposed to bring healing powers. One of its sources is believed to > be from Aramaic avada kedavra, another is the Phoenician alphabet (a- > bra-ca-dabra). > > I found this on the Harry Potter Lexicon I hope this helps you > understand the pronunciation of this spell. I can't find anything > else that might help but this is why it sounds like Abracadabra. > > Fuzz876i Lolita: IIRC, Rowling mentioned in an interview (I am too lazy now to go and try to find it, if anyone else has enough time on their hands,it would be nice if they went to QQQ to search for it) that in 'let the thing be destroyed' by 'the thing' the practitioners who used these spells meant 'illness, ailment, etc.' - i.e., AK was an incantation believed to have the power to heal. Rowling thought it would be fun if she reversed this and turned it into a killing curse. She *is* quite liberal with mythology and other primitive beliefs, and, as an author, she has every right to have fun with it (just look at what she has done with Brownies & house-elves, or the notion of the external soul & Horcruxes). On the other hand, I find it interesting that this is the only spell in HP (as far as I remember) that isn't based either on sth that resembles English or on broken Latin. It is in Aramaic, which belonged (since it's a dead language now) to the Semitic branch of the Hamito-Semitic family of languages, and had no connections at all with any of the IE languages, which developed from Proto Indo- European (I took a course in historical linguistics during my studies). This may suggest that this is one of the older spells, originating from North Africa/Middle East, and it tends to support the idea that Dark Magic preceded Light (Yes, it *was* Dark Magic from the start - it was used as a healing spell in the *real* world, not in the Potterverse - it has been a killing curse in the Potterverse since it was invented). Or, it could just mean that Rowling came across it, really liked it and decided to use it :) Cheers, Lolita P.S. Somebody asked why Harry didn't just accio the egg. I will refer to it here, because I haven't got the time for several posts now - T.S.Eliot is waiting for me to finish and turn to the Four Quartets - IIRC, wasn't the task about getting *past* the dragon to get the egg? Wouldn't the summoning of the egg be something like cheating, because you could do it from almost anywhere? I am not either knowledgeable in football or a fan of it, but somehow, accioing the egg sounds to me like taking the ball into your hands and then marching to the opponents' goal and depositing it there. Like a foul of sorts. Cheers, Lolita From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 22:40:51 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:40:51 -0000 Subject: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148359 Adzuroth wrote: "Hey there! This is my first post on here and I've been itching to find out if any of you have some answers to some questions of mine as well as opinions to a few of my theories.---- I couldn't help but think that Dumbledore (DD) might have tried faked his death. Why else would he have deliberately immobilized Harry so he couldn't interfere? I say deliberately because Harry couldn't have been between DD and the tower door when DD fired that jinx. If he was then Draco would've bumped into him when he walked out onto the tower's rooftop. Although there's no canon for this, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to make an illusion of a spell like the killing curse, or perhaps casting a different spell with the same visual characteristics as Avada Kedavra (which sounds suspiciously like Abracadabra ...... anyone know why?)." CH3ed: Hey Adzuroth. Good first post! Well, Harry wasn't in front of the door when Draco burst thru because DD motioned him to step aside when they both heard footstep running up the stair. So Harry likely was against the wall to one side of the door in a position to ambush whoever come thru it (tho DD froze him before he had any chance of doing that). DD was my favorite character in the whole series, so I don't like it that he died. But I do think he did die. It just doesn't seem Dumbledore-like to fake his own death (and have Harry witness a 3rd death before his eyes in 3 years). DD had a long life and his time of glory. It just fits that his death would then force Harry to take up the torch and go on the offensive against LV. Adzuroth wrote: "One other thing of note is that after DD's "death" Snape could've easily killed Harry anytime he wanted to, but chose not to. Anyone think they know why?" CH3ed: I'm pro DDM!Snape theory so I think Snape was protecting Harry as DD would have wanted. This theory says Snape killed DD because that was the only way presented by the circumstance to save Harry and Draco and Snape (from failing the UV), and to get the DEs out of the schoolful of children. Adzuroth wrote: "What would have happened if Harry simply refused to compete in the Triwizard Tournament? Granted, he was in a magical contract of sorts, but since when are minors allowed to enter legally binding contracts? If the legal system is different in the magical world, and there is no age limit, then what would keep unscrupulous adults from getting children to sign all their future earnings over to them? Here's another angle for you: Harry could've simply done something to get himself disqualified, and he would be out of the contract, simple as that." CH3ed: I don't think the magical laws and contracts work exactly like their real world counterparts. Harry didn't even submit the parchment with his name on it to the GoF, in real life that in itself should have absolve him of the obligation to compete. Obviously that doesn't apply in the magical world terms. There is no age limit to the tournament, since that limit was only imposed for the 1st time in Book 4, and enforced by DD's age line (and not the GoF itself). I guess you're right that Harry intentionally doing something to DQ himself might be a legitimate out, but I can't see Harry doing it. He is a proud boy. He would rather try to rise to the occasion than drop out on technicalities. Adzuroth wrote: "Oh yeah, one other little detail. In the first Triwizard challenge, why didn't Harry simply say "accio dragon egg" instead of "accio firebolt"? Any of the champions could've done it since there was no mention of any spells preventing that. If the dragon was holding onto the egg, all one had to do was distract it long enough for the dragon to take its claws off the egg, then nail it with the accio spell." CH3ed: LOL!!! Do you know. I think you've just caught JKR (and loads of us readers) right there on 'accio golden egg.' Anyway, I suppose they could have stipulate that the contestants have go retrieve the egg from its location and not make the egg come to them (tho no such rule was made known to us). Adzuroth wrote: "On the fifth book, I have one little question. If Umbridge had the first, last, and only word on discipline at Hogwarts, why didn't she simply expel Harry?" CH3ed: Once she became High Inquisitor she got to enforce all existing rules and punishments to the extent she wanted, probably. But she was playing catch up most of the time. didn't she? Harry would do something, and then Umbridge would out law it when she learns of it, but she couldn't enforce the new rules retroactively. And I suspect there there are punishment guidelines even the enforcers have to abide by (like maximum punishment for certain offenses). Adzuroth wrote: "On that note, what happens to a budding young wizard who's unfortunate enough to get expelled from Hogwarts? Can they try their luck at another school like Durmstrang or Beauxbaton? If their wand gets snapped in half, so what? Hagrid had no problems performing spells in books one and six (putting the pig tail on Dudley and putting out the house fire, respectively)." CH3ed: I guess they could try other schools or just study at home and get a tutor (I think Lupin has done tutoring jobs on and off, not sure tho... don't have the books right now). CH3ed :O) From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 22:52:56 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:52:56 -0000 Subject: Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148360 > Jen wrote: > > I mean, Voldemort is not the only obsessed person > > in the series . When we finally hear about > > Grindelwald, perhaps the root of Dumbledore's > > obsession with bringing down dark lords will have > > more meaning. Mostly I think he's doing it for the > > good of the WW, but he wasn't *always* the greatest > > sorcerer in the world with only the good of humanity > > on his mind, was he? At one time maybe he was a boy > > and young man a bit like Harry. > Angie here: Jen, thanks for your post, which gave me the opportunity to bring up something that's been bugging me ever since I first read SS and now, HBP (hope I'm not repeating here). Bear with me; it's long but it all ties together. First, to ponder a moment on the source of DD's fame. OK, according to his chocolate frog card, he is "particularly famous" for defeating Grindewald in 1945. According to Lockhart, fame is a fickle friend in the WW (as it is in the Muggle world) -- so how far did Grindewald's defeat get DD in the WW? Saying he is particularly famous for defeating a Dark Wizard clearly implies that he was also famous for some other reason(s), but what are those other reasons? I don't know when DD started teaching at HW, but his reputation seems to have preceded him -- what else did he do to gain his reputation? Was that one defeat of Grindewald sufficient to have DD crowned the most powerful wizard of the age? When else in the past has DD demonstrated how powerful he is (in a non-OWL setting)? I just can't see how DD being headmaster of HW sustains his reputation. Second, what do we know about the nature of DD's "defeat" of Grindelwald? Did DD kill Grindewald or just capture him? I've always assumed that Grindewald was the Darkest wizard of his day -- why else would his capture have brought DD such fame? Why else would DD be the only man LV ever feared? Because it was clear that DD was powerful enough and willing to defeat a great Dark Wizard like Grindewald. I don't think LV fears DD simply because DD is so powerful, but because LV fears death the most and he knows that DD is willing and able to kill a Dark Wizard, if need be. I think implicit in this is that DD is willing and able to use Dark Magic if necessary and has done so before (he's no novice). I find it hard to believe that DD merely subdued Grindewald and landed him in Azkaban, for several reasons. First, in OOP, LV seems surprised that DD doesn't try to kill him, which makes me think that he expected DD to try and kill him b/c he (LV) knew that DD had killed Grindewald. Second, if DD merely captured Grindewald, that would make Grindewald's defeat on no greater par than any Dark Wizard's capture. I don't know of any wizard who is "particularly famous" for merely capturing a Dark Wizard. (If merely capturing a Dark Wizard brings that kind of fame, shouldn't Moody be more famous than DD?) Third, I would think any Dark Wizard worth his salt should rather die fighting than go to Azkaban and be guarded by the Dementors (take that, Bella!). Finally, relating this to the HBP, if DD killed Grindewald, did he make a horcrux for himself? Like some of you, I don't believe that DD was always the benevolent man we see before us (which would explain how DD recognized the Dark Side in LV). His work with Flamel on the SS indicates that he, at one time at least, was interested in seeing if one could truly gain immortality (interesting that the info on Grindewald and the SS were given to us at the same time, huh? Maybe DD got the SS from Grindewald?) I don't know what happened to make DD change his mind, but he seems to have done so. I suppose he could have made a horcrux, then thought better of his ways and destroyed it later (which explains why he knew how to destroy LV's horcruxes). Angie (who has exhausted her 3rd post for the day and who will respond to any replies tomorrow, assuming she has electricity!) From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 22:57:00 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:57:00 -0000 Subject: The Fidelius Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148361 fuzz876i wrote: "In The Prisoner of Azkaban Professor Flitwick explains this charm to Madam Rosmerta. His explanation for this charm is that it is a very complex charm to conceal a secret inside a living soul. My question is this -- if this charm is what was used on Pettigrew then what was the consequences of his actions for breaking this promise? I know the consequences for breaking an Unbreakable Vow is death as defined in HBP, but I can't find where the consequences of this one is; does any one know?" CH3ed: Hi Fuzz. It doesn't seem that Wormtail broke any magical contract a la UV in revealing the Potters' where-about to LV. As the Secret Keeper he alone had the ability to reveal the information entrusted him so that nobody Wormtail hadn't told the address of the Potters' house in GH to can even see the house. That he then betrayed the Potters by telling the address to LV was really rotten, yeah, but not in breach of the Fidelius Charm. The Potters just trusted the wrong man. Somebody else mentioned that Ollivander could still be at his shop but nobody older than his normal clients could see him because he is using the fidelius charm on himself with DD as SK. I doubt that the FC can be applied to a person rather than to a hiding place (or the Potters would have done the same). 12 GP was under the FC so that Harry couldn't even see the place until he read and understood DD's message on the parchment Moody handed to him in OotP. CH3ed :O) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 23:10:08 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 23:10:08 -0000 Subject: Why not Accio the golden egg? (Was: Origins of Avada Kedavra) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148362 Lolita wrote: > Somebody asked why Harry didn't just accio the egg. IIRC, wasn't the task about getting *past* the dragon to get the egg? Wouldn't the summoning of the egg be something like cheating, because you could do it from almost anywhere? Carol responds: I'm not sure that it would be cheating, exactly, but the task was designed to test the champions' courage and daring, not their resourcefulness, and it wouldn't take much courage to stand as far away as possible (out of reach of fire and claws) and summon the egg. Well, not much courage if the dragon is chained and can't attack you. So even if it's not technically cheating, IMO it doesn't really meet the requirements and would consequently receive a low score from most if not all of the judges, whereas using a broom requires both skill and daring. I think there's a subjective element to the scoring, as in ice skating or gymnastics, where a difficult routine performed with a few small faults will score higher than a faultless but easy routine. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) If the crowd at the TWT doesn't ooh and ah the performance, it won't get a high score. So Crouch!Moody advised Harry to play to his strengths, to be *impressive* as well as successful--not just to survive the first task but to earn the highest score. (Of course, he had an ulterior motive, but his advice did enable Harry to win that event.) Carol, with apologies for responding to the post script instead of the post From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 23:57:25 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 23:57:25 -0000 Subject: Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148363 Angie wrote: > Second, what do we know about the nature of DD's "defeat" of Grindelwald? Did DD kill Grindewald or just capture him? I've always assumed that Grindewald was the Darkest wizard of his day -- why else would his capture have brought DD such fame? Why else would DD be the only man LV ever feared? Because it was clear that DD was powerful enough and willing to defeat a great Dark Wizard like Grindewald. I don't think LV fears DD simply because DD is so powerful, but because LV fears death the most and he knows that DD is willing and able to kill a Dark Wizard, if need be. I think implicit in this is that DD is willing and able to use Dark Magic if necessary and has done so before (he's no novice). > > I find it hard to believe that DD merely subdued Grindewald and landed him in Azkaban, for several reasons. First, in OOP, LV seems surprised that DD doesn't try to kill him, which makes me think that he expected DD to try and kill him b/c he (LV) knew that DD had killed Grindewald. Second, if DD merely captured Grindewald, that would make Grindewald's defeat on no greater par than any Dark Wizard's capture. > > Finally, relating this to the HBP, if DD killed Grindewald, did he make a horcrux for himself? Carol responds: We're told from the first chapter of the first book that Dumbledore is "too noble" to use certain types of magic, and while I realize that the narrator isn't always reliable and the characters aren't always accurate in their assessments of other characters, I will be very surprised if this statement is not true. For one thing, it jibes with JKR's own assessment of Dumbledore as "the epitome of goodness." (Granted, many of her statements in interviews are jumbled or evasive, but this one is hard to misconstrue.) That being the case, I'm not at all willing to assume that DD killed Grindelvald in any way that could be considered murder or using an Unforgiveable Curse. We're told (in an interview) that Grindelwald is indeed dead, but the book (SS) only tells us that DD *defeated* Grindelwald, not killed him. Since we know that both LV and DD know of at least one wizard who made a single Horcrux, and Grindelwald's defeat so nicely coincides with the year that Tom Riddle left Hogwarts, it seems likely that the wizard in question is Grindelwald, that DD's fame results from destroying Grindelwald's Horcrux and therefore making him mortal, and that LV fears DD for exactly this reason. But the idea that DD would make a Horcrux himself is IMO very questionable. Both Slughorn and Dumbledore speak of Horcruxes as Dark magic of the worst kind, so bad that DD makes sure there are no books on the subject in the restricted section of the Hogwarts library. It requires not only that the Horcrux maker kill, but that he commit murder (Slughorn says something like, "Do I look like a murderer"?) *and* that he separate the piece of soul that was split off by the murder into an object in other to preserve his own life, theoretically forever, at the expense of the life of the person he killed. I can't see Dumbledore doing that at any point in his life under any circumstances. And we know that he isn't afraid of death. Gryffindor that he is, that was probably always the case. (Yes, I know that PP is a Gryffindor afraid of death, but he's extremely atypical.) Dumbledore tells Harry about the importance of keeping his soul whole and pure, and the earnestness of this speech suggests that his own is equally whole and pure. (I'm worried that Harry's is getting slightly tarnished, but I won't go into that.) Dumbledore talks about the importance of love not only to Harry but to the youngish Voldemort (ten or twelve years out of Hogwarts) that he is wrong to consider Dark magic more powerful than love. We see him wary of little Tom's dishonesty and cruelty. So even there, when he's a mere hundred or so, we see essentially the same Dumbledore that Harry sees, the same Dumbledore who, I'm fairly certain, later destroys Grindelwald's Horcrux. That such a man *could* make a Horcrux, I have no doubt. That he *would* do it seems to me unlikely in the extreme. As for what happened to Grindelwald, I think Dumbledore made it possible for him to be killed in battle. Or possibly, he was killed in battle by Dumbledore, but killing an enemy bent on killing you in battle is not murder. (I have trouble accepting the possibility that DD would use an evil curse like Avada Kedavra, but perhaps there's some other way.) Maybe Aberforth will enlighten us in Book 7. I do think we'll learn about Grindelwald and why he's important enough to be introduced to us on a chocolate frog card in the very first book. Carol, wondering if only good witches and wizards get put on chocolate frogs and why Circe has one if that's the case From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 00:06:55 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:06:55 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148364 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sir_lafayette2000" > > Gregory wrote: > ... > > DD trusted Snape and the big question is why. Love is the magic that > Voldemort does not understand. I believe that Snape loved Lilly > Potter and thats why DD trusts Snape, because Snape hates LV for > killing her. ...edited... > > Gregory > bboyminn: The idea that Snape loved Lily Evans-Potter comes up often, and within a certain context, I'm not buying it. At least, I'm not buying the 'in love' part. Many people feel that Snape has harbored a deep seated 'crush' on Lily that he never dared act on, or that he did act on and was rebuffed. They use this idea to explain Snape's deep hatred of James, who he despised because he feared that Lily was covertly attracted to what Snape considered a egotistical, self-absorbed bully. Now there may be a small part of that involved, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Snape loved Lily, and would never ever go so far as to say that Snape was in-love with Lily. I think Snape had a deep abiding non-sexual fondness for Lily. Despite the fact that he never expressed it outwardly, he felt deeply grateful for the kindness and respect that Lily had shown him over their school careers together. I suspect that in the Potions Lab, away from the prying eyes of other students, there relationship was very friendly, even to the point of warm and (superficially) affectionate. Snape, being the tough-guy pureblood-loving Slytherin that he is, showed restraint around Lily, but treated her with respect and something approximating kindness. I suspect his comment of 'mudblood' during 'Snape's Worst Memory' was a public reflection of the sting of public humiliation, and not a reflection of his true private feelings. When Snape found out how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy, this cut Snape to his emotional core. He realized that he had put in jeopardy the life of the one person who had treated him kindly. Further, the one person who had truly treated him with unbiased, non-pitying, non-self-serving respect and kindness. In that moment the true worth of Lily Evans-Potter became apparent to him; and that was a pain and a fear too great to face. Now, I'm sure that there were other people who affected respect and politeness to Snape, but I suspect that most of them were either 'greasing' him to their own ends, or were afraid of offending what they knew to be a powerful and extremely knowledgable and talented wizard. Their respect or kindness or politeness was affected, whereas Lily's was genuine and heartfelt, and that makes a huge difference. It was the genuineness of her kindness that Snape secretly admired. Again, I don't think Snape ever reflected these feeling outwardly. When they were in public, Snape showed a very unkind Slytherin, or at bare minimum indifferent, attitude; in private, together, I think he was very polite and soft spoken in Lily's presents. Away from the prying and judging eyes of the school, neither had to take on any airs or pretense. I'm sure they found each others company very pleasant. Now, I can't really back much of this up with hard canon, but it is my intuitive read of the available events and the limited knowledge of the characters. If you want to call this genuine fondness for Lily a form of Love, then that is fine, but I reject any kind of romantic love as being too corny and too predicatable. It's a very subtle point, but an important one. Steve/bboyminn From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 18 23:48:26 2006 From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:48:26 +1100 Subject: Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148365 Hi, this is my first posting. I was thinking last night, further to when I read the book last June, that the fake locket found was placed there by RAB. Which in turn led me to think that it was Sirius' brother, who was a death eater but that didn't stop him from finding a few horcruxes and maybe not destroying them, but at least hiding them all together. My theory is that Regulus, or however you spell it, actually took the locket, and maybe even more of the horcruxes and hid them in Grimauld Place, where in my opinion Harry is going to live next year when he leaves the Dursley's. On the slip of paper inside the locket it read that, 'To the Dark Lord, I know I will be dead long before you read this. Just wanted you to know that it was I who discovered your secret. I have stolen the real Horcrux and intend to destroy it as soon as I can. I face death in the hope that when you meet your match, you will be mortal once more. RAB' If you look at that, for one he calls Voldemort 'Dark Lord', which is what only Death Eaters call Him. Secondly, I think that it was Regulus that could have been forced onto Voldemorts side by his mother/father/family, as the Blacks were very dark remember?? And this was the only way that he could stay at home etc.. It also said that 'I will be dead long before you read this' and Sirius says that Regulus was killed by Voldemort.. what a perfect reason to kill a DE than because they found out your biggest secret and planned to ruin it all??? Also, this piece of parchment does not specify which Horcrux it was intended, as it only says 'I have stolen the real Horcrux' meaning that this could have been a generic message placed in all the hiding spots of the Horcruxes and in the end Harry may not have to go looking too far for the Horcruxes they may be in Grimauld place all the time!! There's more. It also says that 'I face death in the hope that when you meet your match you will be mortal once more' the fact that it says HOPE is very symbolic, because it is like LOVE etc that has protective powers. I wouldn't be too surprised if this is another barrier that protects Harry when he destroys the Horcrux's. And just another question, didn't Harry destroy another Horcrux in the Philosopher's Stone, the one attached to Quirrel?? So therefore 3 of the 6 Horcruxes are destroyed?? Anyways in conclusion I am predicting that next book Harry will go and live in Grimauld Place and find a secret stash of Horcruxes that Regulus has nicked from Voldemort, or the 'Dark Lord' and will destroy them, which in turn gives him more defence against the last soul of Voldemort!! So let me hear from you and all your thoughts.. Victoria From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 02:46:56 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 02:46:56 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148366 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > The idea that Snape loved Lily Evans-Potter comes up often, and within a certain context, I'm not buying it. At least, I'm not buying the 'in love' part. > > I think Snape had a deep abiding non-sexual fondness for Lily. Despite the fact that he never expressed it outwardly, he felt deeply grateful for the kindness and respect that Lily had shown him over their school careers together. I suspect that in the Potions Lab, away from the prying eyes of other students, there relationship was very friendly, even to the point of warm and (superficially) affectionate. > Tonks_op I agree with you that Snape may have had respect and admiration for Lily as a human being. I am in more of the Snape loved Narcissa camp than the Snape loved Lily camp. I also think that (as I have said here before) the reason Snape did not want LV to go to the Potters was the life debt that he had to James. If you are directly or indirectly responsible for the death of someone to whom you have a life debt that must be a really, really bad thing and something that you would want very much to avoid. This would be very bad magic/karma indeed. So Snape tried to save his own soul by trying to warn James and James did not listen. It would be something like the unbreakable vow, in that there must be really bad consequences to being in any way responsible for the death of someone to whom you had the duty of a life debit. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 03:02:55 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 03:02:55 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148367 Steve wrote: > Many people feel that Snape has harbored a deep seated 'crush' on Lily > that he never dared act on, or that he did act on and was rebuffed. > They use this idea to explain Snape's deep hatred of James, who he > despised because he feared that Lily was covertly attracted to what > Snape considered a egotistical, self-absorbed bully. Now there may be > a small part of that involved, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that > Snape loved Lily, and would never ever go so far as to say that Snape > was in-love with Lily. > > I think Snape had a deep abiding non-sexual fondness for Lily. Despite > the fact that he never expressed it outwardly, he felt deeply grateful > for the kindness and respect that Lily had shown him over their school > careers together. I suspect that in the Potions Lab, away from the > prying eyes of other students, there relationship was very friendly, > even to the point of warm and (superficially) affectionate. >> Now, I can't really back much of this up with hard canon, but it is my > intuitive read of the available events and the limited knowledge of > the characters. If you want to call this genuine fondness for Lily a > form of Love, then that is fine, but I reject any kind of romantic > love as being too corny and too predicatable. Alla: How do I feel about Snape "loved Lily" or was "in love" with her? I would love for that NOT to come true, because of the EWWWW part of the theory, but with every book, I feel more and more that it just FITS and it just may explain SO many plot points. I certainly won't reject the possibility that you just described, Steve, because even if Snape had as you said "non-sexual" fondness for Lily, it will still provide explanation for those plot points, but I also do not reject Snape being fully "in love" with Lily part, nope I think it is very, very possible. If your objections are just based on predictability part, well then how more predictable "Ron/Hermione" and "Harry/Ginny" can be? I know, I know, many people read the text as different possibilities (Harry/Hermione), etc, but honestly, if I may had some tiny doubts about Harry/Ginny sometimes, Ron/Hermione screamed at me from every book. So, going back to Snape/Lily - to me predictability is definitely NOT a basis for rejection of this theory, quite the contrary. And as I said IMO it may help explaining and resolving SO many plot points. JKR said that the identity of "that awful boy" is important. Does Snape fit? Certainly, in my book he does. Snape being in Godric Hollow because he wanted Lily as prise ( if he was still evil) or just tried to save her, if he is good - yep, fits to me. Snape loving Lily is IMO the ONLY thing which can make Harry to feel some kind of pity for Snape. Otherwise, I cannot even IMAGINE how Harry will be able to forgive him, IMO. But I can certainly see "because my mother would wanted me to" or something along those lines. Granted, this all can work even if Snape simply liked Lily as a friend, and I would prefer that possibility, but IMO JKR may go with "in love" part. JMO, Alla From thejadeddiva at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 00:45:42 2006 From: thejadeddiva at yahoo.com (Jade) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:45:42 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148368 Nicolau: > I think he [Snape] will turn out to be loyal to DD, and > either he killed DD on his orders or, my favorite theory, did > not kill him at all but accepted to stage it so that the WW > will believe him to be DD's murderer (and loyal to LV)}} Well, if you remember from the GOF book, Mad-Eye Moody (impersonated by Barty Crouch Jr.) told all the students that they could all point their wands at him, yelling Avada Kedavra, and he wouldn't "get so much as a nose bleed." Is it so far of a stretch that Snape did just that? > But this is not the major surprise, nor the main point of > this post: the major surprise will be that someone Harry (and the > reader) knows and trusts will betray him. > > Now, I see external reasons to exclude several characters. Lupin > is a good example: he is mistrusted by the WW for being a werewolf: > if it turned out that he *should* be mistrusted, this sends the > rather unpleasant message that prejudices often have a point, not > a message I think JKR would like to pass. For similar reasons, I > can not see the half-giant Hagrid, the part-goblin Flitwick or the > half-mad Moody being traitors. Minerva is almost the only > major adult left and her behaviour on Chapter 1 of PS *is* > suspicious (as the TBAY post so well explains). Interesting, but I seriously doubt it. Not only has she (Minerva) proved herself true to Dumbledore, but it's not in her personality, psychologically. She is a strict and impartial personality. But who knows what goes on in the mind of JKR! She's such a genius. I don't see Hagrid as a traitor, nor Flitwick. Moody? (stifles hysterical laughter) Yeah, right! LOL! As for Lupin, I can't consider him a possibility. When he's not a werewolf, he's such a docile person and was described as the goody-good of the foursome back in their day. Just my opinion... Jade From gsopko at stratos.net Sat Feb 18 03:37:52 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (Gregory Sopko) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 22:37:52 -0500 Subject: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is. References: Message-ID: <003e01c6343c$b37c0790$37a551d1@magnumtwdmyxdv> No: HPFGUIDX 148369 Susan: Maybe someone has already thought of this but ... could one of the horcruxes have been "bone of the father"? V'mort did use it to bring himself back from his "half-life". Gregory: I tend to doubt the Riddle bone is a horcrux, it doesn't fit the pattern that the horcruxes are possessions of the Hogwarts founders. From makalia_us_99 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 18:41:07 2006 From: makalia_us_99 at yahoo.com (Christina Becker) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:41:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: "Accio dragon egg!" (Re: My thoughts on some things.......) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060218184107.96047.qmail@web36115.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148370 Adzuroth: > In the first triwizard challenge, why didn't Harry simply say > "accio dragon egg" instead of "accio firebolt"? Any of the > champions could've done it since there was no mention of any > spells preventing that. If the dragon was holding onto the egg, > all one had to do was distract it long enough for the dragon to > take its claws off the egg, then nail it with the accio spell. Christina: Well here's my thought about why Harry might have said "Accio Firebolt" instead of "Accio Dragon Egg"- Maybe he knew inside that there would be an Anti-magic spell on the egg to prevent anyone from summoning the eggs as the tournament is all about proving ones worth to move onto the next level! From adzuroth at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 01:58:52 2006 From: adzuroth at hotmail.com (Adzuroth) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 01:58:52 -0000 Subject: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148371 > Adzuroth: > > If their wand gets snapped in half, so what? Hagrid had > > no problems performing spells in books one and six (putting the > > pig tail on Dudley and putting out the housefire, respectively). > > vidar_fe: > Well, Hagrid had his very special umbrella.... :-) Adzuroth: You're right vidar_fe, and if memory serves me right, Hagrid had his two wand halves inside his umbrella, allowing him use of his spells. Of course that raises other questions, like how Hagrid could cast spells with a broken wand without any mishaps. If you'll recall in book 2, Ron's wand was only partially broken (and patched with spell- o-tape) but he had all sorts of trouble casting stuff. From darkwarrior419 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 03:04:23 2006 From: darkwarrior419 at yahoo.com (T Fontes) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:04:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060219030423.18754.qmail@web36107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148372 Betsy Hp: > Snape seems to see him as the most dangerous of the Marauders, > being sure not to turn his back on him in PoA. That's interesting > to me. And yet when McGonagall was listing off the Marauders in > PoA, Lupin never came up. Ceridwen: > Some people don't show feelings very much. Anyway, that's how I > see him in the SS scene. I think Snape understands that Lupin is probably the more dangerous of the Marauders. Not because he is a dark creature but because he doesn't allow his feelings to control him. One could argue that the exception would be not telling Dumbledore about Sirius being an anamgi but I always thought that it was more of a I'm starving and I need a job in order to live angle. Remus always struck me as someone who knows his lot in life, thinks himself less than human because of it and knows that he has to be careful in everything he does because really he's being watched by everyone who wants to prove that werewolves are dangerous-in human form or not. "darkwarrior419" From gsopko at stratos.net Sun Feb 19 03:20:54 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (Gregory Sopko) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:20:54 -0500 Subject: Why I'm not convinced DD is dead (long) References: Message-ID: <001b01c63503$99f71a40$a4a551d1@magnumtwdmyxdv> No: HPFGUIDX 148373 Angie: >> All of the above combined with all of the statements DD has made about death (especially right before he "died" telling Draco how well they could make the other side believe he was dead), certainly leaves room for speculation, which is what I believe JKR intended, even if it turns out that DD is truly dead. On the other hand, I will concede that all of the phoenix references and imagery support DD coming back from the dead, not the appearance of being dead. Hmmmm . . . . << Gregory: A wonderfully lucid and well made argument for DD not being dead. I believe that Rowling deliberately is making it vague to some degree to keep us guess about the end of the story. I remain convinced DD is dead. The whole story has been about Rowling taking away people from Harry's life who could help him defeat Voldemort. In the end it's going to be a one on one confrotation in which Harry will kill Voldemort. DD said there are things far worse than death. Voldemort's greatest weakness is his fear of death. If DD cheats death even by pretending to be dead, it vindicates Voldemort in his pursuit of trying to cheat death himself, and I feel strongly that Rowling is not going to paint herself into that moral dilema. We will have to see when book 7 is released to see who is right but I have to applaud your effort and your ideas. From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 03:23:32 2006 From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:23:32 +1100 Subject: DD Not Dead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148374 Gryffindor Chaser adds: I've read other people's opinions on whether Snape said a nonverbal spell while doing the AK curse on DD. So, collaborating what others have said, and what I have read, I think that yes, Snape used the AK curse, but since he didn't mean it, it still produced a green flash, but only knocked DD off his feet, in the air and over the ledge. In this way, it is possible, as when Harry used the Unforgivable curse against Bellatrix in OotP, that the curse still works, but not to its fullest extent. Therefore, once DD was falling off the roof, he could have turned into a phoenix, as he may have been an animagus, got to the ground, picked up his wand, released Harry from the BB jinx and then returned to his body. This answers all the questions about no injuries after falling to the ground, still having his glasses perfectly intact, and also the pheonix flying out of the white swirls at his funeral!! That is just my take on things.. so please write back and tell me yours From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 04:42:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 04:42:52 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape clue Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148375 I know people have suggested before that it was Snape who shouted "Petrificus Totalus!" and saved Harry from Fenrir Greyback, but I think I can make a fairly strong case that it was indeed Snape. I'll start with the canon: "As Harry plunged after them [Snape and Draco], one of the Death Eaters detached themselves from the fray and flew at him: It was the werewolf, Fenrir. He was on top of Harry before Harry before Harry could raise his wand. Harry fell backward with filthy matted hair in his face . . . hot greedy breath at his throat-- "*Petrificus Totalus*!" (HBP Am. ed. 598) The werewolf falls away, petrified and Harry is free. He cannot have cast the spell himself as he's unable to raise his wand. The speaker is unidentified. Surely if it were, say, Lupin or McGonagall, JKR would have said so and let it go. Snape at this time is just rounding a corner at the far end of a corridor, the perfect position from which to whirl around unnoticed by anyone on either side of the fight and throw one quick defensive spell. I realize that this isn't proof, but he was there and he had the opportunity. And, of course, if he's DDM!Snape, he also had the motive, the same motive that leads him to stop the big blond DE from Crucioing Harry a few minutes later. In the following chapter, Harry has given his version of the events, including a somewhat inaccurate account of Snape's reasons for joining Dumbledore (discussed in dozens of posts so I won't repeat those arguments), and is listening as his friends and the Order members fill him in about their battle with the Death Eaters. Lupin says that Snape and "the boy" (Draco) "emerged out of the dust. Obviously none of us attacked them." Tonks adds, "We just let them pass. We thought they were being chased by the Death Eaters--and next thing, the other Death Eaters and Greyback were back and we were fighting again"--this is the point at which Greyback attacks Harry--"I thought I heard Snape shouting something, but I don't know what--" "'He shouted, "It's over,"' said Harry. 'He'd done what he'd meant to do'" (621). [And of course, he's getting the DEs out of Hogwarts, but Harry doesn't notice that.] Snape does shout "It's over, time to go!" to the DEs just before he rounds the corner, but these words are shouted *before* Greyback and the others join the fray, not *during* it like the Petrificus Totalus spell. It seems very likely that he would turn back at that point to see whether they're obeying him and discover that they're not doing so. And that would give him the time and the opportunity to fire a parting shot at Grayback, which Harry, preoccupied with his horrible half-human attacker, would not see. So while Harry could be right that the words Tonks heard but did not understand were "it's over," the timing makes it at least as likely that she heard the less intelligible words of the spell. In the chaos of the battle, with Ginny distracted, Neville out cold, Bill nearly dead, Hermione and Luna not even involved, everyone else busy fighting for their lives, no one would have paid attention to whose voice they heard and who was casting which spell. Tonks heard Snape's voice but not his words; Harry heard a spell but did not recognize the voice that cast it. Put the two together and it's Snape casting the spell. Or at least, it fits together nicely as a very strong possibility. Of course, the words Tonks heard could be the words Harry supplies, "It's over," but he could be mistaking one set of words for another, just as in SS/PS he notoriously attributes LV's causing the pain in his scar to Snape. We have a number of incidents of the same type throughout the books. In HBP, for example, the movement that Harry and Hermione hear in the library that they attribute to Madam Pince turns out to be Draco listening in on their conversation, as we find out in his conversation with Dumbledore on the tower. Here we have, or we may have, a variation on the device of mistaking one thing for another, with "It's over" as a kind of red herring to distract us from "Petrificus Totalus." And I can't think of any other reason why JKR would have had Tonks not hear what Snape said except to call our attention to his speaking at exactly the point when the spell would have been cast. At any rate, the speaker of the spell cannot be Harry and the evidence suggests that it's Snape. And if it is, we can be sure that we'll hear from Snape's own mouth in Book 7 that he saved Harry's life yet again with no reward but "cheek." Carol, who acknowledges that Harry has very good grounds to hate Snape now (much more so than he did in OoP) but pretty sure that the events in HBP are not exactly as they seem to be from his perspective From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Feb 19 05:29:20 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 05:29:20 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148376 > Alla: > How do I feel about Snape "loved Lily" or was "in love" with her? > I would love for that NOT to come true, because of the EWWWW part > of the theory, but with every book, I feel more and more that it > just FITS and it just may explain SO many plot points. > > I certainly won't reject the possibility that you just described, > Steve, because even if Snape had as you said "non-sexual" fondness > for Lily, it will still provide explanation for those plot points, > but I also do not reject Snape being fully "in love" with Lily > part, nope I think it is very, very possible. Jen: EWW. Snape/Lily bothers me because the only scenario that seems possible in JKR's world of romance, which is incredibly traditional, would be unrequited love on the part of Snape. The idea of her pristine Lily character feeling anything more than compassion for Snape doesn't fit in with her typical pairings at all. So that leaves perfect Lily 'seeing the good' in Snape when few others could. Ick. I mean, unless it were a fantasy love on Severus' part-- but that scenario wouldn't make Harry feel any better about him! Alla: > If your objections are just based on predictability part, well > then how more predictable "Ron/Hermione" and "Harry/Ginny" can be? > > I know, I know, many people read the text as different > possibilities (Harry/Hermione), etc, but honestly, if I may had > some tiny doubts about Harry/Ginny sometimes, Ron/Hermione > screamed at me from every book. > > So, going back to Snape/Lily - to me predictability is definitely > NOT a basis for rejection of this theory, quite the contrary. Jen: Ditto on the first part, thinking the pairings were predictable. About the second part though, so far JKR has paired up people she seems to view as equals. None of them have been an obvious mismatch except for drugged-up Tom Riddle, Sr. and Merope. This is why I think if love were involved, it was on Snape's part only, and I've always agreed with Neri there's solid canon for unrequited love from Snape toward Narcissa. When JKR said: "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them? That's a horrible idea," maybe her devious brain was thinking Narcissa would deserve that particular horrible fate. Hehehe. You know, as I sit here thinking about canon for Snape/Lily, I can't remember one bit that is actually hinted at in canon rather than being a speculative reason because it would fill a plot hole. Not saying that discounts LOLLIPOPS completely, but look at this list of major events Snape's love for Lily is supposed to answer: 1. Snape hates Harry because he has Lily's eyes. 2. Snape felt remorse about the Potters because of his love for Lily, and switched sides. 3. Dumbledore trusts Snape because he confessed love for Lily and that's why he can't tell Harry the reason for his trust. 4. Snape asked Voldemort to spare Lily and that's why he asked her to step aside at GH. 5. Calling Lily 'mudblood' was a major turning point for Snape joining the DE's becuase he'd rejected the one person who cared about him. Yet no character ever mentions a possible connection between Snape and Lily and we've never seen a positive interaction between them. Maybe JKR has gone too far in the other direction on this one, concealing her clues too tightly. It just seems like it would explain too *much*, if that makes sense. Alla: > Snape loving Lily is IMO the ONLY thing which can make Harry to > feel some kind of pity for Snape. Otherwise, I cannot even IMAGINE > how Harry will be able to forgive him, IMO. But I can certainly > see "because my mother would wanted me to" or something along > those lines. > > Granted, this all can work even if Snape simply liked Lily as a > friend, and I would prefer that possibility, but IMO JKR may go > with "in love" part. Jen: I'm sort of thinking Harry would be infuriated to find out Snape loved Lily rather than Lily saw something good in Snape. Harry would think Snape had duped his mum or coerced her. He would need to know Lily cared about Snape of her own free will and saw something in him the Maruaders didn't see, imo. As for the part about 'my mother would have wanted me to' I completely agree. We've seen the many ways Harry is like James, most notably showing Peter mercy. I think there needs to be an equally powerful way Harry is like Lily and showing compassion seems like a good bet. Jen R., noticing she always finds a way to talk herself out of Snape/Lily and can't stop now.... From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 05:35:56 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 05:35:56 -0000 Subject: Origins of Avada Kedavra WAS:Re: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lolita_ns" wrote: > On the other hand, I find it interesting that this is the only spell > in HP (as far as I remember) that isn't based either on sth that > resembles English or on broken Latin. It is in Aramaic, which > belonged (since it's a dead language now) to the Semitic branch of > the Hamito-Semitic family of languages, and had no connections at all > with any of the IE languages, which developed from Proto Indo- > European (I took a course in historical linguistics during my > studies). zgirnius: There is at least one more language represented. The spell Tonks uses to fix Harry's broken nose in HBP has the incantation 'Episkey', which I could not associate to either English or Latinish roots. Turns out, the Greek 'episkeyazo' means 'to repair', adn is the likely origin of this incantation. I love the HP Lexicon!! From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Feb 19 06:22:05 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 06:22:05 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148378 Carol: > Here we have, or we may > have, a variation on the device of mistaking one thing for another, > with "It's over" as a kind of red herring to distract us from > "Petrificus Totalus." And I can't think of any other reason why JKR > would have had Tonks not hear what Snape said except to call our > attention to his speaking at exactly the point when the spell would > have been cast. > > At any rate, the speaker of the spell cannot be Harry and the > evidence suggests that it's Snape. And if it is, we can be sure that > we'll hear from Snape's own mouth in Book 7 that he saved Harry's > life yet again with no reward but "cheek." Jen: I'm not completely disagreeing as you make a case for Snape being a person near the scene who could have cast the spell, but it *would* be odd to me if he did it verbally instead of nonverbally. That would be a clear threat to his cover. Or he could have used the same excuse he did for the Crucio to Harry, that Harry must be saved for the Dark Lord, instead of casting a very loud verbal spell (since Harry heard it clearly when Fenrir was practically covering his face as he went for his throat and was breathing loud). Also, it reads like Snape and Malfoy were already around the corner and Fenrir detached himself from the group battling, the same group Snape/Malfoy had already passed through before rounding the corner. I think it just as likely someone unseen by Harry cast it and that's why there was no specification. DDM folks already know he saved Harry by getting the DE's out of Hogwarts and not killing or torturing Harry on the way, so casting that one spell doesn't make the case much stronger. It wouldn't necessarily be the thing in need of an answer like other more obvious actions Snape took that night, is what I mean. Jen R. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 08:13:41 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 08:13:41 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148379 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > ... > > ... > > Jen: I'm sort of thinking Harry would be infuriated to find out > Snape loved Lily rather than Lily saw something good in Snape. > Harry would think Snape had duped his mum or coerced her. He > would need to know Lily cared about Snape of her own free will > and saw something in him the Maruaders didn't see, imo. > bboyminn: That is precisely why I reject /romantic/ love between them; it complicates things too much. But a fond friendship or even a distant admiration seems to work out just right. As I said, over time and through association and through acts of unwaranted kindness, Snape grew fond of Lily. Think of the love you have for your friends, you would probably jump in front of a bullet for them, but despite that love, it would never manifest itself in a 'lovey-dovey' or romantic way. So, in that friendship sense of love, I agree Snape loved Lily, but I reject any significant romantic feelings. I think that complicates things too much. It seems to set up more conflict than resolution. Now, I won't deny that Snape could have felt some degree of romantic feelings for Lily at some point. There are many people that I have felt a romantic attraction toward; wives of friends, ex-lovers who are now in other relationships, but at some point, you set those feelings aside and accept reality. I'm sure it was clear that Snape and Lily could never be, so he just accepted her friendship in his own Slytherin-ish way. > Jen continues: > > As for the part about 'my mother would have wanted me to' I > completely agree. We've seen the many ways Harry is like James, > most notably showing Peter mercy. I think there needs to be an > equally powerful way Harry is like Lily and showing compassion > seems like a good bet. > > Jen R., noticing she always finds a way to talk herself out of > Snape/Lily and can't stop now.... > bboyminn: I think you are on to something here. Lily in a sense has always been held in the background. Oh yes, people speak positive of her, but we are lacking a great deal of detail. For James, we know about the Marauders and their adventures. We have 'Snapes Worst Memory' to tell us a lot about James, but only hints at Lily. Plus, we have the constant references to Lily's eyes. JKR has made various comments indicating that somehow Harry's eyes will be significant, and since his eyes are like Lily's, she should also be significant. So, it seems clear, to me at least, that JKR is intentionally holding back information about Lily, because if revealed, it would simply give away the whole plot, or at least, the whole sub-plot. Further, I think Lily's kindness and compassion, and her (somewhat) championing of the underdog will certainly all come into play when more details are finally released regarding Lily. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 08:42:10 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 08:42:10 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148380 Jen wrote: "I'm not completely disagreeing as you (Carol) make a case for Snape being a person near the scene who could have cast the spell, but it *would* be odd to me if he did it verbally instead of non-verbally. That would be a clear threat to his cover. Or he could have used the same excuse he did for the Crucio to Harry, that Harry must be saved for the Dark Lord, instead of casting a very loud verbal spell (since Harry heard it clearly when Fenrir was practically covering his face as he went for his throat and was breathing loud)." CH3ed: Or Snape could just say that he was actually aiming the spell at Harry and it missed and hit Greyback instead. That would be a very plausible excuse, I think. The spell would have stopped Harry pursuing Snape and Draco without hurting him (if that is indeed what LV ordered). I like this theory a lot (and confess that I'm buying the DDM!Snape so I'm not entirely objective). CH3ed :O) From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 11:16:27 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:16:27 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148381 Dung, previously: > See, I reckon Voldemort's been reading the evil overlord handbook > in the holidays. No "bring him to me so I can challenge him to a > duel and have the pleasure of proving myself to be the stronger", > no "give him a long and painful death (from which he can > heroically > escape) so the old fool can really appreciate just how much I hate > him"... Just a nice and simple "get the job done and I won't kill > you and your family" to Draco, and a "you'd better be on my side > after all Snape, or you're dead," via Bella and Cissy. > Neat, no? Jen: Neat, yes. I like. I like any plot which incorporates Voldemort more in Spinner's End. To me that would follow what we're supposed to believe about Voldemort, that he is the master behind all these plans and is incorporating his 'gift for spreading discord and enmity' among his DE's here. That the DE's, even Snape, are pawns in his game. Dung, now: Pawns, exactly. Except that Snape's fighting back. It's Wizard's Chess between Voldy and DD, and DD has the upper hand because he knows trusts and loves his pieces, whereas Voldy's trying to treat his pieces as though they're a Muggle set and not alive at all. > Dung, previously: Fixations, certainly, but has he not shown > that he can be remarkably patient? Got any good canon for the > irrationality? Not that I think you haven't, I just think that > given his goals, his fixations and obsessions are really quite > rational, but he's cunning enough not to let them obscure his > other goals Jen: I meant that his plans fail because they are based on irrational fixations to begin with. Like going to the MOM or attempting to kill Harry as a baby. Both plans were likely well thought out and carefully organized, but in each case his basis for making the plan is due to an obsessive fixation with faulty wiring: He must kill Harry because the prophecy is true; he must obtain the prophecy to find out why he can't kill Harry; he must have Harry and only Harry sent to the graveyard to be reborn; he must be the one to kill Harry even though he's failed four times. Do you know what I mean, even if you don't agree? Dung, now: Yeah, I know what you mean... but I'm not sure if I agree. Attempting to kill Harry as a baby was following Evil Overlord rule no. 47: If I learn that a callow youth has begun a quest to destroy me, I will slay him while he is still a callow youth instead of waiting for him to mature. He even tried it before the callow youth was old enough to understand what was going on. Though, granted, he's guilty of violating no. 117: No matter how much I want revenge, I will never order an underling "Leave him. He's mine!" The thing is, we don't know whether Voldy really is greater and more terrible than before because he used Harry's blood in the graveyard. All we've got to counter it is that blasted gleam. But he might be, for all we know, even if DD's gleam is a hint that having used Harry's blood could lead to his downfall eventually. In fact, I'd say that since he's managed to get rid of DD this time round, and he wasn't able to do that last time round, he probably *is* greater and more terrible than before, which doesn't mean he's any more invulnerable. Characterising his attempts to kill Harry as an obsession with faulty wiring's a bit harsh... I suspect that his major problem is that he believes in fate (JKR doesn't, she believes in hard work), rather than in making choices. Being Slytherin's heir and all that will do that to a chap, though, won't it? I think DD is pretty clear that if Voldy hadn't acted on the prophecy, he would have been a lot better off. All his current obsessions come back to that, really, that he believes the prophecy. Jen: For this reason I tend to think killing Dumbledore will *not* serve the purpose Voldemort thinks it will. There will be something about DD's death he is overlooking as he did with Lily or with taking Harry's blood, etc. And it might be as simple as he's made a mortal enemy out of Snape who will do anything to defeat him even if it means siding with Harry (not amicably of course). Or it could be something more magical at work which will come back to haunt him. Dung: Or it could be that he thinks with the chess-player out of the way, the pieces won't know what to do ? his lot certainly wouldn't, they've demonstrated that before. Dungrollin From rkdas at charter.net Sun Feb 19 01:13:16 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 01:13:16 -0000 Subject: Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148382 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: EXTENSIVE SNIPPAGE >Carol wrote: >SNIPPED AGAIN > > Dumbledore tells Harry about the importance of keeping his soul whole > and pure, and the earnestness of this speech suggests that his own is > equally whole and pure. (I'm worried that Harry's is getting slightly > tarnished, but I won't go into that.) AGAIN WITH THE SNIPS> > Carol, wondering if only good witches and wizards get put on chocolate > frogs and why Circe has one if that's the case Jen D.inquires: Carol! This thought you have in parentheses is exactly what just crossed my mind as I am listening to Harry watch LV charm info out of Slughorn. Harry had some very uncomfortable thoughts! Let me quote: "It was very well done, thought Harry, the hesitancy, the casual tone, the careful flattery, none of it overdone. He, Harry had had too much experience trying to wheedle information out of reluctant people not to recognize a master at work." p. 496-7 Scholastic Ed. That passage hit me like a ton of bricks. I started wracking my memory. When did Harry wheedle information out of people? This suggests that he's been a calculating, manipulating little sneak thief or something and I can not for the life of me think when! Just slap me and tell me to read the books again if it's so obvious but I am at a loss and will keep awake thinking (and finally reading) unless someone can enlighten me. Okay, he couldn't be honest with Umbridge (despite her punishment) and he never played false to either Fudge on Scrimgeour that I can remember.He tried his best to be numb around Aunt Marge but he never wheedled anything out of her. He did lie quite often to DD (about things that were bothering him) but it was never a wheedling, conniving thing. How did Harry get experience that would allow him to identify with LV? I think we may have our test of the hero emerging for this is not the only instance in which Harry identifies with the Dark Lord. He also feels the same way about Hogwarts (Hogwarts, dear Hogwarts) that LV does. But truly am I missing a conman Harry that is out there? Jen D. scratching her head and muttering over her bowl of porridge... > From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 11:27:28 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:27:28 -0000 Subject: Small choice in rotten apples Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148383 I spent ages last night looking for a half-written post that it now appears I never wrote, or never saved. So I'm going to have to re- create it in order to tack a new idea on the end. Please be patient. I now have the horrors that someone's had this idea before me... Here goes. We all know that "it is our choices ... that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities," and that "it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be." These are taken by (I think) all careful readers of the books to be fundamental truths of the Potterverse. The choices quote particularly, the character who delivers the line, its position in the books, the context in which it is said, all add up to make it one of those bits that just ... stays with you. At the back of your mind. It's almost underlined, highlighted, italicised and put in caps as This Is What The Author Believes. But JKR doesn't do things by halves, oh no. She uses magic to reinforce the choices theme - paradoxically, by forcing the characters' hands. We have binding magical contracts, which (no matter how unwittingly entered into) compel characters to fulfil their terms. We have obscure magical bonds which form between two wizards when one saves the life of the other, which the wizard whose life has been saved has no control over. We have Unbreakable Vows ? which are perhaps the ultimate in "I want this character to have no choice but to xyz" plot devices. Taking it to its logical extreme, one could argue that the entire Potterverse exists only to allow her characters to demonstrate their natures by making choices. At the end of OotP, Harry is presented with the prophecy. UK p744: "So," said Harry, dredging up the words from what felt like a deep well of despair inside him, "so does that mean that ... that one of us has got to kill the other one ... in the end?" "Yes," said Dumbledore. UK p754: "...it was still very hard to believe as he sat here that his life must include, or end in, murder..." Kill or be killed; it's a rotten choice, whichever way you look at it. But JKR then goes on in HBP to undermine the prophecy's importance. UK p476: "You are setting too much store by the prophecy!" "But," spluttered Harry, "but you said the prophecy means ?" "If Voldemort had never heard of the prophecy, would it have been fulfilled? Would it have meant anything? Of course not! Do you think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?" No, we learn, the prophecy is Voldemort's problem, not Harry's, it makes no difference to Harry's life, he'd have wanted to be the one to finish off Voldy for good anyway. He doesn't need the prophecy to tell him that. So where does this leave him with his kill or be killed choice? The prophecy is the reason that Voldemort will never leave him in peace, but it doesn't apply to Harry. Harry is choosing to follow his Horlicks quest because it's the Right Thing To Do. Thing is, Harry's hardly likely to be any better at outright murder than Draco is, is he? He certainly couldn't kill an unarmed Sirius Black even when he thought he was responsible for betraying Lily and James to Voldemort. "Heat of the moment!" I hear you cry, "? he'll off him in battle, no time to worry about the moral issues ? it'll be self defence!" Except that I think that would be too easy. I think JKR's got something far nastier in store. She did memorably comment that if she could be a character for a day she wouldn't want to be Harry, because she knew what he had coming. Let's face it, she's not squeamish about putting her characters in difficult situations, is she? Nor is she above constraining their choices by magical means so that they can exhibit their characterisation by choosing between what is right and what is easy (she just cleverly hides which is the right and which is the easy choice so we can't yet judge for ourselves). This leads me to think that there will be some magically compelling reason why Harry has to kill or be killed, and that there's a deeper reason for the necessity of the choice. And I've had an idea as to what it might be. It goes back to Annemehr's theory about why Horlicks is so bad. She had the idea that the ripping of the soul caused by killing can be healed (repentance, forgiveness etc), and the reason that splitting the soul up is against nature is that it is deliberately putting oneself beyond redemption, deliberately not allowing the soul to be healed. It's so elegant it *has* to be right - and if it's not, it should be. I won't repeat all the evidence for Horcrux!Harry, except to say that I don't know what else could have happened at Godric's Hollow to tie up so many loose ends. Basically, this theory relies on Horcrux!Harry, as well as Anne's theory, ok? So this is it: I reckon the bit of Voldy's soul that ended up in Harry, has been knitting with Harry's soul in the kind of healing process that Anne's theory would predict. Harry's soul has incorporated the Voldy fragment. Harry doesn't have to *die* to get rid of the last Horcrux, he has to *kill*. And I'll bet Snape refuses to teach him how. I have another, wilder speculation (which might explain a whole lot more) to put on top of this, but I'm not quite sure whether it's workable yet. Dung Begging all to note that kill or be killed was, coincidentally, the very choice presented to Snape in HBP. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 12:47:06 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:47:06 -0000 Subject: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148384 dungrollin: > It goes back to Annemehr's theory about why Horlicks is so bad. She > had the idea that the ripping of the soul caused by killing can be > healed (repentance, forgiveness etc), and the reason that splitting > the soul up is against nature is that it is deliberately putting > oneself beyond redemption, deliberately not allowing the soul to be > healed. It's so elegant it *has* to be right - and if it's not, it > should be. Ceridwen: I agree that this is an elegant theory. I liked it the first time out, but the list elves frown on solely 'I agree' posts. I hate it when there's nothing to add but *fanbowz*. dungrollin: > I won't repeat all the evidence for Horcrux!Harry, except to say > that I don't know what else could have happened at Godric's Hollow > to tie up so many loose ends. Basically, this theory relies on > Horcrux!Harry, as well as Anne's theory, ok? > > So this is it: > I reckon the bit of Voldy's soul that ended up in Harry, has been > knitting with Harry's soul in the kind of healing process that > Anne's theory would predict. Harry's soul has incorporated the Voldy > fragment. Harry doesn't have to *die* to get rid of the last > Horcrux, he has to *kill*. Ceridwen: I don't believe in Horcrux!Harry. The gyrations necessary to create a true Horcrux would be, if we go by the one other similar spell in canon, too intricate and formalized to have been able to occur at the time of Vaporization. I am not discounting the possibility of something similar but not the same in the Potterverse, though. *IF* there is a bit of Voldysoul in Harry, it got there by accident, released from the main soul when the AK backfired. LV murdered. No way around that, murder is the only thing we know of that can split a soul. A split soul is the only way a bit of Voldysoul could have gotten into anything, accidentally or purposely. We know that LV murdered immediately before the failed AK. He murdered Lily. I'm not sure that James's death would be murder, as they were fighting together and the rules of combat might come into play. But, there was at least one freshly-torn soul bit in LV at the time, and his soul was violently torn from his body. It's possible that the soul piece could have been just as violently seperated from the core soul at the same time and gone into the nearest living body. The point of a Horcrux is to leave a bit of soul around in case the wizard needs it. I've speculated before that Horcruxes were discovered by an accidental Horcrux having been made at some point in the distant past. Evil Pre-Historic Overlord was blown away, but somehow found that he still lived, and found out why. Or, something. If that is true, then a formal ceremony would only mean a certainty that the soul piece was confined. There would be another, much rarer (due to the unusual circumstances), way to have a soul bit left behind. It would be a very arcane and perhaps even a one-time historical thing, but the entire series revolves around ancient magic and a once-in-a-lifetime event, Harry surviving the AK. So, I would buy the elegant theory, not for a formal Horcrux, but for an accidental 'horcrux'ed Harry. Wonderful idea! And so simple. dungrollin: > And I'll bet Snape refuses to teach him how. Ceridwen: If he's DDM he will. With teeth gritted, as if fending off unseen dental instruments ('like pulling teeth' - maybe the Grangers will be lurking around for just that purpose? ;) ) If he's OFH he will, too. The only Snape who wouldn't, I believe, would be an unredeemable ESE. dungrollin: > I have another, wilder speculation (which might explain a whole lot > more) to put on top of this, but I'm not quite sure whether it's > workable yet. > > Dung > Begging all to note that kill or be killed was, coincidentally, the > very choice presented to Snape in HBP. Ceridwen: I do believe that. I also believe that there was a lot more to the AK on the tower than just what we saw. I have my own speculations about what possibilities there may have been with that, but I haven't really tried to work them out. Good luck with your speculation, though! Ceridwen, who can't resist any idea that uses the word 'elegant'. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sun Feb 19 13:04:07 2006 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:04:07 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148385 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > Jen: I'm sort of thinking Harry would be infuriated to find out > > Snape loved Lily rather than Lily saw something good in Snape. > > Harry would think Snape had duped his mum or coerced her. He > > would need to know Lily cared about Snape of her own free will > > and saw something in him the Maruaders didn't see, imo. > > > > bboyminn: > > That is precisely why I reject /romantic/ love between them; it > complicates things too much. But a fond friendship or even a distant > admiration seems to work out just right. As I said, over time and > through association and through acts of unwaranted kindness, Snape > grew fond of Lily. > > Think of the love you have for your friends, you would probably jump > in front of a bullet for them, but despite that love, it would never > manifest itself in a 'lovey-dovey' or romantic way. So, in that > friendship sense of love, I agree Snape loved Lily, but I reject any > significant romantic feelings. Marianne: Okay, you've convinced me. I think the possibility of a Snape-Lily friendship exists. It also could fit into my feelings that there are reason(s) that we don't yet know as to why Snape reacts so vehemently when called a coward by Harry in HBP. To toss out a half- formed thought - what if Snape was indeed at Godric's Hollow with Vmort? Snape hangs back, per Vmort's instructions, but the thought is in his head that if he were to attack Vmort while the old bat is dueling with James, perhaps the two of them can defeat him. Of course, this rushing in to the rescue is virulently anti-Snapeish, so he hesitates. James is killed. Snape still hesitates. Lily is killed. Snape is left with living with his actions (or non-actions) and trying to rationalize why he acted as he did. The thought that he might have been cowardly is something he rejects on the surface, but which bubbles away like acid underneath. I realize there are lots of flaws in this, including the thought that, if Peter was there to pick up Vmort's wand, we might end up with way too many people wandering around GH at the crucial time. > > Jen continues: > > > > As for the part about 'my mother would have wanted me to' I > > completely agree. We've seen the many ways Harry is like James, > > most notably showing Peter mercy. I think there needs to be an > > equally powerful way Harry is like Lily and showing compassion > > seems like a good bet. > > > > bboyminn: > > I think you are on to something here. Lily in a sense has always been > held in the background. Oh yes, people speak positive of her, but we > are lacking a great deal of detail. For James, we know about the > Marauders and their adventures. We have 'Snapes Worst Memory' to tell > us a lot about James, but only hints at Lily. > > Plus, we have the constant references to Lily's eyes. JKR has made > various comments indicating that somehow Harry's eyes will be > significant, and since his eyes are like Lily's, she should also be > significant. So, it seems clear, to me at least, that JKR is > intentionally holding back information about Lily, because if > revealed, it would simply give away the whole plot, or at least, the > whole sub-plot. Further, I think Lily's kindness and compassion, and > her (somewhat) championing of the underdog will certainly all come > into play when more details are finally released regarding Lily. Marianne: Didn't JKR also say at some point that Harry's eyes are his most vulnerable spot, or something along those lines? I tried searching through JKR's interviews but didn't find that quote, so maybe I'm imagining it. Snape and Lily are the two characters, IMO, that JKR has done the most to hide, although using different methods. Lily is mentioned in only positive terms by everyone who has anything to say about her. No feet of clay there, or so it seems. Yet, this lack of balance paints her into something more saintly than human. The fact that we discovered she was somewhat cheeky in HBP made her seem more like a real person. As for Snape, we see and hear him do all sorts of things, but we know there are still gaping holes in the backstory. And some of the backstory we've been given has not been from Snape himself, but from others, such as DD's mention of Snape's remorse. There is a deliberate withholding of information on Snape, so much so that even when he apparently kills DD with an AK, this action is seen as ambiguous by a large part of the audience. Marianne, needing a good dose of caffeine, wonders in a crazed moment whether only Harry's eyes could be a Horcrux, rather than his entire body. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sun Feb 19 13:19:45 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:19:45 +0100 Subject: Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) References: Message-ID: <004401c63557$2736d690$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148386 susanbones2003 wrote: > That passage hit me like a ton of bricks. I started wracking my > memory. When did Harry wheedle information out of people? This > suggests that he's been a calculating, manipulating little sneak > thief or something and I can not for the life of me think when! > He tried his best to > be numb around Aunt Marge but he never wheedled anything out of her. > He did lie quite often to DD (about things that were bothering him) > but it was never a wheedling, conniving thing. How did Harry get > experience that would allow him to identify with LV? Miles: You gave the answer, but didn't work it out: Harry was used to get small benefits from the Dursleys (including information). Just before the desaster with Aunt Marge in CoS (?) he made Vernon to promise him an early escape from Privet Drive. Later he very well played the "Sirius, the mass murderer" card without any open threat. So yes, Harry can be very manipulating if necessary. Miles From rkdas at charter.net Sun Feb 19 13:50:54 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:50:54 -0000 Subject: Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: <004401c63557$2736d690$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148387 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > susanbones2003 wrote: > > That passage hit me like a ton of bricks. I started wracking my > > memory. When did Harry wheedle information out of people? This > > suggests that he's been a calculating, manipulating little sneak > > thief or something and I can not for the life of me think when! > > He tried his best to > > be numb around Aunt Marge but he never wheedled anything out of her. > > He did lie quite often to DD (about things that were bothering him) > > but it was never a wheedling, conniving thing. How did Harry get > > experience that would allow him to identify with LV? > > Miles: > You gave the answer, but didn't work it out: Harry was used to get small > benefits from the Dursleys (including information). Just before the desaster > with Aunt Marge in CoS (?) he made Vernon to promise him an early escape > from Privet Drive. Later he very well played the "Sirius, the mass murderer" > card without any open threat. So yes, Harry can be very manipulating if > necessary. > > Miles Hi Miles, I realize he had to be less than forthcoming with the Dursleys but the things he did with them, they don't seem to be at the level he's identifying with LV. He made a bargain with Vernon, that he'd be a good boy if he could have his permission form signed, and well, that didn't even work out. And he was not after anything in a sneaky fashion, it was all above board, a straight deal. And the "Sirius the mass murderer" bit hardly qualifies as wheedling information out of less-than-forthcoming people. For a laugh almost, he let it slip that his godfather was a mass murderer and realized an advantage he really hadn't calculated. He did use it to his advantage, but it just doesn't seem to be, again, at the level of manipulation and con- man artistry that he's identifying with LV. Maybe the fact that he's writing a letter to Sirius was very calculated but I just don't see Harry doing anywhere nearly as manipulative and calculating as LV, at least until he meets Slughorn, gets the Prince's book, or needs that memory. Then I see him developing skills in these less-than- appealing areas. Felix Felecis gives him such a leg up in this area. It seems to introduce him to a level of falsehood and manipulation I didn't know he had in him. He plays Slughorn in such an obvious and melodramatic way. Then is when, in the pursuit of a good, I saw him behave most like LV. It was not pleasant and I don't want to see Harry put the end entirely before the means to that end. Then he'd lose his humanity, his pure and untarnished soul. Jen D., suddenly feeling a little sad... From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 19 14:42:30 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:42:30 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148388 > -- Sydney, who STILL wants an answer to the spying!Lupin conundrum. Pippin: Lupin says writing letters to Harry would be "something of a giveaway", so apparently he does his spying in disguise, though he can't hide the fact that he's tried to live among wizards. (HBP 16). I think Voldemort knows full well, of course, having turned Lupin a long time ago, but it's also a possibility that Lupin wasn't spying on the werewolves during VWI and therefore Pettigrew doesn't know that he's doing it now. Nicolau: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148323 Now, I see external reasons to exclude several characters. Lupin is a good example: he is mistrusted by the WW for being a werewolf: if it turned out that he *should* be mistrusted, this sends the rather unpleasant message that prejudices often have a point, not a message I think JKR would like to pass. Pippin: The French Revolution spawned the original Reign of Terror. Shall we conclude that the aristocrats had a point in supposing the peasants were too savage to be trusted with their freedom? I don't think JKR intends to let her readers dodge the question. A Tale of Two Cities is one of her favorite books and it contains some unpleasant messages about what those who abuse their power can expect when the tables are turned. Few are interested in returning good for evil in such a time. Dickens's conclusion was that the peasants had learned brutality from the aristocrats, and we've seen that face of wizarding society in Umbridge. She's worse than Fenrir in a way --just as brutal and far more ambitious. Fenrir takes children one by one. Umbridge tried to make off with an entire generation! Pippin From gsopko at stratos.net Sun Feb 19 03:37:52 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (sir_lafayette2000) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 03:37:52 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148389 > Tonks_op > I agree with you that Snape may have had respect and admiration > for Lily as a human being. I am in more of the Snape loved > Narcissa camp than the Snape loved Lily camp. > > I also think that (as I have said here before) the reason Snape > did not want LV to go to the Potters was the life debt that he > had to James. So Snape tried to save his own soul by > trying to warn James and James did not listen. Gregory writes: Snape loving Lily explains why DD trusted Snape. It also explains why DD never shares with anyone why he trusted Snape. It also explains why LV gave Lily a chance in the first place. Greg From gsopko at stratos.net Sat Feb 18 17:48:26 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (sir_lafayette2000) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:48:26 -0000 Subject: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148390 Susan wrote: > Maybe someone has already thought of this but ... could one of > the horcruxes have been "bone of the father"? V'mort did use > it to bring himself back from his "half-life". Since "bone of the father" was not a possession of one of the Hogwarts Founders, it seems unlikely to be a choice of LV's for the horcrux. It also seems unlikely that LV would destroy a horcrux after going to so much trouble to make one. As far as speculating on horcruxes, I am reasonably sure that the unknown heavy locket found while cleaning Grimauld Place in OoP is the locket that RAB removed in HBP. RAB's identity was not made clear but he is probably Regulus A. Black, Sirius' deceased brother who may well have died from the same poison that killed Dumbledore. It seems very plausible that Mundungus stole it from the house when Sirius died and its whereabouts are unknown. Gregory From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Feb 19 15:12:48 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 07:12:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003b01c63566$f2abcec0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 148391 Sherry now: i think it would be impossible to confuse the words, "it's over" with a long Latin like spell such as "petrificus totalus"--spelling? Even in the heat of the moment, with Harry's incredible hatred and his fixation on Snape, he would certainly recognize his voice and know any words that came out of his mouth. the two phrases are so different, sound so different, that as a possible clue to Snape's real motives, it doesn't work for me. i would never confuse something like that if i heard it, and I think it won't be the deciding factor in determining Snape's loyalties. Not that Carol ever meant it to be the deciding factor, I realize, just that as a clue, it doesn't work for me. Sherry From sidd_m2003 at yahoo.co.in Sun Feb 19 07:12:26 2006 From: sidd_m2003 at yahoo.co.in (siddharth mishra) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 07:12:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: DD Not Dead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060219071226.69393.qmail@web8709.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148392 Gryffindor Chaser adds: >> I think that yes, Snape used the AK curse, but since he didn't mean it, it still produced a green flash, but only knocked DD off his feet, in the air and over the ledge. In this way, it is possible, as when Harry used the Unforgivable curse against Bellatrix in OotP, that the curse still works, but not to its fullest extent. Therefore, once DD was falling off the roof, he could have turned into a phoenix, as he may have been an animagus, got to the ground, picked up his wand, released Harry from the BB jinx and then returned to his body. This answers all the questions about no injuries after falling to the ground, still having his glasses perfectly intact, and also the phoenix flying out of the white swirls at his funeral!! << Sid: Hey, this is my first post but still I would like to throw some light on the topic. I am a DD fan but I think he certainly is dead. Firstly, JKR has said that old man with beard has to die. Secondly, he has done his job, that is to teach Harry how to kill LV. I remember DD saying to Harry that he has been watching him from the very fist day at HG. So, he could have easily come to Harry's aid any time but he allowed Harry to do his stuff. In short from SS to HBP, DD trained Harry and he had no more role to play in the plot. Please let me know what you think. From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 15:13:44 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:13:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Accio dragon egg!" (Re: My thoughts on some things.......) In-Reply-To: <20060218184107.96047.qmail@web36115.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148393 Adzuroth: > In the first triwizard challenge, why didn't Harry simply say > "accio dragon egg" instead of "accio firebolt"? Any of the > champions could've done it since there was no mention of any > spells preventing that. If the dragon was holding onto the egg, > all one had to do was distract it long enough for the dragon to > take its claws off the egg, then nail it with the accio spell. PJ: Well, that might've worked on the first part of the challenge - getting the egg - but it would've put him in a less than desirable position for the second half of the challenge. The "not getting turned into a crispy critter by Mama dragon once you have that egg" half to be exact. :-) The broom allowed him to take his prize far enough from the dragon's flame to enjoy the victory. PJ (who's been away minding her 5yr old Grandson and is very, very tired) :) From mandorino222 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 15:39:47 2006 From: mandorino222 at yahoo.com (mandorino222) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:39:47 -0000 Subject: Gabrielle Delacour Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148394 Has anyone considered the possible difficulties presented by the Gabrielle Delacour character? If she's anything like her sister (which we must assume she is) then Ron will be completely agog and Harry at least slightly intrigued. She and Ginny will be partnered at Bill and Fleur's wedding. Possible catfight? Also, if Ron and Hermione are together, possibly some Hermione/Gabrielle tension? Some type of Viktor Krum? I hate to ship, but I doubt that Rowling would pass up an opportunity to create such delicious tension. mandorino222 From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 16:00:31 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:00:31 -0000 Subject: Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148395 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > > > susanbones2003 wrote: > > > That passage hit me like a ton of bricks. I started wracking my > > > memory. When did Harry wheedle information out of people? This > > > suggests that he's been a calculating, manipulating little sneak > > > thief or something and I can not for the life of me think when! > > > > He tried his best to > > > be numb around Aunt Marge but he never wheedled anything out of > her. > > > He did lie quite often to DD (about things that were bothering > him) > > > but it was never a wheedling, conniving thing. How did Harry get > > > experience that would allow him to identify with LV? > > > > Miles: > > You gave the answer, but didn't work it out: Harry was used to get > small > > benefits from the Dursleys (including information). Just before > the desaster > > with Aunt Marge in CoS (?) he made Vernon to promise him an early > escape > > from Privet Drive. Later he very well played the "Sirius, the mass > murderer" > > card without any open threat. So yes, Harry can be very > manipulating if > > necessary. > > > > Miles > Jen D.: > ...but I just don't see > Harry doing anywhere nearly as manipulative and calculating as LV, > at least until he meets Slughorn, gets the Prince's book, or needs > that memory. Then I see him developing skills in these less-than- > appealing areas. Felix Felecis gives him such a leg up in this area. > It seems to introduce him to a level of falsehood and manipulation I > didn't know he had in him. He plays Slughorn in such an obvious and > melodramatic way. Then is when, in the pursuit of a good, I saw him > behave most like LV. It was not pleasant and I don't want to see > Harry put the end entirely before the means to that end. Then he'd > lose his humanity, his pure and untarnished soul. > Jen D., suddenly feeling a little sad... Ceridwen: Harry began his adventure in HBP by being manipulative. He was Dumbledore's lure to reel in the Slughorn prey. Dumbledore leaves Harry alone with Slughorn for a stretch of time while he peruses knitting patterns in the bathroom. Harry presents the case that not all the teachers are in the Order. He presses the point: "Harry had been sure Slughorn would be one of those wizards who could not bear to hear Voldemort's name spoken aloud, and was not disappointed: Slughorn gave a shudder and a squawk of protest, which Harry ignored. 'I reckon the staff are safer than most people while Dumbledore's headmaster; he's supposed to be the only one Voldemort ever feared, isn't he?' Harry went on." (HBP, Scholastic, pg. 72) This is manipulation. Subtle, but there. When Dumbledore enters shortly after, he twists the knife by saying that he is giving up. Slughorn's talk with Harry, short as it was, was the deciding factor in making up his mind. JKR allows us to listen as Slughorn reassesses his position. And, Dumbledore expected it, according to the conversation between him and Harry on page 74. It isn't explicitly stated, but the fact that Slughorn likes to be surrounded by 'the famous, the successful, and the powerful' was played by bringing him the Famous Harry Potter. Dumbledore even congratulates Harry for what he did in convincing Slughorn. And, it seems, from the above quote, that Harry understood what he was doing, at least that he was manipulating Slughorn somewhat by saying Voldemort's name. Ceridwen. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 16:02:10 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:02:10 -0000 Subject: "Accio dragon egg!" In-Reply-To: <20060218184107.96047.qmail@web36115.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148396 Adzuroth: Wrote: > In the first triwizard challenge, why didn't Harry simply say > "accio dragon egg" instead of "accio firebolt"? Probably because Harry not only wanted to get the egg he wanted to live too. Think about it, you are on foot and have the egg under your arm; you are in the stadium and standing right next to a very large and very angry dragon. I don't think you life expectancy would be very long. Eggplant From unlikely2 at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 19 10:31:09 2006 From: unlikely2 at btopenworld.com (unlikelyauthor) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:31:09 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Spying, WAS: Snape, Hagrid, and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148397 > a_svirn: > But McGonagall wasn't "listing off the Marauders", she was telling > a thrilling tale of true friendship and betrayal, and from where > she stood Lupin simply did not feature in it. For the simple > reason that he didn't take his part in the final showdown. Which, > in turn, poses another question: just why didn't he take his part > in it? > > Betsy Hp: > > He's strangely weak, caving into peer pressure with disturbing > > ease. And yet, he spends most of PoA making subtle little digs > > at Snape. So he's not totally controlled by a need to be liked. > > a_svirn: > But where do you see the contradiction? He could hardly indulge an > idle hope of being liked by Snape, could he? And by "making subtle > little digs" he won almost universal admiration at his expense. > > Betsy Hp: > > And again (and most disturbingly) why was he willing to let > > Harry die rather than share the secrets of dead or traitorous > > friends? > > a_svirn: > Yes, I agree, this is one thing which is quite impossible to > explain away. unlikely2: I wonder if you've seen this: http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/110286.html While swythyv may be overstating the issue, elements of such a mindset may well inform Lupin's behaviour. It doesn't need to be true all the time for Lupin to believe it and feel guilty about resenting it. Maybe Lupin is as messed-up as Snape. unlikely2 From dslagle3 at nc.rr.com Sun Feb 19 15:16:48 2006 From: dslagle3 at nc.rr.com (Larry, Debbie & Jessica) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 15:16:48 -0000 Subject: Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148398 > Victoria wrote: > Anyways in conclusion I am predicting that next book Harry > will go and live in Grimauld Place and find a secret stash of > Horcruxes that Regulus has nicked from Voldemort, When cleaning out the cabinet in the one room, they find a large locket that none of them can open.... hmmm... what do ya'll think?? Larry From kchuplis at alltel.net Sun Feb 19 16:31:40 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:31:40 -0600 Subject: The gleam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <34829C66-A165-11DA-B0CA-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148399 On Sunday, February 19, 2006, at 05:16 AM, dungrollin wrote: > The thing is, we don't know whether Voldy really is greater and more > terrible than before because he used Harry's blood in the graveyard. > All we've got to counter it is that blasted gleam. But he might be, > for all we know, even if DD's gleam is a hint that having used > Harry's blood could lead to his downfall eventually. In fact, I'd > say that since he's managed to get rid of DD this time round, and he > wasn't able to do that last time round, he probably *is* greater and > more terrible than before, which doesn't mean he's any more > invulnerable. > kchuplis: I always felt that the gleam was an interested, "aha", hmmmm I was hoping for this gleam rather than an "ah rats" gleam. The only thing *I* can think of is that we have seen over and over that when LV gets overconfident he is more vulnerable. DD may have felt that yes, this took *something* away from Harry's arsenal but it also gave them yet another possible chink in LV's armor in that he seems to get cocky; so this this ability to make physical contact could be overestimated in importance by LV and make him more apt to once again underestimate Harry. He always has to "brag" to Harry and each time they have faced each other, the main thing that has worked in Harry's favor is LV underestimating Harry OR Harry's arsenal. If you add to the fact that if Snape is DDM!Snape, and has contributed to the Dark Lord's vision of Harry being even LESS than a wizard talent then he is (and I mean, he's shown basically decent wizard standards with the occasional burst of greatness in things like the Patronus charm), it's going to give Harry an advantage. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 16:32:13 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:32:13 -0000 Subject: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148400 "dungrollin" wrote: > > > I won't repeat all the evidence for Horcrux!Harry, except to say > that I don't know what else could have happened at Godric's Hollow > to tie up so many loose ends. Basically, this theory relies on > Horcrux!Harry, as well as Anne's theory, ok? > > So this is it: > I reckon the bit of Voldy's soul that ended up in Harry, has been > knitting with Harry's soul in the kind of healing process that > Anne's theory would predict. Harry's soul has incorporated the Voldy > fragment. Harry doesn't have to *die* to get rid of the last > Horcrux, he has to *kill*. Neri: As a supporter of Horcrux!Harry I have considered this solution too. You don't say it explicitly, so let me see if we are thinking about the same thing: When Harry will kill Voldemort, Harry's soul will split "at the seams", he will lose the part of his soul that was originally Voldemort's, and Voldemort (who would be vapor again at that point) will die completely. This is certainly an elegant solution in terms of magical "soul mechanics", but I'm not sure I like it thematically. It would suggest that the evil part of us exist in order to fight even worse evil. This isn't a bad moral in itself, but the specific solution above would suggest that you can *get rid* of the evil part of your soul by killing somebody more evil, in this is what I don't like. Personally I'd prefer Harry assimilating the soul part until it loses its connection with Voldemort. As I understand Potterverse soul mechanics, once this soul part is completely Harry's and not Voldemort's, it cannot function anymore as Voldy's Horcrux, and therefore Harry would not have to die. Thematically I think I'd like this solution better, because it would suggest that evil will always remain part of us, even after a great external evil was eradicated, and that we need Choice in order to master it. I suspect that JKR was thinking about Cain ("sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it" Gen 4:8) and this is why she gave Harry a scar on his forehead. At any rate, it's good to know that JKR has several options to save even Horcrux!Harry. Neri From kchuplis at alltel.net Sun Feb 19 16:54:10 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:54:10 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5922FED6-A168-11DA-B0CA-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148401 On Sunday, February 19, 2006, at 07:50 AM, susanbones2003 wrote: > > I realize he had to be less than forthcoming with the Dursleys but > the things he did with them, they don't seem to be at the level he's > identifying with LV. He made a bargain with Vernon, that he'd be a > good boy if he could have his permission form signed, and well, that > didn't even work out. And he was not after anything in a sneaky > fashion, it was all above board, a straight deal. And the "Sirius > the mass murderer" bit hardly qualifies as wheedling information out > of less-than-forthcoming people. For a laugh almost, he let it slip > that his godfather was a mass murderer and realized an advantage he > really hadn't calculated. kchuplis: I think he was quite serious in his use of Sirius as a bargaining card and he plays it to the hilt at the beginning of GOF. Remember the previous summer he had the Dursley's fear of him using magic (even though he didn't and couldn't) as his bargaining chip to a degree, probably mostly on Dudley as it would get him to leave Harry alone, even if he did have to face consequences later. At the beginning of OoTP we seem him mercilessly goading Dudley into a temper, which is a type of manipulation. Don't underestimate the power of button pushing. I sometimes wonder if Harry remembers his own button pushing when he sees Snape doing it to Sirius. susanbones: > He did use it to his advantage, but it > just doesn't seem to be, again, at the level of manipulation and con- > man artistry that he's identifying with LV. kchuplis: That is just what Harry says though. He recognizes "a master". He is not a master at it, but he's done enough to recognize it. Those are two different things. Susanbones: > Maybe the fact that he's > writing a letter to Sirius was very calculated but I just don't see > Harry doing anywhere nearly as manipulative and calculating as LV, > at least until he meets Slughorn, gets the Prince's book, or needs > that memory. Then I see him developing skills in these less-than- > appealing areas. Felix Felecis gives him such a leg up in this area. > It seems to introduce him to a level of falsehood and manipulation I > didn't know he had in him. He plays Slughorn in such an obvious and > melodramatic way. Then is when, in the pursuit of a good, I saw him > behave most like LV. It was not pleasant and I don't want to see > Harry put the end entirely before the means to that end. Then he'd > lose his humanity, his pure and untarnished soul. > > kchuplis: It certainly increased his skill at gaining what he wants smoothly, but I have to disagree about falsehoods. In fact, as I recall the scene several times when Harry sans felix might have tried a wheedle, he notes that Felix tells him the truth will get him further. I think it happens at least twice in that scene. I don't recall any falsehoods except to say Slughorn wanted to pay his respects to Aragog and Harry would have said that anyway to Hagrid felix or no felix because he would never hurt Hagrid's feelings. It is interesting, however, that even playing on truths and not falsehoods really can seem slimy and yucky because it is indeed a disturbing little scene. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 17:06:55 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:06:55 -0000 Subject: Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148402 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Angie wrote: > > > Second, what do we know about the nature of DD's "defeat" of > Grindelwald? I don't think LV fears DD simply because DD is so powerful, but because LV fears death the most and he knows that DD is willing and able to kill a Dark Wizard, if need be. I think implicit in this is that DD is willing and able to use Dark Magic if necessary and has done so before (he's no novice). > > > > > > Finally, relating this to the HBP, if DD killed Grindewald, did he > make a horcrux for himself? > > > Carol responds: > We're told from the first chapter of the first book that Dumbledore is > "too noble" to use certain types of magic, and while I realize that > the narrator isn't always reliable and the characters aren't always > accurate in their assessments of other characters, I will be very > surprised if this statement is not true. For one thing, it jibes with > JKR's own assessment of Dumbledore as "the epitome of goodness." > (Granted, many of her statements in interviews are jumbled or evasive, > but this one is hard to misconstrue.) > > That being the case, I'm not at all willing to assume that DD killed > Grindelvald in any way that could be considered murder or using an > Unforgiveable Curse. We're told (in an interview) that Grindelwald is > indeed dead, but the book (SS) only tells us that DD *defeated* > Grindelwald, not killed him. Since we know that both LV and DD know of > at least one wizard who made a single Horcrux, and Grindelwald's > defeat so nicely coincides with the year that Tom Riddle left > Hogwarts, it seems likely that the wizard in question is Grindelwald, > that DD's fame results from destroying Grindelwald's Horcrux and > therefore making him mortal, and that LV fears DD for exactly this reason. Angie again: I'll admit, I've always thought of DD as the epitome of goodness, as JKR said. This is a new theory for me. But just b/c DD is too "noble" at the beginning of SS and thereafter to use Dark Magic, that doesn't mean he's always been so noble or that he's never used Dark Magic. I really doubt if anyone in the WW would view him poorly if he used Dark Magic to get rid of a Dark Wizard, if his conduct was otherwise above reproach. Can you destroy a Horcrux without using Dark Magic??? And wasn't "murder" Slughorn's term -- wonder how Slughorn defines that term and if it is the same as the WW defines it? >Carol: > But the idea that DD would make a Horcrux himself is IMO very > questionable. Both Slughorn and Dumbledore speak of Horcruxes as Dark > magic of the worst kind, so bad that DD makes sure there are no books > on the subject in the restricted section of the Hogwarts library. It > requires not only that the Horcrux maker kill, but that he commit > murder (Slughorn says something like, "Do I look like a murderer"?) > *and* that he separate the piece of soul that was split off by the > murder into an object in other to preserve his own life, theoretically > forever, at the expense of the life of the person he killed. I can't > see Dumbledore doing that at any point in his life under any > circumstances. And we know that he isn't afraid of death. Gryffindor > that he is, that was probably always the case. (Yes, I know that PP is > a Gryffindor afraid of death, but he's extremely atypical.) > > Dumbledore tells Harry about the importance of keeping his soul whole > and pure, and the earnestness of this speech suggests that his own is > equally whole and pure. Angie: Maybe DD's soul is pure now, but it could be argued that DD's comments to Harry, including the one about keeping your soul pure, ring of "I've been there, boy; I known from whence I speak; you should learn from my experience." Carol: > That such a man *could* make a Horcrux, I have no doubt. That he > *would* do it seems to me unlikely in the extreme. > > Angie again: Oh, I don't like the idea of DD creating a horcrux, either. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of Grindewald having a horcrux that DD destroyed. I stil have to wonder, though, how DD knew about horcruxes, if they are the product of the darkest of magic and are not taught at HW, and how he knew to destroy any horcrux in the first place. We know that there were no books at the HW library on the subject by the time TR arrived at HW -- is it possible there were such books at one time, but after Grindewald's defeat (if it involved a Horcrux) such books were removed from HW? From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 17:28:06 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:28:06 -0000 Subject: Why I'm not convinced DD is dead (long) In-Reply-To: <001b01c63503$99f71a40$a4a551d1@magnumtwdmyxdv> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Gregory Sopko" wrote: > > Angie: > > >> All of the above combined with all of the statements DD has made > about death (especially right before he "died" telling Draco how well > they could make the other side believe he was dead), certainly leaves > room for speculation, which is what I believe JKR intended, even if > it turns out that DD is truly dead. On the other hand, I will concede > that all of the phoenix references and imagery support DD coming back > from the dead, not the appearance of being dead. Hmmmm . . . . << > > > Gregory: > A wonderfully lucid and well made argument for DD not being dead. > I believe that Rowling deliberately is making it vague to some > degree to keep us guess about the end of the story. I remain > convinced DD is dead. The whole story has been about Rowling > taking away people from Harry's life who could help him defeat > Voldemort. In the end it's going to be a one on one confrotation > in which Harry will kill Voldemort. DD said there are things far > worse than death. Voldemort's greatest weakness is his fear of > death. If DD cheats death even by pretending to be dead, it > vindicates Voldemort in his pursuit of trying to cheat death > himself, and I feel strongly that Rowling is not going to paint > herself into that moral dilema. We will have to see when book 7 > is released to see who is right but I have to applaud your effort > and your ideas. > Angie again: Interesting point, but I don't agree that DD would be cheating death by faking his death to help defeat LV. We know DD doesn't fear death and he hasn't attempted to avoid death or achieve immortality simply b/c he may have faked his own death. If that's your take, then what do you make of all of the pheonix references and imagery -- is that cheating? Should we expect DD to return in any manner (other than his portrait) if he is dead? It would be terribly inconvenient for Harry to have to run to HW to consult DD's portrait all the time. I know Harry has to do some things on his own; that's part of his journey, but IMO, he's not ready for what's to come in Book 7 without further instruction -- for example, he doesn't know how to destroy a horcrux, does he? BTW, I agree that the final battle will be Harry v. LV -- I don't expect DD to save the day, even if he's present. But that doesn't mean that DD can't help Harry get there and help him prepare for the final showdown. One last thought that just now came to me, which may weaken my theory. As long as DD is alive, part of LV's energy/plans would be focused on, if not eliminating DD, at least protecting LV from any plans DD came up with. If LV believes DD is gone, then he can focus more energy/plans on eliminating Harry -- yikes! But then again, that may be what DD wants, to lull LV into a false sense of security about DD being gone. It is conceivable that LV would implement some plan in DD's absence that he wouldn't if he knew DD was alive. Hmmm. On second last thought, maybe this doesn't weaken my theory at all? From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 18:06:52 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:06:52 -0000 Subject: Can you "encase" a soul in a scar? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148404 Slughorn said that to create a horcrux, a person "would encase" the torn portion of his soul into something outside of his body. OK, putting aside my doubts that Harry's scar could be a horcrux b/c it is part of Harry's skin and love lives in Harry's skin, which LV can't abide, my question is this: Can you physically "encase" a soul in scar? That word "encase" is usually associated with completely surrounding something on all sides. I picture Harry's scar as flat and an horcrux as something more 3-D. But then again, I am not well-schooled in the ways of horcruxes! Just wondered what the more-learned members of fandom thought about this. Angie From kchuplis at alltel.net Sun Feb 19 18:15:12 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:15:12 -0600 Subject: Another theme Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148405 Last post of the day, I promise. Also, if this has been brought up, sorry. I just haven't seen it addressed specifically. Another recurring theme we see is how people cannot admit they are wrong and the damage that does, particularly to relationships. DD addressed it mildly in his statement to Harry about how often friends each believe what they have to say is more important (and more correctly "right"). We see it with Snape unable to accept that James wasn't in on the joke (no matter he didn't hear the specifics while unconscious, he certainly heard enough that he could at *least* question what he knew of events, but in his rage, his belief he is right, his need to hold a grudge he does not. I even think he truly believes that HRH really are confunded in his need to continue to believe he is right). Snape could also never admit he was wrong about Lupin not being the one who helps Sirius into the castle, even if he had evidence. We see it in the arguments between Hermione and Ron over Scabbers and Crookshanks and how it degrades their relationship. We see Harry struggle with it especially in regards to the potions book. We see it with Percy and his inability to admit he is wrong and the distress and discord in his family. Of course, I suppose it all boils down to pride. Pride goeth before a fall is demonstrated over and over in big and little ways. I think one thing that could convince Harry that Snape is on the up and up is if Snape admits he is wrong. We have NEVER seen Snape admit this in any situation. And of course, we have the ultimate bet that LV is wrong about the power of love and that will most likely be his downfall. Just some things that occurred to me this a.m. I promise no more posts today no matter how tempted! From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 18:45:15 2006 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:45:15 -0000 Subject: Origins of Avada Kedavra WAS:Re: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148406 > > zgirnius: > There is at least one more language represented. The spell Tonks uses > to fix Harry's broken nose in HBP has the incantation 'Episkey', which > I could not associate to either English or Latinish roots. Turns out, > the Greek 'episkeyazo' means 'to repair', adn is the likely origin of > this incantation. > > I love the HP Lexicon!! Lolita: Yes, you're right. I didn't remember that one. OTOH, Greek is also an IE language, so it *is* connected to English & Latin (somewhere deep, deep in the past). I was thinking along the lines of non IE lgs, and, as far as I can remember, AK is the only spell whose incantation is not in any of those. Is there any non-IE lg native speaker out there who is willing enough to try and find a spell with origins in their languages? (e.g. Chinese, Japanese, or, even better, Hebrew or some of the North African lgs...) Cheers, Lolita From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 19:12:30 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:12:30 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148407 > > Alla: > > How do I feel about Snape "loved Lily" or was "in love" with her? > > I would love for that NOT to come true, because of the EWWWW part > > of the theory, but with every book, I feel more and more that it > > just FITS and it just may explain SO many plot points. > Jen: EWW. Snape/Lily bothers me because the only scenario that seems > possible in JKR's world of romance, which is incredibly traditional, > would be unrequited love on the part of Snape. The idea of her > pristine Lily character feeling anything more than compassion for > Snape doesn't fit in with her typical pairings at all. So that > leaves perfect Lily 'seeing the good' in Snape when few others > could. Ick. I mean, unless it were a fantasy love on Severus' part- - > but that scenario wouldn't make Harry feel any better about him! Alla: Oh, EXACTLY, Jen, EWWWW, but as I said unfortunately it just seems more and more fitting EWWWW to me and I realised that I probably was not clear, that while I certainly do not reject the possibility of Snape being in love with Lily, I think it is a big possibility, just as you do I do NOT see Lily being in love with Snape, I just so DON'T. So, yep, unrequited crush on Snape's behalf and friendly feelings from Lily seems like a possibility to me. Of course it is all just speculation at this point, but it seems to me like hints in the text support it. But again to make myself clear I definitely prefer what Steve speculated to come true - namely Snape and Lily both having friendly feelings to each other. > Alla: > > If your objections are just based on predictability part, well > > then how more predictable "Ron/Hermione" and "Harry/Ginny" can be? > Jen: Ditto on the first part, thinking the pairings were > predictable. About the second part though, so far JKR has paired up > people she seems to view as equals. None of them have been an > obvious mismatch except for drugged-up Tom Riddle, Sr. and Merope. > This is why I think if love were involved, it was on Snape's part > only, and I've always agreed with Neri there's solid canon for > unrequited love from Snape toward Narcissa. Alla: Oh, but since I think the love was mainly from Snape' side, do they have to be equals? And Tom Riddle Sr. and Merope seem like such a nice foreshadowing for Snape possibly wanting to drug Lily with Love Potion and (maybe?) abandoning such idea at some point. Heeee! You know my not very flattering opinion of his moral character. :) Of course, I am just going of the speculative tanget here nothing more than that. It is what Steve said - my intuitive read, nothing more. Jen: > You know, as I sit here thinking about canon for Snape/Lily, I can't > remember one bit that is actually hinted at in canon rather than > being a speculative reason because it would fill a plot hole. Alla: Oh, true, true again, but this IS my main reason for thinking that it would come true, because Ic annot come up with any OTHER possible reason to fill all those plot holes so well. :) Jen: Not > saying that discounts LOLLIPOPS completely, but look at this list of > major events Snape's love for Lily is supposed to answer: > Yet no character ever mentions a possible connection between Snape > and Lily and we've never seen a positive interaction between them. > Maybe JKR has gone too far in the other direction on this one, > concealing her clues too tightly. It just seems like it would > explain too *much*, if that makes sense. Alla: Well, you are right again and as I just said, I cannot find any OTHER good reason to explain all those events away, all of them you know. :) And yes, it exactly what it feels like to me - that JKR is doing it on purpose - dropping hints, but nothing certain and I don't even think that she is being too sneaky or devious, because trust me I so was NOT fan of LOLLYPOPS, but with every book I get a feeling that that is exactly what is going to happen. It is like JKR manages to say it without actually saying it. IMO of course. :-) > Jen: I'm sort of thinking Harry would be infuriated to find out > Snape loved Lily rather than Lily saw something good in Snape. Harry > would think Snape had duped his mum or coerced her. Alla: Could be ;) Jen: He would need to > know Lily cared about Snape of her own free will and saw something > in him the Maruaders didn't see, imo. As for the part about 'my > mother would have wanted me to' I completely agree. We've seen the > many ways Harry is like James, most notably showing Peter mercy. I > think there needs to be an equally powerful way Harry is like Lily > and showing compassion seems like a good bet. Alla: Frankly, I feel so far that Lily is being brought up for the role of the Saint. I don't really like it, but it seems like JKR is determined to show that only Harry's father figures have flaws. I would prefer Lily to have some flaws too, but I agree that Harry will show the compassion as his mother would. > Jen R., noticing she always finds a way to talk herself out of > Snape/Lily and can't stop now.... > JMO, Alla, who unfortunately is unable to talk herself out of Snape/Lily anymore. From maidne at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 19:42:45 2006 From: maidne at yahoo.com (maidne) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:42:45 -0000 Subject: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148408 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sir_lafayette2000" wrote: > > Susan wrote: > > Maybe someone has already thought of this but ... could one of > > the horcruxes have been "bone of the father"? V'mort did use > > it to bring himself back from his "half-life". > > > Since "bone of the father" was not a possession of one of the > Hogwarts Founders, it seems unlikely to be a choice of LV's for the > horcrux. It also seems unlikely that LV would destroy a horcrux > after going to so much trouble to make one. As far as speculating > on horcruxes, I am reasonably sure that the unknown heavy locket > found while cleaning Grimauld Place in OoP is the locket that RAB > removed in HBP. RAB's identity was not made clear but he is > probably Regulus A. Black, Sirius' deceased brother who may well have > died from the same poison that killed Dumbledore. > > It seems very plausible that Mundungus stole it from the house when > Sirius died and its whereabouts are unknown. > > Gregory > Susan: First of all, there are thought to be 6 horcruxes. One of them was the diary, which did not belong to the founders, and since there are only 4 founders it seems likely that at least one other might be from some other source. Dumbledore seemed to think that he may not have gotten a relic from Gryffindor, either. He said that the sword was the only known relic. Looking back through the horcruxes chapter though, I've realized that my understanding of what they are for was mistaken. I was thinking that he would use a horcrux to return life to his body (or a body to his life?), like he did with the bone/hand/blood spell. But apparently that's not the way they work ... they're supposed to just hang around for all eternity, preserving your life(?). Doesn't really sound like a very satisfying existence, surely I'm missing something. This is taxing my brain ... Once you have split your soul into 7 parts, what if theextra 6 all decide to find a body to possess? (Will the true evil overlord please stand up?) And what if one is destroyed -- do the others know it? OK, I'm willing to concede that the bone was not a horcrux. (Goes off muttering -- "diary, ring, locket, cup, ... Nagini? ... ???) Susan From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sun Feb 19 19:49:21 2006 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:49:21 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43F8CBC1.4010709@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148409 I find the likelihood that there is an unmentioned love in Snape's life that we have yet to hear about. NOT Lily! Maybe he fell in love with someone else that was killed by the DE's around the same time that he changed sides? Maybe Voldemort forced him to kill someone he cared for that was NOT Lily, but someone not previously mentioned? Maybe Volde punished him for something by killing some lady who he was interested in, causing him to fear to show any emotion over anyone since then? Fear that if he loves anyone, it will be used against him. But WHY would it have to be Lily? Lily was Jame's girl and Snape clearly had no interest in her in school. Isn't it possible that he met someone when with the DE's that he fell for and either she was used against him or was killed for displeasing Voldemort in some way, thus making him hate Volde enough to risk his life spying on him? I hardly think he would change sides just for Lily... She would not give him the time of day. Jazmyn > > > > From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Feb 19 19:57:03 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 19 Feb 2006 19:57:03 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 2/19/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1140379023.24.44440.m4@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148410 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday February 19, 2006 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Notes: Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last. To get into Chat, just go to the group online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu. If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat". Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in. If you have an Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Feb 19 19:59:53 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:59:53 -0000 Subject: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148411 Dung, now: > Pawns, exactly. Except that Snape's fighting back. It's Wizard's > Chess between Voldy and DD, and DD has the upper hand because he > knows trusts and loves his pieces, whereas Voldy's trying to treat > his pieces as though they're a Muggle set and not alive at all. Jen: I don't have anything to add here, this analogy just struck me as so right-on it deserved another reading. :) Dung: > The thing is, we don't know whether Voldy really is greater and > more terrible than before because he used Harry's blood in the > graveyard. All we've got to counter it is that blasted gleam. But > he might be, for all we know, even if DD's gleam is a hint that > having used Harry's blood could lead to his downfall eventually. > In fact, I'd say that since he's managed to get rid of DD this > time round, and he wasn't able to do that last time round, he > probably *is* greater and more terrible than before, which doesn't > mean he's any more invulnerable. Jen: Gee, why have I never read this before? This is honestly my first time to think the words of the first prophecy might be connected to the events of getting Harry's blood at the graveyard. Or alternatively, the mixture of unicorn blood and Nagini venom? The prophecy also claimed the servant would 'aid' the master to rise again and that could be read as the cauldron scene and/or obtaining the fetal form which made the graveyard possible. JKR did say in the TLC/MN interview there was something significant about the fetal form Voldemort took prior to a full body: "I feel that I could justify every single piece of morbid imagery in those books. The one that I wondered whether I was going to be able to get past the editors was the physical condition of Voldemort before he went into the cauldron, do you remember? He was kind of fetal. I felt an almost visceral distaste for what I had conjured up, but there's a reason it was in there and you will see that." Dung: > Characterising his attempts to kill Harry as an obsession with > faulty wiring's a bit harsh... I suspect that his major problem is > that he believes in fate (JKR doesn't, she believes in hard work), > rather than in making choices. Being Slytherin's heir and all that > will do that to a chap, though, won't it? I think DD is pretty > clear that if Voldy hadn't acted on the prophecy, he would have > been a lot better off. All his current obsessions come back to > that, really, that he believes the prophecy. Jen: Well....maybe it's harsh. I like your explanation of him believing in fate, anyway. Besides the hard work, I think luck was her other reason for her own success? Good news for Harry, then ;). You know, this connects more to the comments above, but the reason I'm unsure whether Voldemort is actually greater and more terrible is because it's pretty hard to see past all the weaknesses Dumbledore exposed in HBP. Besides the sad (to me) conditions of Riddle's beginnings, there's the part about being scared of the dark and dead bodies which is difficult not to connect to little child fears, esp. of the dark. So yes I do tend to see him as having 'faulty wiring' both in nature *and* nuture and don't quite understand where JKR is headed there. To be a bit repetitive 'cause I like the idea: I hope there's more meaning than simply exposition for book 7 (or the horcrux search) in the story of Riddle's evolution into Voldemort. It seems like so *much* exposition for that. I'd like to think there's something in Voldemort's story which, similar to whatever Harry learns about Lily in Book 7, will have meaning for 'what Harry has to do in the end.' Jen R. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Feb 19 20:13:16 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:13:16 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148412 Carol: > Tonks adds, "We just let them pass. We thought they were being chased > by the Death Eaters--and next thing, the other Death Eaters and > Greyback were back and we were fighting again"--this is the point at > which Greyback attacks Harry--"I thought I heard Snape shouting > something, but I don't know what--" [...] > Snape does shout "It's over, time to go!" to the DEs just before he > rounds the corner, but these words are shouted *before* Greyback and > the others join the fray, not *during* it like the Petrificus Totalus > spell. houyhnhnm: Your analysis of the timing of what Tonks heard provides some concrete evidence I hadn't thought of for Snape's being the one who cast the spell. I believed it was Snape mainly because it struck me as odd that the caster of the spell was not identified. I can't think of another instance in any of the books, even in all the confusion of the battle in the DoM, where the caster of a spell against a person is not identified. That and the fact that Harry has a very poor ear for voices. It took him a year to realize that it was Dumbledore's voice he heard when Petunia received her howler. As to why Snape would cast a verbal spell: Maybe he wanted Harry to hear him. CH3ed provides Snape with a credible excuse for the other DEs, should he need one. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Feb 19 20:46:10 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:46:10 -0000 Subject: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148413 dungrollin: > So this is it: > I reckon the bit of Voldy's soul that ended up in Harry, has been > knitting with Harry's soul in the kind of healing process that > Anne's theory would predict. Harry's soul has incorporated the Voldy > fragment. Harry doesn't have to *die* to get rid of the last > Horcrux, he has to *kill*. houyhnhnm: If you are saying that the negative traits we've seen arise in Harry, which he has had to battle and overcome (the seven deadlies) are the result of the Voldemort soul fragment trying to unite with Harry's soul and heal itself, I like it. I don't see how that makes it necessary for Harry to either kill or be killed, however. On the contrary, I see Harry's victory over Voldemort as an internal one. By some supreme act of goodness on Harry's part, the LV soul part will be purified and integrated with Harry's own soul. (At which time the scar will disappear.) In other words, the only way to permanently defeat evil is for each one of us to confront, own, forgive, and thereby overcome, the Dark Lord within. Yes, such an ending would please me very much. From rkdas at charter.net Sun Feb 19 20:53:04 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:53:04 -0000 Subject: Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: <5922FED6-A168-11DA-B0CA-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148414 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen wrote: > > > SNIPPED Meself! HEE HEE! > > kchuplis: > > I think he was quite serious in his use of Sirius as a bargaining card > and he plays it to the hilt at the beginning of GOF. Remember the > previous summer he had the Dursley's fear of him using magic (even > though he didn't and couldn't) as his bargaining chip to a degree, > probably mostly on Dudley as it would get him to leave Harry alone, > even if he did have to face consequences later. At the beginning of > OoTP we seem him mercilessly goading Dudley into a temper, which is a > type of manipulation. Don't underestimate the power of button pushing. > I sometimes wonder if Harry remembers his own button pushing when he > sees Snape doing it to Sirius.SNIPS AGAIN Okay, I am not trying to split hairs about whether Harry did or didn't do anything manipulative. Yes, he used Sirius to frighten the Dursleys, he goaded Dudders, but until Book 6, taking the memory and then watching the memory, I never registered him being consciously manipulative. Not even when he was used by DD as the bait to get Slughorn. Yes, he defended the safety of the Order but he does it not in a manipulative fashion, but from a sincere place. He does see the choice between the Order, remaining neutral and LV as a no- brainer. Manipulation occurs when someone is trying to get his way surreptitiously, when you can't be honest or voice an honest opinion, when you have to play on someone's better or worse nature, when you can't just say, "We need this memory to defeat LV and you ought to be proud to give it." (He had to bring in sentimentality with Lily and some say, Slughorn planned to give him that memory anyway but that's another story...)So all I am trying to say is that awareness of his actions seems to have blossomed in Book 6. Is this a normal part of growing up? To become increasingly aware of how to be devious? Harry has some demons to tackle in his own heart, means and ends arguments. In his previous actions, I just do not see the cunning and planning. Yes, he wants to go to the QWC, but that's on a quite a different level than the life and death matters that are now occuring. His intent was just not at the level it is now and I don't want to see him lose his pure and untarnished soul learning to manipulate with greater skill in order to get what he needs. That would make him very much more like LV than I care to contemplate. Not much of an argument but there you go! Jen D. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Feb 19 21:53:32 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:53:32 -0000 Subject: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148415 Crikey, I haven't been round here for ages, and I'm now actually posting at the limit... Ceridwen (thoroughly snipped): I don't believe in Horcrux!Harry. The gyrations necessary to create a true Horcrux would be, if we go by the one other similar spell in canon, too intricate and formalized to have been able to occur at the time of Vaporization. ... So, I would buy the elegant theory, not for a formal Horcrux, but for an accidental 'horcrux'ed Harry. Wonderful idea! And so simple. Dungrollin: Yes, perhaps I should have clarified that I thought Harry being Horlicksed was accidental rather than deliberate. Neri: As a supporter of Horcrux!Harry I have considered this solution too. You don't say it explicitly, so let me see if we are thinking about the same thing: When Harry will kill Voldemort, Harry's soul will split "at the seams", he will lose the part of his soul that was originally Voldemort's, and Voldemort (who would be vapor again at that point) will die completely. Dungrollin: Well... that's one way it could work, though it's not my favourite, because I'm not sure that JKR is going to let Harry off that lightly. Since the events at GH which created UnintentionalHorcrux!Harry in the first place are necessarily vague,* it's a bit cheeky of me to start picking apart what should have to happen in order to kill Voldy, but what the hell... Harry must kill in order to rip off the Voldy fragment which has knitted itself to his own soul. It's canon that to create a horcrux you have to have done this, but Slughorn says that to encase the torn piece there is another spell. Presumably this is the bit that is 'against nature', the part of the operation which gets the soul bit out of you and into the locket/ring/diary/cup etc. There are two distinct steps in the process. So even once Harry has ripped Voldemort's soul fragment from his own soul, the Voldy fragment will still be inside Harry, and will still be acting as a horcrux keeping Voldemort's last piece of soul, the bit inside his body, alive. He'd be reduced to Vapour!Mort again. Basically, I don't think Harry would be able to get it all done with one Avada Kedavra on Voldy. I think that another life will have to be lost. Neri: This is certainly an elegant solution in terms of magical "soul mechanics", but I'm not sure I like it thematically. It would suggest that the evil part of us exist in order to fight even worse evil. This isn't a bad moral in itself, but the specific solution above would suggest that you can *get rid* of the evil part of your soul by killing somebody more evil, in this is what I don't like. Dung: That would be interpreting it a little over-literally, wouldn't it? Is the part of Voldemort's soul residing in Harry supposed to symbolise 'the evil part of your soul?' I'm not sure that I see Horcrux!Harry and the eventual manner in which Voldemort is defeated as being a metaphor for how to deal with the evil impulses that everyone has in life. Perhaps you do ? if so could you expand on it? Or is this a general assumption that I'm unaware of? I like my scenario because it offers the heroes the following choices: 1. Harry kills someone to rip off the piece of Voldemort's soul, they extract and destroy it, then Harry (or someone else) rips their soul by killing Voldemort. 2. Harry decides he can't do it, he would rather sacrifice his own life to destroy the Horcrux within him, he thus forces someone else to rip their soul by killing him, and again when they dispose of the now-mortal Voldemort. It boils down to a choice between dying innocent, by forcing the guilt onto the shoulders of others, or surviving by sinning dramatically and having to go through that whole repentance lark for the rest of your life. I did say it was a rotten choice, but if the DDM!Snapers are right, it's one that somebody else has recently had to make, too. Neri: Personally I'd prefer Harry assimilating the soul part until it loses its connection with Voldemort. As I understand Potterverse soul mechanics, once this soul part is completely Harry's and not Voldemort's, it cannot function anymore as Voldy's Horcrux, and therefore Harry would not have to die. And similarly, houyhnhnm: If you are saying that the negative traits we've seen arise in Harry, which he has had to battle and overcome (the seven deadlies) are the result of the Voldemort soul fragment trying to unite with Harry's soul and heal itself, I like it. I don't see how that makes it necessary for Harry to either kill or be killed, however. On the contrary, I see Harry's victory over Voldemort as an internal one. By some supreme act of goodness on Harry's part, the LV soul part will be purified and integrated with Harry's own soul. (At which time the scar will disappear.) In other words, the only way to permanently defeat evil is for each one of us to confront, own, forgive, and thereby overcome, the Dark Lord within. Dung: Could either of you expand on how this might happen? Who does Harry have to forgive and what magic will this set in motion? To my mind it rather takes the bang out of Horcrux!Harry if he can assimilate the Voldy fragment and destroy the last Horcrux without having to make any difficult choices. How could this process of assimilation be thematic? And where and how is it foreshadowed, or hinted at? Dungrollin * I feel relatively free to play fast and loose with what happened at GH because and there is very little canon to go on, and JKR has made it clear that what happened has never happened before or since. Basically, that means she can pull anything she likes out for book seven. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 19 21:55:41 2006 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:55:41 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Minerva McGonagall References: Message-ID: <000e01c6359f$3c3de7c0$c9340152@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 148416 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherry" Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Minerva McGonagall > Amontillada: > How exactly do we judge "way too early"? She might be > considered "too early" because she was there far before Dumbledore, > but her early arrival might also be considered wisely scouting out > the territory, or to use the French (and American military) term, > reconnaisance. Or indeed making sure that the DEs (still at large at this point) didn't make a pre emptive strike on the Dursleys. If they'd successfully killed Petunia, then Dumbledore's plan for Harry's protection would have been ruined before it could have been put into practice. hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 22:24:01 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:24:01 -0000 Subject: Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148417 Victoria wrote: "And just another question, didn't Harry destroy another Horcrux in the Philosopher's Stone, the one attached to Quirrel?? So therefore 3 of the 6 Horcruxes are destroyed??" CH3ed: Hi Victoria. Nah, that snakish head sticking out of the back of Quirrell's head was LV himself (possessing Quirrell). Victoria wrote: "Anyways in conclusion I am predicting that next book Harry will go and live in Grimauld Place and find a secret stash of Horcruxes that Regulus has nicked from Voldemort, or the 'Dark Lord' and will destroy them, which in turn gives him more defence against the last soul of Voldemort!!" CH3ed: I don't know.... I don't think Harry is very partial to the idea of going to live at the house Sirius so hated unless he has no other choices (like going to live with the Weasleys). Besides, it would be entirely too easy to have multiple horcruxes in one place for him to destroy, wouldn't it? I think most of us believe that Regulus didn't get around to destroy the horcrux he stole (which was probably a locket, since that's what he left a fake of for LV....and maybe to fool the housing contraption into thinking that there is still the real thing there). And that that horcrux is the locket that Harry and Co. found and couldn't open while cleaning 12GP in OotP. The whereabout of that locket is now in doubt (either Kreacher and Dung could have stolen it). CH3ed :O) From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Feb 19 22:30:04 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:30:04 -0000 Subject: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148418 Dung: > Could either of you expand on how this might happen? Who does Harry > have to forgive and what magic will this set in motion? To my mind > it rather takes the bang out of Horcrux!Harry if he can assimilate > the Voldy fragment and destroy the last Horcrux without having to > make any difficult choices. How could this process of assimilation > be thematic? And where and how is it foreshadowed, or hinted at? houyhnhnm: I don't think Harry will be able to assimilate the soul fragment without making difficult choices. Not all choices involve action or even physical risk, though. Letting go of anger and viewing others with compassion is a choice. I think there is much foreshadowing in Harry's growing ability to feel compassion, towards Ron, towards Luna. At the end of HBP, he is even able to feel pity for Draco. And even some for Tom Riddle. Maybe this is why Dumbledore spent all his sessions with Harry reviewing Tom Riddle's history through the pensieve memories rather than teaching Harry DADA skills. I think ultimately Harry has to forgive Riddle/Voldemort in order to destroy him. What kind of magic this will set in motion I don't know. I am thinking of how LV could not bear to continue possessing Harry when Harry was thinking of Sirius. Maybe the part of Voldemort's ego that resides in the soul piece will be driven out in a similar manner and the soul piece will become part of Harry's soul. If the other horcruxes have been destroyed at this point, then perhaps the survival of LV's unnatural "body" is irrelevant. Maybe he will melt into a mound of brown sugar. Along the way I think Harry will also have to forgive Snape and the Dursleys. These will be difficult choices indeed. Much harder than getting past a dragon, killing a basilisk, or duelling with Voldemort. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 22:34:04 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:34:04 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: <003b01c63566$f2abcec0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148419 Sherry wrote: > i think it would be impossible to confuse the words, "it's over" with a long Latin like spell such as "petrificus totalus"--spelling? Even in the heat of the moment, with Harry's incredible hatred and his fixation on Snape, he would certainly recognize his voice and know any words that came out of his mouth. the two phrases are so different, sound so different, that as a possible clue to Snape's real motives, it doesn't work for me. Carol responds: Hi, Sherry. I think you're misreading my argument just slightly. (My fault, I'm sure.) Harry did hear the words, "It's over" (actually, "It's over. Time to go!") and knew that Snape had said them. He also heard the words "Petrificus Totalus!" a few seconds later (when he was trapped and helpless with Fenrir Greyback's hot breath in his face) but doesn't seem to know who said them. (If he had, the speaker would surely have been identified.) So when Tonks says that she heard Snape say something but didn't understand what he said, I'm suggesting that what she heard but didn't understand was Snape yelling "Petrificus Totalus!" (I agree that Tonks could hardly confuse those two phrases. I just think that Harry is giving her the words he knows Snape spoke without realizing that Snape may also have spoken the spell only a few seconds later.) It just seems to me that the unidentified speaker of the spell is one puzzle piece and Tonks hearing Snape say words that she doesn't understand is a second piece and that they fit nicely together if Snape is the speaker of the spell. (Harry mixes up the pieces by providing what I believe is a plausible but mistaken solution--a form of misdirection that we've seen over and over again in the books, and not just from Harry. Mistaking Draco's movement behind the bookshelves in the library for Madam Pince's, which I mentioned in my previous post, is just one of many examples.) I'm not saying that I've proven Snape cast the spell, but it seems odd to me that JKR would have Tonks say that she didn't understand Snape's words unless those words were more important than "It's over" (which essentially duplicates his order to the DEs on the tower). Possibly JKR is emphasizing his repeated orders to the DEs to get out of Hogwarts (which he gives yet again after the big DE Crucios Harry and which are finally obeyed at that point), but why emphasize something that the reader can pick up on without help? Hope the explanation is a bit clearer this time. Carol, noting that the misdirection (if any) is JKR's, not Harry's From agdisney at msn.com Sun Feb 19 22:50:18 2006 From: agdisney at msn.com (Andrea Grevera) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:50:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I think I know what one of the horcruxes is. References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148420 Gregory: As far as speculating on horcruxes, I am reasonably sure that the unknown heavy locket found while cleaning Grimauld Place in OoP is the locket that RAB removed in HBP. RAB's identity was not made clear but he is probably Regulus A. Black, Sirius' deceased brother who may well have died from the same poison that killed Dumbledore. It seems very plausible that Mundungus stole it from the house when Sirius died and its whereabouts are unknown. Andie: Since Mundungus is OFH and deals with who knows what could it be possible that Mundungus sold the locket back to Borgin & Burkes? Imagine how happy they would be to have it back considering LV must have stolen it when he left their employ. Harry may have to go in there for some kind of dark magic information and he may find the locket tucked away in the case where other nasty things are. I really think that the only one who will be able to destroy the horcruxes without any permanent damage to themselves will be Harry. Others may be able to collect them for him, but Harry will have to do the destroying. He destroyed the diary in COS without hurting himself. DD destroyed the ring and his wand hand (or more). One more thing, at Godric's Hollow, the AK bounced off Harry & turned LV into Vapormort. Wouldn't that have destroyed another horcrux? LV actually died at GH. The only thing that kept him "alive" was a horcrux. Shouldn't he have lost a horcrux here? Andie 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 Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 22:57:59 2006 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:57:59 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148421 justcarol67 wrote: > > I know people have suggested before that it was Snape who shouted "Petrificus Totalus!" and saved Harry from Fenrir Greyback, but I think I can make a fairly strong case that it was indeed Snape. I'll start with the canon: > At any rate, the speaker of the spell cannot be Harry and the evidence suggests that it's Snape. And if it is, we can be sure that we'll hear from Snape's own mouth in Book 7 that he saved Harry's life yet again with no reward but "cheek." ***Wouldn't this be a perfect 'mirror' scene of what happened with the Marauders' Prank on Snape?! James saving Snape from being bitten by werewolf!Lupin, and then Snape 'paying back' his life debt to James by saving Harry from Fenrir's bite? It makes me wonder if Snape still feels like he 'owes' something to Harry, like Dumbledore suggested so in PS/SS... Marcela From unix4evr at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 23:00:09 2006 From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:00:09 -0000 Subject: Why I'm not convinced DD is dead (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148422 JKR's comments make it clear that Dumbledore is dead. She has said things like "heroes must go on alone." But, JKR won't answer questions about Fawkes in book 7 "which probably gives you a big clue."[Read the whole quote from ITV, 2005] And we know that Dumbledore's patronus is a phoenix! Of course this may not be that Dumbledore arises Phoenix like. But remember that both Voldemort's and Harry's wands have Fawke's feathers in them. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 23:16:19 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:16:19 -0000 Subject: Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148423 Angie wrote: > > I'll admit, I've always thought of DD as the epitome of goodness, as > JKR said. This is a new theory for me. > > But just b/c DD is too "noble" at the beginning of SS and thereafter > to use Dark Magic, that doesn't mean he's always been so noble or > that he's never used Dark Magic. I really doubt if anyone in the WW > would view him poorly if he used Dark Magic to get rid of a Dark > Wizard, if his conduct was otherwise above reproach. Can you destroy a Horcrux without using Dark Magic??? Carol responds: We have Barty Crouch Sr. as an example of what happens to a wizard who tries to fight evil using Unforgiveable Curses. He goes mad and is murdered by his own son, also corrupted by those same curses. And McGonagall has known Dumbledore for a long time, first as his student (he was also, probably, her HOH) and then as a teacher and his second in command. She may not be in his confidence, but I think her judgment of his character is sound. And I see no evidence in the books to lead me to think otherwise. I'm almost certain that JKR would not advocate fighting evil with evil in what she considers to be a children's book. As for destroying a Horcrux, surely you could use good magic or defensive magic to destroy a Dark object. The Dark Arts are not taught at Hogwarts. Defense against the Dark Arts is. Whatever Snape, the current DADA teacher, did to prevent the ring Horcrux curse from killing Dumbledore and the necklace curse from killing Katie was surely "good" magic, as was his countercurse to Sectumsempra (and his removal of the curse from the opal necklace, which he must have done although it isn't specifically mentioned). A Patronus, we're told (on JKR's website), is "a powerful anti-Dark Arts device." So the Dark Arts (apparently) can't be fought using the Dark Arts. Dark magic would probably make a Dark spell stronger rather than destroying it. (Bill Weasley is a Curse *Breaker*, not a Curse caster, as a further example.) And Dumbledore keeps telling Harry that he has to keep his soul whole and pure if he's going to defeat Voldemort. Love, not the Dark Arts (which DD praises Harry for resisting) must be his weapon. So I seriously doubt that DD used a Dark spell to destroy the ring Horcrux, or that he expects Harry to destroy the remaining Horcruxes with Dark magic (which, in any case, he hasn't learned). Carol, noting that we already have a character who went over to the Dark side and has (apparently) been struggling for some twenty years to "return" to the light. It would be redundant, and IMO inappropriate, for Dumbledore to have done the same From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 23:19:33 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:19:33 -0000 Subject: Can you "encase" a soul in a scar? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148424 > Angie wrote > Slughorn said that to create a horcrux, a person "would encase" the > torn portion of his soul into something outside of his body. > Can you physically "encase" a soul in scar? On the whole I would have to say yes, that is it would be possible to encose a horcrux in a scar. I do not for a moment believe that Harry's scar is a horcrux, having always found this a rather ridiculous theory. Here's why: (i) The spell LV cast was an AK, not a horcrux encasing spell. The AK creates the soul rent, but it does not, IMHO, create a horcrux. (ii) From what little can be gathered of horcruxes (thinking particularly of the diary revenant) they appear to have some independent power. Harry's scar has never seemingly acted independently (and you can throw as much canon at me as you like, this view is firm). (iii) Despite Dumbledore admitting flaws, if he suspected for a moment that Harry's scar was a horcrux he would either have told Harry or made some effort to neutralise it. As to scars - scars can be quite large and enfolded, hence their other name of cicatrix. I have a rather good one on my wrist where I punched through a coat hook when a much younger man. It would be big enough to encase something. Paper in a diary is large enough and I conclude that Harry's scar could fit a horcrux. For the reasons stated, inter alia, Harry's scar is not a horcrux. Goddlefrood who wonders wheter the writer to whom he is responding is in any way related to Hyacinth Bucket. From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Feb 19 23:40:22 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:40:22 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148425 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > I know people have suggested before that it was Snape who shouted > "Petrificus Totalus!" and saved Harry from Fenrir Greyback, but I > think I can make a fairly strong case that it was indeed Snape. I'll > start with the canon: Allie: Nice job Carol! This scene would be a good candidate for something Harry may later view through a Pensieve. Lots of people have speculated that Harry will see something in Dumbledore's Pensieve to finally prove Snape's loyalty. As soon as one of the trio (Hermione, I'll bet) learns how to extract memories, they could use the memory of just about anyone to view that scene ("Let's test it, Harry, what's on your mind?"), and see what really happened. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 23:49:36 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:49:36 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? (WAS: Young Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148426 susanbones wrote: "I realize he had to be less than forthcoming with the Dursleys but the things he did with them, they don't seem to be at the level he's identifying with LV. He made a bargain with Vernon, that he'd be a good boy if he could have his permission form signed, and well, that didn't even work out." CH3ed: That wasn't the only practice Harry had, though. He knew to omit certain info when he thought they might work against him getting what he wants like at the beginning of GoF when he had to ask Vernon for permission to go to the Quidditch World cup, or when he wanted to listen to the news at the beginning of OotP. As early as in PS/SS he knew when and what not to say in order to get to go to the zoo with the Dursleys, and he did get Draco to spill what he knew about the Chamber of Secrets (with the help of polyjuice potion, of course) in the Slytherin common room. In PoA he knew to not tell his real name to Stan Shunpike when he boarded the Knightbus while running away from the Dursleys, etc. I think Harry can be quite cunning when he has to. I agree that he hasn't been devious or downright manipulative, but I don't think that is a bad skill to be able to use to get others to tell him things without resorting to torturing them. DD was also very cunning and used that ability to achieve peaceful results, ay? I don't think that really tarnishes his soul. CH3ed :O) From AllieS426 at aol.com Sun Feb 19 23:52:12 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:52:12 -0000 Subject: Gabrielle Delacour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148427 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mandorino222" wrote: > > Has anyone considered the possible difficulties presented by the > Gabrielle Delacour character? If she's anything like her sister > (which we must assume she is) then Ron will be completely agog and > Harry at least slightly intrigued. She and Ginny will be partnered at > Bill and Fleur's wedding. Possible catfight? Also, if Ron and > Hermione are together, possibly some Hermione/Gabrielle tension? Some > type of Viktor Krum? I hate to ship, but I doubt that Rowling would > pass up an opportunity to create such delicious tension. > > mandorino222 > Allie: Gabrielle was only 8 during the events of GoF, which will make her about 11 at the time of the Weasley wedding. Not old enough to be any threat to the girls or love interest for the boys. Maybe a minor annoyance. Or I just realized, a possible casualty if the Death Eaters crash the party. From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Feb 20 00:03:24 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:03:24 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: <003b01c63566$f2abcec0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148428 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Sherry now: > i think it would be impossible to confuse the words, "it's over" with a long > Latin like spell such as "petrificus totalus"--spelling? Even in the heat > of the moment, with Harry's incredible hatred and his fixation on Snape, he > would certainly recognize his voice and know any words that came out of his > mouth. the two phrases are so different, sound so different, that as a > possible clue to Snape's real motives, it doesn't work for me. Allie: I can imagine some panic setting in when DDM!Snape turns around and Greyback is on top of Harry. Snape's a veteran spy, but before this, has he ever seen any battle action? I can't recall anything in canon. Maybe he just didn't have the presence of mind to cast it nonverbally. Maybe the TOTALUS was louder than the Petrificus. I can believe Tonks would confuse "it's over" for "Totalus." Especially since she wasn't paying attention to it. As for Harry recognizing the voice, well, he was a little preoccupied, and he didn't recognize "REMEMBER MY LAST" either. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Feb 19 23:46:38 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:46:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DDM!Snape clue References: Message-ID: <015701c635ae$bade24a0$0c60400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 148429 > Carol responds: > It just seems to me that the unidentified speaker of the spell is one > puzzle piece and Tonks hearing Snape say words that she doesn't > understand is a second piece and that they fit nicely together if > Snape is the speaker of the spell. (Harry mixes up the pieces by > providing what I believe is a plausible but mistaken solution--a form > of misdirection that we've seen over and over again in the books, and > not just from Harry. Mistaking Draco's movement behind the bookshelves > in the library for Madam Pince's, which I mentioned in my previous > post, is just one of many examples.) > > I'm not saying that I've proven Snape cast the spell, but it seems odd > to me that JKR would have Tonks say that she didn't understand Snape's > words unless those words were more important than "It's over" (which > essentially duplicates his order to the DEs on the tower). Possibly > JKR is emphasizing his repeated orders to the DEs to get out of > Hogwarts (which he gives yet again after the big DE Crucios Harry and > which are finally obeyed at that point), but why emphasize something > that the reader can pick up on without help? Magpie: Wow, Carol. I have to say--good catch. Like you said, it doesn't prove Snape cast the spell, but from a writer's standpoint this is a really good case. I would expect Harry to know who had petrified Fenrir, and Tonks specifically saying she couldn't understand what Snape said, with Harry's handy answer there ready for her, makes me very suspicious as well-is that convo there so that we hear again that Snape said it was over, or to call attention to Snape saying something Tonks didn't catch that was a spell? It's the type of thing that highlights a moment without seeming to highlight it. It really does sound like exactly the type of thing JKR would set up in plain sight, with nobody taking credit for petrifying Fenrir or knowing who did it, yet having Harry absolutely saved by it, and this talk of what Snape was saying that Tonks didn't understand but Harry did. Harry could certainly not recognize Snape's voice with a werewolf breathing in his face, especially when he wouldn't expect Snape to be protecting him. (And moments later we do see Snape protecting him, so it's not like if Snape did this it would go against his behavior in the rest of the scene.) I can't think of any reason that this *must* be true (that Snape did it), but it does seem like it could be a set up for something to come of it later. Actually, if we didn't have the reference to Snape's speaking later I might think it was interesting to wonder if Draco did it--since he was linked to Fenrir throughout the book (using him as a threat, then being horrified when he showed up, plus he used petrificus totalis earlier) but Tonks' lines about Snape do seem to point to Snape--plus Snape is protecting Harry later. I'm interested to see if this is just a throwaway or if it pans out! -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 00:30:26 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:30:26 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148430 > Alla, who unfortunately is unable to talk herself out of Snape/Lily > anymore. > Carol responds: All right, let's try to talk you out of this one! First, we know that Snape was already teaching at Hogwarts when Peter Pettigrew became Secret Keeper and was still teaching there (of course) one week later when the Potters were killed. (I can produce the evidence, which includes his words to Bellatrix and to Umbridge, if you need it.) How could he have known where the Potters were without Pettigrew telling him, and how could he have left Hogwarts (from which you can't Disapparate) without Dumbledore knowing? Second, where is the actual evidence of any love for Lily, setting aside the supposed need for this theory to explain Snape's remorse? Third, we know that Peter Pettigrew was at Godric's Hollow because he later returned Voldemort's wand. Where is the evidence that anyone else was there? Fourth, JKR concedes that Voldemort "offered" to let Lily live, but what *canon* evidence do we have that this "offer" (a word that JKR picks up from the person who asked the question) http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-1.htm consists of anything beyond "Stand aside, girl"? Harry himself thinks otherwise: "'He told her to get out of the way,' said Harry remorselessly [to Slughorn]. 'He told me she needn't have died. He only wanted me. She could have run' (HBP Am. ed. 489). Although Harry is basing his information on the words of his mother's murderer in the graveyard scene, this interpretation is supported by what he hears when the Dementors attack him in PoA. No other person present (except PP hiding in rat form); no ulterior motive on Voldemort's part; no indication that he is acting to reward a loyal accomplice or save Lily's life for any reason except that he doesn't care about her. His business, as Harry states, is with baby Harry alone--the Prophecy boy whose death he thinks will insure his immortality. It seems to me that any other explanation of Voldemort's motives in telling Lily to stand aside (as he tells the boy Hagrid to stand aside in CoS) is speculation to fill a perceived plot hole. But canon--at least the canon we have so far--indicates otherwise. So counting the words "stand aside" as the "offer" referred to in the interview question, do we really need a motive here other than the clear and obvious one that Harry states? However confused Harry may be with regard to Snape, his grasp of *Voldemort's* character and motives is pretty firm, and I see no reason to question his accuracy here. To sum up: If we accept for the sake of argument that Voldemort's "offer" consists of providing Lily the opportunity to run away and save herself at the expense of her son's life (in keeping with his contempt for mothers and his consistent underestimation of love), there's no need for Snape or anyone other than Voldemort and Wormtail to be present at Godric's Hollow. There's still less need for Voldemort to offer Lily to Snape as some sort of prize. (Are we reading in Wormtongue and Eowyn here? what evidence do we have that LV held 22-year-old Snape in such high regard?) And there's no need to explain how Snape could know that the Potters were at Godric's Hollow, which only Pettigrew could have told him, or how he could get there from Hogwarts on the night of the murders without arousing suspicion when you can't Apparate from Hogwarts. It's much simpler and less messy if Snape is not involved, at least not until he feels a change in his Dark Mark and informs Dumbledore, which would not involve anything more complicated than running upstairs to the headmaster's office. Carol, agreeing with Alla that "Snape loves Lily" is a distasteful scenario and arguing that it's unlikely and unnecessary as well From rkdas at charter.net Mon Feb 20 00:24:05 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:24:05 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? (WAS: Young Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148431 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "h2so3f" wrote: > SNIPPIN MYSELF AGAIN< not so many laughs this time.... > > CH3ed: Re:Harry's cunning > That wasn't the only practice Harry had, though. He knew to omit > certain info when he thought they might work against him getting > what he wants like at the beginning of GoF when he had to ask Vernon > for permission to go to the Quidditch World cup, or when he wanted > to listen to the news at the beginning of OotP. As early as in PS/SS > he knew when and what not to say in order to get to go to the zoo > with the Dursleys, and he did get Draco to spill what he knew about > the Chamber of Secrets (with the help of polyjuice potion, of > course) in the Slytherin common room. In PoA he knew to not tell his > real name to Stan Shunpike when he boarded the Knightbus while > running away from the Dursleys, etc. > > I think Harry can be quite cunning when he has to. I agree that he > hasn't been devious or downright manipulative, but I don't think > that is a bad skill to be able to use to get others to tell him > things without resorting to torturing them. DD was also very cunning > and used that ability to achieve peaceful results, ay? I don't think > that really tarnishes his soul. > > CH3ed :O) Hi Person who's name I can't pronounce! I don't think it's bad to know your way around a problem at all. What bothers me, really, is the recognition of his skill that Harry seemed to give young Tom Riddle. I don't want to say anything stronger because I realize I am in a murky area here. But Harry seemed to be giving him grudging respect for his careful cultivation of Slughorn, the right amount of hesitancy and flattery, the drawing back when necessary. Harry wasn't repelled. That bothers me. I never expected this, never looked at the things Harry did before he took the Felix Felicis, (the master manipulator)as manipulations. I felt the things he did prior to Felix were necessary to survive in an often hostile environment without parents. Now I know it's absolutely necessary to defeat LV, but there are lines I wouldn't want Harry to cross. That's kind of what I am dancing around trying to say and doing it fairly ham-fistedly judging by the number of times I have said this!! Forgive me. Jen D. > From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 01:01:48 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:01:48 -0000 Subject: "Accio dragon egg!" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148432 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Adzuroth: Wrote: > > > In the first triwizard challenge, why didn't Harry simply say > > "accio dragon egg" instead of "accio firebolt"? > > Probably because Harry not only wanted to get the egg he wanted to > live too. Think about it, you are on foot and have the egg under your > arm; you are in the stadium and standing right next to a very large > and very angry dragon. I don't think you life expectancy would be very > long. > > Eggplant > But wasn't the dragoness *sitting* on her eggs? It's not likely that accio would work under such circumstances. a_svirn From kking0731 at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 01:24:21 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:24:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Horcrux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148433 CH3ed: I don't know.... I don't think Harry is very partial to the idea of going to live at the house Sirius so hated unless he has no other choices (like going to live with the Weasleys). Besides, it would be entirely too easy to have multiple horcruxes in one place for him to destroy, wouldn't it? I think most of us believe that Regulus didn't get around to destroy the horcrux he stole (which was probably a locket, since that's what he left a fake of for LV....and maybe to fool the housing contraption into thinking that there is still the real thing there). And that that horcrux is the locket that Harry and Co. found and couldn't open while cleaning 12GP in OotP. The whereabout of that locket is now in doubt (either Kreacher and Dung could have stolen it). CH3ed :O) Snow: Yes to everything you said except to the fact that Harry won't return to Grimmald Place (even if it is just for placement). I have a sneaky suspicion that Harry's adopted family will get their comeuppance by way of that house. Petunia was most grieved to learn that Harry would come of age next year and previous to that was her utmost concern that Voldemort (the killer of her sister) was again at large. Now, Petunia is faced with being left unprotected (to what I can derive from the scenario). Wouldn't it be absolutely great if Harry protected them from Voldemort by hiding them at 12 Grimmald Place with dear Sirius' mother's portrait? Snow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sun Feb 19 22:33:26 2006 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:33:26 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) References: Message-ID: <00ac01c635a4$84967780$c9340152@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 148434 ----- Original Message ----- From: "gelite67" Subject: [HPforGrownups] Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) > Angie here: > > First, to ponder a moment on the source of DD's fame. OK, according > to his chocolate frog card, he is "particularly famous" for defeating > Grindewald in 1945. According to Lockhart, fame is a fickle friend > in the WW (as it is in the Muggle world) -- so how far did > Grindewald's defeat get DD in the WW? Saying he is particularly > famous for defeating a Dark Wizard clearly implies that he was also > famous for some other reason(s), but what are those other reasons? > I don't know when DD started teaching at HW, but his reputation seems > to have preceded him -- what else did he do to gain his reputation? > Was that one defeat of Grindewald sufficient to have DD crowned the > most powerful wizard of the age? When else in the past has DD > demonstrated how powerful he is (in a non-OWL setting)? > I just can't see how DD being headmaster of HW sustains his > reputation. We actually know nothing at all about the young Dumbledore. He was born around 1840 so at the time of his campaign against Grindelwald he was actually over 100 so slightly over halfway through his natural life. We also know that he was already teaching at Hogwarts in the 1930s, and must have been there at least a year before his first meeting with Tom Riddle at the orphanage - possibly longer as the scenes where he appears (both in CoS and HBP) show him as being confident in his role at the school. But what happened in the interim years is a complete blank, unless anyone else has any ingenious speculations... hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 01:59:27 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:59:27 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148435 > > Alla, who unfortunately is unable to talk herself out of Snape/Lily > > anymore. > > > Carol responds: > All right, let's try to talk you out of this one! >> Second, where is the actual evidence of any love for Lily, setting > aside the supposed need for this theory to explain Snape's remorse? Alla: There IS no actual evidence yet, of course, just the feel that I get as getting stronger with every book and it based as I believe on more and more possible hints. Snape is by no means shy of running his mouth at James, but he never EVER speaks one foul word of Lily. Does it mean something? Maybe not, but it sure makes me suspicious. When JKR showed ONE scene of Snape and Marauders relationship, she chose to interject Lily in. Maybe she had done it just to highlight how Lily's opinion of James changed for the better? Maybe, but for some reason she chose to make Lily interfer on Snape's behalf. Maybe she did it to show that Lily is really kind person? Maybe, but JKR chose to make Snape to be the one Lily tries to defend. It again makes me suspicious. In HBP we learn that Lily was good at Potions just as Snape was. Maybe it again totally irrelevant, but maybe that will indeed lead us to learn that they were lab partners or something. In July 16 interview JKR said that just as Ginny Lily was a popular girl and that Remus loved her, but that she did not want us to think that Remus was running around competing for Lily with James.( paraphrase). Yep, makes total sense for me that Remus will not try to compete with his best friend for the girl this friend likes so much, but does it mean that SOMEBODY ELSE was running around and tried to compete with James? Yep, I think it does, although again "everybody in love with Lily" - not my favorite theory,surely, but my feel for it getting stronger and stronger. :-( >> Fourth, JKR concedes that Voldemort "offered" to let Lily live, but > what *canon* evidence do we have that this "offer" (a word that JKR > picks up from the person who asked the question) > > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet- anelli-1.htm > > consists of anything beyond "Stand aside, girl"? Alla: As to that point, I can only refer you to Jen Reese brilliant post, I could not have said it any better. I do believe that for whatever reasons Voldemort was VERY interested in Lily, but of course if I am right, only book seven can prove it. :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/146794 Carol: > It's much simpler and less messy if Snape is not involved, at least > not until he feels a change in his Dark Mark and informs Dumbledore, > which would not involve anything more complicated than running > upstairs to the headmaster's office. Alla: Right, I believe that Snape was there in GH, but even if you are right and he was not there, there are other plot holes that could be answered by Snape/Lily ( or more like Snape loving Lily) that Jen listed upthread, even though she was thinking that it would explain too much. :) (I did not misquote you, right Jen? :)) JMO, Alla From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 01:43:39 2006 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:43:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Neville's Grandfather Message-ID: <20060220014339.41221.qmail@web42207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148436 Forgive me if this has been discussed before, but I just finished OotP and this jumped out at me: We know that Neville can see thestrals because he saw his granddad die (OotP, p. 449, US hardcover edition.) It seems to me that Neville would have been too young at the time of his parents' torture for a death to "register" in his mind enough to give him the ability to see the thestrals, so his grandfather's death must have occurred later. During the battle in the DoM, Lucius Malfoy says, "It's Longbottom, isn't it? ...Well, your grandmother is used to losing family members to our cause.... Your death will not come as a great shock...." (OotP, p. 800.) I'm wondering if Gramps tried to avenge his son's torture at some point, and Neville saw him killed by DEs who avoided Azkaban. Could this be significant to book 7? I love Neville to death and desperately hope to see him avenge his family! Also, a footnote on the discussion last week about verbal vs. non-verbal curses: At the DoM, even after Dolohov gets his voice back and hits Neville with the tarantallegra, he casts the curse he used on Hermione on Harry, but still doesn't verbalize it: << ..."Now, Potter -- " < He made the swame slashing movement with his wand that he had used on > (OotP, pp. 802-803) This seems to be in conflict with the idea that the curse would have been more effective if Dolohov had been able to say it aloud... Peg From juli17 at aol.com Mon Feb 20 02:12:12 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:12:12 EST Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148437 houyhnhnm: Having been taunted because of his looks all through school, an unattractive feature (the Hermione of the books is no where near as pretty as Emma Watson) would not only remind him of what he hated about himself as a teenager, he would probably even be able to rationalize it by telling himself he is helping her. It's a mean, hard, dangerous world and the sooner you learn to take your lumps and get-over-it, the better. Julie: That last sentence describes Snape to a "T" for me! It's the main reason I don't view Snape as a sadist, though he can be sadistic at times. And though we see that Snape's treatment of his students is mean and unfair, I don't think Snape sees himself that way at all. He sees a bunch of lazy, unmotivated students who better well learn that the WW world is mean, hard and dangerous--and if they can't take his brand of nastiness, how will they ever survive in that world when they're released into it? (And I do think DD sees this lesson as a valuable one too, even while he deliberately interferes and reins Snape in when he starts to go too far.) Also, IMO, Snape doesn't get pleasure from torturing his students in the sadistic sense that Umbridge does when she salivates at the idea of infliciting pain for pain's sake (which is why she is a sadistic person). Snape gets satisfaction in the sense of "that will teach you not to ignore my instructions/talk back to me/ show off when you don't have the vaguest idea how pathetically inadequate mere book-learning will prepare you for the future." He sees his actions as well-deserved punishment, as well as a lesson the students better learn sooner rather than later. I'm not saying Snape is right about this approach, but it does have some merit in the unpleasant Voldy-threatened world his students are about to enter, and its not sadism, even in the case of the sadly hapless Neville. The only exception is Harry, where Snape does let his personal feelings overtake him and has occasionally inflicted pain on Harry for the purpose of enjoying that pain. Though Harry is more than willing to do the same to Snape, even if his power to do so is limited, which is why these two simply have to come to some sort of understanding in Book 7 if either/both of them are going to survive with their souls intact--if somewhat tarnished in Snape's case. (And, yes, Snape "started" it and basically forced Harry to hate him, but Harry still has to overcome that hatred or fail his hero's quest.) Julie (who assumes DDM!Snape as always) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kking0731 at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 02:15:15 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:15:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148438 Dungrollin: Well... that's one way it could work, though it's not my favourite, because I'm not sure that JKR is going to let Harry off that lightly. Since the events at GH which created UnintentionalHorcrux!Harry in the first place are necessarily vague,* it's a bit cheeky of me to start picking apart what should have to happen in order to kill Voldy, but what the hell... Harry must kill in order to rip off the Voldy fragment which has knitted itself to his own soul. It's canon that to create a horcrux you have to have done this, but Slughorn says that to encase the torn piece there is another spell. Presumably this is the bit that is 'against nature', the part of the operation which gets the soul bit out of you and into the locket/ring/diary/cup etc. There are two distinct steps in the process. So even once Harry has ripped Voldemort's soul fragment from his own soul, the Voldy fragment will still be inside Harry, and will still be acting as a horcrux keeping Voldemort's last piece of soul, the bit inside his body, alive. He'd be reduced to Vapour!Mort again. Basically, I don't think Harry would be able to get it all done with one Avada Kedavra on Voldy. I think that another life will have to be lost. Snow: Except that you may be forgetting that it is inadvisable to create a Horcrux with a living thing such as Nagini (or Harry) because they have a will of their own. HBP U.S. 506 There is a wide-open space for wiggle room for the author to proclaim that even an unintentional-Horcrux!Harry had a will of his own so anything can happen as a result. JKR is the ultimate, isn't she? She may be bad at maths but the way in which she combats her expected confrontations (i.e. not all deatheaters knew each other) is phenomenal. I'm fairly sure this is one of those accounts. Snow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 02:29:59 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 02:29:59 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148439 Julie: The only exception is Harry, where Snape does > let his personal feelings overtake him and has occasionally inflicted > pain on Harry for the purpose of enjoying that pain. Alla: I am glad we at least agree on how Snape treats Harry. :-) Juli: > (And, yes, Snape "started" it and basically forced Harry to hate him, > but Harry still has to overcome that hatred or fail his hero's quest.) Alla: Yeah, agreed on "Snape started it", but want to ask the question which I asked in the past, but don't remember the answer from anybody from "opposing debating side" :-) Where does it say in the books that Harry HAS TO overcome his hatred or fail his quest? No, I am not asking for evidence that love will help Harry to win, that is crystal clear to me. I am also not asking for evidence that Harry will forgive Snape, that is also if not crystal clear to me, then definitely very possible. What I am asking I suppose is evidence or hints or whatever that if Harry decides not to forgive Snape, he will necessarily loose. I am asking for evidence that in order to win Harry has to not just feel something positive towards Snape, which surely possible if he discovers some information in Snape past,which make him pity the man, but also completely overcome the feelings of hatred towards someone who hurt him so very badly so many times. That is IMO of course. What I am trying to say again, I guess I just don't see the necessity for Harry to feel ONLY positive emotions towards Snape, but feel both pity and something more negative at the same time. I would just find it not very realistic if during one confrontation Harry's feelings towards Snape transform from hatred to love. IMO of course, it will be something in the middle. I also don't think that "HAS TO" will play out, because HAS To implies to me that Harry will have to force himself to feel something good towards Snape. IMO Harry will grant Snape his forgiveness rather unexpectedly, maybe even not realising fully why he does it, just that Harry's true nature will shine through. I don't see Harry telling himself before he goes to bed in book 7 "must stop hating Snape or will fail my quest". IMO of course. JMO, Alla, who loves to speculate. From sydpad at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 02:35:12 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 02:35:12 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148440 Jen: >EWW. Snape/Lily bothers me because the only scenario that > seems > > possible in JKR's world of romance, which is incredibly > traditional, > > would be unrequited love on the part of Snape. Sydney *rubs hands together* Ah, the Snape/Lily bandwagon is piling up with mournful-looking souls playing reluctant dirges on their teeny-tiny violins. Well, folks, I was a one-woman Snape/Lily band before we even HAD a wagon-- from Book 1 as a matter of fact-- so whine all you like, I'll be standing up front drowning youse all out with a jolly trombone. Let's get a little enthusiasm here! The black-swathed ambiguous guy tortured but ennobled by his unspoken passion for the lily-white heroine-- what's not to love? So it's a romantic, corny cliche that went out with the horse-and-buggy. Gee, like improbably good-hearted orphans raised by comically nasty stepparents? Or like romantic rebels locked away on island prisons for crimes they didn't commit? Or mad super-villains after World Domination? Dagnab it, the whole POINT of Harry Potter is that it rummages around everything from fairy tales to Dickens, pulls out all the stuff that no-one's dared to use in a million years because it's not ironic or 'realistic' or postmodern or progressive, and dares to bring it back alive and without apology. Personally I ADORE Rowling's wholehearted embrace of cliche, because IMO what ruins so much writing is the anxiety to be original, or the fear of looking stupid by excessive sincerity or romanticism. JKR is can be sneaky, but she's certainly not into deconstructing the genre. She has whatever mystery she's using to drive the action of each book, but on the whole she comes not to abolish, but to fulfill. The main objection to Snape/Lily has been "but it's such a cliche!", to which one can only say, "Yeah, isn't it great!" > Alla: > > If your objections are just based on predictability part, well > > then how more predictable "Ron/Hermione" and "Harry/Ginny" can be? EXACTLY. (LOL, probably the only time I'll ever say that to Alla ) Oh, Snape-loved-Lily, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.. -- Dude, Sydney Carton in "Tale of Two Cities" was one of my first loves, and JKR said she cried and cried at end of the book... could he LOOK more Snapey in the Phiz illustration? All broody and shadow-lurking and shoulder-length-black-haired and with his 'fatal air of caring for nothing'... PS. Jo, you'd BETTER not make me cry and cry at the end of Book 7, lady. -- It has the classic JRK-revelation virtue of making you go back and re-read everything with new eyes, making everything more complex and resonant-- like Lupin being a werewolf, or Neville and his tragic parents. Snape isn't just some creep who hates Harry because he hated his father; he's some creep who hates Harry because he hated his father, and loved his mother, and is tormented by guilt for having caused her death. Which was because of Harry. But mostly because of Snape. Oh the ANGST! -- What keeps being hinted as the theme of the whole series? Oh, yeah, love. Haven't seen a whole lot of that around yet. Might be a good idea to have it, like, drive one of the central characters or something. -- Oh, man, there's so many dramatic possibilities for scenes between Snape and Harry when Harry finds out, I can't even count them all. If you're spoiled for choice of strong scenes, that a good sign that you're going the right way. -- Crack investigative journalist Jeremy Paxman smells a rat, and that's good enough for me: JEREMY PAXMAN: Are we going to discover anything more about Snape ? JK ROWLING: Yes. JEREMY PAXMAN: And Harry's mother? Did he have a crush on Harry's mother or unrequited love or anything like that? JK ROWLING: Hence his animosity to Harry? JEREMY PAXMAN: Yes. JK ROWLING: You speculate? JEREMY PAXMAN: I speculate, yes, I'm just asking whether you can tell us. JK ROWLING: No I can't tell you. Oh Jeremy, you are so adorable. You have to have watched Paxman eviscerating politicians live on the BBC every night to appreciate the hilariousness of his puppy-dog eyes when he asked this. Anyways... I went into HBP with Snape-Lily-unrequited-love as a working theory. With Slughorn's little speech about the power of obsessive love, and this: "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and reason he turned.." Well, I finished the book pretty much assuming it was canon. > Alla, who unfortunately is unable to talk herself out of Snape/Lily > anymore. -- Sydney, who can't WAIT for S/L stuff in book 7. Cheer UP, people, it'll be FUN, I promise. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Feb 20 02:52:36 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 02:52:36 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148441 > Jen wrote: > "I'm not completely disagreeing as you (Carol) make a case for > Snape being a person near the scene who could have cast the spell, > but it *would* be odd to me if he did it verbally instead of non- > verbally. That would be a clear threat to his cover. > > CH3ed: > Or Snape could just say that he was actually aiming the spell at > Harry and it missed and hit Greyback instead. That would be a very > plausible excuse, I think. The spell would have stopped Harry > pursuing Snape and Draco without hurting him (if that is indeed what > LV ordered). I like this theory a lot (and confess that I'm buying > the DDM!Snape so I'm not entirely objective). Jen again: I'm not sure that scenario would work as just a few minutes later Snape calls off the DE performing Crucio on Harry. So he's OK with trying to petrify Harry and leave him to be ravaged by Fenrir, but not OK with a DE Crucio'ing him. Even some of the slow DE's might catch on that Snape is inconsistent there and could wonder why. Another idea: Snape could just say he wasn't close enough to tell Fenrir to leave Harry for the Dark Lord so he had to cast the spell instead. That matches later actions. Still, my bigger objection is the text reads like Snape and Malfoy have passed by the battling group which includes Greyback and already rounded the corner **at the far end of the corridor** prior to the spell being cast. IIRC, Carol said Snape might have turned back to see if the DE's were obeying and that could certainly be. It doesn't seem to work mechanically for me even though it could work for character reasons. Basically I like what Magpie stated: there's no reason it must be true at this moment, but it will be interesting to see if it pans out. Marcela: ***Wouldn't this be a perfect 'mirror' scene of what happened with > the Marauders' Prank on Snape?! James saving Snape from being > bitten by werewolf!Lupin, and then Snape 'paying back' his life debt > to James by saving Harry from Fenrir's bite? > It makes me wonder if Snape still feels like he 'owes' something to > Harry, like Dumbledore suggested so in PS/SS... Jen: If Snape did fulfill his life debt in that moment, that might be meaningful for the future. Especially if Snape mainly turned back to Dumbledore due to the life-debt. Then all bets would be off as to his loyalty. Not saying I'm a fan of the idea, just that if JKR is taking that route she'd have some more canon for it. Jen R. From exodusts at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 02:54:05 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 02:54:05 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148442 > Carol: > > If we accept for the sake of argument that Voldemort's "offer" > consists of providing Lily the opportunity to run away and save > herself at the expense of her son's life (in keeping with his contempt > for mothers and his consistent underestimation of love), there's no > need for Snape or anyone other than Voldemort and Wormtail to be > present at Godric's Hollow. There's still less need for Voldemort to > offer Lily to Snape as some sort of prize. (Are we reading in > Wormtongue and Eowyn here? what evidence do we have that LV held > 22-year-old Snape in such high regard?) And there's no need to explain > how Snape could know that the Potters were at Godric's Hollow, which > only Pettigrew could have told him, or how he could get there from > Hogwarts on the night of the murders without arousing suspicion when > you can't Apparate from Hogwarts. > > It's much simpler and less messy if Snape is not involved, at least > not until he feels a change in his Dark Mark and informs Dumbledore, > which would not involve anything more complicated than running > upstairs to the headmaster's office. Exodusts: It may be difficult to place Snape at GH on the night in question, but even if he wasn't there, it doesn't invalidate the possibility of Voldemort's offer being based on a request from Snape for the girl of his dreams. I am a firm believer in Snape-loves-Lily; JKR has given enough hints. Although the point about Snape also owing James a life debt at the time of James' death is a good one. The thing about Snape loving Lily is that it explains why an obviously rational being such as he would be unable to set aside a grudge against the father of a pupil. If he had competed unsuccessfully (even if just in his own mind) with James for Lily's love it makes much more sense than just picking on Harry because Harry's dad used to pick on him. It also helps to explain why the scene that Harry saw in the Pensieve was Snape's worst* memory. We know that James and his gang must have humiliated him many times. What is special about that instance, apart from the fact that he calls Lily a Mudblood, and she spurns him? I read recently on this list about Snape's pejorative Hogwarts nickname of Snivellus, and this gave me an idea when I thought of JKR's comments to the effect of how terrible it would be to have Snape in love with you (who would want it). I also remembered Slughorn telling his class about the dangers of the love potion and obsessive love generally (although that could simply be foreshadowing for the Merope-Tom Riddle Sr. affair). Suppose that Snape & Lily share Potions class. They are both top students. There is a shared interest and sneaky mutual admiration. Snape may have been half-way to having a secret crush, but would never dream of doing anything about it. Then James and his gang get wind of their closeness. James is immediately secretly jealous. So what does he do, for a laugh? He spikes Snape's drink of course (heck, if Young Sherlock Holmes can spike Dudley's drink in that film, Harry's dad can do the same thing - YSH=HP is another theory of mine). Snape is swooning all over Lily like a lovesick puppy, and when she, frightened, keeps rejecting him, he starts to sigh and cry like a true Romantic - the source of the endless amusement of the Snivellus nickname. Snape is eventually "cured", probably by a member of staff, but the problem is that the magic of the potion has awoken something in him that he can't let go of. It has revealed his own heart to him, and he doesn't like it (back to being an Occlumens of love). Conflicted, he swears eternal vengeance on James, and tries to remain cordial with Lily, although now he is hopelessly in love with her for real. He broods on it all the time and becomes fantastically embittered. From gsopko at stratos.net Mon Feb 20 01:36:58 2006 From: gsopko at stratos.net (sir_lafayette2000) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:36:58 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148443 > Alla, who unfortunately is unable to talk herself out of Snape/Lily > anymore. > Greg writes: Just for the record, I didnt start this thread as just another shipper arguement about who pairs with who thats really why this is important to me. I believe strongly that Snape loved Lily. That doesn't mean that Lily loved Snape. Snape loving Lily explains so many things and would be the perfect secret to be revealed about Lily in the 7th book that JKR has alluded to in her teasers. If Snape loved Lily, and Snape went with LV to Godric's Hollow to protect her, it would also explain why LV even gave Lily a chance to live which we know put the magical protection around Harry and protected him and nearly destroyed LV. Snape's hatred of LV would make him quit the DE and work with DD to destroy LV. It would also explain why DD trusted Snape because he knows how much Snape hates LV for killing Lily. It would also explain why DD never told anyone else why he trusted Snape because everyone would say EWWWWWW! Greg From exodusts at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 03:22:41 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 03:22:41 -0000 Subject: DD Not Dead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148444 > Gryffindor Chaser adds: > I've read other people's opinions on whether Snape said a nonverbal > spell while doing the AK curse on DD. So, collaborating what others > have said, and what I have read, I think that yes, Snape used the > AK curse, but since he didn't mean it, it still produced a green > flash, but only knocked DD off his feet, in the air and over the > ledge. In this way, it is possible, as when Harry used the > Unforgivable curse against Bellatrix in OotP, that the curse still > works, but not to its fullest extent. Exodusts: This interpretation of the events is good, because it explains why JKR wrote the spectacular fall into the story. As people who have argued in favour of DD-is-alive put it: we know that AK just snuffs out life where it is. JKR didn't need to have DD tumble off the tower, therefore there is something suspicious about the whole death, therefore it was staged. But consider if Snape really is going to be later revealed to be a good-guy. JKR knows that if she has him just AK DD without noticeable difficulty, very probably some people will be unhappy with his morality/lack of feeling (whether or not DD was mortally poisoned and Snape knew it). So she puts DD on top of the tower, so that it can always remain ambiguous whether Snape really, really meant it, even if he *meant* to mean it. And DD is killed for certain by the fall. Plus it IS more dramatic to have him take a dive. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 03:46:32 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 03:46:32 -0000 Subject: Curses and non-descriptions (was: DDM!Snape clue) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148445 > Carol wrote: > > The werewolf falls away, petrified and Harry is free. He cannot have > cast the spell himself as he's unable to raise his wand. The speaker > is unidentified. Neri: First, I have to comment that during my first read of HBP I automatically assumed that it was Harry himself who shouted "Petrificus Totalus!" and I never even thought it might be somebody else, until I found that some members in the list think so. When I read this part again, trying to think back why I assumed it was Harry, I believe it was because only three paragraphs before that Harry uses the same curse on Brutal Face, and again it's not explicitly written that it's Harry who shouts the curse. It's not even written "he raised his wand" or something of that sort. So theoretically it's even possible that it was Snape, from the bottom of the tower, who cursed Brutal Face too, but somehow it's obvious to the reader (or at least it's obvious to me) that it was Harry. It was also obvious to me that it was Harry who shouted the Petrificus Totalus that got Greyback, only because it's written in the same way as the Petrificus Totalus that got Brutal Face. BTW, I never understood the text to say that Harry wasn't able to raise his wand, only that he didn't have time to do so before Greyback was on him. But it isn't written that Greyback was pinning his wand hand or something like that, so I never saw a reason to think it wasn't Harry. Of course, since it indeed isn't written that it was Harry who shouted the curse, it can theoretically be anyone, even Snape, but here I want to take this opportunity to talk about a more general issue that I was thinking about for some time. I'll call it a "non-description" because I don't know if there's a professional literary term for it. I'll define a non-description as follows: It's something that the hero must see or know, yet the narrator chooses not to describe it explicitly. In our case Harry, at the very least, knows if it's himself who shouted the curse or somebody else (if it's somebody else there's still the possibility that Harry identified the source by it's voice). So this is a classic case of a non-description. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a non-description. It would have been an extremely long and boring book if every detail the hero sees or does was described explicitly. But I *would* feel that the author is cheating if she later uses her non-description in order to spring something unexpected on me. The most famous example of a non-description in the series is probably the curse that killed (or not) Sirius in OotP. Harry surely saw at least what color it was, but the color isn't described. Harry probably also saw if it was Bellatrix who shot it, or at least he'd know, if he thinks back about what he saw, whether it could have been somebody else. So if the author is going to take advantage of this non-description to tell me later that it was somebody else (like ESE!Lupin, as Pippin suggested) who shot the curse, I'll feel cheated. The author doesn't have to describe explicitly *everything* the hero sees, but I feel as if we have a tacit agreement that she has to describe anything *relevant* that Harry sees. So here is my question: can anybody think of even a single non-description in the series that JKR later used in order to spring an unexpected solution for a mystery? I can't think of even a single example. The only case I can think of is when JKR didn't describe Harry not putting the Felix Felicis in Ron's drink. But I think this example doesn't really qualify, because it's Harry in this case who uses the non-description to play the trick on us (and on Ron and Hermione). But is there a case were JKR uses a non-description to play a trick on both Harry and us? Neri From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Feb 20 04:37:43 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:37:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Curses and non-descriptions (was: DDM!Snape clue) References: Message-ID: <020e01c635d7$64b2ad70$0c60400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 148446 > Neri: > First, I have to comment that during my first read of HBP I > automatically assumed that it was Harry himself who shouted > "Petrificus Totalus!" and I never even thought it might be somebody > else, until I found that some members in the list think so. Magpie: Now I'm back on the fence again, as when I first read the text I'm sure I thought it was Harry too, but reading the discussion I figured I must have been mistaken. Maybe I (we) weren't at all. Unfortuantely I don't have the book in front of me. Kind of a shame--I don't usually get attached to theories, but I kind of like this one. Probably because it also makes Fenrir less of a threat. You had the kid right there and he just zapped you? Oh Fenrir, that's bad. -m From kchuplis at alltel.net Mon Feb 20 04:48:52 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:48:52 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Curses and non-descriptions (was: DDM!Snape clue) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <30DA1AEE-A1CC-11DA-903D-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148447 On Sunday, February 19, 2006, at 09:46 PM, Neri wrote: > Neri: > First, I have to comment that during my first read of HBP I > automatically assumed that it was Harry himself who shouted > "Petrificus Totalus!" and I never even thought it might be somebody > else, until I found that some members in the list think so. When I > read this part again, trying to think back why I assumed it was Harry, > I believe it was because only three paragraphs before that Harry uses > the same curse on Brutal Face, and again it's not explicitly written > that it's Harry who shouts the curse. It's not even written "he raised > his wand" or something of that sort. So theoretically it's even > possible that it was Snape, from the bottom of the tower, who cursed > Brutal Face too, but somehow it's obvious to the reader (or at least > it's obvious to me) that it was Harry. It was also obvious to me that > it was Harry who shouted the Petrificus Totalus that got Greyback, > only because it's written in the same way as the Petrificus Totalus > that got Brutal Face. > > BTW, I never understood the text to say that Harry wasn't able to > raise his wand, only that he didn't have time to do so before Greyback > was on him. But it isn't written that Greyback was pinning his wand > hand or something like that, so I never saw a reason to think it > wasn't Harry. > kchuplis: I have to say, this is just what I thought as well. I suppose I was "assuming", but I believed (and actually do believe) that it was Harry. I can see the argument for another, but the way it is written, I believe it was meant to be Harry and that the "non-descriptor" as you call it is a device she uses when representing furious activity and action to quicken the pace. That is how it reads to me at any rate. In any other book it would not be scrutinized to this degree and therefore I think it is a legitimate device to quicken pace, but since it's JKR, we do look for coloring and clues everywhere :) (OK, it isn't midnight, but I will not post at all tomorrow in punishment. Bad Dobby). From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 05:03:55 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:03:55 -0000 Subject: Curses and non-descriptions (was: DDM!Snape clue) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148448 > Neri: > Of course, since it indeed isn't written that it was Harry who shouted > the curse, it can theoretically be anyone, even Snape, but here I want > to take this opportunity to talk about a more general issue that I was > thinking about for some time. I'll call it a "non-description" because > I don't know if there's a professional literary term for it. > I'll define a non-description as follows: It's something that the hero > must see or know, yet the narrator chooses not to describe it > explicitly. zgirnius: If Snape petrified the werewolf, this scene is NOT a non-description. The narrator is telling us the scene as Harry perceives it. And Harry hears the spell and sees its effect, but he does not see the caster or identify the voice. This is not all that odd, he is being attacked by one big, mean werewolf and chasing a hated murderer, so he has better things to worry about than which of his friends helped him out. (Or even, whether Greyback, like Gibbon, was hit by friendly fire). This would be just like the scene in PS/SS in which Quirrell is jinxing Harry's broom, and Snape is doing a countercurse. The narrator, by you standard of playing fair with us, ought to have told us what Quirrell was doing when Hermione bumped into him (even if Hermione herself did not notice, being too intent on her plans to set Snape's robes on fire). She was right there, she should have seen Quirrell was staring intently at Harry and doing whatever it is one does to jinx a broom. Neri: > In our case Harry, at the very least, knows if it's > himself who shouted the curse or somebody else (if it's somebody else > there's still the possibility that Harry identified the source by it's > voice). So this is a classic case of a non-description. I'm not saying > there's anything wrong with a non-description. It would have been an > extremely long and boring book if every detail the hero sees or does > was described explicitly. But I *would* feel that the author is > cheating if she later uses her non-description in order to spring > something unexpected on me. zgirnius: Oh, OK, I see what you mean. Harry should at least wonder where the spell came from, if it was not him. But actually now that I have reread Flight of the Prince again, it is quite interesting. The two Petrificuses from nowhere at the start of the chapter are the only possible Harry spells described in that way. Following our hero past that point, we see every single spell he casts, explicitly attributed to him either by letting us know he said or thought the incantation, by explicit mention of his wand movement, by explicit mention that he cast a spell, or finally (in the case of some unsuccessful spells) that Snape blocked them. A complete list follows: "Impedimenta!" yelled Harry. (Saves Ginny from Amycus} ...said Harry, aiming a hex from the floor at the enormous blond Death Eater...(just after talking with Neville) "Impedimenta!" he yelled as he rolled over again, (takes down one of the brother/sister pair, who tried to hex him from behind on the grounds outside the castle) Harry...took aim at Snape's back and yelled, "Stupefy!" ...he and Harry looked at each other before raising their wands simultaneously. "Cruc-" But Snape parried the curse, knocking Harry backward off his feet... "Cruc-" yelled Harry for the second time... "Incarc-" Harry roared... "Stupe-" "Blocked again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" sneered Snape, deflecting the curse once more. "Sectum-!" Snape flicked his wand and the curse was repelled yet again; but Harry was mere feet away now... ...Harry thought, *Levi-* Harry raised his wand arm...and murmured "Aguamenti" too: So I wonder why she did it this way. Perhaps she feels that is enough of a clue? (Even if you do not, reasonably enough. After all, she could have Harry wonder who cast the spell as he runs on after Snape...) Neri: > But is there a case were JKR uses a non-description to play > a trick on both Harry and us? zgirnius: I wish she had told us the color of the Sectumsempra curse, and the color of the curse Snape used on James in "Snape's Worst Memory". But since she has not, I of course can't say whether it was to protect the identity of the Half-Blood Prince from those readers who had not yet figured it out by the "Sectumsempra" chapter of HBP, or not. It is an interesting question, though. I'll be thinking about non- descriptions... From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 05:31:12 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:31:12 -0000 Subject: Curses and non-descriptions (was: DDM!Snape clue) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148449 Neri wrote: "The most famous example of a non-description in the series is probably the curse that killed (or not) Sirius in OotP. Harry surely saw at least what color it was, but the color isn't described. Harry probably also saw if it was Bellatrix who shot it, or at least he'd know, if he thinks back about what he saw, whether it could have been somebody else. So if the author is going to take advantage of this non-description to tell me later that it was somebody else (like ESE!Lupin, as Pippin suggested) who shot the curse, I'll feel cheated." CH3ed: I think it is quite certain that Bellatrix was the one who shot that curse that sent Sirius over the veil, tho. Otherwise Harry wouldn't have screamed that "She killed Sirius. I'll kill her," as he ran after Bella toward to fountain. Neri wrote: "The author doesn't have to describe explicitly *everything* the hero sees, but I feel as if we have a tacit agreement that she has to describe anything *relevant* that Harry sees. So here is my question: can anybody think of even a single non- description in the series that JKR later used in order to spring an unexpected solution for a mystery? I can't think of even a single example. The only case I can think of is when JKR didn't describe Harry not putting the Felix Felicis in Ron's drink. But I think this example doesn't really qualify, because it's Harry in this case who uses the non-description to play the trick on us (and on Ron and Hermione). But is there a case were JKR uses a non-description to play a trick on both Harry and us?" CH3ed: Not sure. I don't have my books with me. How about in GoF after Harry and Krum met the deranged Mr. Crouch in the forest and DD had the fake Moody out looking for him? Harry asked fake Moody later if he used the Marauder's Map, and fake Moody said he took a leaf out of Harry's book and summoned it from his office. I'd think had he really done that the map would have been spotted zooming toward the forest (but I think Fake Moody had it with him all the time...just put it in his pocket once he saw his dad entered the ground). But Harry and us took fake Moody's patronizing words for it. Does that fit the criteria? CH3ed not thinking very clearly after watching way too much curling over the weekend. ;O) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 05:37:33 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:37:33 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148450 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: >> > The black-swathed ambiguous guy tortured but ennobled by his unspoken passion for the lily-white heroine-- what's not to love? So it's a romantic, corny cliche that went out with the horse-and- buggy. (snip, snip, snip)> > -- Crack investigative journalist Jeremy Paxman smells a rat, and that's good enough for me: > > JEREMY PAXMAN: Are we going to discover anything more about Snape > ? > JK ROWLING: Yes. > JEREMY PAXMAN: And Harry's mother? Did he have a crush on Harry's > mother or unrequited love or anything like that? > JK ROWLING: Hence his animosity to Harry? > JEREMY PAXMAN: Yes. > JK ROWLING: You speculate? > JEREMY PAXMAN: I speculate, yes, I'm just asking whether you can > tell us. > JK ROWLING: No I can't tell you. Tonks: Very good post. You are starting to convince me. I thought it was silly that someone would be that hooked on a crush from their teens, but maybe. Usually you are in love one week and out the next when you are that young. I never could see the grudge of two teenagers being of any importance to a man in his late 30's. That makes no sense either. A sensible man like Snape would have moved beyond that long ago. But I have made the mistake of thinking about Snape as the mature man that we see before us and not as a young 20 year old. So looking back in time to Snape at 20 what do we see? We have the fresh memory of Snape's hatred for James and Sirius and maybe Lupin by association. We may have strong feeling for Lily and unrequited love coupled with the object of his affection marrying the young man he hates. Not only that, but Lily marries the same young man that Snape has a life debt too. So perhaps all of it mixed together is what we are looking for. It is not just Snape's feeling towards Lily. Not just his hatred of James. Not just his life debt to James. But the whole package and all of the multifaceted dimensions of it in its entirety. Picture it: A young man of 20 not that long out of school, still feeling the stings of rejection at school and the hatred of James, seeing the young woman that he secretly loved marry the man that he hates. Having a life debt that ties him to James in a way that prevents Snape from moving on and forgetting James. All of this pulling him to the dark side. Then Snape overhears the prophesy only to find later that it comes back to bite him. The two people he would have wanted to forget are right in the middle of it all. And to top it all off, now Snape is in a bad way with the life debit that he has with James. This would be a rather traumatic event for a young man, or anyone for that matter. It would make Snape a bitter person, and a person with enough remorse to turn from the dark side and repent. Snape would be haunted by the memory of this whole thing. Later Snape is at Hogwarts locked away in his dungeon, enjoying his potions making and perhaps secret experiments, being able to some extent forget the events of his youth. Then Harry comes to Hogwarts and when Snape sees him it all comes flooding back. Snape feels the trauma all over again, he is reminded of his sins, he feels the guilt and remorse that he thought he had overcome with the years. He hates Harry for bringing back these memories. And there you have it Tonks_op From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Feb 20 05:51:48 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:51:48 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148451 Sydney > *rubs hands together* Ah, the Snape/Lily bandwagon is piling up > with mournful-looking souls playing reluctant dirges on their > teeny-tiny violins. Well, folks, I was a one-woman Snape/Lily > band before we even HAD a wagon-- from Book 1 as a matter of fact-- > so whine all you like, I'll be standing up front drowning youse > all out with a jolly trombone. Let's get a little enthusiasm here! Jen looks up reluctantly from her teeny-tiny violin and whine with cheese and smugly says to herself: "Look, Sydney with her cheerleading uniform on. Hah! Like JKR is going to hang her series on *that* one." Jen sniggers behind her hand, wondering how Syndey will take the bad news and whether she should share her weensy violin when the time comes? Sydney: > The black-swathed ambiguous guy tortured but ennobled by his > unspoken passion for the lily-white heroine-- what's not to love? > So it's a romantic, corny cliche that went out with the horse-and- > buggy. Dagnab it, the whole POINT of Harry Potter is that > it rummages around everything from fairy tales to Dickens, pulls > out all the stuff that no-one's dared to use in a million years > because it's not ironic or 'realistic' or postmodern or > progressive, and dares to bring it back alive and without > apology. JKR is can be sneaky, but she's certainly not > into deconstructing the genre. Jen: Hey, what happened to the Time magazine article about 'subverting the genre' and all that? Someone needs to tell JKR the whole point of her story is that she uses cliche's really well and then step back and wait for her response. I'm not sure that's *her* take on her work. But about the tortured guy and unspoken passion, I take it even you agree that the love could be no more than unrequited in this instance? That JKR isn't going for the ultimate cliche of the bad boy being changed by the love of a good woman since even she, the cliche queen, has rejected that one? :-) Sydney: > -- What keeps being hinted as the theme of the whole series? Oh, > yeah,love. Haven't seen a whole lot of that around yet. Might be > a good idea to have it, like, drive one of the central characters > or something. Jen: Like Lily's sacrifice? Or Dumbledore's terminal quest to destroy as many horcruxes as possible so Harry wouldn't have to? Or Sirius' life ruined because of one mistake he made that caused the deaths of the people he loved more dearly than anyone else? There's Love everywhere, who needs love? We already saw one version of unrequited love and it wasn't a pretty picture. Maybe JKR doesn't hold as noble a view of this particular cliche. Sydney: > -- Sydney, who can't WAIT for S/L stuff in book 7. Cheer UP, > people, it'll be FUN, I promise. Jen: Maybe? I'll hold out hope if she does go there I won't cringe like the rest of the romance sections make me do. Mystery, characterization, convoluted plotting? Love 'em. Romance? Wade through it to the good stuff. Alla: > Oh, but since I think the love was mainly from Snape' side, do > they have to be equals? Jen: Oops, misunderstood that. No, that seems like her pattern only with actual couples. Alla: > And Tom Riddle Sr. and Merope seem like such a nice foreshadowing > for Snape possibly wanting to drug Lily with Love Potion and > (maybe?) abandoning such idea at some point. Heeee! You know my > not very flattering opinion of his moral character. :) Jen: LOL! Now I haven't read *that* theory yet.;) I may be the only one who thinks Slughorn's talk of obsessive love and the Tom Riddle/Merope deal had nothing to do with Snape and Lily and everything to do with Voldemort. But oh well, we can't get everything we want, right? Alla: > And yes, it exactly what it feels like to me - that JKR is doing > it on purpose - dropping hints, but nothing certain and I don't > even think that she is being too sneaky or devious, because trust > me I so was NOT fan of LOLLYPOPS, but with every book I get a > feeling that that is exactly what is going to happen. It is like > JKR manages to say it without actually saying it. Jen, with hands over her eyes: I know, I know! It's hard to even argue anymore. I'm still disappointed in the idea Snape's mystery will boil down to unrequited love for a girl 20 years ago...sigh...there are so many other things JKR writes so *well*. Look at Draco and his father, that dynamic makes it so believable to me that Draco turned out like he did. Draco stays right on the razor's edge all the time between his fear (and maybe hints of doubt?) keeping him from straying too far and the need to live up to the Malfoy name egging him own. Just the thought of Snape collapsing down, as Nora also puts it, into a heap of blubbering lost love is just...painful, yep, that's the word. Anyway, just read Tonks post before posting this one and think maybe she has a good idea: It's the hatred of the Marauders, the life debt and feelings for Lily rolled up in one. Now that sounds like some drama and angst, doesn't it? All those competing factors contributing in the end. Jen R., knowing she is a Scrooge about this one but thinking if Sydney plays her jolly trombone she might just have to stuff a sock in it. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Feb 20 06:54:36 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:54:36 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148452 Tonks wrote: > > Picture it: A young man of 20 not that long out of school, still > feeling the stings of rejection at school and the hatred of James, > seeing the young woman that he secretly loved marry the man that he > hates. Having a life debt that ties him to James in a way that > prevents Snape from moving on and forgetting James. All of this > pulling him to the dark side. Then Snape overhears the prophesy > only to find later that it comes back to bite him. The two people > he would have wanted to forget are right in the middle of it all. > And to top it all off, now Snape is in a bad way with the life debit > that he has with James. This would be a rather traumatic event for a > young man, or anyone for that matter. It would make Snape a bitter > person, and a person with enough remorse to turn from the dark side > and repent. Snape would be haunted by the memory of this whole > thing. Julie: And let's not forget, not only does that life debt remain unpaid, as Snape couldn't stop Voldemort from killing James and Lily, but the death of Lily in particular must weigh very heavily on his conscience (and perhaps on his heart). Even if there was no direct intent, he betrayed not only his enemy James to Voldemort, but he betrayed the woman he once loved (or at least cared for deeply), the only person (besides Dumbledore) who accepted him as he was and even valued him as a person. Tonks: > Later Snape is at Hogwarts locked away in his dungeon, enjoying his > potions making and perhaps secret experiments, being able to some > extent forget the events of his youth. Then Harry comes to Hogwarts > and when Snape sees him it all comes flooding back. Snape feels the > trauma all over again, he is reminded of his sins, he feels the > guilt and remorse that he thought he had overcome with the years. > He hates Harry for bringing back these memories. > > And there you have it > > Tonks_op > Julie: Exactly! Harry is a reminder of not only his old enemy James, but of the woman he once loved (or, again, cared for deeply), and of his horrible mistake that set in motion events for which he can try to make amends but can never undo. Add to that, his own redemption is deeply tied to this boy, this unpleasant reminder not only of his regret-filled past, but of his obligation-constrained future as Dumbledore's right-hand spy (and perhaps protector of a boy he can hardly stand to look at). And while he certainly did it all to himself and can blame no one else, there's that damn boy in his face day after day to remind him of it all, over and over again. So it's not all that surprising he lashes out at Harry (given his personality). This all does hinge on Snape loving Lily, either romantically or as a friend, but we almost certainly know he loved someone. Even though JKR replied to the question of whether Snape ever loved anyone with "Who would want Snape to love them?" she also added "Whoever asked that question, I'm stunned, and you'll find out why in Book 7." (And I know not everyone interprets that interview the way I do, but if JKR was replying to the interviewer's interjection about Snape having a redemptive pattern, wouldn't she have said "I'm stunned *you* asked that question" as she is speaking directly to the interviewer, rather than using "whoever" which refers to a third person?) Anyway, if Snape did love someone, I think we're to the point where it can only be Lily. Any other object of Snape's affection--Florence for instance--would be irrelevant to the main story, and with only one book left there's no time to wander into sidelines or further explorations of character backgrounds that don't directly contribute to resolving the central plot. IMO, Julie From sydpad at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 07:20:33 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:20:33 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148453 Jen: > Jen looks up reluctantly from her teeny-tiny violin and whine with > cheese and smugly says to herself: "Look, Sydney with her > cheerleading uniform on. Hah! Like JKR is going to hang her series > on *that* one." Flee! Flee in terror before my cheerleading uniform of doom ! > Jen: Hey, what happened to the Time magazine article > about 'subverting the genre' and all that? Someone needs to tell JKR > the whole point of her story is that she uses cliche's really well > and then step back and wait for her response. That would be this Time Magazine article: "It's precisely Rowling's lack of sentimentality, her earthy, salty realness, her refusal to buy into the basic clich?s of fantasy, that make her such a great fantasy writer. The genre tends to be deeply conservative--politically, culturally, psychologically. It looks backward to an idealized, romanticized, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves. Rowling's books aren't like that. They take place in the 1990s--not in some never-never Narnia but in modern-day Mugglish England, with cars, telephones and PlayStations. Rowling adapts an inherently conservative genre for her own progressive purposes. Her Hogwarts is secular and sexual and multicultural and multiracial and even sort of multimedia, with all those talking ghosts. If Lewis showed up there, let's face it, he'd probably wind up a Death Eater." I gotta say, when I read that, the only words I come up with were, "WTF?!" Because okay, certainly there is some fantasty still being written about morris-dancing to Greensleeves, but has this guy READ any fantasy novels post, what, 1975? Fantasy writing is 'inherently conservative'? Ever hear of Ursula LeGuin? WTF? In any event, I totally agree that JKR doesn't use basic cliches of fantasy. She uses basic cliches of 19th century fiction, and turn-of-the-century school stories. I don't think there's been this many fat jokes since the days of Billy Bunter. >But about the tortured guy and unspoken > passion, I take it even you agree that the love could be no more > than unrequited in this instance? Oh, TOTALLY. Soooo much more interesting, why do you think sitcoms collapse when they resolve the sexual tension? Unrequited, crammed into the furthest corner of black soul, unspoken. Unless exodust's fiendishly clever idea just up-thread that poor Snivellus was once Veritaserumed in the middle of the Great Hall comes to pass... although would even Sirius be that mean? It sure brings a wallop to Snape's threat to use it on Harry. > Sydney: > > -- What keeps being hinted as the theme of the whole series? Oh, > > yeah,love. Haven't seen a whole lot of that around yet. Might be > > a good idea to have it, like, drive one of the central characters > > or something. > > Jen: Like Lily's sacrifice? Or Dumbledore's terminal quest to > destroy as many horcruxes as possible so Harry wouldn't have to? Or > Sirius' life ruined because of one mistake he made that caused the > deaths of the people he loved more dearly than anyone else? There's > Love everywhere, who needs love? Lily isn't a central character, she's always been dead; D-dore is a)destroying V-mort because it's a good idea generally, and b)seems to have left the lion's share of the Horcruxes to Harry; Sirius's life wasn't ruined because he loved his friends, it was ruined because he was betrayed and sent to prision for something he didn't do, not saying he didn't love his friends but it's not CENTRAL. > Alla: > > And Tom Riddle Sr. and Merope seem like such a nice foreshadowing > > for Snape possibly wanting to drug Lily with Love Potion and > > (maybe?) abandoning such idea at some point. Speaking of Unrequited Love, nasty as Snape is, I don't think he would do this. Not because it's wrong, but because IMO the LAST thing a guy like that would want would be to ACTUALLY GET THE GIRL. I mean, then he'd have to, like, TALK TO HER. Noooo... nice mile-high pedestal, that's the safe place for girls Snape likes. Tonks: >I never could see the grudge of two teenagers being of any >importance to a man in his late 30's. That makes no sense either. A >sensible man like Snape would have moved beyond that long ago. > Then Snape overhears the prophesy >only to find later that it comes back to bite him. The two people he would have wanted to forget are right in the middle of it all. Yes, yes, yes. I think Snape would be completely over both James and Lilly if he hadn't ACCIDENTALLY KILLED THEM. Yeah, that must sort of make it hard to move on. > Jen, with hands over her eyes: I know, I know! It's hard to even > argue anymore. I'm still disappointed in the idea Snape's mystery > will boil down to unrequited love for a girl 20 years > ago...sigh... Just the thought of Snape collapsing > down, as Nora also puts it, into a heap of blubbering lost love is > just...painful, yep, that's the word. Just plain yummy, that's the word . I mean, I think there's a danger of caricaturing the S/L thing into something really awful, but it doesn't have to be that. Although, mind you, given the HBP romances... *shudder*... in my gut though I think JKR will be much, much more on her game writing something as messed-up as Snape's feelings for Lily than the shiny-happy-people H/G and R/H romances. Messed-up is what she does best, and much as I adore Snape he is definietly not A-Okay. > Jen R., knowing she is a Scrooge about this one but thinking if > Sydney plays her jolly trombone she might just have to stuff a sock > in it. -- Sydney, wondering if perhaps a flugelhorn...? From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 07:42:33 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:42:33 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? (WAS: Young Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148454 Jen: > What bothers me, really, is the recognition of his skill that Harry > seemed to give young Tom Riddle. I don't want to say anything > stronger because I realize I am in a murky area here. But Harry > seemed to be giving him grudging respect for his careful cultivation > of Slughorn, the right amount of hesitancy and flattery, the drawing > back when necessary. Harry wasn't repelled. That bothers me. Finwitch: It's part of human nature - we can admire ability (strength, whatever) even when we definately disagree with what that person chooses to use that ability for. I don't think it was any more than that. Ever watch an action movie? Do you enjoy the coreography of a fight/escape though you'd not approve of the violence (in real life)? Clever mouthings between the hero & someone else? You know-- like Dumbledore says: 'it's our choices far more than our abilities that show what we truly are'. But you still can admire an ability. Finwitch From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Feb 20 12:54:10 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:54:10 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148456 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Sydney > > *rubs hands together* Ah, the Snape/Lily bandwagon is piling up > > with mournful-looking souls playing reluctant dirges on their > > teeny-tiny violins. Jen looks up reluctantly from her teeny-tiny violin and whine with > cheese and smugly says to herself: "Look, Sydney with her > cheerleading uniform on. Hah! Like JKR is going to hang her series > on *that* one." Jen sniggers behind her hand, wondering how Syndey > will take the bad news and whether she should share her weensy > violin when the time comes? Ceridwen: I'm more ACID POPS after Spinner's End, but I'll play, since Sydney is such a good Rah-rah. Sydney: > Flee! Flee in terror before my cheerleading uniform of doom ! Sydney earlier: > > The black-swathed ambiguous guy tortured but ennobled by his > > unspoken passion for the lily-white heroine-- what's not to love? > > So it's a romantic, corny cliche that went out with the horse- and- > > buggy. Ceridwen: Cliches are overused plots or sayings. The reason they're overused is because they're so satisfyingly resonant. They get the job done. They're a shorthand we all understand. People turn their noses up to cliches, yet sooner or later, we all have to bow to the inevitable, and admit that they fill a truthful purpose, or they would not have been used enough to become cliche in the first place. > > Sydney: > > -- What keeps being hinted as the theme of the whole series? Oh, > > yeah,love. Jen: > Love everywhere, who needs love? We already saw one version of > unrequited love and it wasn't a pretty picture. Maybe JKR doesn't > hold as noble a view of this particular cliche. *(brief pause while Ceridwen rearranges everything)* Alla: > > And Tom Riddle Sr. and Merope seem like such a nice foreshadowing > > for Snape possibly wanting to drug Lily with Love Potion and > > (maybe?) abandoning such idea at some point. Heeee! You know my > > not very flattering opinion of his moral character. :) > Jen: LOL! Now I haven't read *that* theory yet.;) I may be the only > one who thinks Slughorn's talk of obsessive love and the Tom > Riddle/Merope deal had nothing to do with Snape and Lily and > everything to do with Voldemort. But oh well, we can't get > everything we want, right? Ceridwen: Everyone talks about the near-misses, the mirror images that are and yet are not. LV's half-blood status, Snape's half-blood status, Harry's half-blood status, poor upbringings for all three, yet three different choices which significantly alter the life path of each person. Why not another unrequited love? Only one that didn't end in the worst possible choice? And if you need Harry to fill in point number three, he already had his unrequited love, tried it, didn't like it, and moved on. Cho wasn't ready to move on. Or didn't anyone else see a sadly tragic Cho with her swan Patronus? Swans mate for life, and deeply mourn their departed mate. Sydney: > > -- Sydney, who can't WAIT for S/L stuff in book 7. Cheer UP, > > people, it'll be FUN, I promise. Jen: Maybe? I'll hold out hope if she does go there I won't cringe > like the rest of the romance sections make me do. Mystery, > characterization, convoluted plotting? Love 'em. Romance? Wade > through it to the good stuff. Ceridwen: Unrequited love isn't romance. Been there, done that. It hurts. And JKR does pretty well with the torture. I'm just hoping we won't get CAPSLOCK!Snape if she does go there - Snape's already dramatic enough. Can you imagine him emoting? Alla: > > Oh, but since I think the love was mainly from Snape' side, do > > they have to be equals? Jen: Oops, misunderstood that. No, that seems like her pattern only > with actual couples. Ceridwen: Isn't that the point of unrequited love? Only the most deserving 'gets the girl'. And when the unequal couple does marry, tragedy ensues. I do consider Romeo and Juliet to be an unequal couple in a way, because of the feud. The family's dislike for the other family is a sufficient mirror for the rich family's dislike of the poor family, or the attorney's family's dislike of the criminal's family. It's a cliche of keeping to one's own. Admit it, if Merope had kept to her own, none of this would have happened. The only problem with Marvolo's idea of Merope's own is that he probably thought it should be Morphin. > Alla: > > And yes, it exactly what it feels like to me - that JKR is doing > > it on purpose - *(snip)* > > Jen, with hands over her eyes: I know, I know! It's hard to even > argue anymore. I'm still disappointed in the idea Snape's mystery > will boil down to unrequited love for a girl 20 years > ago...sigh...there are so many other things JKR writes so *well*. *(snip)* > Just the thought of Snape collapsing > down, as Nora also puts it, into a heap of blubbering lost love is > just...painful, yep, that's the word. Ceridwen: Oh, yeah. Doing it on purpose. And as I said, CAPSLOCK!Snape would not be my idea of a quiet read. It would be worse if he collapses, CAPSLOCK and all, into a heap of blubbering lost love! But so far, I haven't been disappointed overall with the series or I would have stopped reading it a long time ago. Jen: > Anyway, just read Tonks post before posting this one and think maybe > she has a good idea: It's the hatred of the Marauders, the life debt > and feelings for Lily rolled up in one. Now that sounds like some > drama and angst, doesn't it? All those competing factors > contributing in the end. Ceridwen: And that could make all the difference in the scenario being believable, or being not just cliche, but trite and downright stupid. Otherwise, Snape has had more than enough time to move on from both the unrequited love, and the schoolyard hatred. That teensy little point of his info leading to the Potters' death is a very good hook to hang it all. > Jen R., knowing she is a Scrooge about this one but thinking if > Sydney plays her jolly trombone she might just have to stuff a sock > in it. Ceridwen, who has a mute, never used, in the upstairs bedroom. From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Mon Feb 20 12:57:05 2006 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:57:05 -0000 Subject: Young Dumbledore (OK, youngish Dumbledore!) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148457 Carol's snipped response, from WA-AY back: We're told from the first chapter of the first book that Dumbledore is "too noble" to use certain types of magic ... That being the case, I'm not at all willing to assume that DD killed Grindelwald in any way that could be considered murder or using an Unforgiveable Curse. We're told (in an interview) that Grindelwald is indeed dead, but the book (SS) only tells us that DD *defeated* Grindelwald, not killed him. Since we know that both LV and DD know of at least one wizard who made a single Horcrux, and Grindelwald's defeat so nicely coincides with the year that Tom Riddle left Hogwarts, it seems likely that the wizard in question is Grindelwald, that DD's fame results from destroying Grindelwald's Horcrux and therefore making him mortal, and that LV fears DD for exactly this reason. Deborah, now: What does a Dark Lord, staring defeat in the face, do? Big, fat clue: which real-world DL faced this problem in 1945? If however one has Horcruxed oneself into a state of immortality, what would serve but to have someone - anyone - some compassionate person - destroy the Horcrux on one's behalf? So this would from Dumbledore's point of view not constitute the killing of Grindelwald ... but it certainly would cause his defeat, downfall, death. I quite fancy this idea, as it releases DD from the necessity of being a murderer with a fragmented soul, etc, etc while still removing GW from the scene comprehensively. It also gives Harry, as DD's successor, a possible motive for his necessary course of action. We could all respond to Harry defeating LV as an act of compassion, whereas the notion of the Boy Who Lived inflicting death is downright horrible. The fatal flaw, of course, is that there is nothing to say how LV will/could be brought to the point where he actually wishes to embrace death as a preferable option. Preferable to what? If you asked the Sibyl (not our Divination Professor!), hanging in her bottle, what she wanted, she said, "I want to die", but she couldn't. We never did find out what DD believed to be worse than death; this probably doesn't matter as it's what LV comes to believe that will count. And that could easily fit into one last book , though many other scenarios couldn't. (FWIW, if LV were to lose/be deprived of his power to manipulate and hurt, I imagine his longing for life would disappear rather smartly. But the mechanics of it are beyond me.) Deborah, not sure really about the ethics of assisted suicide but convinced that it can be the lesser of lots of evils. Fond, also, of the thought that in our world Grindelwald is a high Alpine valley, much like Berchtesgaten. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Feb 20 13:11:16 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:11:16 -0000 Subject: Curses and non-descriptions (was: DDM!Snape clue) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148458 Neri: > > So here is my question: can anybody think of even a single > non-description in the series that JKR later used in order to spring > an unexpected solution for a mystery? I can't think of even a single > example. The only case I can think of is when JKR didn't describe > Harry not putting the Felix Felicis in Ron's drink. But I think this > example doesn't really qualify, because it's Harry in this case who > uses the non-description to play the trick on us (and on Ron and > Hermione). But is there a case were JKR uses a non-description to play > a trick on both Harry and us? Pippin: Quirrell's broomstick curse has already been mentioned, so I'll just add that JKR actually changed the narrator's point of view (a cardinal no-no according to my eighth grade English composition text) to avoid letting Harry or the reader find out that the hexing stopped as soon as Quirrell was knocked over. JKR clearly and obviously made it a rule, right in the first book, that literary conventions may be overturned to serve the plot. So if she does it again, she's not cheating, just playing by her own previously established rules. Caveat lector. Another example of non-description is the composition of the Irish Quidditch team. At least two of the chasers are female, but the only indication is a pronoun or two -- they're never described as women. Many readers have failed to notice this and railed at JKR for sending two all male teams to the World Cup, ironically exposing their own stereotyped thinking rather than hers. For the record, I assumed on first reading that someone else cursed Fenrir. What's curious is that we don't hear anything more about FG at all. You'd think the capture of such a notorious criminal would set the WW abuzz, but nothing, which makes me wonder if whoever hexed him didn't smuggle him out of the castle as well. There's another non-description for you -- we aren't told what happened after Snape called the DE's off, so we don't know what became of Fenrir. As for Tonks not hearing what Snape said, it wouldn't do for the Order to understand that Snape had called the Death Eaters off since they were supposed to believe that the Death Eaters were chasing Snape and Draco. And that's another mystery -- why didn't at least some of the Order members go in pursuit of the fleeing Death Eaters? Why is Harry the only one who chases them to the gate? Tonks's description leaves off at Snape's departure so we don't know. I can understand Harry using petrificus totalus on the DE he hexed, because the spell was on his mind, but I'd think a trained warrior would prefer stupefy -- it's faster to say and if you were hexing a wizard it would stop them from casting non-verbals at you. Was it important to whoever hexed Fenrir that Fenrir see what happened next? Pippin From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Feb 20 13:51:23 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:51:23 -0000 Subject: Why leave Harry/Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148459 Jen: Gee, why have I never read this before? This is honestly my first time to think the words of the first prophecy might be connected to the events of getting Harry's blood at the graveyard. Dung: Voldy himself says something reminiscent of the prophecy Trelawney delivers to Harry (Gof, end of chapter 33): "But I knew the one I must use, If I was to rise again, more powerful than I had been when I had fallen. I wanted Harry Potter's blood." The relevant bit of prophecy is from PoA, Professor Trelawney's Prediction: "The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever before." Jen: Or alternatively, the mixture of unicorn blood and Nagini venom? The prophecy also claimed the servant would 'aid' the master to rise again and that could be read as the cauldron scene and/or obtaining the fetal form which made the graveyard possible. Dung: Could be, indeed. I just went back to check that I got the apostrophe in the right place in 'servant's aid', but it's definitely singular. Since all the way through the prophecy the servant referred to is Wormtail (the servant bound these twelve years who sets out tonight to return to him), but it was Crouch rather than Wormtail who was responsible for getting Harry to the graveyard, you could be right. If she had written '*servants'* aid,' greater and more terrible than ever before" it could be either baby! mort or Harry's blood. Although it *was* Wormtail who took Harry's blood to make the potion so... um... JKR did say in the TLC/MN interview there was something significant about the fetal form Voldemort took prior to a full body: "I feel that I could justify every single piece of morbid imagery in those books. The one that I wondered whether I was going to be able to get past the editors was the physical condition of Voldemort before he went into the cauldron, do you remember? He was kind of fetal. I felt an almost visceral distaste for what I had conjured up, but there's a reason it was in there and you will see that." Dung: She did indeed. Bit stumped about that, to be honest. It has to be some kind of illustration of the state of Voldy's soul, doesn't it? Or an illustration of how debased the spells and unicorn blood/nagini venom that Wormtail used to produce baby!mort were. Short of having another character disembodied and forced to use the same method so we can see the difference between them, I can't think of how it will play into the story. (I did suggest ages ago that Harry might be forced to use the same potion at some point, but funnily enough, nobody else seemed to like the idea.) Though it could of course be an illustration of the lengths to which *Wormtail* will go, rather than an illustration of something about Voldy. Dung: > Characterising his attempts to kill Harry as an obsession with > faulty wiring's a bit harsh... I suspect that his major problem is > that he believes in fate (JKR doesn't, she believes in hard work), > rather than in making choices. Being Slytherin's heir and all that > will do that to a chap, though, won't it? I think DD is pretty > clear that if Voldy hadn't acted on the prophecy, he would have > been a lot better off. All his current obsessions come back to > that, really, that he believes the prophecy. Jen: Well....maybe it's harsh. I like your explanation of him believing in fate, anyway. Besides the hard work, I think luck was her other reason for her own success? Good news for Harry, then ;). You know, this connects more to the comments above, but the reason I'm unsure whether Voldemort is actually greater and more terrible is because it's pretty hard to see past all the weaknesses Dumbledore exposed in HBP. Besides the sad (to me) conditions of Riddle's beginnings, there's the part about being scared of the dark and dead bodies which is difficult not to connect to little child fears, esp. of the dark. So yes I do tend to see him as having 'faulty wiring' both in nature *and* nuture and don't quite understand where JKR is headed there. Dung: All those weaknesses that Dumbledore exposed in HBP were weaknesses that Voldy has always had, they're not psychoses he's developed since his sojourn in Albania, so I'm not convinced that they prevent him from being greater and more terrible than last time. I'm not saying that I don't see Voldemort as twisted and mad, I *do*, I'm just fairly certain that there are specific intellectuo- emotional reasons that his quest to live forever with the world in thrall to him is going to fail. Believing in fate seems to be the biggie so far, and the love thing. Calling him mad and twisted and doomed to fail is ? well, it's probably *right*, but I wouldn't complain if JKR was a little more specific, and the background we were given in HBP suggests that she's heading that way, giving explicit reasons why evil never wins. Jen: To be a bit repetitive 'cause I like the idea: I hope there's more meaning than simply exposition for book 7 (or the horcrux search) in the story of Riddle's evolution into Voldemort. It seems like so *much* exposition for that. I'd like to think there's something in Voldemort's story which, similar to whatever Harry learns about Lily in Book 7, will have meaning for 'what Harry has to do in the end.' Dung: I'd certainly like to see Harry put in a difficult situation where he has to make a similar choice to one that Voldy's made in the past, which at least gives him some understanding of why Voldy chose the easy over right path. *************************************** On to Snape Loved Lily Jen (snipped): Hey, what happened to the Time magazine article about 'subverting the genre' and all that? Someone needs to tell JKR the whole point of her story is that she uses cliche's really well and then step back and wait for her response. I'm not sure that's *her* take on her work. Jen R., knowing she is a Scrooge about this one but thinking if Sydney plays her jolly trombone she might just have to stuff a sock in it. Dung: Ok, I'm with you on this one, Bah Humbug! "Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not known how to act?" Can someone please explain to me why on earth Snape is unable to fake a large bout of remorse and pretend to be in love with Lily? How does it provide a watertight reason for DD to trust him? Why couldn't a very clever DE fake this? Dungrollin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 14:32:47 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:32:47 -0000 Subject: Why leave Harry/Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148460 > Dung: > Ok, I'm with you on this one, Bah Humbug! > "Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not > known how to act?" > Can someone please explain to me why on earth Snape is unable to > fake a large bout of remorse and pretend to be in love with Lily? > How does it provide a watertight reason for DD to trust him? Why > couldn't a very clever DE fake this? > zgirnius: No strong opinion on Snape/Lily here (though I think Sydney has it right, if JKR goes there, it WILL be FUN!). However, I think the reason for Dumbledore's trust is also in what he already told Harry in HBP. Snape felt remorse BEFORE the Potters were dead. (When he learned how the Dark Lord had interpreted the prophecy, NOT what he did. This is also consistent with Dumbledore's testimony in the GoF Pensieve scene of Karkaroff's hearing). Which almost certainly means HE was the spy who warned Dumbledore that the Potters were Voldemort's intended targets. (And then went on to continue spying on Voldemort 'at great personal risk', GoF). The whole Lily thing is the *reason* why he did this. That Snape loved Lily (if in fact he did) was just PART of that conversation. Snape's actions as a result of his love/remorse are also a part of the reason for Dumbledore's trust. From exodusts at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 05:30:32 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:30:32 -0000 Subject: AK / Waterproofs / Snape'sMSN / SoulSplit / EvilHarry / Petrificus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148461 Exodusts: Regarding the origin of Avada Kedavra, here is JKR on the matter, from her site: "Does anyone know where avada kedavra came from? It is an ancient spell in Aramaic, and it is the original of abracadabra, which means 'let the thing be destroyed'. Originally, it was used to cure illness and the 'thing' was the illness, but I decided to make it the 'thing' as in the person standing in front of me. I take a lot of liberties with things like that. I twist them round and make them mine." > Catherine: > Just a quick thought. As I was re-reading CoS again, I noted > something interesting. In Ch 11 "The Duelling Club" pg 138 (U.K. > edition) yet another mention about Hermione's ability to make > portable water-proof fires. Skipping ahead to HBP, fire is the one > thing that stops the Inferi. I'm thinking a water-proof fire will > end up being quite useful in book 7. Exodusts: If you want to view the second task in GoF as foreshadowing also, perhaps R.A.B. swopped the lockets, but soon afterward had to toss the real Horcrux into the cave lake, when the Inferi came for it. So Harry and chums could go Diving with the Dead (possible chapter title TM), armed with portable fires, to recover the Locket? Maybe they get to meet the remains of Caradoc Dearborn, if he accompanied Regulus in to the cave, but never made it out. > Angie: > I've been wondering how LV communicates with Snape at HW. Exodusts: I don't think he had to. LV doesn't trust or rely on his subordinates like the good guys do, so is there any point in touching base a lot? Remember what happened to Sauron when he was trying to handle Saruman remotely in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings? Snape has to physically go to LV in after the graveyard resurrection, when he wants to get back in with his old master. He might have later acquired a communication device or method, but surely DD's Hogwarts protection magics would have made it very difficult to use, and risky. Snape was in deep cover, so he probably had orders to make contact only where necessary. He might have met an intermediary at Hogsmeade if it was essential to pass on information. > Dung: > I reckon the bit of Voldy's soul that ended up in Harry, has been > knitting with Harry's soul in the kind of healing process that > Anne's theory would predict. Harry's soul has incorporated the Voldy > fragment. Harry doesn't have to *die* to get rid of the last > Horcrux, he has to *kill*. Exodusts: This is definitely one possibility for the conclusion - Harry casting AK and splitting his own soul beneficially, to remove Voldy's bit. And as I suggested in an earlier post, the split piece *might* have a life of its own, and try to possess someone else, if there was anyone suitable nearby, with potentially tragic consequences for the good guys. > Jen D: > What bothers me, really, is the recognition of his skill that Harry > seemed to give young Tom Riddle. I don't want to say anything > stronger because I realize I am in a murky area here. But Harry > seemed to be giving him grudging respect for his careful cultivation > of Slughorn, the right amount of hesitancy and flattery, the drawing > back when necessary. Harry wasn't repelled. That bothers me. I never > expected this, never looked at the things Harry did before he took > the Felix Felicis, (the master manipulator)as manipulations. I felt > the things he did prior to Felix were necessary to survive in an > often hostile environment without parents. Now I know it's > absolutely necessary to defeat LV, but there are lines I wouldn't > want Harry to cross. That's kind of what I am dancing around trying > to say and doing it fairly ham-fistedly judging by the number of > times I have said this!! Forgive me. Exodusts: I really think this is just absolutely necessary foreshadowing for JKR to lay down. Why? Because the good guy is going to win. And in this case the good guy is a hormonal teenage orphan. A wizard maybe, but still not really a match for LV. So JKR has to build up the special, fated connection between the two. Otherwise LV's defeat will just seem contrived. Unless we come to understand Harry as absolutely understanding LV, having a super-special insight into him (especially his feelings) in a "know-your-enemy-as-you-know-yourself" manner, him beating Voldemort just won't wash with the rational reader. Harry isn't going to the Dark Side. > Carol: > "As Harry plunged after them [Snape and Draco], one of the Death > Eaters detached themselves from the fray and flew at him: It was the > werewolf, Fenrir. He was on top of Harry before Harry before Harry > could raise his wand. Harry fell backward with filthy matted hair in > his face . . . hot greedy breath at his throat-- > > "*Petrificus Totalus*!" (HBP Am. ed. 598) > > The werewolf falls away, petrified and Harry is free. He cannot have > cast the spell himself as he's unable to raise his wand. The speaker > is unidentified. Exodusts: I understand the appeal of the symmetry of Snape saving Harry from a werewolf, but to me it is clear from the text that it is Harry who casts the spell. Firstly, JKR writes Harry using PT in exactly the same manner (without any "Harry said") only moments before the instance you describe, when he casts it on the brutal-faced Death Eater. Secondly, the chronology does say Harry sees Snape disappear round the corner. Third, when Tonks says she didn't know what Snape said, Harry says "He said It's Over", and that is indeed what Harry hears Snape say, in text description of Snape's flight before the second PT. JKR even calls it the "hated voice" for Harry. Is Harry going to mishear *that* voice then? Finally, Snape has been Mr Careful, Mr Sneaky, Mr Occlumens Champion of the Potterverse. He's even killed to maintain cover. He isn't going to start yelling "Petrificus Totalus" to save Harry, even assuming he came back round the corner. He could use a non-verbal spell. He could use some kind of whole area- affecting spell that would give Harry a chance to get away, and himself a chance to bring Fenrir to heel. He could blast Fenrir in the rump with a jab of Crucio, then scream: "He is for the Dark Lord alone!" Any number of things that he might get away with, and would achieve all the same effects (including impressing Harry as his saviour, when he comes out as a goodie) rather than PT. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Feb 20 15:29:51 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:29:51 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148462 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "h2so3f" wrote: > > susanbones: > "I realize he had to be less than forthcoming with the Dursleys but > the things he did with them, they don't seem to be at the level > he's identifying with LV. He made a bargain with Vernon, that he'd > be a good boy if he could have his permission form signed, and > well, that didn't even work out." > CH3ed: > That wasn't the only practice Harry had, though. He knew to omit > certain info when he thought they might work against him getting > what he wants like at the beginning of GoF when he had to ask > Vernon for permission to go to the Quidditch World cup, or when he > wanted to listen to the news at the beginning of OotP. As early as > in PS/SS he knew when and what not to say in order to get to go to > the zoo with the Dursleys, and he did get Draco to spill what he > knew about the Chamber of Secrets (with the help of polyjuice > potion, of course) in the Slytherin common room. In PoA he knew to > not tell his real name to Stan Shunpike when he boarded the > Knightbus while running away from the Dursleys, etc. > I think Harry can be quite cunning when he has to. I agree that he > hasn't been devious or downright manipulative, but I don't think > that is a bad skill to be able to use to get others to tell him > things without resorting to torturing them. DD was also very cunning > and used that ability to achieve peaceful results, ay? I don't think > that really tarnishes his soul. Geoff: First, if I might comment on some of the examples given above which I do not read in quite the same way... First, the visit to the zoo. Canon does not imply that Harry expected to go, despite his heart giving a leap: '"Now what?" said Aunt Petunia, looking furiously at Harry as though he'd planned this. Harry knew he ought to feel sorry that Mrs.Figg had broken her leg but it wasn't easy when he reminded himself that it would be a whole year before he had to look at Tibbles, Snowy, Mr.Paws and Tufty again. "We could phone Marge," Uncle Vernon suggested. "Don't be silly, Vernon, she hates the boy." The Dursleys often spoke about Harry like this, as though he wasn't there - or rather as though he was something very nasty that couldn't understand them, like a slug. "What about what's-her-name, your friend - Yvonne?" "On holiday in Majorca," snapped Aunt Petunia. "You could just leave me here," Harry put in hopefully (he'd be able to watch what he wanted on television for a change and maybe even have a go on Dudley's computer). Aunt Petunia looked as if she'd just swallowed a lemon. "And come back and find the house in ruins?" she snarled. "I won't blow up the house," said Harry but they weren't listening.' (PS "The Vanishing Glass" p.22 UK edition) [Two interesting points occur which are not directly linked to this thread. It is interesting that Petunia actually vetoes Aunt Marge because she "hates the boy". Seems to run counter to some of the treatment they hand to him elsewhere. Also interesting is Harry's comment about blowing up the house, since it is not much later in time that he finds out that Lily "got herself blown up"...] Moving on, Harry didn't exactly make a bargain to be a good boy because he added conditions of his own, which admittedly went in Vernon's ear and out of the other: '"Firstly," growled Uncle Vernon, "you'll keep a civil tongue in your head when talking to Marge." "All right," said Harry bitterly, "if she does when she's talking to me." "Secondly," said Uncle Vernon, acting as though he had not heard Harry's reply, "as Marge doesn't know anything about your abnormality, I don't want any - any funny stuff while she's here. You behave yourself, got me?" "I will if she does," said Harry through gritted teeth.' (COS "Aunt Marge's Big Mistake" p.20 UK edition) Again, keeping his name from Stan Shunpike was to keep himself out of more trouble. Remember, he is running scared at this point in time. I do not believe that the sort of behaviour I have mentioned counts as cunning or manipulative in my eyes... My dictionary presents cunning as being "skilled in achieving one's ends by deceit or evasion". Manipulate is to "handle or control with dexterity" and manipulative is "tending to manipulate other people cleverly or unscrupulously". If he has learned anything at Privet Drive, it is not to do the above but to keep a low profile, not to ask questions and not to do anything which might provoke Vernon (in particular) to take it out on him either verbally or physically. He seeks a quiet life free of the discrimination, unfairness and cruelty which he has been receiving as long as he can rememeber. In this context Harry is not cunning or manipulative, he is quite justifiably exercising survival skills which is a very different kettle of fish. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Feb 20 15:36:31 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:36:31 -0000 Subject: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148463 Houyhnhnm: I don't think Harry will be able to assimilate the soul fragment without making difficult choices. Not all choices involve action or even physical risk, though. Letting go of anger and viewing others with compassion is a choice. I think there is much foreshadowing in Harry's growing ability to feel compassion, towards Ron, towards Luna. At the end of HBP, he is even able to feel pity for Draco. And even some for Tom Riddle. Maybe this is why Dumbledore spent all his sessions with Harry reviewing Tom Riddle's history through the pensieve memories rather than teaching Harry DADA skills. I think ultimately Harry has to forgive Riddle/Voldemort in order to destroy him. What kind of magic this will set in motion I don't know. Dungrollin: Okay. I'm not denying that love (compassion etc) is destined to play a part in book seven (I was desperately hoping the power wasn't love, but ... well, these things are sent to try us...), I can see that tying in with plot points ? Draco, Snape, etc. I'll even grant that there should be some forgiveness coming. I can't see Harry ever forgiving Voldemort though, because he and Dumbledore have made it clear that what drives Harry in his defeat- Voldy quest is a furious desire for vengeance which is all Voldy's fault. Take that away, and where is Harry's reason for going on? Can you really see Harry forgiving Voldemort and *then* destroying him? Houyhnhnm: I am thinking of how LV could not bear to continue possessing Harry when Harry was thinking of Sirius. Maybe the part of Voldemort's ego that resides in the soul piece will be driven out in a similar manner and the soul piece will become part of Harry's soul. Dungrollin: My problem with turning the battle into some internal struggle of Harry's is this: how could such a process manifest itself as a satisfying climax to a series of action-packed children's adventures? Since it's so vague, it feels a little too like pulling a black hole that you didn't know you had out of your back pocket and saying "Ha! I destroy your all-powerful space fleet which is about to wipe our last pathetic pocket of resistance off the map!" There are other reasons I don't like it, too. What you and Neri are describing sounds like a kind of spiritual journey which is not at all how I've read any of the previous books - the bildungsroman aspect of Harry's story is really not near the surface at all, to my mind. It's there, definitely, I'm sure that there's some realisation, some forgiveness or empathy that comes with growing up (it will take 7 books to get Harry where he has to be) which will turn out to be vital in the end, but that it's the actual manner of offing Voldy... it just doesn't float my boat. (Admittedly none of my boats have turned out to be seaworthy.) Perhaps one of the reasons I don't find it very attractive is that books which describe spiritual journeys *of necessity* lack something. I'm thinking primarily of things like Herman Hesse. Siddartha, for example, is the story of one man finding enlightenment, but when you read it you don't find enlightenment yourself. If JKR could somehow compel the *reader* to forgive Voldy as well as describe Harry doing it, then I would bow down and worship her until the end of my days, but that's setting the bar extraordinarily high, and it ... it just doesn't seem like JKR's style to me. She seems to me to demonstrate Potterverse morals by inflicting magical punishments on those who choose wrongly, which is why I find my scenario interesting. Houyhnhnm: If the other horcruxes have been destroyed at this point, then perhaps the survival of LV's unnatural "body" is irrelevant. Maybe he will melt into a mound of brown sugar. Dung: LV's body irrelevant? Hmm. I'm not so sure. It's only when Voldy's main bit of soul is in a body that the scar connection seems to work. Harry had scar-pain and visions to a certain degree when Voldy was baby!mort, then much more strongly after the rebodification until Voldy started employing Occlumency against him. Harry's scar also reacted to Quirrell when he was being possessed, but it didn't react to the Diary Horcrux at all. Now that could be because it would have been a dead give-away that Voldy was behind the opening of the Chamber, but it's also a fact that Diary!Tom didn't have a body, so there may be a more interesting thematic interpretation. Since the scar connection is one of the "uniquely deadly weapons" that Dumbledore assures Harry Voldy kitted him out with at GH, I'd say that ignoring Voldy's body ? and remember "It will take uncommon skill and power to defeat a wizard like Voldemort, even without his Horcruxes," ? might be a mistake. Houyhnhnm: Along the way I think Harry will also have to forgive Snape and the Dursleys. These will be difficult choices indeed. Much harder than getting past a dragon, killing a basilisk, or duelling with Voldemort. Dung: So in effect, you reckon Dumbledore was wrong, at the end of OotP, right? Harry is not limited to the choice between kill or be killed, there's a way to worm out of having to choose? It could be that's what JKR's going for, that murder is never the only option, there's always another way. And I can completely see why you'd like this to be the case. Dung, previously: Basically, I don't think Harry would be able to get it all done with one Avada Kedavra on Voldy. I think that another life will have to be lost. Snow: Except that you may be forgetting that it is inadvisable to create a Horcrux with a living thing such as Nagini (or Harry) because they have a will of their own. HBP U.S. 506 There is a wide-open space for wiggle room for the author to proclaim that even an unintentional-Horcrux!Harry had a will of his own so anything can happen as a result. Dung: I'm sorry, I don't follow you. How does Harry having free will mean that anything can happen? I think that (barring Neri and Houyhnhnm's hope that there's some way of turning the bit of Voldy's soul into a bit of Harry's soul) the scenario I posted really limits his choices to the two I outlined, die innocent or live and sin. How are you saying JKR could wiggle out of this? Have I missed something? Snow: JKR is the ultimate, isn't she? She may be bad at maths but the way in which she combats her expected confrontations (i.e. not all deatheaters knew each other) is phenomenal. I'm fairly sure this is one of those accounts. Dung: Sorry, I must be being thick, I still don't follow you... Could you spell it out? Dungrollin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 20 15:38:30 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:38:30 -0000 Subject: Neville's Grandfather. In-Reply-To: <20060220014339.41221.qmail@web42207.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148464 Peg DiGrazia wrote: > It seems to me that Neville would > have been too young at the time > of his parents' torture for a death > to "register" in his mind enough to > give him the ability to see the thestrals The torture of his parents shocked people because it happened after Voldemort disappeared and people started to feel safe again. So Neville must have been older than Harry was when his parents were murdered, perhaps several years older. He could remember it, or he could if his memory wasn't so bad. His grandfather might have been killed to induce his parents to talk if torture wasn't working. Perhaps the reason Neville's memory is bad is that there are some things he doesn't want to remember. Eggplant From adzuroth at hotmail.com Mon Feb 20 03:13:57 2006 From: adzuroth at hotmail.com (Adzuroth) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 03:13:57 -0000 Subject: About that egg........ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148465 Adzuroth: Yowzers! I never would've thought my first post on here about accioing the dragon egg would spark such a reaction *hee, hee!* Anyway, here's a friendly little rebuttal for Eggplant's and A_svirn's replies: Eggplant wrote: you are on foot and have the egg under your > > arm; you are in the stadium and standing right next to a very large > > and very angry dragon. I don't think you life expectancy would be > very > > long. Adzuroth wrote: True enough, but once you have the egg under your arm (or anywhere else in your possession) you've won the challenge. It would then be up to the other wizards to get the dragon under control so the champion doesn't get hurt. Also, if the dragoness regards the golden egg as one of her own, her motherly instinct would kick in and keep her from breathing fire on the champion which would endanger the egg (true, some dragons breathe fire on their eggs to warm them, but if this dragoness was sitting on her eggs then that is likely how she keeps them warm). I don't have the GOF book in front of me, but wasn't time a factor in the score? If it was then accioing the dragon egg would've let Harry beat the other champions on time easily. a_svirn wrote: But wasn't the dragoness *sitting* on her eggs? It's not likely that > accio would work under such circumstances. > Adzuroth wrote: Accio may or may not work on an egg a dragon is sitting on (after all, in OOTP when Fred and George accio'd their brooms they broke a heavy chain and crashed through doors to get to them) but all it would take is a little distraction (like running around everywhere) for the dragoness to raise herself up to breathe fire on Harry and he could use the spell. Adzuroth From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 20 16:13:59 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:13:59 -0000 Subject: About that egg........ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148466 "Adzuroth" wrote: > once you have the egg under your arm > (or anywhere else in your possession) > you've won the challenge. Yes but you wouldn't have much time to celebrate your victory if you had no transportation and were just a few feet away from an angry fire breathing monster. > It would then be up to the other > wizards to get the dragon under >control so the champion doesn't get hurt. The trouble is that the Tri Wizard safety precautions were notoriously bad, I certainly wouldn't trust them to save me from Godzilla. I'd rather trust a good fast broom. > wasn't time a factor in the score? Yes it was and Harry was the fastest to get his egg. And better yet with the way he did it he lived to tell the tale. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 16:55:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:55:12 -0000 Subject: Failed or Faked AK to kill DD (Was: DD Not Dead) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148467 Gryffindor Chaser wrote: > I've read other people's opinions on whether Snape said a nonverbal > spell while doing the AK curse on DD. So, collaborating what others > have said, and what I have read, I think that yes, Snape used the > AK curse, but since he didn't mean it, it still produced a green > flash, but only knocked DD off his feet, in the air and over the > ledge. In this way, it is possible, as when Harry used the > Unforgivable curse against Bellatrix in OotP, that the curse still > works, but not to its fullest extent. Carol responds: While it could be a weak AK, Snape's skill with nonverbal spells leads me to believe that a nonverbal spell disguised as an AK makes more sense to me. Snape *needed* Dumbledore to go over the wall so he could get Draco, Harry (he would have known Harry was there because of the second broom) and the DEs off the tower, and an AK wouldn't do that. It would have killed DD instantly and he would simply have fallen backward as Cedric did, allowing Fenrir Greyback to savage his body and the unfrozen Harry to rush forward to fight the DEs. Having DD fall from the tower would give him time to close his eyes (AK victims have open eyes) and prepare for death, either from the fall or the poison. There's also the little time lag--Harry is not instantly released from the freezing spell. He is still frozen as he watches DD rise into the air, float limply like a rag doll for a few seconds (has Snape added something to slow the fall?), and then disappear. Not your usual AK, this. Note, too, that there was *no* blinding flash (the flash from Wormtail's AK was so bright that Harry could see it *through closed eyes* and no rushing sound. Snape could have chosen some other spell, such as Impedimenta (we haven't been told what color the light from an Impedimenta is--could it be green?) that would send DD over the wall. He spoke the words "Avada Kedavra" but did not "roar" them like Crouch!Moody when he killed the spider or "scream them into the night" like Wormtail murdering Cedric. If he didn't *mean* them and did mean the nonverbal spell, surely the nonverbal spell would have been the more powerful. (I have a feeling that if a fully qualified wizard like Snape is talking about Avada Kedavra with another wizard in conversation and happens to have his wand in his hand when he speaks the words, the wand isn't going to accidentally go off and kill the other wizard.) If you don't mean a powerful curse that requires intention, nothing is going to happen. But Snape had to intend something that would allow Dumbledore to die and prevent the UV from kicking in. I suggest that what he meant or intended was the Impedimenta or other nonverbal spell. Disguising it as an AK made him look like Voldemort's man to the DEs, Draco, and Harry, serving Dumbledore's purpose and allowing him to die peacefully, looking neither surprised nor terrified nor angry but with the same "wise old face" Harry has always known and the eyes closed as if he were asleep. This image of the sleeping Dumbledore resurfaces when we see DD's portrait, with the adjective "peaceful" added. Significant? I think so. But I don't think his death is faked with a phoenix or the Draught of Living Death or any such contrived solution, or Snape would have died for breaking the UV. (The UV wouldn't care whether DD died from a spell or the poison or a fall as long as he's dead.) There's also that little trickle of blood coming from his mouth which Pippin thinks indicates internal bleeding, and which seems unlikely to result from either an AK or a fall. Why does it matter whether Snape used a real AK or not? Because a failed or faked AK combined with a nonverbal curse would show that he killed DD against his will because he had no choice, and perhaps because DD wanted him to ("Severus, please"). It would also be a choice not to use the weapon of the Death Eaters, even though only he and Dumbledore would know that he had made that choice. It does not exonerate him, but it makes him a tragic figure trapped by his own past sins, mistakes, and manipulations into killing a man he did not want to kill and *could not* kill using an AK. It also makes Harry an unwilling party in Dumbledore's death, which would not have happened if DD had not been force-fed the poison on his own orders. Here again, the hero (Harry) and the anti-hero (Snape) are in similar positions that the hero has yet to recognize and understand. One more little thing. As Harry is running past the Order members, just before Fenrir Greyback attacks him, the big blond Death Eater is hit by an Impedimenta, which acts remarkably like the supposed AK that knocks DD from the tower except that there is no rampart for him to fall over, so he merely slides back down the wall. Carol, examining the puzzle pieces and trying to fit them together in a way that makes sense without violating canon or deviating from the Snape of the other five books, who for all his faults appears to be Dumbledore's man From mailyn.dejesus at agb.com.ph Mon Feb 20 03:42:18 2006 From: mailyn.dejesus at agb.com.ph (Mai de Jesus) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:42:18 +0800 Subject: My thoughts on some things....... References: Message-ID: <029d01c635cf$a6658010$7c01a8c0@mailyn> No: HPFGUIDX 148468 Hi! first timer here... > Adzuroth: > After reading Dumbledore's death scene a few times I couldn't > help but think that Dumbledore (DD) might have tried faked > his death. (SNIP) Mai: As much as I would like to have DD alive and hiding somewhere instead of dead and entombed, I still believe DD has truly passed on for two reasons: 1. In connection to the story line, as central character in the HP Series, Harry has to be the the big hero at the end of the story. I don't think this can be accomplished unless characters who love & care for Harry and who will protect him from further suffering at all cost, are eliminated or at least incapacitated to assist Harry when the time comes for him to fulfill his ulitmate destiny. With this thinking, I am, as early as now, preparing myself for the deaths of a handful more of Harry's wizard friends including classmates, Hagrid, Remus, Tonks, Professor McGonagall and the Weaselys. 2. Also, I don't think she'll use this (dead, undead) lame plot. I don't think she'd like to give her readers false hopes or wrong signals. I remember reading her comment where she expressed concern over the tendency of people in one discussion group to call LV "Voldy", making him cute & cuddly instead of sinister. I think JKR would like to teach her readers early on and among others, the reality of death and loss and therefore when she kills off characters specially those that are well-liked or loved (eg, Sirius, Dumbledore) we can be sure that they're truly and forevermore, dead. > Adzuroth: > Oh yeah, one other little detail. In the first triwizard challenge, > why didn't Harry simply say "accio dragon egg" instead of "accio > firebolt"? Any of the champions could've done it since there was no > mention of any spells preventing that. If the dragon was holding > onto the egg, all one had to do was distract it long enough for the > dragon to take its claws off the egg, then nail it with the accio > spell. Mai: Hahaha! I also have the same thought...but maybe beacuse Dragons are powerful magical creatures and nesting mother dragons are specially protective of their eggs, a summoning spell wouldn't have worked anyway? From brahadambal at indiatimes.com Mon Feb 20 08:18:23 2006 From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:18:23 -0000 Subject: DD Not Dead -- DD's fall, 'arcs' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148469 > > Gryffindor Chaser adds: > > I think that yes, Snape used the AK curse, but since > > he didn't mean it, it still produced a green flash, but only > > knocked DD off his feet, in the air and over the ledge. > > Exodusts: > This interpretation of the events is good, because it explains > why JKR wrote the spectacular fall into the story. As people who > have argued in favour of DD-is-alive put it: we know that AK just > snuffs out life where it is. JKR didn't need to have DD tumble > off the tower, Just on a side-note: Why is that everybody Harry "loves" end up dead (and all almost in the same "arc" manner) ?? Sirius went through the veil in an arc and then DD's body flies over the ramparts and then "arcs" downwards ... what does all this point to? When HP says "All the people Snape hated are ending up dead", but we can also notice that all the people whom HP loves are dying too. Isn't all this too much of a coincidence? Are we being subtly pointed to something more sinister in all this? brady. (confunded!!) From kking0731 at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 17:20:01 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:20:01 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148470 Dung, previously: Basically, I don't think Harry would be able to get it all done with one Avada Kedavra on Voldy. I think that another life will have to be lost. Snow previously: Except that you may be forgetting that it is inadvisable to create a Horcrux with a living thing such as Nagini (or Harry) because they have a will of their own. HBP U.S. 506 There is a wide-open space for wiggle room for the author to proclaim that even an unintentional-Horcrux!Harry had a will of his own so anything can happen as a result. Dung: I'm sorry, I don't follow you. How does Harry having free will mean that anything can happen? I think that (barring Neri and Houyhnhnm's hope that there's some way of turning the bit of Voldy's soul into a bit of Harry's soul) the scenario I posted really limits his choices to the two I outlined, die innocent or live and sin. How are you saying JKR could wiggle out of this? Have I missed something? Snow: My point was that we don't know what can happen (because of the variables) to a Horcrux that has been encased in a living soul. Dumbledore said that it would be inadvisable to encase a soul piece inside something that can think for itself. We don't know what Harry could be capable of doing to destroy the piece of soul that is a part of him. There may be many doorways to how Harry can get rid of or influence the soul piece to the extent of destroying Voldemort as a result because of the free will status. Snow previously: JKR is the ultimate, isn't she? She may be bad at maths but the way in which she combats her expected confrontations (i.e. not all deatheaters knew each other) is phenomenal. I'm fairly sure this is one of those accounts. Dung: Sorry, I must be being thick, I still don't follow you... Could you spell it out? Snow: I'll try but this may only make sense to me :) It's as if JKR purposely throws in a wrench so that you can't come to a constant conclusion. Take the death eaters as an example; you can't be absolute as to who is definitely a death eater because of the statement made that not all death eaters knew each other. In this respect anyone could be death eater, even Lupin :), because JKR through the wrench in to the equation. Now we have been told, from Slughorn and Dumbledore, the limited information about Horcruxes but then the wrench is thrown into the equation when Dumbledore states that it would be inadvisable to encase a soul fragment in a living thing that has a will of its own. No matter how a Horcrux in an inanimate object can be destroyed, the equation changes when the Horcrux is inside a living thinking person or animal. So even if we are told how a Horcrux can be destroyed inside an inanimate object that procedure may not be the same as inside a living thing because of the free will factor. Snow 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 Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! SPONSORED LINKS [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sydpad at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 17:32:20 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:32:20 -0000 Subject: Why leave Harry/Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148471 > Dung: > Can someone please explain to me why on earth Snape is unable to > fake a large bout of remorse and pretend to be in love with Lily? > How does it provide a watertight reason for DD to trust him? It doesn't. Harry is mistaken in what Dumbledore was trying to tell him and inadvertently played a bit of a game of 'telephone' (or chinese whispers for those across the pond) when he made his explanations to the order. Harry says: "I'd love to know what Snape told him to convince him," said Tonks. "I know," said Harry, and they all turned to look at him. "Snape passed Voldemort the information that made Voldemort hunt down my mom and dad. Then Snape told Dumbledore he hadn't realized what he was doing, he was really sorry he'd done it, sorry that they were dead." This is what Dumbledore actually says: (Harry): "He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?" "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and reason he turned--" "But HE'S a very good Occlumens, isn't he, sir?" said Harry, whose voice was shaking with the effort of keeping it steady. "And isn't Voldemort convinced Snape's on his side, even now? Professor... how can you be SURE Snape's on our side?" Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was trying to make up his mind about something. At last he said, "I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely." Dumbledore's phrasing makes a distinctinction between two things. He says he BELIEVES it was the reason Snape turned, but he is speculating-- he doesn't know. He is offering Harry a mitigation. However, he says he is SURE that Snape is on his side, he trusts him absolutely. I tend to think the Snape-trust thing is an event, hopefully a fabulously dramatic one we can see in Pensive-o-vision. And Dumbledore's "I believe" suggests to me that Snape never explicitly laid out to him what his reasons were. Which does sound more Snapey than blubbering about his love for Lily! If Harry paid a bit more attention, he would have sorted out that the repentance narrative, and the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape, are two seperate things, and he still doesn't know why Dumbledore trusts Snape so completely. But Harry conflates them, erasing the distinction-- and incidentally, putting the repentance story AFTER the deaths of the Potters, even though he himself heard Dumbledore testify that Snape had changed sides BEFORE Voldemort's downfall. Of course, JKR is encouraging the audience to go with the flimsy reason by planting it at the start of the book in "Spinner's End"! --Sydney From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 17:53:36 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:53:36 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148472 Jen wrote: I may be the only > one who thinks Slughorn's talk of obsessive love and the Tom > Riddle/Merope deal had nothing to do with Snape and Lily and > everything to do with Voldemort. But oh well, we can't get > everything we want, right? Carol responds: No, you're not the only one. I think that Voldemort's "offer" to let Lily live had everything to do with his desire to kill Harry and nothing to do with Snape, and I share your repugnance at the idea of "Snape collapsing down, as Nora also puts it, into a heap of blubbering lost love"--or worse, bargaining with LV to save Lily at the expense of James and Harry. There's just no canon to support that. Nor do I see any way that Snape could have been at Godric's Hollow. I have yet to receive an answer to my question about how Snape could have been told the secret of the Potters' hiding place when we know he was at Hogwarts at the time, or why Pettigrew would have told him even if he could. Jen wrote: > Anyway, just read Tonks post before posting this one and think maybe > she has a good idea: It's the hatred of the Marauders, the life debt > and feelings for Lily rolled up in one. Now that sounds like some > drama and angst, doesn't it? All those competing factors > contributing in the end. Carol responds: Yes, I'll concede that feelings of some sort for Lily, reluctance to allow a good woman to be killed, along with her innocent child, as a result of his having revealed the Prophecy to Voldemort, could have played a part in his "return" (DD's word) to Dumbledore. I think that the life debt also played an important role. He hated James but didn't want him to die, tried to persuade him that one of his friends was about to betray him but was rebuffed because James was too "arrogant" to believe him, and in desperation, he went to Dumbledore. (There may have been other factors as well, including the death of Regulus Black.) He began spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" in hopes of preventing the deaths of the Potters, then applied for the DADA position on LV's orders and took the Potions position instead, at which point he could only hope that DD's idea of a Fidelius Charm protected the Potters. He could not have known about the Secret Keeper switch or the location of their hiding place or the plot to kill the Potters at Halloween because he was at Hogwarts. He could nothing to prevent their deaths; hence his remorse when he found out what had happened. So, yes, I can see a version of Snape-loves-Lily as partial motivation for Snape's return to Dumbledore, for the risks he took as spy, for his acceptance of the Potions position in lieu of the cursed DADA job, even for his later antipathy to Harry (whom he protects despite his loathing because the real enemy is Voldemort). But I don't see any necessity for Snape to be at Godric's Hollow or any way that he could have been there. Voldemort had sufficient reason to tell Lily to "step aside" without Snape's involvement, there is no evidence of anyone else's presence (other than a certain rat Animagus) at Godric's Hollow, and Snape had more than sufficient reason for remorse over the deaths of the Potters without his having tried and failed to save her at Godric's Hollow (how could LV trust him after that?) and without bargaining with LV to have her as his reward, a la Wormtongue and Eowyn, for which we have absolutely no canon evidence, only fanfic. As far as I can see, those who hold this view hold it only because they want to do so and are unwilling to consider the possibility that "Step aside, girl" means no more than the obvious fact that Lily was in Voldemort's way. It is his undervaluing of her love and her sacrifice that's important, not some hidden intention to reward Snape by giving him the woman he lusts after. (We have yet to see Snape *lusting* after anyone, though his response to Narcissa indicates that he, unlike Voldemort, does not underestimate the importance of a mother's love for her child.) Carol, once again asking 1) what purpose is served by having Snape at Godric's Hollow, 2) how he could have been there when we know he was teaching at Hogwarts at the time, 3) how and why PP would have revealed the secret to him, and 4) what canon evidence can be shown to indicate that he was there. (And, yes, I've read the post that Alla linked me to. I read it when it was first posted and reread it yesterday, and I remain unconvinced. Canon and logic, please!) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Feb 20 18:00:40 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:00:40 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148473 Jen discovers the lethal combination of the Cheerleader of Doom with Ceridwen's logic has acted like the drip, drip of a faucet to change her mind to the *possibility* Snape's unrequited love for Lily might be...OK. Still, there IS more canon for ACID POPS. Just had to say that . Sydney: > I gotta say, when I read that [TIME magazine quote upthread], the > only words I come up with were, "WTF?!" Because okay, certainly > there is some fantasty still being written about morris-dancing to > Greensleeves, but has this guy READ any fantasy novels post, what, > 1975? Fantasy writing is 'inherently conservative'? Ever hear of > Ursula LeGuin? WTF? > In any event, I totally agree that JKR doesn't use basic cliches of > fantasy. She uses basic cliches of 19th century fiction, and > turn-of-the-century school stories. I don't think there's been > this many fat jokes since the days of Billy Bunter. Jen: Thanks for explaining that article comment. I get very confused about which genre IS primary at times and know nothing about fantasy literature. That last TLC/MN interview finally set it in my mind that JKR does see her primary genre as fantasy, with detective fiction as a secondary. And romance, which she seems to enjoy writing even though I feel like a test subject for that one. ;) Sydney: > Oh, TOTALLY. Soooo much more interesting, why do you think sitcoms > collapse when they resolve the sexual tension? Unrequited, crammed > into the furthest corner of black soul, unspoken. Unless exodust's > fiendishly clever idea just up-thread that poor Snivellus was once > Veritaserumed in the middle of the Great Hall comes to pass... > although would even Sirius be that mean? It sure brings a wallop > to Snape's threat to use it on Harry. Jen: OK, I'm getting the picture here. Then Ceridwen said this, which is very compelling: "Unrequited love isn't romance. Been there, done that. It hurts. And JKR does pretty well with the torture. I'm just hoping we won't get CAPSLOCK!Snape if she does go there - Snape's already dramatic enough. Can you imagine him emoting?" Snigger. NO. (Sniggering over Emoting!Snape btw and not the pain of unrequited love--been there, done that too). But I am suddenly getting a very humourous picture of Harry trying to take this in, that Snape loved his sainted Mum. Poor Harry--maybe that's what JKR meant about horrible things in store for him? But someone still needs to explain how this revelation will not turn Harry even more against Snape. That would be a repulsive idea to him. Well...unless he finds out from Lily that she didn't love Snape but did see something good in him and was sad to see him go down the path he took. Harry would believe in Lily if not Snape. Hmm, answered my own objection there. Sydney: > Speaking of Unrequited Love, nasty as Snape is, I don't think he > would do this. Not because it's wrong, but because IMO the LAST > thing a guy like that would want would be to ACTUALLY GET THE > GIRL. I mean, then he'd have to, like, TALK TO HER. Noooo... > nice mile-high pedestal, that's the safe place for girls Snape > likes. Jen: Yeah, I think it's safe to say even Ron, with is tablespoon now, is way ahead of Snape on the emotional maturity scale. He pretty much insured Lily would go far, far away with the Mudlbood comment, didn't he? Maybe her trying to save him was getting a bit too close for comfort. Sydney: > Just plain yummy, that's the word . I mean, I think there's a > danger of caricaturing the S/L thing into something really awful, > but it doesn't have to be that. Although, mind you, given the HBP > romances... *shudder*... in my gut though I think JKR will be much, > much more on her game writing something as messed-up as Snape's > feelings for Lily than the shiny-happy-people H/G and R/H > romances. Messed-up is what she does best, and much as I adore > Snape he is definietly not A-Okay. Ceridwen: > And as I said, CAPSLOCK!Snape would not be my idea of a quiet > read. It would be worse if he collapses,CAPSLOCK and all, into a > heap of blubbering lost love! But so far, I haven't been > disappointed overall with the series or I would have stopped > reading it a long time ago. Jen: I think you are both saying it's all how it's written and like you Ceridwen, JKR hasn't ever let me down, personally. I've bought it all, even if sometimes I have to squint a little bit. Something Ceridwen wrote makes a good case for how JKR could pull it all together with Snape in-character and also believable that Harry could swallow the bitter pill: Jen first: > Anyway, just read Tonks post before posting this one and think > maybe she has a good idea: It's the hatred of the Marauders, the > life debt and feelings for Lily rolled up in one. Now that sounds > like some drama and angst, doesn't it? All those competing factors > contributing in the end. Ceridwen: > And that could make all the difference in the scenario being > believable, or being not just cliche, but trite and downright > stupid. Otherwise, Snape has had more than enough time to move on > from both the unrequited love, and the schoolyard hatred. That >teensy little point of his info leading to the Potters' death is a > very good hook to hang it all. Jen, sobbing in her beer (Diet Coke, really) and crossing her fingers. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Feb 20 18:00:29 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:00:29 -0000 Subject: HBP's notes/Lupin on GH night/non-Latin spell/Love Potion/fetalLV/ Marge/Nev Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148474 a_svirn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148270 : << What can you possibly tell about the boy in the textbook, except that he's talented in Potions and Dark Arts? Unlike the Pensive Episode or Riddle's Diary, it does not reveal much about his personality. Certainly there is nothing to suggest that he's "good" much less "like Harry". Admmitely, there is nothing to suggest that he's "bad" either, but still it's hardly a key to his soul. >> We can tell that he's a smart-ass, based on the 'Just shove a bezoar down their throats' note. To some listies, that *is* his good quality. Perhaps someone who has read more of the notes written in the textbook than we have could have learned more about him, a sense of humor, a taste for literary references, a style of magic... a_svirn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148342 : << from where she stood Lupin simply did not feature in it. For the simple reason that he didn't take his part in the final showdown. Which, in turn, poses another question: just why didn't he take his part in it? >> I've always thought it happened on a Full Moon night, while Remus was chained up in the garden shed. When he returned to human, his world had shockingly changed. Lolita wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148358 : << On the other hand, I find it interesting that [Avada Kedavra] is the only spell in HP (as far as I remember) that isn't based either on sth that resembles English or on broken Latin. >> Alohomora. There has been a suggestion that '-mora' comes from Latin, 'mura', wall, but I have heard no suggestion that 'aloho-' comes from Latin or English. Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148407 : << And Tom Riddle Sr. and Merope seem like such a nice foreshadowing for Snape possibly wanting to drug Lily with Love Potion and (maybe?) abandoning such idea at some point. Heeee! You know my not very flattering opinion of his moral character. :) >> Many teens have wanted to give someone a Love Potion ... me included. Wanting to is not a sign of bad moral character. Jen wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148411 : << JKR did say in the TLC/MN interview there was something significant about the fetal form Voldemort took prior to a full body: >> I think uglybaby!Voldemort looked like a fetus because that body had been made in poor Bertha's womb -- mind destroyed, her body could still be used as an incubator. Geoff wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148462 : << It is interesting that Petunia actually vetoes Aunt Marge because she "hates the boy". Seems to run counter to some of the treatment they hand to him elsewhere. >> I thought Petunia meant that Marge would refuse to babysit the hated boy. Eggplant wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148464 : << His grandfather might have been killed to induce his parents to talk if torture wasn't working. >> Neville's grandfather might have died peacefully of old age, in bed, surrounded by family members and a private nurse, after Neville was already living with his gammer and gaffer. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Feb 20 18:23:45 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:23:45 -0500 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long In-Reply-To: <1140422561.3213.40260.m22@yahoogroups.com> References: <1140422561.3213.40260.m22@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C80461EB597ADF-FC8-C853@MBLK-R03.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148475 Juli: > (And, yes, Snape "started" it and basically forced Harry to hate him, > but Harry still has to overcome that hatred or fail his hero's quest.) Alla: Yeah, agreed on "Snape started it", but want to ask the question which I asked in the past, but don't remember the answer from anybody from "opposing debating side" :-) Where does it say in the books that Harry HAS TO overcome his hatred or fail his quest? No, I am not asking for evidence that love will help Harry to win, that is crystal clear to me. I am also not asking for evidence that Harry will forgive Snape, that is also if not crystal clear to me, then definitely very possible. What I am asking I suppose is evidence or hints or whatever that if Harry decides not to forgive Snape, he will necessarily loose. I am asking for evidence that in order to win Harry has to not just feel something positive towards Snape, which surely possible if he discovers some information in Snape past,which make him pity the man, but also completely overcome the feelings of hatred towards someone who hurt him so very badly so many times. That is IMO of course. What I am trying to say again, I guess I just don't see the necessity for Harry to feel ONLY positive emotions towards Snape, but feel both pity and something more negative at the same time. I would just find it not very realistic if during one confrontation Harry's feelings towards Snape transform from hatred to love. IMO of course, it will be something in the middle. I also don't think that "HAS TO" will play out, because HAS To implies to me that Harry will have to force himself to feel something good towards Snape. IMO Harry will grant Snape his forgiveness rather unexpectedly, maybe even not realising fully why he does it, just that Harry's true nature will shine through. I don't see Harry telling himself before he goes to bed in book 7 "must stop hating Snape or will fail my quest". IMO of course. Julie: I don't see Harry saying that either. And I don't think he has to feel only positive emotions. He just can't be *ruled* by his anger and hate. That's the trap Harry is in danger of falling into, the trap that Snape fell into and where he still resides even after all these years. There is nowhere in the books that says Harry *has* to stop hating Snape, but there is the implication that he has to maintain a pure heart and soul (Dumbledore mentions that Harry has such, at least to this point). I don't think he can face Voldemort with a pure heart and soul if he acts against Snape in vengeance, which is what he wants to do now, and will do if he's still ruled by his anger and hate when the two meet again. He'll no doubt still dislike Snape, maybe even hate him if he is ESE, but he will be able to forgive Snape (which he can only do if he is able to overcome that driving anger and hate, and replace it with some level of understanding and compassion/pity). I hope that explains my position. I do think Voldemort could use Harry's hate of Snape against him, if Harry allows it, and Voldemort will probably try if he recognizes it as a potential weakness ripe for exploitation. Harry's already tried to cast Unforgivables, but he didn't have the heart to follow through, and I feel certain he'll be tempted again in Book 7. But he'll resist the temptation and do what's right instead of what's easy, because he is, after all, Dumbledore's Man. And our hero :-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 18:50:30 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:50:30 -0000 Subject: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long In-Reply-To: <8C80461EB597ADF-FC8-C853@MBLK-R03.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148476 > Alla: > I don't see Harry telling himself before he goes to bed in book > 7 "must stop hating Snape or will fail my quest". IMO of course. > > > Julie: > I don't see Harry saying that either. And I don't think he has > to feel only positive emotions. He just can't be *ruled* by his > anger and hate. That's the trap Harry is in danger of falling > into, the trap that Snape fell into and where he still resides > even after all these years. Alla: Oh, Harry not being "ruled" by anger and hate is totally different story (IMO of course) that saying than Harry has to feel love and only love towards Snape and in a very short time abandon all ( IMO very justifiable negative feelings) what he previously felt towards Snape. I understand the trap of " being like Snape", but as I wrote in the past, for some strange reason I feel supremely confident that Harry is not in danger of falling into this trap. I also wrote in the past that the ONLY lesson I can see Dumbledore giving Harry by showing Snape's example is not to be like Snape, ever, but Again, I don't think Harry is in such great danger in the first place. Julie: > There is nowhere in the books that says Harry *has* to stop > hating Snape, but there is the implication that he has to > maintain a pure heart and soul (Dumbledore mentions that Harry > has such, at least to this point). I don't think he can face > Voldemort with a pure heart and soul if he acts against Snape > in vengeance, which is what he wants to do now, and will do if > he's still ruled by his anger and hate when the two meet again. Alla: Indeed, but don't you find it interesting that Dumbledore mentions that Harry has a pure heart and soul AFTER he tried to curse Bella. I don't buy that Dumbledore did not know about it, so to me he is strangely unconcerned with Harry's attempt to cast Unforgivable. Don't get me wrong, as I said many times, I adore Harry, I find him by the end of book 6 to be the character of real not imaginary complexity, but I certainly would not mind him to be tempted some more by Dark side :-). It looks like Dumbledore is quite confident that Harry is not in such a danger. Does it mean that as long as you don't have intent to hurt, it does not matter that you tried to cast Unforgivable? Or does it mean that as lonhg as you try to cast Unforgivable with sufficient provocation, it is Ok? (I strongly doubt my second suggestion, so I will go with the first one). I really really wish Snape would not be able to block Harry's Unforgivable ( not because I want Snape to suffer, although I really really do - but moral humiliation will do the trick for me) but because I would be VERY curious to see if Harry's Unforgiveable would work on Snape. I have a VERY strong suspicion that it would not work either. Julie: > He'll no doubt still dislike Snape, maybe even hate him if he > is ESE, but he will be able to forgive Snape (which he can only > do if he is able to overcome that driving anger and hate, and > replace it with some level of understanding and compassion/pity). Alla: That can be done realistically as long as Harry won't feel just love towards the man, IMO of course. But here is another thing which I should probably clarify, in case I was not clear in the past. I see that the ONLY positive emotion Harry can feel towards Snape as pity, so I am sure people who believe in DD!M Snape can add respect to the mix, I cannot even do that. Because even though I sure find some varieties of DD!M Snape to be possible and well done, I still for myself do not buy Dumbledore asking Snape to kill him ( especially if Dumbledore was not diying from the poison), it requires for me to do too much mental gymnastics to transform DD character from how I see it, although I totally acknowledge the possibility. So, for myself the MOST DD!M Snape I can see on the Tower is the one who figured WITHOUT Dumbledore that he has no other choice in order to help good guys in the next book, basically saving his own life even if for good purposes. I do NOT see Harry respecting this kind of Snape. Pitying him? Yes. Forgiving him, unfortunately yes, but not respecting him. Basically as I said in the past, no matter what kind of Snape emerges I see Harry having an upper hand in the moral sense in book seven. JMO, Alla > From darqali at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 18:01:05 2006 From: darqali at yahoo.com (darqali) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:01:05 -0000 Subject: Trelawney Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148477 I have come to wonder if anyone has considered Trelawney as the possibly secret evil character? I have two reasons to wonder about her real character. First is her name. "Trelawney" is clearly a Cornish name. JKR draws from many cultural and literary traditions in her tale; and in many English tales, the Cornish character is evil. Right back to some renditions of Arthurian legend. O.K., I'm a Yank, but my grandfather emigrated to the U.S. from Cornwall and I know the role the Cornish often play in English tales. The second is her two "true Prophecies" concerning LV. In both, she styles him as "The Dark Lord" and nothing else. Is not this odd for someone we accept as "on the Good Side"? Are we not told, "only the Death Eaters ever called him that"? The Bad Guy in the Harry Potter tale {typical of many Evil Overlords} is known by several names and titles. To begin with, he is born Tom Riddle, a half-blood wizard, but a normal {wizarding} human. He later rejects his true name, and styles himself "Lord Voldemort", a name he creates for himself from the letters of his true name. He becomes so feared, almost all "normal Good Side" wizards dare not speak the name they know for him, and term him "You Know Who" in conversation. His followers, Death Eaters, call him by a title {not a name}: "The Dark Lord". From Dumbledore, we know few remember LV was once Tom Riddle. Few among Good Side wizards dare speak the name he choose for himself {"LV"}, Harry Potter and Dumbledore being notable exceptions. Now, we don't know if Trelawney ever knew LV was Tom Riddle. We don't hear her boldly speaking his name "LV" in normal conversation. If she were making the predictions with her "waking mind", we would assume, though, that she would use the name LV was commonly thought of, either "LV" {most Good Wizards would think, but not speak, this name, since they didn't know he was Tom Riddle} or, "You Know Who". But instead, she stlyles him "The Dark Lord", the DEATH EATERS' TITLE for LV, in both her predictions concerning LV! Now, she is in a trance, it is true. And perhaps the words come from her mouth, but "through her", not from her mind; perhaps Trelawney is tapping into some exterior source for her predictions, I know .... but if so, that source refers to LV, not by his "real name" {Tom Riddle} nor by his "chosen" name {"LV"}, but by the title his (evil) followers give him. So, if Trelawney is "channeling" her true prophecies, the source uses the Death Eaters' title for LV. If the prediction come from her brain, it is her brain choosing that title, over "Tom Riddle", "LV", or, "You Know Who". Why is this, if Trelawney is "good"? And why is her name so clearly Cornish, if this is not a clue to her "hidden" {bad} character? Her situation is perfect cover. She is disregarded by most as "a fraud"; ignored as unimportant; appears rarely to move among the others, which means her movements are generally unobserved, and she is not thought of much. She lives in a tower in Hogwarts, perfect for a spy. She knows of the Room of Requirement. She "lets slip" the information about Snape to Harry at a critical time .... and so on. How is Trelawney so overlooked as the possible ESE! character? Do we not have ample clues? Darqali From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 18:59:49 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:59:49 -0000 Subject: Love Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148478 > > Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148407 : > > << And Tom Riddle Sr. and Merope seem like such a nice foreshadowing > for Snape possibly wanting to drug Lily with Love Potion and (maybe?) > abandoning such idea at some point. Heeee! You know my not very > flattering opinion of his moral character. :) >> Catlady wrote: > Many teens have wanted to give someone a Love Potion ... me included. > Wanting to is not a sign of bad moral character. Alla: Sure, wanting to is not a sign of bad moral character at all, but ACTING on it IS such a sign to me. So, as long as Snape fantasized about Lily drinking a Love Potion and professing to have undying love for him, whatever, fantasies won't hurt anybody. BUT and of course I am speculating here if Snape proceeded to act upon this and managed to drug Lily or attepmpted to do it and somebody else stopped him. Bad Snapey, very bad Snapey. :-) Going back to Merope and Tom Riddle Sr. There was a discussion about Merope's drugging Tom and I found myself in complete agreement with those who did not think that Merope's actions deserve ANY kind of sympathy. She trapped a man who had no desire to be near her IMO and basically destroyed his life as far as I am concerned. I sympathise with her as victim of violent abuse, but completely understand poor Tom running away as soon as she had a decency to stop drugging him. What am I trying to say? If we ever find out that Snape tried to do to Lily what Merope did to Tom, my erm...extreme dislike of his character will go up if it is even possible. :-) Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Feb 20 20:06:17 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:06:17 -0000 Subject: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148479 Dungrollin: > Can you really see Harry forgiving Voldemort and > *then* destroying him? houyhnhnm: I wasn't thinking of "forgiving" in the sense of embracing him, more in the sense of suddenly seeing Riddle/Vodemort's complete life story in a single gestalt and recognizing him as a pitiful wretch without real power, and this realization having the effect of stripping Voldemort of his power, thus destroying him. The forgiveness and destruction being simultaneous rather than one following the other. I have to admit we haven't seen much forshadowing of that kind of love saving the day in HP. Rowling's example is the sacrificial love of a mother for her child--something common to all mammalian mothers including all but the most depraved human ones. Dungrollin: > My problem with turning the battle into some internal struggle of > Harry's is this: how could such a process manifest itself as a > satisfying climax to a series of action-packed children's > adventures? houyhnhnm: But are they? Time Warner has found it hugely profitable to market the Potter saga as such, especially since they can make millions drawing non-readers to the movie theaters, but Rowling said, at one point, that she did not set out to write a children's story. (The reading level is much too difficult for *children's* books anyway--young adolescents, maybe) I was Neville Longbottom in English Lit class (all my professors hated me),so I can't construct arguments as to why the Potter series does or does not fit into to this or that genre, and why it must or must not have a certain kind of ending. For me, the appeal of the books is their very unpredictability (along with the sheer inventiveness of the world she has created--similar to the appeal of Dickens). I enjoyed the first book as a Cinderella story. Emotionally abused orphan discovers he's a wizard, gets the boot in on his oppressors, and lives happily ever after. By the end of GoF, and certainly in OotP, I was rudely jerked out of that pleasant fantasy. I was disappointed at first, but on reflection, it was more interesting to me that the story took the turn that it did. > Dung: > LV's body irrelevant? Hmm. I'm not so sure. It's only when Voldy's > main bit of soul is in a body that the scar connection seems to > work. Harry had scar-pain and visions to a certain degree when Voldy > was baby!mort, then much more strongly after the rebodification > until Voldy started employing Occlumency against him. Harry's scar > also reacted to Quirrell when he was being possessed, but it didn't > react to the Diary Horcrux at all. Now that could be because it > would have been a dead give-away that Voldy was behind the opening > of the Chamber, but it's also a fact that Diary!Tom didn't have a > body, so there may be a more interesting thematic interpretation. houyhnhnm: Yes, you're right. That part wasn't well thought out. Even after the Harrycrux and the other horcruxes are gone, there will still be a soul part remaining in Voldemort himself. Maybe this is where Voldemort's use of Harry's blood to rejuvenate himself--and Dumbledore's gleam-- will come into play. Dung: > So in effect, you reckon Dumbledore was wrong, at the end of OotP, > right? Harry is not limited to the choice between kill or be killed, > there's a way to worm out of having to choose? houyhnhnm: No, but I don't see why it has to be taken literally. Here's the passage. "The end of the prophecy ... it was something about ... 'neither can live ...'" "' ... while the other survives,'" said Dumbledore. "So," said Harry, dredging up the words from what felt like a deep well of despair inside him, "so does that mean that ... that one of us has got to kill the other one ... in the end?" "Yes," said Dumbledore. I just don't see why the "one" and the "other" have to be the two persons, Harry and Voldemort. Why can't they refer to the "Harry" and "Voldemort" in Harry? (and possibly in Voldemort, too, now that he has Harry's blood) And why does "kill" have to be taken in the sense of "commit homocide"? As long as Harry has a little Dark Lord residing in his forehead, he can't truly live. If he "kills" the Voldemort inside, then he can. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 21:12:29 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:12:29 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved Lily. The Whole Story. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148480 Pulling up the stakes, folding the tent, putting out the fire. Walking on towards another part of the forest. Stopping, looking back at the abandoned Snape loves Narcissa camp. Sigh walking on seeing clearing ahead. Yes this looks like a good place to camp, just on the edge of the Snape loved Lily encampment. Yes it is official.. I am abandoning the Snape loves Narcissa camp. After think more about my post of earlier today (see it here) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148450 I have decided that this even makes the events of Spinners End plausible in a way that does not involve Snape loving Narcissa. What is really happening isn't that Snape loved Narcissa; it is Snape's torturous memory of his involvement in the death of Lily whom he loved and James whom he had a life debit too. Snape is a tortured soul, lost in the abyss, bound to keep Harry alive because of his debit to James and his promise to DD. Seeing Narcissa begging for her son "my only son", just brings back the whole memory of the events at GH and his sense of guilt for being the one that told LV of the prophesy. No wonder he turned away when Narcissa collapsed in tears in front of him, he could just imagine that mother being Lily. Poor, poor Snape. Oh what his life might have been if he hadn't "worn his heart on his sleeve", if he had never fallen in love and lost. Better to never have loved at all! See the mess that it got him into along with the whole hated of James, and life debit to James. Maybe Snape could have coped with the death of James and the bad karma, if it hadn't been for Lily. Not Lily no, please not her. Makes you wonder, if the memory in the cave is Snape's. What a tortured soul he is... tortured and damned what a rich character that JKR has brought to life for us. In the cave DD drank Snape's memory. In so doing he took Snape's sin into himself. And on the tower DD died to save him. It is all starting to come together. Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 21:24:36 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:24:36 -0000 Subject: Seven Lives of LV (was: .. I know what ... the horcruxes is.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrea Grevera" wrote: ... > Andie: > > Since Mundungus is OFH and deals with who knows what could it > be possible that Mundungus sold the locket back to Borgin & > Burkes? Imagine how happy they would be to have it back > considering LV must have stolen it when he left their employ. > bboyminn: I'm not sure Mundungus would have been able to steal the Locket, though I'm sure he would have if he could since it was being thrown away. The 'decontamination' of the Drawing Room took three and a half days. All the objects, including the Locket, were thrown into sacks, and presumably thrown away. There is no mention of Mundungus during the period of time. He isn't mention specifically until an indeterminate time later when he rescues Ron from a set if purple robes that tried to strangle him. However, we have several mentions of Kreacher trying to pilfer objects during the whole period of time; from beginning to end. There is no mention of Kreacher having the Locket, but there is a mention of several silver framed photos being thrown, and later when we see Kreacher's 'den', we see several framed photos. If anyone has salvaged the Locket, it is certain to be Kreacher. However, that does bring up a question, what do wizards do with stuff they throw away? Do the leave it at the curb for the garbage man to pick up, or is it vanished by magic? If it is vanished by magic, can it be unvanished? Remember when Harry enters the kitched after an Order meeting and several documents are left on the table. Mr. Weasley reminds them the table needs to be clear immediately after the meetings, and (I believe) Bill 'vanished' these documents. The documents seem to important to throw away, so did he actually 'vanish' them, or did he simply move them to another location? Of course, we don't know, but it seems like these would be documents he would want to get back. So, again, if they were 'vanished' can they still be retrieved? Since Kreacher hangs on to the Family objects, I don't that they will have been sold to Borgins and Burkes. I guess there is the possibility that the Locket was saved by Kreacher, and later, when Kreacher was at Hogwarts, stolen by Mundungus. Still, why would Mundungus look in Kreacher's boiler room for anything valuable. It seems the last likely place for valuable objects. > Andie continues: > > ...edited... > > One more thing, at Godric's Hollow, the AK bounced off Harry & > turned LVinto Vapormort. Wouldn't that have destroyed another > horcrux? LV actually died at GH. The only thing that kept him > "alive" was a horcrux. Shouldn't he have lost a horcrux here? > > Andie bboyminn: Horcruxes, in my opinion, are not like the nine lives of a cat, where one is used up with each brush with death. The Horcruxes are permanent, and stop the core-soul from crossing over to the 'other side'. As long as one piece of the soul is trapped and earthbound, the remaining parts of the soul can not cross over into death. The Horcruxes act as an anchor to the earthly life. Remember that only one Horcrux is needed, and as long as it exists, the core-soul can never cross over into death. Of course, Voldemort lost his body in the process, but he didn't die. His earthly essense lived on without a body. Later, with help, Voldemort is able to create a new version of his old body in which his earthbound soul coulf reside. So, in my opinion, the answer is no, a Horcrux is not destroy every time Voldemort has a near death experience. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From rkdas at charter.net Mon Feb 20 21:25:09 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:25:09 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148482 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "h2so3f" wrote: > > > > susanbones: > > "I realize he had to be less than forthcoming with the Dursleys but > > the things he did with them, they don't seem to be at the level > > he's identifying with LV. He made a bargain with Vernon, that he'd > > be a good boy if he could have his permission form signed, and > > well, that didn't even work out." > > > > Geoff: > First, if I might comment on some of the examples given above which I > do not read in quite the same way...SNIP > >SNIP > > Again, keeping his name from Stan Shunpike was to keep himself out of > more trouble. Remember, he is running scared at this point in time. > > I do not believe that the sort of behaviour I have mentioned counts > as cunning or manipulative in my eyes... > > My dictionary presents cunning as being "skilled in achieving one's > ends by deceit or evasion". Manipulate is to "handle or control with > dexterity" and manipulative is "tending to manipulate other people > cleverly or unscrupulously". > > If he has learned anything at Privet Drive, it is not to do the above > but to keep a low profile, not to ask questions and not to do > anything which might provoke Vernon (in particular) to take it out on > him either verbally or physically. He seeks a quiet life free of the > discrimination, unfairness and cruelty which he has been receiving as > long as he can rememeber. > > In this context Harry is not cunning or manipulative, he is quite > justifiably exercising survival skills which is a very different > kettle of fish. Geoff, I am not sure if you have been following this thread but it might be worth a look up thread for you. It comes down to this. I have been arguing that in Book 6, especially after seeing the Slughorn memory, that Harry has a moment where he identifies with LV, and it's uncomfortably close to admiration for his skills at wheedling information out of Slughorn and that this admiration of LV is very uncomfortable for me. I argued that Harry may have done things that weren't always honest in previous books and situations but I never understood him to be "aware" that he was wheedling and manipulating. This brought forth a veritable plethora of posts detailing all the many and various times Harry has acted with something less than honesty. What I can not seem to communicate properly to people (and I promise to give up after this post! Really!) is that in all those situations Harry had never consciously (according to my reading anyway) been trying to manipulate or connive and that things he did were of a survival nature, not anything like the cunning and trickery that LV was already adept at even as a young man. But and here's my point, it really bothers me that Harry wasn't repelled by LV's skills with Slughorn. He seemed to be recognizing a master at work. And so I wondered (fruitlessly, I admit) if in the future Harry would not have to face demons of his own concerning the end and the means to an end. I realize that LV must be defeated but I hadn't counted on any situation in which Harry might have to do something unsavory (killing aside) to accomplish this task. I worried that he might damage his own pure and untarnished soul. Everytime I say this, Geoff, I get posts detailing all the "conscious" times Harry has sidestepped ethical behaviour and it's supposed to buoy some argument that the Harry admiring LV isn't a new thing. And so there you have it. Jen D. (on to other things, really, I promise). From kkersey at swbell.net Mon Feb 20 22:01:13 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:01:13 -0000 Subject: Origins of Avada Kedavra WAS:Re: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148483 > Lolita: > I was thinking along the lines of non IE lgs, and, > as far as I can remember, AK is the only spell whose incantation is > not in any of those. "Alohamora" comes to mind - a mix of the Hawaiian "Aloha" and Latin "mora", meaning "farewell obstacle" according to the Lexicon. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/spells/spells_a.html#Alohomora Of course it does have that IE Latin part, but I doubt that Hawaiian is an IE language. Elisabet From kchuplis at alltel.net Mon Feb 20 22:12:12 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:12:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? References: Message-ID: <000e01c6366a$b366cd50$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 148484 ----- Original Message ----- From: susanbones2003 But and here's my point, it really bothers me that Harry wasn't repelled by LV's skills with Slughorn. He seemed to be recognizing a master at work. And so I wondered (fruitlessly, I admit) if in the future Harry would not have to face demons of his own concerning the end and the means to an end. I realize that LV must be defeated but I hadn't counted on any situation in which Harry might have to do something unsavory (killing aside) to accomplish this task. I worried that he might damage his own pure and untarnished soul. Everytime I say this, Geoff, I get posts detailing all the "conscious" times Harry has sidestepped ethical behaviour and it's supposed to buoy some argument that the Harry admiring LV isn't a new thing. And so there you have it. Jen D. (on to other things, really, I promise). kchuplis: I really think we have another case of difference in definition of a word; admire. I found this (no, not the OE, but it is plenty for a quick post; if anyone has the OE feel free to put out a more detailed definition): ad?mire (ad-mir') v., -mired, -mir?ing, -mires. v.tr. 1.. To regard with pleasure, wonder, and approval. 2.. To have a high opinion of; esteem or respect. 3.. Chiefly New England & Upper Southern U.S. To enjoy (something): "I just admire to get letters, but I don't admire to answer them" (Dialect Notes). 4.. Archaic. To marvel or wonder at. I believe we are seeing Harry as "to marvel or wonder at" which is not to say he holds it in esteem or respect - not in the way I think you are worried about. It doesn't mean he is saying "wow, I wish I could do that" but rather just saying "well, THAT is an LV strength." I agree, Harry has not ever been cunning or underhanded about his ability to cajole or get what he needs or wants, but I also (myself) see no indication that he is in danger of identifying too strongly with LV. Just enough to be concious of his choices, and that occurred as far back as the end of CoS. (I couldn't help myself. I have no will power. ) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 20 22:16:14 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:16:14 -0000 Subject: Curses and non-descriptions (was: DDM!Snape clue) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148485 Neri: > snip > So here is my question: can anybody think of even a single > non-description in the series that JKR later used in order to spring > an unexpected solution for a mystery? I can't think of even a single > example. The only case I can think of is when JKR didn't describe > Harry not putting the Felix Felicis in Ron's drink. But I think this > example doesn't really qualify, because it's Harry in this case who > uses the non-description to play the trick on us (and on Ron and > Hermione). But is there a case were JKR uses a non-description to play > a trick on both Harry and us? Potioncat: Hexing the broom has already come up. Me too. Another one, that sort of fits your non-description is "nonverbal spells." We'd seen evidence of them without being sure that was what JKR intended. When it came up early in HBP I said "Yes! Nonverbal spells do exist!" We've also questioned whether intentional wandless magic exists too. Guess we'll have to wait till the next book to find out. Why does Snape speak any spell? He seems pretty good at nonverbal magic. But we see him speak spells all the time. I think there is a very good chance he sent this hex. I can guess that he cast PT rather than stupefy because Stupefy is too powerful and might have hurt Harry too. (I'm making that up, you understand...I don't know that there is canon one way or the other.) OK, who got the DE on the tower? For this to work, it shouldn't have been Harry. Did anyone shoot a spell up the steps? Pippin brings up a very good question in a different post, why don't we hear anything about Fenrir's capture? It ought to be very important to the Weasleys in particular and the WW in general. You would think someone would take credit for it. Does JKR assume we understand he was captured, roughed up and taken to Azkaban? There are really only three (4) choices here: Harry, Snape, Big Blond DE, and ESE!Lupin. I like the idea of it being Snape who hexed Fenrir. I think it works within what we know of the events, and has some good parallels and subplots. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 22:22:55 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:22:55 -0000 Subject: The Mysteries of Occlumency - High and Low Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148486 I was reading another persons comments about Voldemort blocking Harry from his mind after OotP, and began to ponder the nature of Occlumency. We have the examples that come to us from Harry's point of view, primarily in the Occlumency lessons with Snape. Snape starts a cascade of thoughts in Harry's mind, and Harry tries to stop them from coming. It is all a very conscious act. Thoughts come, Harry realizes that they are private, and through force of will, he stops them from continuing. In the battle after the Duel with Draco in HBP, Snape is questioning Harry about how he found out about a dark curse like Sectumsempra. Harry tries to make his mind a complete blank which is one of the tenets he was given in his Occlumency lessons. He tries to prevent a conscious thought from appearing in his mind. But slowly against his will the image or thought of his Potions Books appears in his mind and Snape picked up on it. Since we only have Harry's point of view about Occlumency, with that limited information, I have to wonder how Voldemort is able to functionally use it. When Harry block a thought, it is in direct response to attempts to penetrate his mind, and he blocks the thoughts, by refusing to allow them into his conscious self-aware mind. But how can Voldemort do this? How can he plot and plan and scheme and have internal thought processes if he has to deny them in order to block his mind? We know that by definition Occlumency is the ability to block the mind from external penetration. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/occlumency.html "Occlumency is the art of magically defending the mind against external penetration, sealing it against magical intrusion and influence - the defensive counter to Legilimency. A practitioner of Occlumency is referred to as an Occlumens." Yet, Voldemort must be practicing this on a very high level, far beyond what Harry is even able to comprehend. Voldemort, if we are to assume he is still able to function after employing Occlumency, has set up an on-going external barrier to his mind, but has done so in a way the allows his internal thought processes to continue unseen. That is far and away above and beyond the level of Occlumency that Harry is aware of, and I suspect, that even Draco, while able to employ Occlumency sucessfully, is not able to preform. I suspect Draco can block specific thoughts under direct confrontation, like being questioned by Snape, but I can't imagine Draco being able to employ a constant on-going block to all external attempts at access while still maintaing his internal thought processes. For example, in the confrontation between Draco and Snape, Draco senses what Snape is trying to, and is able to guard specific thoughts in that moment. But I doubt that when Draco is daydreaming in class, and unaware of attempts to access his mind, that he is able to block his conscious thoughts. So, Harry, and presumably Draco, block their minds by blanking all conscious thoughts. Usually, by blocking very specific thoughts that they are trying to guard. Yet with a blank mind, how can they think? How can they make plans and process information? Voldemort on the other hand, at least it is implied, is able to maintain all his internal thought processes while at the same time block all external access to those thoughts. That's quite a trick. So, how could either Harry or Draco use this in a duel? That can't block their next attack by making their mind blank because that prevents them from forming a plan of attack. If they allow a plan of attack to form in their conscious mind, by virtue of being in their conscious mind, it is accessable to their opponent. A very messy situation. To use this effectively, they both need to be opperating on a much higher level. A level like Voldemort that does not hinge on 'blanking' your mind. I would very much like to know the details of that internal/external duel process form of Occlumency. I have no idea how or why this is significant. It was just a thought that occurred to me. Indeed, the level of Occlumency that Voldemort is practicing is far far far above anything we have ever seen demonstrated in the books. Logically, I can equally assume that the level of Occlumency practiced by Snape is far far above anything Harry or Draco can even comprehend. Again, I wouldn't mind knowing the detail of this High Level Occlumency. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 22:40:15 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:40:15 -0000 Subject: The Mysteries of Occlumency - High and Low -Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148487 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > ...edited.. > > Logically, I can equally assume that the level of Occlumency > practiced by Snape is far far above anything Harry or Draco can > even comprehend. > > ...edited... > bboyminn: Some additional thoughts on Snape and Occlumency. Voldemort being the dictator that he is, can completely block his mind. Snape however does not have that luxury. If his mind was completely inaccessable to Voldemort, Voldemort would wonder what he was hiding and would never trust him. So, Snape has a far more complex Occlumency task, he must allow his mind to be open to Voldemorts Legilimency, but he must also compartmentalize his mind. He must allow Voldemort general access while at the same time blocking very specific facts that he does not want Voldemort to know. Further, I suspect that Snape is able to allow false thoughts to enter his mind in order to mislead Voldemort. That seems like an immensely complex task. Further Snape must maintain his control of the limted blocks and limited access at all times. Though I suspect he can relax a bit at Hogwarts. Again, I am simply marveling at the immense complex level of Occlumency that Snape and Voldemort are operating at. Don't have a question or anything, I was just amazed once I started thinking about it, and thought I would pass it on as food for thought. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 23:00:41 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:00:41 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148488 > >>Sydney: > > Speaking of Unrequited Love, nasty as Snape is, I don't think he > would do this. Not because it's wrong, but because IMO the LAST > thing a guy like that would want would be to ACTUALLY GET THE > GIRL. I mean, then he'd have to, like, TALK TO HER. Noooo... > nice mile-high pedestal, that's the safe place for girls Snape > likes. > Betsy Hp: So there's no need to convince me that Snape/Lily is where it's at. (Carton from "A Tale of Two Cities"!! Never made the connection before and please let JKR's bucket of tears convince her to not do a similar thing to her own readers!) And I totally agree that Snape would *never* use a love potion to get a girl, for a multitude of reasons, mainly boiling down to he's too noble. But Snape never talking to Lily? I suspect that not only did Snape talk to Lily (as one of Slughorn's two potions prodigies), I suspect he may have hung at her house a time or two. Hence Petunia's "horrid boy" comment. But I *do* agree that he'd have done his best to never let his more romantic feelings slip and Lily probably suspected nothing. (Or if she did suspect I think she'd be too kind to let him know she knew. A sort of "we'll just ignore the elephant in the corner" sort of thing.) Betsy Hp From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Feb 20 23:12:28 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:12:28 -0000 Subject: The Mysteries of Occlumency - High and Low -Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148489 > bboyminn: > > Some additional thoughts on Snape and Occlumency. > Voldemort being the dictator that he is, can completely > block his mind. Snape however does not have that luxury. > If his mind was completely inaccessable to Voldemort, > Voldemort would wonder what he was hiding and would never > trust him. So, Snape has a far more complex Occlumency > task, he must allow his mind to be open to Voldemorts > Legilimency, but he must also compartmentalize his mind. houyhnhnm: A real person, not an Occlumens, merely an accomplished Muggle liar, told me once that the way to tell a successful lie is to forget everything that contradicts the lie. This is how I think of Occlumency working. I guess that is compartmentalization. Additionally, the way I imagine it, though there is no canon support, is that an extremely skilled Occlumens, like Snape, can control thoughts at a much subtler level of consciousness than either Harry or Draco could do--that is, be aware of the dangerous thought and suppress it long before it reaches the most external layer of the mind. Snape also takes care to arrange his life so that memories contradicting the lie are never formed in the first place. He doesn't have to conceal a regard for Harry because he has cultivated Harry's hatred from day one. He doesn't appear to have any convivial social relationships at Hogwarts. He never breaks bread with the other members of the Order. (Well that's the way I see it because I am DDM!Snape. If he were ESE, wouldn't he be schmoozing all over the place?) As for Voldemort, does he practice Occlumency? What does he have to conceal and from whom? His mouth seems to be pretty much in a one-to-one ratio with his mind. Although, as young Tom Riddle, he must have done so. From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 21:29:03 2006 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:29:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Voldemort/Snape and Lilly Message-ID: <20060220212903.28127.qmail@web61316.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148490 Why does "Stand aside girl" have to mean anything more than 'I want to kill the boy right this second and killing you will take up my time.'? He needs to kill Harry or he thinks he does. Killing Lily isn't important and she is being a minor nusance at best or so he thinks. "Stand aside girl" sound just like "Out of my way kid". Something you say when someone unimportant is in your way. Joe From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Feb 20 23:40:18 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:40:18 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148491 houyhnhnm: The following is not original and it's probably been brought up here before, but my search timed out, so maybe it would be appropriate to bring it up again. (I am completely on the fence myself, when it comes to Snape and Lily) ----------------------------------------- "Potter!" said Snape suddenly. "What would I get if I added powdered root of *asphodel* to an infusion of *wormwood*?" [...] "Let's try again, Potter. Where would you look if I told you to find me a *bezoar*?" [...] "What is the difference, Potter, between *monkshood* and *wolfsbane*?" ----------------------------------------- In the language of flowers: My regrets follow you to the grave. I am infused with your absence. Find me an antidote for my misanthropy. From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 00:02:51 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:02:51 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148492 > houyhnhnm: > ----------------------------------------- > "Potter!" said Snape suddenly. "What would I get if I added powdered > root of *asphodel* to an infusion of *wormwood*?" > [...] > ----------------------------------------- > In the language of flowers: > My regrets follow you to the grave. I am infused with your absence. > Find me an antidote for my misanthropy. Ooh, yes-- I love that. I can't remember when I first heard someone point out the meaning of asphodel-- a memeber of the lily family, by the way! It is meant to grow in Hades where the virtuous dead are. Wormwood of course, is also 'bitterness'. I think the answer to what you get when you mix asphodel and wormwood, is Harry himself-- Lily + James. What you actually get is the draught of sleeping death IIRC... perhaps that's how Snape sees himself since Harry, by being born, sealed Snape's fate as the betrayer of Lily (see? Isn't Snape/Lily just such gloriously over-the-top melodrama? I LOVE it!)? Anyways, I think Snape was half talking to himself when he asked that question. Betsy HP: >But Snape never talking to Lily? I suspect that not only did Snape >talk to Lily (as one of Slughorn's two potions prodigies), I suspect >he may have hung at her house a time or two. Hence Petunia's "horrid >boy" comment. Oh, the 'horrid boy' was SO Snape-- so, actually, you're right-- I should scale it back to Snape not talking to Lily about anything he might have felt.. although, given that he was 15 at the time of the 'mudblood' incident, I'm having a hard time working out a timeline where he would have gone to Lily's house before she married James. And why would they be having a conversation about Azkabahn? Write faster, Jo! --Sydney From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Feb 21 00:26:13 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:26:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? References: Message-ID: <014201c6367d$6cafa4a0$1e92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 148493 Sydney: > Oh, the 'horrid boy' was SO Snape-- so, actually, you're right-- I > should scale it back to Snape not talking to Lily about anything he > might have felt.. although, given that he was 15 at the time of the > 'mudblood' incident, I'm having a hard time working out a timeline > where he would have gone to Lily's house before she married James. > And why would they be having a conversation about Azkabahn? Magpie: Perhaps this was a later conversation and Lily was warning him about the types of things he was getting into...or else Snape was telling her tales of Dementors in a way to be scary and impressive. Yeah, since HBP Snape/Lily seems very close to a done deal to me, with "horrid boy" also being Snape. I have to join you in laughing at the idea that Rowling is playing with cliches--but lets face it, when people write these kinds of articles they never have a clue. Many people seem to think that half the stuff that's standard in the books was made up in 1997. A school for wizards? Never been done before! -m From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 00:33:01 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:33:01 -0000 Subject: About that egg... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148494 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Adzuroth" wrote: > > Adzuroth: > Yowzers! I never would've thought my first post on here about > accioing the dragon egg would spark such a reaction *hee, hee!* Angie chimes in: If it were as easy as saying "Accio Egg" surely one of the other Champions, if not Hermione, would have thought of that. I wonder if we're not being too hard on poor Harry. Hindsight is 20/20. Harry was focused on getting his broom, after all, not the varied uses of the Accio charm. I'm sure that "Accio Firebolt!" was all that was running through his head, not "Accio Egg." Once he got his broom, his strategy was based on having using the broom to lure the dragon away from the egg, not the other way around. Certainly Accio Egg would have been simpler, but you gotta admit, just standing there and saying "Accio egg" is not very dramatic. Angie (who wonders how much of this dicussion was colored by movie contamination regarding this scene, which showed the egg free amd clear when Harry entered the arena, and who knows that if she had been the one facing a dragon, she would have needed to say "Accio toliet paper!) From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 00:57:09 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:57:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's Oversights v. Intuition Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148495 I think the series presents an interesting contrast between Harry's (hopefully) growing intuition concerning his magic powers and his oversights/failure concerning the use of magic. Several oversights spring immediately to mind, one which has recently been discussed: Harry's failure to use the summoning charm to obtain the dragon egg in the First Task. However, later in GOF, Harry could have used Accio to again bring him the egg and the MM when he got his leg stuck in the staircase, but failed to do so. In OOP, he had the mirror that Sirius gave him, but instead of using the mirror, he broke into Umbridge's office to use her fireplace to talk to Sirius. (And he didn't use Reparo to fix the mirror after he broke it. Maybe that wasn't an oversight. I think he thought the mirror was now useless, but maybe he shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions.) Also in OOP, Harry "forgot" to ask Ginny what if feels like to be possessed by LV. And he didn't think about using the thestrals to get to the MOM. (Of course, he was under great stress at that time, but that worries me all the more, b/c it is during those times that he needs to think most clearly!) In HBP, of course, he forgot about using fire to drive away the Inferi, even though DD had told him that shortly before. He also failed to throw away or destroy the love-potion spiked chocolates that Romilda gave him. The former was understandable, but the latter was very careless, if you ask me. By contrast, consider how Harry simply knew how to use the Basilisk's fang to destroy the Diary in OOP. Or how he figured out that he had to drive away the Dementors from the lake in POA. I'm hoping there are other instances of intuition that I'm forgetting, because it troubles me that so few of those come to mind, while Harry's oversights spring so easily to mind. Can anyone think of other examples of Harry using his intuition to figure out which magic to use to solve a problem? Especially a problem that needed an immediate solution? Are these merely plot devices? I'm wondering if we are to attribute Harry's oversights to the "no one can think of everything" camp or whether JKR is deliberately foreshadowing some major oversight that is going to occur in Book 7. I think Harry's intuition is going to come into play in figuring out how to find the Horcruxes and destroy them (after all, he doesn't know how) and how to kill LV. Because of their "connection" I think it's going to take more than just a simple AK. Angie (who has been known to make a mistake or two herself) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 01:00:04 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:00:04 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148496 Geoff: > My dictionary presents cunning as being "skilled in achieving one's ends by deceit or evasion". Jen D: > I have been arguing that in Book 6, especially after seeing the Slughorn memory, that Harry has a moment where he identifies with LV, and it's uncomfortably close to admiration for his skills at wheedling information out of Slughorn and that this admiration of LV is very uncomfortable for me. I argued that Harry may have done things that weren't always honest in previous books and situations but I never understood him to be "aware" that he was wheedling and manipulating. What I can not seem to communicate properly to people is that in all those situations Harry had never consciously (according to my reading anyway) been trying to manipulate or connive and that things he did were of a survival nature, not anything like the cunning and trickery that LV was already adept at even as a young man. But and here's my point, it really bothers me that Harry wasn't repelled by LV's skills with Slughorn. He seemed to be recognizing a master at work. I realize that LV must be defeated but I hadn't counted on any situation in which Harry might have to do something unsavory (killing aside) to accomplish this task. I worried that he might damage his own pure and untarnished soul. Carol responds: The funny thing is, Jen, that you were responeing in the first place to an aside I made about my concern for Harry's whole and untarnished soul, which I agree is in danger, but not from manipulation and cunning--from, IMO, anger, the desire for vengeance, and the temptation to use Dark Curses. (The Crouches have shown where that path leads--you don't fight Darkness with Darkness, evil with the weapons of evil, without dire consequences to yourself.) Cunning, manipulation, and even dishonesty are something else again. How many times has Harry concealed what he was doing or lied, not only to Snape but to Dumbledore or even to his friends, in every book? It's only, as you say, the conscious manipulation that appears to be new (and I'd be grateful to anyone who can point out the incident Harry appears to be referring to when he identifies with young Tom as a "master" manipulator). *But* I don't think that JKR herself is at all appalled by cunning and manipulation, by, to quote Geoff's dictionary definition, "[skill in] achieving one's ends by deceit or evasion." Both Snape and Dumbledore have been doing exactly this for six books--and now Dumbledore appears to be encouraging Harry to join their ranks. He can't get Slughorn's memory by force or even by magic. He has to use his own resourcefulness to trick Slughorn into giving it up of his own accord, even if it means getting him drunk to do it. Maybe in this instance the end justifies the means, but at least the means is not torture or murder or anything that is outright evil or Dark. Surely manipulation and cunning won't damage Harry's soul if the lies he has already told (and cheating on his homework and claiming credit for work that isn't his own in Potions) has not already done it. Apparently, as long as Harry hasn't killed anyone and has the ability to love, his soul will be whole and pure. (I don't happen to like that idea, but it seems to be what Dumbledore is suggesting.) This is not the first time, actually, that Dumbledore has attempted to make Harry feel at ease with the Slytherin side of himself (which may or may not be the legacy of Voldemort). In Cos he says, "Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue-- resourcefulness--determination--a certain disregard for rules" (333). Now DD appears to be going even further and encouraging cunning, a trait specifically associated with Slytherin by the Sorting Hat in SS/PS, to achieve his ends. The goal is surely to encourage Harry to be resourceful and inventive (much as Snape says that his DADA students need to be) in order to match wits with Voldemort. Understanding his Slytherin side may just help Harry to find the Horcruxes, to think as Dark wizards think (as Crouch!Moody ironically says in GoF) to find the Horcruxes and win the battle against Voldemort. But it's possible--only possible--that DD may be helping Harry to understand the Slytherin mentality for other reasons as well. I would be more sure of myself here if I knew that Harry were returning to Hogwarts. But Dumbledore and the Sorting Hat and even Nearly Headless Nick have been advocating the unity of all four house, fearing that internal divisions will enable Voldemort to destroy the school. (A school divided against itself cannot stand, to alter Lincoln's words slightly.) Maybe seeing the Slytherin in himself will enable Harry to set aside house rivalries and prejudices and help the entire school, or the teetering and nearly fallen Draco, to fight with him against Voldemort. (Something more, I fear, will be needed to help him understand and forgive Snape.) Carol, remembering that the Greeks regarded the cunning Odysseus as a hero (and Odysseus, unlike the fearless Achilles, survived the Trojan War) From gelite67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 01:05:46 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:05:46 -0000 Subject: Harry's Ability to Perform the AK? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148497 Does anyone have any doubts about Harry's ability to perform the AK curse on LV? In OOP, he barely has what it takes to perform the a barely-there Crucio curse on Bella, who informs him that righteous anger wouldn't hurt her for long and that you have to REALLY mean an Unforgiveable Curse, to enjoy causing pain. Well, then, what does it take to "really mean" the AK. Do you have to enjoy killing? Because to me, Harry is full of love and righteous anger, not full of the desire to kill. I don't believe he would enjoy killing anyone, not even LV or Snape. Oh, I know he hates Snape and certainly hates LV, but he also desired to kill Sirius in POA and couldn't do it (never understood how he would have at that point anyway, b/c he didn't know about any killing curses then). So I wonder if Harry has what it takes at this point in the series to do the AK and if not, I wonder what will happen to change that. It almost sounds too horrible to contemplate. Angie From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 01:09:26 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:09:26 -0000 Subject: The Mysteries of Occlumency - High and Low In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148498 > Steve/bboyminn wrote: > We have the examples (of occlumency) that come to us from Harry's point of view, primarily in the Occlumency lessons with Snape. Snape starts a cascade of thoughts in Harry's mind, and Harry tries to stop them from coming. Goddlefrood: The actual mechanism for blocking or compartmentalising a portion of the mind is not described with any great clarity. Harry's attempts are universally unsuccessful until he inadvertently (or as some speculate through LV's influence) performs Legilimency on Snape. He is later informed that he is too emotional to be a good Occlumens. I find it reasonable to suppose that Occlumency usually involves eye contact, as indeed does Legilimency. However, due to its root in the word occlude it also seems reasonable to conclude that the actual process involves clouding a memory or cloaking it if you will. Perhaps not entirely dissimilar to what Uncle Horace originally did to his Horcrux memory. Also when Snape briefly discusses Draco's Occlumency "skills" it seems that the memory Draco does not want Severus to probe is tucked away in a part of his mind that the attempting Legilimens can not access. This would lead me to the further conclusion that LV has done the same thing to block out Harry, that is he has erected a wall to access through telekinesis (which is somewhat akin to the process at work between Harry and LV in OotP). The alternative, which may lead to further speculation regarding book 7 (but not by me at this stage), would be that LV has compartmentalised his memories of Harry and shut them off, effectively having no recollection of Harry until he accesses the blocked portion of his memory. > Steve/bboyminn (later in his article): > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/occlumency.html > "Occlumency is the art of magically defending the mind against > external penetration, sealing it against magical intrusion and > influence - the defensive counter to Legilimency. A practitioner of > Occlumency is referred to as an Occlumens." Goddlefrood (with apologies to Mr. Van der Ark): The lexicon, while ectremely thorough and most usually correct, is not infallible. One instance is its view on the Death Eater page that the big blond death eater and the brutal faced death eater are possibly one and the same when clearly that is impossible for reasons I intend to go into in a post regarding the skirmish at Hogwarts. I would add to the definition by saying that Occlumency is practiced when eye contact is made, much the same as Legilimency (that is usually). A Legilimens would, in an attempt to extract information, explore the memories. An Occlumens would be able to put up a barrier to this, and in the case of a successful one the attempting Legilimens would not be aware of the barrier. IMHO an Occlumens need not be constantly vigilant for attacks on his memories as, except in the case of the telekinetic (I use this for want of a better word) link that exists between Harry and LV, whomsoever wanted access to the memory would need to be in direct contact with the person holding that memory. This is perhaps why Occlumency is said to be a rather obscure branch of magic as it is rarely necessary due to the lack of skilled Occlumens or Ligilimens. Hope this helps in some small way Goddlefrood From rkdas at charter.net Tue Feb 21 01:13:42 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:13:42 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: >> Carol responds: > The funny thing is, Jen, that you were responeing in the first place > to an aside I made about my concern for Harry's whole and untarnished > soul, which I agree is in danger, but not from manipulation and > cunning--from, IMO, anger, the desire for vengeance, and the > temptation to use Dark Curses. (Jen here, I don't believe this is the first time some throwaway remark you have made has caught my attention and made me write way too many posts! As I remember the first time was a post script remark. Carol you have a gift!) (The Crouches have shown where that > path leads--you don't fight Darkness with Darkness, evil with the > weapons of evil, without dire consequences to yourself.) > > Cunning, manipulation, and even dishonesty are something else again. > How many times has Harry concealed what he was doing or lied, not only > to Snape but to Dumbledore or even to his friends, in every book? It's > only, as you say, the conscious manipulation that appears to be new > (and I'd be grateful to anyone who can point out the incident Harry > appears to be referring to when he identifies with young Tom as a > "master" manipulator). Hey Jen here again: Here's the bit that made me sqirm, the term master manipulator was never used but some could have inferred it: "It was very well done, thought Harry, the hesitancy, the casual tone, the careful flattery, none of it overdone. He, Harry had had too much experience of trying to wheedle information out of reluctant people not to recognize a master at work." pp. 496-7 Scholastic ed. See Carol, it seems Harry was farther down the path of becoming aware of his actions than I seemed to have realized. And to hear him think "wow, a master at work" it just caused me a bit of disillusionment. That's all and I worry that he could too, become someone who feels the ends justify the means, and I just hope that's a vain worry. I do feel he could falter in this area. But yes, I appreciate your reminding me that DD has been training him up to be accustomed to using his "Slytherin" gifts... Jen D.(waiting for you to spur her next great conundrum with your small but dense little comments) > > From kking0731 at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 01:16:41 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:16:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Mysteries of Occlumency - High and Low In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148500 Steve snipped: Since we only have Harry's point of view about Occlumency, with that limited information, I have to wonder how Voldemort is able to functionally use it. When Harry block a thought, it is in direct response to attempts to penetrate his mind, and he blocks the thoughts, by refusing to allow them into his conscious self-aware mind. But how can Voldemort do this? How can he plot and plan and scheme and have internal thought processes if he has to deny them in order to block his mind? Snow: I think I understand the dilemma that you propose and it really is a very good question. The only counter that I can see is that the connection between Harry and Voldemort appears to go above and beyond Occlumency and Legilimency because they are already joined in a sense that overpowers these effects. First off Harry doesn't use Legilimency to intrude on Voldemort's thoughts, the thoughts or connection is a result of complete calm when Harry doses or sleeps. Secondly, Dumbledore even states that it doesn't matter that Harry could not master Occlumency because it was his heart (love) that saved him. From this statement I take it that Occlumency is no longer a factor (I personally don't feel it ever was). If you look at what actually was happening to Harry, in OOP, from the Voldemort effect, you would find that it was neither Occlumency nor Legilimency that was involved; it was a sharing of minds but only from Harry's perspective. Voldemort sensed that Harry had been capable of intruding on his thoughts and presence so he implanted thoughts in his own mind to allow Harry to be subjected to them. When Voldemort attempted to (by possession) reverse the process, he failed miserably. Now that Voldemort has been taught that this thing between Harry and himself is not a two-way-street, he has protected his thoughts from Harry, but how? As you say Occlumency would be of little use?as Voldemort would have to be in constant Occlumency mode or else Harry could invade the territory. Therefore we might conclude that Voldemort is securing and protecting the invasion of his mind and its processes by something more, but what? How much does Voldemort know from this entire experience? How is Voldemort capable of excluding entrance to his mind from Harry, because as (I think) you surmise, it would be a full time job? Good question, Steve! Snow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 01:17:40 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:17:40 -0000 Subject: Curses and non-descriptions (was: DDM!Snape clue) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148501 > kchuplis: > > > I can see the argument for another, but the way it is written, I > believe it was meant to be Harry and that the "non-descriptor" as you > call it is a device she uses when representing furious activity and > action to quicken the pace. That is how it reads to me at any rate. In > any other book it would not be scrutinized to this degree and therefore > I think it is a legitimate device to quicken pace, but since it's JKR, > we do look for coloring and clues everywhere :) > Neri: Exactly. I recently started looking into all the different kinds of problems that JKR has because she merges the mystery genre with other genres (in this case the adventure genre) and I think this is one of the symptoms. When you write fast action scenes you don't have time to describe everything. The interesting question is if JKR is aware of the problem, and has she made a conscious decision not to use the action mode unfairly in order to interfere with the mystery plot? > zgirnius: > > This would be just like the scene in PS/SS in which Quirrell is > jinxing Harry's broom, and Snape is doing a countercurse. The > narrator, by you standard of playing fair with us, ought to have told > us what Quirrell was doing when Hermione bumped into him (even if > Hermione herself did not notice, being too intent on her plans to set > Snape's robes on fire). She was right there, she should have seen > Quirrell was staring intently at Harry and doing whatever it is one > does to jinx a broom. > Neri: I don't think Hermione *must* have noticed that Quirrell was saying the jinx. The way it's described she was running in the row *behind* him, so perhaps she couldn't see his lips. It's the author's full right to decide that the character didn't see or didn't notice some detail that would be too much of a giveaway. This is not a non-description the way I defined it. A non-description is when the character *must* have, according to the text, known something or seen something, and yet what he/she saw or knew isn't described. Harry must have seen the second jet of light that hit Sirius, so he must know what color it was, and yet the color isn't described. > zgirnius: > > But actually now that I have reread Flight of the Prince again, it is > quite interesting. The two Petrificuses from nowhere at the start of > the chapter are the only possible Harry spells described in that way. > Following our hero past that point, we see every single spell he > casts, explicitly attributed to him either by letting us know he said > or thought the incantation, by explicit mention of his wand movement, > by explicit mention that he cast a spell, or finally (in the case of > some unsuccessful spells) that Snape blocked them. Neri: So are you saying that Snape shot both curses from nowhere? And Harry never wondered who was breaking a trail for him? I could perhaps accept it for the second one, especially if the text would have said something like "somebody shouted `Petrificus Totalus!'". But as for the first, Snape would have to shoot it from the bottom of the tower past the other DEs (he and Malfoy are the first to go down) and while shouting the curse out loud. I can't see how he would avoid detection. > > zgirnius: > I wish she had told us the color of the Sectumsempra curse, and the > color of the curse Snape used on James in "Snape's Worst Memory". But > since she has not, I of course can't say whether it was to protect > the identity of the Half-Blood Prince from those readers who had not > yet figured it out by the "Sectumsempra" chapter of HBP, or not. > Neri: Yes. Had she told us what the color of Sectumsempra is, then not telling us the color of the curse Snape used in the Worst Memory scene would have been an unfair use of a non-description. But as it is, it's just one out of many innocent non-descriptions. The color wasn't relevant in any way for guessing what curse it was. But JKR did describe the *relevant* detail about the curse Snape used ? that it drew blood. So she was playing fair. > CH3ed: > I think it is quite certain that Bellatrix was the one who shot that > curse that sent Sirius over the veil, tho. Otherwise Harry wouldn't > have screamed that "She killed Sirius. I'll kill her," as he ran > after Bella toward to fountain. > Neri: I agree that it was most probably Bella, but since this isn't described explicitly there's some wiggle room left, and this room is exactly where all the conspiracy theories get in. They'd say "maybe Harry didn't actually see where it came from and just assumed it was Bella". If only it was written "a second jet of light from Bellatrix's wand" , it would have been much more difficult to theorize that it wasn't Bella, and this is why I categorize this case as a non-description. > > CH3ed: > Not sure. I don't have my books with me. How about in GoF after > Harry and Krum met the deranged Mr. Crouch in the forest and DD had > the fake Moody out looking for him? Harry asked fake Moody later if > he used the Marauder's Map, and fake Moody said he took a leaf out > of Harry's book and summoned it from his office. I'd think had he > really done that the map would have been spotted zooming toward the > forest (but I think Fake Moody had it with him all the time...just > put it in his pocket once he saw his dad entered the ground). But > Harry and us took fake Moody's patronizing words for it. Does that > fit the criteria? > Neri: No, it doesn't. This is a hypothetical: *if* the map would have zoomed through the trees, someone would have spotted it. But it didn't. I'm talking about something that the hero actually has seen for certain, and yet it isn't described. > > Pippin: > Quirrell's broomstick curse has already been mentioned, so I'll just add > that JKR actually changed the narrator's point of view (a cardinal no-no > according to my eighth grade English composition text) to > avoid letting Harry or the reader find out that the hexing stopped as > soon as Quirrell was knocked over. JKR clearly and obviously > made it a rule, right in the first book, that literary conventions may be > overturned to serve the plot. > > So if she does it again, she's not cheating, just playing by her own > previously established rules. Caveat lector. Neri: First, in this specific case the whole issue becomes somewhat complicated because it's not clear from who's point-of-view each detail is described. But I still can't see here any clear-cut unfair non-description, in the sense that there isn't any detail that one of the characters *must* have seen and yet is not described. It seems obvious that all of Hermione's attention is on Snape, and that all of Ron's attention is on Hermione and Snape, so it's quite realistic if they don't notice something about Quirrell. But when Harry fights Greyback it's obvious that all his attention was on the struggle, so it would be ridiculous to claim that he didn't notice if it was himself or somebody else who shouted the curse. Secondly, regarding the rule of not changing of the narrator's point-of-view, this is a very different kind of rule. It isn't a no-no because it's not fair mystery writing, but because some consider it as interfering with the reader's feeling of realty. I don't think that if JKR broke one kind it necessarily implies she'll also break another kind, and all other kinds too. In fact, did JKR ever write something that would be grossly unfair by mystery writing criteria? I don't know enough about the genre to judge. > Pippin: > Another example of non-description is the composition of the > Irish Quidditch team. At least two of the chasers are female, but the > only indication is a pronoun or two -- they're never described as > women. Many readers have failed to notice this and railed at > JKR for sending two all male teams to the World Cup, ironically > exposing their own stereotyped thinking rather than hers. > Neri: Yes, this is a typical non-description, but it isn't an *unfair* non-description, since the genders of the Irish players aren't relevant in any way for the mystery plot, and the non-description isn't used to spring on us anything unexpected. Non-descriptions are extremely common in this sense. It is actually almost impossible to write a description without a non-description, because the author can never describe everything the hero sees. Even assuming JKR would have described the genders of the players, what about which of them scored each of the goals in the match? I'm sure Harry noticed that, yet it isn't described. But I was asking about *unfair* non-descriptions. > Pippin: > For the record, I assumed on first reading that someone else cursed > Fenrir. What's curious is that we don't hear anything more about FG at > all. You'd think the capture of such a notorious criminal would set > the WW abuzz, but nothing, which makes me wonder if whoever > hexed him didn't smuggle him out of the castle as well. There's > another non-description for you -- we aren't told what > happened after Snape called the DE's off, so we don't know what > became of Fenrir. > Neri: Yep, like I said, they are *very* common. Which makes it even more significant if we can't find any of them that are used unfairly. The unknown fate of Greyback was not used to spring any surprise on us. > Potioncat: > > Another one, that sort of fits your non-description is "nonverbal > spells." We'd seen evidence of them without being sure that was what > JKR intended. When it came up early in HBP I said "Yes! Nonverbal > spells do exist!" We've also questioned whether intentional wandless > magic exists too. Guess we'll have to wait till the next book to find > out. > Neri: I don't think we knew about them less than Harry did, so I'm not sure they would qualify as non-descriptions. But in any case they are surely not *unfair* non-descriptions. When their turn arrives to play an important role in the mystery plot JKR has Snape and Hermione explaining them. We had a few nonverbals before that, but they were never important for the mystery and never used to spring a surprise on us. I thought about this some more in the last day, and I still can't remember even one case in the series of a non-description used "unfairly" for springing a surprise on us. But lets have another round. Neri From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Feb 21 01:56:46 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:56:46 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148502 Hey Jen here again: > Here's the bit that made me sqirm, the term master manipulator was > never used but some could have inferred it: > > "It was very well done, thought Harry, the hesitancy, the casual > tone, the careful flattery, none of it overdone. He, Harry had had > too much experience of trying to wheedle information out of > reluctant people not to recognize a master at work." pp. 496-7 > Scholastic ed. > > See Carol, it seems Harry was farther down the path of becoming > aware of his actions than I seemed to have realized. And to hear him > think "wow, a master at work" it just caused me a bit of > disillusionment. That's all and I worry that he could too, become > someone who feels the ends justify the means, and I just hope that's > a vain worry. Ceridwen: Not Carol (ignore the Polyjuice simmering in the corner), but I think I have it. All through the books, Harry has been looking for information: on his parents, on why everyone is out to get him, on the mission that is obviously in store for him. A novice, an amateur, starting at the bottom, he has had nothing but frustration. At the end of OotP, Dumbledore says he's going to tell Harry everything. And Fandom breathes a sigh of relief, because when Harry hears it all, then we hear it all... Not that we got 'the whole truth' even then. But what Harry is admiring, is Tom Riddle succeeding with polished aplomb, where Harry failed again and again. This is the wide-eyed amazement of the would-be skiier, who can't even master the Bunny Slope, watching the Olympics. Harry might as well have said, 'Gee, wish I could do that!' or, 'Gosh! He makes it look so *easy*!' Jen D.: > I do feel he could falter in this area. But yes, I > appreciate your reminding me that DD has been training him up to be > accustomed to using his "Slytherin" gifts... Ceridwen: And HBP was the crash course, I think, in Discovering The Inner Slytherin. The first thing Dumbledore has Harry do is play the part of Seductively Dangled Celebrity for Slughorn, then leaves the two alone, knowing how Harry will naturally react to Slughorn, whose patterns are also well-known to DD. Harry can do Slytherin, he just needs to see how it's manageable from a Gryffindor perspective. Ceridwen. From kking0731 at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 02:06:11 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:06:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Seven Lives of LV (was: .. I know what ... the horcruxes is.) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148503 bboyminn: Horcruxes, in my opinion, are not like the nine lives of a cat, where one is used up with each brush with death. The Horcruxes are permanent, and stop the core-soul from crossing over to the 'other side'. Snow: I had to reply to this one because the topic of the post brought me to that very conclusion; the nine lives of a cat. Steve: As long as one piece of the soul is trapped and earthbound, the remaining parts of the soul can not cross over into death. The Horcruxes act as an anchor to the earthly life. Remember that only one Horcrux is needed, and as long as it exists, the core-soul can never cross over into death. Of course, Voldemort lost his body in the process, but he didn't die. His earthly essense lived on without a body. Later, with help, Voldemort is able to create a new version of his old body in which his earthbound soul coulf reside. Snow: I defiantly agree with you here, the disposal of the Horcruxes does not condemn Voldemort until every one of them has been disposed of. Steve: So, in my opinion, the answer is no, a Horcrux is not destroy every time Voldemort has a near death experience. Snow: You may be correct in your assumption but at the very least, since some of the Horcruxes have been destroyed, we know that he can never be whole again. Voldemort is living the half-life existence that was created the moment he drank from the fountain of Unicorn blood. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Feb 21 02:09:40 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 02:09:40 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved Lily. The Whole Story. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148504 Tonks_op: > Pulling up the stakes, folding the tent, putting out the fire. > Walking on towards another part of the forest. Stopping, looking > back at the abandoned Snape loves Narcissa camp. Sigh walking > on seeing clearing ahead. Yes this looks like a good place to > camp, just on the edge of the Snape loved Lily encampment. > > Yes it is official.. I am abandoning the Snape loves Narcissa > camp. After think more about my post of earlier today (see it here) > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148450 > > I have decided that this even makes the events of Spinners End > plausible in a way that does not involve Snape loving Narcissa. Ceridwen: I can't bear to see a perfectly good campsite abandoned! Why couldn't Snape have loved, or crushed on, Narcissa too? I had plenty of crushes in high school and junior high. I can't imagine that the guys all got so obsessed on one girl that they never changed their minds when another pretty... face... sashayed by. Tonks_op: > What is really happening isn't that Snape loved Narcissa; it is > Snape's torturous memory of his involvement in the death of Lily > whom he loved and James whom he had a life debit too. Snape is a > tortured soul, lost in the abyss, bound to keep Harry alive because > of his debit to James and his promise to DD. Seeing Narcissa > begging for her son "my only son", just brings back the whole memory > of the events at GH and his sense of guilt for being the one that > told LV of the prophesy. No wonder he turned away when Narcissa > collapsed in tears in front of him, he could just imagine that > mother being Lily. Ceridwen: Or, could it be that he's stacking them, seeing *both* of them, past and present, the one he couldn't help, and the one he may be able to help? There's also the possibility that he remembers his mother, possibly defending him against a) his father, b) other kids in the neighborhood (you've got to admit, he probably didn't fit into a Muggle neighborhood) or c) other WW kids who thought he was a freak, or at least teased him about being a Half-blood. Maybe defensive mothers are his soft spot? Tonks_op: > Poor, poor Snape. Oh what his life might have been if he > hadn't "worn his heart on his sleeve", if he had never fallen in > love and lost. Better to never have loved at all! See the mess > that it got him into along with the whole hated of James, and life > debit to James. Maybe Snape could have coped with the death of > James and the bad karma, if it hadn't been for Lily. Not Lily no, > please not her. Makes you wonder, if the memory in the cave is > Snape's. What a tortured soul he is... tortured and damned what a > rich character that JKR has brought to life for us. Ceridwen: *pulling up a convenient log and sobbing into her paper towel* Yes, yes, yes, poor Snape! I do think he's in a terrible position, even without unrequited love for either Lily or Narcissa. Caring for people is good, except when LV uses that against a person. Oh, the tragedy! Tonks_op: > In the cave DD drank Snape's memory. In so doing he took Snape's sin > into himself. And on the tower DD died to save him. It is all > starting to come together. Ceridwen: I am loving the list these days! So many wonderful, attractive ideas floating around! DD as Sin-...Drinker (?!). I like that. Not sure if I agree, but it has some resonance. I think this is post #3. But it could be post #4. If it is, I have the iron plugged in and waiting. Ceridwen, pleading inability to count due to the plethora of wonderful ideas recently. From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Feb 21 02:53:07 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 02:53:07 -0000 Subject: About that egg........ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148505 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Adzuroth" wrote: > > Adzuroth wrote: > Accio may or may not work on an egg a dragon is sitting on (after > all, in OOTP when Fred and George accio'd their brooms they broke a > heavy chain and crashed through doors to get to them) but all it > would take is a little distraction (like running around everywhere) > for the dragoness to raise herself up to breathe fire on Harry and he > could use the spell. > > Adzuroth > Allie: Or, dragon and egg might both soar through the air at him as soon as he yelled, "Accio!" That would indeed prove how powerful a wizard Harry is - a huge dragon flying through the air! Actually I found it quite impressive that the Accio spell reached all the way from the stadium to the castle! From lealess at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 03:03:23 2006 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 03:03:23 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP10, The House of Gaunt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148506 Thanks to Penapart Elf for reading my draft and making invaluable corrections and suggestions. lealess --------- CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 10, The House of Gaunt Harry continues to do well in Potions thanks to the Half Blood Prince's instructions. He offers to share these notes with Hermione and Ron, but Ron can't read them and Hermione prefers the "official" and less effective instructions. Harry has examined the book, which has notes on almost every page, plus spells. He has vaguely wondered who the Prince was. As the three study in the Common Room, Hermione suggests that the writing might be a girl's. She simultaneously discourages Ron from cheating off her essay by pulling it away from him. Harry excuses himself to go to the first training session with Dumbledore. He sees Trelawney in the hall and ducks behind a statue, crouching down to remain hidden. Trelawney is shuffling cards: Two of spades: conflict; seven of spades: ill omen; ten of spades: violence; knave of spades: dark young man, troubled, dislikes the questioner. Trelawney distrusts the reading, and leaves, smelling of cooking sherry. Harry issues the Acid Pops command and goes into Dumbledore's office. Dumbledore knows Harry has his first detention of the year, which he has deferred so Harry can train with him. Harry is quite enthusiastic about this training, which he expects to be dueling practice. The office has not been modified for dueling, however: it is full of silver, puffing instruments, supposedly sleeping former Headmasters, and an interested Fawkes. Dumbledore explains he intends to journey back through memory into guesswork. Dumbledore remarks that he may be "woefully wrong," that being more clever than most, his mistakes are "correspondingly huger." Harry is somewhat apprehensive. He seeks promised information, especially about the prophecy, information that will help him survive. Dumbledore pulls out his Pensieve. Harry is uneasy, remembering unwelcome revelations about his father he saw the last time he looked into it, in Snape's office. Dumbledore notices and jokes that this time Harry has permission to look into it. Dumbledore also assures Harry that he will accompany him into the Pensieve. The Headmaster produces a crystal bottle with a silvery-white substance, has trouble removing the cork with his damaged hand, and uses his wand to remove it. Harry asks how he injured his hand. Dumbledore says now is not the time to explain. He pours a memory into the Pensieve, and they embark on a journey to a country lane in summer. Bob Ogden, whose memory they are viewing, is a short, plump man with thick glasses, dressed like a wizard trying to look like a Muggle. He is reading a signpost. They follow him to a view of Little Hangleton, which includes a village and a great manor house. They descend a steep slope. A path to the right is untended and leads to a dark thicket of trees, which hides a house in a state of natural ruin. The house is occupied, however, as a window opens and steam or smoke trickles out. Ogden draws his wand, moves cautiously ahead, and stops to stare at a dead snake nailed to the door. A man with thick matted hair, who is wall-eyed and missing teeth, drops from a tree to warn Ogden, "You're not welcome." Ogden seems not to understand him. Harry understands him, however, because the man is speaking Parseltongue. The forbidding man, holding a bloody knife in one hand and a wand in the other, hexes Ogden's nose. A short, ape-like, elderly man hastens from the house, calling out the name of the attacker, Morfin. The old man is Mr. Gaunt. He is not pleased at the unexpected visit by the Ministry of Magic's Mr. Ogden, who is looking for Morfin for a serious breach of Wizarding laws. Mr. Gaunt did not expect the Ministry's visit -- he does not accept letters. Ogden says he can't complain about not getting any warning, then. While Ogden tries to assert authority over Morfin, Gaunt's primary concern is the blood purity of Ogden, stating his nose looks like some in the Muggle village. They enter the hovel, where Morfin tangles an adder in his fingers, crooning a threatening rhyme to it in Parseltongue. Harry realizes there is a girl standing by a steaming pot in the corner. She is wall-eyed, and has a "plain, pale, rather heavy face." She blends into the gray of the wall, and looks completely defeated. Gaunt introduces her as his daughter, Merope, but she does not speak. While Ogden tries to explain that the reason for his visit is that Morfin performed magic in front of a Muggle, Merope drops a pot. Her father calls her a "useless sack of muck" and a "pointless lump," emphasizing her apparent lack of magic. It is clear she is terrified of her father. Ogden, the Head of the Magical Law Enforcement Squad, is visiting to summons Morfin to a hearing at the Ministry. Gaunt feels his family's honor has been insulted. He first thrusts a ring with the Peverell coat of arms on it into Ogden's face, then drags his daughter by a gold chain around her neck to show Ogden the locket on the chain, little caring that she is choking on the pulled chain. Gaunt explains that the Gaunts are the heirs of Slytherin, generations of pureblood wizards. Ogden is not impressed. Gaunt, on the other hand, is unconcerned that Morfin hexed a Muggle, as he hates Muggle-coddling. Ogden reads the summons aloud, while outside the hut, sounds of horses and laughter arise. A young woman comments loudly on the dilapidated house. A young man explains that while his family owns practically everything they can see, an old tramp owns the house. Gaunt's children react strongly to the sounds: Morfin looks hungry and gets up; Merope turns stark white. The passersby notice the snake on the door, and Tom, the young man, says to his "darling" that the tramp's son, who is not right in the head, nailed it there. Morfin picks up on the "darling" comment to torment his sister, who has a crush on the Muggle Tom, the man Morfin hexed to make him look less pretty. Gaunt loses control of his temper and begins to choke Merope for "hankering after a filthy, dirt-veined Muggle." Ogden frees the girl, but is attacked by Morfin and runs for his life. As the screams of Merope echo in Ogden's ears, he runs right into the horse-riding Muggles. Their response is to laugh at Ogden. Harry notices the young Muggle man is handsome and dark-haired. Dumbledore leaves the memory with Harry. Harry wants to know what happened to Merope, or "whatever her name was." Dumbledore explains that she survived. Morfin and his father were removed from their house by the Ministry 15 minutes later. Both were convicted by the Wizengamot and given sentences in Azkaban, Morfin for 3 years, his father, Marvolo Gaunt, for 6 months. When Harry hears the name Marvolo, he discerns that Marvolo was Voldemort's grandfather and Merope was his mother. The handsome Muggle was Tom Riddle Sr. Dumbledore explains the Gaunts were an ancient Wizarding family prone to instability and violence. Merope was indeed a witch, but incapable of performing magic under her father's terror. She was free for the first time when her father and brother were imprisoned. Dumbledore speculates she used a love potion to attract Tom Riddle Sr. A few months after Tom Sr. eloped with Merope, he reappeared at his home, claiming he had been tricked. He left Merope while she was still pregnant. Dumbledore believes she stopped giving him the love potion, mistakenly hoping he would have come to love her for herself, or stay with her for the baby's sake. Marvolo, meanwhile, died early, due to the shock of either Merope's desertion or of her marriage to a Muggle. Harry, confused, asks if knowing about Voldemort's past is important to understanding the prophecy. Dumbledore confirms that it is very important and has everything to do with the prophecy. Harry sees a ring on a spindle-legged table and discerns it is the ring Dumbledore was wearing when they first visited Slughorn, the same ring Gaunt showed to Ogden. Dumbledore says he acquired it recently, at about the same time Dumbledore injured his hand. Harry asks again how his hand came to be injured, but Dumbledore says it is late and Harry will hear the story another time. ------- 1. Harry goes to great lengths to hide from Trelawney. In spite of this, he overhears a fortune-telling. Trelawney's card reading has been the subject of examination by those who know the Tarot. Why did Rowling put the card reading in this chapter? Is it necessary foreshadowing? Who is the "dark young man, possibly troubled, one who dislikes the questioner"? 2. Merope does not really speak in this chapter, or anywhere else in the book. Her few words are related by other characters. Yet, according to Dumbledore, she does speak for herself through her subsequent actions, although he speculates those actions are underhanded. Not allowing a voice to a character is a striking narrative device. Does Merope have a voice? What is its character? 3. The Gaunts are said to have married their cousins, a line which dwindled to the present Gaunts. Marrying cousins is claimed to be a bad thing because recessive genes can become dominant in resulting children. Here is an article with another view on cousin marriage, which is apparently common in some cultures: http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2002-04-04-cousins.htm. Dumbledore comments that the Gaunts were "noted for a vein of instability and violence that flourished through the generations due to their habit of marrying their own cousins." They had also been high-living profligates. If we accept that specific personality traits can be inherited in the Wizarding world, what did Voldemort specifically inherit from the Gaunts? 4. Considering they are the heirs of Slytherin, why are the Gaunts so far outside the Wizarding world? It does not seem likely the Gaunts married into any other pureblood families. Gaunt himself may have been prepared to let the Slytherin bloodline die with Merope and Morfin. The Gaunts even seem to be unaware of the Wizarding world's laws. With this degree of separation, how did the Gaunts come to possess wands, or make their living? How did Merope learn the magic she used once her father and brother were gone? 5. Inviting guesswork, as Dumbledore does: what is the story with the ring? It is an "ugly" ring that someone (Borgin & Burkes?) offered Gaunt a lot of money for at one time. The ring meant enough to the Gaunts that it and Slytherin's locket survived the family's squandering of its fortune. Is the Peverell connection important? Why is it necessary to keep the ring's story untold until book 7? 6. Dumbledore initiates this journey with Harry, but on two occasions, he does not answer Harry's questions about the heirloom ring. This is an opportunity to see Dumbledore as a teacher, although not in a classroom ? in specialized circumstances. What is he teaching Harry in this lesson? Why was it important to use the Pensieve in this instance instead of just telling Harry the information? Dumbledore admits to being really clever, but capable of making correspondingly huge mistakes. What if Dumbledore is wrong about his "guesswork"? Who is Dumbledore answerable to if he is wrong? 7. Dumbledore confirms that it is very important that Harry know about Voldemort's past, that it has "everything to do with the prophecy." What do the Gaunts, as part of Voldemort's past, have to do with the prophecy? Here is the prophecy, for reference: "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... ." 8. Who teaches morality in the wizarding world in the absence of parents, if not teachers? Dumbledore has in Harry a virtual orphan, like Tom Jr. was, a person raised with a dearth of love and with ineffective parental guidance. But Dumbledore, when faced with an opportunity to reinforce the message of a teacher who gave a detention based on disrespect or to address a lesson in privacy based on Pensieve misuse, sidesteps the issue. Dumbledore says he has told Harry the truth, but he hasn't told him the complete truth; for example, he didn't tell him that Snape was the eavesdropper at the Hog's Head. Dumbledore trusts Harry to know right from wrong, based on years of observation ? but observation alone did not work with Tom Jr. It seems that Rowling is concluding, through Dumbledore, that people are born with a "blood"-derived moral sense. Voldemort was descended from the debased Gaunts and the selfish Riddle Sr.; they were bad, and he is therefore evil. Harry was descended from Lily and James Potter; they were good, and Dumbledore can therefore trust Harry to be good, even if Harry was raised without love. It becomes pointless to teach moral lessons. All Dumbledore has to do is sit back and observe how people show their moral character. Is this, in fact, the assumption on which Dumbledore operates? In shielding Harry from the entire truth, is Dumbledore continuing to do what he was doing pre-office scene in OOTP: namely, choosing easy over right when it comes to Harry? 9. The Wizengamot is responsible for enforcing Wizarding law at the time Morfin broke the law by performing magic in front of Muggles. But as Gaunt pointed out, there was no real consequence to breaking the law. The Ministry corrected the harm done to Muggle Tom and erased his memory of the hex. Morfin's violence might have been bound to escalate, and he did admit to hexing Tom Sr. But he may also have been inbred to such a degree that he could not form a concept of right and wrong. Similarly, it may have been difficult for Merope to form a concept of right and wrong, especially as she had no outside guidance or help. Ogden provided only personal protection for Merope when she was abused by her father, but did not charge Marvolo with assault. Merope herself was not imprisoned for enchanting Tom Riddle Sr., a Muggle previously targeted by her family, and one who was subsequently spirited away under mysterious circumstances. What does the Gaunts' interaction with Wizarding law, especially as regards Muggles, say about that law? 10. This had probably been discussed to death, but: Why can't Ron read the Prince's instructions? Hermione won't try to read them because she is opposed to "cheating" with the HBP book ? is this the real reason? Why does she insist the handwriting is a girl's? NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Feb 21 03:21:51 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 03:21:51 -0000 Subject: The Mysteries of Occlumency - High and Low -Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148507 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Snape however does > not have that luxury. If his mind was completely inaccessable to > Voldemort, Voldemort would wonder what he was hiding and would never > trust him. So, Snape has a far more complex Occlumency task, he must > allow his mind to be open to Voldemorts Legilimency, but he must also > compartmentalize his mind. He must allow Voldemort general access > while at the same time blocking very specific facts that he does not > want Voldemort to know. Further, I suspect that Snape is able to allow > false thoughts to enter his mind in order to mislead Voldemort. That > seems like an immensely complex task. Further Snape must maintain his > control of the limted blocks and limited access at all times. Though I > suspect he can relax a bit at Hogwarts. > > Again, I am simply marveling at the immense complex level of > Occlumency that Snape and Voldemort are operating at. Allie: Snape must be one of the most skilled wizards we know, whether he's ESE! or DDM! It also amazes me that such a thing as Legilimency exists. For all practical purposes, and despite telling Harry that he has no subtlety, Snape *is* able to read Harry's mind when he wants to - like when he sees the Potions textbook there. That's a pretty scary talent. From tifflblack at earthlink.net Tue Feb 21 03:38:34 2006 From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (Tiffany Black) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:38:34 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP10, The House of Gaunt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148508 Lealiss: 1. Harry goes to great lengths to hide from Trelawney. In spite of this, he overhears a fortune-telling. Trelawney's card reading has been the subject of examination by those who know the Tarot. Why did Rowling put the card reading in this chapter? Is it necessary foreshadowing? Who is the "dark young man, possibly troubled, one who dislikes the questioner"? Tiffany: I have always thought that Harry was the one who disliked the questioner, as he was hiding from Trelawney at the time. Not knowing anything about tarot reading, I assume that the questioner would be the one reading the cards. Tiffany From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 21 03:04:23 2006 From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:04:23 +1100 Subject: Back to Quirrell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148509 Gryffindor Chaser inqires: I am reading Philosophers Stone again and am trying to pick up as many clues as possible about anything that may be forshadowing later books. I also picked up that in the early scenes when Harry is with Hargid in the Leaky Cauldron he shakes Prof. Quirrells hand. After this, Hargrid mentions that Quirrell had been away and never been the same, therefor he is already being posessed. So WHY doesn't he get a bad reaction after shaking Harry's hand? In the movie however, Prof. Quirrell doesn't shake Harry's hand, so others who don't pay too much attention may not have noticed. Any answers? _________________________________________________________________ realestate.com.au: the biggest address in property http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 21 03:45:14 2006 From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:45:14 +1100 Subject: The Ancient and Most Noble House Of Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148510 Gryffindor Chaser: >From an article J.K. Rowling donated to charity, the outline of the 'Black Family Tree', you can see that in one generation a Black family member married 1) Potter, 2) Longbottom and 3) Crouch. Seeing this sparked my thoughts, if each of these families that a Black family member has married into is good, then why would they still be on the family tree, whouldn't they have been scratched off like the Weasleys and Sirius himself. This led me to think that maybe each of these had something to do with their subsequent deaths, like James Potter, the Longbottoms, and the Couch's? Just a thought. From oppen at mycns.net Tue Feb 21 05:40:42 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (Eric Oppen) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:40:42 -0600 Subject: New Filk Message-ID: <000b01c636a6$fa300580$17560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 148511 The House of White and Green ttto Wearing of the Green Oh, Vince and Greg, hear me, I beg, bad news is goin' round, For Slytherins are not permitted on our old school's ground, The Serpent's Nest is now bereft, no more will we be seen, For now the whole school's out to get the house of White-and-Green. Chorus: Oh, the house of White-and-Green, oh, the house of White-and-Green We're all in dire disgrace because we're wearing White and Green. I met with Marcus Flint just now, he took me off aside, And asked "How is it for our House, does Slytherin abide?" I had to tell him that we cannot let ourselves be seen, For Slughorn can't help us preserve the house of White-and-Green. Now thanks to those Death Eaters our whole house is in disgrace, But we will work to clear our names and gain our rightful place, We'll work together all as one, like one well-oiled machine, And someday they will welcome back the house of White-and-Green. And since our name's been flung in mud at Voldemort's command, We'll work together, day and night, to drive him from the land! Though our Old Boys disgraced us all, and times for us are lean, We'll win at last, because we are the House of White-and-Green! And Gryffindor will never more run Hogwarts like its fief, And act like any points we get were stolen by a thief! They act like Rangers football fans, which means they're acting mean, But someday they will all bow to the House of White-and-Green! Our Hogwarts stands on four firm legs, with three it won't stand right, And so we Slytherins must now get ready for a fight! We'll fight the Dark Lord and our friends, to make our name shine clean, And we will triumph, for we are the House of White-and-Green! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 21 06:14:29 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:14:29 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148512 Considering this "is Snape good or evil" business I can think of 5 possibilities, I list them below from least likely to most likely. I'm almost sure #1 is untrue because I don't see any way to make an interesting book with that premise, and I'll bet money book 7 will be interesting. 1) Dumbledore is not dead (boring) so Snape is (yawn) good. 2) Snape killed Dumbledore but it turns out that Dumbledore was evil so Snape is good. (after 6 books I don't think any writer could turn Dumbledore evil, not even JKR) 3) Snape killed Dumbledore but did so on Dumbledore's orders. (very difficult to find a viable reason Dumbledore would order such a thing and even if he did Snape would still be evil, at least in my book) 4) Snape killed Dumbledore to aid Voldemort so Snape is evil. (this is the conventional interpretation but JKR is seldom conventional) 5) Snape killed Dumbledore to aid himself so Snape is evil. (Snape was the third most powerful wizard in the world but he wants to be number one, he killed one and made sure Harry was alive and healthy to kill the other) Eggplant From jhnbwmn at hotmail.com Tue Feb 21 06:42:48 2006 From: jhnbwmn at hotmail.com (johnbowman19) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 06:42:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's ability to cast the AK Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148513 Hello All The topic of Harry being able to cast an Avada Kedavra has come up, I am sure it has come up before and I am sorry for discussing it till death (but that is all we can do until JK comes in with our answers); but I would argue that Harry could not cast the Avada Kedavra curse. The reason is simple: whenever one casts the Avada Kedavra curse one is intending murder, not merely killing or revenge. The reason why Avada Kedavra is murder is also simple; in order to cast the spell one must clearly intend the death of another person. The distinction between murder and killing, I opine, is that when one kills another person, death is not the intent of the action. Killing a person is a byproduct of attempting to defend oneself or another person and the death of another person is not immediate intent of said action. Therefore Harry could not cast the Avada Kedavra because he would only kill Voldemort in self defense or in the defense of a third party. He would never intent the death of another person. So then the question is whether or not Harry will murder Voldemort. Could a main character whose greatest power is love commit murder? No, because in order to murder, one must hate, and if one hates I would aver one cannot love. Also murder would rip Harry's soul apart leaving us with a hero whose soul is ripped in two. I have no cannon evidence for this, except that Harry spared Pettigrew, and this points to Harry's inability to allow murder to happen. If Harry cannot allow murder to happen he cannot commit murder himself. Also I think Dumbledore misinterpreted the prophecy as a red herring. "Neither can live while the other survives" doesn't not mean that the person to kill Voldemort must be Harry or the person to kill Harry must be Voldemort. The prophecy does not ascribe the death of either individual to the other individual. Instead it says that neither can live while the other lives. I know the prophecy says Harry is born with "the power to vanquish the Dark lord" but the prophecy is vague as to whether Voldemort has the power to "vanquish" Harry, or if either will kill the other specifically. Just because Harry has the power to "vanquish" does not mean he will be the person to kill the 7th part of Voldemort's soul. He could be responsible for the destruction of 5 of the 7 parts of Voldemort's soul and thus be the majority shareholder in the "vanquishing" of the Dark Lord. The prophecy does not specifically state either has to, or can kill the other. John who is just trying to offer some food for thought. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 21 07:04:43 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 07:04:43 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative?. In-Reply-To: <000e01c6366a$b366cd50$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148514 > susanbones2003 > it really bothers me that Harry wasn't > repelled by LV's skills with Slughorn. Why be repelled by a work of art? Some people have the ability to influence other people, it's a fact, observe the phenomenon and learn from it. > He seemed to be recognizing a > master at work. In other words he's recognizing reality. > I hadn't counted on any situation in > which Harry might have to do something unsavory In the real world when young men go to war they are forced to do some very very unpleasant things, things so horrible they would gag a maggot; and I'm talking about young men every bit as good and decent and kind as Harry Potter. I think it would be interesting if in book 7 the last book in the series JKR acknowledges that fact when we see Harry go to war. > I worried that he might damage his own > pure and untarnished soul. But I very much want to see Harry damage his pure and untarnished soul because I think it would make a much better story than "they all lived happily ever after". I want death I want blood I want misery, at least in the fictional world. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 07:21:10 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 07:21:10 -0000 Subject: The Ancient and Most Noble House Of Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148515 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Victoria Scott" wrote: > > Gryffindor Chaser: > > ... you can see that in one generation a Black family member > married 1) Potter, 2) Longbottom and 3) Crouch. ..., if each > of these families ... is good, then why would they still be on > the family tree, whouldn't they have been scratched off like > the Weasleys and Sirius himself. > bboyminn: I don't think it is a question of 'good' or 'bad'. That is, morals, ethics, and which side of the law you are on is not the key issue; Pureblood beliefs are. So, the Weasleys despite being both from old pureblood families and from a line of pureblood marriages, are off the family tree because they are muggle and muggle-born supporters. In otherword, in the view of pureblood fanatics, they are blood traitors. The elder Crouch shown on the family tree may not have been involved in the first Voldemort war, and therefore he wouldn't be penalized for the actions of the younger Barty Crouch Sr. Even while Barty Sr. fought against Voldemort and considered him a criminal, that doesn't change the fact that he comes from a long line of purebreds. So, while he acted against Voldemort, he did not necessarily renounce the purity of wizarding blood, so he could also possibly remain on the family tree. I would suspect that many Pureblood fanatics would consider themselves law abiding citizens, but also consider that the current direction of the government would be wrong, and therefore feel justified in their opposition to muggle-positive laws. Really though, I'm not even convinced that being burned off the family tree is about purity of blood. I think it is pure vindictiveness. If you don't agree with me (meaning Mrs. Black) then you are scum and you are off the family tree. It's more about a sense of superiority and absolute rightness, than it is about any real ideology. > Gryffindor Chaser continues: > > This led me to think that maybe each of these had something to > do with their subsequent deaths, like James Potter, the > Longbottoms, and the Couch's? > > Just a thought. > bboyminn: Not sure what you mean by this last statement. Are you saying the older Crouch's on the family tree were redeemed in a sense because the younger and new Crouch members caused their own doom? For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 21 07:59:55 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 07:59:55 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: <000e01c6366a$b366cd50$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148516 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Karen" wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: susanbones2003 > But and here's my point, it really bothers me that Harry wasn't > repelled by LV's skills with Slughorn. He seemed to be > recognizing a master at work. > kchuplis: > > I really think we have another case of difference in definition of a word; admire. > > I found this (no, not the OE, but it is plenty for a quick post; if anyone has the OE feel free to put out a more detailed definition): > > ad?mire (ad-mir') > > v., -mired, -mir?ing, -mires. > > v.tr. > 1.. To regard with pleasure, wonder, and approval. > 2.. To have a high opinion of; esteem or respect. > 3.. Chiefly New England & Upper Southern U.S. To enjoy (something): "I just admire to get letters, but I don't admire to answer them" (Dialect Notes). > 4.. Archaic. To marvel or wonder at. > I believe we are seeing Harry as "to marvel or wonder at" which is not to say he holds it in esteem or respect - not in the way I think you are worried about. It doesn't mean he is saying "wow, I wish I could do that" but rather just saying "well, THAT is an LV strength." I agree, Harry has not ever been cunning or underhanded about his ability to cajole or get what he needs or wants, but I also (myself) see no indication that he is in danger of identifying too strongly with LV. Just enough to be concious of his choices, and that > occurred as far back as the end of CoS. Geoff: Unfortunately, I didn't have time to reply to susanbones' post last night and one of the problems of being in the UK is that the US folk decide to wake up while I'm in bed and umpteen messages come in overnight. :-) So, if I repeat other folk's thoughts, my apologies. I looked up definitions of "admire" in my three usual dictionaries and got: Concise Oxford: "Regard with pleased surprise or approval; express admiration of; wonder at, wonder." Heinemann: "to have a high regard or respect for." Readers' Digest Word Power (which I use most often): "(1) regard with respect or warm approval (2) look at with pleasure" I do not think that Harry is doing just this. I agree with another poster about admiring a sports star - I am admiring Andy Murray's success in the San Jose Open almost with jealousy because my tennis is beyond description(!) but that's a different matter to Harry's view of Riddle. "It was very well done, though Harry, the hesitancy, the casual tone, the careful flattery, none of it overdone. He, Harry, had had too much experience of trying to wheedle information out of reluctant people not to recognise a master at work. He could tell that Riddle wanted the information very, very much; perhaps had been working towards this moment for weeks." (HBP "Horcruxes" p.464 UK edition) I can see Harry being /impressed/ by this performance but not necessarily wanting to emulate the ends for which Riddle was aiming. This is a different matter to admiration. I have always been interested in modern German history and how someone like Hitler managed to get where he did in a cultured and advanced nation. I have been /impressed/ by the skills he exercised in becoming Chancellor and by the strategies he used to so successfully overrun Western Europe and promote the course of World War 2 for the first couple of years. But I do NOT admire him and do not wish to behave in the same way. To finish, another thought from canon 'Mr.Ollivander fixed Harry with his pale stare...... ..... "The wand chooses the wizard, remember... I think we must expect great things from you, Mr.Potter... After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things - terrible, yes, but great." Harry shivered.' 9PS "Diagon Alley" p.65 UK edition) Impressed? - yes. Admiring? I don't think so. From vidarfe at start.no Tue Feb 21 08:29:51 2006 From: vidarfe at start.no (vidar_fe) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:29:51 -0000 Subject: How Does LV Communicate with Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148517 > Ideas anyone? > > The dark mark? - Just an idea. :-) From vidarfe at start.no Tue Feb 21 09:01:05 2006 From: vidarfe at start.no (vidar_fe) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:01:05 -0000 Subject: My thoughts on some things....... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148518 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Adzuroth" wrote: > > > Adzuroth: > > > If their wand gets snapped in half, so what? Hagrid had > > > no problems performing spells in books one and six (putting the > > > pig tail on Dudley and putting out the housefire, respectively). > > > > vidar_fe: > > Well, Hagrid had his very special umbrella.... :-) > > Adzuroth: > You're right vidar_fe, and if memory serves me right, Hagrid had his > two wand halves inside his umbrella, allowing him use of his spells. > Of course that raises other questions, like how Hagrid could cast > spells with a broken wand without any mishaps. If you'll recall in > book 2, Ron's wand was only partially broken (and patched with spell- > o-tape) but he had all sorts of trouble casting stuff. > vidar_fe: Ouch, I had forgotten that Ron's wand malfunctioned (as Lockhart could have attested, had he had any memories left:-)). Good catch! Perhaps Hagrid's wand did malfunction sometimes too, only not when we saw him use it? Not very convincing, I know, but I haven't got any better idea *blushes*. In book 6 he was already cleared of all charges, so I guess he could have bought himself a new wand. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Feb 21 12:30:35 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:30:35 -0000 Subject: news about Black Family Tree Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148519 Potioncat: The Lexicon has published more information about the Black Family Tree. The bit that jumped out at me was that Andromeda married "Muggle" Ted Tonks. (not Muggle-born) Here's a link to the updated tree as produced by the Lexicon. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html Take a look at "What's New" for an explanation of how the information was gleaned. Potioncat, cub reporter to the WW......(yeah, right.) From kchuplis at alltel.net Tue Feb 21 14:30:04 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:30:04 -0600 Subject: A different angle Message-ID: <001301c636f3$4e490940$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 148520 So, many of us, while thinking that Harry won't cast an AK to do in LV still think he is supposed to kill (or at least "vanquish") LV, what I want to think about it what did Harry learn through the penseive that will help him. Until now, it has always been LV "happening to" Harry, but what if Harry now goes on the hunt not just for horcruxes but there has to be an end game too and he can't wait for LV to just decide to come get him again. Then he is was again just being the one put in a bad spot. One thing we did learn is that LV likes trophies. A lot. And not just for horcruxes. What if Harry forms an actual plan (with help from Hermione and Ron, possibly others) to lure LV out in the open? What about the Griffindor sword? (Although, that might not be as important to LV now, years later). What else was learned that could get LV? Has this been brought up? If so, sorry. If not, any ideas of where else this could lead or what he could use? kchuplis From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 14:26:03 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:26:03 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP10, The House of Gaunt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148521 a_svirn: Brilliant synopsis and questions, lealess! This said I don't think I agree with your conclusions on No. 4. > 4. Considering they are the heirs of Slytherin, why are the Gaunts so > far outside the Wizarding world? It does not seem likely the Gaunts > married into any other pureblood families. a_svirn: What else could the Gaunts have been doing for about a millennium if not marrying into pureblood families? It's not like there is any other method to stay pureblood. You'd run out of cousins in three generations in you confine yourself exclusively to your own family. The very fact that they managed to last this long proves that they married into other families once in a while. Not that these other families weren't their distant cousins too, though. If the Black Family Chart is any indication, they all are related to some degree. >Gaunt himself may have been > prepared to let the Slytherin bloodline die with Merope and Morfin. a_svirn: Well, it's not that he was "prepared", I guess. It's just that he couldn't have much of a choice. His family fortunes were in a total wreck, his son was a half-wit, and he probably rated his daughter's intellect not much higher. Can you imagine anyone who would want an alliance with such a family? Besides, he was too proud. Rather than be a third-rate member of a wizarding community he preferred to live in a world of his own. A perfectly pathetic world, but one where he was a lord and master. Even though it was his own children he was lording over. > The Gaunts even seem to be unaware of the Wizarding world's laws. a_svirn: This is not an uncommon attitudes among purebloods. The only difference is that the Malfoys, say, or the Blacks could afford it (usually), while the Gaunts, alas, were not as well-connected as these magnates. Obviously they used to, and the habits still lingered, though. > With this degree of separation, how did the Gaunts come to possess > wands, or make their living? >How did Merope learn the magic she used > once her father and brother were gone? a_svirn: How do we know that they were this separated? There is nothing in the books to suggest that she never studied in Hogwarts. Or did I miss something? I haven't got a book right now. > 8. Who teaches morality in the wizarding world in the absence of > parents, if not teachers? Dumbledore has in Harry a virtual orphan, > like Tom Jr. was, a person raised with a dearth of love and with > ineffective parental guidance. But Dumbledore, when faced with an > opportunity to reinforce the message of a teacher who gave a detention > based on disrespect or to address a lesson in privacy based on > Pensieve misuse, sidesteps the issue. Dumbledore says he has told > Harry the truth, but he hasn't told him the complete truth; for > example, he didn't tell him that Snape was the eavesdropper at the > Hog's Head. Dumbledore trusts Harry to know right from wrong, based on > years of observation ? but observation alone did not work with Tom Jr. > It seems that Rowling is concluding, through Dumbledore, that people > are born with a "blood"-derived moral sense. Voldemort was descended > from the debased Gaunts and the selfish Riddle Sr.; they were bad, and > he is therefore evil. Harry was descended from Lily and James Potter; > they were good, and Dumbledore can therefore trust Harry to be good, > even if Harry was raised without love. It becomes pointless to teach > moral lessons. All Dumbledore has to do is sit back and observe how > people show their moral character. Is this, in fact, the assumption on > which Dumbledore operates? a_svirn: I wouldn't say that. But Rowling said (through Dumbledore) that Harry is special. So I guess, his specialness is supposed to explain the special treatment. Come to think of it, Voldemort is also special From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 21 14:42:59 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:42:59 -0000 Subject: Curses and non-descriptions (was: DDM!Snape clue) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148522 > Neri: > I agree that it was most probably Bella, but since this isn't > described explicitly there's some wiggle room left, and this room is > exactly where all the conspiracy theories get in. They'd say "maybe > Harry didn't actually see where it came from and just assumed it was > Bella". If only it was written "a second jet of light from Bellatrix's > wand" , it would have been much more difficult to theorize that it > wasn't Bella, and this is why I categorize this case as a > non-description. > Pippin: Um, that's not quite what you said earlier. I quote : The most famous example of a non-description in the series is probably the curse that killed (or not) Sirius in OotP. Harry surely saw at least what color it was, but the color isn't described. Harry probably also saw if it was Bellatrix who shot it, or at least he'd know, if he thinks back about what he saw, whether it could have been somebody else. So if the author is going to take advantage of this non-description to tell me later that it was somebody else (like ESE!Lupin, as Pippin suggested) who shot the curse, I'll feel cheated. The author doesn't have to describe explicitly *everything* the hero sees, but I feel as if we have a tacit agreement that she has to describe anything *relevant* that Harry sees. Pippin: My point is, she doesn't have to tell us whether Harry *failed* to see something relevant. Rowling manipulates the narrative, as in the broom incident, so that we don't know exactly what Harry has observed. There are two bits of information lacking in the description of the spell that killed Sirius. One is its color, which I agree Harry must have seen, though we aren't told what it was. The second is its source, and as you seem to be conceding above, there's some wiggle room there. Rowling showed in Book One that there are times we cannot rely on Occam's razor to validate conclusions drawn from what Harry observes. It was not Snape's hatred that caused Harry's scar to burn at the opening banquet, and it was not Snape who hexed the broom. My theory is that Rowling gives the reader a clue that she is up to something by using what seem to be stylistic gaffes. The switch in narrative PoV in PS/SS is the most obvious one but there are others, for example Scabbers falling so suddenly asleep again after biting Goyle, or Ginny's endless fountain of tears at the end of CoS. Neglecting to tell us the color or source of the jet of light that struck Sirius could be another such gaffe/clue. There are two bits of missing information. One is the color of the light, which Harry must have observed but which is not relevant if Sirius is really dead. The other is the source of the curse, which Harry need not have observed but is extremely relevant especially if Sirius is really dead. I remind you that before HBP there was much discussion of whether Sirius was dead or not, and the missing color of light was one of the mainstays of the argument. A lot of energy that might have gone into discussing why the source of the curse was hidden was diverted into discussing whether Sirius was really dead or not. The missing color of light functioned like a classic red herring. A similar situation obtains with Fenrir. There are two bits of missing information. One is who cursed him and the other is what became of him afterwards. Harry must know whether he did the curse or not, but the relevance of this changes depending on what happened to Fenrir afterwards, and that we don't know. Occam's razor would say he was captured and turned in, but can we rely on Occam's razor in this case? Neri: In fact, did JKR ever write something that would be grossly unfair by mystery writing criteria? I don't know enough about the genre to judge. Pippin: "Fair mystery" is a term of art and describes a story constructed so that the reader, using only deduction and factual knowledge (which may be in the text or obtainable independently) can solve the mystery before the solution is given by the sleuth. Strictly speaking the main mysteries in the books are not "fair", and escape being cheats only because Harry never deduces the answers either. They are solvable, but not by deduction and fact -- you have to use a meta approach and discard some solutions simply because they are too obvious. For example we never get a reason that Bagman or Karkaroff couldn't have put Harry's name in the goblet so there was no logical or factual reason to eliminate them as suspects in advance of Fake!Moody's confession. The lesser mysteries that Hermione solves, OTOH, *are* fair. With logic and a little research, the reader could have found out who Nicholas Flammel was, deduced that Rita Skeeter was an animagus, that the monster was a basilisk and getting around in the pipes, and figured out that Lupin was a werewolf. Pippin From dbwainwright2 at yahoo.com.au Tue Feb 21 05:52:35 2006 From: dbwainwright2 at yahoo.com.au (dbwainwright2) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:52:35 -0000 Subject: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148523 Dung wrote: Harry must kill in order to rip off the Voldy fragment which has knitted itself to his own soul. It's canon that to create a horcrux you have to have done this, but Slughorn says that to encase the torn piece there is another spell. Presumably this is the bit that is 'against nature', the part of the operation which gets the soul bit out of you and into the locket/ring/diary/cup etc. There are two distinct steps in the process. So even once Harry has ripped Voldemort's soul fragment from his own soul, the Voldy fragment will still be inside Harry, and will still be acting as a horcrux keeping Voldemort's last piece of soul, the bit inside his body, alive. He'd be reduced to Vapour!Mort again. Basically, I don't think Harry would be able to get it all done with one Avada Kedavra on Voldy. I think that another life will have to be lost. [so, either ] 1. Harry kills someone to rip off the piece of Voldemort's soul, they extract and destroy it, then Harry (or someone else) rips their soul by killing Voldemort. 2. Harry decides he can't do it, he would rather sacrifice his own life to destroy the Horcrux within him, he thus forces someone else to rip their soul by killing him, and again when they dispose of the now-mortal Voldemort. It boils down to a choice between dying innocent, by forcing the guilt onto the shoulders of others, or surviving by sinning dramatically and having to go through that whole repentance lark for the rest of your life. I did say it was a rotten choice, but if the DDM!Snapers are right, it's one that somebody else has recently had to make, too. Doug: There may be another scenario (possibly with slight variations of the same). This one removes the need for extra parties to get their hands dirty, and forces Harry to genuinely `go it alone'; it doesn't involve soul assimilation, although it does involve a spiritual journey of sorts, which may not be to your liking. Assuming we get to the point where Harry thinks he has destroyed all the horcruxes, and has tracked down Voldemort: Harry `kills' Voldemort (perhaps by shoving Prime!Voldy through the veil).** The Voldy fragment residing within Harry is disentangled from pure Harry. Because the fragment still remains lodged in Harry's body, Voldy is reduced to Vapour!Mort. Vapour!Mort possesses Harry and is reunited with the other scrap of soul. The battle thus becomes a spiritual one ? two souls fighting for one body. Harry; perhaps simply because one whole, pure soul is stronger than whatever remains of one that has been shorn into shreds; gains control of his body. His love of humanity etc impels him to stagger through the veil, taking both he and Voldemort into the afterworld. At this point the two souls separate and go in their various directions... I'm still not sure how The Gleam works into all of this - perhaps the connection forged between Harry and Voldy by the transferal of blood is what causes Harry's soul to split such that *only* the voldy fragment is torn away from the bulk of same soul? Or maybe the connection more readily `redirects' Vapour!Mort to the soul fragment lodged within Harry? **An AK might not be enough: as Voldemort helpfully points out in the graveyard in GoF, the protection left by Lily's sacrifice now runs through his own blood. Doesn't this mean that Voldy is now impervious to the AK, just as Harry was? (perhaps that explains the `greater and more terrible than ever before' remark ? Voldy didn't have that particular advantage first time round) Dung: It goes back to Annemehr's theory about why Horlicks is so bad. She had the idea that the ripping of the soul caused by killing can be healed (repentance, forgiveness etc), and the reason that splitting the soul up is against nature is that it is deliberately putting oneself beyond redemption, deliberately not allowing the soul to be healed. It's so elegant it *has* to be right - and if it's not, it should be. Doug: Yeah. It's all so merciless otherwise: err once and your soul is damaged for all eternity. JKR is a Christian: wouldn't she believe that everyone, even the most callous of murderers, is redeemable in some way or other (except, as you say, when a deliberate violation of nature occurs)? It is a good theory because it gives us a reason why Dumbledore would be willing to let Snape kill him for the Greater Good; Sevvie's soul is still salvageable, depending upon what path he goes down in book 7. Doug From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 15:40:25 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:40:25 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP10, The House of Gaunt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148524 > 4. Considering they are the heirs of Slytherin, why are the Gaunts so > far outside the Wizarding world? It does not seem likely the Gaunts > married into any other pureblood families. Gaunt himself may have been > prepared to let the Slytherin bloodline die with Merope and Morfin. > The Gaunts even seem to be unaware of the Wizarding world's laws. > With this degree of separation, how did the Gaunts come to possess > wands, or make their living? How did Merope learn the magic she used > once her father and brother were gone? Alla: I have to confess, this chapter is one of my least favorites in whole HBP. Male Gaunts for the most part do not invite in me any feelings other than deep disgust and I feel bad for Merope in this chapter, but as I said what she does next does not make me sympathise with her in general either. In any event, what I am trying to say that I did not really intend to participate in this chapter discussion, but your questions are so good that I could not help myself, but try to answer at least some of them. I actually agree with a_svirn - I don't think we know for sure that Gaunts are that far from WW. What I wanted to comment on is that I don't think Merope learned magic, I think it was suppressed in her because of violent abuse she was a subject to. I don't think she ever was a Squib. I think that is what her so called father wanted to believe. Lealess: > 5. Inviting guesswork, as Dumbledore does: what is the story with the > ring? It is an "ugly" ring that someone (Borgin & Burkes?) offered > Gaunt a lot of money for at one time. The ring meant enough to the > Gaunts that it and Slytherin's locket survived the family's > squandering of its fortune. Is the Peverell connection important? Why > is it necessary to keep the ring's story untold until book 7? Alla: The only reason I see that ring's story could be important is if DD was indeed dying from the curse protecting it, otherwise I cannot imagine right now how the ring can be important. Lealess: > 8. Dumbledore trusts Harry to know right from wrong, based on > years of observation ? but observation alone did not work with Tom Jr. > It seems that Rowling is concluding, through Dumbledore, that people > are born with a "blood"-derived moral sense. Voldemort was descended > from the debased Gaunts and the selfish Riddle Sr.; they were bad, and > he is therefore evil. Harry was descended from Lily and James Potter; > they were good, and Dumbledore can therefore trust Harry to be good, > even if Harry was raised without love. It becomes pointless to teach > moral lessons. All Dumbledore has to do is sit back and observe how > people show their moral character. Is this, in fact, the assumption on > which Dumbledore operates? Alla: I snipped some of the sub-questions, because I only want to answer this part. YES, it again goes back to the argument about essentialistic ( spelling?) at least in part nature of potterverse morality. I absolutely believe that Rowlings characters morality ( at least in part) is based on "who they are". I think that she does leave some "wiggle room" for the characters to change, so I would not call her morality "strictly essentialistic", but yeah, "who this character is" is IMO a big deal in Potterverse. Dumbledore KNOWS Harry's good nature that is why he seems absolutely unconcerned that Harry attempted to cast Unforgivables. I don't see any other possible reason for not being concerned other than being sure that Harry's nature will stop him from turning to darkness. I just don't. Harry does not even have to necessarily be born with it, maybe he got his "good nature" during the first year of his life, when he was loved and cherished by his parents. I mean, baby does get more information about world around him in first three or five years of his life than afterwards, so it does not sound too caricature too me. And yes, Tom Riddle, who seems to be truly born evil. I could not come with the better example for this. JMO, Alla From maribelnm63 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 11:00:22 2006 From: maribelnm63 at yahoo.com (maribelnm63) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:00:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's ability to cast the AK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148525 Johnbowman19 wrote: > > > Also I think Dumbledore misinterpreted the prophecy as a red > herring. "Neither can live while the other survives" doesn't not > mean that the person to kill Voldemort must be Harry or the person > to kill Harry must be Voldemort. The prophecy does not ascribe the > death of either individual to the other individual. Instead it says > that neither can live while the other lives... > ...The prophecy does not > specifically state either has to, or can kill the other. > Hello: I am just writting by heart so I may have missed something, but I can only remember Harry using the "cruciatus" curse against Bellatrix after she had killed Sirius and tried to use it against Snape after he has killed Dumbledore. In both cases Harry was extremely shocked by the death of someone he loved. It seems that Harry is only able to cast an unforgivable curse when something horrible happens to others he cares about and it never was the AK. He did not think about using AK at the graveyard even though he was sure that he was about to die, he merely casted "Expelliarmus". At the MoM: "Harry had not even opened his mouth to resist; his mind was blank, his wand pointing uselessly at the floor." This makes me think that Harry will not kill to defend his own life. John, I agree with you that "Neither can live while the other survives" doesn't mean that Harry will have to kill Voldemort or viceversa but there is another phrase that is much more precise: "and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives"...This is terrifying at least if I think about it in my own languaje (spanish). It really means that one will kill the other. As far as I remember in the spanish version it is crystal clear that they will fight to death. When Dumbledore is explaining to Harry the meaning of the prophecy we read: "...He did not know that you would have power the Dark Lord knows not. `But I don't!' said Harry, in a strangled voice. `I haven't any powers he hasn't got, I couldn't fight the way he did tonight, I can't possess people or - or kill them -'" I think that Harry recognizes his unability to kill...I think that the only chance he has to survive is to get someone else doing it for him or maybe he will do it to save someone else life and the prophecy was not that exact in the end. I desperately hope that it will be one of these options, I am not prepared to even think about a third one... Maribel From heos at virgilio.it Tue Feb 21 15:51:11 2006 From: heos at virgilio.it (chrusotoxos) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:51:11 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148526 Hi! Well, I was asking myself the very same thing, having re-read book 6 for the umpteenth time. I've always thought that Snape was good, but in the light of DD saying "being more intelligent than most, my mistakes are bigger" (book 6), I'm starting to question my own judgement. It seems that every female reader over 5 believes in Snape's innocency, but it seems to me that the one good element we have about this is DD's word. "eggplant107" wrote: > > Considering this "is Snape good or evil" business I can think of 5 > possibilities, I list them below from least likely to most likely. Ok, according to me there are only two possibilities out of this situation: > 1) Dumbledore is not dead (boring) so Snape is (yawn) good. No, DD is dead, and Sirius too. We're just self-deluded if we think they'll come back, certainty of death has been an important theme in jkr, she wouldn't confuse her younger readers making them think that magic can solve everything (remember in book 5, that useless sentence of Nick, "only wizards, some of them, chose to come back"?) > 2) Snape killed Dumbledore but it turns out that Dumbledore was evil > so Snape is good. (after 6 books I don't think any writer could turn > Dumbledore evil, not even JKR) Ok, definitely not. > 3) Snape killed Dumbledore but did so on Dumbledore's orders. (very > difficult to find a viable reason Dumbledore would order such a thing > and even if he did Snape would still be evil, at least in my book) Actually I found a very good reason for him to order such a thing, and I'm surely not the first: DD was dying. We know that "the duel with LV shook him greatly", that "he's getting old", that "reflexes are not what they were", and most of all, that "there are old curses which don't heal, poisons without antidotes" (Snape, Snape, Slughorn, Hermione, book 6). If LV had the ring, DD knew that Harry could not succeed in stealing it away, and therefore there could have been no victory of the Good Side. He sacrificed himself, just as he did in the cave. Then it all makes sense: he knows he has 1 year to live, knows about the LV plans for Draco, and the Unbreakable Vow of Snape and makes him promise he'll kill him if it comes to that. Meanwhile he can make Snape DADA teacher, well knowing that if Snape kills him he won't be able to stay at Hogwarts anyway. Snape should flee back to LV, of whom he's won the entire trust by now, and then stab him in the back for Harry. > 4) Snape killed Dumbledore to aid Voldemort so Snape is evil. (this is > the conventional interpretation but JKR is seldom conventional) > > 5) Snape killed Dumbledore to aid himself so Snape is evil. (Snape was > the third most powerful wizard in the world but he wants to be number > one, he killed one and made sure Harry was alive and healthy to kill > the other) These two come to the same point: Snape is really evil, DD has been wrong all these years, but I still think, even in this possibility, that DD asked him to kill him. Why make him DADA teacher, then, knowing the job was cursed? So I'm (very) sad, because it was good to believe in Snape, but I've started to think he may be as evil as my niece wants him to be. Wasn't he happy about his new job? And what about all the stuff he told Narcissa and Bellatrix? Why has he such an important position into LV circle? Mph.... Just my 2 cents chrus From Nanagose at aol.com Tue Feb 21 17:13:36 2006 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:13:36 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148527 JKR has answered her FAQ Poll question! It seems as though, as many of us have predicted, when a Secret-Keeper dies, the "secret dies with them." Meaning that 12GP is still supposedly safe for the Order (although nothing stops an ESE!Snape from bursting in himself and doing some damage). This is really the only thing that makes sense; after all, the whole idea of the Fidelius charm is a bit silly if your secret can be broken by the Secret-Keeper getting run over by a bus or something. Where is the challenge in figuring out the identity of the Secret Keeper and getting the information from him when all the enemy has to do is kill a bunch of people? In that case, Voldemort would have been able to find the Potters easily by just killing all of their friends. That's the beauty of the FC - you *can't* just go around killing all of the possible SK's, because then you'd *never* find the secret, lest you kill the SK by accident. Even though (forgetting PP's status as a DE for a second) Voldemort would have been trying to capture Sirius, or whoever he thought the Potters' SK was, the FC would have afforded Sirius some protection in battle, since it would have been a big no-no to let him die. (Although it was said that Sirius was going into hiding himself, which I still find sort of odd.) And I still wonder what happens to a secret if the secret itself dies...that is, did the charm on the Potters break when *they* died (although Harry was still alive)? Or if the charm was more on the house, did it break when the house was destroyed? Christina From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 17:18:52 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:18:52 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148528 chrusotoxos: > I've always thought that Snape was good, but > in the light of DD saying "being more intelligent than most, my > mistakes are bigger" (book 6), I'm starting to question my own > judgement. It seems that every female reader over 5 believes in > Snape's innocency, but it seems to me that the one good element we > have about this is DD's word. zgirnius: You haven't met Alla, have you... eggplant: > 2) Snape killed Dumbledore but it turns out that Dumbledore was evil > so Snape is good. (after 6 books I don't think any writer could turn > > Dumbledore evil, not even JKR) chrustoxos: > Ok, definitely not. zgirnius: Certainly not as a statement about Dumbledore throughout his life. However, it has been proposed that the evil green goo of the Cave may have had a power to possess the drinker (sorry, I can't find the post!). If Snape saw him loseing this internal struggle (say, in the moment he 'gazed' at Dumbledore before he killed him) this would fall under this description. I don;t consider it all that likely, though. eggplant: > 3) Snape killed Dumbledore but did so on Dumbledore's orders. (very > > difficult to find a viable reason Dumbledore would order such a thing > > and even if he did Snape would still be evil, at least in my book) > christoxos: > Actually I found a very good reason for him to order such a thing, and > I'm surely not the first: DD was dying. zgirnius: I agree. eggplant: > 5) Snape killed Dumbledore to aid himself so Snape is evil. (Snape was the third most powerful wizard in the world but he wants to be number one, he killed one and made sure Harry was alive and healthy to kill the other). zgirnius: What I don't get about this theory is what Snape gets out of it. So he is the best wizard in the British Isles now, so what? Is the idea that he wants to be a new Dark Lord? Then he'll have to deal with Death Eaters and other Dark hangers on...as big a bunch of dunderheads as a first-year Potions class. I can't see this being his dream. I think a personal revenge motive for Evil, OFH Snape makes more sense. Either over Lily, or, if that turns your stomach even with Evil Snape, maybe having to do with Snape's family. chrustoxos: > And what about all the stuff he told > Narcissa and Bellatrix? Why has he such an important position into LV > circle? Mph.... zgirnius: Well, the stuff about how he was never disloyal to Voldemort, and all teh ways he has helped the bad guys, could be either true or not. Evil Snape would of course be happy to discuss his accomplishments with his fellow Voldemort supporters. But Good Snape could hardly act differently without arousing more suspicions, right? I actually don't buy that he has an important and secure position in LV's circle. Just by virtue of being, apparently, Voldemort's best spy on the Order he would have soem importance, of course. But I think Narcissa's comment about him being a 'trusted advisor' or whatever the phrase was, is either flattery on her part, or wishful thinking on her part, of both. I think Wormtail's real role at Spinner's End is to keep an eye on Snape for Voldemort, which would indicate a below-average level of trust for Snape on LV's part. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 17:50:54 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:50:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP10, The House of Gaunt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148529 > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 10, The House of Gaunt > 1. Why did Rowling put the card reading in this chapter? Is it necessary foreshadowing? Who is the "dark young man, possibly troubled, one who dislikes the questioner"? Carol responds: I'm not sure that it's *necessary* foreshadowing, but it certainly increases the tension and suspense. It also suggests that Trelawney does have powers as a Seer, which she, in this case, rejects with "That can't be right." I don't know Tarot, but I'm pretty sure that the Reader (Trelawney) is not the same person as the Questioner, who would seem to be Harry since he's the nearest person and his aura would influence the reading. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Tarot experts!) That being the case, the "dark young man" has to be Snape, who dislikes Harry (and is, we know, about to play a key role in the conflict). "Possibly troubled" qualifies as the understatement of the year. > 2. Not allowing a voice to a character is a striking > narrative device. Does Merope have a voice? What is its character? Carol: Merope must be able to speak if she invites Tom in for a drink of "water" and later takes her marriage vows, not to mention her later confession that she's a witch who "tricked" him. Oh, and we know she can speak because she told the orphanage officials to name her son Tom Marvolo Riddle after his father and grandfather. That she doesn't speak in this scene merely emphasizes her abject and downtrodden state and her terror of her father. As for the character of her voice, I'm afraid I don't understand the question. > > 3. > Dumbledore comments that the Gaunts were "noted for a vein of instability and violence that flourished through the generations due to their habit of marrying their own cousins." They had also been high-living profligates. If we accept that specific personality traits can be inherited in the Wizarding world, what did Voldemort specifically inherit from the Gaunts? Carol: How about "instability and violence"? Certainly he inherited Parseltongue, which, while not a personality trait, made him feel "special." Like his grandfather and Morfin, he's antisocial (though he's able, thanks to his father's genes, to conceal this trait with charm) and obsessed with power, controlling those weaker than he is (Merope in Marvolo's case, Muggles and snakes in Morfin's) and he has even more cause than they do (not necessarily inherited) to hate Muggles. I think he was born a sociopath, a ticking time bomb, and even if he'd been raised by his father and loved by him and a stepmother, he'd have been one dangerous child. And if he'd been raised by Merope, swamped with obsessive because he looked like his father--well, best not to think about it. > > 4. Considering they are the heirs of Slytherin, why are the Gaunts so far outside the Wizarding world? It does not seem likely the Gaunts > married into any other pureblood families. Carol: I can't agree here. First, we know that they intermarried with the Slytherins or Tom Jr. could not have been the Heir of Slytherin and the Gaunts could not have spoken Parseltongue. We don't know at what point that marriage occurred. They also intermarried with the Peverells, and a Peverell was clearly Marvolo's ancestor, not his wife's, or he wouldn't have worn the ring; he'd have given it to Morfin. So we have at least three bloodlines, one of them (Slytherin) extinct by this time. It's possible that there were more Peverells, who, as cousins (not necessarily first cousins) would be eligible marriage partners, but I'm inclined to think that line is also extinct or Marvolo wouldn't have the ring. Perhaps his mother was the last Peverell and his paternal grandmother the last Slytherin? Lealess: > Gaunt himself may have been prepared to let the Slytherin bloodline die with Merope and Morfin. Carol: The Slytherin bloodline was already extinct if they were Slytherin's last descendants. (The line dies with the last male of the name even though the "blood" passes to the next generation.) It would be the Gaunt bloodline that he would have allowed to die out. And certainly he seems not to care about the future, only the "purity" of his ancestors. Maybe he realizes that no one, not even another Gaunt if there are any, would want his unstable, wall-eyed, Parseltongue-speaking children as marriage partners. More likely, he wants to keep things as they are, a brutal father controlling his adult children, with no concern for their welfare or happiness. Lealess: > The Gaunts even seem to be unaware of the Wizarding world's laws. With this degree of separation, how did the Gaunts come to possess wands, or make their living? How did Merope learn the magic she used once her father and brother were gone? > Carol: I'm not sure that Marvolo is unaware of the laws, but he's certainly indifferent to them and has passed on that indifference to his children. (I think that Morfin know it's illegal to hex Muggles but doesn't care. Merope, however, may not know that it's illegal to give them love potions.) I don't think that they earn a living. They must live on whatever is left of their inheritance from the various pureblood families they're descended from. As for wands--good question. Possibly Merope inherited her mother's wand and Morfin's is a hand-me-down from a dead relative or ancestor. Marvolo could have acquired his in the normal way before he went off the deep end. > 5. Inviting guesswork, as Dumbledore does: what is the story with the ring? It is an "ugly" ring that someone (Borgin & Burkes?) offered Gaunt a lot of money for at one time. The ring meant enough to the Gaunts that it and Slytherin's locket survived the family's squandering of its fortune. Is the Peverell connection important? Carol: Ugly or not, the ring links the Gaunts with another pureblood family, the Peverells, just as the locket links them with the Slytherins. Neither is a Gaunt heirloom per se, but both are linked to Marvolo Gaunt's ancestry. The only reason Merope wears the locket is that she's a girl, and Marvolo wouldn't wear women's jewelry. It probably belonged to his mother or grandmother, as speculated above. Money isn't important to Marvolo, who would rather live in squalor than part with these family heirlooms. So, yes, the Peverell connection is important to Marvolo, whether or not it's important to the story. (It's important to Tom Jr., too--important enough for him to steal the ring and make it into his first standard, noninteractive Horcrux.) Lealess: > Why is it necessary to keep the ring's story untold until book 7? Carol: I don't quite understand this question. If you mean the Peverell connection, I don't think we'll get any more on that. But Dumbledore puts off telling Harry that the ring is a Horcrux because he's waiting for Slughorn's memory. As for Snape's role in healing him from the ring curse, which has to wait for the same reason, if Dumbledore had told Harry the full story, maybe Harry would understand Snape a bit better and believe in his loyalty to Dumbledore, and then where would the story be? (Another of DD's "huge" mistakes, imparting too little knowledge too late.) > > 6. What is he teaching Harry in this lesson? Why was it important to use the Pensieve in this instance instead of just telling Harry the information? Carol: Because seeing the Gaunts is much more effective than hearing about them, just as narrative is more compelling for the reader than exposition. This is Voldemort's backstory--his ancestry, his future victims (the father he murdered and the uncle he framed), his future Horcruxes. Their home is the hiding place of the ring Horcrux. Without this scene, it's impossible to understand Merope's actions or how Tom Jr. could frame Morfin. It's a prequel to the scene with Morfin and Tom Jr. (who must have received a nasty shock on seeing his last Gaunt relative, not that the shock in any way excuses him) in a later chapter. Lealess: > Dumbledore admits to being really clever, but capable of making correspondingly huge mistakes. What if Dumbledore is wrong about his "guesswork"? Who is Dumbledore answerable to if he is wrong? Carol: I don't think he's wrong in his guesswork up to this point. It's clear that Merope gave Tom Sr. a love potion, that he deserted her and their unborn child and claimed to be "hoodwinked," that Morfin had a record of baiting Tom Sr. and was therefore the perfect person for Tom Jr. to frame for the murder of the Riddles. More important, the ring is a Horcrux and its history lays the groundwork for the other, as yet undiscovered, Horcruxes. At most, he might be wrong about the Ravenclaw or Gryffindor Horcrux, or about Nagini, but he admits to speculation at that point. He's not answerable to anyone. The buck stops here. > 7. Dumbledore confirms that it is very important that Harry know about Voldemort's past, that it has "everything to do with the prophecy." What do the Gaunts, as part of Voldemort's past, have to do with the prophecy? Carol: At face value, not much! But the Gaunts connect with the Horcruxes and consequently the means by which Harry will defeat the Dark Lord. They also connect with "marking him as his equal" in the sense that the powers Harry acquires at Godric's Hollow, or at least Parseltongue, are inherited from Merope and Marvolo. I would guess that LV's skill at Legilimency, which he seems to have been born with ("Tell the truth!" says eleven-year-old Tom several times in an earlier chapter), and the power of possession come from them (though they may have skipped several generations). BTW, I think Harry will defeat Voldemort by possessing him, turning the MoM possession scene on its head, and that power is evidently "inherited" via the Gaunts, as is Parseltongue, which will IMO play a part in the destruction of Nagini. > 8. Who teaches morality in the wizarding world in the absence of parents, if not teachers? Voldemort was descended from the debased Gaunts and the selfish Riddle Sr.; they were bad, and he is therefore evil. Harry was descended from Lily and James Potter; they were good, and Dumbledore can therefore trust Harry to be good, even if Harry was raised without love. It becomes pointless to teach moral lessons. All Dumbledore has to do is sit back and observe how people show their moral character. Is this, in fact, the assumption on which Dumbledore operates? In shielding Harry from the entire truth, is Dumbledore continuing to do what he was doing pre-office scene in OOTP: namely, choosing easy over right when it comes to Harry? Carol: I hope not! It seems to me that DD guides Harry very gently, praises him when he makes the right choices, but leaves him to make his own choices and his own mistakes. The same, I think, is true of his treatment of Snape, whom he occasionally reprimands but generally allows to do as he pleases, trusting to his loyalty. I think DD believes that trust in people and confidence in their abilities will bring out the best in people--with the exception of young Tom Riddle, whom he watches but does not trust. (DD refuses to hire him as a teacher, knowing that he has murdered his own father and grandfather and that he's recruiting followers, and suspecting even then that the blurring of his features indicates an evil beyond redemption. He's the only person I know of to whom DD refuses to grant a second chance.) But as to the teaching of moral lessons in the WW, you've hit on a failing in the system. Hogwarts does nothing to undo the values that its students learn at home. It only enables them to earn a living and survive the hardships of existence in the WW. (At least DD has banned whipping and Transfiguration as punishments; but he seems to think that experience is the best teacher and that students and staff must be left free to make their own decisions--rather like Milton's view of God and Adam, whom God creates "sufficient to have stood, but free to fall.") > 9. Morfin's violence might have been bound to escalate, and he did admit to hexing Tom Sr. But he may also have been inbred to such a degree that he could not form a concept of right and wrong. Similarly, it may have been difficult for Merope to form a concept of right and wrong, especially as she had no outside guidance or help. What does the Gaunts' interaction with Wizarding law, especially as regards Muggles, say about that law? Carol: First, I think what's more important is Marvolo Gaunt's failure to teach his children right from wrong, which has disastrous consequences for them both, especially what seems to be their inability to reach such conclusions for themselves. His failure to love them, especially Merope, is especially devastating. Laws or no laws, if they had been properly taught, and if they had the intelligence to comprehend those lessons (which is debatable), they would not have harmed those weaker than themselves (magic is power), whether snakes or Muggles. As for the law, at least Morfin is arrested, and his father as well, but their punishment doesn't change their values. It merely frees Merope to act on her obsessive love, never having learned that you can't make someone love you. I don't think it's the laws that are at fault, unless it the Statute of Secrecy, which necessitates all the Obliviating. I think it's the poor upbringing and Marvolo's absurd belief in his own superiority that makes the younger Gaunts oblivious to morality. Even someone with the limited intelligence of Morfin Gaunt could have been taught to be kind to animals--unless the inbreeding is so severe in his case that he should have been institutionalized from birth, and I'm reluctant to suggest that. > > 10. This had probably been discussed to death, but: Why can't Ron read the Prince's instructions? Carol responds: A "cheat," as Neri would call it? After all, it's Harry who wears glasses! Or maybe it's part of Harry's unrecognized affinity with Slytherins, and Severus in particular? I hate to say it, but Ron's inability to read the Prince's writing seems to me to be a plot device. The handwriting is "minuscule and cramped" but not unreadable. Maybe Harry is more driven by curiosity, especially after he receives such unexpectedly good results from following the Prince's instructions, but the important thing is his attraction to the Prince, his recognition of his genius, his reliance on him in Potions class (learning from Snape as he claims never to have learned from Snape!), the whole delicious irony of the situation, which has to happen to Harry, not Ron, because of the complex relationship between Harry and the man he so desperately and determinedly hates, and because Harry, not Ron, is the hero of the story who will have to deal again with the Half-Blood Prince in Book 7. Lealess: > Hermione won't try to read them because she is opposed to "cheating" with the HBP book ? is this the real reason? Carol: Yes and no. She doesn't like Harry's suddenly receiving higher marks than hers in Potions, especially since he isn't doing the work on his own as she is and doesn't understand the theory as she does. It really *is* unfair, IMO, for Harry to be awarded the Felix Felicis for turning in a bezoar (on the basis of a sardonic little note in the Prince's book) when Hermione has followed the instructions and created antidotes based on Goloplott's Law (sp), showing that she fully understands both the theory and the assignment. But Hermione isn't opposed to "cheating" in the sense of helping the boys with their homework, and she resents a book that yields superior results to the official textbook. So Hermione seems to have mixed motives here. She's never been jealous of Harry in the one subject in which he is genuinely better than she is, DADA, but Potions is another matter. She has listened to Snape, unlike Harry and Ron. She has always received high marks in Potions despite Snape's view of her as "an insufferable know-it-all." She received an O on her Potions OWL. She knows perfectly well that Harry has not inherited Lily's skill in Potions; it comes from that "unofficial" textbook. She's right that Harry should be cautious in following instructions from an unknown source and that he should not be taking credit for work that his not his own, but her motives for condemning both Harry's behavior and the book itself are not pure. Ironically, it's Harry who revels in and benefits from young Snape's genius and Hermione who rejects it. (And thank goodness Harry learns that Bezoar lesson!) Lealess: > Why does she insist the handwriting is a girl's? Hermione: Maybe she's basing her view on stereotypes (it's small; therefore, it's a girl's). Maybe it resembles hers: Write small and you can get more words on the page, as we see young Severus doing in his DADA OWL in OoP. (As a former teacher, I know that writing small allows you to get more comments into the margins!) BTW, I do see a resemblance between Snape and Hermione in their ability to memorize textbooks and understand theoretical as well as practical magic (though he was clearly more creative and willing to go beyond the book whereas Hermione is still restricted by her view that, aside from the "revised" History of Hogwarts, truth is to be found in books). Maybe she *wants* the Prince to be a girl simply because she resents what she takes to be Harry's and Ron's assumption that a genius must be a boy. Mostly, though, it's a red herring leading her and us to Eileen Prince--and through Eileen to another tiny morsel of Severus Snape's history. Carol, who felt challenged by these questions and is glad that she's not limited to twelve inches of parchment! From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 21 19:42:29 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:42:29 -0000 Subject: Emphasis on PP as Wormtail? (Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148530 Christina wrote: > JKR has answered her FAQ Poll question! It seems as though, as many > of us have predicted, when a Secret-Keeper dies, the "secret dies > with them." SSSusan: I was quite interested in Jo's response as well, even though it wasn't the question I most wanted answered. When she wrote this -- "In other words, a secret... is enchanted so that it is protected by a single Keeper (in our example, Peter Pettigrew, a.k.a. Wormtail)." -- it made me think of Pippin's theory that there is more than one Wormtail, specifically that the second is Lupin. [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/146764 provides a nice summary of ESE!Lupin and Pippin's suggestion that Lupin adopted the name Wormtail.] So, Pippin, I'm curious... does Jo's rather direct spelling-out of "Peter Pettigrew, a.k.a. Wormtail" here (where I'd argue it didn't really need to be so spelled out) do damage to your theory that there are two Wormtails? Or does it matter not? :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From Lynx412 at AOL.com Tue Feb 21 19:52:55 2006 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:52:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Back to Quirrell Message-ID: <2cf.3c357c2.312cc997@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148531 I believe the explanation given was that at that time, LV had not yet possessed Quirrel. He only did so after the failed attempt at Gringotts. The Other Cheryl, emerging from lurkdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Feb 21 20:09:35 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:09:35 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148532 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: > > JKR has answered her FAQ Poll question! It seems as though, as many > of us have predicted, when a Secret-Keeper dies, the "secret dies with > them." Meaning that 12GP is still supposedly safe for the Order > (although nothing stops an ESE!Snape from bursting in himself and > doing some damage). This is really the only thing that makes sense; > after all, the whole idea of the Fidelius charm is a bit silly if your > secret can be broken by the Secret-Keeper getting run over by a bus or > something. Where is the challenge in figuring out the identity of the > Secret Keeper and getting the information from him when all the enemy > has to do is kill a bunch of people? Allie: And while we're on the subject... What do you supposed would happen if someone who's not the secret keeper tried to lead someone else to the secret location? Suppose Snape took Lucius Malfoy to Grimmauld Place to show him the OoP headquarters - Lucius would not be able to see it, but would Snape? What would happen if Snape left Lucius at the curb and actually walked up the door and opened it? He'd seem to disappear? From jane_starr at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 20:45:47 2006 From: jane_starr at yahoo.com (Jane Starr) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:45:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060221204547.27038.qmail@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148533 --- allies426 wrote: > Allie: > > And while we're on the subject... What do you > supposed would happen > if someone who's not the secret keeper tried to lead > someone else to > the secret location? Suppose Snape took Lucius > Malfoy to Grimmauld > Place to show him the OoP headquarters - Lucius > would not be able to > see it, but would Snape? What would happen if Snape > left Lucius at > the curb and actually walked up the door and opened > it? He'd seem to disappear? JES: Intriguing. I have another question. We know Dumbledore was the secret keeper for the Order. Dumbledore had to tell each order member where HQ was or they could not find it, and no other member can tell anyone else where the secret HQ is. If the secret goes to the grave with Dumbledore, how do the remaining members of the Order tell new members where HQ is? Once Voldemort is dead and the Order goes back into retirement and 12 GP isn't HQ anymore, if Harry was living there, how would he invite people over for dinner if they were never members of the Order? If he wanted to sell it, could he have in the Wizarding House Doctor to do it over to get a better price? How would prospective purchasers find it? JES __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 21 20:59:32 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:59:32 -0000 Subject: Emphasis on PP as Wormtail? (Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148534 > SSSusan: > I was quite interested in Jo's response as well, even though it > wasn't the question I most wanted answered. When she wrote this -- > > "In other words, a secret... is enchanted so that it is protected by > a single Keeper (in our example, Peter Pettigrew, a.k.a. Wormtail)." > > -- it made me think of Pippin's theory that there is more than one > Wormtail, specifically that the second is Lupin. > > [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/146764 provides > a nice summary of ESE!Lupin and Pippin's suggestion that Lupin > adopted the name Wormtail.] > > So, Pippin, I'm curious... does Jo's rather direct spelling-out > of "Peter Pettigrew, a.k.a. Wormtail" here (where I'd argue it didn't > really need to be so spelled out) do damage to your theory that there > are two Wormtails? Or does it matter not? :-) > Pippin: I don't think it matters. If anything, it emphasizes that "Wormtail" is an alias. There are probably listies who've kept better track of ESE! Lupin theories than I have, but I don't *think* I've ever speculated that Peter also known as Wormtail wasn't the one and only Secret Keeper, as JKR confirms. But was Peter the one and only Wormtail? There are two many characters with names in common for me to be certain of it Pippin From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Feb 21 21:06:01 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:06:01 -0000 Subject: Why I'm not convinced DD is dead (long) In-Reply-To: <008301c634c6$955480f0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148535 Sherry: > > i agree with you that I'm tired of Harry losing people. But if anyone comes > back from the dead, i hope it's Sirius. Sirius is the person Harry's > parents appointed to be his guardian, his father's best friend. i think his > return would be more meaningful in the long run for Harry, because he is a > connection to his parents, because he's young enough to be in Harry's life > for a good long time. i also find Sirius' death more ambiguous than > Dumbledore's. > > Sherry > La Gatta Lucianese: If anything, I think his death is considerably less ambiguous than Dumbledore's. I'm surprised that this issue hasn't come up before (if indeed it hasn't). It sounds to me as if Sirius was dead even before his body fell through the veil. Here's the canon: "Only one couple were still battling, apparently unaware of the new arrival. Harry saw Sirius duck Bellatrix's jet of red light: He was laughing at her. "Come on, you can do better than that!" he yelled, his voice echoing around the cavernous room. "The second jet of light hit him squarely in the chest. "The laughter had not quite died from his face,but his eyes widened in shock.... "It seemed to take Sirius an age to fall. His body curved in a graceful arc as he sank backward through the ragged veil hanging from the arch...." Notice that Sirius makes no effort to save himself or break his fall. He simply sinks backward. If what Bellatrix hit him with was an Avada Kedavra curse (and there can be little doubt that she meant it), I doubt that he was alive at that point. Passing but related thought: What if it isn't the spells themselves that are "color coded". What if it depends on the wizard/witch casting the spell, or on the intensity of the caster's feelings, or even some combination of factors. Thus Bellatrix's fury is reflected in the red of her curse, while the one with which Snape hit Dumbledore was a sickly green. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 21:24:41 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:24:41 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: <20060221204547.27038.qmail@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148536 In her answer to the FAQ poll, JKR said "Just in case you have forgotten exactly how the Fidelius Charm works, it is "an immensely complex spell involving the magical concealment of a secret inside a single, living soul. The information is hidden inside the chosen person, or Secret-Keeper, and is henceforth impossible to find -- unless, of course, the Secret-Keeper chooses to divulge it" (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) In other words, a secret (eg, the location of a family in hiding, like the Potters) is enchanted so that it is protected by a single Keeper (in our example, Peter Pettigrew, a.k.a. Wormtail). Thenceforth nobody else ? not even the subjects of the secret themselves ? can divulge the secret." ----- I don't know if we have ever pursued this line of thought before. In light of the above from JKR, could it be possible that Harry himself is a Secret Keeper? Maybe all of those nightmares he has from time to time of the green light and high pitched laugher are attempts for the secret that he holds to come out now that he is old enough to understand it. After all why would JKR bother to remind us of this? She could have just said "it dies with them" period. There is something about the way that is phrased which makes me ponder. And it doesn't have to be a location to be a secret, it could be any secret. Some connection to the green eyes?? Maybe if Lily worked for the department of mysteries (one reason LV might have wanted to spare her) she would have know things that would have been high security secrets. Surely the department would have had methods to protect that information in the event of the death of the employee. Maybe they are stored in Harry. OR maybe Harry himself is the secret and that would mean that he would not be able to tell (what?)? And there is another keeper of that secret. Any thoughts? Tonks_op From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Tue Feb 21 21:27:26 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:27:26 -0000 Subject: Young Dumbledore (wasRe: Why Leave Harry at HW at the End of HBP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148537 > > Carol, wondering if only good witches and wizards get put on chocolate > frogs and why Circe has one if that's the case > La Gatta Lucianese: I think Circe suffered from bad press. As I recall, she turned Odysseus' men physically into what they already were psychologically, probably because they behaved like pigs toward her. She seems to have gotten along all right with Odysseus himself. ;D I seem to recall that Morgan la Fey also rated a Chocolate Frog card, and she is also somewhat ambiguous. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Feb 21 22:23:42 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:23:42 +0100 Subject: Curses and non-descriptions (was: DDM!Snape clue) References: Message-ID: <008c01c63735$799fd4b0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148538 > Neri: > So are you saying that Snape shot both curses from nowhere? And Harry > never wondered who was breaking a trail for him? I could perhaps > accept it for the second one, especially if the text would have said > something like "somebody shouted `Petrificus Totalus!'". But as for > the first, Snape would have to shoot it from the bottom of the tower > past the other DEs (he and Malfoy are the first to go down) and while > shouting the curse out loud. I can't see how he would avoid detection. Miles: And for the second: "(Harry) heard the hatred voice shout, 'It's over, time to go!' and saw Snape disappearing... (HBP 28) So he recognised Snape's voice only seconds before the second "Petrificus totalus!" and doesn't recognise it then? No, really not. But just a small idea (I'm sure I'm not the first to have it, but I haven't read it before): Could it be an older Harry who tells us the story, adding some parts he was told later? If so, he could just cut some things he only understood later or not by himself. This would either explain the story told from Harry's PoV and the increments of his PoV as well. *If* Harry will succeed and survive, than he possibly wants to tell the story years later, because there are so many rumours and legends concerning "The Chosen One". To bring it back to this discussion: the question whether Rowling cheats would be the same, but she could use Harry as an excuse for several blurs. Just a thought, I'm far from sure that Harry *will* survive the last book. Miles From Ajohnson5 at comcast.net Tue Feb 21 21:07:06 2006 From: Ajohnson5 at comcast.net (April Johnson) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:07:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question References: <20060221204547.27038.qmail@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01c101c6372a$c5ad2250$1502a8c0@april> No: HPFGUIDX 148539 > JES: > We know Dumbledore was the secret keeper for the Order. > Dumbledore had to tell each order member where HQ was > or they could not find it, and no other member can > tell anyone else where the secret HQ is. April now: And how did Harry use the fireplace to contact Sirius only to get Kreacher, when he shouldn't have been able to yell out 12 Grimmauld place into the Floo???? Wasn't that the reason in the first place for the two way mirror?? Is it that they CAN'T say the location, or shouldn't?? Moody told Harry not to say it out loud, then burned the paper with the location on it. But I thought they couldn't say the location at all, that the spell prevented it. April From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Tue Feb 21 18:45:05 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:45:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Back to Quirrell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060221184505.33207.qmail@web37004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148540 Gryffindor Chaser inqires: snipped (Harry) shakes Prof. Quirrells hand. After this, Hargrid mentions that Quirrell had been away and never been the same, therefor he is already being posessed. So WHY doesn't he get a bad reaction after shaking Harry's hand? In the movie however, Prof. Quirrell doesn't shake Harry's hand, so others who don't pay too much attention may not have noticed. Any answers? Catherine: Voldemort doesn't posess Quirrell until *after* his botched attempt at stealing the PS from Gringott's. (Explained at the end of PS/SS) In the book, Quirrell doesn't have the turban at the Bar, but does later at Hogwarts. In the movie, he already has the turban, therefore is already inhabited by Voldemort and unable to touch Harry. In the book, it seems Harry only feels the scar hurt when Quirrell's back is towards him at the banquet, it seems hard to believe that his scar *never* hurts when he has DADA with Quirrell. I never understood that.... Catherine From ms-tamany at rcn.com Tue Feb 21 23:22:43 2006 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:22:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: <01c101c6372a$c5ad2250$1502a8c0@april> Message-ID: <4qag60$65us9q@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148541 > JES: > We know Dumbledore was the secret keeper for the Order. > Dumbledore had to tell each order member where HQ was > or they could not find it, and no other member can > tell anyone else where the secret HQ is. April now: And how did Harry use the fireplace to contact Sirius only to get Kreacher, when he shouldn't have been able to yell out 12 Grimmauld place into the Floo???? Wasn't that the reason in the first place for the two way mirror?? Is it that they CAN'T say the location, or shouldn't?? Moody told Harry not to say it out loud, then burned the paper with the location on it. But I thought they couldn't say the location at all, that the spell prevented it. April Now Tammy adds: I think the Fidelius Charm doesn't necessarily prevent anyone from, oh, saying, "12 Grimmauld Place", as much as it prevents anyone from connecting the address with the Order's whereabouts. Like, if you were to ask Harry, "Where does the Order meet?", he wouldn't be able to say anything about twelve, or Grims, or old places, because someone might be able to divine the secret that way. However, if he were to tell someone, "Come on over to my house, I'm having a Christmas party," then he would be able to answer that his place is 12 GP, just so long as the Order wasn't involved, AS the Order, in the party. It would depend upon the purpose of the information. If someone were trying to share the information normally contained within the SK, but for a reason not connected to the secret, then it would most likely be quite easy to say that information. You wouldn't be divulging the secret, because the info wouldn't be connected with the secret in the hearer's mind. Oh, does any of this make sense to anyone, or am I just rambling again? Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rkdas at charter.net Wed Feb 22 00:09:42 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 00:09:42 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148543 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > > Ceridwen: > Not Carol (ignore the Polyjuice simmering in the corner), but I think > I have it. All through the books, Harry has been looking for > information: on his parents, on why everyone is out to get him, on > the mission that is obviously in store for him. A novice, an > amateur, starting at the bottom, he has had nothing but frustration. > At the end of OotP, Dumbledore says he's going to tell Harry > everything. And Fandom breathes a sigh of relief, because when Harry > hears it all, then we hear it all... > > Not that we got 'the whole truth' even then. Jen here: But Ceridwen, as far as I can recall, Harry learnt everything he learned about his parents either accidentally or in a very forthcoming manner. Lupin told him a few things, Sirius a few things. Okay, I forgot the pensieve. He regularly fell into that thing. But no wheedling or even inquiry involved. Just do something that would probably in DD's case not be so bad and then, of course, totally violate Snape's privacy, but never with the malice aforethought I attach to wheedling. I like your idea that he's been a failure at wheedling but I don't see any attempts even. He seems remarkably able to let information come to him. Hagrid told him a bit. Slughorn told him a bit. The Dementors did their part. As did Lupin and Sirius. And Snape added a huge chunk of less-than-savory info. There's Mad-eye's narration of the last photograph. Madame Rosmerta and the group at the Three Broomsticks. I'm running out of sources. Oh yes, DD of course. Harry's certain disregard for the rules is there. I admit that but I just don't see any attempts to obtain information in a clandestine manner. It feels a little like JKR wants to introduce a side of Harry that can appreciate young Tom's gifts and perhaps even emmulate him (and we know he can, but needed his friend Felix for the final push). Harry's growing up and I am willing to bet she needs this side of him for the next book. I just don't see enough preparation and I guess this doesn't make for much of a post but there you have it. Jen D, wondering if that gently simmering polyjuice potion works with vela hair.... From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 11:38:25 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewijck) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 03:38:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: DD Not Dead -- DD's fall, 'arcs' - 'scar' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060221113825.61466.qmail@web53201.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148544 Brady wrote: >> Just on a side-note: Why is that everybody Harry "loves" end up dead (and all almost in the same "arc" manner) ?? Sirius went through the veil in an arc and then DD's body flies over the ramparts and then "arcs" downwards ... what does all this point to? Isn't all this too much of a coincidence? Are we being subtly pointed to something more sinister in all this? << maria8162001: Well, just a thought, since you mentioned arc and made it plural, "arcs" (as Sirius and DD's manners of death). Isn't the coincidence on the last word of book 7 which is a "scar" as JKR said? From jdwilkes45 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 18:32:34 2006 From: jdwilkes45 at yahoo.com (JULIA WILKES) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:32:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060221183234.4807.qmail@web34511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148545 > eggplant: > > 2) Snape killed Dumbledore but it turns out that Dumbledore was > > evil so Snape is good. (after 6 books I don't think any writer > > could turn Dumbledore evil, not even JKR) > > > eggplant: > > 3) Snape killed Dumbledore but did so on Dumbledore's orders. > > (very difficult to find a viable reason Dumbledore would order > > such a thing and even if he did Snape would still be evil, at > > least in my book) > > christoxos: > Actually I found a very good reason for him to order such a thing, > and I'm surely not the first: DD was dying. > > eggplant: > > 5) Snape killed Dumbledore to aid himself so Snape is evil. > > (Snape was the third most powerful wizard in the world but he > > wants to be number one, he killed one and made sure Harry was > > alive and healthy to kill the other). > jdwilkes45: I have read your lively theories about DD vs LV where Snape is concerned and I have thought of all those scenarios as well. But I also have one more. What do you think of this one: what if DD and Snape did perhaps discuss the possibility that at some point, to prove his loyalty to LV, that it might come down to killing either himself or Harry. Well, DD wouldn't want Harry to die so when the "trap" was set and there was no way out Snape had to kill DD. Now keep in mind that even though DD will no longer have a "body" and can no longer do magic, he will still be able to help Harry later when he will need to try and find the Horcruxes, thru his picture that will be hanging on the wall at school in the Head Masters office; remember all the previous Head Masters are still able to talk and move from picture to picture throughout. So maybe that is how Harry will still get DD's help. I can't imagine that JKR will completely write out DD. There is still so much for Harry to learn and do. So what if Snape has had to "pretend" all this time that he is working strictly for LV so that he can truly now bring back actual useful information to the Order. LV would certainly trust him completely now, wouldn't he, and would also then be more willing to confide certain pieces of information to Snape that he may have previously kept to himself. To me, now that Snape has shown this loyalty to LV he will be the 2nd in command (so to speak) and Snape will now be able to get the information that Harry will need to destroy the Horcruxes so that Harry and LV will do battle in the end, which will all know will happen. Just a thought. What do you think? From lyonsden at value.net Tue Feb 21 23:49:13 2006 From: lyonsden at value.net (JLyon) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:49:13 -0800 Subject: Hagrid's wand (was Re: My thoughts on some things.......) In-Reply-To: <1140565446.2299.28767.m21@yahoogroups.com> References: <1140565446.2299.28767.m21@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <4220EAF8-63FA-4873-9D39-CCC0A9303E9B@value.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148546 > Adzuroth: > If their wand gets snapped in half, so what? Hagrid had > no problems performing spells in books one and six (putting the > pig tail on Dudley and putting out the housefire, respectively). > > > > Hagrid had his two wand halves inside his umbrella, allowing him > use of his spells. JLyon: Regarding broken wands...who says that Hagrid's wand was actually broken. Personally, I would suspect that DD replaced Hagrid's with a dummy/extra wand (or simply reported that he had broken Hagrid's wand) and Hagrid actually has the unbroken wand in his umbrella. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 01:24:08 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:24:08 -0000 Subject: Draught of Living Death/ was Snape Loved Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148547 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > houyhnhnm: > > ----------------------------------------- > > "Potter!" said Snape suddenly. "What would I get if I added powdered root of *asphodel* to an infusion of *wormwood*?" > > ----------------------------------------- > > In the language of flowers: > > My regrets follow you to the grave. I am infused with your absence. Find me an antidote for my misanthropy. > > Ooh, yes-- I love that. I can't remember when I first heard someone point out the meaning of asphodel-- a memeber of the lily family, by the way! It is meant to grow in Hades where the virtuous dead are. > > Wormwood of course, is also 'bitterness'. I think the answer to what you get when you mix asphodel and wormwood, is Harry himself-- Lily + James. What you actually get is the draught of sleeping death IIRC... > (snip) Tonks: Actually it is "Draught of Living Death" (US version) Is this Snape or Harry? And if it is Harry as you suggest, how does this fit with "neither can live while the other survives" If Asphodel=Lily, instead of James, is Wormwood LV? and the result is when both the sacrifice(lily) and the AK (LV)collide? Any thought, anyone? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 02:02:20 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:02:20 -0000 Subject: A different angle In-Reply-To: <001301c636f3$4e490940$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148548 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Karen" wrote: > One thing we did learn is > that LV likes trophies. A lot. And not just for horcruxes. Tonks: Speaking of trophies. What about the trophy room? Remember Ron polishing them? And the room on JKR's site? There is one there for Lily. Now I don't think of Lily as a Quidditch player, so what did she win a big trophy for? And are any of them a horcrux? Tonks_op my last post for today. From rkdas at charter.net Wed Feb 22 02:02:11 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:02:11 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand (was Re: My thoughts on some things.......) In-Reply-To: <4220EAF8-63FA-4873-9D39-CCC0A9303E9B@value.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148549 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, JLyon wrote: > > > Adzuroth: > > If their wand gets snapped in half, so what? Hagrid had > > no problems performing spells in books one and six (putting the > > pig tail on Dudley and putting out the housefire, respectively). > > > > > > > > Hagrid had his two wand halves inside his umbrella, allowing him > > use of his spells. > > > JLyon: > Regarding broken wands...who says that Hagrid's wand was actually > broken. Personally, I would suspect that DD replaced Hagrid's with > a dummy/extra wand (or simply reported that he had broken Hagrid's > wand) and Hagrid actually has the unbroken wand in his umbrella. Even broken wands perform, just not realiably. Remember Ron's sad broken wand in COS? Backfired all over Lockhart, luckily. Jen D.(wishing for a wand as she looks at that sink full of dishes...) > From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 03:01:49 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 03:01:49 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP10, The House of Gaunt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148550 > >>Lealess: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, > Chapter 10, The House of Gaunt > > 1. Harry goes to great lengths to hide from Trelawney. In spite of > this, he overhears a fortune-telling. Trelawney's card reading has > been the subject of examination by those who know the Tarot. Why > did Rowling put the card reading in this chapter? Is it necessary > foreshadowing? Who is the "dark young man, possibly troubled, one > who dislikes the questioner"? Betsy Hp: The foreshadowing is important, just for sheer tension, I think. It also reminds the reader of Trelawney's existence and shows her agitated mental state (the whiff of sherry, etc.). The fact that Hogwarts' resident seerer is troubled helps set the mood for big events to come. (I think we also get a hint that Tarot signs may contain clues, IOW, don't ignore chapter titles.) I think Trelawney is the questioner (I'm sure she's trying to read her own fortune) so that would make Harry the "dark young man", right? I'm curious about her "that can't be right", though. Is she questioning the questioner not being liked or did she draw another card? > 2. Merope does not really speak in this chapter, or anywhere else > in the book. Her few words are related by other characters. Yet, > according to Dumbledore, she does speak for herself through her > subsequent actions, although he speculates those actions are > underhanded. Not allowing a voice to a character is a striking > narrative device. Does Merope have a voice? What is its character? Betsy Hp: It certainly speaks towards Merope's feelings of helplessness. And it also hints, I think, at her inability to trust in herself at all. There's also a bit of a blank slate at work here. The reader is able to fill in their own voice for hers. Which helps to envoke, I think, a feeling of sympathy towards a girl that will later destroy an innocent muggle to escape her own family. What is interesting is that despite her father's horrible treatment, she wants her son to have his name. There's a lot going on with Merope, but JKR (wisely, I think) leaves most of it unsaid. > 3. The Gaunts are said to have married their cousins, a line which > dwindled to the present Gaunts. Marrying cousins is claimed to be a > bad thing because recessive genes can become dominant in resulting > children. > > If we accept that specific personality traits can be inherited in > the Wizarding world, what did Voldemort specifically inherit from > the Gaunts? Betsy Hp: I think the Gaunts are a collapsed family line. I'm sure they started out fairly branchy, but I think their family tree has become more and more of a straight line. Which is never a good thing. (Ask any dog breeder.) Voldemort's obsessiveness (*seven* horcruxes) could be seen as a form of mental instability, I suppose. As could his temper. (Doesn't he take on some Gaunt looks when he gets angry? I seem to recall Harry witnessing such an occurance.) > 4. Considering they are the heirs of Slytherin, why are the Gaunts > so far outside the Wizarding world? It does not seem likely the > Gaunts married into any other pureblood families. Gaunt himself > may have been prepared to let the Slytherin bloodline die with > Merope and Morfin. Betsy Hp: Ooh, I'm betting Gaunt was pleased to have both a daughter and a son to be getting on with. Which, yes, total ick, but not, unfortunately, unheard of. > The Gaunts even seem to be unaware of the Wizarding world's laws. > With this degree of separation, how did the Gaunts come to possess > wands, or make their living? How did Merope learn the magic she > used once her father and brother were gone? Betsy Hp: Interestingly enough Gaunt questions whether it's illegal to teach muggles' lessons *now*. Which leads me to believe that there was a time when the MoM was a bit more lenient towards wizards attacking muggles, but the laws have since changed. So, I'm thinking Gaunt seperated from the WW within his own life- time. Possibly after the death of his wife? Or possibly when the MoM started making the sort of policy changes that resulted in it being illegal to set muggles in their place. Guant probably took what he needed with him. Anything else I'm betting he stole from the local village (wouldn't be hard for a wizard). I doubt he traded furs or home-made brew or anything of that sort because of his distrust of any wizard not pure-blood coupled with his distrust that any other wizard really *was* pure. It wouldn't surprise me if he taught his children to make their own wands or if family wands were kept and handed down. As the family lines collapsed inwards that would leave a lot of old wands to choose from. (Though I also imagine anything worth anything was slowly sold away.) But I'm sure magical learning was handed down through the family. Merope would have learned from her mother and possibly her father too. (Though I suspect a division made between "women's magic" and "men's magic".) > 5. Inviting guesswork, as Dumbledore does: what is the story with > the ring? It is an "ugly" ring that someone (Borgin & Burkes?) > offered Gaunt a lot of money for at one time. The ring meant > enough to the Gaunts that it and Slytherin's locket survived the > family's squandering of its fortune. Is the Peverell connection > important? Why is it necessary to keep the ring's story untold > until book 7? Betsy Hp: I imagine the ring was the "male" heirloom as the locket was the "female" heirloom. Both were too important to sell because both were manifestations of the only thing the Gaunts had left, their blood. I doubt there's any story left to be told. The end of the Peverall family line is story enough, echoed by the Blacks and the Crouchs. (Adapt or die?) > 6. Dumbledore initiates this journey with Harry, but on two > occasions, he does not answer Harry's questions about the heirloom > ring. This is an opportunity to see Dumbledore as a teacher, > although not in a classroom ? in specialized circumstances. What > is he teaching Harry in this lesson? Why was it important to use > the Pensieve in this instance instead of just telling Harry the > information? Dumbledore admits to being really clever, but capable > of making correspondingly huge mistakes. What if Dumbledore is > wrong about his "guesswork"? Who is Dumbledore answerable to if he > is wrong? Betsy Hp: Harry, I guess. It is Harry's life he's trying to protect, isn't it? Which is why it's important Harry see these scenes for himself. Harry needs to have his *own* sense of who Voldemort is, where he comes from (because blood *is* important in this series) so he can make up his own mind. I'm quite confident Dumbledore made some wrong "guesses", and that Harry will have to make up his own mind on some things down the road. Otherwise, why the foreshadowing? I think Dumbledore was trying to teach Harry to think for himself. > 7. Dumbledore confirms that it is very important that Harry know > about Voldemort's past, that it has "everything to do with the > prophecy." What do the Gaunts, as part of Voldemort's past, have > to do with the prophecy? > Betsy Hp: The prophecy has been shaped by Voldemort. Voldemort's choices made the prophecy, in a way. So to understand the prophecy is to understand Voldemort. And this is Voldemort's blood, and Voldemort chose to make his family line important > 8. Who teaches morality in the wizarding world in the absence of > parents, if not teachers? Dumbledore has in Harry a virtual orphan, > like Tom Jr. was, a person raised with a dearth of love and with > ineffective parental guidance. But Dumbledore, when faced with an > opportunity to reinforce the message of a teacher who gave a > detention based on disrespect or to address a lesson in privacy > based on Pensieve misuse, sidesteps the issue. Dumbledore says he > has told Harry the truth, but he hasn't told him the complete > truth; for example, he didn't tell him that Snape was the > eavesdropper at the Hog's Head. Dumbledore trusts Harry to know > right from wrong, based on years of observation ? but observation > alone did not work with Tom Jr. It seems that Rowling is > concluding, through Dumbledore, that people are born with > a "blood"-derived moral sense. Voldemort was descended from the > debased Gaunts and the selfish Riddle Sr.; they were bad, and > he is therefore evil. Harry was descended from Lily and James > Potter; they were good, and Dumbledore can therefore trust Harry > to be good, even if Harry was raised without love. It becomes > pointless to teach moral lessons. All Dumbledore has to do is sit > back and observe how people show their moral character. Is this, > in fact, the assumption on which Dumbledore operates? In shielding > Harry from the entire truth, is Dumbledore continuing to do what > he was doing pre-office scene in OOTP: namely, choosing easy over > right when it comes to Harry? Betsy Hp: Hmm, we're tackling the main theme of the books here aren't we? Is it your blood that defines you, or your choices? I think there is an ability to gain strength, etc., from your family. (There is an importance to family.) And Voldemort certainly makes a lot of the fact that he's Slytherin's heir. But there also seems to be a sense that one *can* move beyond one's family. Draco seems poised to make that sort of choice. Harry may make a similar move if he's able to see Snape in a new light. Dumbledore places a *ton* of importance on allowing the children in his care to find their own way. He allows the children a choice. Which could be seen as taking the easy route, yes. But standing aside isn't always easy. (Dumbledore did not stand aside throughout OotP, and it was a disaster for Harry.) > 9. The Wizengamot is responsible for enforcing Wizarding law at the > time Morfin broke the law by performing magic in front of Muggles. > But as Gaunt pointed out, there was no real consequence to > breaking the law. The Ministry corrected the harm done to Muggle > Tom and erased his memory of the hex. Morfin's violence might have > been bound to escalate, and he did admit to hexing Tom Sr. But he > may also have been inbred to such a degree that he could not form > a concept of right and wrong. Similarly, it may have been > difficult for Merope to form a concept of right and wrong, > especially as she had no outside guidance or help. Ogden provided > only personal protection for Merope when she was abused by her > father, but did not charge Marvolo with assault. Merope herself > was not imprisoned for enchanting Tom Riddle Sr., a Muggle > previously targeted by her family, and one who was subsequently > spirited away under mysterious circumstances. What does the Gaunts' > interaction with Wizarding law, especially as regards Muggles, say > about that law? Betsy Hp: Yeah, I'm not going to buy that "too stupid to realize I done wrong" argument. There's nothing to really back it up, and I think it lets Merope and Morfin off the hook far too easily. I'm sure they were brought up to see Muggles as lesser than (as has every wizard we've met in the books, unfortunately) but that strikes me as too easy. Especially for what was done to poor Tom (who, if he hadn't had his memory erased might have known to steer clear of the Gaunts). Frankly, the view of the WW towards Muggles is disturbing. I don't like how the parents of Muggle-born wizards are treated. I don't like how any of the wizards we've met treat muggles. I don't like how Dumbledore himself, treats muggles. Unfortunately, when it comes to muggles, it seems that might makes right. > 10. This had probably been discussed to death, but: Why can't Ron > read the Prince's instructions? Betsy Hp: I think it shows that Harry has a special connection to the Prince. He understands him in a way that Ron and Hermione cannot. > Hermione won't try to read them because she is opposed > to "cheating" with the HBP book ? is this the real reason? Betsy Hp: I think Hermione is threatened by Harry getting another source for study help. (I recall reading a discussion about Hermione's place in the trio and how she defines herself by her smarts. She *likes* helping the boys with their work, that's who she is. Cannot remember where I read it though, sorry!) So I think it's more the threat the Prince brings than an actual worry about cheating. (Doesn't she cheat in the very next chapter?) > Why does she insist the handwriting is a girl's? Betsy Hp: Oddly enough, I took it as a bit of a slam. I mean, yes, part of it is probably that girls are smart too, but I also got the impression that Hermione was trying to dig at Harry. ("Your new best friend is a *girl*.) Hermione isn't really all about girl power, is she? She holds most of the girls around her with a bit of contempt. So I can see her as capable of using "girl" as a sneer, especially as how she'd see her boys reacting to girls. Really great questions, Lealess, I feel like I've only scratched the surface of them. Betsy Hp From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Feb 22 03:12:42 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 03:12:42 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148551 Jen here: > But Ceridwen, as far as I can recall, Harry learnt everything he > learned about his parents either accidentally or in a very > forthcoming manner. Lupin told him a few things, Sirius a few > things. Okay, I forgot the pensieve. He regularly fell into that > thing. But no wheedling or even inquiry involved. Just do something > that would probably in DD's case not be so bad and then, of course, > totally violate Snape's privacy, but never with the malice > aforethought I attach to wheedling. I like your idea that he's been > a failure at wheedling but I don't see any attempts even. He seems > remarkably able to let information come to him. Hagrid told him a > bit. Slughorn told him a bit. The Dementors did their part. As did > Lupin and Sirius. And Snape added a huge chunk of less-than-savory > info. There's Mad-eye's narration of the last photograph. Madame > Rosmerta and the group at the Three Broomsticks. I'm running out of > sources. Oh yes, DD of course. Harry's certain disregard for the > rules is there. I admit that but I just don't see any attempts to > obtain information in a clandestine manner. It feels a little like > JKR wants to introduce a side of Harry that can appreciate young > Tom's gifts and perhaps even emmulate him (and we know he can, but > needed his friend Felix for the final push). Harry's growing up and > I am willing to bet she needs this side of him for the next book. I > just don't see enough preparation and I guess this doesn't make for > much of a post but there you have it. Ceridwen: I wasn't suggesting that Harry was trying to be sneaky and underhanded in his information gathering. He asks outright, as a Gryffindor would. But his efforts have been less than satisfying. He eats up all the information you mentioned he received, from all the people who knew his parents. But Dumbledore won't tell him why he trusts Snape, and Dumbledore won't tell him what happened to his hand, just for the two instances which immediately sprang to mind. Harry isn't smooth, or slick, or professionally wheedling. Dumbledore puts him off every time. Then, there's Tom, sidling up to Slughorn with the heavy polish, knowing his quarry, making just the right noises and moves, and getting his information. And here's Harry, still asking the same questions year after year with no results. Later on, IIRC, he even gets a mild rebuff from Dumbledore about the Snape question. I think Harry will need to get rid of the Gryffindor urge to be forthright, even if it isn't in the best interest of his mission, and that's where the admiration, the 'Golly-gee!' comes in. And maybe, that's where friend Felix comes in, too. Maybe Harry learned enough from that episode to open up those particular avenues in his personality? He did it, he felt how it's supposed to feel, now all he has to do is practice the subtleties of not too much, not too little, and practice as well forcing down any bile he may bring up concering anything less than direct confrontation. Could his breaking up with Ginny be a first step down that road? Would you have used it to break it off with a boyfriend? Would that boyfriend have accepted such an argument when you then turned around and grabbed his sister and another friend to accompany you on your task? I don't have the book handy right now, but was there some budding soft-soap involved? Did Dumbledore want him to practice on him, for those other pieces of information he wanted? You know, talking about Harry wanting information about his parents brings up the lies the Dursleys told him about them. I still don't like the way they tried to make his parents sound so uncaring! > Jen D, wondering if that gently simmering polyjuice potion works > with vela hair.... Just be careful not to accidentally get a Malfoy hair instead, or the Aurors will be on you like fur on a kitten! Ceridwen. From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Wed Feb 22 00:08:27 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:08:27 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: Prior Incantato; was Ollivander / Fortescue References: Message-ID: <43FBAB7B.000001.03796@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 148552 > Tonks: > Having been told of the grave yard events by Harry and about the > Priori Incantatem, DD knew that Ollivander would be in serious > trouble. Ollivander did not know about the events, but may have > know that Priori Incantatem could happen, or not. It could be just > some high ancient magic that only a few wizards like DD knew about. > Donna writes: I may be misreading this but the impression I'm getting is the Prior Incantato spell in the grave yard was old, not well known magic. occurred because of the phoenix feather connection in Harry's and V's wands. If I have read this correctly, I have to say that it seems to be a fairly well known spell. In Goblet of Fire, Chap. 9, page 136, US Edition, Mr. Diggory uses the spell on Harry's wand, which was found in Winky's possession, to see if it was Harry's wand used to cast the Dark Mark after the World Quidditch Match. What happened in the grave yard occurred because of the phoenix feather connection in Harry's and V's wands. IMO, the strength of the reaction in the grave yard between the two wands was because of the strength of the magical attraction of the phoenix feathers - not ancient magic known only to a few wizards. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Feb 22 04:18:45 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:18:45 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148553 Sydney: > I think the answer to what you get when you mix asphodel > and wormwood, is Harry himself-- Lily + James. What you > actually get is the draught of sleeping death IIRC...perhaps > that's how Snape sees himself since Harry, by being born, > sealed Snape's fate as the betrayer of Lily houyhnhnm: Hmmm, I'll have to think about that. I just saw it as one of the two times when Snape was speaking from the heart. The other being the tirade against fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves. I'm undecided as to whether Snape was conscious of the import of his words in the first instance. Was he trying to tell Harry something? Does it tell us anything? I have learned that a variety of narcissus was once called asphodel. And monkshood, in the late Victorian era, came to stand for treachery, as well as misanthropy. So is Snape warning Harry to find himself an antidote to Snape's treachery or is it a pleading to be delivered from his own misanthropy. I guess some of us think one way and some think the other and Snape's self-revealing riddle (if that's what it is) really isn't going to resolve anything. From lisa at sc3.net Wed Feb 22 04:41:49 2006 From: lisa at sc3.net (lisashearercooper) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:41:49 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: <20060221183234.4807.qmail@web34511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148554 > > eggplant: > > 3) Snape killed Dumbledore but did so on Dumbledore's orders. > > (very difficult to find a viable reason Dumbledore would order > > such a thing and even if he did Snape would still be evil, at > > least in my book) > > jdwilkes45: > I have read your lively theories about DD vs LV where Snape is > concerned and I have thought of all those scenarios as well. But I > also have one more. What do you think of this one: what if DD and > Snape did perhaps discuss the possibility that at some point, to > prove his loyalty to LV, that it might come down to killing either > himself or Harry. > To me, now that Snape has shown this loyalty to LV he will be the > 2nd in command (so to speak) and Snape will now be able to get the > information that Harry will need to destroy the Horcruxes so that > Harry and LV will do battle in the end, which will all know will > happen. > > Just a thought. What do you think? Lisa: I have just reread Book 6 and find myself agreeing with you, that Dumbledore did have Snape under orders to kill him. Dumbledore knew all about Draco's plot to kill him and presumably (if we stay with the good Snape theory) he also knew of Snape's unbreakable vow. Dumbledore would for sure want to protect Draco, as he does during the conversation at the end. Is it possible that Dumbledore knew he was dying from the poison in the cave and that he wanted Snape to kill him because he and Snape had some previously determined arrangement that when Dumbledore was close to death, Snape would kill him to protect Draco and cement Snape's reputation among the Death Eaters. Perhaps this killing of Dumbledore is what Snape and Dumbledore were arguing about near the forbidden forest. Much as Harry does not want to agree to do something that might hurt Dumbledore, Snape doesn't want to do it either. Another thought about Snape being good- he doesn't kill Harry as he leaves Hogwarts. He has Harry at his mercy but he doesn't even hurt him. Snape does this repeatedly throughout the books- he either protects Harry from danger or neglects to kill him when he has the chance. What if the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape is because Snape has promised (perhaps even made an unbreakable vow?) to protect Harry. He really doesn't like Harry, he does lots of mean things to him. But I can't think of any instance where he actually harms him. Perhaps Dumbledore incapacitates Harry at the end so Snape will not be put in the position of saving Harry in front of Death Eaters- or be caught in the double bind of saving Draco and Harry both. I do wonder if in book 7 we will see Snape aiding Harry in the final battle. One other question- if Dumbledore did plan to have Snape be his killer, is it possible that some transfer of power occured there? Snape seems more powerful than ever after he kills Dumbledore. Was there some way to preserve some of Dumbledore's knowledge or power to still be used against Voldemort later? I am very curious to hear what others might think of these theories. I am new to this formum and hope I have done this right! From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 05:12:45 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:12:45 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved Lily. The Whole Story. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148555 Tonks: > Pulling up the stakes, folding the tent, putting out the fire. > Walking on towards another part of the forest. Stopping, looking > back at the abandoned Snape loves Narcissa camp. Sigh walking > on seeing clearing ahead. Yes this looks like a good place to > camp, just on the edge of the Snape loved Lily encampment. > > Yes it is official.. I am abandoning the Snape loves Narcissa > camp. Sydney: Well, do keep it in mind for a vacation though; I mean, Snape/Narcissa has one advantage over Snape/Lily in that, let's face it, it's just plain hot. Or maybe that's just me.. anyhow.. *Sydney does a hurried tidy of the Snape/Lily camp, which is now so well-established as to have picnic tables and shower stalls and a little shop selling commemorative lollipops. Realizing that her medley of hits from "The Music Man" may possibly be alienating some potential campers, she reluctantly puts her trombone in it's case and puts on some soothing guitar music* Ceridwen: >*pulling up a convenient log and sobbing into her paper towel* *Sydney pets Ceridwen on the shoulder and offers a proper handkerchief, with SS/LE 4 EVER embroidered on the hem* Hey, we're roasting marshmallows later! See! Fun! > Seeing Narcissa > begging for her son "my only son", just brings back the whole memory > of the events at GH and his sense of guilt for being the one that > told LV of the prophesy. No wonder he turned away when Narcissa > collapsed in tears in front of him, he could just imagine that > mother being Lily. Oh, yes. It also explains his complete hysteria in the Shrieking Shack in PoA-- think about it. Snape tries to repair his collasal error by turning spy at 'great personal risk'. Desperate to protect Lily, he warns James that one of his friends is a spy, and not to trust any of them. Rather than saying, 'yay, thanks Snivellus, we'll move to Australia tomorrow!', James is "too arrogant to believe he might have been mistaken in Black". So Snape watches helplessly as his advice is ignored, Sirius of course betrays them, and effectively kills Lily and makes Snape an accomplice-- hey, rather like he tried to kill Snape and make Lupin an accomplice! So now here we are, back in the Shrieking Shack, with another James telling him AGAIN that no, Sirius is peachy-keen, and it's him, Snape, that's the crazy bad guy-- just because they made a fool of him in school...! "Don't talk about what you don't understand" indeed. Oh, and the guy who killed Lily is sitting there and sneering at him. Well, the guy who killed Lily by telling Voldemort about her. Hey! Just like Snape did himself! I mean, come on. Snape has more buttons than a 747, and that scene hit them ALL AT THE SAME TIME. JKR, you are so mean. Tonks: > Poor, poor Snape. Oh what his life might have been if he > hadn't "worn his heart on his sleeve", if he had never fallen in > love and lost. Better to never have loved at all! Me: Ah, but then he would just have been a plain old Death Eater-- love saved him, really. That's what makes it work so well with the theme-- Tonks: > What a tortured soul he is... tortured and damned what a > rich character that JKR has brought to life for us. *sidling over a bit closer to Tonks and lowering her voice, Sydney produces a bottle of something dark and syrupy* Hey, can I interest you in a swig of suicidal!Snape? I mean, it's not for everybody, it's pretty strong stuff-- but I get the feeling it might be your kind of poison... The long-winded version is in message 141872; the short-winded version is that Snape made two serious attempts to take his own life-- the first when he found out that Lily was targeted, and the second, actually, when he took the Unbreakable Vow. The first I think is closely tied in to the reason Dumbledore trusts him so much-- I think either Dumbledore or Lily caught him before he could knock himself off and stopped him. And you know what? I bet whoever it was, they called him a coward for taking the easy way out. See, it's weird that the accusation of 'coward' is what makes Snape snap (heh heh... snape.. snap.. anyhow..) at the end of HBP. "DON'T--" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them-- "CALL ME COWARD!" And he slashed the air: Harry felt a white-hot, whiplike something hit him across the face and was slammed backward into the ground." So, basically, Snape slaps Harry HARD across the face, which is what someone does when they get hit on a very raw nerve. How raw? Well, I think someone called Snape a coward pretty recently-- Dumbledore, in the heated argument Hagrid overheard. I think Snape told Dumbledore that he was going to break the Vow and drop dead and let chips fall where they may. I think Dumbledore told him he promised he'd do it and he'd damn well do it-- and if broke the Vow it was as good as suicide, and suicide was the coward's way out (this is going by the very plausible "stoppered death" theory, that Dumbledore had known he was dying from the curse on the ring Horcrux). And I think Snape told him to go stuff himself. Which is why when Snape appears at the top of the tower, Dumbledore hits him with the 'pleading'-- "But someone else had spoken Snape's name, quite softly. "'Severus..." "The sound frightned Harry beyond anything he had experienced all evening. For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading. "Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. "'Severus... please..." Dumbleodre is pleading because he really doesn't think Snape is going to do it. But Snape sucks it up, and does the job. Uh, yay! Poor old Snape-- even in his most heroic moment, he's still the bad guy... -- Sydney, listing to the crickets From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 05:16:41 2006 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:16:41 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: > > JKR has answered her FAQ Poll question! It seems as though, as many > of us have predicted, when a Secret-Keeper dies, the "secret dies with > them." Meaning that 12GP is still supposedly safe for the Order > (although nothing stops an ESE!Snape from bursting in himself and > doing some damage). This is really the only thing that makes sense; > after all, the whole idea of the Fidelius charm is a bit silly if your > secret can be broken by the Secret-Keeper getting run over by a bus or > something. Where is the challenge in figuring out the identity of the > Secret Keeper and getting the information from him when all the enemy > has to do is kill a bunch of people? In that case, Voldemort would > have been able to find the Potters easily by just killing all of their > friends. That's the beauty of the FC - you *can't* just go around > killing all of the possible SK's, because then you'd *never* find the > secret, lest you kill the SK by accident. Even though (forgetting > PP's status as a DE for a second) Voldemort would have been trying to > capture Sirius, or whoever he thought the Potters' SK was, the FC > would have afforded Sirius some protection in battle, since it would > have been a big no-no to let him die. (Although it was said that > Sirius was going into hiding himself, which I still find sort of odd.) > > And I still wonder what happens to a secret if the secret itself > dies...that is, did the charm on the Potters break when *they* died > (although Harry was still alive)? Or if the charm was more on the > house, did it break when the house was destroyed? > ***I'm actually wondering how is Harry going to make it to Godric's Hollow... Even if we assume that he was somehow told GH's location when he was a baby, and that he'll be able to find it, we'd still have that Ron and Hermione won't be able to "see" it. That wouldn't be much of a problem, I guess, but Voldemort and Wormtail know where GH is... I'm now wondering if Harry's spontaneous idea to visit GH at the end of HBP was not another idea 'induced' by Voldemort, a la Sirius' kidnap... Marcela From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Wed Feb 22 05:54:31 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:54:31 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148557 > > Marcela: > ***Wouldn't this be a perfect 'mirror' scene of what happened with > > the Marauders' Prank on Snape?! James saving Snape from being > > bitten by werewolf!Lupin, and then Snape 'paying back' his life debt > > to James by saving Harry from Fenrir's bite? > > It makes me wonder if Snape still feels like he 'owes' something to > > Harry, like Dumbledore suggested so in PS/SS... > > Jen: If Snape did fulfill his life debt in that moment, that might be > meaningful for the future. Especially if Snape mainly turned back to > Dumbledore due to the life-debt. Then all bets would be off as to his > loyalty. Not saying I'm a fan of the idea, just that if JKR is taking > that route she'd have some more canon for it. > > Jen R. > La Gatta Lucianese: I thought Snape paid back his life-debt to James when he saved Harry from Quirrellmort in SS/PS. How many times does he have to bail Harry out to satisfy the debt? If Snape did pay off the debt all the way back in SS/PS, and in HBP he's *still* bailing Harry out at least once and maybe twice, shouldn't that tell us something about where Snape stands vis-a-vis Voldemort and Harry? From oppen at mycns.net Wed Feb 22 07:43:25 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:43:25 -0000 Subject: Was Tom Riddle, Sr. Selfish? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148558 One of my learned colleagues *slamming my ears in the oven door for forgetting just who* mentioned above that Tom Riddle, Sr. was "selfish," apparently for his contemptuous dismissal of the Gaunts as an old tramp and his family. I'd like to pick up the cudgel in his defense, since I do think that Tom Riddle, Sr. is one of the more tragic minor characters in the Saga. Let's face it---the Gaunts' residence was, from the description, a place that would make Tobacco Road look like Buckingham Palace. Not to mention, I doubt that the (male) Gaunts would have reacted well to attempts to help them...can you imagine what would have happened to some well-meaning local Muggles who, say, tried to bring them some food, or carolled outside their house at Christmastime? For some reason, the image of a Chas. Addams cartoon comes to mind...the one where the carollers are outside the creepy old house, and the Addamses are about to pour boiling oil on them from atop their tower. So, you've got this weird old tramp and his two extremely weird kids, living in this shack that you can't get rid of, who won't accept help and act like they think everybody else around them is garbage. I don't think I'd be terribly friendly to them myself, or (when speaking of them to a friend from a distance, as Riddle Sr. apparently did to whats-her-face) very respectful in the terms I used to describe them. He's not selfish, or evil. I imagine that if he _were_ evil, he'd have turned up his nose at Merope when she offered him That Drink...and we wouldn't have a story. Kind of like Cedric Diggory, his downfall came through his virtues. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 22 07:46:25 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:46:25 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand (was Re: My thoughts on some things.......) In-Reply-To: <4220EAF8-63FA-4873-9D39-CCC0A9303E9B@value.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148559 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, JLyon wrote: Adzuroth: > > If their wand gets snapped in half, so what? Hagrid had > > no problems performing spells in books one and six (putting the > > pig tail on Dudley and putting out the housefire, respectively). > > > > > > > > Hagrid had his two wand halves inside his umbrella, allowing him > > use of his spells. JLyon: > Regarding broken wands...who says that Hagrid's wand was actually > broken. Personally, I would suspect that DD replaced Hagrid's with > a dummy/extra wand (or simply reported that he had broken Hagrid's > wand) and Hagrid actually has the unbroken wand in his umbrella. Geoff: Hagrid says so himself. '"Rubeus! Rubeus Hagrid! How nice to see you again... Oak, sixteen inches, rather bendy wasn't it?" "It was, sir, yes," said Hagrid. "Good wand, that one. But I suppose they snapped it in half when you got expelled?" said Mr.Ollivander, suddenly stern. "Er - yes, they did, yes," said Hagrid, shuffling his feet. "I've still got the pieces, though," he added brightly. "But you don't use them?" said Mr.Ollivander sharply. "Oh, no,sir," said Hagird quickly. Harry noticed he gripped his pink umbrella very tightly as he spoke. "Hmmm," said Mr.Ollivander, giving Hagrid a piercing look.' (PS "Diagon Alley" p.64 UK edition) From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Wed Feb 22 07:54:31 2006 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:54:31 -0000 Subject: The new questions, and Peverell Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148560 I hesitate to say that anything anywhere in the HP books is what it seems ... and things that look pretty obvious are especially suspicious. However, I rather wonder if the Peverell reference isn't simply a geographical one. Peverell of the Peak, Sir Walter Scott's novel, is set in (duh!) the Peak District, the really scenic, hilly bits of Derbyshire, full of bleak, high moors and limestone crags and caves. Good country for living unobserved in ... and good too for prosperous landowners like the Riddles in days past. I like the way the whole of the UK is included in the WW - the Weasleys in the West Country, the four founders dotted about, London and Scotland and the Dursley's Home County dormitory town, Longbottoms in Lancashire and now the Peak District. Godric's Hollow is presumably in Wales. Dare I hope for some future reference to Tyneside? Deborah, happily geographical today From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 22 08:03:07 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:03:07 -0000 Subject: Owner of Riddle House - House of Mystery? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148561 > > Logically, with no clear and immediate heir to the Riddle Estate, the > government would get involved in settling the estate. I'm not sure of > the details of how it works in the U.K., but I think it is still a > reasonable assumption. > > So, Tom Riddle would send lawyer in advance to make his case and lay > his claim to the estate. At the last minute, after all the evidence > and necessary documentation had been produced, he would show up in > person to sign the documents and claim the estate. They couldn't > really accuse him of murder because the books clearly tell us that > there was no proof at all that the Riddles had been murdered. Indeed, > it was that very fact that got Frank Bryce off. Gerry Well, he was the heir. The Riddles would not have left a will, but as he was born in a legal marriage and raised in a muggle orphanage and thus known to the muggle world he would show up in the search for next of kin. Then they would have contacted him, and things would have been settled. I think in this case, because Tom has a muggle existence and as far as the muggle world is concerned is only going to a special school, the go between would only come into play afterwards to change money etc. But knowing Tom, he could also have dealt with the muggles himself and taken the account to Gringotts. Then a quick obliviate to ensure they remembered nothing because the last thing he wanted was to be known as the son of his father. > > Since that time, the house has been sold and resold. Each new owner > rejecting the house because it had a nasty feel to it. And why would a > perfectly good house have a nasty feel? Because some small bit of > Voldemort's soul is residing there. Hey, it could happen. What an intriguing idea. Wonderful, I hopew you are right. Gerry From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 22 05:46:28 2006 From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:46:28 +1100 Subject: Reason for Snape to 'Kill' Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148562 Gryffindoor Chaser thinks: One of the main reasons Dumbledore would have made Snape 'kill' him and let Harry see, was to biuld up Harry's hatred. We know from the books that you can't use an Unforgivable Curse unless you trully hate the person and want to inflict the pain it causes. So to have Snape of all people kill Dumbledore the anger will increase two-fold and be able to be let out when finally facing LV. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 08:53:03 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:53:03 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: > > JKR has answered her FAQ Poll question! It seems as though, as > many of us have predicted, when a Secret-Keeper dies, the "secret > dies with them." Meaning that 12GP is still supposedly safe for > the Order.... This is really the only thing that makes sense; > after all, the whole idea of the Fidelius charm is a bit silly > if your secret can be broken by the Secret-Keeper getting run > over by a bus or something. bboyminn: Well, you point out the very misconception we are trying to clear up. When JKR says 'When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them...' does she mean that the secret is no longer a secret since the Keeper has died, or does it mean that the secret can never be revealed again since there is no one to reveal it? If we look at what she says next, we have the answer. "...or, to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else." The Secret can only be given away by the Secret Keeper. If the Secret Keeper is dead then only those people to whom the secret has /already/ been revealed can know it, yet none of them can reveal it, with out the Secret Keeper, no new people can be let in on the secret. For example, if Neville gets involved, there is no one who can reveal the location of 12 Grimmauld Place to him. Only Dumbledore could do that and he is dead. Another example; that kills the idea that Harry will let the Dursleys live at 12 Grimmauld Place because the Dursley can't find it, they don't know, and there is no one to reveal the secret to them. However, Dumbledore may have inadvertently let the secret slip at the beginning of HBP when he was talking to the Harry in front of the Dursleys. Chapter 3 - HBP - 'Will and Won't' - Pg 49 ..."a difficulty has arisen...for us. By us, I mean the Order..." "Our problem ," he (Dumbledore) continued to Harry, "is that Sirius also left you number 12, Grimmauld Place" "You can keep using it as headquarters," said Harry. "That is generous," said Dumbledore. "We have, however, vacated the building temporarily." ...and the conversation continues... - end quote - First, by mentioning 'headquarters' didn't Harry give away a secret that can't be given away, or had Dumbledore already opened the door to the discussion thereby revealing the secret to the Dursleys and that is what allows Harry to bring up the 'headquarters'. To be clear, let us look at Dumbledore's revelation of the secret to Harry - "The headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at number twelve, Grimmauld Place, London." - by note in OotP pg 58 It seems that the location of 12 Grimmauld Place is not itself a secret, though it is certainly well hidden as Sirius explains, only that it is the headquarters for the Order. So, how does that translate into ways in which the Black House could be revealed? Could you invite someone over for dinner as long as that invite and the subsequent actions had nothing to do with the Order of the Phoenix? Also, 12 Grimmauld Place is NOT NOW the location of Headquarters, does that nullify the secret since the secret specifically involves 'Headquarters'? Does that mean that the secret and the Secret Keeper have automatically transferred the secret to the new location? Does the 'secret' automatically follow the 'headquarters'? Remember, the secret involves the location of the headquaters of the Order of the Phoenix, and is only specifically related to 12 Grimmauld Place while it is acting as headquarters. I speculate that as soon as the Black House is no longer 'Headquaters', it is no longer secret. I think JKR thought she was clearing up this problem for us, but instead she has only made it more complicated. Most of us suspected that when Dumbledore died, the secret died in the sense that it was no longer a secret. The Secret Keeper spell was broken. But it appears that this is not true. The Secret is still secret except to those to whom it has already been revealed. But once again, the secret relates to 'headquarters', and 12 Grimmauld Place is no longer 'headquarters', so does that mean Harry can reveal it's location to others? He seems to have revealed the 'secret' to the Dursley without any trouble. Very confusing. > Christina continues: > > Where is the challenge in figuring out the identity of the > Secret Keeper and getting the information from him when all > the enemy has to do is kill a bunch of people? ...edited... > bboyminn: You must remember that when the Secret Keeper dies, the secret is not revealed. True, as we wrongly speculated, it may no longer be a secret, but the actual secret itself is not instantly revealed. For example, if Voldemort had killed Peter, and if the Charm had worked as we originally and wrongly speculated, the Potter's house would have been revealed, but Voldemort still wouldn't know that THAT is where the Potters were. Some one randomly walking down the street past the Potter's house would have been able to see it, but Voldemort wouldn't have been any wiser as to which of all the many many thousands of streets in the UK he should walk down, nor would he know which house among the many houses on that street, should by some miracle he find it, was the correct one. As it is, we don't have to worry about that since the secret is still kept after the death of the Secret Keeper. > Christina continues: > > And I still wonder what happens to a secret if the secret itself > dies...that is, did the charm on the Potters break when *they* died > (although Harry was still alive)? Or if the charm was more on the > house, did it break when the house was destroyed? > > Christina > bboyminn: As I said, JKR has only made things more complicated. Keep in mind that we don't actually know what the secret was related to the Potters hiding. Was their house the secret, or were they the secret? And as you ask, when the Potters - the Secret - died, was the house revealed since there no longer was a secret to keep? When Harry goes to Godric Hollow, will he be able to see their graves but not their house, or will he be able to see both or neither? Will Hermione and Ron be able to see both or neither? In the case of Dumbledore, the Secret KEEPER died; in the case of the Potters, the secret itself died. So where does that leave us? ...other than confused. bboyminn/Steve From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Wed Feb 22 09:22:14 2006 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:22:14 -0000 Subject: Secret places Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148564 Is it possible to Apparate to a place you know only by name? Could Harry Apparate to Godric's Hollow just by saying/thinking the name? And if not, could he Apparate to "the house across the road from my parents' house in Godric's Hollow"? This has implications for 12 Grimmauld Place, of course, following Dumbledore's death. Deborah, deciding she's geographically challenged after all! From sidd_m2003 at yahoo.co.in Wed Feb 22 10:50:13 2006 From: sidd_m2003 at yahoo.co.in (siddharth mishra) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:50:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Secret places In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060222105013.20956.qmail@web8704.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148565 Deborah wrote: >> Is it possible to Apparate to a place you know only by name? Could Harry Apparate to Godric's Hollow just by saying/thinking the name? << Sid: Good question but I think to apparate somewhere you need to think about that place with lot of concentration. To do that one must at least know the physical appearance of that place. From siddhu1616 at yahoo.co.in Wed Feb 22 11:17:05 2006 From: siddhu1616 at yahoo.co.in (siddhu1616) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:17:05 -0000 Subject: cursed necklace Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148566 Hey all, I've one question: Madam Rosmerta was under imperius curse for nearly whole year; in the chapter "Silver and Opals," Leanne (Katie's friend) said that Katie was under imperius curse when they were arguing about that cursed necklace! But my question is how can a person under imperius curse uses a curse as the the one who gave the imperius curse was not present to see there on whom the cuse was used! I know in Goblet of Fire Krum had used curses on Cedric and Fleur but the one who gave him curse (Mad-Eye) could see from bushes on whom he was using it! As he had seen Harry and Cedric before first task! Draco was surely not there so how Katie had been attacked? Do you have answer? Please reply, thanx. Sid From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 22 13:50:09 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:50:09 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148567 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > I think it just as likely someone unseen by Harry cast it and that's > why there was no specification. DDM folks already know he saved > Harry by getting the DE's out of Hogwarts and not killing or > torturing Harry on the way, so casting that one spell doesn't make > the case much stronger. It wouldn't necessarily be the thing in need > of an answer like other more obvious actions Snape took that night, > is what I mean. It is higly probable that you are right. But I would love it to be Snape. What it would do is shake Harry, badly. Sure it could still be Snape obeing LV's orders, but he could very much have let it happen and have Greyback take the blame. But how would Harry find out, unless he'd inherit DD's pensieve? Gerry From lolita_ns at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 13:49:57 2006 From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:49:57 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148568 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: > > And I still wonder what happens to a secret if the secret itself > dies...that is, did the charm on the Potters break when *they* died > (although Harry was still alive)? Or if the charm was more on the > house, did it break when the house was destroyed? > > Christina Lolita: I think that the only way Rowling's answer could correspond to what we've been told in the books would be for the charm to have been upon the house, which is probably why PP destroyed it (if it indeed was him who did it, as I believe it was) in the first place. Otherwise, there is simply no way for DD to have been able to send Hagrid to GH, and for Hagrid (and the Muggles, and the MoM) to find it, had the secret not been revealed to them by its Keeper. And PP didn't tell them, for they would then know that it wasn't Sirius who was the Secret Keeper. I think that we can be *absolutely* sure that DD didn't know that the true Secret Keeper was PP, because he would have never ever let Sirius stay in Azkaban for 12 years had he known (and why didn't he ever, during all those years, request to see him in prison and try to see what had realy happened back in 1981 is a thing I don't understand. He was the head of the Wizengamot, he would have been granted his request in no time. Had he simply decided to leave Black to his fate? Black was sent to Azkaban without a trial, after all. It would have only been fair to let him tell his side of the story. Or, to read it from his mind, if you're as skilled a Legilimens as DD was.) So. PP tells the secret to LV (or has it pried out of him via Legilimency), LV goes, kills part of the family protected by it, but then he botches everything by trying to kill Harry too, and as a result, he is gone. PP then pockets his wand, destroys the house, transforms (presumably) into a rat and departs. DD learns that LV is no more, probably, as Red Hen believes, from SS who informs him that his Dark Mark is gone. He then sends Hagrid to GH to find Harry (Or did he send him there just to see what had happened? Did DD know that Harry had survived? If so, *how* could he have known? Only because of the Prophecy and the fact that - as DD interpreted it - if LV had 'died', then Harry must have stayed alive?). The question is how he knew where to send Hagrid, if he himself hadn't been in the Secret (and, as I stated above, he definitely hadn't been, or he would have known that the true SK was PP), and, from what Rowling said, he wouldn't have been able to tell Hagrid even if he had known, for it is only the SK who can reveal the location. (And we know that PP didn't tell Hagrid either, because Hagrid believed that Sirius was a traitorous bastard who betrayed his friends up to some point after PoA). How was Hagrid able to find GH? The charm had to have been upon the house. It couldn't have been on the family, because Harry was still alive at the time. BTW, DD most probably sent Hagrid there because he didn't want any magic to be performed in GH before he could go there and check the situation (what sort of magic LV used and the like). After all, if you need sb who can searcr through the rumbles without magic, your best choice in undoubtedly Hagrid. And DD couldn't have gone himself, because he had to prepare everything for Harry's stay at the Dursleys' (invoke the magic needed for that, etc.) - for Harry's safety was his absolute priority (although, leaving him on their doorstep in the middle of the night without anyone to watch over him until the Dursleys take him wasn't very cautious. Remember that the magic contract invoked to protect Harry was signed with Petunia's taking him in - and she only discovered him on her doorstep in the morning!) When I think about it, another thing that confuses me is the fact that Sirius wasn't surprised to see Hagrid among the ruins of the house (he was shocked, of course, but still). Wasn't he the least bit suspicious that Hagrid had been able to find the house? I repeat, *no one* but PP, Sirius and the Potters knew of the switch, so, in order for Hagrid to be able to find the house, the Secret had to have been revelaed to him by the SK. And it hadn't been, for he honestly believed that Sirius had been the SK... Questions, questions.... Maybe there was some magic interwoven in the act of destroying the house that enabled PP to free himself of the secret, without arousing suspicion? Something like, 'I shout to the world this and this secret, bla bla bla'? Maybe *that* is why Moody prevented Harry from reading the information on the HQ of the Order out loud? (Although, as Harry wasn't the SK, I don't really understand how his reading the info outloud would have been of any help to possible spies around...) Anyway, I should probably stop here, as this post is turning out to be rather long... Cheers, Lolita :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 14:06:25 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:06:25 -0000 Subject: Did Snape pay his life debt in PS/SS? WAS: Re: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148569 > La Gatta Lucianese: > > I thought Snape paid back his life-debt to James when he saved Harry > from Quirrellmort in SS/PS. How many times does he have to bail Harry > out to satisfy the debt? > > If Snape did pay off the debt all the way back in SS/PS, and in HBP > he's *still* bailing Harry out at least once and maybe twice, > shouldn't that tell us something about where Snape stands vis-a- vis > Voldemort and Harry? > Alla: Well, no I don't think he did fulfill his life-debt in PS/SS. He TRIED and that makes a huge difference, but Hermione was the one who put the final nail into the operation, albeit unconsciously. Too bad we don't know how life-debt works precisely, but it makes total sense to me even if Snape completely loyal to Dumbledore, he would want to pay his life debt alone, play the hero without anybody's help, so I speculate that even if the events of PS/SS would allow Snape to consider debt fulfilled, Snape himself would not think that the debt is fulfilled. Here is Steve's post where he postulates quite nicely why the debt was not fulfilled. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145515 It takes you in the middle of the thread about Neri's wonderful LID! Snape, which explains exactly where Snape who did not pay his life debt yet stands. :-) Alla From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Feb 22 14:08:49 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:08:49 -0000 Subject: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148570 Sorry for the delay in replying. Dungrollin: > Can you really see Harry forgiving Voldemort and > *then* destroying him? houyhnhnm: I wasn't thinking of "forgiving" in the sense of embracing him, more in the sense of suddenly seeing Riddle/Vodemort's complete life story in a single gestalt and recognizing him as a pitiful wretch without real power, and this realization having the effect of stripping Voldemort of his power, thus destroying him. The forgiveness and destruction being simultaneous rather than one following the other. I have to admit we haven't seen much forshadowing of that kind of love saving the day in HP. Dung: You're right, we haven't. But it would still feel like a bit of a cop-out to me. Dungrollin: > My problem with turning the battle into some internal struggle of > Harry's is this: how could such a process manifest itself as a > satisfying climax to a series of action-packed children's > adventures? houyhnhnm: But are they? Time Warner has found it hugely profitable to market the Potter saga as such, especially since they can make millions drawing non-readers to the movie theaters, but Rowling said, at one point, that she did not set out to write a children's story. (The reading level is much too difficult for *children's* books anyway--young adolescents, maybe) Dungrollin: I didn't mean that I don't think your scenario is suitable for children, nor do I think that it's too complicated for their little brains to cope with. What I meant was that she's under some obligation to maintain the style in which she's begun. The books so far are adventure stories, aren't they? Do you not think that putting Harry in a monastery for three months of book 7 so that he can learn to forgive would be... a little discordant with what has gone before? Okay okay, I take that back, that was a straw man ? I know that's not what you're suggesting. But I think that even a watered-down version would jar with the kind of stories and plots we've had before. I'd be more receptive to the idea of destroying Voldy with forgiveness if we had some clue of how such magic could physically manifest itself, preferably with a nice symbolic set of actions and choices which underly the forgiveness. A split-second "suddenly seeing Riddle/Vodemort's complete life story in a single gestalt and recognizing him as a pitiful wretch without real power and this realization ... stripping Voldemort of his power, thus destroying him" wham-bam Voldy's gone and it's all all right ending would... well, it would really disappoint me. My first post after book 7 would almost certainly include the phrase "we wuz robbed!" I want an exciting, dramatic climax with plenty of tension, (and preferably curses flying everywhere) and I want Harry to win because he's loyal and brave and clever and cunning, not just because he's the chosen one. houyhnhnm: I was Neville Longbottom in English Lit class (all my professors hated me),so I can't construct arguments as to why the Potter series does or does not fit into to this or that genre, and why it must or must not have a certain kind of ending. Dungrollin: I'm a scientist, so I'm making it up as I go along too. I'm not trying to argue that she *must* use a certain kind of ending, I've just proposed one that I would find interesting. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of argument against it except that you don't want Harry to have to kill. I'm just trying to show why it wouldn't disappoint me if JKR went down this road, and why I think its consistent with the six books already on the table. (I'm really trying hard to avoid arguing from the premise that I'm right, because I'm almost certainly not.) houyhnhnm: I enjoyed the first book as a Cinderella story. Emotionally abused orphan discovers he's a wizard, gets the boot in on his oppressors, and lives happily ever after. By the end of GoF, and certainly in OotP, I was rudely jerked out of that pleasant fantasy. I was disappointed at first, but on reflection, it was more interesting to me that the story took the turn that it did. Dung: Heh. So if it goes my way, you might like it in the end anyway? Dung: > So in effect, you reckon Dumbledore was wrong, at the end of OotP, > right? Harry is not limited to the choice between kill or be killed, there's a way to worm out of having to choose? houyhnhnm: No, but I don't see why it has to be taken literally. Here's the passage. "The end of the prophecy ... it was something about ... 'neither can live ...'" "' ... while the other survives,'" said Dumbledore. "So," said Harry, dredging up the words from what felt like a deep well of despair inside him, "so does that mean that ... that one of us has got to kill the other one ... in the end?" "Yes," said Dumbledore. Dungrollin: That quote is why I asked if you thought DD was wrong, because he does seem to take it literally, which is why he replies to Harry's question with a 'yes'. houyhnhnm: I just don't see why the "one" and the "other" have to be the two persons, Harry and Voldemort. Why can't they refer to the "Harry" and "Voldemort" in Harry? (and possibly in Voldemort, too, now that he has Harry's blood) And why does "kill" have to be taken in the sense of "commit homocide"? As long as Harry has a little Dark Lord residing in his forehead, he can't truly live. If he "kills" the Voldemort inside, then he can. Dungrollin: And the Voldemort *outside* takes early retirement and moves to the Seychelles? Or does someone else get the pleasure of killing him? Look, I completely understand why people want to keep Harry innocent and want to stop him having to get his hands dirty, particularly since we found out about how killing rips the soul, I'm just not convinced that JKR's going to be as nice to Harry as you want her to be. Even if you don't want Harry to have to kill Voldemort literally, Harry's pretty much resigned himself to it: HBP ch5 (UK p96). "... it looks like I'm the one who's got to finish off Voldemort ... at least, it said neither of us could live while the other survives." On the next page Hermione asks if he's scared. "Not as much as I was," said Harry. "When I first heard it, I was ... but now, it seems as though I always knew I'd have to face him in the end ..." Given the choices theme, are we agreed that Harry's going to have to make a difficult decision in order to defeat Voldy? And are we agreed that it's going to have to be a conscious choice? Your choice seems to be either forgive and defeat him forever, or hang on to your desire for vengeance and let evil win. Right? That's all fine and dandy ? a clear choice with a strong moral at base. But how is it going to be difficult for Harry to make the decision? It might be tremendously difficult for Harry to actually follow through with the practicalities of forgiving, but it's hardly likely to be a difficult *choice*, is it? Perhaps you can see something I can't... I like my theory because it suggests some kind of rapprochement with DDM!Snape. Being presented with a rotten choice like the one I outlined would help Harry understand what Snape had to do on the tower, and what a hellish choice it was. Harry in the end decides that he's going to take responsibility for finishing Voldemort himself, not push the sin onto others' shoulders, and if that involves injuring his soul, it's worth it. Snape therefore finally sees Harry taking some responsibility for his actions, instead of being let off by an over-indulgent Dumbledore. Snow: My point was that we don't know what can happen (because of the variables) to a Horcrux that has been encased in a living soul. Dumbledore said that it would be inadvisable to encase a soul piece inside something that can think for itself. We don't know what Harry could be capable of doing to destroy the piece of soul that is a part of him. There may be many doorways to how Harry can get rid of or influence the soul piece to the extent of destroying Voldemort as a result because of the free will status. No matter how a Horcrux in an inanimate object can be destroyed, the equation changes when the Horcrux is inside a living thinking person or animal. So even if we are told how a Horcrux can be destroyed inside an inanimate object that procedure may not be the same as inside a living thing because of the free will factor. Dungrollin: Oh I *see*. You're worried she might just pull something out of the hat that hasn't been foreshadowed? Could be. She might, indeed. I prefer to theorise under the delusion that she's got something clever up her sleeve, and that she plays by at least some rules though. :D Dungrollin A little distracted by the *adorable* pair of baby skinks who have set up home in her living room. From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Feb 22 14:32:54 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 08:32:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question References: Message-ID: <001501c637bc$de5eec60$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 148571 ----- Original Message ----- From: lolita_ns I repeat, *no one* but PP, Sirius and the Potters knew of the switch, so, in order for Hagrid to be able to find the house, the Secret had to have been revelaed to him by the SK. And it hadn't been, for he honestly believed that Sirius had been the SK... Questions, questions.... kchuplis: Isn't it said in the conversation that Harry overhears at the Three Broomsticks that someone could have pressed their face on the sitting room window and not been able to see the Potters due to the Fidelious Charm? I was under the impression it kept *The Potters* protected. Not the house necessarily. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Feb 22 14:34:06 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:34:06 -0800 Subject: secret keeper changes Message-ID: <006701c637bd$09be2240$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 148572 We've been discussing JKR's answer to her FAQ poll about the secret keeper, and I had what seems like a simple solution to the problem of how can anyone not in on the secret at the time of the keeper's death ever learn the secret. Couldn't they just change secret keepers? Take 12 Grimauld Place. Harry is now its owner. Sirius was its owner when the original charm was set up. couldn't Harry have the Fidelius charm done again with a new secret keeper? just a thought. Sherry From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Feb 22 14:31:55 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:31:55 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148573 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Considering this "is Snape good or evil" business I can think of 5 > possibilities, I list them below from least likely to most likely. I'm > almost sure #1 is untrue because I don't see any way to make an > interesting book with that premise, and I'll bet money book 7 will be > interesting. > Pippin: What about the possibility that Dumbledore is dead but Snape didn't kill him? That would leave both Harry and DDM!Snape in the most difficult, ie interesting, position of all if they must put aside their enmity in order to defeat Voldemort. Each would be bereft of Dumbledore's guidance, and tempted to make the easy choice of blaming the other for their mutual loss. The UV leaves plenty of room for such an outcome, IMO. It only requires Snape to carry out the task "Should it prove necessary" -- and who knows what that means? To Narcissa it must have meant "necessary to protect Draco" . We know it's not necessary to *her* that Dumbledore die, since her first plea to Snape at Spinner's End is to get Voldemort to abandon the plan. If Draco could be saved from the consequences of his failure without Snape carrying out the task, I think the vow would allow it. The third provision would take effect and Snape would die if, but only if, Draco came to harm as a result of failing in his mission. Yeah, that works. It makes sense of Dumbledore's hands-off policy even when Draco's failed attempts endanger other students, and it also explains why those failures don't force Snape to act or suffer the consequences. Pippin From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 22 14:40:37 2006 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:40:37 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148574 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > When JKR says 'When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with > them...' does she mean that the secret is no longer a secret since the > Keeper has died, or does it mean that the secret can never be > revealed again since there is no one to reveal it? If we look at what > she says next, we have the answer. > > "...or, to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain > as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they > confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else." > > The Secret can only be given away by the Secret Keeper. If the Secret > Keeper is dead then only those people to whom the secret has /already/ > been revealed can know it, yet none of them can reveal it, with out > the Secret Keeper, no new people can be let in on the secret. > First, by mentioning 'headquarters' didn't Harry give away a secret > that can't be given away, or had Dumbledore already opened the door to > the discussion thereby revealing the secret to the Dursleys and that > is what allows Harry to bring up the 'headquarters'. > > To be clear, let us look at Dumbledore's revelation of the secret to > Harry - > > "The headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at number > twelve, Grimmauld Place, London." - by note in OotP pg 58 > > It seems that the location of 12 Grimmauld Place is not itself a > secret, though it is certainly well hidden as Sirius explains, only > that it is the headquarters for the Order. So, how does that translate > into ways in which the Black House could be revealed? Could you invite > someone over for dinner as long as that invite and the subsequent > actions had nothing to do with the Order of the Phoenix? > > Also, 12 Grimmauld Place is NOT NOW the location of Headquarters, does > that nullify the secret since the secret specifically involves > 'Headquarters'? Does that mean that the secret and the Secret Keeper > have automatically transferred the secret to the new location? Does > the 'secret' automatically follow the 'headquarters'? Remember, the > secret involves the location of the headquaters of the Order of the > Phoenix, and is only specifically related to 12 Grimmauld Place while > it is acting as headquarters. I speculate that as soon as the Black > House is no longer 'Headquaters', it is no longer secret. > > I think JKR thought she was clearing up this problem for us, but > instead she has only made it more complicated. Most of us suspected > that when Dumbledore died, the secret died in the sense that it was no > longer a secret. The Secret Keeper spell was broken. But it appears > that this is not true. The Secret is still secret except to those to > whom it has already been revealed. > > But once again, the secret relates to 'headquarters', and 12 Grimmauld > Place is no longer 'headquarters', so does that mean Harry can reveal > it's location to others? He seems to have revealed the 'secret' to the > Dursley without any trouble. Very confusing. Marianne: Thanks, Steve, for making my head spin. I wonder if, even though Harry mentioned the 'secret' that if the Dursleys were to go looking for 12 GP they still wouldn't be able to find it because they were told the secret by someone who is not the Secret Keeper. IOW, does it matter if Harry shouted the location of headquarters from the rooftops of London, if the secret itself is still locked inside DD? One worry about 12 GP was whether there was some sort of charm on the house that would only allow it to be willed to someone with Black blood. Since JKR made it clear that Sirius could will it to anyone he chose, this turned out not to be an issue. But, DD was clearly concerned that Bellatrix might inherit the house, which was the reason the Order temporarily vacated the premises. How would that have squared with the Secret Keeper charm had Sirius not been able to will the house to Harry? In other words, can inheritance trump the Secret Keeper charm? > > > Christina continues: > > > > And I still wonder what happens to a secret if the secret itself > > dies...that is, did the charm on the Potters break when *they* died > > (although Harry was still alive)? Or if the charm was more on the > > house, did it break when the house was destroyed? > > > > Christina > > > > bboyminn: > > As I said, JKR has only made things more complicated. Keep in mind > that we don't actually know what the secret was related to the Potters > hiding. Was their house the secret, or were they the secret? And as > you ask, when the Potters - the Secret - died, was the house revealed > since there no longer was a secret to keep? When Harry goes to Godric > Hollow, will he be able to see their graves but not their house, or > will he be able to see both or neither? Will Hermione and Ron be able > to see both or neither? > > In the case of Dumbledore, the Secret KEEPER died; in the case of the > Potters, the secret itself died. Marianne: I think that perhaps this part is getting needlessly complicated. If Peter, the Secret Keeper revealed the secret to Vmort, then the secret is essentially over. There was no more secret. Peter broke the charm in order to reveal the Potters whereabouts to Voldemort. In this case, whether the charm concerned the house or the actual persons of the Potters, it no longer mattered because the Keeper spilled the beans. Marianne From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 22 14:49:18 2006 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:49:18 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148575 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: Where is the challenge in figuring out the identity of the > Secret Keeper and getting the information from him when all the enemy > has to do is kill a bunch of people? Marianne: Although I'm sure Vmort and his minions would have derived some pleasure out of that activity ;-) Christina: Even though (forgetting > PP's status as a DE for a second) Voldemort would have been trying to > capture Sirius, or whoever he thought the Potters' SK was, the FC > would have afforded Sirius some protection in battle, since it would > have been a big no-no to let him die. (Although it was said that > Sirius was going into hiding himself, which I still find sort of odd.) Marianne: I don't find it odd at all. If everyone was so sure that Sirius would be the Secret Keeper for the Potters, why not make it as hard as possible for the DEs to find him? It keeps some DEs busy following a false trail and perhaps buys some time for the beleaguered good guys to try to rally their forces. Christina: > And I still wonder what happens to a secret if the secret itself > dies...that is, did the charm on the Potters break when *they* died > (although Harry was still alive)? Or if the charm was more on the > house, did it break when the house was destroyed? Marianne: Didn't the charm break when Peter revealed its contents to Voldemort, thus rendering the SK's protection moot? From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 13:47:46 2006 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:47:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hagrid's wand (was Re: My thoughts on some things.......) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060222134746.54190.qmail@web42210.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148576 Jen D: <> Peg now: Ron's broken wand was a disaster, but I was wondering last night if he didn't do a very good job when he patched it up with Spell-o Tape, maybe making it function much worse. (Ron's not so great with the details, and I would imagine if you didn't line the break up correctly when you patched your wand back together, you might have problems. Like gluing the arm of your Hummel figurine on backward after it's broken off.) Hagrid's pieced-together wand seems to function fairly normally, although he did only manage to give Dudders a pig's tail when he intended to turn him entirely into a pig. His excuse was that Dudley was close enough to being a pig that the spell didn't work, but maybe it was actually because of his broken wand... Peg From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Wed Feb 22 14:17:18 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:17:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060222141718.35609.qmail@web37013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148577 Jen wrote: (snipped) but I just don't register Harry wheedling any info out of anyone. That just came at me blind. Does it seem out of the blue for you? Or anyone else? Until Slughorn's memory, and the lovely Felix Felecis, I'd never seen Harry play anyone like a drum! Catherine responds: In that passage, it says he has too much experience *trying* to wheedle information out of reluctant people. It never says anywhere that he was successful. If not it would have read "wheedling information out of people". Harry has not been very good at getting what he wants (as other people have pointed out) until FF. He has untapped abilities, perhaps, but he certainly was pretty lousy at subtlety prior to that scene. Catherine (who apologises for all spelling mistakes, but has just finished a 3 might shifts and has not slept yet. Her brain...not functioning at an optimal level...) From heos at virgilio.it Wed Feb 22 16:09:19 2006 From: heos at virgilio.it (chrusotoxos) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:09:19 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: <20060221183234.4807.qmail@web34511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, JULIA WILKES wrote: To me, now > that Snape has shown this loyalty to LV he will be the 2nd in > command (so to speak) and Snape will now be able to get the > information that Harry will need to destroy the Horcruxes so that > Harry and LV will do battle in the end, which will all know will > happen. > > Just a thought. What do you think? > I agree, Harry has no chance whatsoever to find and destroy four Horcruxes and LV without a "psychological" help from DD's picture and Snape's inside work. Actually, I was also thinking about something else. Someone here just said that allowing Harry to see DD murdered would increase his hatred, and therefore give him the mental power needed for an Unforgivable Curse, and that's a very intersting thought, but I firmly disagree. We already know that Harry can rely on one thing to fight LV: love. And in this book jkr goes to great lenghts to plant the bases of a universal love in Harry's mind. Clearer: before, Harry's love was underdeveloped, the love of a child: for his parents, his friends, and generally and vaguely for those of the good side. In this book, Harry learns to pity other people: Neville and Luna re top on the list, but so is LV, and even Snape. All these characters have mismatched families, difficult childness, and as such are somehow set apart from others. Like Harry, but Harry had so far judged them according to their response to this: -disappear into nothingness was a little coward (Neville) -don't care about people, weird (Luna) -terrorise others to earn their respect, evil (LV) -be ambitious and somtimes cruel, condemnable (Snape) Only his own answer was good: try and make friends, be general?ly good and such. But in this book Harry learns that answers vary according to people, and that he shouldn't be judgemental, but understanding. I'm sure that in book7 he'll find out how hard it has been for Snape to kill the one person that had ever been good to him, and in the moment he starts to feel sad for a man that he now hates "as much as Voldemort himself" his power to love will be at its higher, and Harry will turn invincible. That was DD goal in never giving Harry a good motive to trust Snape: that he should see with his won eyes and be able to pass from hatred to compassion. My very optimistic thoughts, chrus From heos at virgilio.it Wed Feb 22 16:14:13 2006 From: heos at virgilio.it (chrusotoxos) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:14:13 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148579 ps very important note: you should notice that in this book6, Harry was becoming very nasty (rejoicing in Marietta's still visible scars, not caring about Snape getting himself killed already in September, using hexes on Filch, trying out weird spells on poorly-chosen enemies such as MacLaggen, reacting with Dark Magic to a crying school-fellow...) with this kind of behaviour, he's heading towards a LV way of life, but in this way of life LV will always be stronger. remember that jkr is a christian (love your enemy and such), and she says this will show in her books. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Feb 22 16:29:58 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:29:58 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148580 Eggplant: > > 3) Snape killed Dumbledore but did so on Dumbledore's orders. (very difficult to find a viable reason Dumbledore would order such a thing and even if he did Snape would still be evil, at least in my book) > Dungrollin: Depends what your assumptions are. If you think that a) Voldemort *had* told Snape about Draco's task (canon, unless Snape was lying) b) Snape and DD discussed Draco's task before Bella and Cissy's visit (perfectly plausible, given that DD knew about it on the tower) c) The last clause of the Unbreakable Vow was a complete surprise to Snape; he was snookered and had to accept (the twitch) d) He immediately told DD what had happened (DD was not surprised about the UV when Harry told him) then it beggars belief to imagine that Dumbledore would have told Snape that he'd been stupid enough to make the vow, and he and Draco would have to die with the consequences. If you think that DD ordering Snape to help foil Draco's plan, save Dumbledore's life, and then die when the vow kicked in, abandoning Draco to be killed by Voldy, is consistent with Dumbledore's character as we've seen it, then I'm at a loss. Quite apart from the fact that DD is a little less selfish and a little more noble than that, it would be just the sort of order that could turn a bitter and resentful ex-Death Eater into a full-blown loyal servant of the Dark Lord. Hardly tactful or prudent. When posters complain that they don't understand how Dumbledore could ever have asked Snape to tear his soul by killing him, I wonder what other choice Dumbledore could have possibly have made that would have satisfied them while still staying in character. Sorry ? I'm obsessed with rotten choices at the moment... Dungrollin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 16:52:43 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:52:43 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148581 > Eggplant: > > > 3) Snape killed Dumbledore but did so on Dumbledore's orders. > (very difficult to find a viable reason Dumbledore would order such > a thing and even if he did Snape would still be evil, at least in my > book) > > > > Dungrollin: > > Depends what your assumptions are. If you think that > > a) Voldemort *had* told Snape about Draco's task (canon, unless > Snape was lying) > b) Snape and DD discussed Draco's task before Bella and Cissy's > visit (perfectly plausible, given that DD knew about it on the tower) > c) The last clause of the Unbreakable Vow was a complete surprise to > Snape; he was snookered and had to accept (the twitch) > d) He immediately told DD what had happened (DD was not surprised > about the UV when Harry told him) > > then it beggars belief to imagine that Dumbledore would have told > Snape that he'd been stupid enough to make the vow, and he and Draco > would have to die with the consequences. > > If you think that DD ordering Snape to help foil Draco's plan, save > Dumbledore's life, and then die when the vow kicked in, abandoning > Draco to be killed by Voldy, is consistent with Dumbledore's > character as we've seen it, then I'm at a loss. Quite apart from the > fact that DD is a little less selfish and a little more noble than > that, it would be just the sort of order that could turn a bitter > and resentful ex-Death Eater into a full-blown loyal servant of the > Dark Lord. Hardly tactful or prudent. > > When posters complain that they don't understand how Dumbledore > could ever have asked Snape to tear his soul by killing him, I > wonder what other choice Dumbledore could have possibly have made > that would have satisfied them while still staying in character. > > Sorry ? I'm obsessed with rotten choices at the moment... Alla: Yes, it is depends on what our assumptions are, doesn't it? I still do not see any evidence of Snape informing Dumbledore about third clause of the UV. I mean, he could have done that, sure, but correct me if I am wrong, you seem to agree that Snape WAS stupid to take the Vow, because of the third clause, no? I apologise if I am reading you incorrectly, but if I am reading you correctly and Snape is at that moment either wavering or loyal to DD, when Snape EVER admits in canon that he is wrong about something? Keep in mind that I am NOT talking about Evil Snape right now, I am talking about Stupid!Snape ( I know, it is hard to imagine, but try just for the sake of the argument :-)), Snape under influence of DADA curse, whatever. Snape admitting to Dumbledore that he was outplayed by Narcissa and Bella? Sorry don't see it at all. IMO of course. And of course if Dumbledore only knew that Snape has to protect Draco, but not to do the deed himself, I can see Dumbledore to go along with it. But if Dumbledore knew about third clause, I am not so sure. Dumbledore has a dangerous road of Horcruxes hunting in front of himself and Harry. Are you saying that he would be SO confident to leave Harry to it and just easily die to save Snape? I am just asking to clarify, I am not sure if that is what you are saying. I mean, if you argue Superspy!Snape, then I guess I can see your POV, but I am still under impression that Dumbledore would have been more helpful to the cause as alive than dead. Having said all that, I wonder about your take on whether Snape was lying or telling the truth in general in Spinner's End. If you argue that Voldemort told Snape about Draco's task is true, doesn't it strengthen ESE!Snape argument? He knows what Draco task is and STILL takes the Vow? I mean, Okay you argue that third clause was a surprise, but still - agreeing to protect Draco while little shmuck tries to kill Headmaster, isn't it a bit too close to being accessory? I mean, I will be VERY happy to learn that everything that Snape said in Spinner's End was true, but that would mean that blood of Emmeline Vance and Sirius is on his hands. The only way out I see for DD!M(sort of)Snape is for him not to know about the task and then take the UV because of his affection for Draco, DADA curse, etc. THEN Snape in my mind has some road to redemption. That is IMO of course. But Snape knowing that Draco's task is the Headmaster's assasination and agreeing to protect Draco, I can only see him as evil. JMO, Alla From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 22 17:10:03 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:10:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP10, The House of Gaunt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148582 >1. Harry goes to great lengths to hide from Trelawney. In spite of >this, he overhears a fortune-telling. Trelawney's card reading has >been the subject of examination by those who know the Tarot. Why did >Rowling put the card reading in this chapter? Is it necessary >foreshadowing? Who is the "dark young man, possibly troubled, one who >dislikes the questioner"? PJ: IMO, Harry is the dark young man. When I read this section my first impression was that JKR was trying to show us that Trelawney was a much better seer than thought and that her real problem was in second guessing herself rather than her talent itself... Her reading gave an overview of future events but since she discounted it she was unable to warn anyone. The questioner is always whoever the cards are laid out for - the person with the question. I think she did the reading for herself but decided it had to be wrong because she couldn't believe that anyone could possibly dislike her. :) >2. Merope does not really speak in this chapter, or anywhere else in >the book. Her few words are related by other characters. Yet, >according to Dumbledore, she does speak for herself through her >subsequent actions, although he speculates those actions are >underhanded. Not allowing a voice to a character is a striking >narrative device. Does Merope have a voice? What is its character? PJ: She obviously has a voice since, as others have pointed out, she spoke when she sold the locket as well as when she named her son. She's probably been told that she had nothing worth saying for so long that she only speaks when she can't avoid it. For that reason I picture her voice as being not much louder than a whisper and very tentative. >3. The Gaunts are said to have married their cousins, a line which >dwindled to the present Gaunts. Marrying cousins is claimed to be a >bad thing because recessive genes can become dominant in resulting >children. Here is an article with another view on cousin marriage, >which is apparently common in some cultures: >http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2002-04-04-cousins.htm. >Dumbledore comments that the Gaunts were "noted for a vein of >instability and violence that flourished through the generations due >to their habit of marrying their own cousins." They had also been >high-living profligates. If we accept that specific personality traits >can be inherited in the Wizarding world, what did Voldemort >specifically inherit from the Gaunts? PJ: I don't think there's any doubt that young Tom inherited the family insanity as well as their ability to speak parseltongue and their air of superiority. If not "in the blood" where else would a child raised in an orphanage develop the strong feelings of entitlement he had when Dumbledore found him? >5. Inviting guesswork, as Dumbledore does: what is the story with the >ring? It is an "ugly" ring that someone (Borgin & Burkes?) offered >Gaunt a lot of money for at one time. The ring meant enough to the >Gaunts that it and Slytherin's locket survived the family's >squandering of its fortune. Is the Peverell connection important? PJ: I'm not 100% sure of this but isn't the Peverell castle the one used in the movies for the exterior shots of Hogwarts? Perhaps they have nothing to do with the actual storyline but were put in by JKR as a wink to her readers? :) >Why is it necessary to keep the ring's story untold until book 7? My feeling is that Dumbledore doesn't want Harry to be afraid to go after those horcruxes and that the story of how he destroyed the ring (as well as his hand) would do more harm than good in that respect. 6. Why was it important to use the Pensieve in this instance instead of just telling Harry the information? PJ: Dumbledore could tell Harry about the Gaunt family but without seeing them the story is only half told. That saying "one picture is better than a thousand words" is accurate - especially in this case. >Dumbledore admits to >being really clever, but capable of making correspondingly huge >mistakes. What if Dumbledore is wrong about his "guesswork"? Who is >Dumbledore answerable to if he is wrong? There's no one to answer to if he's wrong. No one except LV knows for sure what all the horcruxes are so Dumbledore has to put all the information that he's worked so hard to gather together in order to make the best guess possible until more information becomes available. >7. Dumbledore confirms that it is very important that Harry know about >Voldemort's past, that it has "everything to do with the prophecy." >What do the Gaunts, as part of Voldemort's past, have to do with the >prophecy? Here is the prophecy, for reference: "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... ." PJ: On this I'm totally boggled. I'd love to hear what everyone else has to say about this because I honestly don't have a clue. Other than the transfer of parseltongue I see nothing in the Gaunts that has anything to do with Harry or the prophesy. >9. The Wizengamot is responsible for enforcing Wizarding law at the >time Morfin broke the law by performing magic in front of Muggles. But >as Gaunt pointed out, there was no real consequence to breaking the >law. The Ministry corrected the harm done to Muggle Tom and erased his >memory of the hex. What does the Gaunts' >interaction with Wizarding law, especially as regards Muggles, say >about that law? PJ: When I read these books I see mostly Pure-blood Wizards in positions of power. I also see a strong disregard for Muggles in general in the WW. So while the laws were written, I don't believe they're enforced or, if they are enforced, it's reluctantly. Especially against a Pure-blood Wizarding family like the Gaunts or even the Malfoys. >10. This had probably been discussed to death, but: Why can't Ron read >the Prince's instructions? Hermione won't try to read them because she >is opposed to "cheating" with the HBP book is this the real reason? >Why does she insist the handwriting is a girl's? PJ: Because I believe it IS a girl's writing. Hermione is JKR's voice in the stories so if she says the corrections and comments in the book were written by a girl, then it's a girl's writing. The 3 of them have seen Snape's writing for years at this point, both on the board as well as comments on their parchments. If it actually was Snape's writing in the margins woudn't one of them have recognized it as such? I know the book was inscribed with the title Half Blood Prince and that Snape claimed that title as he was running from Hogwarts BUT we've also been told it wasn't a new book when Snape wrote that. It was already used by *at least* one other person and we have no idea at this point who owned it before him. It's not at all impossible for Snape to have been given that book by someone who got a new one (his own could've been ruined in a cauldren explosion) and didn't need it anymore or for him to have kept a book "lost" by someone he envied in potions class. My money is on it being Lily's school book because Slughorn has never raved about Snape being a great potions maker but goes into total rapture over Lily's abilities in class... And maybe Harry can read it while Ron can't because he "has Lilys eyes". I think JKR is planning a bang with this in book 7. Oh, and if I'm not mistaken, the curses were printed rather than written in the same hand as the rest of the margin writing (very easy to read - not like the rest of it). Snape could have printed those in the book while he had it. I lent my book out so I can't check this for certain but that was my impression after reading the book. Great questions! Thankyou for taking so much time and effort to put that together for us. :) PJ From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 17:14:44 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:14:44 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148583 Alla: > The only way out I see for DD!M(sort of)Snape is for him not to know > about the task and then take the UV because of his affection for > Draco, DADA curse, etc. THEN Snape in my mind has some road to > redemption. That is IMO of course. But Snape knowing that Draco's > task is the Headmaster's assasination and agreeing to protect Draco, > I can only see him as evil. Sydney: But surely there's so many other possibilities? Say, -- the ring curse which destroyed his hand was slowly killing Dumbledore, and he decided to make the most of his inevitable death by increasing Snape's value as a spy. They had been intending Snape to take credit for D-dore's death from the start of the year, which is why he finally appointed Snape to the cursed DADA position. or-- -- Snape did not know about the task, and, needing to get as close in as possible, took a risk on taking the Vow, accepting the possiblity that he might have to die by breaking it. Very much like Dumbledore took a risk in drinking the potion in the cave, accepting the possibilty that it might kill him, because he couldn't see any other way to move forward or-- -- Snape took the Vow intending to break it, because he's suicidal and it seemed like a poetical way to go I'm sure there's others. -- Sydney, who's pretty evenly divided between the first and the second, reserving the third for days when she puts on the Nick Cave and opens a bottle of absinthe. Which, hey, isn't every day! From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 17:16:34 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:16:34 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148584 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: >> Dungrollin: >> >> Quite apart from the fact that DD is a little less selfish and a >> little more noble than that, it would be just the sort of order >> that could turn a bitter and resentful ex-Death Eater into a full- >> blown loyal servant of the Dark Lord. Hardly tactful or prudent. I leave this unsnipped because rare is it you see a Snape defender bringing out this potential side of his character. :) What I wonder about is whether these aspects, the whole bitter and resentful thing, weren't really coming out through this year. We have the unexplained conversation in the forest, we have what at least seems to be Snape's delight at the DADA position--is that because he's finally gotten what he wants, over Dumbledore's objections? Is Snape the kind of person to rejoice at the little personal victories in life? I do think so, being as he seems to get amusement from the little nasty things which happen to other people (well, don't we all, but not all of us make it into an art). As Alla says: > I still do not see any evidence of Snape informing Dumbledore about > third clause of the UV. ... when (does) Snape EVER admit in canon > that he is wrong about something? I, for one, don't think that Snape tells Dumbledore everything, nor do I think that Dumbledore shares much of his lines of reasoning or deep confidence/ideas with Snape. Contra the Right Hand Man assumption, if you will; it makes some things so much easier that all theorists should give it a spin every once in a while. But we do know that when Snape gets a conception of something into his head, he holds very strongly to it and is not above going a little bit maverick. Is this, in retrospect, part of the point of the denoument of PoA, with Snape frothing at the mouth and willing to snuggle up to Fudge, expressing the hope that Dumbledore won't interfere? Dumbledore's utter confidence that he surely knows all of what is going on makes me, for one, exceedingly nervous. Hubris, if you will. > Dumbledore has a dangerous road of Horcruxes hunting in front of > himself and Harry. Are you saying that he would be SO confident to > leave Harry to it and just easily die to save Snape? This bothers me too. If Dumbledore knows everything about the Vow and its provisions, then he has to know, when he sees the Mark and such, that Draco's game is on. But he doesn't seem to me, although I know that he does to others, like he's ready to go forth and die. Maybe that's the meaning of his words to Harry...well, Dumbledore is a near-total emotional idiot, so I can maybe see him not understanding what witnessing this is going to do to the kid. That does, however, make him an idiot, which is the usual objection to the theme of Dumbledore being wrong about Snape. Like it or not, here Dumbledore is an idiot no matter which way you spin it. :) > but still - agreeing to protect Draco while little shmuck tries to > kill Headmaster, isn't it a bit too close to being accessory? It strikes a little close, unless you want to take the Tragic!Snape line, his own flaws magnified by the DADA curse, he has been trapped by his own hubris and is forced into this situation. Eh, I guess it's open, but it doesn't quite work for me without some definite information about intentions. I can, however, see Snape making the decision to value something he considers his own, dear to him (Draco via Narcissa) over a side which he has little personal affection for (the glorification of Harry Potter). YMMV... -Nora sees something tragic for at least some characters, no matter what From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 18:19:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:19:22 -0000 Subject: Was Tom Riddle, Sr. Selfish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148585 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ericoppen" wrote: > > One of my learned colleagues *slamming my ears in the oven door for > forgetting just who* mentioned above that Tom Riddle, Sr. > was "selfish," apparently for his contemptuous dismissal of the > Gaunts as an old tramp and his family. > > I'd like to pick up the cudgel in his defense, since I do think that > Tom Riddle, Sr. is one of the more tragic minor characters in the > Saga. Let's face it---the Gaunts' residence was, from the > description, a place that would make Tobacco Road look like > Buckingham Palace. Not to mention, I doubt that the (male) Gaunts > would have reacted well to attempts to help them...can you imagine > what would have happened to some well-meaning local Muggles who, > say, tried to bring them some food, or carolled outside their house > at Christmastime? For some reason, the image of a Chas. Addams > cartoon comes to mind...the one where the carollers are outside the > creepy old house, and the Addamses are about to pour boiling oil on > them from atop their tower. > > So, you've got this weird old tramp and his two extremely weird > kids, living in this shack that you can't get rid of, who won't > accept help and act like they think everybody else around them is > garbage. I don't think I'd be terribly friendly to them myself, or > (when speaking of them to a friend from a distance, as Riddle Sr. > apparently did to whats-her-face) very respectful in the terms I > used to describe them. He's not selfish, or evil. I imagine that > if he _were_ evil, he'd have turned up his nose at Merope when she > offered him That Drink...and we wouldn't have a story. Kind of like > Cedric Diggory, his downfall came through his virtues. > Carol responds: Cedric's death was unplanned and occurred because he was in the way--a horrible, almost random murder of an innocent boy who had shown himself to be a good sport and a thoroughly decent human being whose good looks (in contrast to those of many other characters) did not lead to arrogance. Even Crouch!Moody refers to him as "decent" (and therefore easy to manipulate). Dumbledore speaks of him as "good and kind and brave." We have no evidence that Tom Sr. was similar to Cedric in any way except that he, too, was handsome. No doubt you're right that Marvolo Gaunt would have rejected an offer of money or employment or any similar aid had it been offered, but where is the evidence that Tom Sr. offered it? Yes, he was a victim of Morfin's hex, but he recovered fully and didn't know that naything had happened. Yes, he accepted a drink of what he thought was water from a wall-eyed, ugly girl who could not distinguish love from infatuation and thought she could make him love her, so in a sense he is her victim. But she, too, is a victim, and I would argue that the abuse she suffered from her father for most of her life, both physical and emotional, was at least as bad as being seduced into marriage with an ugly, poor, uneducated woman who had not been taught that you don't practice magic on Muggles. Tom, quite understandably, rejected her and felt that he had been tricked, but surely, once he pulled himself together, he could at least have made some provision for his unborn child. He didn't suffer the traumatic effects of forced sex or unwanted pregnancy that a woman would have suffered, only the blow to his pride of having been "hoodwinked" by the ugliest girl in the village (and perhaps in all of England). His problem was not the unwanted sex, which he could easily have gotten over, but the unwanted marriage. And I don't understand why he didn't have the marriage annulled and marry his beloved Cecilia, who was apparently rich and beautiful and of his social class--rather like the preference of the purebloods for marriage partners who are also purebloods. Instead, he returned to the house of his rich parents and married no one. If Cecilia loved him before, wouldn't she still have loved him? And if she only wanted him for his looks and his money, why not marry him if he still had those, assuming that the marriage to Merope could be annulled? And why didn't Tom keep an eye on Merope (hire a private eye to follow her movements, if for no other reason than to be sure that his child was born alive and taken care of)? If he'd known that she was dead, he could have married Cecilia. The evidence we have of his character is very limited--only the contemptuous remarks about the Gaunts to his "darling" Cecilia and the remarks of the villagers in GoF, which indicate that the entire Riddle family (Tom Sr. and his parents) was arrogant. Their passing is not mourned. There is no indication whatever that Tom or his parents were humanitarians who would have helped the Gaunts had the Gaunts wanted their help. In fact, the villagers' opinion of them indicates quite the opposite: "Nobody wasted their breath pretending to feel very sad about the Riddles, for they had been most unpopular. Elderly Mr. and Mrs. Riddle had been rich, snobbish, and rude, and their grown-up son, Tom, had been, if anything, worse" (GoF Am. ed. 4). Admittedly this is the summarized testimony of the third-person narrator, but it indicates class pride and arrogance to match that of the Malfoys. I do not for a moment condone Tom Jr.'s revenge on his father, much less the additional murders of his grandparents or the torture implied by their terrified expressions. Tom Jr. was already irredeemably evil at sixteen, and nothing can justify his terrible act of vengeance or the framing of Morfin for the murders. But I don't condone Tom Sr.'s abandonment of an innocent baby, either--or his failure to understand that Merope acted out of desperation and what she thought was love. Had he done so, his son might not have grown up to murder him (shades of Barty Crouch Jr. and Sr., who also shared a name). His selfish error is by no means in the same league with his son's crimes, but it was wrong, nonetheless, and it deprived his son of any chance to be loved. Carol, whose sympathies lie mostly with Merope and who wonders what Tom Sr. would have thought of his lookalike son had he chosen to raise him From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 18:22:50 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:22:50 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved Lily. The Whole Story. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148586 > >>Tonks: > > Yes it is official.. I am abandoning the Snape loves Narcissa > > camp. > >>Sydney: > Well, do keep it in mind for a vacation though; I mean, > Snape/Narcissa has one advantage over Snape/Lily in that, let's > face it, it's just plain hot. Or maybe that's just me.. anyhow.. Betsy Hp: Oh, hell, Snape/*anybody* is hot. Because Snape himself brings such a fire to the equation.... Um, yeah. So, not just you. Though I also think Snape is the sort to stick with the torch he chooses to carry. There's something very old-fashioned, suffering poet or priest, about the man. Once his heart is given, it's gone. > >>Sydney: > > Desperate to protect Lily, he warns James that one of his friends > is a spy, and not to trust any of them. Rather than > saying, 'yay, thanks Snivellus, we'll move to Australia > tomorrow!', James is "too arrogant to believe he might have been > mistaken in Black". > Betsy Hp: To compound it, I'm betting James did not allow Snape to talk to Lily, who may have well listened to Snape. (I wonder how Lily took to James's little gang? I mean, I wonder if there were some egg- shells James had to deal with and if he worried that she might take the advice of an old friend over his own take on his friends. They'd already decided, it seems, that Lupin was no good, so I wonder if there was a worry there. Yeah, this is getting to be a long tangent, but I've got questions! ) > >>Sydney: > I mean, come on. Snape has more buttons than a 747, and that scene > hit them ALL AT THE SAME TIME. JKR, you are so mean. Betsy Hp: Isn't she just? Hopefully not mean enough to actually kill off the poor guy. OR, maybe mean enough to make Snape live, gosh darn it. The whole suicidal!Snape puts a different spin on Dumbledore's "my memory is as good as ever" comment. What was he reminding Snape of right there? > >>Sydney: > > Hey, can I interest you in a swig of suicidal!Snape? > Betsy Hp: Ooh, I'll take some of that! I went back and read your indepth post (message 141872), Sydney, and it makes sense. Especially if Snape is the utterly romantic character JKR may have him turn out to be. He's a direct desendent of Bronte's Heathcliff, even down to the questionable blood. But he's being denied his last run on the moors. Gah. I melt. Betsy Hp From luigina at eircom.net Wed Feb 22 18:03:41 2006 From: luigina at eircom.net (Luigina Ciolfi) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:03:41 +0000 Subject: Who isn't in the black Family Tree Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148587 Just some thoughts looking a the fuller version of the Black Family Tree... ..It is interesting that the tree seem to include mentions to most of the pure-blood families introduced in the books...from the Weasleys, to the Potters, Longbottoms, MacMillans, Crouches, and so on...This is not really a surprise, because, as we know from OotP, the pure-blood families are more or less all interrelated. I find interesting that the tree is not featuring quite an important surname in the wizarding world..."Dumbledore". JKR herself said that asking questions about Dumbledore's family would be a "profitable line of inquiry"...If we consider that Dumbledore is about 150 years old at the time of the events in the books, the tree goes back to more or less the time of his birth...I wonder if he and Aberforth are the last of the family...if the family was half-blood, pure-blood or even Muggle? There are no suggestions about Aberforth's magical abilities, besides that he lives in Hogsmeade (an all-wizard village). The Dumbledore family seems to hold some crucial bit of information, and I don't thin it has to do with the "Gryffindor Heir" theory, but with something else, perhaps related to choices/events around the matters of blood purity. Any ideas? lui From kkersey at swbell.net Wed Feb 22 18:25:32 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:25:32 -0000 Subject: Secret places In-Reply-To: <20060222105013.20956.qmail@web8704.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148588 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, siddharth mishra wrote: > > Deborah wrote: > >> Is it possible to Apparate to a place you know only by name? > Could Harry Apparate to Godric's Hollow just by saying/thinking > the name? << > > > Sid: > Good question but I think to apparate somewhere you need to think > about that place with lot of concentration. To do that one must at > least know the physical appearance of that place. > Elisabet: Well, Bella was able to apparate to the riverbank near Spinners End without ever having been there before - of course she is following her sister who has apparated just ahead. That seems to be evidence that apparition leaves some sort of trail that another wizard or witch can follow. But in the case of a single wizard apparating on his own... it does seem unlikely that one could just name off an address like using the Floo network. I wonder if studying pictures or a model of a place would work? What happens if something has changed since the last time you were there - e.g. a vehicle being parked in a destination alleyway? From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 22 18:44:53 2006 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:44:53 -0000 Subject: Did Snape pay his life debt in PS/SS? WAS: Re: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148589 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" Message 148569 wrote: > Well, no I don't think he did fulfill his life-debt in PS/SS. He > TRIED and that makes a huge difference, but Hermione was the one >who put the final nail into the operation, albeit unconsciously. > > Too bad we don't know how life-debt works precisely, but it makes > total sense to me even if Snape completely loyal to Dumbledore, he > would want to pay his life debt alone, play the hero without > anybody's help, so I speculate that even if the events of PS/SS > would allow Snape to consider debt fulfilled, Snape himself would > not think that the debt is fulfilled. "K": Well, Harry states Snape saved his life. Does that not count for anything? :-) GoF Ch 26 Hermione: "Oh Ron," said Hermione, shaking her head skeptically, "we thought Snape was trying to kill Harry before, and it turned out he was saving Harry's life, remember?" Harry: Harry looked at Hermione, thinking...it was true that Snape had saved his life once... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 18:52:57 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:52:57 -0000 Subject: Was Tom Riddle, Sr. Selfish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148590 > >>Carol: > > We have no evidence that Tom Sr. was similar to Cedric in any way > except that he, too, was handsome. > Betsy Hp: We've some evidence of kindness in his willingness to interact with Merope. It's not much, but the fact that she blew him up into her knight in shining armour suggests that Tom was not, at least, cruel. > >>Carol: > > But she, too, is a victim, and I would argue that the abuse she > suffered from her father for most of her life, both physical and > emotional, was at least as bad as being seduced into marriage with > an ugly, poor, uneducated woman who had not been taught that you > don't practice magic on Muggles. > Betsy Hp: It's hard, if not impossible, to play the "who's the bigger victim" game with Tom and Merope. They both had a very hard time of it. However, Tom was not seduced. He was raped. Repeatedly. Calling it anything else is hiding the ball, I think. > >>Carol: > He didn't suffer the traumatic effects of forced sex or unwanted > pregnancy that a woman would have suffered, only the blow to his > pride of having been "hoodwinked" by the ugliest girl in the > village (and perhaps in all of England). > > And I don't understand why he didn't have the marriage annulled > and marry his beloved Cecilia... > > Instead, he returned to the house of his rich parents and > married no one. > > "Nobody wasted their breath pretending to feel very sad about the > Riddles, for they had been most unpopular. Elderly Mr. and Mrs. > Riddle had been rich, snobbish, and rude, and their grown-up son, > Tom, had been, if anything, worse" (GoF Am. ed. 4). Betsy Hp: Evidence of the trauma Tom suffered? From the sounds of it, Tom crawled home and never left it again. He may well have ended up highly fearful of strangers (anyone not his parents) and was thereby seen as a snob by the villagers. The Tom described in GoF is very different from the outgoing boy in HBP. There's a pre-Merope, post- Merope difference and I don't think it's unreasonable to think the total loss of self Merope put him through had something to do with it. > >>Carol, whose sympathies lie mostly with Merope and who wonders > what Tom Sr. would have thought of his lookalike son had he chosen > to raise him Betsy Hp: I think Tom, Jr. would have terrified his father. Tom knew what it was to be at a wizard's mercy. He'd have been a horrible father, I'm betting. Especially with Tom, Jr.s early skill with magic. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 18:56:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:56:13 -0000 Subject: The new questions, and Peverell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148591 Deborah wrote: > > I hesitate to say that anything anywhere in the HP books is what it > seems ... and things that look pretty obvious are especially > suspicious. However, I rather wonder if the Peverell reference isn't > simply a geographical one. > Carol responds: The coats of arms on Marvolo's ring appears to be that of a family, not a village. In fact, I suspect that it's the family crest rather than the complete coat of arms (probably the ring was originally a signet ring). At any rate, it clearly reflects the Gaunt family's ancestry. Marvolo shows Ogden the ring and says, "See this? . . . Know what it is? . . . Centuries it's been in our family, that's how far back we go, and pure-blood all the way! Know how much I've been offered for this, with the Peverell coat of arms engraved on the stone?" (HBP Am. ed. 207). So pretty clearly, the Peverells are ancestors of the Gaunts, most likely an extinct line like Slytherin. I had guessed that the Peverell ancestor was Marvolo's grandmother, but clearly she's farther back (a ring with the Peverell family crest could not have become a Gaunt family heirloom if there had been a male Peverell to inherit it). The surname Peverell could have been derived by JKR from a place name, as Snape was, but it also appears to be a variant of Peavey. Here's a site with the Peverel family crest (one "l"): http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jalanne/Peverell.html Whether this is the same crest that appears on Marvolo's ring (which apparently shows the complete coat of arms, though that may be a mistake on JKR's part), I don't know, but the swords are interesting, and it looks both old and crude. It contains the motto, "Deo non fortuna" ("God, not fortune," if I'm translating correctly), which doesn't sound very Gauntish. But, then, the Muggle House of Gaunt, which produced the Lancastrian kings of England, doesn't much resemble them, either (says Carol, tolerantly ignoring her Yorkist sympathies for the moment, ;-) ). Other, more elegant versions, are shown here: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=%22Peverell%20family%20crest%22&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wi (If the link doesn't work, just do a Google image search for "Peverell family crest.") On a side note, I wonder if Marvolo's refusal to accept letters (he ignores the Mom's owl) indicates that he similarly ignored the letters inviting his children to attend Hogwarts. Seems likely to me. Carol, wondering what kind of a mother Mrs. Gaunt was while she lived and whether she was wall-eyed like her children (Best not to know!) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 19:00:04 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:00:04 -0000 Subject: Did Snape pay his life debt in PS/SS? WAS: Re: DDM!Snape clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148592 Alla wrote: > > Well, no I don't think he did fulfill his life-debt in PS/SS. > >Koinonia wrote: > > Well, Harry states Snape saved his life. Does that not count for > anything? :-) > > GoF > Ch 26 > Alla: Sure, it may count for everything or it may not IMO. As I said we don't know how life debt works precisely, unless I am missing something. It is a possibility that a life debt is only fulfilled when the person who has a life debt considers it to be fulfilled, no? If this is true, then Snape IMO does not act as the person whose obligations to Harry ended in PS/SS. JMO of course. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 19:13:35 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:13:35 -0000 Subject: Was Tom Riddle, Sr. Selfish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148593 > Carol responds: Yes, he accepted a > drink of what he thought was water from a wall-eyed, ugly girl who > could not distinguish love from infatuation and thought she could make > him love her, so in a sense he is her victim. But she, too, is a > victim, and I would argue that the abuse she suffered from her father > for most of her life, both physical and emotional, was at least as bad > as being seduced into marriage with an ugly, poor, uneducated woman > who had not been taught that you don't practice magic on Muggles. Alla: But Merope was not HIS victim, no? Tom wanted nothing to do with her and it was his ABSOLUTE right IMO not to have anything to do with her. Merope was victim of her "father" and "brother". As far as I am concerned, she had NO right whatsover to do what she did. Carol: Tom, > quite understandably, rejected her and felt that he had been tricked, > but surely, once he pulled himself together, he could at least have > made some provision for his unborn child. Alla: He COULD, He did not HAVE TO, IMO. He was raped,IMO, whether Merope fully realised what she did or not. If he did not want to have anything to do with the person who raped him or the child of this rape, I understand him completely. Carol: He didn't suffer the > traumatic effects of forced sex or unwanted pregnancy that a woman > would have suffered, only the blow to his pride of having been > "hoodwinked" by the ugliest girl in the village (and perhaps in all of > England). Alla: How do you know that he did not suffered traumatic effects of forced sex? Carol: > His problem was not the unwanted sex, which he could easily have > gotten over, but the unwanted marriage. Alla: Same question. How do you know that he could easily gotten over it? > Carol, whose sympathies lie mostly with Merope and who wonders what > Tom Sr. would have thought of his lookalike son had he chosen to raise him > Alla, who tries to remember VERY hard that Merope was abused all her life, but who starts to hate Merope, when she thinks about her crime. > Betsy Hp: > It's hard, if not impossible, to play the "who's the bigger victim" > game with Tom and Merope. They both had a very hard time of it. > However, Tom was not seduced. He was raped. Repeatedly. Calling it > anything else is hiding the ball, I think. Alla: Oh, my. I agree with Betsy. JMO, Alla From rosered2318 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 18:55:12 2006 From: rosered2318 at yahoo.com (rosered2318) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:55:12 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148594 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: > > JKR has answered her FAQ Poll question! It seems as though, as many > of us have predicted, when a Secret-Keeper dies, the "secret dies with > them." Rose: What I am wondering is even if killing the secret keeper just buries the secret, can the Fidelius Charm still be broken? She did not mention anything about breaking the Fidelius Charm. In OotP, Sirius mentions that his mother's portrait was stuck to the wall with a permanent sticking charm, but that they were working on getting it down. Since a spell that is "permanent" can be broken, can one as complex as the Fidelius Charm be broken as well? JK mentions in the poll question that "even if [someone]... is force- fed Veritaserum or placed under the Imperius Curse" it will not be able to be divulged. Is the same true for a Legilimens? One theory on the redhen's website (http://www.redhen-publications.com/Pettigrew.html) is that Voldemort gained access to the Potter's hiding place by reading Pettigrew's mind (sorry Professor Snape, but I couldn't think of another phrase). Did JKR specifically avoid using this example? Is this one of the ways to break the Fidelius Charm? And if so, can it only be used on the Secret Keeper, or can it be used on anyone the secret has been divulged to? And if it can be broken this way, can it be broken other ways as well? Questions...Questions...of course it could all be defunct because maybe spells cannot be broken in the Potterworld. Rose From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 20:05:17 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:05:17 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > ...edited... > > > > To be clear, let us look at Dumbledore's revelation of the > > secret to Harry - > > > > "The headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at > > number twelve, Grimmauld Place, London." - by note in OotP > > pg 58 > > > > It seems that the location of 12 Grimmauld Place is not itself > > a secret, ..., only that it is the headquarters for the Order. > > So, how does that translate into ways in which the Black House > > could be revealed? ... > > > > Also, 12 Grimmauld Place is NOT NOW the location of Head- > > quarters, does that nullify the secret since the secret > > specifically involves 'Headquarters'? ...Does the 'secret' > > automatically follow the 'headquarters'? ... > > > > I think JKR thought she was clearing up this problem for us, > > but instead she has only made it more complicated. ... Very > > confusing. > > Marianne: > > Thanks, Steve, for making my head spin. bboyminn: Well, hold on to your spinning head because here we go again. > Marianne: > > I wonder if, even though Harry mentioned the 'secret' that if > the Dursleys were to go looking for 12 GP they still wouldn't > be able to find it because they were told the secret by someone > who is not the Secret Keeper. IOW, does it matter if Harry > shouted the location of headquarters from the rooftops of London, > if the secret itself is still locked inside DD? > bboyminn: That's just it, ONLY the Secret Keeper can reveal the location. JKR said, if James, as the subject of the secret, were captured, he would have been unable to reveal the location of Lily and Harry. He is not the Secret Keeper, so he can not speak the secret. I have to assume the same holds true for Harry. Just to confuse things, let's go back to Moody handing Harry the note from Dumbledore which reveals the location of the Headquarters. How is that possible? Moody is not the Secret Keeper, yet it is Moody who reveals the secret to Harry. True he revealed it via a note from Dumbledore, but it is Moody who is revealing the note and the note contains the secret, and supposedly, only the Secret Keeper can reveal that information to anyone. It's a quandary wrapped in a dilemma. Can we assume that the note was enchanted so it could only be read by Harry? Can we assume the Moody himself could not read the note even though he was in on the secret? Perhaps Moody was not aware of what the note said. Perhaps Dumbledore sealed the note, and told Moody to defend it with his life, and give it to no one but Harry then burn it immediately afterwards. I think the key to Harry revealing the secret is that it is no longer a secret. YES...the location of the Headquarters for the Order of the Phoenix is still a secret, but 'headquarters' is no longer Grimmald Place. That's the point I was trying to make near the end. When 'headquarters' moved to a new location, the 'secret' automatically moved along with it. It was never the location of 12 Grimmauld Place that was protected, it was the locatio of 'headquarters'. Prior to OotP, they were one and the same and simultanioulsy protected. Now that they are separate locations, 'headquartes' is protected as the 'secret', but 12 Grimmauld Place is not. Yes, indeed...very confusing. I don't think JKR analysed the situation to the level and in the detail that we are. As long as the story flowed nicely and made reasonable sense in the moment; that was good enough. Now after the fact, I suspect she is able to invent explanations to cover her tracks, which is essentiall what I am doing. > One worry about 12 GP was whether there was some sort of charm on > the house that would only allow it to be willed to someone with > Black blood. Since JKR made it clear that Sirius could will it to > anyone he chose, this turned out not to be an issue. But, DD was > clearly concerned that Bellatrix might inherit the house, which was > the reason the Order temporarily vacated the premises. How would > that have squared with the Secret Keeper charm had Sirius not been > able to will the house to Harry? In other words, can inheritance > trump the Secret Keeper charm? > > > > > > > > Christina continues: > > > > > > ..., did the charm on the Potters break when *they* died... > > > ( > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > ...Keep in mind that we don't actually know what the secret > > was related to the Potters hiding. Was their house the secret, > > or were they the secret? And as you ask, when the Potters - > > the Secret - died, was the house revealed since there no longer > > was a secret to keep? ... > > Marianne: > > I think that perhaps this part is getting needlessly complicated. > If Peter, the Secret Keeper revealed the secret to Vmort, then the > secret is essentially over. There was no more secret. ... > > Marianne > bboyminn: That is also a popular misconception. Dumbledore has revealed the 'secret' to dozens of people; The Order, Harry, Ron, Hermione, the Twins, possibly even Percy. So, the 'secret' can't be broken by revealing it. I suspect, and only suspect, that Harry was able to reveal the secret because 'headquaters' was in a new location, a location that was still secret and covered by the Secret Keeper Charm. In a sense, when 12 Grimmauld Place and the 'secret' disassociated themselves, 12 Grimmauld Place was no longer hidden. When Lily and James died, we have a similar disassociation. With their death their is no longer a secret that needs keeping. Sounds good, just one problem, Harry was still alive, and if we assume that the secret involves all three of them as JKR implies, then the secret continued. Perhaps like Grimmauld Place, the 'secret' moves with the subjects. In other words, the secret was the location of the Potters. When the Potters moved, the secret moved with them. Just as the 'headquarters' secret has moved from Grimmauld Place to it's new location. Now, I have to conclude that there is a way in which the 'secret' can be removed; that is, the Secret Keeper Charm can be canceled. Though that seems a huge flaw in the protection. If the secret was the location of the Potters where ever they may be, then Harry should still be protected. Since Harry is at Privet Drive, then Number Four should be a secret. The milkman and the postman should not be able to find it. But they can, so obviously there is a flaw in my thinking. Perhaps, only James and Lily were covered by the Secret Keeper Charm and Harry was carried along under the umbrella but not specifically mentioned. Then when Lily and James died, there was no secret to keep, and Hagrid was able to find Harry in the rubble of the house, and the postman is now able to find #4 Privet Drive. Still very confusing. Like I said, JKR has created far more problems that she has solved. Steve/bboyminn From rkdas at charter.net Wed Feb 22 20:18:46 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:18:46 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand (was Re: My thoughts on some things.......) In-Reply-To: <20060222134746.54190.qmail@web42210.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148596 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Peg DiGrazia wrote: > > Jen D: > < broken wand in COS? Backfired all over Lockhart, luckily. > Jen D.(wishing for a wand as she looks at that sink full of > dishes...)>> > > > Peg now: > Ron's broken wand was a disaster, but I was wondering last night if he didn't do a very good job when he patched it up with Spell-o Tape, maybe making it function much worse. (Ron's not so great with the details, and I would imagine if you didn't line the break up correctly when you patched your wand back together, you might have problems. Like gluing the arm of your Hummel figurine on backward after it's broken off.) Hagrid's pieced-together wand seems to function fairly normally, although he did only manage to give Dudders a pig's tail when he intended to turn him entirely into a pig. His excuse was that Dudley was close enough to being a pig that the spell didn't work, but maybe it was actually because of his broken wand... Jen here again, I am wondering if it has to do with how badly the core is damaged. Don't have my COS handy but I don't remember a lot of detail about it. If the powers that be took a bit of pity on Hagrid, perhaps they didn't damage the core. Ron was in a car accident and maybe his sustained much worse damage or as you mention, perhaps the repair really put it out of whack. I don't think Hagrid is bad at magic per se, but he doesn't seem to be precise in some instances. I am very glad the pig thing didn't work out as he wanted because that would have surely gotten him in a world of trouble on 2 accounts. First, doing magic on a muggle got Morphin (I always want to say "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" at his name and wonder what JKR was thinking when she named him)in trouble for sure and 2, he's not supposed to be using magic at any rate! But I am glad to know he can use and does use magic when necessary, like putting his house fire out. Jen D, getting ready to perform "magic" in the kitchen. Ha! > > Peg > From lealess at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 20:26:51 2006 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:26:51 -0000 Subject: Was Tom Riddle, Sr. Selfish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148597 --- "ericoppen" wrote: > > One of my learned colleagues *slamming my ears in the oven door for > forgetting just who* mentioned above that Tom Riddle, Sr. > was "selfish," apparently for his contemptuous dismissal of the > Gaunts as an old tramp and his family. > > I was the person who said he was selfish. I thought he was selfish because he abandoned his unborn child, no matter what his reason -- whether it was his traumatized psyche, or disgust at the product of a union with a tramp's daughter, or dislike of kids, or jealousy of his fortune -- whatever it was. He could have placed the child in a decent boarding home, or hired a nanny, or found foster care, or done what other gentlemen in his position might have done. Instead, he washed his hands of the whole thing. Because he walked away from his child, I do not think he is meant to be a sympathetic character, even though we can have sympathy for him because of the circumstances that caused the child to be conceived. His interactions with the Gaunts did not show selfishness, but rather arrogant disregard. I think his only obligation to the Gaunts at the time he was riding by was to assist when he heard a woman scream -- but nobody except, briefly, Harry and Ogden seemed too concerned about Merope. lealess From rkdas at charter.net Wed Feb 22 20:27:06 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:27:06 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: <20060222141718.35609.qmail@web37013.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148598 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, catherine higgins wrote: > > > Jen wrote: > (snipped) but I just don't register Harry > wheedling any info out of anyone. That just came at me blind. Does > it seem out of the blue for you? Or anyone else? Until Slughorn's > memory, and the lovely Felix Felecis, I'd never seen Harry play > anyone like a drum! > > Catherine responds: > > In that passage, it says he has too much experience *trying* to wheedle information out of reluctant people. It never says anywhere that he was successful. If not it would have read "wheedling information out of people". Harry has not been very good at getting what he wants (as other people have pointed out) until FF. He has untapped abilities, perhaps, but he certainly was pretty lousy at subtlety prior to that scene. > > Catherine > (who apologises for all spelling mistakes, but has just finished a 3 might shifts and has not slept yet. Her brain...not functioning at an optimal level...) > Hi Catherine, You did point out the imprecision of my language! But pray tell, when did Harry try to get info out of people? I can't think of any time except with DD when as Ceridwen pointed out up thread, he asked over and over why DD trusts Snape only to get rebuffed.If that's the example people are pointing to, so be it. I just want someone to show me where he's tried because I can't seem to think of an incident other than DD. DD always tells him he won't lie to him when he can't tell him things, always tells him he'll tell him when the time is right. But Harry never seems to be doing any maneuvering to get around DD, just straightforward questions. Is it a difference in strength of attempt or something? I am seeing "trying to wheedle" in the text but not seeing Harry seem a bit snarky or wheedly anywhere much. Yes, oh yes, he does a lot of concealment. With Snape in particular. But even the watered-down "attempted wheedling," I don't see. Everyone else who's been so kind to try to staighten me out has no problem with Harry sort of admitting he's tried to be manipulative (and the theory goes "he stinks at it") but I am just not seeing him even trying to get information out of reluctant people. I think that it comes out of the blue. Jen D. (out of snappy things to sign off with...) From sopraniste at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 20:31:16 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:31:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid's wand (was Re: My thoughts on some things.......) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060222203116.2875.qmail@web35610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148599 > Jen here again, > I am wondering if it has to do with how badly the > core is damaged. > Don't have my COS handy but I don't remember a lot > of detail about > it. If the powers that be took a bit of pity on > Hagrid, perhaps they > didn't damage the core. Ron was in a car accident > and maybe his > sustained much worse damage or as you mention, > perhaps the repair > really put it out of whack. Flop: It also occurs to me that Ron STARTED with a wand that was in rough shape. Back in SS/PS, he mentioned it was a hand-me-down wand and the unicorn hair was poking out right at the beginning on the train (and as always, I don't have my sources with me to give page numbers). It gave the impression, to me at least, of a student wand that had been used hard (in much the same way that some of the student violins I've played over the years have been beaten up by former students....) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Feb 22 20:33:19 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:33:19 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved Lily. The Whole Story. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148600 Tonks: > > > Yes it is official.. I am abandoning the Snape loves Narcissa > > > camp. Sydney: > > Well, do keep it in mind for a vacation though; I mean, > > Snape/Narcissa has one advantage over Snape/Lily in that, let's > > face it, it's just plain hot. Or maybe that's just me.. anyhow.. Betsy Hp: > Oh, hell, Snape/*anybody* is hot. Because Snape himself brings such > a fire to the equation.... Um, yeah. So, not just you. Ceridwen: Nope, not just Sydney. Or Betsy. Snape's hot, in the old-fashioned sense of intense. Sydney: > > > > Desperate to protect Lily, he warns James that one of his friends > > is a spy, and not to trust any of them. Rather than > > saying, 'yay, thanks Snivellus, we'll move to Australia > > tomorrow!', James is "too arrogant to believe he might have been > > mistaken in Black". Ceridwen: I have to say this, since I think it every time someone mentions this: What if James did take Snape's warning? What if that's why he was so agreeable to changing SKs? Snape tries to alter the inevitable course of events, but instead, changing that course makes it absolutely certain that the prophecy is put into action. Every dire prophecy that spawns a story has the same sorts of things in play. Oedipus's father tries to get rid of him, but he comes back; MacBeth & wife try to make the prophecy come true - which it does, but at a horrible cost and in all the wrong ways. It seems that fiddling with a prophecy once it's given only exacerbates it, and here, Snape is fiddling, to his and the Potters' certain regret. Just adding my own take on Snape's warning in a clearly Dire Prophecy sort of storyline. Ceridwen. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 20:43:20 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:43:20 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148601 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lolita_ns" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spotsgal" wrote: > > > > And I still wonder what happens to a secret if the secret > > itself dies...that is, did the charm on the Potters break when > > *they* died... > > > > Christina > > > Lolita: > > I think that the only way Rowling's answer could correspond to > what we've been told in the books would be for the charm to have > been upon the house, ... Otherwise, there is simply no way for > DD to have been able to send Hagrid to GH, and for Hagrid (and > the Muggles, and the MoM) to find it, had the secret not been > revealed to them by its Keeper. bboyminn: I touched on aspects of this in my response to Marianne in the following post. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148595 Here is my thinking on the issues you have raised, of course, it is pure speculation and fanatasy, but what else do we have? I suspect that the Potters need a certain amount of logistical support; food, information, etc.... So, it would seem reasonable that the 'secret' would be revealed to select members of the Order. I can picture it happening like this. Sirius arrives at an Order meeting with a hand full of notes that are discreetly distributed to the few appropriate people, who read them then destroy the note. This is similar to the way that Dumbledore revealed the secret location of Headquaters to Harry via Moody and a note. Now a very small number of people have been let in on the secret. They are now available to check up on the Potters and make sure everything is OK, to keep them up-to-date on how the war is going, and to deliver varous needed supplies. They may have thought it odd that Sirius was using notes, but on the other hand, it is a way for him to reveal the secret in a room full of people, yet only have a small select few know the secret. Futher, since the secret was coming from Sirius, that would have re-enforced to everyone that Sirius was indeed the Secret Keeper since he was revealing the secret. That seems like a reasonable stategy to me. > Lolita continues: > > I think that we can be *absolutely* sure that DD didn't know that > the true Secret Keeper was PP, because he would have never ever > let Sirius stay in Azkaban for 12 years had he known (and why > didn't he ever, during all those years, request to see him in > prison and try to see what had realy happened... back in 1981 > is a thing I don't understand. ... bboyminn: I think you need to look at the specific circumstances surrounding Sirius capture. He was quite deranged with grief at the Potter's death and his failure to avenge them. Everyone assumed he was the Secret Keeper, an idea which Sirius had cultivated. Witnesses said Sirius killed Peter and 12 muggles. Sirius seems to have even admited his crimes, though there was a hidden context to his admission which was that he felt responsible, and not that he had killed them by direct action. The evidence seems so overwhelming and crystal clear in that moment, and Sirius was putting up no defense for himself. I think to all concerned, even Sirius's friends, it seem cut and dried, so there was no logical need for further inquiry. Once Sirius was put away, it seemed to be a done deal; tragic, but finally over with and resolved. What could have possible motivate Dumbledore to investigate further when the evidence was so overwhelming? > Lolita continues: > > The charm had to have been upon the house. It couldn't have been > on the family, because Harry was still alive at the time. > > ...eidted... > > Anyway, I should probably stop here, as this post is turning out to > be rather long... > > Cheers, > Lolita :) > bboyminn: Well, the House being the subject of the Secret Keeper Charm, does make some sense, but does that mean that that house is still hidden? How could muggles and the Ministry come running to investigate a house which couldn't be found? Unless the house was completely vanished, I don't see how the secret could be broken by the house being destroyed. If the secret were something like 'the presents of number 6 Gryffindor Lane in the village of Gordrics Hollow can only be reveal by the Secret Keeper' then in a sense, a location is the secret. Even without a house, the lot at #6 Gryffindor Lane would still remain a secret. I suppose we could modify the secret to read 'the presents /of a house/ at #6 Gryffindor Lane in the village of Godrics Hollow can only be revealed by the Secret Keeper', but then we must ponder if the /rubble/ of a house still constitutes a house, just not a habitable one? And if it constitutes a house, then it must still be a secret. [#6 Gryffindor Lane - just so were clear, is pure fantasy on my part - just made it up] Steve/bboyminn From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Wed Feb 22 21:00:03 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:00:03 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > Sydney: > > But surely there's so many other possibilities? Say, > > -- the ring curse which destroyed his hand was slowly killing > Dumbledore, and he decided to make the most of his inevitable death by > increasing Snape's value as a spy. They had been intending Snape to > take credit for D-dore's death from the start of the year, which is > why he finally appointed Snape to the cursed DADA position. But wasn't one of the major points of HBP that Voldemort doesn't truly have any friends or truly trust anyone? I mean if Voldemort didn't trust Snape before Snape killed Dumbledore then I can't see his trust increasing after Snape killed Dumbledore. Nor can I see Voldemort, in a state of joy over the death of Dumbledore, revealing to his new number two DE Snape the location of the remaining Horcruxs. Quick_Silver From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Wed Feb 22 21:18:04 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:18:04 -0000 Subject: More then one path to victory? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148603 This post stems from the theory that Snape was forced to kill Dumbledore so that he could cement his place on the Dark side and continue spying for the Order/Dumbledore/Harry/whoever. Is it just me or does it seem like Snape's role as a spy was undermined throughout HBP? Even as early as OoTP we hear of other spies in the wizarding world...Hagrid is in charge of feeling out the giants, Bill Weasley keeps in touch with the Goblins, Arthur, Tonks, Mad-Eye, Kingsley provide information from within the Ministry. So really Snape has only ever been important when it comes getting inside the DEs and by the end of HBP Harry has another possible source of information from the inside...Draco. And I believe that Harry would be far more willing to deal with Draco then he ever would with Snape. Even Snape's knowledge of magic is undermined...Harry has access to the Half-Blood Prince's most inner working though the Potions textbook. Quick_Silver (wondering if Snape is mostly smoke and mirrors) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 21:19:24 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:19:24 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148604 > > Dungrollin: > > > > Depends what your assumptions are. If you think that > > > > a) Voldemort *had* told Snape about Draco's task (canon, unless > > Snape was lying) > > b) Snape and DD discussed Draco's task before Bella and Cissy's > > visit (perfectly plausible, given that DD knew about it on the > tower) > > c) The last clause of the Unbreakable Vow was a complete surprise > to > > Snape; he was snookered and had to accept (the twitch) > > d) He immediately told DD what had happened (DD was not surprised > > about the UV when Harry told him) > Alla: > > Yes, it is depends on what our assumptions are, doesn't it? I still > do not see any evidence of Snape informing Dumbledore about third > clause of the UV. I mean, he could have done that, sure, but correct > me if I am wrong, you seem to agree that Snape WAS stupid to take > the Vow, because of the third clause, no? I apologise if I am > reading you incorrectly, but if I am reading you correctly and Snape > is at that moment either wavering or loyal to DD, when Snape EVER > admits in canon that he is wrong about something? zgirnius: If we take Dumbledore's word for it (and I know you prefer not to ) Snape makes an exception for Dumbledore in this area. That aside, you seem to be disregarding b) of Dungrollin's post. If Voldemort told Snape about the task, and that he would be needing to do it at some point, it would be discussed in this hypothetical meeting. Depending on what was decided at that meeting the mistake of taking the Vow might not be such a big one. Dumbledore's decision to give Snape DADA seems to indicate Dumbledore's preferred solution to the eventual problem of Snape being assigned to kill him would involve Snape leaving Hogwarts under bad circumstances. This jives better with 'superspy Snape' than 'OK, Snape, you've done well, thanks, now it is time to hide you away so completely Voldemort will never find you'. Alla: > Having said all that, I wonder about your take on whether Snape was > lying or telling the truth in general in Spinner's End. If you argue > that Voldemort told Snape about Draco's task is true, doesn't it > strengthen ESE!Snape argument? He knows what Draco task is and STILL > takes the Vow? I mean, Okay you argue that third clause was a > surprise, but still - agreeing to protect Draco while little shmuck > tries to kill Headmaster, isn't it a bit too close to being > accessory? zgirnius: I have previously been very much of the opinion Snape did not know the task. It was my first reaction to Spinner's End, and I can certainly still see it, but the idea he did, and had already discussed the problem with Dumbledore, is beginning to grow on me. Because it is an additional reason for Dumbledore to give him DADA that year. The knowledge that Snape is going to be ordered to kill him possibly by the end of this year would make it necessary to implement the 'superspy' plan now rather than later. Now, how are Dumbledore and Snape planning to deal with their basic problem, assuming they HAVE discussed it? Either by having Snape actually kill Dumbledore, or by having Snape fake it well enough to convince Voldemort. I would tend to rule out the first option as senseless, and out of character for Dumbledore, UNLESS his days were already numbered for other reasons. (The ring curse...I think Dumbledore's condition was stable, but I do see it as an outside chance that I am wrong in this. And if I am, I definitely buy the planned killing scenario). But more likely, they would be planning to fake the killing. To fake the killing (and also to save Draco, which would be another objective for Dumbledore) it would be useful for Snape to know more about the specifics of Draco's plan. Taking a Vow to protect and watch over Draco has the potential to gain the trust of Draco and/or his family in this matter, and also provides Snape with a DE-worthy motive for his interest in the specifics. Alla: > I mean, I will be VERY happy to learn that everything that Snape > said in Spinner's End was true, but that would mean that blood of > Emmeline Vance and Sirius is on his hands. zgirnius: Gee. And maybe it was just a skillful mix of lies, truths, and half- truths. That actually seems most likely to me. (And good luck to us all figuring out which was which!) From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 22 21:23:51 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:23:51 -0000 Subject: Happy to see you're posting again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148605 And I loved your Snape post. It was everything I wanted to say but all in one post and ordered. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Feb 22 21:29:57 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:29:57 -0000 Subject: oops Re: Happy to see you're posting again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > And I loved your Snape post. It was everything I wanted to say but all > in one post and ordered. > > Gerry > Obviously this was a private message Gerry From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 22:25:53 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:25:53 -0000 Subject: More then one path to victory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148607 quick_silver wrote: > So really Snape has only ever been important when it comes > getting inside the DEs and by the end of HBP Harry has another > possible source of information from the inside...Draco. And I > believe that Harry would be far more willing to deal with Draco then > he ever would with Snape. zgirnius: Sure, I agree. Draco is an alternative source, and Harry would definitely prefer to deal with him. But if Draco remains alive, and among the Death Eaters, you can hardly say Snape has had/will have nothing to do with that. And I am not sure Draco has the skills to survive as a double agent, especially alone. Whereas, if Snape has been doing it all these years, it would appear that he does have them. (Yes, Draco is an Occlumens. But he's so obvious about it Snape can tell what he's doing...let alone Voldemort, who is presumbaly a more powerful Legilimens). quick_silver wrote: > Even Snape's knowledge of magic is undermined...Harry has access to > the Half-Blood Prince's most inner working though the Potions > textbook. zgirnius: That in no way decreases Snape's skill or power. I don't understand what you are getting at here. Teaching someone else does not take away from one's own abilities. Also, why would we suppose that the notes in the book are the final word on Snape's knowledge about magic? More likely, they reflect where he was at the end of his school days, or perhaps at the start of his teaching career. If he were still actively using the book to scribble down his newest ideas and tricks, how on earth did it end up in Harry's hands? From kchuplis at alltel.net Wed Feb 22 22:30:11 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (kchuplis) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:30:11 -0000 Subject: news about Black Family Tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Potioncat: > The Lexicon has published more information about the Black Family Tree. > The bit that jumped out at me was that Andromeda married "Muggle" Ted > Tonks. (not Muggle-born) > > Here's a link to the updated tree as produced by the Lexicon. > > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html > > Take a look at "What's New" for an explanation of how the information > was gleaned. > > Potioncat, cub reporter to the WW......(yeah, right.) > kchuplis: I see the lucky winner of the Black Family tree is Daniel Radcliffe. 30,000 GBP From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 23:02:28 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:02:28 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved Lily, now with Secret Keeper switch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148609 > Sydney: > > > > Desperate to protect Lily, he warns James that one of his friends > > is a spy, and not to trust any of them. Rather than > > saying, 'yay, thanks Snivellus, we'll move to Australia > > tomorrow!', James is "too arrogant to believe he might have been > > mistaken in Black". > Ceridwen: > I have to say this, since I think it every time someone mentions > this: What if James did take Snape's warning? What if that's why he > was so agreeable to changing SKs? It seems that fiddling with a prophecy once it's given only > exacerbates it, and here, Snape is fiddling, to his and the Potters' > certain regret. Sydney: Hmmmmm.. I like this because it has some nice echoes of other stuff that's going on! On the other hand, there's some practical difficulties. Sirius says he proposed the change himself because it would be a Cunning Plan. If James was suspicious of Sirius, wouldn't he think this was a trick or something? If he wasn't quite trusting Sirius as SK, it's hard to see how he'd be comfortable with a SK proposed by Sirius either. (And, by the way, just what WAS Sirius' cunning plan? If the secret can't be extorted or tortured out, and it dies with the Keeper, then why bother with the switch? Either JKR or Sirius wasn't firing on all cylinders on this one.. ). I lean towards the straightforward reading, that James dismissed Snape's warnings. It plays into a hunch I have, that Snape's hatred for Sirius is a mirror of Harry's hatred for Snape. Both have excellent reasons to intensely dislike and distrust their objects. And I think both let their hatred blind them to something important. I think Snape missed spotting Peter as the spy because he was so intensely focused on Sirius, and the fact that his judgement wasn't clear would have communicated to James. I have no difficulty picturing Snape storming around like a lunatic about yelling OMG ARE YOU PEOPLE BLIND SIRIUS IS EVIL!!! heh-- just like Harry about Snape. I'll go out on a limb and predict that Harry in Book VII will just miss repeating Snape's mistake, using all the lessons he's learned in HBP about researching people's individualities and so on, to get that there's something very hinkey about ESE!Snape, and overcoming his hatred enough to trust Snape on a crucial point. Betsy: >Ooh, I'll take some of that [suicidal!Snape]! I went back and read your indepth post >(message 141872), Sydney, and it makes sense. Especially if Snape >is the utterly romantic character JKR may have him turn out to be. >He's a direct desendent of Bronte's Heathcliff, even down to the >questionable blood. But he's being denied his last run on the >moors. Gah. I melt. Yurk-- personally I'm not a Heathcliff fan-- too amoral and self-absorbed. Snape seems to me to be genuinely trying to live to some sort of value system, but he's so messed up he doesn't have the tools to do it right. I do love Snape's Heathcliffy exterior over the vulnerable, geeky interior... I just want to knit him a scarf or something. /channels Mrs. Weasley/ -- Sydney, apologizing for the gooeyness of the sexy!Snape meme to those on the board who don't find Snape hot... unimaginable though it might be... From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 22 23:05:06 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:05:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Was Tom Riddle, Sr. Selfish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148610 Lealess >I was the person who said he was selfish. I thought he was selfish >because he abandoned his unborn child, no matter what his reason -- >whether it was his traumatized psyche, or disgust at the product of >a union with a tramp's daughter, or dislike of kids, or jealousy of >his fortune -- whatever it was. PJ: If I had been in Tom Srs shoes I don't think I'd have done anything differently. Fear, anger and embarrassment would all come together to push out any thought of the unborn child at that moment. The *first* thing I'd think to do is escape the nightmare situation I'd found myself in! We weren't told whether he ever searched for his child or not, only that a brokenhearted Merope moved to London after he left her. But even if he didn't, men have been leaving women to raise their children alone since the dawn of time. Nothing new there. The point is that his unconcern for his unborn child doesn't make Tom Sr. less of a victim, because he was! It was Merope who acted without regard to another person's wants and needs (with both Tom Sr. AND Tom Jr.) which, to me, is the very definition of selfishness. PJ From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 22 23:41:10 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:41:10 -0000 Subject: oops Re: Happy to see you're posting again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148611 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > > > And I loved your Snape post. It was everything I wanted to say but all > > in one post and ordered. > > > > Gerry > > > Obviously this was a private message > > Gerry Geoff: Hi Gerry! Sounds as if you sent a message by mistake. Do you know that you can delete one of your own posts if it is wrong or duplicated etc.? On a standard message window, there are two buttons at the top right- hand corner marked Reply and Forward. When you have one of your own messages loaded, there is a third button marked Delete. I have quietly used this one several times in the past to remove evidence of typing mistakes or when I have written something which looks foolish in retrospect. Regards Geoff From rkdas at charter.net Wed Feb 22 23:41:26 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:41:26 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand (was Re: My thoughts on some things.......) In-Reply-To: <20060222203116.2875.qmail@web35610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148612 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maria Holub wrote: > > > Jen here again, > > I am wondering if it has to do with how badly the > > core is damaged. > > Don't have my COS handy but I don't remember a lot > > of detail about > > it. If the powers that be took a bit of pity on > > Hagrid, perhaps they > > didn't damage the core. Ron was in a car accident > > and maybe his > > sustained much worse damage or as you mention, > > perhaps the repair > > really put it out of whack. > > Flop: > It also occurs to me that Ron STARTED with a wand that > was in rough shape. Back in SS/PS, he mentioned it was > a hand-me-down wand and the unicorn hair was poking > out right at the beginning on the train (and as > always, I don't have my sources with me to give page > numbers). It gave the impression, to me at least, of a > student wand that had been used hard (in much the same > way that some of the student violins I've played over > the years have been beaten up by former students....) Jen D. here, I too, have played a few of those raggedy student violins. I think Hagrid's wand was probably a little worse for wear too, knowing Hagrid's lack of finesse sometimes but you are right, Ron's wand was Charlie's, I believe. They used some of the winnings from the Prophet's grandprize to get him a new one the next year. Jen D. wondering which kind of core is the most powerful. Do we know? From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Feb 23 00:09:44 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:09:44 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148613 > houyhnhnm: > So is Snape warning Harry to find himself an antidote to Snape's > treachery or is it a pleading to be delivered from his own > misanthropy. houyhnhnm-I-often-quote-myself-It-adds-spice-to-my-conversation: I've been thinking: What if Snape *was* trying to warn Harry against treachery in the WW (not *his* treachery but someone else's). He is good at riddles. He is an expert on 1000 magical herbs and fungi, probably knows their symbolic meanings, too. And poor Harry. He didn't have a clue about the literal answers, let alone the subtext. No wonder Snape was disgusted with him. But then again, he was expecting an awful lot of an 11 year old boy. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 00:20:13 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:20:13 -0000 Subject: Was Tom Riddle, Sr. Selfish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > >...edited... > > Carol responds: > ... > > We have no evidence that Tom Sr. was similar to Cedric in any > way except that he, too, was handsome. ... but where is the > evidence that Tom Sr. offered it (help)? ...edited... > > Carol, whose sympathies lie mostly with Merope and who wonders > what Tom Sr. would have thought of his look-alike son had he > chosen to raise him > bboyminn: Before we go too far eulogizing poor Tom Sr, let us look at what GoF has to say about him and his family. "Riddle had been rich, snobbish, and rude, and their grown-up son, Tom, had been, if anything, worse." So, the Riddles definitely had a 'superior' attitude, and were well aware of their wealth and status. Now that doesn't in any way excuse what happened to them. But let's not paint them as saints in death when they never came close in life. Just a small point. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 00:47:59 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:47:59 -0000 Subject: The new questions, and Peverell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148615 > Carol: > > The surname Peverell could have been derived by JKR from a place name, > as Snape was, but it also appears to be a variant of Peavey. Here's a > site with the Peverel family crest (one "l"): > a_svirn: Peverells, or Peverels, or Peverils were the Norman family that came with the Conqueror. They became the most influential magnates in Nottinghamshire in 12-13th centuries (William Peverel Sr was the chap who founded the Nottingham castle as well as Peveril Castle). They were the Sheriffs of Nottingham etc. What interests me even more it was said that the first Peverell was a bastard son of the king William (the Conqueror). Now, Gaunt does also have a very distinct royal ring to it. And that's strange, because we are told ad nauseum in HBP that there are no princes in the WW. Yet Voldemort's royal (if not quite legitimate) descent is being hinted at. I wonder why. From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Feb 23 01:03:53 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:03:53 -0000 Subject: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148616 Dungrollin: > I didn't mean that I don't think your scenario is suitable for > children, nor do I think that it's too complicated for their little > brains to cope with. What I meant was that she's under some > obligation to maintain the style in which she's begun. The books so > far are adventure stories, aren't they? houyhnhnm: Well, it seems to me she has already deviated from the style in which she began, at least that's how I experienced the books as I read them. The first three book were great adventure stories. I was completely drawn in. I *was* Harry (mutatis mutandis). Then I was somewhat bemused by GoF. It is still my least favorite book. OotP came along and pulled the rug out from under me. Harry started to reveal some unpleasant and downright repulsive traits. James and Sirius weren't who I thought they were. Molly metamorphosed into a termagant. All of a sudden everything was turned on its head. I didn't like OotP at first. I felt betrayed. Then I began to see the early books as a sort of regression in the service of the ego. And the moral of the 4th and 5th as something along the lines of seeing is not believing and you can run but you can't hide. I'm not trying to argue that that's what Rowling was intending; it's just the way I experienced the books. So I wouldn't be disappointed if she took another 90 degree turn in book 7. I'm a DDM!Snaper myself. Regardless of the presence of absence of any prearranged plan, Snape did the only thing he could do on the tower to insure the maximum good for the maximum number of people. Therefore what he did was right action. Hence he did not tear his soul. I would feel the same way if Harry were forced to kill Voldemort. It's just that you introduced the idea of the scarcrux trying to unite with Harry's soul and my mind ran away with it. It was something I hadn't thought of. Harry defeats Voldemort in his head and that somehow causes the destruction of the corporeal LV. For me that would be a very bangy ending. Apparently not for you. :-) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Feb 23 01:03:54 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:03:54 -0000 Subject: Was Tom Riddle, Sr. Selfish? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148617 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > Before we go too far eulogizing poor Tom Sr, let us look at what GoF > has to say about him and his family. > > "Riddle had been rich, snobbish, and rude, and their grown-up son, > Tom, had been, if anything, worse." > > So, the Riddles definitely had a 'superior' attitude, and were well > aware of their wealth and status. > > Now that doesn't in any way excuse what happened to them. But let's > not paint them as saints in death when they never came close in life. > > Just a small point. > > Steve/bboyminn > Hickengruendler: But who is? I find the comparison between Tom and Cedric problematic, because Cedric, all in all, is too good to be true. And he is probably meant to be, to show, that the most innocent person can fall victim to evil due to circumstances beyond their control. But as a character, he is not all that compelling, IMO. In fact, I think Tom is a much more interesting character, despite of the fact that he has much less screentime. I do not see why him accepting the glass of water from Merope makes him a particularly decent person. In fact, one could argue that it was rather selfish from him. He mocks the Gaunts behind their back, but once he can gain something by interacting with them (even if it is only a glass of water on a hot day) he takes the chance. But to be fair, the Gaunts are certainly not the people one likes to socialise with. They, and especially the males, are creepy and despisable and I do not think Tom can really be blamed for not thinking well of them. Still, seeing how Tom was described I'm pretty sure he would have ignored them even if they were saints, simply because they are poor. Nonetheless, HBP did a pretty big step to redeem Tom, at least in my eyes. What we heard about him in CoS, that he left his wife and child after discovering that she was a witch actually paints him in the same light as the Dursleys or the Malfoys (and in some ways he probably was pretty similar). But the revelations in HBP make his actions much more understandable, and quite frankly, if I found out, that I was bewitched by an ugly witch, I would run as fast as possibly as well. We don't even know for sure that he knew, that she was pregnant. That said, I also feel sorry for Merope. I know that what she did was despisable, but she probably really didn't know any better. Not only was she probably mentally ill due to circumstances beyond her control (the cousin-marriages in the Gaunt family), she also was practically kept as a slave all her life, didn't have the opportunity to leave her family or Little Whinging and therefore probably lacked the ability to recognize right from wrong. For her, Tom was the escape of her horrible life and she desperatly wanted to use it, telling herself that Tom would be happy as well. Once she got free and realised what she was doing, she stopped feeding him with the Potion after all (even if it was because she thought it wasn't necessary anymore, she still stopped it). Therefore I can't bring myself to agree with some of the harsher opinions of her on this site. I think both were victims. Hickengruendler From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Feb 23 01:10:19 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:10:19 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved Lily, now with Secret Keeper switch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148618 > > Sydney: > (And, by the way, just what WAS Sirius' > cunning plan? If the secret can't be extorted or tortured out, and it > dies with the Keeper, then why bother with the switch? Either JKR or > Sirius wasn't firing on all cylinders on this one.. ). > Pippin: What if the purpose of the switch was less to protect the Secret Keeper than to expose the spy? Sirius suspected that Lupin was the spy, but couldn't prove it. What better way to catch him than to pretend to reveal the secret? Voldemort would attack the wrong house, the Potters would remain safe and the spy would be revealed. Pippin From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Feb 23 01:17:18 2006 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:17:18 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148619 > > Christina: > > JKR has answered her FAQ Poll question! It seems as though, as > > many of us have predicted, when a Secret-Keeper dies, the "secret > > dies with them." Meaning that 12GP is still supposedly safe for > > the Order.... This is really the only thing that makes sense; > > after all, the whole idea of the Fidelius charm is a bit silly > > if your secret can be broken by the Secret-Keeper getting run > > over by a bus or something. > bboyminn: > > Well, you point out the very misconception we are trying to clear > up. When JKR says 'When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with > them...' does she mean that the secret is no longer a secret since > the Keeper has died, or does it mean that the secret can never be > revealed again since there is no one to reveal it? If we look at > what she says next, we have the answer....The Secret can only be > given away by the Secret Keeper. If the Secret Keeper is dead then > only those people to whom the secret has /already/ been revealed can > know it, yet none of them can reveal it, with out the Secret Keeper, > no new people can be let in on the secret. Christina: Well...yes. I just quoted the first sentence or so of JKR's explanation - I figured everyone would rush over there and read the rest on their own. But the rest of my post very definitely took into account the rest of JKR's explanation on the subject. There is no longer any misconception. 12GP, as far as we know, *is* likely still safe for the Order, because the secret is still hidden. In other words, Snape can't go babbling it to Voldemort (although he could charge in there himself). What I was saying was that JKR's explanation was the most reasonable to begin with. > bboyminn: > I think JKR thought she was clearing up this problem for us, but > instead she has only made it more complicated. Most of us suspected > that when Dumbledore died, the secret died in the sense that it was > no longer a secret. The Secret Keeper spell was broken. But it > appears that this is not true. The Secret is still secret except to > those to whom it has already been revealed. Christina: Well JKR said herself that this particular FAQ question wasn't the one she would have picked (although it is the one that I picked) - I don't think she puts up FAQ questions that will necessarily clear up problems for us, as much as she throws up ones that don't give away too much, or are ones that she is sick of hearing people babble about :) I think that applying this new knowledge to the first FC we ever heard about is much more interesting than looking at it from the 12GP secret point of view. It confirms the idea that, if Sirius had stayed the Secret Keeper, the Potters' would have been safe as long as Sirius could elude (or endure) capture and torture at the hands of Voldemort. And if SK!Sirius had gotten himself killed, Voldemort would have *never* found the Potters. It really drives home the horrific consequences of the SK Switch-up, and reinforces the recurring theme that sometimes we do brave things for courageous reasons that end up doing more harm than good - really adds to the irony. > > Christina continues: > > > > Where is the challenge in figuring out the identity of the > > Secret Keeper and getting the information from him when all > > the enemy has to do is kill a bunch of people? ...edited... > > > > bboyminn: > > You must remember that when the Secret Keeper dies, the secret is > not revealed. True, as we wrongly speculated, it may no longer be a > secret, but the actual secret itself is not instantly revealed. Christina: I think you may have misunderstood me. My point was exactly that - it makes sense to have the secret stay a secret when the SK dies. Like I said, having the secret "revealed" when the SK dies is stupid, and it negates the entire point of the FC. Whether or not it would be an instant reveal is irrelevant. If a reveal took place, Peter wouldn't have needed to become the SK for Voldemort to get to the Potters. Voldemort could have just gone around killing the Potters' friends, hoping that he'd hit the right one and the secret would be open for extraction from anybody who knows it (ie, non-SK!Peter, who Sirius let in on the secret). I was saying that this is *not* the case, and that is why JKR's explanation makes sense. Her magic tends to work in the way that deems it the most useful - it's the argument that a lot of people used to use when talking about pensieves. They must show the truth because otherwise, they're just about as useful as a diary. > > Christina continues: > > > > And I still wonder what happens to a secret if the secret itself > > dies...that is, did the charm on the Potters break when *they* > > died (although Harry was still alive)? Or if the charm was more > > on the house, did it break when the house was destroyed? > bboyminn: > > As I said, JKR has only made things more complicated. Keep in mind > that we don't actually know what the secret was related to the > Potters hiding. Was their house the secret, or were they the secret? Christina: Well, there is Flitwick's comment that LV would never have found the Potters, even if "he had his nose pressed against their sitting room window." Now, who knows how much Flitwick knew about the Order and the Potters, but it keys into something I still find odd about the FC in relation to 12GP (which JKR's explanation on the death of the SK doesn't touch on): if the secret is that "the headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix is at 12GP," then why can't Harry see the house? After all, the secret isn't that "Number 12, Grimmauld Place exists." And what of the people that knew the location of the house before the secret was sealed? For example, Bellatrix. It would seem odd to one day know where your cousins lived as children, and the next day to "forget" this information. I really wish that the FAQ question had been a more general one about the FC, but we can't always get what we want. I think that it's necessary to do a little fudging with the concept; otherwise, why doesn't somebody just put Harry under the FC - the secret being "Harry Potter exists" or "Harry Potter is in the UK" - then he could dance in the street without anybody knowing he was there, free to track down Voldemort's horcruxes and finally LV himself, all while being visible to a select few. > bboyminn: > And as you ask, when the Potters - the Secret - died, was the house > revealed since there no longer was a secret to keep? When Harry goes > to Godric Hollow, will he be able to see their graves but not their > house, or will he be able to see both or neither? Christina: I think Harry would be able to see everything, no matter what, because he was in on the secret to begin with. JKR hinted on that when she suggested that even a captured James couldn't reveal Lily and Harry's location. The three people were in the secret together, so Harry was in on it too. In other words, as a baby, Harry must have been on the secret because he could *see* his parents moving about the house. > bboyminn: > Will Hermione and Ron be able to see both or neither? Christina: Well, if you by "graves" you are essentially talking about their bodies, then I would say yes. Just because the Potters' existance wasn't being hidden - just their location. As JKR said, James couldn't have given away his family's location, even if captured, which suggests that he *could* have been captured - by leaving the house perhaps? > bboyminn: > In the case of Dumbledore, the Secret KEEPER died; in the case of > the Potters, the secret itself died. So where does that leave us? > ...other than confused. Christina: I wonder if perhaps there is a way for the *Secret-Keeper* to release the secret and break the charm. The fact that the FC doesn't seem to have an "off" button seems strange to me...unless you are correct about the HQ status change. That would mean that a FC would have to be worded extremely carefully, though. > bboyminn: > > I don't see how the secret could be broken by the house being > destroyed. Christina: How come? I think it's the most logical explanation we've got - if the house is in ruins on the ground, it isn't really serving as anybody's hiding place, is it? Just like if 12GP was destroyed, it's status as "headquarters" would be null, because a headquarters assumes some type of structure. Christina From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 01:18:56 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:18:56 -0000 Subject: The new questions, and Peverell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148620 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > a_svirn: > Peverells, or Peverels, or Peverils were the Norman family that > came with the Conqueror. They became the most influential magnates > in Nottinghamshire in 12-13th centuries ... Now, Gaunt does also > have a very distinct royal ring to it. And that's strange, because > we are told ad nauseum in HBP that there are no princes in the WW. > Yet Voldemort's royal (if not quite legitimate) descent is being > hinted at. I wonder why. > bboyminn: I don't think the wizard world has their OWN royalty. They are all, in this case, citizens of Britain, and the muggle British Royalty would also be their royalty. Further, I see no reason why a ramdon wizard or witch couldn't occur in the many Royal families found in Europe across it's substantial expanse of history. So, being among the Royals doesn't eliminate the possibility that you could also be a wizrds, just as being a wizard doesn't eliminate the possibility of coming from one of many Royal families. It seems an absurd exclusion. I think the two are irrelevant and completely separated from each other; being one doesn't preclude the possibility of being the other, nor does being one demand that you are the other. On another point, the House of Gaunt is a royal house. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (June 24, 1340 ? February 3, 1399) was the third surviving son of King Edward III of England and Philippa of Hainault. John of Gaunt's legitimate male heirs, the Lancasters, included Kings Henry IV, Henry V, and Henry VI. John of Gaunt's illegitimate descendants, the Beauforts, later married into the House of Tudor, which ascended to the throne in the person of Henry VII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Gaunt Just a few minor points. Steve/bboyminn From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 01:19:47 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:19:47 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved Lily, now with Secret Keeper switch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148621 > Sydney: > > If he wasn't quite trusting > Sirius as SK, it's hard to see how he'd be comfortable with a SK > proposed by Sirius either. (And, by the way, just what WAS Sirius' > cunning plan? If the secret can't be extorted or tortured out, and it > dies with the Keeper, then why bother with the switch? Either JKR or > Sirius wasn't firing on all cylinders on this one.. ). zgirnius: Do we know it can't be extorted or tortured out? (AM I missing some explanation of this?) Or are you just saying that Sirius would assume this to be the case, were he the Secret Keeper? Sydney: > I have no difficulty > picturing Snape storming around like a lunatic about yelling OMG ARE > YOU PEOPLE BLIND SIRIUS IS EVIL!!! heh-- just like Harry about Snape. zgirnius: ROTFL. Dumbledore must wonder if it is catching... --zgirnius now signs off for the day, as she is unsure where her iron even IS... From rkdas at charter.net Thu Feb 23 01:35:32 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:35:32 -0000 Subject: More then one path to victory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148622 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > quick_silver wrote: > > So really Snape has only ever been important when it comes > > getting inside the DEs and by the end of HBP Harry has another > > possible source of information from the inside...Draco. And I > > believe that Harry would be far more willing to deal with Draco then > > he ever would with Snape. > > zgirnius: > Sure, I agree. Draco is an alternative source, and Harry would > definitely prefer to deal with him. But if Draco remains alive, and > among the Death Eaters, you can hardly say Snape has had/will have > nothing to do with that. And I am not sure Draco has the skills to > survive as a double agent, especially alone. Whereas, if Snape has been > doing it all these years, it would appear that he does have them. (Yes, > Draco is an Occlumens. But he's so obvious about it Snape can tell what > he's doing...let alone Voldemort, who is presumbaly a more powerful > Legilimens). > > quick_silver wrote: > > Even Snape's knowledge of magic is undermined...Harry has access to > > the Half-Blood Prince's most inner working though the Potions > > textbook. > Jen here, I am sure this has been said before but I haven't followed every single word said on Snape but it seems obvious that if he is DDM and I believe he is, DD set him loose to go so deep undercover that he is a man alone now. He must be there to aid Harry but not with any Order member's knowledge or assistance. Everyone believes him to be the man who killed DD. That would isolate him because it also seems DD left no trace (that we know of) to clear him, to link him to the Order, nothing. He left Snape with a mission and left him to hang on his own skills and cunning. A pretty horrible parting gift but Snape's the man to take on the mission. Jen D. > From kking0731 at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 01:38:10 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:38:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Small choice in rotten apples In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148623 Dungrollin: Oh I *see*. You're worried she might just pull something out of the hat that hasn't been foreshadowed? Could be. She might, indeed. I prefer to theorise under the delusion that she's got something clever up her sleeve, and that she plays by at least some rules though. :D Snow: Well yes, and no! She will pull something and it will be 'legit' in its own way. Let's take the currant situation with the secret keeper dilemma as an example of what I'm trying to say. We now know the rules of the secret keeper and what happens to the secret but? oh yes but... she through in that variable again. The difference with Pettigrew/Sirius secret keeper is that it was a switch. Sirius was the secret keeper for x amount of time but switched to Pettigrew? whole different ball game. We don't know what information Sirius could have passed to the Order before the switch let alone what happens after. Is Sirius (or any information he passes along) cancelled out of the equation after the switch ? we can't know for sure? This is the type of arena I'm talking about with JKR's unique way in which to cover her self. Everything you need is there to figure it out but obscured at the same time. I don't see it being underhanded anymore than I saw many other of her plot twists to be so. It will all fit in the end but you must keep your eyes open for the variables ;) Snow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 01:55:39 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:55:39 -0000 Subject: Does LV Suspect Trewlawney? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148624 I can't figure out whether LV suspects that ST is the one who made the Prophesy. Everyone knows that she began teaching at HW about the time of his downfall -- can't they do the math? And I suspect everyone knows she is considered to be less than a stellar (pardon the pun) prognosticator -- why else would DD keep her around unless she was the one? I would think that after the Prophesy was smashed, LV's next logical step would be to try to find the person who made the Prophesy Couldn't he force the Prophesy Keeper to tell him???? (Actually, on second thought,I wonder why He didn't try this first.) Angie From exodusts at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 00:40:29 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:40:29 -0000 Subject: Why leave Harry/Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148625 > > Dung: > > Ok, I'm with you on this one, Bah Humbug! > > "Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not > > known how to act?" > > Can someone please explain to me why on earth Snape is unable to > > fake a large bout of remorse and pretend to be in love with Lily? > > How does it provide a watertight reason for DD to trust him? Why > > couldn't a very clever DE fake this? > zgirnius: > No strong opinion on Snape/Lily here (though I think Sydney has it > right, if JKR goes there, it WILL be FUN!). However, I think the > reason for Dumbledore's trust is also in what he already told Harry > in HBP. Snape felt remorse BEFORE the Potters were dead. (When he > learned how the Dark Lord had interpreted the prophecy, NOT what he > did. This is also consistent with Dumbledore's testimony in the GoF > Pensieve scene of Karkaroff's hearing). Which almost certainly means > HE was the spy who warned Dumbledore that the Potters were > Voldemort's intended targets. (And then went on to continue spying on > Voldemort 'at great personal risk', GoF). The whole Lily thing is > the *reason* why he did this. That Snape loved Lily (if in fact he > did) was just PART of that conversation. Snape's actions as a result > of his love/remorse are also a part of the reason for Dumbledore's > trust. Exodusts: The other point is that DD very probably knew that Snape was in love with Lily even before Snape ever did. If DD was teacher at Hogwarts when Snape and Lily were students, he could have observed the boy Snape when he was around Lily, and known that there was partiality. Even as the time went by (and maybe Snape was the "awful boy") and they went their separate ways, a wise man like DD might know the secrets of Snape's heart without needing to be told, and, crucially, long before Snape would have had any incentive to fake the affection, to pretend he was reformed. So when Snape did break down with guilt, and switch sides, DD was ready to accept it. He didn't need to be convinced, because he already knew it was true, and he was even half expecting it, because of what he knew about the boy Snape. From exodusts at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 01:17:52 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:17:52 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148626 Carol: > Carol, once again asking 1) what purpose is served by having Snape at > Godric's Hollow, 2) how he could have been there when we know he was > teaching at Hogwarts at the time, 3) how and why PP would have > revealed the secret to him, and 4) what canon evidence can be shown to > indicate that he was there. (And, yes, I've read the post that Alla > linked me to. I read it when it was first posted and reread it > yesterday, and I remain unconvinced. Canon and logic, please!) Exodusts: 1) It cranks up the tension on Snape. It makes his guilt, shame and horror feel all the greater, because he was right there. It makes him hate Voldemort even more, because he saw him kill his beloved. It provides another secret revelation to present to Harry near the climax. 2) A quick run down to the gates and Apparition? 3) In a note like the one DD used for 12 GOP. Suppose Peter wrote the address down. Then everyone who sees that note can get there. Maybe Peter the traitor was first approached by Snape. Maybe it was via Snape that he became corrupted. When he is later made Secret Keeper, he sends the address to Snape via an owl, with instructions to pass the note on to Voldemort. Snape has two choices. He can destroy the note to protect Lily and James, but then he'll have to go on the run from LV, and Peter might still pass the info on another time. OR he can avoid having to become a fugitive and take a risk, by passing the note on to LV, and trying to engineer the situtation to his own advantage by asking LV to spare Lily. 4) There is evidence from JKR's sinister refusal to comment that *someone* was there. From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Wed Feb 22 21:17:05 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:17:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060222211705.69505.qmail@web37012.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148627 Jen D. wrote: You did point out the imprecision of my language! But pray tell, when did Harry try to get info out of people? I can't think of any time except with DD when as Ceridwen pointed out up thread, he asked over and over why DD trusts Snape only to get rebuffed.If that's the example people are pointing to, so be it. I just want someone to show me where he's tried because I can't seem to think of an incident other than DD. Catherine writes: Hi Jen, I think people are having trouble coming up with examples, because we don't actually see that many, as it's implied and reffered to mostly. In PS/SS ch2 "the Vanishing Glass" UK edition pg 20: "He had it (the scar) as long as he could remember and the first question he could ever asking his Aunt Petunia was how he had got it. "In the car crash, when your parents died," she had said. "And don't ask questions." Don't ask questions - that was the first rule for a quiet life with the Dursley's. " Another reference in the same chapter, pg 24 "If there was one thing the Dursley's hated even more than his asking questions..." I know these are pretty weak examples, I'll try to find more later in other books. But my point is that this implies that despite being punished, ignored and other methods used by the Dursley's, Harry still continued to ask questions, without ever getting a proper answer from anyone. I don't really find Harry all that manipulative, he does torture Dudley a bit with pretend magical spells and stuff, but I don't think he would ever use magic to deliberatly hurt Dudley. The only time he used magic in front of him was to defend Dudley. Unlike Tom Riddle Jr. who used it, even before he knew what he was, to control or punish people at will. I'm betting that Riddle jr. would have been able to find out a lot more information if he had been left on the Dursley's doorstep ....Harry actually shows a reasonable amount of self-control with Dudley considering he was Dudley's punching bag for years and years, he could have been much, much worse. Catherine From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 22 22:29:28 2006 From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:29:28 +1100 Subject: Department Of Mysteries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148628 Gryffindor Chaser: Has anyone thought about the Department of Mysteries lately and the room which door could not be opened? Does anyone remember that from OotP? I think Dumbledore mentions it in HBP, or at the end of OotP. The room filled with 'love'. I am leaning to the thought that this place will be extremely important in the destruction of Voldemort? Does anyone agree? Dumbledore says something like 'The room is filled with an emotion so powerful..' it just seems logical that a man with no 'loving' emotions should die there. It's kind of similar to 'The Grinch' how he backs away from anything to do with love until he can't run anymore and it overpowers him. He makes everyone miserable, until he feels it himself, if that all makes sense. Also aside from that, what does DDM stand for? From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 20:44:55 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:44:55 -0000 Subject: Two simple solutions (was Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148629 Steve wrote: > > > That's just it, ONLY the Secret Keeper can reveal the location. JKR > said, if James, as the subject of the secret, were captured, he would > have been unable to reveal the location of Lily and Harry. He is not > the Secret Keeper, so he can not speak the secret. I have to assume > the same holds true for Harry. > Well, to add another wrinkle, what about this scenario: Harry blindfolds the Dursleys, has them hold hands, then takes the leader by the hand and walks them through the door of 12 GP. So, they are actually inside the house, but not privy to the secret as the Secret Keeper is dead and therefore cannot share it. Can they see the house they are actually in? On another tack, we may well be making the problem more complex than it actually is. The solution may be as simple as having someone who is good at Charms and privy to the secret remove the Fidelius and then apply a new Fidelius charm with a new, and living, secret keeper -- basically the magical equivalent of having a locksmith come in and change the lock on a deceased person's safety deposit box at the bank. Indeed, logically speaking this would have to be possible, as secret keepers must die from time to time and otherwise you would have an ever-increasing number of inaccessible properties in the WW. As Harry owns the property, and since the Order is basically bumfuzzled anyway should Harry fall into Voldemort's hands, he would be the logical candidate as Keeper, and thus he could reveal the property to whomever he wishes. Lupinlore From srbecca at hotmail.com Wed Feb 22 22:35:46 2006 From: srbecca at hotmail.com (Rebecca Dreiling) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:35:46 +0000 Subject: Secret places In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148630 Deborah said: >Is it possible to Apparate to a place you know only by name? Could >Harry Apparate to Godric's Hollow just by saying/thinking the name? > >And if not, could he Apparate to "the house across the road from my >parents' house in Godric's Hollow"? > >This has implications for 12 Grimmauld Place, of course, following >Dumbledore's death. > Rebecca: Yes this is a bit confusing. I don't think Apparation is limited to only places you have seen or been before. That would mean that if you wanted to go to a new store or a new friends house you could only get there by conventional means (. We know there is an exception for places that have alot of magical securities lined up like Hogwarts and to places where there is a secret keeper involved. I'm not sure on this one but it just doesn't make sense that you can't apparate to a new place. Anyone else? From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 23 02:14:31 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:14:31 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1FFB975B-A412-11DA-82E9-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148631 On Wednesday, February 22, 2006, at 07:17 PM, spotsgal wrote: > (which JKR's explanation on the death of the SK > doesn't touch on): if the secret is that "the headquarters of the > Order of the Phoenix is at 12GP," then why can't Harry see the house? > After all, the secret isn't that "Number 12, Grimmauld Place exists." > And what of the people that knew the location of the house before the > secret was sealed?? For example, Bellatrix.? It would seem odd to one > day know where your cousins lived as children, and the next day to > "forget" this information. > kchuplis: OK, maybe I'm just simple, but I just assumed it was one of the umpteen billion unplottable unknowable security measures Sirius' dad put on the place. I never directly connected this to the "Secret Keeping". Is there some off page canon (read: interview) that says it is? I thought it was curious everyone expected Godric's Hollow to be invisible. I just have never read anything that made me think that. From wendydarling6402 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 02:06:44 2006 From: wendydarling6402 at yahoo.com (Wendy) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:06:44 -0000 Subject: Godricks Hollow location and Secret Keeping business Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148632 With this new information about the secret keeper I was wondering if there will have to be a confrontation between Harry and Wormtail in the beginning of book 7? How else will Harry know how to find his parents house? Or because the house was destroyed was the secret also? Wendy From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 23 02:45:09 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:45:09 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godricks Hollow location and Secret Keeping business In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <67AD3B2A-A416-11DA-9D7E-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148633 On Wednesday, February 22, 2006, at 08:06 PM, Wendy wrote: > With this new information about the secret keeper I was wondering if > there will have to be a confrontation between Harry and Wormtail in > the beginning of book 7? How else will Harry know how to find his > parents house? Or because the house was destroyed was the secret also? > Wendy > > kchuplis: Can anyone please point me to where the *house* is not findable? I am still not clear on why this is considered the case. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 02:50:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:50:22 -0000 Subject: Snape at GH? (Was: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148634 Carol earlier: > > Carol, once again asking 1) what purpose is served by having Snape at Godric's Hollow, 2) how he could have been there when we know he was teaching at Hogwarts at the time, 3) how and why PP would have revealed the secret to him, and 4) what canon evidence can be shown to indicate that he was there. > Exodusts: > 1) It cranks up the tension on Snape. It makes his guilt, shame and horror feel all the greater, because he was right there. It makes him hate Voldemort even more, because he saw him kill his beloved. It provides another secret revelation to present to Harry near the climax. > > 2) A quick run down to the gates and Apparition? > > 3) In a note like the one DD used for 12 GOP. > > 4) There is evidence from JKR's sinister refusal to comment that > *someone* was there. > Carol responds: Thanks for answering. I'm not convinced, though, because Snape would have had to know that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper and Sirius Black was innocent, which would make his behavior throughout PoA a horrible deception, an act that even he couldn't pull off convincingly. And I don't think he could have kept that sort of secret from Dumbledore, especially since he would have had to explain his presence at Godric's Hollow to Dumbledore, and he would have had to leave Harry lying in the ruins and then report the disaster to Dumbledore. The whole scenario is simply not reconcilable (IMO) with DDM!Snape. And there's really no reason for PP to inform him of the secret or to invite him to participate in a murder that LV could commit all by himself. Lily as reward for Snape is appalling, too, especially in a children's series. Reward for what? Telling him the Prophecy, an action Snape regrets? And surely he wouldn't expect Lily to love him or consider him as her rescuer. It makes no sense, at least to me. The Snape subplot is already sufficiently complex without his being at Godric's Hollow, and he has plenty of grounds for remorse and repentance without being involved in some way in the murder plot. So, again, thanks for the explanation, but I'm not sold. I much prefer Snape showing DD his disappearing Dark Mark at the same time DD realizes through other means that the Potters are dead. Much simpler, with no need to throw in a whole new subplot in Book 7. And it would help to strengthen DD's trust in Snape, as his being at GH would not. And someone else *was* at Godric's Hollow, the same person who betrayed the Potters and picked up Voldemort's wand: Wormtail. There is no canon evidence (I'm not talking about hints in interviews, which may be equivocal) that Snape or any person besides LV, the Potters, and Wormtail was present. The last thing Snape needs is more guilt, shame, and horror. The events on the tower will suffice. Carol, not rejecting Snape's affection for Lily as possible and partial grounds for his remorse, just firmly rejecting this particular scenario as neither necessary nor plausible From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 02:50:39 2006 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:50:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does LV Suspect Trewlawney? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060223025039.70159.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148635 gelite67 wrote: I can't figure out whether LV suspects that ST is the one who made the Prophesy. Juli: Since Snape was the one that told LV about the prophesy, and he was there, I'm pretty sure (99.9%) that he knows. Remeber the orb at the DoM was labeled ST to APBWD. Besides, didn't Dumbledore tell Harry that Sybill is is great danger or something if she was to leave Hogwarts? >>I would think that after the Prophesy was smashed, LV's next logical step would be to try to find the person who made the Prophesy Couldn't he force the Prophesy Keeper to tell him???? (Actually, on second thought,I wonder why He didn't try this first.) Juli: Is there a Prophesy Keeper? I mean, is it canon? Juli Aol: jlnbtr Yahoo: jlnbtr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From exodusts at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 02:44:32 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:44:32 -0000 Subject: cursed necklace In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148636 > Sid: > > Hey all, > I've one question: > Madam Rosmerta was under imperius curse for nearly whole year; > in the chapter "Silver and Opals," Leanne (Katie's friend) said > that Katie was under imperius curse when they were arguing about > that cursed necklace! > > But my question is how can a person under imperius curse uses a > curse as the the one who gave the imperius curse was not present > to see there on whom the cuse was used! > > I know in Goblet of Fire Krum had used curses on Cedric and Fleur > but the one who gave him curse (Mad-Eye) could see from bushes on > whom he was using it! As he had seen Harry and Cedric before first > task! Draco was surely not there so how Katie had been attacked? > Do you have answer? Exodusts: I think Draco might just have ordered Rosmerta to Imperius any suitable girl by using his enchanted coin communication (the one that he copied from Hermione). Good spot though, of an Imperius victim using the Imperius curse. Proves you really could take over the Potterworld with just one spell (if each new victim Imperiuses the next). From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 23 03:28:15 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:28:15 -0600 Subject: Kararoff Message-ID: <6D399B88-A41C-11DA-A6F6-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148637 Just noticed something tonight. Might not mean anything but I found it must mean that Karkaroff knew James Potter pretty well. When he first spots Harry, I always thought in my reading he recognized him through the scar, but I now realize that he recognizes James and confirms Harry's identity with the scar: ------- "Thank you," said Karkaroff carelessly, glancing at him (Harry). And then Karkaroff froze. He turned his head back to Harry and stared at him as though he couldn't believe his eyes. Karkaroff's eyes moved slowly up Harry's face and fixed upon his scar. ------ So, it seems to me, he knew James well enough to momentarily mistake Harry in the way that one does when they think they recognize someone. Does this give us a clue to James profession? kchuplis From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Feb 23 03:25:02 2006 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:25:02 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: <1FFB975B-A412-11DA-82E9-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148638 > Christina: > > (which JKR's explanation on the death of the SK > > doesn't touch on): if the secret is that "the headquarters of the > > Order of the Phoenix is at 12GP," then why can't Harry see the > > house? After all, the secret isn't that "Number 12, Grimmauld > > Place exists." And what of the people that knew the location of > > the house before the secret was sealed? For example, Bellatrix. > > It would seem odd to one day know where your cousins lived as > > children, and the next day to "forget" this information. > kchuplis: > > OK, maybe I'm just simple, but I just assumed it was one of the > umpteen billion unplottable unknowable security measures Sirius' dad > put on the place. I never directly connected this to the "Secret > Keeping". Is there some off page canon (read: interview) that says > it is? I thought it was curious everyone expected Godric's Hollow to > be invisible. I just have never read anything that made me think > that. Christina again: This is what I thought too, for the longest time! It is the cleanest explanation. I mean, Mr. Black was super-paranoid, apparently, and they lived on a Muggle street. Flitwick's comments make it seem reasonable that a house under Fidelius can still be seen. AND it solves the puzzle of people who have prior knowledge of the house - like Bellatrix and Narcissa - who could still be able to visit the house, but who would find it empty. It also enables Muggle authorities to visit GH after the explosion (Does canon talk about covering up the destruction of the house for Muggles? I can't remember). ...BUT, I started to doubt this view when we started chatting about the Fidelius Charm a while ago. I'll do you one better than an interview - here's the actual canon for the part where 12GP springs to life for Harry: (OOTP, Scholastic, page 59) They were standing outside number eleven; he looked to the left and saw number ten; to the right, however, was number thirteen. "But where's --?" "Think about what you just memorized," said Lupin quietly. Harry thought, and no sooner had he reached the part about number twelve, Grimmauld Place, than a battered door emerged out of nowhere between numbers eleven and thirteen, followed swiftly by dirty walls and grimy windows. It was as though an extra house had inflated, pushing those on either side out of its way. (end quote) It is only after Harry has absorbed the secret that he is able to see 12GP. His knowledge of the secret is the only thing that changes between the time he can't see 12GP, and when he can. When Harry remarks that he can't see the house, Lupin directs him to think about the *secret*. In my mind, JKR makes it quite clear that it's the Fidelius that keeps Harry from seeing the house, and not an enchantment of Mr. Black's. I don't know. Maybe you're still right, and this is JKR trying for some dramatic effect :) It's an odd mistake though, if isn't something to do with the Fidelius Charm. Christina From Nanagose at aol.com Thu Feb 23 03:29:08 2006 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:29:08 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: <1FFB975B-A412-11DA-82E9-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148639 I'm pretty sure Yahoo just ate my post...if this isn't the case, my most humble apologies to the list elves... > Christina: > > (which JKR's explanation on the death of the SK > > doesn't touch on): if the secret is that "the headquarters of the > > Order of the Phoenix is at 12GP," then why can't Harry see the > > house? After all, the secret isn't that "Number 12, Grimmauld > > Place exists." And what of the people that knew the location of > > the house before the secret was sealed? For example, Bellatrix. > > It would seem odd to one day know where your cousins lived as > > children, and the next day to "forget" this information. > kchuplis: > > OK, maybe I'm just simple, but I just assumed it was one of the > umpteen billion unplottable unknowable security measures Sirius' dad > put on the place. I never directly connected this to the "Secret > Keeping". Is there some off page canon (read: interview) that says > it is? I thought it was curious everyone expected Godric's Hollow to > be invisible. I just have never read anything that made me think > that. Christina again: This is what I thought too, for the longest time! It is the cleanest explanation. I mean, Mr. Black was super-paranoid, apparently, and they lived on a Muggle street. Flitwick's comments make it seem reasonable that a house under Fidelius can still be seen. AND it solves the puzzle of people who have prior knowledge of the house - like Bellatrix and Narcissa - who could still be able to visit the house, but who would find it empty. It also enables Muggle authorities to visit GH after the explosion (Does canon talk about covering up the destruction of the house for Muggles? I can't remember). ...BUT, I started to doubt this view when we started chatting about the Fidelius Charm a while ago. I'll do you one better than an interview - here's the actual canon for the part where 12GP springs to life for Harry: (OOTP, Scholastic, page 59) They were standing outside number eleven; he looked to the left and saw number ten; to the right, however, was number thirteen. "But where's --?" "Think about what you just memorized," said Lupin quietly. Harry thought, and no sooner had he reached the part about number twelve, Grimmauld Place, than a battered door emerged out of nowhere between numbers eleven and thirteen, followed swiftly by dirty walls and grimy windows. It was as though an extra house had inflated, pushing those on either side out of its way. (end quote) It is only after Harry has absorbed the secret that he is able to see 12GP. His knowledge of the secret is the only thing that changes between the time he can't see 12GP, and when he can. When Harry remarks that he can't see the house, Lupin directs him to think about the *secret*. In my mind, JKR makes it quite clear that it's the Fidelius that keeps Harry from seeing the house, and not an enchantment of Mr. Black's. I don't know. Maybe you're still right, and this is JKR trying for some dramatic effect :) It's an odd mistake though, if isn't something to do with the Fidelius Charm. Christina From Lynx412 at AOL.com Thu Feb 23 03:51:44 2006 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:51:44 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion Message-ID: <230.761e0ab.312e8b50@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148640 In a message dated 2/22/2006 8:19:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, Nanagose at aol.com writes: > Just because the Potters' existance wasn't being hidden - just their > location. As JKR said, James couldn't have given away his family's location, even > if captured, > which suggests that he *could* have been captured - by leaving the house > perhaps? You know, this may be the answer to the riddle. If the secret was phrased to be "the Potters are hiding at [location]" once they were dead, they were no longer hiding. With the [location] destroyed, baby Harry was no longer able to hide there. Once baby Harry been moved, he was no longer at [location] and was no longer covered by the FC. We know DD montored the mugle news, so he would have heard of the distruction of [location] and whould have known it had some conenction with the Potters. When he learned of LV's near destruction, he knew something had happened to the Potters and sent Hagrid to [location] where he picked up baby Harry. Anyone have any better ideas? The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 03:59:55 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:59:55 -0000 Subject: Does LV Suspect Trewlawney? In-Reply-To: <20060223025039.70159.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148641 Juli: I would think that after the Prophesy was smashed, LV's next logical step would be to try to find the person who made the Prophesy Couldn't he force the Prophesy Keeper to tell him???? (Actually, on second thought,I wonder why He didn't try this first.) > Is there a Prophesy Keeper? I mean, is it canon? > hpfan_mom: When Harry asks DD why his name is on the prophecy and not Neville's, DD replies: "The official record was relabeled after Voldemort's attack on you as a child. . . . It seemed plain to the keeper of the Hall of Prophecy that Voldemort could only have tried to kill you because he knew you to be the one to whom Sibyll was referring." (OOTP, US ed, p. 842) I've always been intrigued by the different fonts JKR uses for handwritten notes, so the notion of a keeper of the Hall of Prophecy stuck in my head because of the funny handwriting that labels the prophecy. I compared it to RAB's note, and although they look similar, they're definitely NOT the same. But I keep thinking there's got to be a clue somewhere in all the different handwriting we've seen. hpfan_mom From djklaugh at comcast.net Thu Feb 23 04:22:37 2006 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:22:37 -0000 Subject: Who isn't in the black Family Tree Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148642 Luigina Ciolfiwrote: > > Just some thoughts looking a the fuller version of the Black Family Tree... > ..It is interesting that the tree seem to include mentions to most of the pure-blood families introduced in the books...from the Weasleys, to the Potters, Longbottoms, MacMillans, Crouches, and so on...This is not really a surprise, because, as we know from OotP, the pure-blood families are more or less all interrelated. > I find interesting that the tree is not featuring quite an important surname in the wizarding world..."Dumbledore". JKR herself said that asking questions about Dumbledore's family would be a "profitable line of inquiry"...If we consider that Dumbledore is about 150 years old at the time of the events in the books, the tree goes back to more or less the time of his birth...I wonder if he and Aberforth are the last of the family...if the family was half-blood, pure-blood or even Muggle? There are no suggestions about Aberforth's magical abilities, besides that he lives in Hogsmeade (an all-wizard village). > The Dumbledore family seems to hold some crucial bit of information, and I don't thin it has to do with the "Gryffindor Heir" theory, but with something else, perhaps related to choices/events around the matters of blood purity. > Any ideas? lui Deb here: Well, DD was born circa 1840 (according to the HP Lexicon) which makes him older than the Black family members that appear on the top line of The Black Family Tree - Sirius 1845-1852, Phineas Nigellus 1845-1926, and Elladora 1850-1931. While I suppose he could be some distant cousin of the Blacks, some how I doubt that. My hunch (and it is only a hunch as I have no canon to actually substantiate it) is that he is a direct descendent of Godric Griffendor. And if James Potter also was a Griffendor descendent ... DD *might* be a very distant relative of Harry's. As for brother Aberforth... well he did get arrested for practicing "inappropriate charms on a goat" (GOF) and he is a member of the OOP (in OOP Moody shows Harry pictures of the original OOP with Aberforth among the members) And this also from the Lexicon: "What is his role for the Order? As the barkeep at the Hog's Head in Hogsmeade (EBF), Aberforth is a morally ambiguous character. He hobnobs with the dodgy clientele and may indulge in illegal activities himself. Aberforth was with Mundungus just before Harry caught Dung with stolen Black family heirlooms (specifically a silver goblet) outside the Three Broomsticks in Hogsmeade in October 1996 [Y16] (HBP12). Aberforth shambled off when Harry and his friends walked up. Is Aberforth an undercover operative, or mostly working for himself? Can he be trusted, or not? Independent or illiterate? Albus Dumbledore once used Aberforth as an example of someone who ignored public ridicule. Apparently, Aberforth had been prosecuted for practicing "inappropriate charms on a goat," (GF24) but hadn't let subsequent comments in the Daily Prophet faze him. However, Albus then said that he wasn't entirely sure that Aberforth could read, so it might not have been bravery at all." Deb (aka djklaugh) who has alway wondered why Hermione never did a genealogy search for Harry. I would think such an endeavor would be right up her alley... From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Feb 23 04:22:50 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:22:50 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148643 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kiricat4001" wrote: > Marianne: > Didn't the charm break when Peter revealed its contents to > Voldemort, thus rendering the SK's protection moot? > Allie: I can't even begin to comment on the complexity of this issue that's currently being discussed! On this one point I can. Telling the secret does not break the Secret Keeper charm. The little note that Harry read from Dumbledore in OoP let him in on the secret, but the charm was not broken. The same would happen when Pettigrew told Voldemort the secret of the Potters' whereabouts. The charm would still hold, and Voldemort would be able to find them, but nobody else would. Actually, we don't even know if the charm *can* be broken. I speculate that the charm on the Potters would have read something like this, if put into words, "The Potter family is located at [5 Godric Lane], Godric's Hollow." That way not only is the location secret, but nobody would even be able to see the house, just like Harry couldn't see Grimmauld Place until he read DD's note. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 04:45:27 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:45:27 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > I can't even begin to comment on the complexity of this issue that's currently being discussed! On this one point I can. Telling the secret does not break the Secret Keeper charm. The little note that Harry read from Dumbledore in OoP let him in on the secret, but the charm was not broken. The same would happen when Pettigrew told Voldemort the secret of the Potters' whereabouts. The charm would still hold, and Voldemort would be able to find them, but nobody else would. Actually, we don't even know if the charm *can* be broken. > > I speculate that the charm on the Potters would have read something like this, if put into words, "The Potter family is located at [5 Godric Lane], Godric's Hollow." That way not only is the location secret, but nobody would even be able to see the house, just like Harry couldn't see Grimmauld Place until he read DD's note. > Tonks: Oh, now I am confused more than ever!! Isn't the secret and the fact that a location is hidden from view two seperate things? 12 Grimmauld Place is invisible because of all the spells placed on it by old Mr. Black, not because it is a secret headquarters for the Order. The fact that it is a secret headquarters is the secret, but the spells and charms that keep it unplotable is something else total seperate from the secret that DD held. Right? Tonks_op From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Feb 23 04:54:35 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:54:35 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148645 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Oh, now I am confused more than ever!! Isn't the secret and the > fact that a location is hidden from view two seperate things? 12 > Grimmauld Place is invisible because of all the spells placed on it > by old Mr. Black, not because it is a secret headquarters for the > Order. The fact that it is a secret headquarters is the secret, but > the spells and charms that keep it unplotable is something else > total seperate from the secret that DD held. Right? > > Tonks_op > Allie: But after Harry read Dumbledore's note, he could see the house. So I think the invisibility was related to the Fidelius Charm. I also think that JKR was not *nearly* as concerned with the details as we are, and she didn't really iron them all out. (Maybe that is why she calls the Fidelius Charm "immensely complex" and gives no details about how it is performed!) From srbecca at hotmail.com Thu Feb 23 04:41:36 2006 From: srbecca at hotmail.com (Rebecca Dreiling) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 04:41:36 +0000 Subject: Basic Education In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148646 Rebecca writes: I've always wondered about this particular thing. I'm sure that it has to have been discussed but I'm curious to hear people opinions on it now. If most wizarding children don't start school until they enter Hogwarts where do they learn to read and write? I don't recall any mention of it in the first book so I assume there isn't a basic english class. I know that Harry went to school before he entered Hogwarts but he was raised in a muggle house so it would make sense that he was taught to read. I also know that Dumbledore and Crouch both speak several languages yet, I've never heard of a language class at Hogwarts. Is there some spell that is performed on your child to teach them to read. I assume there isn't because if there was why wouldn't Aberforth know how to read? I mean wouldn't Dumbledore want to help his own brother out? I don't know it's just never really sat right with me. Rebecca. From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 23 05:00:24 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:00:24 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4C6AA1F4-A429-11DA-A7DB-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148647 On Wednesday, February 22, 2006, at 09:25 PM, spotsgal wrote: > It is only after Harry has absorbed the secret that he is able to see > 12GP.? His knowledge of the secret is the only thing that changes > between the time he can't see 12GP, and when he can.? When Harry > remarks that he can't see the house, Lupin directs him to think about > the *secret*.? In my mind, JKR makes it quite clear that it's the > Fidelius that keeps Harry from seeing the house, and not an > enchantment of Mr. Black's. > > I don't know.? Maybe you're still right, and this is JKR trying for > some dramatic effect :)? It's an odd mistake though, if isn't > something to do with the Fidelius Charm. > kchuplis: Well, even then you don't have to be the *secret keeper* to know where it is and once you know you can see it. So I'm certain that DD knew and Hagrid, certain of the Potter friends anyway, but still, I still cannot feel certain that it was specifically that that causes the building to be hidden and why I can't believe certain people couldn't get to GH fine. And I still don't see why Harry couldn't get there now (plus, he probably *was* included in that charm even though a baby). I guess I can see why it's a possibility now. Thanks! From DreamCatcher284 at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 00:41:27 2006 From: DreamCatcher284 at gmail.com (hpotter284) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:41:27 -0000 Subject: news about Black Family Tree/Wizarding lifespans In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148648 Hello, I thought I'd come out of lurking to ask a quick question: If we take Dumbledore and Marchbanks as a guideline for wizard lifespans, then the average wizard life should last about 200 years. Yet none of the Blacks in the family tree lived anywhere close to that long (the oldest seem to have lived for about 80 years or so, which is barely above half of Dumbledore's age). So what happened to them? Why did all of the members of this distinguished, pureblood family die far before their time? Should we go back to the drawing board at determining wizarding lifespans, is something more sinister going on here (perhaps hinting at a line of servitude to angry dark lords (Grindelwald?)? --hpotter284 From djklaugh at comcast.net Thu Feb 23 05:17:07 2006 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:17:07 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148649 (Big snip) Carol, once again asking 1) what purpose is served by having Snape at > Godric's Hollow, 2) how he could have been there when we know he was > teaching at Hogwarts at the time, 3) how and why PP would have > revealed the secret to him, and 4) what canon evidence can be shown to > indicate that he was there. (And, yes, I've read the post that Alla > linked me to. I read it when it was first posted and reread it > yesterday, and I remain unconvinced. Canon and logic, please!) I think Snape may well have been at Godric's Hollow and the only canon I can point to for support of this is Harry's very first dream at Hogwart. (SS, chapter 7) "...He was wearing Professor Quirrell's turban, which kept talking to him, telling him he must transfer to Slytherin at once, because it was his destiny. Harry told the turban he didn't want to be in Slytherin; it got heavier and heavier; he tried to pull it off but it tightened painfully -- and there was Malfoy, laughing at him as he struggled with it -- then Malfoy turned into the **hook-nosed teacher, Snape**, whose laugh became high and cold -- there was a burst of green light and Harry woke up sweating and shaking". (emphasis added) While Harry had remembered flashes of green light previously and had thought they were from the "car crash" that killed his parents, he'd never previously associated them with a laugh or anything else. So why would his unconscious mind mix the light with the laugh plus the "hooked nose". It LV's laugh that is high and cold not Snape's. And LV does not have a hooked nose! Given that Harry was only 15 months old when his parents were killed his memories of that night would be vague and incomplete as he would have not had enough vocabulary to describe what happened. Memories from very early child hood are often strictly sensory memories - remembering a scent or a color or the shape of something rather than any real understanding of what the memory might mean. But being exposed to that sense image later in life could very well trigger the emotions associated with it. At the time of this dream Harry does not know about LV being wrapped up in Quirrell's turban. And he does not know how truly dispicable Malfoy's father is (or Malfoy himself IMO). Nor has he experienced Snape's animosity towards him. But perhaps his unconscious, toddler memory does remember that hooked nose, the laugh, the green light.. and the fear that followed from that combination. We have seen on other occasions that combining two spells can have unpredictable results... ie Harry and LV in the graveyard, and the scene on the train going home at the end of GOF where Malfoy ends up being hit with Jelly-Legs plus Furnunculus Curse and George remarks "Looks like those two shouldn't be mixed. He seems to have sprouted little tentacles all over his face". And AFAIK the only times we've seen buildings getting accidentally damaged from a spell was in CoS when Ron's wand backfired on Professor Lockhart and blasted down part of the tunnel leading to the CoS .... and in Godric's Hollow. So - - what if DD knows Snape is loyal because he knows that Snape went to GH to try to thwart LV and that Snape shouted *Expelliarimus* or some other spell just as LV was yelling *AK* at Harry. And what if those two spells combined to create the explosion that destroyed Lily and James's house and were part of the reason LV got kicked out of his body. As for how he could be there when he was at Hogwarts teaching... well Halloween in 1981 was on a Saturday... maybe he took the weekend off. As someone else said... a quick zip down to the gate, apparate to GH, follow LV and PP, and TA DA.... here comes Snape. Deb (aka djklaugh) who still wonders who Florence is and who she was snogging behind the greenhouse when Bertha was spying.... From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Thu Feb 23 05:27:27 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:27:27 -0000 Subject: How Does LV Communicate with Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148650 Vidar_Fe: > > The dark mark? > > - Just an idea. :-) > La Gatta Lucianese: >From what we know about Voldemort, I doubt he bothers to communicate with his Death Eaters in any very complex way. From the graveyard scene (GoF.33), it sounds as if he just signals them via the Dark Mark; any Death Eater who wants to stay alive knows to show up and hear what His Nibs has to say. Bellatrix (HBP.2) chides Snape with showing up two hours after the summons went out, so it sounds like the DEs in general know to be Johnny-on-the-Spot when they are sent for. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Feb 23 05:34:59 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:34:59 -0000 Subject: FILK: N-V-B-L Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148651 N-V-B-L (HBP, Chap. 9) To the tune of the austere and solemn Village People classic YMCA MIDI here (scroll down) http://members.tripod.com/~bbb1/index-4.html THE SCENE: Snape's DADA class. SNAPE shamelessly exploits a hit tune to ingratiate himself with the student populace. SNAPE: Students, learning Dark Arts Defense I said, students, you'll avoid consequence If you're prudent and if you're not too dense To just heed this screed from Snapey Students, when you're facing a foe I said, students, turn the sound way down low If you're silent, there is no need to show Anyone what hex you're handling SNAPE & STUDENTS You cast a spell that is N-V-B-L You cast a spell that is N-V-B-L When an evil thing that attacks and destroys You can fight it without the noise. You cast a spell that is N-V-B-L You cast a spell that is N-V-B-L When you're fighting DEs It can give you the edge With a split-second advantage. SNAPE: You've had Dark Arts Teachers before But then all five when straight out through the door I said, students, you've learned nothing, it seems So you've got to follow Snape's theme. Dark Arts are unfixed and severe So then, be smart, make it so they can't hear We'll now try it, from the Sixth Book of Spells You'll repel with N-V-B-L SNAPE & STUDENTS You cast a spell that is N-V-B-L You cast a spell that is N-V-B-L When some evil thing wants to murder and crush You can conquer if you keep hush. You cast a spell that is N-V-B-L You cast a spell that is N-V-B-L You do not say a word You do not move your lips You just quietly let it rip. SNAPE Students, split up in groups of two It is time for a nonverbal duel Let your partner cast an unspoken jinx Which you'll block silent as a sphinx HARRY That's when Snapey came up to me And said, "Potter, go one-on-one with me." So I then thought, "Go ahead, make my day!" For there's no way that I'll obey. HARRY & RON A class with Snape is not enviable A class with Snape is not enviable He loves nothing more than detentions to give He's a misfit unfit to live. CHORUS OF STUDENTS (slowing fading away) Enviable A class with Snape is not enviable A class with Snape is not enviable Potter, Potter, you must call Snapey "sir" Potter, Potter, or he'll get you for sure N-V-B-L Cast a spell that's N-V-B-L Potter, Potter, do not give Snapey cheek, Potter, Potter, or detention for a week .. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 06:21:07 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:21:07 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: <4C6AA1F4-A429-11DA-A7DB-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148652 kchuplis wrote: "Isn't it said in the conversation that Harry overhears at the Three Broomsticks that someone could have pressed their face on the sitting room window and not been able to see the Potters due to the Fidelious Charm? I was under the impression it kept *The Potters* protected. Not the house necessarily." CH3ed: O I think the charm was on their house or "their hiding place". I think the "face pressed against the window" thing was just a figure of speech. James had his invisibility cloak so he doesn't need the FC to be invisible. Besides, the same figure of speech could have been used about 12GP. People who weren't told by DD where the HQ of the OotP is can stare at the wall between 11GP and 13GP until they drop dead without being able to see anything other than a wall. Rose wrote: "What I am wondering is even if killing the secret keeper just buries the secret, can the Fidelius Charm still be broken? JK mentions in the poll question that "even if [someone]... is force- fed Veritaserum or placed under the Imperius Curse" it will not be able to be divulged. Is the same true for a Legilimens? One theory on the redhen's website (http://www.redhen-publications.com/Pettigrew.html) is that Voldemort gained access to the Potter's hiding place by reading Pettigrew's mind (sorry Professor Snape, but I couldn't think of another phrase). Did JKR specifically avoid using this example? Is this one of the ways to break the Fidelius Charm? And if so, can it only be used on the Secret Keeper, or can it be used on anyone the secret has been divulged to? And if it can be broken this way, can it be broken other ways as well?" CH3ed: I'm of the opinion that the redhen's theory is wrong because in that case PP wouldn't have "chosen" to tell LV the secret. Using ligilimen would be akin to subjecting the SK to veritaserum or imperius curse. I think the revealing of the secret has to be voluntarily done by the SK in order for it to be effective (which makes PP's sin very red indeed). Also, I agree with Steve's take. The FC is NOT broken when the SK decides to tell someone the secret. I haven't seen any canon that says that the FC makes the SK promise to not tell the secret to anyone. The canon we have says that the FC involves hiding the secret in the living soul of the SK where it cannot be exposed except when the SK chooses to reveal it. That is why it is so important to choose someone you really trust to be your SK. DD did not break the FC when he told Harry or anybody else who aren't members of the OotP the location of its HQ. DD was the SK and it was his privilege to reveal the secret to whomever he chooses. Marianne wrote: "One worry about 12 GP was whether there was some sort of charm on the house that would only allow it to be willed to someone with Black blood. Since JKR made it clear that Sirius could will it to anyone he chose, this turned out not to be an issue. But, DD was clearly concerned that Bellatrix might inherit the house, which was the reason the Order temporarily vacated the premises. How would that have squared with the Secret Keeper charm had Sirius not been able to will the house to Harry? In other words, can inheritance trump the Secret Keeper charm?" CH3ed: I'm not sure. But I think that DD was the SK for the OotP and the secret he kept was 'where the Headquarters of the OotP is,' so I think the FC would follow the HQ wherever it is moved to and is not specific to 12GP. In other word, when the HQ was moved temporarily, the FC moved to cover the HQ wherever it was in that brief period. The other protective enchantments placed directly on 12GP remained, of course. That would explain why in the note DD left for Harry he had to specify that "the HQ of the OotP can be found at #12GP", instead of just writing, "#12GP" for Harry to read. Marianne wrote: " If Peter, the Secret Keeper revealed the secret to Vmort, then the secret is essentially over. There was no more secret. Peter broke the charm in order to reveal the Potters whereabouts to Voldemort. In this case, whether the charm concerned the house or the actual persons of the Potters, it no longer mattered because the Keeper spilled the beans." CH3ed: Nah, the SK is entrusted with the secret. He can reveal it to anyone he wishes just like DD could tell whoever he saw fit where the HQ of the OotP was. The SK agreed to house the secret within his soul. That's all unless he also takes an UV to not tell it to a specific person, or he agrees to other magically binding contract to not tell it. Christina wrote: " Even though Voldemort would have been trying to capture Sirius, or whoever he thought the Potters' SK was, the FC would have afforded Sirius some protection in battle, since it would have been a big no- no to let him die. (Although it was said that Sirius was going into hiding himself, which I still find sort of odd.)" CH3ed: Well, if LV thought Sirius was the SK, then he wouldn't want to kill him, but that doesn't do anything to deter LV from torturing him, I think. Everyone has a break point, so it was a good idea for the decoy SK to go into hiding as well. CH3ed :O) Struggling to keep up with the pace. From h2so3f at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 06:52:35 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:52:35 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148653 CH3ed: I agree with Allies' and Steve's take on the nature of the FC. If the secret was the location of 'the Potters', then perhaps the secret ceased to be when both Lily and James died and there was only 1 Potter left (singular and no longer a family). Then there was no need for the location to be destroyed. The Potters no longer existed. Also I agree with the view that it was DD's FC that caused Harry to not be able to see 12GP while it was the HQ of the OotP. Unplottable charm seem to work more with muggles like in Hogwarts (which only magical people can see, muggles only see an unstable ruin). Sirius mentioned that he didn't think any 'muggles' would want to come and call on his house anyway when he was telling Harry of the protective charms. Lupinlore mentioned a solution on another thread, but I don't think it works. He said that Harry could just blind-fold the Dursleys when he leads them into 12GP, but I don't think the Dursleys would be able to get in the place (as long as it is still the HQ of the OotP and; therefore, protected by the FC still) regardless of whether they're able to see it or not. CH3ed :O) From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 23 06:55:56 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:55:56 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Basic Education In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <708B9376-A439-11DA-91F9-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148654 On Wednesday, February 22, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Rebecca Dreiling wrote: > Rebecca writes: > I've always wondered about this particular thing.? I'm sure > that it has to have been discussed but I'm curious to hear people > opinions > on it now. > > If most wizarding children don't start school until they enter Hogwarts > where do they learn to read and write?? I don't recall any mention of > it in > the first book so I assume there isn't a basic english class. > I know that Harry went to school before he entered Hogwarts but he was > raised in a muggle house so it would make sense that he was taught to > read. kchuplis: I don't know if this was a suggestion I read here or something in the books or an article, but I thought that some homeschooled until then (the Weasley's in particular I think this applied to) or some might go to public schools even if not muggles? From hubbada at unisa.ac.za Thu Feb 23 08:08:27 2006 From: hubbada at unisa.ac.za (deborahhbbrd) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:08:27 -0000 Subject: The new questions, and Peverell Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148655 "Steve" (bboyminn) rightly points out the Gaunt connection with King Edward III; however I've always been under the impression that, because Ed Three was such a remarkably, er, active and energetic person, just about everyone of English ancestry is descended from him, on one side of the blanket or another. And most of us just rise heroically above our ancestral shame and get on with life. But the occasional nutters will on discovering this connection imagine themselves to be the Rightful King or indeed Queen, and become rather boring about it. I could imagine something analogous in the Potterverse Gaunt family. Not just superior to other wizarding families on account of the Slytherin connection, but - by gum! - born to rule all those unruly Muggles as well. And here we are in a hovel, my dears, but if we had our rights ... (rant could continue for months and probably often did). Deborah, whistling 'Flower of Scotland' under her breath and rather admiring John of Gaunt, at least in Shakespeare From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 08:17:07 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:17:07 -0000 Subject: Godricks Hollow location and Secret Keeping business In-Reply-To: <67AD3B2A-A416-11DA-9D7E-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148656 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 22, 2006, at 08:06 PM, Wendy wrote: > > > With this new information about the secret keeper I was > > wondering if there will have to be a confrontation between > > Harry and Wormtail in the beginning of book 7? How else will > > Harry know how to find his parents house? Or because the house > > was destroyed was the secret also? > > Wendy > > > > > kchuplis: > > Can anyone please point me to where the *house* is not findable? > I am still not clear on why this is considered the case. > bboyminn: Let's see if I can address this one issue. First, we don't know whether the house or the graves will be visible or not, that's why we are discussing it. We don't know for sure what the subject of the Potter's Secret Keeper Charm was, or how the Charm was uniquely constructed to protect them. We are speculating on the many possibilities, and trying to come up with solutions that solve the inconsistencies. If the Potters themselves are the secret, then we should be able to see their house and their graves. Only there bodies would be hidden; bodies, but not the graves or the house. Just one problem, Harry is a Potter and should therefore still be protected by the Secret Keeper Charm, yet we can see him. That means that the Potters themselves were probably not the subject of the secret. So, if the location of the Potters was the secret, then the house would certainly be hidden as long as the Potters were there. Again, this has some problems; the books say that after the attack that killed Lily and James, muggles and the Ministry came to the house to investigate. As long as the Potters were they, no one, who didn't already know the secret, should be able to find the house. This leans away from the location being the secret. But as I have explained above, the Potters themselves being the secret is also flawed. Further, the Secret Keeper is still alive, and the location of the Potters is now their graves. If the location is the secret, then no one should be able to find or see the graves. Yet, if no one could find the graves, how were they able to be buried there? It is possible that if the location house was the secret, then when the house was destroyed, it no longer functionally served as a hiding place, and that broke the charm making the house visible to everyone. But then we are back to the graves again. The Potter currently reside in their graves, so they should be hidden by the Charm. Further, Harry Potter should still be covered by that protection and therefore be hidden, which he is not. Now, it is possible that the 'location' of the Potters, where ever that might be, was not the secret. Instead, it was the Potters in residence at that one specific location that was the secret. That solves some of the potential problem related to the Secret Keeper Charm. It is also possible that since the Potters died, there was no longer a secret to keep, but again, Harry is a Potter and presumably part of the secret, so he should be hidden by the charm were ever he is. The real problem is not knowing the exact nature and phrasing of the Potters' Secret. The best I can come up with is that the secret was specifically the Potters in residence at that one unique location. When the Potters died and/or the house was destroyed, there was no longer a secret to keep, and that nullified the Charm. Not a perfect explanation, but it solves most of the problems. So, I guess my point is that no one is saying that the house or the graves with or will not be visible. We are looking at this new information and trying resolve our knowledge of the books with this information, and clear up inconsistencies. Speculation on the house or graves not being visible is just a case of thinking out loud while we try to understand and resolve the problems. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From greatraven at hotmail.com Thu Feb 23 08:26:50 2006 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:26:50 -0000 Subject: Basic Education In-Reply-To: <708B9376-A439-11DA-91F9-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148657 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 22, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Rebecca Dreiling wrote: > > > Rebecca writes: > > I've always wondered about this particular thing.? I'm sure > > that it has to have been discussed but I'm curious to hear people > > opinions > > on it now. > > > > If most wizarding children don't start school until they enter Hogwarts > > where do they learn to read and write?? I don't recall any mention of > > it in > > the first book so I assume there isn't a basic english class. > > I know that Harry went to school before he entered Hogwarts but he was > > raised in a muggle house so it would make sense that he was taught to > > read. > > kchuplis: > > I don't know if this was a suggestion I read here or something in the > books or an article, but I thought that some homeschooled until then > (the Weasley's in particular I think this applied to) or some might go > to public schools even if not muggles? > Sue: Yes, I vaguely recall JKR saying they were schooled at home. Given how little the children' of wizarding families seem to know about the Muggle community or the Muggle lifestyle, you have to assume that very few of them go to regular primary schools! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 08:33:46 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:33:46 -0000 Subject: Snape Loved Lily, now with Secret Keeper switch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148658 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > > Sydney: > > > > ...If the secret can't be extorted or tortured out, and it > > dies with the Keeper, then why bother with the switch? > > Either JKR or Sirius wasn't firing on all cylinders on this > > one.. ). > > zgirnius: > Do we know it can't be extorted or tortured out? (AM I missing > some explanation of this?) > > Or are you just saying that Sirius would assume this to be the > case, were he the Secret Keeper? > bboyminn: Yes, I think Sydney may be operating under a false assumption here. JKR says that Keeper of the Secret can't be forced to reveal the secret against their will. That is Legilimen, Verituserum, and the Imperius Curse are useless because you are attempting to take the information without the Secret Keeper's consent. Extortion and Torture however are different. If you in essense blackmail or extort the information, the Secret holder is agreeing to give you the information in order to prevent certain threatened consequences. That same is true of torture. You are tortured to the point where you break, and voluntarily give up the information to stop the torture. In all the cases, the information is given up under duress, there is no doubt about that, but none the less, the Secret Keeper must choose to do it. But, as Sirius said, he would die before he gave up the information, so in his case, torture and extortion would not have worked. But, in general, I think they would. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From kkersey at swbell.net Thu Feb 23 10:08:22 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:08:22 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148659 It might be helpful to have this in front of you while reading my post: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html I love that Orion named his son Sirius. I didn't expect to find anything all that surprising in the recently revealed details of Black Family Tree, but this struck me: The names that appear on the Black Family Tree fall into three categories: *** Category 1: Descendants of Phineas Nigel born with the surname Black. (Birth and death dates are also listed for these persons.) *** Category 2: Spouses of persons in Category 1. *** Category 3: Draco Malfoy. Why is Draco the exception to the rule? Why does he get a full name and birthdate listed, rather than the "1s" we'd expect if the pattern used elsewhere on the family tree were followed in his case? Hmmm.... Perhaps because *he* is the true heir to the House of Black? How do names get on that Tapestry, anyway, and what is the significance? Ok, I know, BUT - the scene in HBP where Dumbledore tests whether or not Sirius's will was valid by seeing if Harry can control Kreacher has always bothered me a little bit: if Kreacher had already been ordered - by someone with the legitimate authority to do so - to obey Harry as if he really were the heir, wouldn't the results would have been the same? ******** We know that the tapestry is ancient - going back seven centuries if we take Kreacher's word for it. I think we can assume it is some sort of Magical Object - if nothing else, it is able to make room for each new generation. New names might be added via some sort of auto-update feature, or it might need to be maintained by members of the family; I lean toward the auto-update theory (thinking of the Weasley clock), but I don't think in the end it matters either way. Clearly there is a method for removing names, one that Sirius's mother made use of - blasting them off the tapestry. She also, according to Kreacher, "swore he [Sirius] was no son of hers" so I don't think it is too much of a stretch to assume that being blasted off the Tapestry would mean one is no longer considered a member of the House of Black. In fact, Sirius proposes this himself, when hypothesising that Kreacher refuses to obey Tonks because her *mother*, Andromeda, was blasted off the tree. I think he is half right there: even if Andromeda's name were still there, Tonks would be only a '1d', and I doubt that Kreacher would feel compelled to obey her. Still, Sirius makes the connection between being listed on the Tapestry and being able to control Kreacher, although he doesn't explain why his own name having been blasted off is not a problem. If a person's name being blasted off the tapestry truly means that person is disinherited, no longer a member of the House of Black, it might be the case that sirius never legitimately owned the estate. Let's assume that premise that being removed from the Tapestry means that one has truly ne disowned, and then look at the timeline: 1952 Sirius's grandfather Arcturus inherits the Black estate from his father. 1976 Sirius runs away from home and his mother blasts his name off the tapestry. 1979 Two events: Sirius's father and brother both die. The question of inheritance does not come up, however, since Arcturus is still alive. 1985 Mrs. Black, Sirius's mother, dies. 1991 Arcturus finally dies. *Now* the question of inheritance does come up: At this point the only living, non-disinherited male Black is Cygnus, father of the Bellatrix, Andromeda, and Narcissa. Other candidates would be Arcturus's daughter Lucretia Black Prewitt,a cousin Cassiopeia, or another cousin Callidora Black Longbottom, *if* females are allowed to inherit. 1992 Cygnus, Lucretia, and Cassiopeia all die. A tough year for the Black family! Now the only surviving Blacks (aside from the disinherited Andromeda and Sirus) are Bellatrix, Narcissa, and the elderly Callidora. Dumbledore speculated that when inheritance couldn't pass through the direct male line that tradition dictated, it might go to the oldest living relative - he mentioned Bellatrix, but I wonder if Callidora Black Longbottom wouldn't be a candidate in that case too, either upon the death of Arcturus or upon the death of any of his other possible successors. And her heir would be - ??? She does have a couple of children, and could possibly be Neville's great-grandmother. Or it might be the case that marrying out of the family disqualifys a woman from inheriting, in which case there really are no more Blacks left to inherit. Dumbledore feared that there may be a condition that the heir must be a Black - but what if another condition is that the heir must be male? If so, the house passes fairly straightforwardly from Arcturus to Cygnus, and upon Cygnus's death, to his only male descendant - Draco Malfoy. And that just might be the reason that Draco's name appears. Another possibility allowing for female inheritance is that Cygnus hung on a bit longer than Lucretia and Cassiopeia, and inherited from one of them. His eldest child Bellatrix would be next in line, but being incarcerated in Azkaban at the time, might not be able to claim her inheritance just then. Being childless herself, Draco would be next line so his name being on the tapestry still makes sense. Ok, I'm going to try to summarize my assumptions here: 1. The Tapestry is the authoritive document for showing who is a member of the House of Black 2. Only persons listed on the Tapestry with names and dates can inherit (i.e not spouses) 3. The House Elf has to obey members of the House of Black, as detemined by the Tapestry. I'm further assuming that listed spouses have control too; '1s 1d' children not so much, if at all. 4. Names can be removed by disowning a member of the family. Sirius claims it is his mother who blasted his name off, but never indicates who actually removed the other names. 5. Inheritance may be restricted to males, and if there are no male Blacks left, the male decendant of the last owner might just be the one to get the prize. Draco's name is listed on the Tapestry, by the way, while Sirius is still alive. Even if Sirius did really own the Black estate, upon his death it may be that Draco was the only male eleigible to inherit... ***** So, one last thought - seems like a lot of Blacks form various generations kicked the bucket 1990-1992. Wonder if there's a story there? Maybe just a round of Dragonpox. Elisabet the insomniac p.s. Sorry if any of this is hard to read - I had a much more coherent post, with quotes and citations and everything, that got eaten by Yahoomort yesterday. I'm sure it was Brilliant and I've forgotten all the best parts. :-( Now I'm composing in notepad and saving it. Live and learn. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Feb 23 10:58:22 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:58:22 -0000 Subject: Basic Education In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148660 Sue: > > Yes, I vaguely recall JKR saying they were schooled at home. Given how little the children' > of wizarding families seem to know about the Muggle community or the Muggle lifestyle, > you have to assume that very few of them go to regular primary schools! Ceridwen: JKR said in one of the faqs on her site (I think it's the other info envelope, don't have the time to bop over there) that WW children are homeschooled because they might, accidentally or on purpose, use magic at school (see Harry on the roof) and break the Acts of Secrecy. Ceridwen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Feb 23 11:20:30 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:20:30 -0000 Subject: Godricks Hollow location and Secret Keeping business In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148661 bboyminn: *(huge snip)* > The real problem is not knowing the exact nature and phrasing of the > Potters' Secret. The best I can come up with is that the secret was > specifically the Potters in residence at that one unique location. > When the Potters died and/or the house was destroyed, there was no > longer a secret to keep, and that nullified the Charm. Not a perfect > explanation, but it solves most of the problems. *(snip again)* Ceridwen: In HBP, Dumbledore says they moved from 12GP after Sirius died, in case Bellatrix inherited. That could mean that the owner/renter/legal occupant of the property has to give permission for the secret to remain in place. The former owner of 12GP is dead. There is a will bequeathing that property to a member of the Order, but the magical legalities are not yet assured. Due to entail or whatever the WW uses to keep a property in the bloodline, the new owner could be a DE. And if it is, Dumbledore himself isn't sure that she won't be able to waltz right in and take possession, which means that if she is the new owner, she can see it, and apparently can divulge its location to *her* friends, the other DEs and LV (otherwise, why move HQ? Why not just capture Bellatrix when she waltzes in?). This also may mean that Bellatrix knows about 12GP, she just can't see or find it since she isn't the owner. I took the entire discussion to mean that Bella could cause some sort of legal stink, unless the magic was in place for Harry to inherit. On the Dursleys knowing about 12GP, Dumbledore said the address right in front of them, and Harry, the new owner, called it HQ. They were talking as if the Dursleys were not in the room. I *think*, now that someone's brought it up and put the two together (not sure who any more, sorry!) that this was part of DD wrapping things up. He asked for Harry to stay once more at 4PD, could he have deliberately divulged the location of 12GP within their hearing so they can be taken there when all Heck breaks loose? Ceridwen. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 11:37:45 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:37:45 -0000 Subject: Godricks Hollow location and Secret Keeping business In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148662 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > If the Potters themselves are the secret, then we should be able to > see their house and their graves. Only there bodies would be hidden; > bodies, but not the graves or the house. Just one problem, Harry is a > Potter and should therefore still be protected by the Secret Keeper > Charm, yet we can see him. That means that the Potters themselves > were probably not the subject of the secret. Amiable Dorsai: This brings to mind an old question, what is the importance of the name of the the charm--"Fidelius"? The obvious root is "fidelitas" faithfulness. What if the charm requires just that, fidelity? Perhaps, when Peter violated the trust placed in him by spilling the secret to Voldemort, he broke the charm entirely. That would explain why Muggles were beginning to gather and why the Ministry's agents could find the place. It would also explain something that has always bothered me: Why didn't the Potters act as their own Secret Keepers? That would seem to be the logical solution to the problem of a suspected spy in the ranks. The answer would be that they couldn't, that an act of trust (on their part) was required to make the charm work. Amiable Dorsai From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 23 12:19:27 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:19:27 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148663 Elisabet wrote: >snipping of nice summary > 5. Inheritance may be restricted to males, and if there are no male > Blacks left, the male decendant of the last owner might just be the > one to get the prize. > > Draco's name is listed on the Tapestry, by the way, while Sirius is > still alive. Even if Sirius did really own the Black estate, upon his > death it may be that Draco was the only male eleigible to inherit... Potioncat: Oh, isnt' that family tree a wonderful box of candy! Lots of fun to look at wonder over. Thanks to JKR for making it and thanks to the folk who copied, by hand or computer, the information, and then put it out for the fans. I'd like to bring up a couple of points about it. First there are a number of errors that are either mistakes JKR made or mistakes the recorder made when copying the information. Several Blacks became parents in their very early teens if the dates are correct. Also, what JKR gave the public is a chart based on the tapestry, not the tapestry itself. Since it is the house of Black, none of the non- Black branches would need to show up anyway. 1d, 2s are named on some other family tree. Strictly speaking, Draco wouldn't either need to show up either. You could have a point when you ask if there is a "reason" he's there when he really wouldn't be, but I think he's there because he's a major character in the books. I think JKR quickly dealt with the inheritance to get it out of the way. We've lots of familiar names, but not enough information to know how closely related those individuals are to the characters we know. I doubt that Potter and Longbottom are the ones we first thought of, but I'd bet the two sets of Marauder-era Blacks are cousins to Rosier. > Elisabet: > So, one last thought - seems like a lot of Blacks form various > generations kicked the bucket 1990-1992. Wonder if there's a story > there? Maybe just a round of Dragonpox. Potioncat: I noticed that too. Had it been the '80s I wouldn't have thought much of it. What was going on in 92? Dragonpox works for me. > > Elisabet the insomniac > > p.s. Sorry if any of this is hard to read - I had a much more coherent > post, with quotes and citations and everything, that got eaten by > Yahoomort yesterday. I'm sure it was Brilliant and I've forgotten all > the best parts. :-( Now I'm composing in notepad and saving it. > Live and learn. Potioncat: That's how it is with me. The better written the post, the more likely it will be eaten by Yahoo-mort...none of you have any idea of the gems of wisdom which have been lost. (not to mention my glasses, the car keys...) > From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 12:58:14 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:58:14 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148664 > Elisabet: > > So, one last thought - seems like a lot of Blacks form various > > generations kicked the bucket 1990-1992. Wonder if there's a story > > there? Maybe just a round of Dragonpox. > > Potioncat: > I noticed that too. Had it been the '80s I wouldn't have thought much > of it. What was going on in 92? Dragonpox works for me. > > Neri: I'd say it's more likely to be a bad case of Rowlingitis than dragonpox. You see, at the end of 1993 Sirius breaks out of Azkaban, and the existence of other Blacks at that time might needlessly complicate the plot. Moreover, at 1995 Sirius needs to be, according to the plot, the last of the Blacks, so JKR had to dispose of all the other branches in a hurry. But I won't be surprised if the actual symptoms looked a lot like dragonpox. Hmm, here's another solution that works for me: Lucius was coveting 12GP for his son, and getting rid of all the competition. Neri From rachelday at blueyonder.co.uk Thu Feb 23 09:31:44 2006 From: rachelday at blueyonder.co.uk (dream_catcher3010) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:31:44 -0000 Subject: Arcturus - Dying star & the mirror Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148665 Hi everyone, I was talking to my sister last night and she mentioned that Arcturus is a red giant. Now, we know that a lot of the Blacks are named for stars but do you think it has any significance that this is a star that is about to die? I don't know what I think about it yet but it struck me as very interesting, and I'd love to hear peoples thoughts on the subject. Also, has anyone got any thoughts on where the other half of the two- way mirror is now? Did Sirius have it with him? What role do you think this will play in the next book? Rachel From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 16:38:15 2006 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (fuzz876i) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:38:15 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: <001501c637bc$de5eec60$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148666 lolita_ns wrote: > I repeat, *no > one* but PP, Sirius and the Potters knew of the switch, so, in order > for Hagrid to be able to find the house, the Secret had to have been > revelaed to him by the SK. And it hadn't been, for he honestly > believed that Sirius had been the SK... Questions, questions.... > kchuplis: > > Isn't it said in the conversation that Harry overhears at the Three Broomsticks that someone could have pressed their face on the sitting room window and not been able to see the Potters due to the Fidelious Charm? I was under the impression it kept *The Potters* protected. Not the house necessarily. > fuzz876i: I am going to take a shot at this. In Prisoner of Azkaban in the Three Broomsticks Hagrid, Fudge, and Professors McGonagall and Flitwick are discussing the Fidelius Charm. " The information s hidden inside the chosen person, or secret keeper, and is henceforth impossible to find-unless, unless of course, the Secret-Keeper chooses to divulge it. You-Know-Who could search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their sitting room window!" (POA American version chapter The Marauder's Map page 203). Everyone thought that Sirius Black at this point was the Potter's Secret- Keeper at this point and that he had been spy for Lord Voldemort. "Remus!" Pettigrew squeaked turning to Lupininstead writhing imploringly in front of him. "You don't believe this....wouldn't Sirius have told you they'd changed the plan?" "Not if he thought I was the spy, Peter." said Lupin. "I assume that is why you didn't tell me, Sirius?" he said casually over Pettigrew's head." (POA Chapter The Servant of Lord Voldemort pgs 372-373). When the plan change was revealed it was too late to do anything about the sentence that Black was serving in Azkaban because Dumbledore gave evidence that Black was the Potter's Secret-Keeper. Pettigrew knew that he was working for Voldemort and the one thing he wanted was to find the baby that would be his downfall because he had only heard part of the prophecy, therefore assuming it was the Potters. Even though they did not know this they knew that Voldemort was after them this lead them to use the Fidelius Charm. In my opinion they were concealed and not their house because unless the Secret-Keeper revealed their exact location then whoever was looking for them could peer through their window and not see them. Pettigrew knew this and instead of dying for the cause turned spy and revealed the Potters location to Voldemort and then had to fake his own death to escape prosecution for being a deatheater. fuzz876i From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Feb 23 14:25:20 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:25:20 -0000 Subject: Basic Education In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148667 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca Dreiling" wrote: > > Rebecca writes: > I've always wondered about this particular thing. I'm sure > that it has to have been discussed but I'm curious to hear people opinions > on it now. > > If most wizarding children don't start school until they enter Hogwarts > where do they learn to read and write? I don't recall any mention of it in > the first book so I assume there isn't a basic english class. > I know that Harry went to school before he entered Hogwarts but he was > raised in a muggle house so it would make sense that he was taught to read. > Pippin: JKR's website FAQ says that wizard children are mostly home-schooled before they go to Hogwarts. I suppose that in the case of less enlightened headmasters than Dumbledore and less important students than Harry, no great effort was made to follow up on students who didn't respond to Hogwarts letters. That would self-select for literate students, magic or Muggle. I'd guess that far fewer Muggle students made it to Hogwarts in the days before literacy became common in the Muggle world, which would put some developing social and economic pressure behind the purebloods' support of Voldemort's radicalism. Pippin From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 23 14:32:27 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:32:27 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Godricks Hollow location and Secret Keeping business References: Message-ID: <001001c63885$f8a4e600$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 148668 ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve So, I guess my point is that no one is saying that the house or the graves with or will not be visible. We are looking at this new information and trying resolve our knowledge of the books with this information, and clear up inconsistencies. Speculation on the house or graves not being visible is just a case of thinking out loud while we try to understand and resolve the problems. kchuplis: Thanks all! I can't see at *all* why the secret would be still in effect once James and Lily are dead. To be honest, everything we've heard is "Voldemort was after James and Lily". DD knew about the prophecy but in one of those well meaning moves where we miss the obvious and instead, they probably *should* have made Harry the secret, not James and Lily or all three specifically. He must have been included somehow, but not specifically. Maybe I am being too simplistic again, but since the secret was to keep them safe, it seems their death would nullify it. But I'll continue to watch all the speculation. I wasn't clear on it because I miss things and it seemed like everything I read here was related to canon somehow so I was confoosed!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 14:29:15 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:29:15 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148669 > > Christina: > I really wish that the FAQ question had been a more general one about > the FC, but we can't always get what we want. I think that it's > necessary to do a little fudging with the concept; otherwise, why > doesn't somebody just put Harry under the FC - the secret being "Harry > Potter exists" or "Harry Potter is in the UK" - then he could dance in > the street without anybody knowing he was there, free to track down > Voldemort's horcruxes and finally LV himself, all while being visible > to a select few. Finwitch: Actually, that sort of spell would be quite dangerous... While wild nature has the invisibility (back-ground-matchin colouring) as a benefit, traffic for instance, requires that you be seen. In addition, such spell would disable Harry from going shopping, getting attention in hospital etc. impossible, and I doubt that a piece of information that everyone (in wiz. world, anyway) *already knows* can be put under Fidelius. As for forgetting an adress etc. Why not? She hasn't visited all that often, has she? She probably wouldn't even notice unless she needed it. People do forget things all the time. Finwitch From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Feb 23 14:34:23 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:34:23 -0000 Subject: Godricks Hollow location and Secret Keeping business In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148670 bboyminn: > If the Potters themselves are the secret, then we should be able to > see their house and their graves. Only there bodies would be > hidden; bodies, but not the graves or the house. Just one problem, > Harry is a Potter and should therefore still be protected by the > Secret Keeper Charm, yet we can see him. That means that the > Potters themselves were probably not the subject of the secret. Jen: Harry is a Potter, and also one who changed form after the curse-that-failed. What if due to the transfer of powers (or Harry is a horcrux if preferable) the Fidelius was broken for Harry? In magical terms he wasn't the same person afterward. This is a critical part of the story that Harry changed that night in some sense, and may be part of the reason why Dumbledore and others are so intent on reminding him his true self is James' and Lily's son and he is like *them*, not Voldemort. I'm not sure a magical charm like the Fidelius would be as discerning as a human, though. Amiable Dorsai: > This brings to mind an old question, what is the importance of the > name of the the charm--"Fidelius"? > > The obvious root is "fidelitas" faithfulness. What if the charm > requires just that, fidelity? > > Perhaps, when Peter violated the trust placed in him by spilling > the secret to Voldemort, he broke the charm entirely. Jen: I like this option. Seems like it could be a form of love magic if Dumbledore believed so faithfully in it he suggested it to the Potters. Wonder if there's any implication for the Unbreakable in this idea? It's based on distrust, seems like. Jen From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 23 14:35:26 2006 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:35:26 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question - Confussion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148671 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > That's just it, ONLY the Secret Keeper can reveal the location. JKR > said, if James, as the subject of the secret, were captured, he would > have been unable to reveal the location of Lily and Harry. He is not > the Secret Keeper, so he can not speak the secret. I have to assume > the same holds true for Harry. > > Just to confuse things, <> > > Marianne: > > > > I think that perhaps this part is getting needlessly complicated. > > If Peter, the Secret Keeper revealed the secret to Vmort, then the > > secret is essentially over. There was no more secret. ... > > > > bboyminn: > > That is also a popular misconception. Dumbledore has revealed the > 'secret' to dozens of people; The Order, Harry, Ron, Hermione, the > Twins, possibly even Percy. So, the 'secret' can't be broken by > revealing it. > > I suspect, and only suspect, that Harry was able to reveal the secret > because 'headquaters' was in a new location, a location that was still > secret and covered by the Secret Keeper Charm. In a sense, when 12 > Grimmauld Place and the 'secret' disassociated themselves, 12 > Grimmauld Place was no longer hidden. > > When Lily and James died, we have a similar disassociation. With their > death their is no longer a secret that needs keeping. Sounds good, > just one problem, Harry was still alive, and if we assume that the > secret involves all three of them as JKR implies, then the secret > continued. Perhaps like Grimmauld Place, the 'secret' moves with the > subjects. In other words, the secret was the location of the Potters. > When the Potters moved, the secret moved with them. Just as the > 'headquarters' secret has moved from Grimmauld Place to it's new > location. > > Now, I have to conclude that there is a way in which the 'secret' can > be removed; that is, the Secret Keeper Charm can be canceled. Though > that seems a huge flaw in the protection. If the secret was the > location of the Potters where ever they may be, then Harry should > still be protected. Since Harry is at Privet Drive, then Number Four > should be a secret. The milkman and the postman should not be able to > find it. But they can, so obviously there is a flaw in my thinking. Marianne: Well, I don't know if there's necessarily a flaw in your thinking. This is probably another one of those things that drive JKR crazy because she has all these thousands of obsessed fans who nitpick this stuff to death! I wonder (not backed by canon certainly and not something I articulated yesterday) if this may be another area where intent plays a part. The Secret remains with the SK and can only be revealed by the SK. However, if the Keeper goes through this agreement/bond/whatever with people and then *willfully* breaks the intent of it, s/he breaks the charm. Peter agreed to become the Potters SK, where everyone thought the intent was to provide them with protection. Peter willingly betrays the secret, and thus breaks the magical underpinnings of the Charm. His actions revoke everything, so whatever protection was at GH or on the Potters specifically, is gone. Anyone can show up and find the house and the bodies with no difficulty. This would explain why Hagrid and Sirius could find the house and/or the bodies of the Potters. I know JKR didn't say anything about intent, but I would agree that there are still holes in this entire SK thing. Marianne, who's head has stopped spinning From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Feb 23 14:56:03 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:56:03 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148672 This has turned out to be very long. I've cobbled it together from parts of an even longer half-written post that's been lying around for ages, which I've been cannibalising a bit recently, so some bits may look familiar. Alla: Yes, it is depends on what our assumptions are, doesn't it? I still do not see any evidence of Snape informing Dumbledore about third clause of the UV. Dung: No, you're right, there is no evidence. It is never mentioned again after we see it. Snape presumably didn't tell Draco about clause 3 because it would have reinforced Draco's belief that Snape wanted the glory for himself, thus Harry doesn't know about it either. But we do know about it. I suspect there's a good reason why we do and Harry doesn't. Alla: I mean, he could have done that, sure, but correct me if I am wrong, you seem to agree that Snape WAS stupid to take the Vow, because of the third clause, no? I apologise if I am reading you incorrectly, but if I am reading you correctly and Snape is at that moment either wavering or loyal to DD, when Snape EVER admits in canon that he is wrong about something? Dung: Phoooooo... You want me to call Snape stupid? Nah. I try not to call people stupid (even fictional characters who can't insult me back) unless I'm absolutely certain that in their position I'd have done something much more clever, and frankly, I would never have been in Snape's position in the first place, I'd have high-tailed it out of the UK years before. And even if I *had* somehow ended up in that position I don't know what I would have done differently. If he'd refused clause 3, the game would have been up, wouldn't it? Bella would have been *certain* that Snape had been stringing Voldy along, and she'd have run straight back to Voldy to tell him. That would pretty much mean death for Snape if he ever set foot outside Hogwarts again, not to mention the loss of Dumbledore's best source of information. What kind of plausible excuse could he have given Bella for refusing clause 3? He's already admitted to both of them that he thinks this is what Voldemort wants in the end, anyway. Alla: Keep in mind that I am NOT talking about Evil Snape right now, I am talking about Stupid!Snape ( I know, it is hard to imagine, but try just for the sake of the argument :-)), Snape under influence of DADA curse, whatever. Snape admitting to Dumbledore that he was outplayed by Narcissa and Bella? Sorry don't see it at all. IMO of course. Dungrollin: You're right, Snape has never admitted that he's wrong, ever. Not on- page. Although... he didn't hex Sirius and pack him off to the Aurors in OotP, so I reckon he must have accepted that Sirius *wasn't* the one who betrayed the Potters' Fidelius Charm. Accepting isn't the same as a public admission, of course, but it's evidence that at least once in the past he was wrong, and he didn't stubbornly insist that he was right and carry on regardless. So no, we've never seen him admit he was wrong on-page, but if DD was telling the truth that Snape told him he was remorseful (about ... something), then it's a fair bet that he admitted he'd been wrong about something then. I don't think that Snape not admitting he's wrong to, or in front of *Harry* (and thus to the reader) means he wouldn't admit it to someone else ? someone who wouldn't take quite so much delight in the spectacle, for example, like Dumbledore. However, there's a more important 'but': I think that Bella and Cissy's visit to Spinner's End was instigated by Voldy (outlined in message 148303). I don't think Snape would have too much difficulty in admitting to DD in private that *Voldemort* had out-foxed him (remember in one of the Occlumency lessons when Harry's repeatedly using Voldemort's name? Snape makes it quite obvious that he doesn't take Voldy lightly). By all means criticise Snape's choices, but please explain what better course of action he could have taken and how he could have known that it was a more sensible choice *at the time* ? i.e a better course of action that does *not* rely on 20/20 hindsight. Alla: And of course if Dumbledore only knew that Snape has to protect Draco, but not to do the deed himself, I can see Dumbledore to go along with it. Dung: Go along with what? There wouldn't be anything to go along with if DD didn't know about clause 3. Dumbledore would simply know that when Draco failed in his task (as he surely would) Snape would have to look after him, make sure he didn't get arrested, and make sure he didn't try to return to Voldemort (who would certainly kill him). DD would have intended to overpower Draco, cover up whatever happened from the Ministry, get Narcissa into hiding, and keep Draco at school. Pretty much what they'd have done without the vow at all. Unfortunately, since Snape reckons that Voldy wants him to finish the task when Draco fails *before* anyone even mentions an Unbreakable Vow, it would still entail Snape leaving the Death Eaters for good (he would be under no obligation to kill DD ? he could refuse, but not without blowing his cover), and there goes DD's best source of inside information. DD has only to worry about Draco's plot (which all are convinced is doomed to failure anyway), and his best spy being outed. Alla: But if Dumbledore knew about third clause, I am not so sure. Dumbledore has a dangerous road of Horcruxes hunting in front of himself and Harry. Are you saying that he would be SO confident to leave Harry to it and just easily die to save Snape? I am just asking to clarify, I am not sure if that is what you are saying. Dung: Let's just go back a bit (please be patient, it's relevant), back to before the vow. I'm hanging my conviction that Snape already knew about Draco's task on that "He intends me to do it in the end, I think" in Spinner's End, ok? So Snape comes back from the DE meeting at which he learns this and DD debriefs him. "Draco has joined the Death Eaters, and Voldemort has ordered him to murder you. Voldemort clearly doesn't think Draco's capable of it, he hasn't said it in so many words, but I'm almost certain he wants me to prove my loyalty to him once and for all by finishing the job when Draco fails." Right, so that's the way the land lies, let's try to find some wiggle room and use the situation for our own ends, thinks DD. Perhaps they hoped that Draco would never get around to making a serious attempt on DD's life, so Snape could hang on in his role of spy a little while longer, before Voldy declared Draco dead, and officially put Snape on the case. Perhaps they hoped that they could pull off a convincing stunt in which DD survived Draco and Snape's attack (leaving Snape vulnerable to Voldy's displeasure), but which would anyway force Snape to leave Hogwarts. Since this would be the first time that Snape had failed at something for the Dark Lord, he might be grudgingly let off for the time being ? like Bella after OotP, but after the attempted murder of Dumbledore, he'd be a fugitive from the Ministry, and it would be much more difficult for him to report to the Order and DD. It's certainly not an easy situation; DD knows that before the year is out, Snape's position as spy will be compromised. Since DD gave Snape the DADA job around this time, I suppose they were probably going with the Snape Leaves Hogwarts After Both He And Draco Fail ruse. But then Spinner's End happens and the Unbreakable Vow makes everything a lot worse. Bella's being difficult, so Snape calmly answers her objections with all his and DD's pre-prepared responses ? the ones that worked so well on Voldemort (or at least, well enough so that it's a year after Voldy's rebirth before he decides to test Snape's loyalty). For some reason, it doesn't seem to work on Bella, she remains suspicious. Snape really tries very hard to convince her (as much as he's spewing out information for the reader's benefit) and he leisurely takes several pages to answer her objections. Finally he offers to help Draco, Narcissa asks him to make the Unbreakable Vow, and Bella scoffs assuming that he won't and that this is proof of treachery. Snape thinks, I can look after Draco and see he comes to no harm ? Dumbledore *already* wants me to do that anyway... So, to silence Bella, he agrees. Then there's the final clause of the vow, which he wasn't expecting ? he was expecting to 'help' (which can be interpreted in many ways, not only in the performing of the task) and protect Draco, but there's a catch. His hand twitches as he realises it (does he realise at the same time that this is a trap Voldy has set?), he hesitates while Bellatrix watches, realises that his options have run out, and agrees. It's over, the vow will kill him, but at least he'll maintain his cover until Draco's attempt. I *wouldn't* go so far as to call him suicidal, but he certainly risks his life *every* time he lies to Voldemort, and I doubt that he thinks he'll live to see the end of the war, anyway. It might even have been a relief ? we don't know how you die when you break an Unbreakable Vow, but it's quite possibly less painful than being tortured and killed by Voldemort. So, to answer your point above: If Snape hadn't told DD about clause 3 (for some reason I keep typing '4' by accident), I completely see where you're coming from, and it's possible, yep (I don't like it, but hey). In that case Snape is duplicitous and Slytherinish and a complete bastard and deserves no mercy. Sure. But like you said, we have no evidence either way. Just (try to) imagine that he *did*, imagine that immediately after Bella and Cissy leave, Snape goes straight to Hogwarts, up to Dumbledore's office, walks in and says "He's caught me out at last. I'm going to die." He then confesses all that happened, that he agreed to take the vow to allay Bella's suspicions (and she did look mightily shocked when he agreed) and because he thought that all Cissy wanted was some protection for Draco. As soon as Cissy added that last clause, he realised that this was a cunning trap set by Voldemort, and he'd walked straight into it. Everything above is basically a long preamble (which I probably should have bothered to write out in the last post rather than trying to be concise) to the question: What choice could Dumbledore make in this situation that would satisfy the moralists? How would Dumbledore react to this news? Several lives are in danger, here. Dumbledore's, obviously, Draco's ? if he fails Voldy will kill him and Narcissa, and possibly get Lucius out of Azkaban so he can watch/die too, and of course, Snape's (if he fails to fulfil his vow, he dies). Their best bet is to prevent Draco making any attempts, so Snape tries to keep an eye on him, but Draco has been tutored by Bella (again, is this on Voldy's say-so?), who perhaps (despite the vow) still doesn't trust Snape, and so Draco's having none of it. This is the major spanner in the works. If Draco had at least trusted Snape, they would have had a chance to scrape together some sort of plan ? tell Draco he's been discovered and must leave Hogwarts before he's even made an attempt? Something, anyway. But Draco's not playing ball, Snape doesn't know what he's planning, and so he and DD have no chance of stopping him. Do you really think that if the above were the case, Dumbledore would say "Sorry, Severus old chum, but you're not going to make it through this one. I'm much more important than you are for the war effort, you know. If you hadn't taken the vow, we could have done *something*, but since the vow was *your* mistake, *you're* the one who's going to have to pay the price. Oh, and by the way, I found this ring that's got a terrible curse on it, can you save my life this afternoon, if you're not too busy? (Don't expect me to pay you back in kind, or anything ? I'm more important than you, remember?) And you'd better keep a close eye on Draco, too, all this year: if push comes to shove and one of the other Death Eaters gets me, you and he are toast, so do try to find out what he's up to, won't you? Do you want a medium or large coffin? I can order it by owl this afternoon..." Alla: I mean, if you argue Superspy!Snape, then I guess I can see your POV, but I am still under impression that Dumbledore would have been more helpful to the cause as alive than dead. Dung: I don't think anyone would disagree that DD is more use alive than dead, but I'm not sure you meant quite that... You meant more use than Snape, right? "The duel with the Dark Lord last month shook him. He has since sustained a serious injury because his reactions are slower than they once were." *I* probably would have agreed with you, despite that quote, but what do you think *Dumbledore* thought? Do you not think he would have gone through all possible scenarios in his head? Do you think he was only thinking about the fight against Voldemort? Do you think it escaped his attention that he was 150, Snape was in his thirties and Draco was 16? Remember, he had almost a whole year to think about this before it actually happened. Alla: Having said all that, I wonder about your take on whether Snape was lying or telling the truth in general in Spinner's End. If you argue that Voldemort told Snape about Draco's task is true, doesn't it strengthen ESE!Snape argument? He knows what Draco task is and STILL takes the Vow? I mean, Okay you argue that third clause was a surprise, but still - agreeing to protect Draco while little shmuck tries to kill Headmaster, isn't it a bit too close to being accessory? Dungrollin: I hope that what I've written above makes it obvious. Snape already knew that Voldy wanted him to finish Draco's task when Draco failed, and he had already discussed this with DD *before he took the vow*. I'm sure their first thought was to try to convince Draco to tell Snape what he was up to (one DE to another) ? so Snape had better look after him and watch him closely this year... The DDM!Snape interpretation of all the reasons he gives Bella for his loyalty to Voldemort is pretty standard ? he's lying, he's a spy. Alla: I mean, I will be VERY happy to learn that everything that Snape said in Spinner's End was true, but that would mean that blood of Emmeline Vance and Sirius is on his hands. Dung: Yeah I know you would. I'd feel decidedly short-changed. Alla: The only way out I see for DD!M(sort of)Snape is for him not to know about the task and then take the UV because of his affection for Draco, DADA curse, etc. THEN Snape in my mind has some road to redemption. That is IMO of course. But Snape knowing that Draco's task is the Headmaster's assasination and agreeing to protect Draco, I can only see him as evil. Dung: He's pretending to be a *Death Eater* so that he can spy on them, Alla. Do you really think that he's in a position to say "No, I'm sorry Narcissa, I'm not going to help Draco - you know full-well that I'm firmly morally opposed to killing, and this would be *murder*." What plausible excuse could he give for slithering out of action *again*? In fact, it's even possible that he deliberately took the vow because he hoped it would make Bella and Draco trust him enough to be let in on their plans. If so, it rather backfired, but being a spy necessitates taking a few risks, you know. I maintain that it was a Voldy trap, and Voldy wanted to be sure of Snape's *absolute* loyalty, so he effectively cut his choices down to "either you're on my side, or you're dead." One question ? try to think back to your first read of HBP. When you were reading Spinner's End, and you got to the last few lines of the chapter, did clause 3 surprise you? Or had you been *expecting* Narcissa to trap Snape into agreeing to carry out Draco's task all along? I certainly hadn't. And I doubt that Snape had, either. It was pretty out of the blue, almost below the belt in fact ? that's not what he'd *agreed* to vow at all. Sorry it was so long ? I hope there was more meat than waffle. Dungrollin D.E.L.U.S.I.O.N.A.L. since 16.vii.2005 From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 14:58:42 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:58:42 -0000 Subject: The new questions, and Peverell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148673 > bboyminn: > > I don't think the wizard world has their OWN royalty. They are all, in > this case, citizens of Britain, and the muggle British Royalty would > also be their royalty. a_svirn: Goes without saying. > bboyminn: > > Further, I see no reason why a ramdon wizard or witch couldn't occur > in the many Royal families found in Europe across it's substantial > expanse of history. > > So, being among the Royals doesn't eliminate the possibility that you > could also be a wizrds, a_svirn: I understand that it doesn't eliminate the possibility. What's puzzling me is why it's suddenly so important for the good, old Tom. > bboyminn: > On another point, the House of Gaunt is a royal house. a_svirn: Which was part of my point, wasn't it? (Although house was actually "of Lancaster") From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Feb 23 15:20:34 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:20:34 -0000 Subject: Teaching morality in the Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148674 Pippin: I think JKR believes that people have both an innate moral sense and an innate desire to choose good, but these may be damaged, either genetically as in the vein of instability and arrogance that runs through the Gaunt line, or through mistreatment. Moreover, moral abilities need time and training to develop, just like the abilities to walk and talk, and like these abilities they seem to develop in stages. The child characters have a primitive sense of justice -- whoever wrongs me should be punished, whoever helps me should be rewarded -- but the more mature characters find it rewarding to submit their individual interests to the greater good and also view rewards and punishments as tools to alter behavior rather than a means of gratification. However a great many characters have not made these transitions very well, and I think JKR uses the baby imagery to show us who they are. Even when these abilities develop properly, they don't entirely replace the primitive gratifications of comeuppance and favoritism, so to compensate for this, and also for the very many damaged individuals, there are secondary systems -- the moral guidance of families, social pressure, and formal systems of rules and laws, though these too may revert to childish notions of justice. What is special about Harry is that although he many times imagines that he would enjoy seeing his enemies suffer, he never actually does. This makes him different even from Dumbledore, who seemed to enjoy watching the wine glasses bounce off the Dursleys' heads, and very different from Riddle. I believe Dumbledore attributes this to the extraordinary power of love he sees in Harry, and believes it will help Harry to hold out against the great temptation that Voldemort can offer even to those who would naturally oppose him -- the power to harm their enemies. Riddle was not born evil, IMO, but in clinging to his primitive childish conception of justice, and still more in encouraging others to do so, he has become evil. I believe Rowling considers him less culpable than some of her other villains because he did not know what love was when he chose to reject it. Pippin From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 16:09:23 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:09:23 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148675 Finwitch: Well, IIRC, Sirius, upon finding the tapestry, after explaining things to Harry, blasts off everyone in it. So if it's the case of 'being in the tapestry', maybe Sirius just added Harry into it so he can inherit or something? In addition, since Sirius - although his mother blasted him off - was her descendant, well... It may also be that Sirius' name, *Black*, counted more than Bellatrix Lestrange & Narcissa Malfoy's precence in the Tapestry. As Phineas Nigellus said: 'Last of the Blacks'. Or maybe inheritance required that you had black hair! Harry has such, you know, as did Sirius... Don't recall the two sisters' hair colour, though... Finwitch From erikog at one.net Thu Feb 23 16:20:46 2006 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:20:46 -0000 Subject: Baby!Mort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148676 Overheard between Jen and Dung: >>JKR did say in the TLC/MN interview there was something significant about the fetal form Voldemort took prior to a full body: >>Dung: She did indeed. Bit stumped about that, to be honest. It has to be some kind of illustration of the state of Voldy's soul, doesn't it? Or an illustration of how debased the spells and unicorn blood/nagini venom that Wormtail used to produce baby!mort were. >> Apologies if someone else has suggested this before, but what if? we needed to be aware of Diaper!Mort before, so that Harry can? then send him back to baby-stage during the Final Confrontation,? winning by incapacitating Voldie? I'm not sure how I feel about a stunted Voldie (vs. a safely dead one),? but it would at least save Harry from the soul-tearing of murder.? Krista From erikog at one.net Thu Feb 23 16:22:06 2006 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:22:06 -0000 Subject: Snape (sigh, hearts) and Baby Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148677 Carol earlier: >>Carol, once again asking 1) what purpose is served by having Snape at Godric's Hollow, 2) how he could have been there when we know he was teaching at Hogwarts at the time, 3) how and why PP would have revealed the secret to him, and 4) what canon evidence can be shown to indicate that he was there. << What if Snape wasn't there on Voldie's side, but came after-the-fact? I'm out on research and away from my books, but do we know for sure who was the first to go fetch baby Harry? Maybe Snape came charging in after-the-fact, arrived at a pile of steaming rubble to his dismay, sat down, near to tears (sniffles with Snape), heard a baby cry and lo....there with James' face and Lily's eyes was this little baby...And what does anybody do with a strange creature that you can't take care of, but hand him over to Hagrid ASAP? Krista (ready to cry herself over all the terrible scenarios re: Snape *joins those who heart the Potions Master*) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 16:44:45 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:44:45 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148678 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fuzz876i" wrote: > kchuplis: > > > > Isn't it said in the conversation that Harry overhears at the > Three Broomsticks that someone could have pressed their face on the sitting room window and not been able to see the Potters due to the Fidelious Charm? I was under the impression it kept *The Potters* protected. Not the house necessarily. > > > > fuzz876i: > I am going to take a shot at this. In Prisoner of Azkaban in the > Three Broomsticks Hagrid, Fudge, and Professors McGonagall and > Flitwick are discussing the Fidelius Charm. " The information s > hidden inside the chosen person, or secret keeper, and is henceforth impossible to find-unless, unless of course, the Secret- Keeper chooses to divulge it. You-Know-Who could search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their sitting room window!" (POA American version chapter The Marauder's Map page 203). Tonks: Perhaps I have been morphing a bit too much lately head is swimming. Or maybe it is the discussion here? Feeling SO confused. If the FC made the Potter's invisible and when the secret keeper dies the secret dies with him, but PP isn't dead he just told was the secret to be kept "only" from LV? In other words was it only LV that could not see the Potters? Otherwise how do you explain that everyone can see Harry now? Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 17:18:50 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:18:50 -0000 Subject: House of my Father - Kissing Cousins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148679 I don't recall this ever being discussed after the latest Black Family Tree information was released- http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html In OotP, Mrs. Black in one of her hysterical rants uses the term '...house of my father...'. Well that seems odd since Mrs. Black married into the Black family, so really, the Black house shouldn't be the House of her father, it should be the house of her husbands father. In the past, I have simply considered it a figure of speech indicating that by marriage she now considered herself a Black. But, she was a Black in name before her marriage. Perhaps someone who understands all this 'second cousing twice removed' stuff can glace at the family tree and determine exactly what Mrs. Black relationship was to her husband before marriage. (fourth cousins?) Both Mr and Mrs Black have a common ancestor at Phineas Nigellus. That would be Sirius's Great Great Grandfather. I supose that makes them both genetically and legally distant enough cousins that their marriage wouldn't be a problem. So, Sirius and Regulus are the product of the marriage of Orion Black and Walburga Black. All I can say is - odd but strange. Steve - bboyminn PS: A short public apology to both Christina and Carol. In recent posts I have agree with them in a way in which my agreement wasn't clear. In a sense, I agree in a way that came off as a somewhat negative disagreement. This frequently happens when I'm making a general statement to the subject, but responding in post to a specific person, and that usually causes confusion. I promise I am going to work on prefacing such general posts in a way that makes my intent clear. Sorry. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 17:33:52 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:33:52 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148680 > Dung: > If he'd refused clause 3, the game would have been up, wouldn't it? > Bella would have been *certain* that Snape had been stringing Voldy > along, and she'd have run straight back to Voldy to tell him. That > would pretty much mean death for Snape if he ever set foot outside > Hogwarts again, not to mention the loss of Dumbledore's best source > of information. What kind of plausible excuse could he have given > Bella for refusing clause 3? He's already admitted to both of them > that he thinks this is what Voldemort wants in the end, anyway. Alla: I will mercilessly snip some parts of your lovely post, because some points which I absolutely do not see playing out, I cannot even rebut, because I cannot imagine them in my head even for the sake of the argument. Sorry! SURE, if Snape had refused only clause 3 the game would be up, no question about it. What I am NOT sure about is whether the game would be up if Snape refused to take UV at all. But again this is goes from different assumptions we have. I am NOT as sure as you are that the meeting was instigated by Voldemort, I can totally see Narcissa going to Snape of her own initiative and Bella tagging along maybe hoping to give Voldemort useful spying info, BUT I see no definite evidence that Voldemort was behind arranging the meeting in the first place, from very beginning. > Dungrollin: > You're right, Snape has never admitted that he's wrong, ever. Not on- > page. Although... he didn't hex Sirius and pack him off to the > Aurors in OotP, so I reckon he must have accepted that Sirius > *wasn't* the one who betrayed the Potters' Fidelius Charm. Accepting > isn't the same as a public admission, of course, but it's evidence > that at least once in the past he was wrong, and he didn't > stubbornly insist that he was right and carry on regardless. Alla: But Snape was not in any position to do that to Sirius. I am guessing that if he values his position and Dumbledore's protection, he was doing what is best for him, namely don't touch the man whom Dumbledore openly acknowledged as his ally. I don't think it equals in any way shape or form Snape acknowledging he was wrong in PoA. But that is JMO of course. Dungrollin: So no, > we've never seen him admit he was wrong on-page, but if DD was > telling the truth that Snape told him he was remorseful (about ... > something), then it's a fair bet that he admitted he'd been wrong > about something then. > > I don't think that Snape not admitting he's wrong to, or in front of > *Harry* (and thus to the reader) means he wouldn't admit it to > someone else ? someone who wouldn't take quite so much delight in > the spectacle, for example, like Dumbledore. Alla: Yes, I suppose that is one of those different assumptions again. I said many times that I want Snape to say that he was wrong himself. But say he was indeed remorseful in the past, where do we see him acknowledging that he was wrong within the time line of the story, on the page? I mean, besides Snape as you said not giving Sirius to aurors in OOP, because I am very honestly puzzled how Snape could pull this one off without Dumbledore doing many bad things to him. Dungrollin: >> By all means criticize Snape's choices, but please explain what > better course of action he could have taken and how he could have > known that it was a more sensible choice *at the time* ? i.e a > better course of action that does *not* rely on 20/20 hindsight. Alla: Absolutely, as I said above, he should not have taken UV AT ALL, IMO of course. He should have told Narcissa that she is NOT supposed to divulge Dark Lord confidence and threw them both out and Bella could have been even happy with it, IMO. But again, I am not sure that meeting was instigated by Voldy. > Dung: > So, to answer your point above: > If Snape hadn't told DD about clause 3 (for some reason I keep > typing '4' by accident), I completely see where you're coming from, > and it's possible, yep (I don't like it, but hey). In that case > Snape is duplicitous and Slytherinish and a complete bastard and > deserves no mercy. Sure. But like you said, we have no evidence > either way. > > Just (try to) imagine that he *did*, imagine that immediately after > Bella and Cissy leave, Snape goes straight to Hogwarts, up to > Dumbledore's office, walks in and says "He's caught me out at last. > I'm going to die." > > Everything above is basically a long preamble (which I probably > should have bothered to write out in the last post rather than > trying to be concise) to the question: > What choice could Dumbledore make in this situation that would > satisfy the moralists? Alla: Right, I snipped a huge part of your preamble here, but my objection still stands the same. Yes, if Snape confessed to DD the third clause right away, I can see your scenario. My only problem is I don't. I see Snape as incredibly arrogant person, I am always right sort of character and if I am wrong, I will deal with it by myself. I also(Nora said it so much better) don't quite buy Snape as DD right hand man argument. I am preparing my crow as always for the time of book 7 arrival. :) Dung: > Everything above is basically a long preamble (which I probably > should have bothered to write out in the last post rather than > trying to be concise) to the question: > What choice could Dumbledore make in this situation that would > satisfy the moralists? Alla: If the situation played out as you described ( which again I am not so sure it did), sure Dumbledore is in a difficult situation here. Dung: > Do you really think that if the above were the case, Dumbledore > would say "Sorry, Severus old chum, but you're not going to make it > through this one. I'm much more important than you are for the war > effort, you know. If you hadn't taken the vow, we could have done > *something*, but since the vow was *your* mistake, *you're* the one > who's going to have to pay the price. Alla: I cannot see Dumbledore saying "Gee, Severus, old chump, thank you SO much for making my death coming so much faster. Now I have to leave sixteen year old boy to complete horcruxes hunt. But by all means if push comes to shove, kill me ASAP". Sorry, just don't see it. What would I think Dumbledore could have done if this situation played out as you described? Probably suggesting trying to fool the UV, since there is no definite time frame in the UV itself. > Alla: > Having said all that, I wonder about your take on whether Snape was > lying or telling the truth in general in Spinner's End. Dungrollin: > I hope that what I've written above makes it obvious. Snape already > knew that Voldy wanted him to finish Draco's task when Draco failed, > and he had already discussed this with DD *before he took the vow*. > I'm sure their first thought was to try to convince Draco to tell > Snape what he was up to (one DE to another) ? so Snape had better > look after him and watch him closely this year... > > The DDM!Snape interpretation of all the reasons he gives Bella for > his loyalty to Voldemort is pretty standard ? he's lying, he's a spy. Alla: Okay, so basically everything that would point to Snape being DD!M was concealed, right? But then again, why are you sure that Snape knew about Draco's task? Couldn't that be a lie too to find out information for Dumbledore or something? > Alla: > I mean, I will be VERY happy to learn that everything that Snape > said in Spinner's End was true, but that would mean that blood of > Emmeline Vance and Sirius is on his hands. > > Dung: > Yeah I know you would. I'd feel decidedly short-changed. Alla: We cannot all be happy how the final book play out. :-) But I am absolutely preparing myself for the possibility of the worst case scenario ( how I see it of course :))in order not to be too disappointed at the end. > Dung: > He's pretending to be a *Death Eater* so that he can spy on them, > Alla. Do you really think that he's in a position to say "No, I'm > sorry Narcissa, I'm not going to help Draco - you know full-well > that I'm firmly morally opposed to killing, and this would be > *murder*." What plausible excuse could he give for slithering out of > action *again*? Alla: See above. The very plausible excuse would have been IMO to stop Narcissa from divulging Dark Lord's loyalties. "The Dark Lord has forbidden me to speak of it," Narcissa continued, her eyes still closed. "He wishes none to know of the plan. It is...very secret. But----" "If he has forbidden it, you ought not to speak," said Snape as once. The Dark Lord's word is law." Narcissa gasped as though he had doused her with cold water. Bellatrix looked satisfied for the first time since she had entered the house. "There!" she said triumphantly to her sister. "Even Snape says so: You were told not to talk so hold your silence!" - HBP, p.32. I could not stop myself from quoting because I think that if Snape is a DD!M that would have been a PERFECT moment to make Narcissa leave AND Bella would have been happy too. I think her report to Voldie would have been that Snape as a faithful DE refused to talk about his secrets. Snape did not do it, as I said the best case scenario I see for him is if he had no clue about Draco's task and decided to find out information about it. And then he got trapped by his arrogance. That is of course IMO. Dung: > One question ? try to think back to your first read of HBP. When you > were reading Spinner's End, and you got to the last few lines of the > chapter, did clause 3 surprise you? Or had you been *expecting* > Narcissa to trap Snape into agreeing to carry out Draco's task all > along? I certainly hadn't. And I doubt that Snape had, either. It > was pretty out of the blue, almost below the belt in fact ? that's > not what he'd *agreed* to vow at all. Alla: I honestly don't quite remember. I don't think it was a huge surprise, but I am not sure. To make a very long story short, you tell a very good story, I just don't see it coming through, but of course I can be very wrong. Sorry, Dung, I think you are so much better writer than I am, but we operate from fundamentally different assumptions, although at least if your assumptions are true, your story is certainly reasonable. JMO, Alla From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Thu Feb 23 18:23:30 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:23:30 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's wand (was Re: My thoughts on some things.......) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148681 > > Geoff: > Hagrid says so himself. > > '"Rubeus! Rubeus Hagrid! How nice to see you again... Oak, sixteen > inches, rather bendy wasn't it?" > "It was, sir, yes," said Hagrid. > "Good wand, that one. But I suppose they snapped it in half when you > got expelled?" said Mr.Ollivander, suddenly stern. > "Er - yes, they did, yes," said Hagrid, shuffling his feet. "I've > still got the pieces, though," he added brightly. > ... > > (PS "Diagon Alley" p.64 UK edition) > La Gatta Lucianese: Does he? Have we all noticed that Hagrid doesn't fib very well? From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 07:53:31 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:53:31 -0000 Subject: DD the idiot, or just the adult (was Re: Is Snape good or evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148682 nrenka wrote: > well, Dumbledore is > a near-total emotional idiot, so I can maybe see him not > understanding what witnessing this is going to do to the kid. That > does, however, make him an idiot, which is the usual objection to the > theme of Dumbledore being wrong about Snape. > > Like it or not, here Dumbledore is an idiot no matter which way you > spin it. :) > Well, Dumbledore is after all an adult in the HP series, which means he goes around with "idiot" and "moron" stamped on his head more often than not, as many people have pointed out over the last several years. :-) Particularly, as you say, in emotional matters, his failures with regard to Harry are inexplicable and reprehensible. IMO,he really should get a T-shirt that says "I'm an epitome of goodness and so of course I turn a blind eye to child abuse." On the other hand, his main purpose, as an adult in the HP series, seems to be as a walking plot device. He serves this purpose more than most of the other adults, I think, so his "idiot" and "moron" labels fairly glow in many instances. But he also serves to provide information dumps directly from JKR. In that respect, I doubt that his constant blithering about trusting Snape will turn out to be a total mistake. It may, however, not turn out to have been a totally good idea. Lupinlore From arlenegustave at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 18:05:17 2006 From: arlenegustave at yahoo.com (Arlene) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:05:17 -0000 Subject: Either way Snape is a dead man Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148683 Hi everyone, I am new here so if someone has said this before please excuse me. I predict Snape will be dead maybe towards the end of book 7. Both for moral and realistic reasons. I say the end because, I believe everyone has a story and up until this point Snape's past has been hidden (and probably for good reasons). Moral: This is a children's book and a lesson must be learned that evil doings will never prevail and life happily ever after. Realistic: You can't play sides and come out on top. His game is up. Snape has taken the fall for many things but I have my own ideas about Snape. I think he really is DD man and they have made an unbreakable vow together to give each others life for the better cause. However, killing DD real or not will take it's toll on Snape. He's now wanted by all the ministry, Harry and others and his protection is gone. He will be more vulnerable to LV who will see right through him. I've actually written an entire story that relates to him and explains (at least to myself) how I feel things came about. Couldn't wait for book 7. I am trying to post it on a fanfic will let you know. or you can contact me. Arlene From kkersey at swbell.net Thu Feb 23 18:35:30 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:35:30 -0000 Subject: House of my Father - Kissing Cousins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148684 Steve: > I don't recall this ever being discussed after the latest Black > Family Tree information was released- > > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html > > In OotP, Mrs. Black in one of her hysterical rants uses the term > '...house of my father...'. Well that seems odd since Mrs. Black > married into the Black family, so really, the Black house shouldn't > be the House of her father, it should be the house of her husbands > father. In the past, I have simply considered it a figure of speech > indicating that by marriage she now considered herself a Black. > > But, she was a Black in name before her marriage. Not just in name, she was a Black, period. As were Bellatrix and her sisters. Her marriage simply united a couple of branches of the family tree. It's the house of her father, and the house of her husband's father too. Have you ever read Jane Austen's Persuasion? The heroine, Anne Eliot, has a riduculous snob of a father who is obsessed with the family name and title, and a sister who shares that snobbishness. The sister, Elizabeth, persues the cousin (can't remember the degree) who will inherit the estate, not because there is any money left, but because she wants to retain her status as an Eliot. Unfortunately for her (or not) he has other ideas. There is a similar thing going on in Pride and Prejudice, where Mr. Collins does the honorable thing in proposing to a daughter of the man whose estate he will inherit - the squick factor in that storyline has everything to do with his personality, and nothing to do with his being a cousin - in fact marrying him would have been the "right" thing to do by way of her sisters and mother, who would then be provided for upon Mr. Bennet's death. The romance in Mansfield Park is between first cousins, as well. I bring up these examples just for perspective; in a society where family connections and bloodlines are highly valued, marriages between relatives are going to be encouraged, and if one's social circle is limited to those whose bloodlines are equal to your own, the pool of potential suitors is going to be limited anyway. Steve: > Perhaps someone who understands all this 'second cousing twice > removed' stuff can glace at the family tree and determine exactly > what Mrs. Black relationship was to her husband before marriage. > (fourth cousins?) Elisabet rolls up her sleeves: They are second cousins. First cousins share grandparents, second cousins share great-grandparents, and so on. "Once removed" is added on to designate a difference in generation - e.g. Draco is Sirius's first cousin, once removed because his parent is Sirius's first cousin. Steve: > Both Mr and Mrs Black have a common ancestor at Phineas Nigellus. That > would be Sirius's Great Great Grandfather. I supose that makes them > both genetically and legally distant enough cousins that their > marriage wouldn't be a problem. Elisabet: I seriously doubt that even being first cousins would be a problem legally; is there anywhere where second cousins couldn't marry? Steve: > So, Sirius and Regulus are the product of the marriage of Orion > Black and Walburga Black. > All I can say is - odd but strange. Elisabet: I'm sure that if you look at geneological charts of, say upper-class British families in the nineteenth century you'll see plenty of cousins (both first cousins and in the general sense) marrying. For an extreme example, look at European Royalty - e.g. Marie Antoinette. Elisabet, one side of whose family is from an area where "claiming kin" is practically a blood sport From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 18:46:34 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:46:34 -0000 Subject: The Charming Nature of Fidelity and the Secret Keeper Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148685 Two people made brilliant suggestions regarding the Secret Keeper Charm which is rightfully called the 'Fidelius Charm'. I swear I tried to track down their post so I could reference them, but Yahoo search was being very uncooperative. Who ever you are, please step forward and take a bow. First, we start with the logical assumption that 'Fidelius' is related to fidelity, and that fidelity is related to truth and faithfulness. When you take on the role of Secret Keeper, you are taking on a sacred trust. In swearing the protect the secret, you are swearing undying fidelity and loyalty to the secret and the subjects of the secret. When Dumbledore reveals the secret to Harry and Order members, he is acting in good faith and perserving the sacred trust. When Peter tells Voldemort the secret of the Potters, he is acting in /bad faith/, and is violationg the spirit and letter of the Fidelius Charm. Perhaps, the secret only remains true and the Charm remains in effect for as long as the Secret Keeper maintains 'fidelity'. That's why it is critical that the Secret Keeper be a trusted soul. As long as he remain true and loyal to the Secret, it is safe, but as soon as the Secret Keeper acts with intentional /bad faith/, the 'fidelity' aspect is lost and the Charm is broken. In a sense, it is the act of undying fidelity that holds the Charm together. I'm not sure if this is true, but it is a reasonable explanation for some of the things we see happen in the books. After the death of Harry's parents, people seem to be able to find the Potter's house, some of them might be in on the secret, but clearly others, like the muggles, couldn't possible know that secret. What could explain this? Simply, true deep fidelity. As long as the Secret Keeper remains faithful, the secret is safe. Dumbledore took his secrets to the grave with him, even in his death, those secret are still safe. Peter, absolutely, willfully, selfishly, and greedily broke the faith and therefore broke the 'fidelity' charm. Is it true? I don't know, but hey it could happen. Just a thought. And sorry for stealing someone else's thunder. Again, if this was your idea, please step forward and take a bow; it was brilliant. Steve/bboyminn From GAP5685 at AOL.com Thu Feb 23 19:04:13 2006 From: GAP5685 at AOL.com (gwen_of_the_oaks) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:04:13 -0000 Subject: Secret places In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148686 > Deborah said: > >Is it possible to Apparate to a place you know only by name? Could > >Harry Apparate to Godric's Hollow just by saying/thinking the name? > > > >And if not, could he Apparate to "the house across the road from my > >parents' house in Godric's Hollow"? > > > Then Rebecca: > > Yes this is a bit confusing. I don't think Apparation is limited >to only places you have seen or been before. That would mean that >if you wanted to go to a new store or a new friends house you could only get there by conventional means (. > > We know there is an exception for places that have alot of magical > securities lined up like Hogwarts and to places where there is a secret keeper involved. > > I'm not sure on this one but it just doesn't make sense that you can't apparate to a new place. Anyone else? > Now Gwen: I don't think Hogwarts is an exception. In HBP, on their way to meet Slughorn, DD tells Harry "In any case, most Wizarding dwellings are magically protected from unwanted Aparators." (Am. ed. pg 60) And Arthur Weasley doesn't aparate into his own house, but relies on Molly to let him in (Mollywobbles). So it seems to be standard operating procedure to charm a building so that it cannot be aparated into at will - even if you are the owner. As for Deborah's question, I think as long as you have enough information about where someplace is, you can aparate to it without having been there previously. As an example: I've never been to Los Angeles, but I could get pretty close without a map just by getting on major highways going west. So Harry could "find" Godric's Hollow just by knowing roughly where to go. The farther away, the less you know about it, and the weaker your powers - the more unlikely you are to aparate somewhere accurately. Likewise, I'm guessing you can't aparate someplace without some geographical sense of where it is, even if you've been before. Harry might not be able to get back to the cave in the cliff, for example, just by thinking about it. He knows it exists, but he doesn't know *where* it is. And you can't just concentrate on an attribute of a place you know nothing about, like: "take me to wherever the Horcrux is hidden" - and wind up there. So, Harry could get to Godric's Hollow but not necessarily "Next door to my parents old house". Although, having actually lived there as an infant may give him subconscious memories that boost his accuracy. Just my 2 knuts. Gwen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 19:45:56 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:45:56 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow location and Secret Keeping business In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148687 Amiable Dorsai wrote: > > This brings to mind an old question, what is the importance of the name of the the charm--"Fidelius"? > > The obvious root is "fidelitas" faithfulness. What if the charm requires just that, fidelity? > > Perhaps, when Peter violated the trust placed in him by spilling the secret to Voldemort, he broke the charm entirely. > Jen responded: > I like this option. Seems like it could be a form of love magic if Dumbledore believed so faithfully in it he suggested it to the Potters. > Wonder if there's any implication for the Unbreakable in this idea? It's based on distrust, seems like. Carol adds: I like the idea of the Fidelius Charm being a form of love magic, or at least good or "Light" magic, in marked contrast to the UV, which is by its nature Dark, binding the person who takes it to keep the vow or die. To be sure, the Potters would have been safer if they had forced or coerced PP to make such a vow, but they would never have done so simply because they would not want to doom a friend to death if he failed them. Better to trust to that friend's fidelity rather than use the arts and devices of the enemy. Contrast Narcissa, who places her son's life above Snape's and dooms him to death if he fails. (On a side note, it has been suggested that DD placed Snape under a UV, but DD believes in trust, not coercion, and would never, IMO, have resorted to such cruel and Dark means to achieve any end. Coerced loyalty is not loyalty.) I also like the idea of a breach of fidelity breaking the Fidelius Charm because it makes sense of the name of the charm, which has always been a bit of a puzzle to me. (Good one, Amiable Dorsai!) Moreover, it virtually eliminates the question of whether the secret was the Potters' whereabouts or the house itself. I would venture to say, however, that the secret was "The Potters are hiding in [specific address} Godric's Hollow, so that *if* the charm was not broken by Peter's infidelity, so to speak, it would certainly have been broken when two of the Potters were dead and the other had been found by the person he was hiding from. Moreover, the house was destroyed, so the hiding place no longer existed. There was, quite simply, no secret left to keep. (I think that until that point, the house was visible but its occupants hidden. Contrast the case of 12 GP, where the secret involves the headquarters of the Order rather than the Order members, a place rather than people, so the building itself would remain hidden to anyone who didn't know the secret, as would the Order members inside it.) The secret, assuming that it had not been voided by the breach of fidelity (different from revealing the secret to people who intend the Potters no harm), would be voided by the fact that the Potters (two of them dead) were no longer hiding anywhere, and the hiding place itself no longer existed. So the question of whether Harry or anone else can see their graves is a nonissue. All he needs to do is Apparate (presumably with Ron and Hermione) to Godric's Hollow (a village, not a specific house), whose location he can find on a map. He might want to Apparate to a specific point on the outskirts of the village rather than to the house itself, rather like Narcissa and Bellatrix, who don't show up on the doorstep of Snape's house in Spinner's End because they're unsure of its exact location ("He lives *here*?" indicates that Bella, at least, has never been there before.) At any rate, whether the house was visible or not while the secret was in place, its ruins were apparently visible, even to Muggles, when Hagrid (and soon afterwards, young Sirius Black) arrived. It's clear to me that, for whatever reason--a breach of fidelity or the nature of the secret--the charm was broken by that time and remains permanently broken. Unless Muggles have built a new house on that spot, Harry should be able to see both the ruins of the house and his parents' graves (which, of course, will eliminate any needless plot complications relating to Harry's visit to GH). The question for me now relates not to the nature of the FC but to the consequences of the Secret Keeper switch. Did Sirius Black, as the original Secret Keeper, tell Dumbledore about Godric's Hollow? PP certainly didn't, or DD would have known that he was the SK. (I think that James Potter simply told DD that he intended to make Black the Secret Keeper, but I could be mistaken.) And Lupin also seems to have known that Black was the original Secret Keeper ("You didn't tell me about the switch," he says in PoA, badly quoted from memory), so wouldn't he have known the secret as well? Or was he only told that JP *intended* to make Black the Secret Keeper without either SB or PP actually telling him the secret? And, assuming that one or two people had been told the secret by Sirius Black, what happened to their knowledge of the secret when the SK was changed? Would the few people who had been told the secret by Sirius Black cease to know it when the SK changed? If that's the case, wouldn't DD's suspicions have been aroused when he suddenly no longer knew the secret, and Lupin's as well? (Black himself still knew it, but maybe PP had to tell him in front of James and Lily to keep his cover.) Apparently both Dumbledore and Lupin knew that there was a Secret Keeper and that he either was or was intended to be Sirius Black. But did they know the secret itself? Did anyone else *at that time* even know that there was a Secret Keeper? Surely it would not have been common knowledge, even among members of the Order, if the whole idea was to protect the Potters from a spy and traitor in the Order itself. Perhaps DD told Snape and/or Hagrid that the Potters were protected by a Fidelius Charm and that the SK was Sirius Black, but that would be all that he could reveal even if he knew the location himself. I do think that Black was, for a time, the actual SK, so that until the Secret Keeper switch, the Potters really were protected by the Fidelius Charm. They became vulnerable only the week before GH, when the SK was switched from Black to the *Unfaithful* Pettigrew. Also, I don't think they waited until mid-October to implement the Fidelius Charm, or that DD waited that long to suggest it, which would have been unconscionable given their grave danger. I also think that even the existence of the charm was known to very few people and the Secret to fewer still. No doubt a number of people, especially members of the Order, realized that the Potters had gone into hiding, but that doesn't necessarily require that a Fidelius Charm had been placed upon them. Carol, who thinks she understands how the charm works but is still confused about the consequences of the SK switch for DD and Lupin in particular From sidd_m2003 at yahoo.co.in Thu Feb 23 05:26:48 2006 From: sidd_m2003 at yahoo.co.in (sidd_m2003) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:26:48 -0000 Subject: Snape again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148688 OK, OK, you may say "not again" but I had had a really an interesting idea last night. DD knew that DADA department is cursed and no teacher can last for more than one year yet he appoints Snape as new DADA teacher. Which makes me think that DD knew that Snape will not need to teach at Hogwarts after this year. In other words, he knew all about the plan and he had decided that he will need to die in the end. And that famous "please" was a request to kill. If this is true, then Snape is on DD's side. Please let me know what you think. Sid From sidd_m2003 at yahoo.co.in Thu Feb 23 05:00:42 2006 From: sidd_m2003 at yahoo.co.in (siddharth mishra) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:00:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060223050042.38836.qmail@web8703.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148689 Tonks: >> Isn't the secret and the fact that a location is hidden from view two seperate things? 12 Grimmauld Place is invisible because of all the spells placed on it by old Mr. Black, not because it is a secret headquarters for the Order. << Sid: Black senior did hide the house but not from wizards but from muggles so he was not a secret keeper or some thing like that. Let me know what you think. From hambtty at triad.rr.com Thu Feb 23 19:52:30 2006 From: hambtty at triad.rr.com (hambtty) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:52:30 -0000 Subject: The Charming Nature of Fidelity and the Secret Keeper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148690 Your post has me thinking........Did DD ask Snape to become the Secret Keeper for The Order upon his death? If the secret dies with the Keeper then surely there must be someone who "inherits" the secret through some type of charm cast by the Keeper. Was this part of the arguement between Snape and DD which Hagrid overheard? If DD trusted Snape as he professed and Snape's occulmency powers are equal to none (except possibly LV) - who better to trust with the secret? --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Two people made brilliant suggestions regarding the Secret Keeper > Charm which is rightfully called the 'Fidelius Charm'. I swear I tried > to track down their post so I could reference them, but Yahoo search > was being very uncooperative. Who ever you are, please step forward > and take a bow. > > First, we start with the logical assumption that 'Fidelius' is related > to fidelity, and that fidelity is related to truth and faithfulness. > When you take on the role of Secret Keeper, you are taking on a sacred > trust. In swearing the protect the secret, you are swearing undying > fidelity and loyalty to the secret and the subjects of the secret. > > When Dumbledore reveals the secret to Harry and Order members, he is > acting in good faith and perserving the sacred trust. When Peter tells > Voldemort the secret of the Potters, he is acting in /bad faith/, and > is violationg the spirit and letter of the Fidelius Charm. > > Perhaps, the secret only remains true and the Charm remains in effect > for as long as the Secret Keeper maintains 'fidelity'. That's why it > is critical that the Secret Keeper be a trusted soul. As long as he > remain true and loyal to the Secret, it is safe, but as soon as the > Secret Keeper acts with intentional /bad faith/, the 'fidelity' aspect > is lost and the Charm is broken. > > In a sense, it is the act of undying fidelity that holds the Charm > together. I'm not sure if this is true, but it is a reasonable > explanation for some of the things we see happen in the books. After > the death of Harry's parents, people seem to be able to find the > Potter's house, some of them might be in on the secret, but clearly > others, like the muggles, couldn't possible know that secret. > > What could explain this? Simply, true deep fidelity. As long as the > Secret Keeper remains faithful, the secret is safe. Dumbledore took > his secrets to the grave with him, even in his death, those secret are > still safe. Peter, absolutely, willfully, selfishly, and greedily > broke the faith and therefore broke the 'fidelity' charm. > > Is it true? I don't know, but hey it could happen. > > Just a thought. And sorry for stealing someone else's thunder. Again, > if this was your idea, please step forward and take a bow; it was > brilliant. > > Steve/bboyminn > From patriciah711 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 17:09:59 2006 From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:09:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060223170959.82641.qmail@web52806.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148691 Elisabet wrote: >> Draco's name is listed on the Tapestry, by the way, while Sirius is still alive. Even if Sirius did really own the Black estate, upon his death it may be that Draco was the only male eleigible to inherit... << Patricia: I don't think that the HPL Black family tree is meant to be THE tapestry as much as just the record of the family. I doubt that JK meant for the tapestry to look exactly like that as much as she was just trying to impart the lineage and perhaps reveal secrets. The lovely people at HPL were just putting Draco on there to show the relationship. From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 19:04:32 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewijck) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 11:04:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Charming Nature of Fidelity and the Secret Keeper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060223190432.41760.qmail@web53201.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148692 Steve wrote: >> Two people made brilliant suggestions regarding the Secret Keeper Charm which is rightfully called the 'Fidelius Charm'. I swear I tried to track down their post so I could reference them, but Yahoo search was being very uncooperative. Who ever you are, please step forward and take a bow. << maria8162001: It was Amiable Dorsai who posted that reference you're looking for: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148662 Come out now Amiable and take the stage and bow. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Thu Feb 23 20:09:09 2006 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:09:09 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizarding lifespans References: Message-ID: <007801c638b5$04e09160$c9340152@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 148693 ----- Original Message ----- From: "hpotter284" Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:news about Black Family Tree/Wizarding lifespans > If we take Dumbledore and Marchbanks as a guideline for wizard > lifespans, then the average wizard life should last about 200 years. > Yet none of the Blacks in the family tree lived anywhere close to that > long (the oldest seem to have lived for about 80 years or so, which is > barely above half of Dumbledore's age). So what happened to them? Why > did all of the members of this distinguished, pureblood family die far > before their time? Should we go back to the drawing board at Maybe all that intermarriage shortened their lifespans? I've just put it down to JKR's admitted problems with doing the numbers, and dont' pay it a lot of regard. hwyl Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From kkersey at swbell.net Thu Feb 23 20:11:04 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:11:04 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148694 > Finwitch: > > Well, IIRC, Sirius, upon finding the tapestry, after explaining > things to Harry, blasts off everyone in it. Elisabet: ??????? Not in my book. Maybe you're thinking of this line: "Sirius mimed blasting the tapestry with a wand and laughed sourly." Finwitch: > So if it's the case of 'being in the tapestry', maybe Sirius just > added Harry into it so he can inherit or something? > Elisabet: I'm suggesting that having one's name on the Tapestry *might* be required to be considered a member of the House of Black. We really don't know how or if Sirius could add a name (especially given that his own name is already blasted off); more to the point, given his attitude toward his family, the house, and to the Tapestry in particular, I have a hard time imagining him using that method to secure the estate for Harry. We do know that he left a will, but it seems unlikely that he would have gone through a lot of trouble to make sure that Harry inherited the Black Estate. It's not like Harry isn't already provided for. I expect the will was something brief and general along the lines of "I leave everything to Harry Potter". We really don't know where it would go from that point. Dumbledore didn't know either, hence his calling upon Kreacher as a sort of probate judge. The estate could have been entailed (e.g. as in Austen's Pride and Prejudice), preventing Sirius from having any say in who is next in line. > In addition, since Sirius - although his mother blasted him off - > was her descendant, well... > Elisabet: But his mother probably never actually held the Estate herself (by the information on the BFT); She could however have been Mistress of the the House, although her sister-in-law Lucretia, who survived her, may have had that honor. On the other hand, Arcturus could have turned the house over to his son at some point. It's all pure speculation. Anyway, my point is that being Walpurga's descendant wasn't critical; being Arcturus Black's decendent through the male line was. Finwitch: > It may also be that Sirius' name, *Black*, counted more than > Bellatrix Lestrange & Narcissa Malfoy's precence in the Tapestry. As > Phineas Nigellus said: 'Last of the Blacks'. Elisabet: That is a stong point - Phineas Nigellus, or his portrait at any rate - never hesitates to claim kin with Sirius, in spite of his having been disowned by his mother. Calls him worthless, yes, but still calls him kin. Finwitch: > Or maybe inheritance required that you had black hair! Harry has > such, you know, as did Sirius... Don't recall the two sisters' hair colour, though... Elisabet: LOL! Bellatrix has black hair too. Narcissa is blond. So is Draco - no way can he inherit the estate! From kkersey at swbell.net Thu Feb 23 20:36:00 2006 From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:36:00 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow location and Secret Keeping business In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148695 > Carol: > ....He might want to Apparate to a specific point on the > outskirts of the village rather than to the house itself, rather > like Narcissa and Bellatrix, who don't show up on the doorstep of > Snape's house in Spinner's End because they're unsure of its exact > location ("He lives *here*?" indicates that Bella, at least, has > never been there before.) Elisabet pipes in: Hold it just a moment there! Bella obviously hadn't been there before, but may I respectfully submit that Narcissa is oh-so-familiar with Snape's residence. She is in a total panic, yet she is able to navigate the maze of streets between the riverbank and Spinners End at a full run, no stopping to consult a map, no pausing to check street signs or landmarks. She's been there before, I tell you, and more than once. Of course, that begs the question - why? What's a pure-bred lady like her doing in a dump like that? Snape doesn't seem to be set up to do much entertaining, and I'd think that Lucius and Narcissa would prefer to meet in more comfortable surroundings if they had business with Snape. Oh, another thing, this scene seems to indicate that a wizard can be followed when apparating. Narcissa didn't want Bella to follow her, so I don't think she had given her directions. Elisabet From kchuplis at alltel.net Thu Feb 23 20:54:06 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:54:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question References: <20060223050042.38836.qmail@web8703.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000901c638bb$4950f500$b301010a@ConsolidatedTelephone.local> No: HPFGUIDX 148696 ----- Original Message ----- From: siddharth mishra To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 11:00 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question Tonks: >> Isn't the secret and the fact that a location is hidden from view two seperate things? 12 Grimmauld Place is invisible because of all the spells placed on it by old Mr. Black, not because it is a secret headquarters for the Order. << Sid: Black senior did hide the house but not from wizards but from muggles so he was not a secret keeper or some thing like that. Let me know what you think. kchuplis: Judging by Mama Black's portrait there are probably plenty of other wizards the Black family would have wanted privacy from as well. Not the most hopsitable of people. I think you probably had to be pretty hoipoloi up the ladder to visit the blacks. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 21:04:16 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:04:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's power of Possession as alternative to Harry!crux (Was: Baby!Mort) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148697 Krista wrote: > Apologies if someone else has suggested this before, but what if we needed to be aware of Diaper!Mort before, so that Harry can then send him back to baby-stage during the Final Confrontation, winning by incapacitating Voldie? > > I'm not sure how I feel about a stunted Voldie (vs. a safely dead one), but it would at least save Harry from the soul-tearing of murder. Carol responds: Diaper!Mort! I love it. I agree that there must be a way to "save Harry from the soul-tearing of murder" (as well as the need to cast an Unforgiveable Curse), and I don't think returning Voldie to baby form would do that. We'd simply have Tom Riddle all over again when this baby grew up and Harry would simply be postponing his defeat rather than bringing it about once and for all. Nor, IMO, does the Harry!crux theory provide a satisfactory means of saving Harry from the need to commit murder. Aside from being repellant, at least to me, it's illogical. The Horcruxes have to be destroyed before Harry can destroy the physical Voldemort. But if Harry sacrifices himself to destroy the Horcrux inside him, he can't destroy Voldemort because he, Harry, is dead. (I won't get into the arguments about the improbability of creating an accidental Horcrux, but the whole theory is full of holes.) There is, however, another way to destroy DD without committing murder. If what Harry acquired at GH was, as DD says, "powers" rather than a soul bit, one of the powers is quite likely to be that of possession (one of LV's own rare powers that would make Harry uniquely qualified to defeat him). We've seen the unbearable pain that Harry felt when LV possessed him, along with the wish to die. We've seen the unbearable pain that LV felt as the result of Harry's love for his murdered godfather, which saved Harry from that possession. Reverse the situation, with Harry possessing Voldemort and filling him with the hated and unbearably painful power of Love, and *Voldemort* would wish to die. All we need is for the Veil to be nearby so that Voldy leaps through the Veil, and a way for Harry to return (possibly using Sirius's body, which would then be returned to the living world for burial), allowing Harry to repossess his own body and live a normal life. Or at least to "live" rather than "survive," as he's been doing up to this point. Less complicated than Harry!crux and requiring a lot less exposition, foreshadowed since CoS (unlike the Horcruxes, since we had an alternative explanation for the diary), and enabling Harry to use the power of Love to defeat LV rather than murdering him. Carol, who has argued this theory more fully in other posts but is trying to be concise here From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Feb 23 21:54:18 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:54:18 -0000 Subject: Secret places In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148699 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gwen_of_the_oaks" wrote: > > As for Deborah's question, I think as long as you have enough > information about where someplace is, you can aparate to it without > having been there previously. As an example: I've never been to Los > Angeles, but I could get pretty close without a map just by getting > on major highways going west. So Harry could "find" Godric's Hollow > just by knowing roughly where to go. The farther away, the less you > know about it, and the weaker your powers - the more unlikely you are > to aparate somewhere accurately. > > Likewise, I'm guessing you can't aparate someplace without some > geographical sense of where it is, even if you've been before. Harry > might not be able to get back to the cave in the cliff, for example, > just by thinking about it. He knows it exists, but he doesn't know > *where* it is. And you can't just concentrate on an attribute of a > place you know nothing about, like: "take me to wherever the Horcrux > is hidden" - and wind up there. > > So, Harry could get to Godric's Hollow but not necessarily "Next door > to my parents old house". Although, having actually lived there as > an infant may give him subconscious memories that boost his accuracy. > Just my 2 knuts. > > Gwen > Allie now: Death Eaters are able to apparate to wherever Voldemort happens to be. It could be anywhere. It could be a place that doesn't even have a name ("a deserted field in the town of Little Hangleton" for example). This gives a pretty strong argument for wizards being able to apparate someplace they've never been, even if they have no inkling of the location. "By my master's side" seems to be all the direction they need. From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Thu Feb 23 17:24:08 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 12:24:08 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: Wandless Magic Message-ID: <43FDEFB8.000003.03096@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 148700 I apologize if this has been brought up earlier. The first wandless magic I can recall is in the Sorcerer's Stone, Chap. 17, The Man With Two Faces. Quirrell both ties Harry up with ropes that spring out of thin air with a snap of his fingers and releases Harry from the ropes with a clap of his hands. Donna [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 22:18:48 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:18:48 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: <20060223050042.38836.qmail@web8703.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148701 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, siddharth mishra wrote: > > > Tonks: > >> Isn't the secret and the fact that a location is hidden from > view two seperate things? 12 Grimmauld Place is invisible because > of all the spells placed on it by old Mr. Black, not because it > is a secret headquarters for the Order. << > > Sid: > Black senior did hide the house but not from wizards but from > muggles so he was not a secret keeper or some thing like that. > Let me know what you think. > bboyminn: Well, I'm sure I'm over my post limit by now, but...you only live once. Dumbledore using a note tells Harry 'The headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix is found at #12 Grimmauld Place.' ...or something very close to that. So, 'headquaters' is the secret, not 12 Grimmauld Place. However, it just so happens that 'headquarters' IS 12 Grimmald Place, and that coincidence hides them both. It's a simple logic equation - -The headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix is hidden. -Twelve Grimmauld Place is the headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix. -Therefore, 12 Grimmauld Place is hidden. So, I speculate, that as long as 12 Grimmauld Place is headquarters it is hidden by the Fidelius Charm. When 'headquarters' moves, the protection moves with it. Which means that Grimmauld place is still, but only, protected by the enchantments placed on it before the Secret Keeper Charm went into effect. This seems a reasonable course of logic. Of course, I can't prove it, and JKR may shoot it down in the next book, but I think we have some clues. For example, Harry mentions that 12 Grimmauld Place is 'headquarters' in front of the Dursley. How can he do that if 12 Grimmauld Place is protected by the Fidelius Charm? Well, logically he can't. So, we could conclude that Grimmauld Place is no longer headquarters, which Dumbledore confirms, and is no longer protected by the Charm which in turn allows Harry to be able to make that statement. Again, it make logical sense, but I can't claim with any certainty that it is true. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 23 23:03:35 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:03:35 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic In-Reply-To: <43FDEFB8.000003.03096@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148702 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: Donna: > I apologize if this has been brought up earlier. The first wandless magic I > can recall is in the Sorcerer's Stone, Chap. 17, The Man With Two Faces. > Quirrell both ties Harry up with ropes that spring out of thin air with a > snap of his fingers and releases Harry from the ropes with a clap of his > hands. Geoff: What about Quirrell and Snape with the jinxes and counter-jinxes in the Quidditch match in Philosopher's Stone? Or Harry's involuntary instances with the school roof, the haircut and the Zoo glass for example? I think they qualify as wandless magic. From sopraniste at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 23:19:10 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:19:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wandless Magic In-Reply-To: <43FDEFB8.000003.03096@D33LDD51> Message-ID: <20060223231910.20020.qmail@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148703 > I apologize if this has been brought up earlier. > The first wandless magic I > can recall is in the Sorcerer's Stone, Chap. 17, The > Man With Two Faces. > Quirrell both ties Harry up with ropes that spring > out of thin air with a > snap of his fingers and releases Harry from the > ropes with a clap of his > hands. How about in PS/SS Chap. TWO, The Vanishing Glass, when Harry dumps his cousin in a snake tank without even realizing it? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Feb 23 23:19:45 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:19:45 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148704 > Geoff: > What about Quirrell and Snape with the jinxes and counter-jinxes in the > Quidditch match in Philosopher's Stone? Or Harry's involuntary > instances with the school roof, the haircut and the Zoo glass for > example? > > I think they qualify as wandless magic. Potioncat: In OoP, in the chapter, appropriately enough, "Seen and Unforeseen" around page 591. Harry casts a Protego that causes Snape's wand to fly away from Harry. It isn't clear if Snape loses his grip on it, but that's how I read it. Snape yells "ENOUGH!" causing Harry to fall backwards and break a jar. Snape hisses a 'reparo" but he isn't mentioned as raising his wand until after the conversation that follows. It also seems that except during the Occlumency lessons, a wand is not needed for legilimency. From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 23:34:31 2006 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:34:31 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Reminder -- No Top-posting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148705 Hey, everyone-- Just a reminder: top-posting (replying to a message by putting your new comments at the top of the message leaving the quoted message to follow) is not allowed here. There are a few reasons for this, and they are aimed at making the discussions as easy to follow as possible for those reading: The first reason is because when a person top-posts, they virtually never snip the excess / irrelevant parts of the quoted message; we have a *lot* of members who read the messages in digest form, and it is a headache in the extreme to wade through acres of unsnipped posts. The second reason is that it can often be difficult to follow who is saying what (also why we're so strict about attribution), and it's far and away much easier to follow a discussion in the format of > List Member Bill: > Bill's quoted comments that you're replying to. List Member Anne: New message replying to Bill. So, keep in mind how busy this group is, that there are a lot of people who try to keep up and who will read your posts, and *please* remember to snip as much as possible, use proper capitalization, punctuation, spelling (no netspeak!), attribute quoted comments, put your own name/id/whatever you want to be called on your posts, and do not top-post. Also, to our 'old hand' members who are no longer moderated -- new members learn from your posts, so when they see top-posted, unsnipped, confusingly or not attributed quotes, etc., they understandably believe these things are okay. So, help us all out here and do your best to snip and all the rest, proofread for typos and misspellings, and so on. Thanks, everyone! --The List Elves From GAP5685 at AOL.com Thu Feb 23 21:57:40 2006 From: GAP5685 at AOL.com (gwen_of_the_oaks) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:57:40 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148706 > > Potioncat: > > We've lots of familiar names, but not enough information to know >how closely related those individuals are to the characters we know. >I doubt that Potter and Longbottom are the ones we first thought >of, but I'd bet the two sets of Marauder-era Blacks are cousins to Rosier. > > Do you really think that Dorea and Charlus Potter are people other than Harry's grandparents, and that their one son is someone other than James? We know of James' parents that they had James late in life, and he was an only child. They died of natural wizarding causes somewhere between James turning 18 and Harry's birth. The date of death for Dorea would fit, as would her issue being a single son. I concede ahead of time that a child at age 39 does not seem *late in life* as far as wizards go, but its on the late side for muggles, anyway. And if the one son is not James, then who is it? Dorea (1920-1977)is the rough contemporary of Walburga (1925-1985), so her son would easily be the contemporary of Bellatrix/Lucius if not Sirius. The point being, there would have been another male Potter running around, closely related to Sirius, and certainly related to James and Harry. Harry supposedly has no other family, so why isn't this Uncle Potter mentioned by anyone? What happened to him? By putting a Potter on the tree, JKR either wants to show that the Potters were a pure-blood family worthy of the House of Black or she wants to show Harry's actual lineage. If she only wanted to show the Potters were pure-bloods, why muck things up with a mystery son that is able timeline-wise to be James? Why not just have a Potter marry a Black in the generation above, and die childless? Or, have a female Potter marry into the Blacks, so that there is no potentially confusing second Potter family. I think that part of the tree shows Harry's actual lineage. Gwen (Hoping she has not committed an "oh dear, maths" error somewhere in her reasoning) From arlenegustave at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 22:29:13 2006 From: arlenegustave at yahoo.com (Arlene) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 22:29:13 -0000 Subject: Secret places In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148707 I agree with both of you in that apparating seems to come with a "know how and where" attitude. However, as far as the Dark mark goes. I believe it's more along the lines of a "homing device". The DE's have no idea where they are going, yet they do end up in front of LV. So my guess would be that the mark sort of "guides thm in". Which could also be why LV seems to know EXACTLY who's there and who's not. (Since they all look relatively the same gathered under the hoods). LV must have some way of "Feeling" or "sensing" his followers. Arlene From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 00:28:34 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:28:34 -0000 Subject: Either way Snape is a dead man (epitaph) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148708 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Arlene" wrote: > > Hi everyone, I am new here so if someone has said this before please > excuse me. > > I predict Snape will be dead maybe towards the end of book 7. Both for > moral and realistic reasons. I say the end because, I believe everyone > has a story and up until this point Snape's past has been hidden (and > probably for good reasons). > > Moral: This is a children's book and a lesson must be learned that evil > doings will never prevail and life happily ever after. > > Realistic: You can't play sides and come out on top. His game is up. > > Snape has taken the fall for many things but I have my own ideas about > Snape. I think he really is DD man and they have made an unbreakable > vow together to give each others life for the better cause. > > However, killing DD real or not will take it's toll on Snape. He's now > wanted by all the ministry, Harry and others and his protection is > gone. He will be more vulnerable to LV who will see right through him. > > I've actually written an entire story that relates to him and explains > (at least to myself) how I feel things came about. Couldn't wait for > book 7. I am trying to post it on a fanfic will let you know. or you > can contact me. > > Arlene > a_svirn: Here is the epitaph. Here lay the last remains of one Whose life, devoid of any fun, Was one continuous sacrifice To everything he did despise: The cause of Light, and Good, and Love ? He hated all of the above And even more he hated brats He had to teach his subtle arts. One of his talent and ambition Should have become a great magician; Alas, young men are slaves to fashion ? He chose death eating for profession. With that he was at first delighted But found his expectations blighted. He felt perpetually guilty: To rival Lords he pledged his fealty And toiled his wits, strained his brainpower To keep them pleased. This turned him sour. Poor man, he was misunderstood: He killed, but for the Greater Good. (The concept is the very devil: It's also known as "Lesser Evil".) He sought for Grace, but found none, And after all was said and done His was a damnable position: His soul was destined for perdition; A prize was offered for his head; And soon he was among the dead! From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 00:41:18 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:41:18 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148709 > Alla: > SURE, if Snape had refused only clause 3 the game would be up, no > question about it. What I am NOT sure about is whether the game > would be up if Snape refused to take UV at all. But again this is > goes from different assumptions we have. I am NOT as sure as you are > that the meeting was instigated by Voldemort, I can totally see > Narcissa going to Snape of her own initiative and Bella tagging > along maybe hoping to give Voldemort useful spying info, BUT I see > no definite evidence that Voldemort was behind arranging the meeting > in the first place, from very beginning. zgirnius: If I understood Dungrollin's fabulous post correctly, Snape did not necessarily see the hand of Voldemort behind Cissy and Bella's actions either, while the conversation was happening. His motive in agreeing to the Vow (which he reasonably believed was going to be about protecting and watching over and helping Draco, this is what had been mentioned in the conversation leading up to Cissy's request) and he took the Vow becuase he believed it cost him nothing. Dumbledore, who already knew about Draco and his task, would have ordered him to look after Draco and save him from the consequences of his choice to become a Death Eater if possible, regardless. And, for this little cost, Snape could gain the trust of Bella (thus shutting up her whispering campaign), Cissy, and perhaps Draco, which might let him learn the details of HOW Draco planned to carry out his assignment. It was only when Narcissa cornered him that he would have realized who was REALLY behind things. > Alla: > > I don't think it equals > in any way shape or form Snape acknowledging he was wrong in PoA. > But that is JMO of course. zgirnius: How he treated Sirius in public is one thing. But do you really think the way he treats Peter is just due to some personal animosity? I personally figured he transferred all of his Potter- related hatred of Sirius to Peter after realizing his mistake. > Alla: > > Absolutely, as I said above, he should not have taken UV AT ALL, IMO > of course. He should have told Narcissa that she is NOT supposed to > divulge Dark Lord confidence and threw them both out and Bella could > have been even happy with it, IMO. But again, I am not sure that > meeting was instigated by Voldy. zgirnius: But why not? What is wrong with Vowing to protect Draco, if in exchange you hope to get the inside dope on his plans to kill Dumbledore? I'm not saying your solution is wrong, mind you. It isn't, it works just fine. (Though it no more solves Snape's long- term problem, that Voldemort wants him to kill Dumbledore). I'm simply trying to understand why you think Snape's was, based on what he knew then. > Alla: > > Yes, if Snape confessed to DD the third > clause right away, I can see your scenario. My only problem is I > don't. I see Snape as incredibly arrogant person, I am always right > sort of character and if I am wrong, I will deal with it by myself. zgirnius: Dungrollin's proposed conversation does have Snape proposing to deal with the problem himself... > Alla: > What would I think Dumbledore could have done if this situation > played out as you described? Probably suggesting trying to fool the > UV, since there is no definite time frame in the UV itself. > zgirnius: Precisely. From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 00:51:30 2006 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:51:30 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148710 > Gwen wrote:> > Do you really think that Dorea and Charlus Potter are people other > than Harry's grandparents, and that their one son is someone other > than James? > > We know of James' parents that they had James late in life, and he > was an only child. They died of natural wizarding causes somewhere > between James turning 18 and Harry's birth. The date of death for > Dorea would fit, as would her issue being a single son. I concede > ahead of time that a child at age 39 does not seem *late in life* as > far as wizards go, but its on the late side for muggles, anyway. > > And if the one son is not James, then who is it? {snippage) > > By putting a Potter on the tree, JKR either wants to show that the > Potters were a pure-blood family worthy of the House of Black or she > wants to show Harry's actual lineage. If she only wanted to show the > Potters were pure-bloods, why muck things up with a mystery son that > is able timeline-wise to be James? > > I think that part of the tree shows Harry's actual lineage. > Lyra: All your arguments make sense to me, Gwen, except for one thing. If Uncle Alphard got zapped off the family tree for giving money to the runaway Sirius, don't you think Walburga would have zapped Dorea and Charlus for taking in the same runaway Sirius and treating him like a second son? From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 00:58:26 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:58:26 -0000 Subject: House of my Father - Kissing Cousins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148711 > Elisabet: > I seriously doubt that even being first cousins would be a problem > legally; is there anywhere where second cousins couldn't marry? a_svirn: Depends on the legalities. It certainly is (or was at the very least) against the canon law. Issuing dispensations for nobility and royalty that persistently married within prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity was probably the surest source of income for the Pope. But what is the canon law for wizards? From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 00:21:37 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:21:37 -0000 Subject: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148712 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sidd_m2003" wrote: > > OK, OK, you may say "not again" but I had had a really an interesting > idea last night. DD knew that DADA department is cursed and no teacher > can last for more than one year yet he appoints Snape as new DADA > teacher. Which makes me think that DD knew that Snape will not need to > teach at Hogwarts after this year. In other words, he knew all about > the plan and he had decided that he will need to die in the end. Well, several possibilities: 1) Are we sure that the DADA position is in fact cursed? As I recall, DD is only speculating based on the fact that no one has held the position for two years consecutively (Quirrel I believe held it for a year, was gone for a year, then returned for another year) since he refused it to Voldemort. However, we are only dealing with speculation on DD's part, and I don't think we were ever given positive evidence that such a curse in fact exists. Given that, DD may simply have been taking a calculated risk in giving Snape the position, rather than knowing for a fact that Snape would be gone at the end of the year. 2) Given the precedent of Quirrel, DD may have had a plan in mind to avoid the curse (rotate Snape out after a year, for example, then rotate him back in). 3) If the position is indeed cursed, DD may simply have been attempting to force Voldemort's hand. Voldemort knows that Snape is his "man" inside DD's camp. By giving Snape the job, DD is forcing Voldemort to make a decision: Either remove the curse or lose your man inside Hogwarts. In other words, he's trying to force Voldemort to weigh the value of his petty revenge against the value of having a spy in DD's camp, and is hoping that Voldemort's desire for ultimate victory will force him to withdraw the curse on the DADA position. 4) DD may well have planned for Snape to leave at the end of the year. That does not mean that DD expected the situation on the Tower or expected to die. He may have had some other scenario in mind by which Snape would leave Hogwarts. He may have meant for Snape to leave Hogwarts and permanently join Voldy's camp, or he may have had some other plan in mind. There is no necessary connection at all between a knowledge of the DADA curse (if such in fact exists) and the events on the Tower. So, I'd say that 1) you would have to assume that a DADA curse does in fact exist and, 2) even if it does, that proves pretty much nothing except that DD MIGHT have expected Snape to leave the DADA position, perhaps temporarily, after a year. I say MIGHT because even that is in no way proven, given that DD may have been attempting a ploy to force Voldemort to remove the curse altogether. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 00:31:02 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:31:02 -0000 Subject: Either way Snape is a dead man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148713 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Arlene" wrote: > > Moral: This is a children's book and a lesson must be learned that evil > doings will never prevail and life happily ever after. > > Realistic: You can't play sides and come out on top. His game is up. Okay, I agree with the general gist of what you say. However, a few things come to mind. First of all, I'm not sure we are really dealing with a children's book anymore. On the other hand, I'm not sure we aren't, either. JKR has made it clear time and again that she regards children as her main and most important audience, and I think we ignore that fact to our peril. But even if it isn't a children's book, on the third hand, that does not negate your moral point. On the fourth hand (I'm having my neighbor help out, if you're wondering where all these hands are coming from) if you believe Snape is DD's man and DD's death was in fact planned, you have to include DD as a partner in Snape's "evil doings." I don't object to that -- indeed it makes for a very interesting twist on the story and its morality. I'm just pointing out the fact. With regard to your realistic point, I guess you are talking about the actual mechanics of playing both sides? Just trying to make things a little clearer, not trying to be snide. What I gather you are saying is that playing a double game such as Snape may have been playing is, in fact, so dangerous that no one can expect to keep it up forever, and when Snape is found out as he inevitably will be, the price will be his life. If that is what you mean, I agree that such is a very plausible outcome. Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 01:52:51 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:52:51 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148714 > > Alla: > > > > I don't think it equals > > in any way shape or form Snape acknowledging he was wrong in PoA. > > But that is JMO of course. > > zgirnius: How he treated Sirius in public is one thing. But do you > really think the way he treats Peter is just due to some personal > animosity? I personally figured he transferred all of his Potter- > related hatred of Sirius to Peter after realizing his mistake. Alla: Hmmm. That is an interesting possibility. You always suggest interesting possibilities, Zara. :) I have to think about it and get back to you later. :-) > > Alla: > > > > Absolutely, as I said above, he should not have taken UV AT ALL, > IMO > > of course. He should have told Narcissa that she is NOT supposed to > > divulge Dark Lord confidence and threw them both out and Bella > could > > have been even happy with it, IMO. But again, I am not sure that > > meeting was instigated by Voldy. > > zgirnius: > But why not? What is wrong with Vowing to protect Draco, if in > exchange you hope to get the inside dope on his plans to kill > Dumbledore? I'm not saying your solution is wrong, mind you. It > isn't, it works just fine. (Though it no more solves Snape's long- > term problem, that Voldemort wants him to kill Dumbledore). I'm > simply trying to understand why you think Snape's was, based on what > he knew then. Alla: You are proceeding on the Dungrollin assumption that Snape knew about the task, right? Then I see so MANY things that are wrong with agreeing to take UV to protect Draco. First one is what I said in my earlier post - to me it strikes VERY close to being an accessory to the murder. Snape does NOT just takes UV to protect Draco. He takes UV to protect and help him while Draco tries to carry out the assasination of the Headmaster. Yep, I think it is wrong on many levels. Don't get me wrong, I can totally see Snape agreeing to protect a child whose family he loves or likes and had been for a long time instead of protecting someone whom he has little or no personal affection for ( paraphrasing Nora here) such as that "old fool Dumbledore",even if such child is happy to become a murderer and that "old fool Dumbledore" saved Snape from Azkaban, but this scenario does not really describe DD!M Snape, does it? And it is funny, in this thread I had not even touched evil Snape or coward Snape, I am only trying to figure out how stupid or self- serving he could be. (Sorry, Dung, I am not shy about calling Snape names, which I think he deserves :-)) Now, if Snape does not know Draco's task and loyal to Dumbledore, then sure I can see him taking UV to protect Draco while hoping to learn what Draco task really is. I could not wrap my mind even around this possibility few months ago, but I finally hypnotised myself into seeing it. :). I still think it is incredibly stupid, but at least I can see it. > > Alla: > > What would I think Dumbledore could have done if this situation > > played out as you described? Probably suggesting trying to fool the > > UV, since there is no definite time frame in the UV itself. > > > zgirnius: > Precisely. > Alla: Just to be clear - by fooling the UV I was suggesting that Dumbledore would tell Snape to try and keep postponing the task indefinitely, NOT meticulously planning his death all year. But I came to realise that even more precise answer to Dung's question exists and it would be IMO VERY IC for Dumbledore. I think Dumbledore would have done NOTHING, just sort of letting events to play out and hoping for the best. But hey, I am really opposed to Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, so my opinion may not count for much. JMO, Alla From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Fri Feb 24 02:39:39 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:39:39 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > zgirnius: > If I understood Dungrollin's fabulous post correctly, Snape did not > necessarily see the hand of Voldemort behind Cissy and Bella's > actions either, while the conversation was happening. His motive in > agreeing to the Vow (which he reasonably believed was going to be > about protecting and watching over and helping Draco, this is what > had been mentioned in the conversation leading up to Cissy's request) > and he took the Vow becuase he believed it cost him nothing. > Dumbledore, who already knew about Draco and his task, would have > ordered him to look after Draco and save him from the consequences of > his choice to become a Death Eater if possible, regardless. And, for > this little cost, Snape could gain the trust of Bella (thus shutting > up her whispering campaign), Cissy, and perhaps Draco, which might > let him learn the details of HOW Draco planned to carry out his > assignment. > > It was only when Narcissa cornered him that he would have realized > who was REALLY behind things. Quick comment here...doesn't that really put Snape on the same level as James and Sirius? Both of them took risks opposing the Dark side and paid the ultimate price. Is that supposed to establish some sort of equality between the three? About the price that you pay fighting the Dark side? Quick_Silver From exodusts at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 02:15:23 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:15:23 -0000 Subject: Harry's power of Possession as alternative to Harry!crux (Was: Baby!Mort) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148716 > Carol: > I agree that there must be a way to "save Harry from the soul-tearing > of murder" (as well as the need to cast an Unforgiveable Curse), and I > don't think returning Voldie to baby form would do that. We'd simply > have Tom Riddle all over again when this baby grew up and Harry would > simply be postponing his defeat rather than bringing it about once and > for all. Exodusts: We would? Isn't one of JKR's central theses the contention that "it is our choices that make us who we are"? Sounds like she leans towards nurture instead of nature in the eternal debate. If Voldemort became Diaper!Mort (which I don't think is likely to happen, but is an interestingly improbable possibility), then he might, if brought up with Love(TM), become a different person to the Voldemort we know and hate. From exodusts at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 03:08:21 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 03:08:21 -0000 Subject: Snape at GH? (Was: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148717 > Carol: > Thanks for answering. I'm not convinced, though, because Snape would > have had to know that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper and Sirius Black > was innocent, which would make his behavior throughout PoA a horrible > deception, an act that even he couldn't pull off convincingly. Exodusts: Given that Snape can out-Occlumens Voldemort, I reckon he could probably pull off any act he wanted BUT I agree that he would seem to lack sufficient motivation to bother doing so in this instance, unless it is heavy-duty-old-schoolboy-grudge AGAIN. I prefer to interpret Snape's hatred for Sirius at that point as being transferred guilt, blaming him for the death of Lily. > Carol: > And I > don't think he could have kept that sort of secret from Dumbledore, > especially since he would have had to explain his presence at Godric's > Hollow to Dumbledore, and he would have had to leave Harry lying in > the ruins and then report the disaster to Dumbledore. The whole > scenario is simply not reconcilable (IMO) with DDM!Snape. Exodusts: What if Snape only became DDM after the death of Lily? What if he was shocked and stunned by the events that unfolded that night at Godric's Hollow, and fled or wandered off after the destruction of LV, without thinking about the baby in the rubble? > Carol: > And there's > really no reason for PP to inform him of the secret or to invite him > to participate in a murder that LV could commit all by himself. Exodusts: Well, there is, if you assume that Peter couldn't get the message direct to LV and had to tell it via Snape because he had no other choice. > Carol: > Lily > as reward for Snape is appalling, too, especially in a children's > series. Reward for what? Telling him the Prophecy, an action Snape > regrets? And surely he wouldn't expect Lily to love him or consider > him as her rescuer. It makes no sense, at least to me. Exodusts: I don't think Snape came to regret telling LV the prophecy until after Lily was dead. Only then would Snape have something to blame himself for. I don't think that Snape could realistically expect to successfully claim ownership of Lily, but he would certainly ask LV to spare Lily's life. That might be sufficient reward for Snape to be going on with. > Carol: > The Snape subplot is already sufficiently complex without his being at > Godric's Hollow, and he has plenty of grounds for remorse and > repentance without being involved in some way in the murder plot. So, > again, thanks for the explanation, but I'm not sold. I much prefer > Snape showing DD his disappearing Dark Mark at the same time DD > realizes through other means that the Potters are dead. Much simpler, > with no need to throw in a whole new subplot in Book 7. And it would > help to strengthen DD's trust in Snape, as his being at GH would not. Exodusts: I actually agree that, on the evidence we have at the moment, the most likely candidate for being at Godric's Hollow is Peter Pettigrew. However, his presence would seem to add even less to the story in terms of plot-relevance, and exciting additional revelations, than having Snape there (because we already know all about how PP betrayed the Potters). Additionally, I can still offer you a possibility for Snape being there WITHOUT him having to have known that the traitor was Peter. Suppose Peter wrote a note for Voldemort, and Snape read the contents of the note, but assumed it was a message from Sirius for Lord Voldemort. If Snape had heard that Sirius was to be Secret Keeper, and then came across the note (after arriving at DE HQ, or wherever, for a monthly briefing) saying: "The Potters are hiding at Number One Godric's Hollow", he would naturally assume it was from Sirius to LV. He might also think "LV has just left for GH. I must follow him now, and ask him to spare Lily. I will remind him that if it had not been for me, he would not even know the dangers of the Potter child. That may enable me to convince him to let her live." > Carol: > And someone else *was* at Godric's Hollow, the same person who > betrayed the Potters and picked up Voldemort's wand: Wormtail. There > is no canon evidence (I'm not talking about hints in interviews, which > may be equivocal) that Snape or any person besides LV, the Potters, > and Wormtail was present. Exodusts: Do we actually know that Peter was present? Isn't this an assumption based upon the fact that LV has his wand in GoF? Couldn't LV have retrieved his wand in some other fashion? Or couldn't JKR have simply made a (for her) rather typical administrative error, in forgetting that LV's wand must have been left on the floor in Godric's Hollow after the AK backfire (ie she just wrote LV with his wand in GoF without thinking about how he could have recovered it)? From richter at ridgenet.net Fri Feb 24 01:53:50 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (richter_kuymal) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:53:50 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148718 > Gwen wrote:> > > Do you really think that Dorea and Charlus Potter are people other than Harry's grandparents, and that their one son is someone other than James? {snippage) Lyra wrote: (more snippage) If Uncle Alphard got zapped off the family tree for giving money to the runaway Sirius, don't you think Walburga would have zapped Dorea and Charlus for taking in the same runaway Sirius and treating him like a second son? PAR wrote: ====It would depend on what papa Pollux thought about it, wouldn't it? After all, Dorea Black Potter is HIS sister (and Walburga's aunt). Maybe he told her she couldn't. After all, it is NOT Walburga's house. If the family tree is correct, it isn't even Orion's house. It belonged to Arcturus -- the grandfather of Sirius and Regulus, who is shown as not dying until 1991. Sirius didn't inherit from Orion & Walburga, he inherited from Arcturus. So "blasting" a name off the tapestry would not be equivalent to disinheritance. And even if Orion and Walburga disinherited Sirius, Arcturus could still have left the "family home and fortune to him because Orion hadn't inherited it yet. And if that is the case, Sirius could well manage to leave everything to Harry, and disinheriting Bellatrix and Narcissa. Harry, being a male, would then have priority over Nymphadora ("Tonks"). PAR. From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 05:21:38 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:21:38 -0000 Subject: Snape at GH? (Was: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148719 > > Carol: > > I'm not convinced, though, because Snape would > > have had to know that Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper and Sirius > Black > > was innocent, which would make his behavior throughout PoA a > horrible > > deception, an act that even he couldn't pull off convincingly. > > Exodusts: > Given that Snape can out-Occlumens Voldemort, I reckon he could > probably pull off any act he wanted BUT I agree that he would seem to > lack sufficient motivation to bother doing so in this instance, It's not so much that Snape COULDN'T have acted so convincingly upset, so much as, why would you want to turn a great scene with so much genuine emotion and tragedy, into "GOTCHA! he was just pretending, no real drama here, folks". *is mystified* > I prefer to > interpret Snape's hatred for Sirius at that point as being > transferred guilt, blaming him for the death of Lily. Well, yeah. Sort of like, I prefer this building to be supported by iron t-bars, rather than balsa wood! JKR is a superb plotter in that she rests the weight of the story structure on exquisitely opposed and powerful motivations. If you jump up and down on a motivation, and it snaps, you pretty much have to discard it as a theory. > Exodusts: > What if Snape only became DDM after the death of Lily? What if he was > shocked and stunned by the events that unfolded that night at > Godric's Hollow, and fled or wandered off after the destruction of > LV, without thinking about the baby in the rubble? It's canon that Snape turned spy before Lily died-- unless Dumbledore was lying for some reason in the Pensive scene in OoP. He testifies that Snape 'returned to our side' BEFORE V-mort's fall. Otherwise, not only would Dumbledore be lying, there would have to be a mystery OTHER spy to have tipped off the Potters to the danger they were in, as per Fudge in PoA. > Exodusts: > I don't think Snape came to regret telling LV the prophecy until > after Lily was dead. Again, this is pretty explicity against canon, again, unless Dumbeldore is lying. He says Harry would have no idea of the remorse Snape felt "WHEN HE DISCOVERED HOW VOLDEMORT INTERPRETED THE PROPHECY". The Potters went into hiding before they died; so Snape would have known who V-mort was targeting before he actually killed them. > I don't think that Snape could realistically expect to > successfully claim ownership of Lily, but he would certainly ask LV > to spare Lily's life. I just don't see how it's remotely in character for Voldemort to be sparing the lives of his enemies as a favour to the softer feelings of one of his minions. It rather seems to me like an instant death sentence for Snape to even suggest such a thing. The only thing I can picture is Snape successfully putting on an act of wanting to revenge himself on James by violating Lily, which is a motive Voldemort could understand; but how on earth JKR would introduce such an idea into the story, which so far has maintined a PG, nudge*nudge*wink*wink, rating is hard for me to imagine. > Exodusts: > I actually agree that, on the evidence we have at the moment, the > most likely candidate for being at Godric's Hollow is Peter > Pettigrew. By the way, is there a reason, aside from JKR's evasiveness in answering questions, to think there was anyone else at Goderic's Hollow? Even if Snape was there in a white leotard trying to save Lily, I still wouldn't be enthusiastic about it! It seems to me the central mystery of the series narrows down to the crucible containing Lily, Voldemort, and Harry; everyone else, including Snape, is one circle out in importance. JKR might write someone else in, but at the moment I don't see why. On to other matters, i.e. my being totally wrong, LOL, so you take the above with a grain of salt: > > Sydney: > > > > ...If the secret can't be extorted or tortured out, and it > > dies with the Keeper, then why bother with the switch? > > Either JKR or Sirius wasn't firing on all cylinders on this > > one.. ). > > zgirnius: > Do we know it can't be extorted or tortured out? (AM I missing > some explanation of this?) >bboyminn: >Yes, I think Sydney may be operating under a false assumption here. >JKR says that Keeper of the Secret can't be forced to reveal the >secret against their will. I was even more out to lunch than that-- I carelessly took JKR's thing about someone Veritaseruming the Potters to mean the secret couldn't be gained that way; but her point was actually that they couldn't give up the secret AT ALL-- THEY weren't the Secret Keepers. They could know it, but not divulge it. I don't know, maybe the SK himself COULD be forced to give it up by magical means. On the whole I'm with JKR herself, in finding the whole logic of the thing a bit boring... maybe she needs to subcontract this sort of thing out! (along with dates...) I'm unshaken in my opinion that Sirius is an idiot though ;). -- Sydney, prepared to be proven wrong on the presence or not of anybody at GH, but would need a darn good reason From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Feb 24 06:53:01 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 06:53:01 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148720 > > Gwen: > Do you really think that Dorea and Charlus Potter are people other > than Harry's grandparents, and that their one son is someone other > than James? Potioncat: Yes. Thirty-nine is on the late side to have a first child. But 57 is not elderly by either Muggle or Wizarding standards and James's parent's were supposed to be older wizards when they died. (I guess 'older' depends on how close to 57 you are.) However, as none of the math makes much sense, I'll toss my hands up at that. Those Potters are Sirius's great-aunt and great-uncle. Which would make Sirius and James cousins. The whole conversation that Sirius and Harry had about the tapestry is pointless if that's something Sirius wouldn't mention. It'd be like finding out in book 7 that the troll leg umbrella stand at the door of 12GP was still attached to the troll. And where the heck have Arcturus and Pollux been anyway? It's clear from the books that Sirius grew up at 12GP and he says his father put the dark spells on the house. Then it sat empty after his mother died. It's beginning to look more and more like the Black family had a major time-turner accident. From erikog at one.net Fri Feb 24 07:17:29 2006 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 07:17:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC, HBP 10 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148721 Answers to Lealess' wonderful questions: 1. Harry goes to great lengths to hide from Trelawney. In spite of this, he overhears a fortune-telling. Trelawney's card reading has been the subject of examination by those who know the Tarot. Why did Rowling put the card reading in this chapter? Is it necessary foreshadowing? Who is the "dark young man, possibly troubled, one who dislikes the questioner"? I think this is JKR playing with us on a number of levels. We get basic information here: Like Carol, PJ, and Betsy all said, this scene establishes Trelawney does have some natural fortune-telling abilities (given credibility because she rejects them!) It raises suspense, but does so in a slightly comedic way (hence the sherry). And this is where I think the playing comes in: while I think the dark young man is intended overtly to signify Harry, I don't think it is just coincidence when we're seeing other "dark young men" in this chapter, in the form of Voldemort and his father. And since Trelawney, predictions, and dark young men will come in a matter of chapters to scream of Snape to us, I think this is JKR winking to us about Snape, too. (Isn't it always about Snape? ;) To get to the point: It's really Harry, but JKR is hinting as well that the secret to the end lies in Voldie's past, and that Snape is a Big Deal. 2. Merope does not really speak in this chapter, or anywhere else in the book. Her few words are related by other characters. Yet, according to Dumbledore, she does speak for herself through her subsequent actions, although he speculates those actions are underhanded. Not allowing a voice to a character is a striking narrative device. Does Merope have a voice? What is its character? It's in her choices. I think JKR is doing a pretty good job of showing us that even the most wretched and pitifully oppressed, from house elves to people, can *do something*. And that they don't get a free pass for their choices, either. I think Merope is kept speechless in this chapter to make us *think* she has no power (since she's in a horrible family situation), to let us imagine her character as being completely oppressed and unable to help herself, until Dumbledore's telling us about her proves she's not just a victim. (Not to take anything away from her misery, of course, but to indicate she is *more than a doormat*.) 3. The Gaunts are said to have married their cousins.... Dumbledore comments that the Gaunts were "noted for a vein of instability and violence that flourished through the generations due to their habit of marrying their own cousins." They had also been high-living profligates. If we accept that specific personality traits can be inherited in the Wizarding world, what did Voldemort specifically inherit from the Gaunts? Well, the Gaunt family definitely brings the crazy. But otherwise, I'd say he gets his recklessness, his lack of concern for the rules, his paranoia/distrust of others, and above all, his pride from them. There's violence, too, but his is more focused to what he wants, vs. just sadistic pleasure. What he doesn't get...well, I'd say he rejects the path of solitary pride. Voldemort wants exterior validation badly. He doesn't want to set up a shack and be king of it. He wants the world. 4. Considering they are the heirs of Slytherin, why are the Gaunts so far outside the Wizarding world? It does not seem likely the Gaunts married into any other pureblood families. Gaunt himself may have been prepared to let the Slytherin bloodline die with Merope and Morfin. The Gaunts even seem to be unaware of the Wizarding world's laws. With this degree of separation, how did the Gaunts come to possess wands, or make their living? How did Merope learn the magic she used once her father and brother were gone? No idea, other than maybe there was some degree of home-schooling and/or natural development. (I imagine wizarding kids learned *something* about magic from their parents that Harry didn't get.) In regards the Gaunts' isolation, I think it goes to show that the pureblood philosophy is just opportunism. Yes, there's real snobbery out there, but it's based on things other than *just blood*. In this case, being dirt-poor, socially ignorant (to say the least), and being less-than-beautiful trumped the supposed merits of "good blood." 5. Inviting guesswork, as Dumbledore does: what is the story with the ring? It is an "ugly" ring that someone (Borgin & Burkes?) offered Gaunt a lot of money for at one time. The ring meant enough to the Gaunts that it and Slytherin's locket survived the family's squandering of its fortune. Is the Peverell connection important? Why is it necessary to keep the ring's story untold until book 7? The ring is a signifier of pride, for the Gaunts. They'd rather eat dirt than part with that ring. (Or should I say, the *dad* would rather do that--we don't know for sure about the kids' views on this.) Bad parenting, in other words, on display yet again in the HP world. I want to know why Dumbledore wears the ring, though? After all, it is ugly, and it is Voldemort's family ring, more likely to repel a kindly person than make them want to wear it. And Dumbledore isn't a man of great personal vanity--I mean, he's not the kind who is going to wear "bling" just because it's there! Especially Voldie-bling. My theory is the ring is poisoned/permanent. That not only was Dumbledore injured in killing the Horcrux in it, part of the ring is some kind of trap. And that's why we see the ring in Book 6, because the minute it goes on Dumbledore's hand, his personal hourglass begins its final countdown. (I think the episode of Katie and the necklace hints at this-- a very Medea-like image of poisoning a wearable object.) 6. What is he teaching Harry in this lesson? Why was it important to use the Pensieve in this instance instead of just telling Harry the information? Dumbledore admits to being really clever, but capable of making correspondingly huge mistakes. What if Dumbledore is wrong about his "guesswork"? Who is Dumbledore answerable to if he is wrong? Dumbledore is not God and, to be believable, we *can't* trust in him too much--otherwise there's no tension in the book! And especially since JKR's going to yank him off the stage soon, we have to leave him with ambivalent, troubled feelings--or we'll go into Book 7 with complete confidence and not edge-of-your-seat excitement. Someone--I think it was Carol--pointed out that the Pensieve provides a nifty way to give information in a much more interesting way that just exposition, and I agree. It is also much more ambivalent than a straightforward speech about their history, because we'd know more what *precisely* Dumbledore wanted Harry to see in the memory. 7. Dumbledore confirms that it is very important that Harry know about Voldemort's past, that it has "everything to do with the prophecy." What do the Gaunts, as part of Voldemort's past, have to do with the prophecy? We're back to the "the power the Dark Lord knows not": Love. He didn't get in his family home, where love didn't exist or was warped beyond recognition (the desperate connection between Tom and Merope); he didn't accept it at the orphanage; he didn't give it to his family when he had the opportunity, as an adult, to rise above the problems in his infancy (killing Daddy and setting up Uncle Morfin isn't a great I-forgive-you gesture). He has no empathy, no ability to understand others, and consequently, no ability to love. What he *does* have his pride, and that might be an important button for Harry to push later. 8. Who teaches morality in the wizarding world in the absence of parents, if not teachers?... It seems that Rowling is concluding, through Dumbledore, that people are born with a "blood"-derived moral sense. Voldemort was descended from the debased Gaunts and the selfish Riddle Sr.; they were bad, and he is therefore evil. Harry was descended from Lily and James Potter; they were good, and Dumbledore can therefore trust Harry to be good, even if Harry was raised without love. I'd object that Harry was raised *entirely* without love. Regardless of how the Dursleys behaved to Harry, they showed *one another* a great deal of love and affection, which I believe did help Harry, in a bizarre sort of way. Harry was also--through the Dursleys' insults--given to understand that his mother really did love his father, and that while they might not be there with him now, that love did exist. So Harry had two models of love Riddle didn't have. And I don't think Dumbledore, or Rowling, is necessarily making a blood-based argument. Dumbledore is going out of his way to show that Voldemort is a human being, from very explicable circumstances: inbred so badly his mother and uncle are both showing physical signs of being "bred out"; terrible family background; extremely troubling behavior in his orphanage, where he had opportunities to be a different kid than the one he chose to be. He is evil, but he is also not some dark, invincible deity of destruction. He is just a deeply, deeply screwed-up man. As for Harry, I agree with the poster (Carol?) who said that Dumbledore takes the point of view that a child must be allowed to make mistakes, in order to learn. Harry, by the time of the first book, also shows lots of signs that he's got a very good heart of his own (look at how he interacts with the snake, in admiration and compassion, or the fact he does deal with Mrs. Figg, if reluctantly). 9. The Wizengamot is responsible for enforcing Wizarding law at the time Morfin broke the law by performing magic in front of Muggles. But as Gaunt pointed out, there was no real consequence to breaking the law....What does the Gaunts' interaction with Wizarding law, especially as regards Muggles, say about that law? That a lack of kindness and empathy are flaws that go well beyond the Gaunt household; that the arrogance and pride of the Wizarding world, holding themselves superior to Muggles, able to control Muggles' destiny as they wished, contributed to the making of Voldemort just as much as his family did. 10. This had probably been discussed to death, but: Why can't Ron read the Prince's instructions? Hermione won't try to read them because she is opposed to "cheating" with the HBP book ? is this the real reason? Why does she insist the handwriting is a girl's? Part of me likes the reason one poster gave, that Hermione was trying to subvert Harry's support of the book by suggesting the author was female (causing teenage boy Harry to say, "Eww!" and drop the book like a hot coal, presumably. You can't think a girl is *cool*!). I think she's also irritated that Harry has managed to surpass her Potions grades because of that book, and she's projecting (based on her own experience) that such a smart author has to be female. (Implying that Harry, once again, owes his academic success to a girl.) I also considered the possibility that there's some kind of charm on the writing, to make it appear differently to three different viewers: Hermione thinks the hand is feminine; Harry thinks it is small and cramped, but no other indication of a female voice; and Ron can't even read it. I can't, however, draw any kind of general rule about it. (I also think the whole idea of Snape's teenage writing being mistaken for a girl's is very odd, I have to say. Your stereotypical teenage girl's writing is a loopy, bubbly script. In handwriting analysis, "feminine" writing is considered to be softer, rounder, written with less force/pressure into the page, more obviously graceful/aesthetically pleasing. I don't associate that at all with anything teen!Snape might write: As a guy with esteem issues, he'd probably write small; as a wordy student, he'd have cramped handwriting on tests, to squeeze everything in; as a guy whose mind is inclined to logic/math, he'd have more linear, precise handwriting, closer to print than cursive; and because he's trying to write quickly, no effort at being "pretty." I can see such a script getting bigger and more jagged over time--since he's writing even faster as an adult who has to dash off notes all the time, and since he's got a stronger sense of his own authority to speak--but I can't see that script being taken as "girlie.") Krista From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 08:28:34 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:28:34 -0000 Subject: Wizarding lifespans In-Reply-To: <007801c638b5$04e09160$c9340152@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148722 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "hpotter284" > Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:news about Black Family Tree/Wizarding lifespans > > > > If we take Dumbledore and Marchbanks as a guideline for wizard > > lifespans, then the average wizard life should last about 200 years. Yet none of the Blacks in the family tree lived anywhere close to thatlong (the oldest seem to have lived for about 80 years or so, which is barely above half of Dumbledore's age). z**snip** Doddie here: We cannot take the black family tree for determining the average age of wizards.. This is only one family tree. ( It may well be that is could be the muggle equivalent of the "Jones" or "Smith" family trees). My family has a massive family tree that fills more than 100 volumes of family trees alone---hundreds more volumes of other memorabilia and birth certificates etc.. We have family reunions of those who are related to us with only two names and get in excess of 6K attending. Then I also have family reunions for other family members who number in more than 10K(and this is outside of the U.S.)... Perhaps JK is encouraging us to consider all the huge family trees all the Purebloods may have..(i.e. the most noble family of Parkinson, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, Avery, Blaise, LeStrange, Malfoy, Gaunt, Prince, and all those claiming to be of PURE blood etc... Considering the name "Malfoy" it may make sense that for the most part...the purebloods may need more than a little clorine in their gene pool perhaps this is why JKR gave us lists of those students entering hogwarts for the years that Harry attended the sorting hat ceremony. DeeDee From heos at virgilio.it Fri Feb 24 09:34:41 2006 From: heos at virgilio.it (chrusotoxos) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:34:41 -0000 Subject: Grammar question (proving that Snape is evil?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148723 Hi! I was surprised about a sentence DD told Draco on the tower, but maybe it is a stupid sentence (English is not my first language...). DD: "I asked SS to watch over you..." Draco: "He was protecting me because he made an UV to my mother" DD: "This is what he may have told you, but" MAY have told you? Well, it was the truth, wasn't it? Whatever SS was doing on DD's orders, his primary goal in watch over DM was to fulfill the UV and thus save his own life. I've been trying to understand if indeed that "may" suggests that DD didn't know about the UV...mmmh, let's take this situation, SS is a diabetic and DD, for his own motives, asks him not to eat sugar: we have: DD, "SS is not eating sugar on my orders" DM, "foolish man, SS is not eating it because he's a diabetic" DD, "now, this is what he may have told you, but" This doesn't seem right to me. This seems right only if DD didn't know about him being diabetic. If he'd known, he would have said: DD "Yes, of course he is, but I gave him precise orders", or something like that. What if DD didn't know about the UV? What if SS was to keep an eye on DM PREVENTING HIM from going too far? But SS, bound by the UV, argues with that (the struggle in the forest), not daring to confide his true motives (ie, he'd be killed if he stops DM). Then we have the following scenary: a) Snape is good, not matter what, he didn't tell about the UV for his own motives and he's going to help HP somehow b) this proves SS is evil, full stop. Jm2C Chrus From tiamat at aapt.net.au Fri Feb 24 10:54:09 2006 From: tiamat at aapt.net.au (Fiona) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:54:09 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Owner of Riddle House - House of Mystery? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43FEE5D1.2060602@aapt.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 148724 > > Gerry > Well, he was the heir. The Riddles would not have left a will, but as > he was born in a legal marriage and raised in a muggle orphanage and > thus known to the muggle world he would show up in the search for next > of kin. Fiona: I got the impression from HBP that, when Merope gave birth to Voldemort, she was "in extremis" and didn't give much information to the orphanage (workhouse?) about his parents (maternal or paternal). If this is right, his birth certificate wouldn't give details of parentage. (Bloomsbury hardcover, p.249) " - and then she told me he was to be named Tom, for his father, and Marvolo, for her father - yes, I know, funny name, isn't it? ... and she said the boy's surname was to be Riddle. And she died soon after that without another word." (the speaker is Mrs Cole, of the orphanage). From that, it would be hard to connect the "Tom" with the "Riddle" with any certainty. Certainly it isn't enough to base a legal claim on. So, although there could well be a Muggle marriage certificate for Tom Snr and Merope, a birth certificate linking that marriage to the birth of Tom Jnr would not exist, making his claim to the Riddle estate much harder to prove. Of course, Voldemort could probably quite easily have his birth certificate say anything he wanted, but he was so against anything to do with his "filthy Muggle father", I doubt he would have wanted the house anyway. Fiona From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Feb 24 13:57:52 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:57:52 -0000 Subject: Grammar question (proving that Snape is evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148725 Chrus > What if DD didn't know about the UV? houyhnhnm: But he did know, from Harry at least (and at the time Harry told him, five months earlier, he implied that he--DD- knew more about it than Harry), so this premise is false. DD's choice of words "This is what he *may* have told you" if it has any significance at all, is what DD would say if he didn't want to reveal the full extent of his relationship with Snape. "I asked SS to watch over you..." "This is what he may have told you, but" implies that Snape is merely following orders given by his headmaster. "This *is* what he told you", on the other hand, would imply that Snape gives detailed reports about his conversations with Draco to Dumbledore. DD is revealing a few things to Draco on the tower--about his own knowledge of the plot, about the Order's ability to disappear people, because he is trying to win Draco over or stall him or whatever, but he is not about to "out" Snape to Draco. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Feb 24 15:51:13 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:51:13 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148726 Dung: Oh, suffering cats! - When you see how long this post is, you'll realise why it took me a while to respond... Alla, please forgive me, I'm going to snip around the replies you gave (to me and other people) and paste them into (what I think is) your argument, so that I can refute it in (what I think is) its entirety. I'll do my damnedest to make sure that I'm not misrepresenting you, but if I am, do say so. Your argument (as far as I can tell) falls into five parts: 1. Snape didn't know about Draco's task 2. Voldy didn't prompt Bella and Cissy to spinner's end 3. Snape should have refused the entire UV 4. Snape didn't tell DD about clause 3 5. Faced with a hideous choice, DD should have done *nothing* I reckon canon is on my side when it comes to refuting all except number 2, which is pure theory. I'm going to try to set it all out as clearly as I can, because I think that even if you don't like it, I can force you to admit that my scenario is plausible. Although we're agreed that our assumptions differ, I want to try to show you why I think my assumptions are not just plausible, but based on more solid canon than yours. We all have to make assumptions when we theorise because we lack so much information, but some assumptions really are more equal than others. And if not, I'm interested in discovering if there's a specific point at which we disagree which sends us off in different directions, rather just agreeing to disagree on a lot of generalities, which is pretty boring. (If anyone bandies about the word "na?ve" I shall give them a poke with that cutlass...) So please (and this goes for all disagreements I have here) don't take my arguing to stem from disagreement (I do disagree, but that's not why I'm arguing), I'm trying to understand where and how and (ok this is a bit optimistic) *why* we disagree. Look at it as an intellectual exercise in working out how we differ. That said, I will pull no punches. ****************************************************** SNAPE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT DRACO'S TASK Alla: Okay, so basically everything that would point to Snape being DD!M was concealed, right? But then again, why are you sure that Snape knew about Draco's task? Dung: It's canon. You're the one who's putting in the assumption that he's lying when he says: "It so happens that I know of the plan ... I am one of the few the Dark Lord has told." (HBP ch2 UK p37.) Alla: Couldn't that be a lie too to find out information for Dumbledore or something? Dung: Of course he *could* be lying, I don't deny that possibility, but give me *some* argument, proof, canon ? whatever that suggests he is, please. Otherwise, you have to admit that it is at least *possible* that he is telling the truth, and that your assumption that he's lying is just that: an assumption based on *no* canon. Whereas I am making no assumptions at all, I'm taking canon at face value. ****************************************************** VOLDY DIDN'T PROMPT BELLA AND CISSY TO SPINNER'S END Alla: But again this is goes from different assumptions we have. I am NOT as sure as you are that the meeting was instigated by Voldemort, I can totally see Narcissa going to Snape of her own initiative and Bella tagging along maybe hoping to give Voldemort useful spying info, BUT I see no definite evidence that Voldemort was behind arranging the meeting in the first place, from very beginning. Dung: Right, this is the toughest bit for me, because (I may as well come clean) it's basically a hunch. But even if I turn out to be wrong, I think it's a good theory (which is the whole point, after all). Do you think Narcissa knows that Voldy threatened to kill *her* as well as Draco if he failed? I suspect not, because she never mentions that her life is in danger, she's just going to pieces about Draco. Since she's so desperate to get help from Snape, you'd think she'd mention anything at all that might induce him to help her, wouldn't you? So I don't think she knows about that. Yet she also says "The Dark Lord has forbidden me to speak of it." Which must mean that she heard about the plan from him directly, but *not* at the same time that Draco did, otherwise she'd know that her life was in danger too. (It's a little flimsy, but perfectly plausible, right?) So we have Snape, Draco and Narcissa who have all been told about Draco's task *personally* and *separately* by Voldemort. (Sounds *just* like Old Snake Eyes to me.) We can plausibly say that Bella was also told personally, but she may have been told at the same time as Draco. It will come as no surprise to you that I think the instructions each received differed ever so slightly. 1. Draco. It's a fair bet that when Voldemort was giving Draco his instructions, he didn't mention anything at all about Snape, he certainly didn't order Draco to cooperate with him. Otherwise, in the overheard conversation at Slughorn's party, we would expect one of Snape's arguments to be that Voldy had ordered it, and Snape doesn't say anything like that, he just whinges about the UV. 2. Bella. Voldy must know that Bella doesn't trust Snape, she hardly keeps it quiet, does she? Bella was teaching Draco Occlumency. Draco insists to Snape that "I've got all the assistance I need, thanks, I'm not alone!" (HBP ch15 UK p303) So it's possible that Draco was told to cooperate with Bella. Bella assumes this is because Voldy has rightly decided (even if he won't say it outright) that Snape can't be trusted, which is why she's so surprised to find out that Snape actually does know about the plan. Look at it this way: why didn't Draco trust Snape? Why did Voldemort put Draco on the job, and *not* demand that he cooperate with Snape? Certainly, he wanted Draco to fail so he could kill him and teach Lucius a lesson, but I'm also convinced that Voldy very cleverly tied in testing Snape's loyalty and punishing Lucius with his ultimate goal, which was getting DD out of the way. If Bella noticed Snape slithering out of action, it's hardly likely that Voldy didn't. You agree that getting Snape to finish the task when Draco failed was a test of Snape's loyalty, right? If Draco doesn't tell Snape what he's up to, firstly it massively reduces the chance of DD and Snape being able to interfere (in case Voldy's trust in Snape *is* misplaced), and secondly it puts Snape in the position of having to follow orders without being in on the planning behind them. Snape doesn't know what Draco's doing, nor when he'll act, but he has to be waiting, ready to finish the task at a moment's notice when Draco fails. I think that's the kind of test Voldy would want, don't you? "Just do as I say, when I say, no questions." So I reckon Voldy deliberately got Bella and Draco together on this, so that Bella would impress on Draco the need to keep the plan from Snape. Make sense? 3. Narcissa. Voldy's certainly not above a little manipulation. He could easily plant the idea while apparently torturing Wormtail for being useless - "I should make each of you swear an Unbreakable Vow!" Likewise he could casually remind Cissy that Snape will be at Hogwarts, though without directly implying that Snape could look after Draco, of course, just a little hint, a little nudge. He's a legilimens, after all, he can manipulate people beautifully (could do since he was a kid), he knows just how much information to give, and just where to draw the line. 4. Snape. Voldy tells Snape about Draco's task, and implies that he doesn't want Snape interfering, he insists that Draco must try. But after that... when Draco fails (as he surely will)... well. Snape isn't daft enough to miss an anvil like that. That's the toughest bit to swallow, anyway ? the rest is more chocolatey. Basically, either Voldy is behind Bella and Cissy's visit to Spinner's End and the UV, or JKR has set up an awful lot of coincidences in order to limit Snape's choices. ****************************************************** SNAPE SHOULD HAVE REFUSED THE ENTIRE UV Alla: SURE, if Snape had refused only clause 3 the game would be up, no question about it. What I am NOT sure about is whether the game would be up if Snape refused to take UV at all. Absolutely, as I said above, he should not have taken UV AT ALL, IMO of course. He should have told Narcissa that she is NOT supposed to divulge Dark Lord confidence and threw them both out and Bella could have been even happy with it, IMO. The very plausible excuse would have been IMO to stop Narcissa from divulging Dark Lord's loyalties. I could not stop myself from quoting because I think that if Snape is a DD!M that would have been a PERFECT moment to make Narcissa leave AND Bella would have been happy too. I think her report to Voldie would have been that Snape as a faithful DE refused to talk about his secrets. Dung: This is why I specified that the reasons for Snape refusing the UV are *not* based on 20/20 hindsight. Snape is a *spy*. That involves not just being nominally on the Dark Lord's side, maintaining his cover and keeping out of trouble, but actively *seeking* information to pass to Dumbledore. When presented with the opportunity to look after Draco on his Mother's behalf, Snape has to jump at it. What would DD say if he reported that Narcissa had come to him begging for help, spilling secrets about Draco right left and centre, and that Snape had cold-shouldered her with the excuse that it would have made Voldy cross? Remember that Snape *already* knows that Draco's task is to kill DD, and he *already* suspects that Voldy wants him to complete it, and he has *already* discussed this with DD. He *doesn't* know how Draco is going about the task. He might suspect (or have been told by Voldy) that Bella has been told to help Draco, and he certainly knows that Bella doesn't trust him. Zgirnius understood me absolutely right: "He [Snape] reasonably believed [the vow] was going to be about protecting and watching over and helping Draco, this is what had been mentioned in the conversation leading up to Cissy's request) and he took the Vow becuase he believed it cost him nothing. "And, for this little cost, Snape could gain the trust of Bella (thus shutting up her whispering campaign), Cissy, and perhaps Draco, which might let him learn the details of HOW Draco planned to carry out his assignment. "It was only when Narcissa cornered him that he would have realized who was REALLY behind things." Dung: Succinct and exactly what I was getting at. Thanks. Responding to Zgirnius, Alla wrote: I see so MANY things that are wrong with agreeing to take UV to protect Draco [if Snape doesn't suspect that Cissy will add clause 3 ? Dung]. First one is what I said in my earlier post - to me it strikes VERY close to being an accessory to the murder. Snape does NOT just takes UV to protect Draco. He takes UV to protect and help him while Draco tries to carry out the assasination of the Headmaster. Yep, I think it is wrong on many levels. Dung: Ok, you think it's wrong on many levels, but you've only specified one level, so that's all I'm able to argue against. Do let me know what the others are, won't you? Snape has *already* discussed this with Dumbledore, before Cissy and Bella even turn up, he knows that Draco is ordered to kill DD or die trying. What would Dumbledore tell him? "Find out as much as you can about what Draco's planning, and we'll have an excellent chance of stopping the whole thing, we might even be able to find a way of maintaining your cover," surely? Or do you think he'd rather insist that Snape has nothing more to do with Draco on moral grounds because Draco's plotting *murder*? Neither DD nor Snape has that luxury, this is a *war*. There are more important things at stake; there is spying to be done, and lives hang in the balance. Based on the information Snape has before he takes the vow, I think DD wouldn't blame him at all. While we're at it, I'll just remind you of what DD says on the tower, which Chrustoxos thinks proves Snape's evil (msg 148723). Chrustoxos: "I was surprised about a sentence DD told Draco on the tower, but maybe it is a stupid sentence (English is not my first language...). "DD: "I asked SS to watch over you..." Draco: "He was protecting me because he made an UV to my mother" DD: "This is what he may have told you, but" "MAY have told you? Well, it was the truth, wasn't it? Whatever SS was doing on DD's orders, his primary goal in watch over DM was to fulfil the UV and thus save his own life." Dung: I will take the liberty of finishing off DD's sentence. "This is what he may have told you, but actually I ordered him to watch over you well before he even took the vow. In fact, he only took the vow because he thought it would make you trust him enough to tell him what you were up to so he could stop it." ****************************************************** SNAPE DIDN'T TELL DD ABOUT CLAUSE 3 Alla: Yes, if Snape confessed to DD the third clause right away, I can see your scenario. My only problem is I don't. I see Snape as incredibly arrogant person, I am always right sort of character and if I am wrong, I will deal with it by myself. Dung: Have you never noticed that the Snape-DD interactions we see have a very different flavour to the Snape-Harry interactions? In *each* case, Snape defers to DD, he is never rude to DD, he is never sarcastic to DD. At one time in the past he confessed *remorse* to DD. Don't make me conclude that we disagree because you lack imagination, Alla, because I don't believe it. Come on, admit that it's possible. Besides, since Snape clearly told DD about clauses 1 and 2 of the vow, and when Harry mentions it he says "I think you might even consider the possibility that I understood more than you did," again, canon favours me saying that he did tell DD. You're pointing to a lack of concrete evidence and shouting that it's evidence of absence, which I'm afraid it is not. Alla: I also (Nora said it so much better) don't quite buy Snape as DD right hand man argument. Dung: I never made the "Snape as DD's right-hand man" argument. Snape was simply reporting to DD as any spy does to his boss. I don't (for what it's worth) think that Snape knows about the Horcruxes. I do think that he reports what he hears at DE meetings to DD and/or the Order. That's hardly controversial, is it? Actually, from OotP, it's canon. ****************************************************** FACED WITH A HIDEOUS CHOICE, DD SHOULD HAVE DONE *NOTHING* Alla: If the situation played out as you described ( which again I am not so sure it did), sure Dumbledore is in a difficult situation here. I cannot see Dumbledore saying "Gee, Severus, old chump, thank you SO much for making my death coming so much faster. Now I have to leave sixteen year old boy to complete horcruxes hunt. But by all means if push comes to shove, kill me ASAP". Sorry, just don't see it. What would I think Dumbledore could have done if this situation played out as you described? Probably suggesting trying to fool the UV, since there is no definite time frame in the UV itself. Just to be clear - by fooling the UV I was suggesting that Dumbledore would tell Snape to try and keep postponing the task indefinitely, NOT meticulously planning his death all year. Dung: Alla, you know full-well that Snape was NOT meticulously planning DD's death all year (whether he's DDM or not), *Draco* was, and he *wouldn't let Snape know what he was up to*. Please stick to canon. Snape was doing his damnedest to find out what Draco was up to so that they could stall it ? but Draco held fast. What else was Snape to do? Alla: But I came to realise that even more precise answer to Dung's question exists and it would be IMO VERY IC for Dumbledore. I think Dumbledore would have done NOTHING, just sort of letting events to play out and hoping for the best. Dungrollin: :: mind boggles :: You think sticking his fingers in his ears and singing loudly is typically Dumbledorean?! You don't think he would have tried to give Snape a little direction, perhaps some sympathy, somewhere? Are you really telling me that you think once Snape has told DD about clause 3, Dumbledore ignores him, sticks his head in the sand, and *never mentions it again*? Ok, let's (for the sake of argument) assume that you're partially right, and that Dumbledore doesn't demand anything of Snape, he allows Snape to make the choice for himself. DDM!Snape says "I've had enough anyway, I want out. I'll die with the vow, thanks." (Frankly, I think that dying would be the soft option, the "easy" rather than the "right", but you'd probably disagree.) Dumbledore would (I think) say: "All right, if that's what you want. But promise me one thing, if Draco fails, and I am unable to protect him for any reason ? for example if he manages to produce a Death Eater accomplice who will kill me instead, promise me you'll do it, promise me that you'll kill me first so that you are alive and able to keep Draco safe, away from Voldemort." Snape probably has as low opinion of Draco's chances of doing just that as anybody, so he promises. But then, at Slughorn's party, Draco tells him that he's *got* help. Snape faithfully relays this information to DD (on the edge of the Forbidden Forest), and DD reminds him of his promise, at which point Snape tries to back out, saying he doesn't want to have to protect the insolent little scab anyway, and he'd rather die. And then on the tower, "Severus... please..." It all fits, you know. ****************************************************** CONCLUSIONS/CAVEATS/OTHER STUFF To be sure, I know that I'm hanging an awful lot on a few lines of canon, mostly: "He intends me to do it in the end, I think." But it's a hell of a lot more canon than LOLLIPOPS has ? ships have been floated on much less. The other DDM!Snape theories I've read rely on DD being on his way out due to the potion, split-second legilimency between Snape and DD on the tower, and a number of other tricks. I think my version (which I may as well label the DELUSIONAL variant since I don't have another title handy) is more firmly rooted in canon, and relies on fewer assumptions. But I may as well tell you what I think about the potion and DD's state on the tower while I'm at it. Um... some DDM!Snapers might not like it... The potion in the cave had one plot function, which was to disable DD so that he was vulnerable to Draco. Draco *had* to fail because he was unable to take that last leap into darkness and kill an unarmed man to save his own life. (No sarcastic comparisons with Snape here, please, DELUSIONAL DDM!Snape didn't want to do it at all.) If DD had been healthy, he would have overpowered Draco and sorted out the DEs in the flick of a wand, and there goes the *entire* plot of HBP. In other words, Draco only got as far as he did through pure luck. "I am more defenceless than you can have dreamed of finding me." (HBP ch27 UK p551.) A little aside re Rotten Apples (which is a nice name for the theory I outlined in the Small Choice in Rotten Apples thread, despite the fact that it's not an acronym). Draco had the "kill or be killed" choice too, you know, except that he had an obvious way out - confessing all and trusting that DD could protect him, which he *didn't* take. What I've written above might go some way to explaining better why I'm a bit obsessed with rotten choices, and why I think this particular choice will come up again so that we can see how Harry deals with it. Dungrollin Again, apologising for the length, but wanting to be thorough. From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 16:19:37 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:19:37 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148727 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > Dungrollin: > :: mind boggles :: You think sticking his fingers in his ears and > singing loudly is typically Dumbledorean?! You don't think he would > have tried to give Snape a little direction, perhaps some sympathy, > somewhere? Are you really telling me that you think once Snape has > told DD about clause 3, Dumbledore ignores him, sticks his head in > the sand, and *never mentions it again*? As much sympathy as he gives Snape at the denoument of PoA? (Sorry, couldn't resist there...) Well, it's canonical that he's done some form of what one might unkindly call denial in the past--unless you want to argue for Super Overseer Dumbledore, who keeps a benign watch over everything, always ready to intervene for the better. After all, Dumbledore has let things to get to the point where they are in any number of interpersonal relationships in Hogwarts. He leaves Hagrid to stew on his own, he leaves Sirius in the house because he thinks it's the best option, he keeps Harry in the dark because he's concerned about the poor woobie having to deal with knowledge. I think Dumbledore *does* have a certain faith in letting things work themselves out without stirring himself to apply overt pressure: after all, he continues to let Draco go free when he could have snapped down on him, precisely in the gamble to get the outcome that he wants, the confrontation. (One might include the end of PS/SS in here too, letting the kids deal with it on their own.) We're all playing with so many assumptions here, because your reading of Spinner's End is just as vulnerable as Alla's: both of you need Snape to be lying and maneuvering at some point or another, right? Or else he's got blood on his hands and he's not being good at being dodgy. Once we enter into that realm, there don't seem (to me) to be good criteria for saying "He's *obviously* being skeezy here to fool Bella, but he's actually not lying here." Umm, that's a tangent. But I can see, as it seems some cannot, Dumbledore making huge jumps and leaps which other people in the series wouldn't make, and which other listies don't think of Dumbledore as making. For instance, I think things are going to tend to come down more to this deep sense of trust with him, rather than the hard-core solid proof many people think he must have had, of Snape's conversion and remorse. That's a guess, but I don't think it can be ruled out at this moment. It even has some very attractive thematic features to it. -Nora vanishes back into the stacks for a while, not to emerge From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 17:10:20 2006 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:10:20 -0000 Subject: Wandless Magic In-Reply-To: <20060223231910.20020.qmail@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148728 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maria Holub wrote: > > > I apologize if this has been brought up earlier. > > The first wandless magic I > > can recall is in the Sorcerer's Stone, Chap. 17, The > > Man With Two Faces. > > Quirrell both ties Harry up with ropes that spring > > out of thin air with a > > snap of his fingers and releases Harry from the > > ropes with a clap of his > > hands. > > How about in PS/SS Chap. TWO, The Vanishing Glass, > when Harry dumps his cousin in a snake tank without > even realizing it? The zoo incident wouldn't be the first if you counted incidents at Harry's school that we heard of "second hand." We have to figure out what a wand does before we figure out what wandless magic does. I always thought a wand focuses and directs magic, like a lens, or a nozzle on a hose. Without the wand, the magic is unfocused and sort of dribbles out all over. Wandless magic might be more likely to succeed if: The caster is in contact with the item is more intensely focused, like Harry angry at Dudley at the zoo or at having his hair crudely cut off The caster is experienced and powerful. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Feb 24 17:30:15 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:30:15 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148729 > Dungrollin: > :: mind boggles :: You think sticking his fingers in his ears and > singing loudly is typically Dumbledorean?! You don't think he would > have tried to give Snape a little direction, perhaps some sympathy, > somewhere? Are you really telling me that you think once Snape has > told DD about clause 3, Dumbledore ignores him, sticks his head in > the sand, and *never mentions it again*? Nora: As much sympathy as he gives Snape at the denoument of PoA? (Sorry, couldn't resist there...) Dung: Snape had not just signed his own death warrant at the end of PoA. He was being stubborn, and he was *wrong* about Sirius. He didn't deserve sympathy. In HBP everything that got him into the UV situation Snape did for DD and the anti-Voldy cause. He took the UV (in my scenario ? which is what we're talking about, right?) in order to get information on Draco's plot ? in order to help save DD's life. Do you not think it would be deeply ungrateful of DD to not even say "sorry I got you into this, mate?" You don't think he might feel just the teensiest bit guilty? Nora: Well, it's canonical that he's done some form of what one might unkindly call denial in the past--unless you want to argue for Super Overseer Dumbledore, who keeps a benign watch over everything, always ready to intervene for the better. After all, Dumbledore has let things to get to the point where they are in any number of interpersonal relationships in Hogwarts. He leaves Hagrid to stew on his own, he leaves Sirius in the house because he thinks it's the best option, he keeps Harry in the dark because he's concerned about the poor woobie having to deal with knowledge. Dung: Again, in none of those situations was a character facing *death*. Except possibly Sirius, which is *why* DD kept him cooped up. Nora: I think Dumbledore *does* have a certain faith in letting things work themselves out without stirring himself to apply overt pressure: after all, he continues to let Draco go free when he could have snapped down on him, precisely in the gamble to get the outcome that he wants, the confrontation. (One might include the end of PS/SS in here too, letting the kids deal with it on their own.) Dung: Yeah, and at the end of PoA, he threw up his hands and said "Well, there's nothing I can do, Sirius is going to be kissed, I know he's innocent, but the alternative is making two under-age students break one of the most important wizarding laws by changing time, and I've only got a couple of minutes..." In other words, I agree that he does, sometimes take a hands-off approach; but *never* when someone's life/soul is on the line. In PS/SS the second he knew what was going on he turned back to Hogwarts to save Harry. In OotP he questions Kreacher and hot-tails it to the MoM. Nora: We're all playing with so many assumptions here, because your reading of Spinner's End is just as vulnerable as Alla's: both of you need Snape to be lying and maneuvering at some point or another, right? Dung: And you don't? *Any* interpretation of Spinner's End involves that, not just mine and Alla's, because canon *is not consistent*. And I'm not happy with saying "we just *can't* know for sure, so let's not bother thinking about it." I'm firmly of the conviction that JKR very very carefully weighed up all the evidence pointing to traitor! Snape and DDM!Snape (I wonder what she calls them in her head?), and made sure that at the end of HBP they were as near equal as makes no odds. I've never denied that I have to make assumptions ? in fact I made it explicit. Perhaps you missed the bit of my post where I said that I was trying to prove my assumptions were more firmly rooted in canon than Alla's. You seem to be dismissing them as equally valid (or not) as any other assumptions, simply because they're assumptions, without even looking at the evidence I presented. Nora: Or else he's got blood on his hands and he's not being good at being dodgy. Once we enter into that realm, there don't seem (to me) to be good criteria for saying "He's *obviously* being skeezy here to fool Bella, but he's actually not lying here." Dung: There's a good way of testing it. It even uses a modified version of the scientific method (minus replicability, of course, since we only have one lot of canon). You come up with a hypothesis of what is driving Snape's behaviour, and you try to predict what he should do under a given set of circumstances. If your prediction tallys with canon, then you're onto something. You can still be *wrong*, of course, but you can hold your head up high, and say "My theory is consistent." Of course, nobody actually theorises like that (though they often seem more amenable to the method when attacking someone else's theory ? or is that just me?), with the possible exception of Neri but in principle it should work. It won't get you to the ultimate truth, of course, because, as I said, JKR deliberately made the evidence equal on both sides, so there are a number of interpretations/predictions which are internally consistent. I'm not *saying* there aren't other interpretations, I'm just defending mine. Nora: Umm, that's a tangent. But I can see, as it seems some cannot, Dumbledore making huge jumps and leaps which other people in the series wouldn't make, and which other listies don't think of Dumbledore as making. For instance, I think things are going to tend to come down more to this deep sense of trust with him, rather than the hard-core solid proof many people think he must have had, of Snape's conversion and remorse. That's a guess, but I don't think it can be ruled out at this moment. It even has some very attractive thematic features to it. Dung: Thematic it might be, but it's lousy as far as a good story goes. After six books of Harry wondering repeatedly *why* DD trusted Snape, you think the answer's going to be "well, he just ... *did*." My mileage varies colossally, as you might have guessed... Dungrollin From sopraniste at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 17:31:22 2006 From: sopraniste at yahoo.com (Maria Holub) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:31:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wandless Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060224173122.96820.qmail@web35613.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148730 --- Jim Ferer wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maria Holub > wrote: > > > > > I apologize if this has been brought up earlier. > > > > The first wandless magic I > > > can recall is in the Sorcerer's Stone, Chap. 17, > The > > > Man With Two Faces. > > > Quirrell both ties Harry up with ropes that > spring > > > out of thin air with a > > > snap of his fingers and releases Harry from the > > > ropes with a clap of his > > > hands. > > > > How about in PS/SS Chap. TWO, The Vanishing Glass, > > when Harry dumps his cousin in a snake tank > without > > even realizing it? > > The zoo incident wouldn't be the first if you > counted incidents at > Harry's school that we heard of "second hand." The question that I was responding to was what was the first example of wandless magic we saw in the series. The incidents at school are not mentioned until Hagrid shows up, several chapters later. (Oh! And I apologize for neglecting to sign my previous post! Mea culpa!) Flop __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 17:34:32 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:34:32 -0000 Subject: Grammar question (proving that Snape is evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148731 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chrusotoxos" wrote: > Chrus: > > Hi! > > I was surprised about a sentence DD told Draco on the tower, > but maybe it is a stupid sentence .... > > DD: "I asked SS to watch over you..." > Draco: "He was protecting me because he made an UV to my mother" > DD: "This is what he may have told you, but" > > MAY have told you? Well, it was the truth, wasn't it? Whatever > SS was doing on DD's orders, his primary goal in watch over DM > was to fulfill the UV and thus save his own life. > bboyminn: I think Dumbledore is making a statement of priorities rather than aboslutes. That is, he is not really disputing Draco, he is saying that while that may be true, Snape has higher priorities. For Example: DD: "I asked Snape to watch over you...." Draco: "He was protecting me because he made an Unbreakable Vow to my mother." DD: "This is what he may have told you, but ... my priority is you and your integrity. I gave Snape orders to make sure you, Draco, did not make the biggest mistake of your life. Snape's first priority is to make sure you do not irrevocably set a course toward your own doom." Or something like that. Dumbledore is not denying the UV. He is saying that Snape has willingly risked his life to make sure Draco doesn't destroy his own life. The implication is that Draco, despite what he might think or what he might have done so far, is not a lost cause just yet, there is still hope for his redemption. And this fits with the conversation they are engaged in. Dumbledore is trying to get Draco to make the right decision and join the good side before he had commited an act so dark that there will be no comming back from it. In short, I think the use of the word 'may' is simply impling that the UV is not the whole story. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 17:48:50 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:48:50 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148733 > Dung: > Your argument (as far > as I can tell) falls into five parts: > > 1. Snape didn't know about Draco's task > 2. Voldy didn't prompt Bella and Cissy to spinner's end > 3. Snape should have refused the entire UV > 4. Snape didn't tell DD about clause 3 > 5. Faced with a hideous choice, DD should have done *nothing* Alla: Correct, except number 5, but that is totally my fault. I did not make it clear. I don't think Dumbledore SHOULD have done nothing, but I do think that it is a huge possibility that he WOULD have done nothing based on his actions in the past and as you said - let Snape figuring things for himself and stay aside and watch. Dung: >> I'm going to try to set it all out as clearly as I can, because I > think that even if you don't like it, I can force you to admit that > my scenario is plausible. Alla: Erm... sure it is plausible. I said that already if you can convince me that those basic assumptions that we differ on could come true as you predict and so far I was not convinced. But let's continue then. :-) > ****************************************************** > SNAPE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT DRACO'S TASK > Alla: > Okay, so basically everything that would point to Snape being DD!M > was concealed, right? But then again, why are you sure that Snape > knew about Draco's task? > > Dung: > It's canon. You're the one who's putting in the assumption that he's > lying when he says: > "It so happens that I know of the plan ... I am one of the few the > Dark Lord has told." (HBP ch2 UK p37.) Alla: And let me go back again to the Snape's whole story in Spinner's End. OF COURSE what you just cited is canon, but could you explain to me again what is the reason you take this canon at face value, but not Snape's wonderful story to Bella about 'spinning tale of deepest remorse" to Dumbledore and having a hand in the murders of Emmelyne Vance and Sirius as a lie. You CHOOSE to think that Snape is lying in this part of the story, no? I am truly puzzled here. You assume that Snape is good, right, therefore you choose to disbelieve this part of the story, correct? > Alla: > Couldn't that be a lie too to find out information for Dumbledore or > something? > > Dung: > Of course he *could* be lying, I don't deny that possibility, but > give me *some* argument, proof, canon ? whatever that suggests he > is, please. Otherwise, you have to admit that it is at least > *possible* that he is telling the truth, and that your assumption > that he's lying is just that: an assumption based on *no* canon. > Whereas I am making no assumptions at all, I'm taking canon at face > value. Alla: See above. I will agree with you that Snape is telling the truth here if you agree with me that he is telling the truth to Bella about other things. :) As far as I am concerned, he can be lying through his teeth the whole time OR he can be telling the truth the whole time OR of course he can be doing both, but we both make assumptions when he does what, no? I can say the same thing - your assumption that Snape was not telling the truth in the part of the story which does not portray him in a good light is also not based on the canon. > > ****************************************************** > VOLDY DIDN'T PROMPT BELLA AND CISSY TO SPINNER'S END > Alla: But again this is goes from different assumptions we have. I > am NOT as sure as you are that the meeting was instigated by > Voldemort, I can totally see Narcissa going to Snape of her own > initiative and Bella tagging along maybe hoping to give Voldemort > useful spying info, BUT I see no definite evidence that Voldemort > was behind arranging the meeting in the first place, from very > beginning. > > Dung: > Right, this is the toughest bit for me, because (I may as well come > clean) it's basically a hunch. But even if I turn out to be wrong, I > think it's a good theory (which is the whole point, after all). Alla: Right, this is a great theory, no question about it, but my main objection to it would be that IMO you give Voldy way, way too much credit. I don't see Voldie capable of giving everybody that set of complicated different instructions you described. The way I see it, he came to Malfoys home or called Draco to him )probably with Narcissa and/or Bella present and gave him the instructions. I think it is perfectly plausible that Narcissa learned about the task from Draco, if she was not present. Sorry, but my belief in Voldie analytical and loeadership skills shook very very firmly if they ever existed after instead of killing Harry in Graveyeard he let him have his wand back. I do think that Voldie is not above little manipulation, but not that complex manipulation you described - as in keeping three level operation together in his little head - trying to kill Dumbledore, testing Snape's loyalty and punishing Malfoys. I can barely give him credit for doing two levels at the same time - planning to kill DD and punishing Malfoys. I think testing Snape's loyalty at the same time would be a bit out of Voldie's league. Come to think of it, maybe I got confused, but why exactly Voldie does need to test Snape's loyalty from your position? I mean, he seemed to accept ALL his followers back after many years of them doing whatever things, when he was Vapormort. And if Snape was telling the truth in Spinner's End, he was perfectly satisfied with Snape's appearance in GoF? Oh, and again if you think Snape was lying, what is your reason for that assumption? > Dung: > Remember that Snape *already* knows that Draco's task is to kill DD, > and he *already* suspects that Voldy wants him to complete it, and > he has *already* discussed this with DD. Alla: Right, in your argument I understand that. > Responding to Zgirnius, Alla wrote: > I see so MANY things that are wrong with agreeing to take UV to > protect Draco [if Snape doesn't suspect that Cissy will add clause > 3 ? Dung]. First one is what I said in my earlier post - to me it > strikes VERY close to being an accessory to the murder. Snape does > NOT just takes UV to protect Draco. He takes UV to protect and help > him while Draco tries to carry out the assasination of the > Headmaster. Yep, I think it is wrong on many levels. > > Dung: > Ok, you think it's wrong on many levels, but you've only specified > one level, so that's all I'm able to argue against. Do let me know > what the others are, won't you? > > Snape has *already* discussed this with Dumbledore, before Cissy and > Bella even turn up, he knows that Draco is ordered to kill DD or die > trying. What would Dumbledore tell him? "Find out as much as you can > about what Draco's planning, and we'll have an excellent chance of > stopping the whole thing, we might even be able to find a way of > maintaining your cover," surely? > Or do you think he'd rather insist that Snape has nothing more to do > with Draco on moral grounds because Draco's plotting *murder*? > Neither DD nor Snape has that luxury, this is a *war*. There are > more important things at stake; there is spying to be done, and > lives hang in the balance. Based on the information Snape has before > he takes the vow, I think DD wouldn't blame him at all. Alla: Sorry, I can see DD saying find out as much as you can. But I cannot see Dumbledore saying take an UV, even if it helps you finding out as much as you can. That is just my read of Dumbledore's character and books in general which is different from yours on fundamental meta-level, but I am sure you know that. That is why it is so hard to argue when we have basically different basics to start from. And yes, I see Dumbledore telling Snape not to tal I don't see the books as "spying games", before you start giving me examples of erm...spies, I know they are there, but IMO they are there for very different purposes than to create as someone suggested in the past the books a la John Le Carre "Spy who came from the cold". I see the books as the books about human nature, power of love and forgiveness AND carmic punishment too and to tell you the truth so far I had been incredibly happy with the directions they are going. I don't see Dumbledore as Puppetmaster!. I see him as a good man struggling to make horrible choices and trying to keep the souls of his soldiers intact too. That is why it is so HARD for me to imagine that Dumbledore would order Snape to kill him, basically impossible, ESPECIALLY planning for it in advance. I can see dying Dumbledore asking Snape to do it on the Tower. I am saying it with gritted teeth, believe me. I cannot see alive and healthy Dumbledore to ask that of Snape. I especially cannot see alive and healthy Dumbledore so easily abandoning Harry to Horcrux hunt and going to die for Snape. And that is all if Snape indeed talked to Dumbledore. Which I am really really not sure about. > Alla: Yes, if Snape confessed to DD the third clause right away, I > can see your scenario. My only problem is I don't. I see Snape as > incredibly arrogant person, I am always right sort of character and > if I am wrong, I will deal with it by myself. > > Dung: > Have you never noticed that the Snape-DD interactions we see have a > very different flavour to the Snape-Harry interactions? In *each* > case, Snape defers to DD, he is never rude to DD, he is never > sarcastic to DD. At one time in the past he confessed *remorse* to > DD. Alla: Hmm, I may be lacking imagination to imagine your scenario, that's for sure. NO, I don't think Snape always defers to Dumbledore. Just reread the conversation with Fudge,which Nora was talking about, where Snape hopes DD will not interfer. Just reread "have you forgotten that Sirius Black tried to kill ME". I think it is very possible that by saving Sirius' life in PoA Dumbledore unknowingly helped to stir growing resentment in Snape. IMO of course. Dung: > Besides, since Snape clearly told DD about clauses 1 and 2 of the > vow, and when Harry mentions it he says "I think you might even > consider the possibility that I understood more than you did," > again, canon favours me saying that he did tell DD. You're pointing > to a lack of concrete evidence and shouting that it's evidence of > absence, which I'm afraid it is not. Alla: I am afraid we do have to agree to disagree, because frankly I am not even sure that Dumbledore knew about first two clauses, although of course it is possible that he did based on that conversation, but maybe he learned from using legilimency on Draco for example, no? In any event, to me the lack of evidence is enough to assume that DD did not know about clause three. Sorry! > Alla: > I also (Nora said it so much better) don't quite buy Snape as DD > right hand man argument. > > Dung: > I never made the "Snape as DD's right-hand man" argument. Snape was > simply reporting to DD as any spy does to his boss. I don't (for > what it's worth) think that Snape knows about the Horcruxes. I do > think that he reports what he hears at DE meetings to DD and/or the > Order. That's hardly controversial, is it? Actually, from OotP, it's > canon. > Alla: Oh, I think you are the first Snape defender then not to make such an argument. Sorry! Seems like everybody does, while I don't buy it all. But that begs a question - if you don't think that Snape knmew about Horcruxes, which I think is perfectly plausible too - DD did not have to tell Snape how he got hurt, just what curse was used to protect the ring. What use do you think Snape may have to help Harry in book 7? Alla: > Just to be clear - by fooling the UV I was suggesting that > Dumbledore would tell Snape to try and keep postponing the task > indefinitely, NOT meticulously planning his death all year. > > Dung: > Alla, you know full-well that Snape was NOT meticulously planning > DD's death all year (whether he's DDM or not), *Draco* was, and he > *wouldn't let Snape know what he was up to*. Please stick to canon. Alla: Erm... Sorry. I meant that DUMBLEDORE would not be meticulously planning his own death all year in order to help out Snape. > Dungrollin: > :: mind boggles :: You think sticking his fingers in his ears and > singing loudly is typically Dumbledorean?! You don't think he would > have tried to give Snape a little direction, perhaps some sympathy, > somewhere? Are you really telling me that you think once Snape has > told DD about clause 3, Dumbledore ignores him, sticks his head in > the sand, and *never mentions it again*? Alla: Prior to book 6, how many examples we have of Dumbledore's "PROACTIVE" planning? Yes, I know we have him netioning of his "plan" in OOP, but since no more detailed description to follow, I will stick to the assumption that DD plan was to keep Harry safe. Oh, and not checking on Harry during his before Hogwarts time also tells me that DD let's things play out and hopes for the best. I can be wrong of course. Dung: > Ok, let's (for the sake of argument) assume that you're partially > right, and that Dumbledore doesn't demand anything of Snape, he > allows Snape to make the choice for himself. DDM!Snape says "I've > had enough anyway, I want out. I'll die with the vow, thanks." > (Frankly, I think that dying would be the soft option, the "easy" > rather than the "right", but you'd probably disagree.) Alla: Yes, I think we do disagree again. But mostly because I think Snape is too cowardly to embrace his great adventure with head up. Again my speculative opinion. Dung: > Dumbledore would (I think) say: "All right, if that's what you want. > But promise me one thing, if Draco fails, and I am unable to protect > him for any reason ? for example if he manages to produce a Death > Eater accomplice who will kill me instead, promise me you'll do it, > promise me that you'll kill me first so that you are alive and able > to keep Draco safe, away from Voldemort." Alla: You see, that is my very main problem. Regardless of what Snape said to DD, I cannot for the life of me to see Dumbledore EVER asking Snape to do that, because IMO he would prefer Snape's soul not be hurt more. Dung: > Snape probably has as low opinion of Draco's chances of doing just > that as anybody, so he promises. But then, at Slughorn's party, > Draco tells him that he's *got* help. Snape faithfully relays this > information to DD (on the edge of the Forbidden Forest), and DD > reminds him of his promise, at which point Snape tries to back out, > saying he doesn't want to have to protect the insolent little scab > anyway, and he'd rather die. Alla: Or Snape says that he does not want to teach DADA anymore, because he just learned that position is indeed cursed. Or Snape simply wants out of spying. Or Snape does not want to watch over Harry anymore. Oh, the possibilities. Dung: > And then on the tower, "Severus... please..." Alla: "Severus...please... not Harry...take me instead" I still find this suggestion by a_svirn to be very fitting here. Dung: > It all fits, you know. Alla: Okay. :-) Dung: > ****************************************************** > CONCLUSIONS/CAVEATS/OTHER STUFF > > To be sure, I know that I'm hanging an awful lot on a few lines of > canon, mostly: "He intends me to do it in the end, I think." But > it's a hell of a lot more canon than LOLLIPOPS has ? ships have been > floated on much less. Alla: No, I don't think you are hanging too much on this canon line. I think it is a very cool theory, I just don't see the reason to assume that this line is the truth, that is all. IMO of course. > Dung: > I've never denied that I have to make assumptions ? in fact I made > it explicit. Perhaps you missed the bit of my post where I said that > I was trying to prove my assumptions were more firmly rooted in > canon than Alla's. You seem to be dismissing them as equally valid > (or not) as any other assumptions, simply because they're > assumptions, without even looking at the evidence I presented. Alla: So far I absolutely don't see how your assumptions are more firmly rooted in canon than mine. Sorry! I base my assumption of Snape bad behaviour(in part) on one part of Spinner's End, which I choose to believe is true, you on the other hand choose to believe that another part of Snape's story is true, which I think is a lie ( and I think that I am actually helping DD!M Snape by believing that this is a lie) IMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Feb 24 17:54:45 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:54:45 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148734 Dungrollin: > But I may as well tell you what I think about the potion and DD's > state on the tower while I'm at it. Um... some DDM!Snapers might not > like it... > > The potion in the cave had one plot function, which was to disable > DD so that he was vulnerable to Draco. Draco *had* to fail because > he was unable to take that last leap into darkness and kill an > unarmed man to save his own life. (No sarcastic comparisons with > Snape here, please, DELUSIONAL DDM!Snape didn't want to do it at > all.) If DD had been healthy, he would have overpowered Draco and > sorted out the DEs in the flick of a wand, and there goes the > *entire* plot of HBP. > > In other words, Draco only got as far as he did through pure > luck. "I am more defenceless than you can have dreamed of finding > me." (HBP ch27 UK p551.) > Pippin: No...there was a choice involved also. JKR didn't have to give Dumbledore all the symptoms of severe poisoning and have him insist on sending Harry for Snape if all she wanted to do was show that DD was weak. Instead she shows a desperately ill Dumbledore choosing to investigate the situation on the tower before seeking help. He put the safety of the students ahead of his personal safety, and I think that shows he was already prepared to sacrifice himself if necessary. It's a chess game, and in chess powerful pieces are often sacrificed to put weaker ones in a stronger position. Surely Dumbledore is just as capable of making such a sacrifice as Ron is. While Snape can no longer serve the Order as a spy, he is in a much improved position for sabotage and wreaking havoc among the DE's. Which of them, even Bella, would dare to question an order he said came from Voldemort? I can't help thinking that for reasons of economy, the thing Snape didn't want to do any more and the thing Dumbledore pleaded with Snape to do on the tower must be the same. Pippin From ms-tamany at rcn.com Fri Feb 24 18:32:50 2006 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:32:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4qag60$66pveb@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148735 Dung: > Dumbledore would (I think) say: "All right, if that's what you want. > But promise me one thing, if Draco fails, and I am unable to protect > him for any reason - for example if he manages to produce a Death > Eater accomplice who will kill me instead, promise me you'll do it, > promise me that you'll kill me first so that you are alive and able > to keep Draco safe, away from Voldemort." Alla: You see, that is my very main problem. Regardless of what Snape said to DD, I cannot for the life of me to see Dumbledore EVER asking Snape to do that, because IMO he would prefer Snape's soul not be hurt more. Now Tammy says: Okay, so, Alla, let me see if I have this straight here. You think Dumbledore would rather Snape be dead than hurt. You think Dumbledore finds it preferable for Snape to die, leaving Draco to the gentle mercy of Voldemort and the Death Eaters, rather than for Snape to hurt his soul so that he can remain alive to protect and help a student. I can easily see Dumbledore being willing to sacrifice his own life for Snape's sake -- indeed, for the sake of just about anyone there at Hogwarts, come to think of it -- but I can NOT even begin to see Dumbledore being willing to sacrifice A STUDENT'S life for the sake of the state of Snape's soul, especially if it would also mean Snape dying as well. Sorry, but THAT just does not make any sense at all, putting Snape's soul over and above a STUDENT'S LIFE. After all, unless Snape made a Horcrux for himself, his torn soul would (most likely) eventually heal. There can be no soul-healing if Snape is dead. And how does Draco, a STUDENT, profit if he's killed by Voldemort, huh? *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 18:45:35 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:45:35 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: <4qag60$66pveb@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148736 > Alla: > > You see, that is my very main problem. Regardless of what Snape said > to DD, I cannot for the life of me to see Dumbledore EVER asking > Snape to do that, because IMO he would prefer Snape's soul not be > hurt more. > > Now Tammy says: > > Okay, so, Alla, let me see if I have this straight here. You think > Dumbledore would rather Snape be dead than hurt. You think Dumbledore finds > it preferable for Snape to die, leaving Draco to the gentle mercy of > Voldemort and the Death Eaters, rather than for Snape to hurt his soul so > that he can remain alive to protect and help a student. > > I can easily see Dumbledore being willing to sacrifice his own life for > Snape's sake -- indeed, for the sake of just about anyone there at Hogwarts, > come to think of it -- but I can NOT even begin to see Dumbledore being > willing to sacrifice A STUDENT'S life for the sake of the state of Snape's > soul, especially if it would also mean Snape dying as well. > > Sorry, but THAT just does not make any sense at all, putting Snape's soul > over and above a STUDENT'S LIFE. After all, unless Snape made a Horcrux for > himself, his torn soul would (most likely) eventually heal. There can be no > soul-healing if Snape is dead. And how does Draco, a STUDENT, profit if > he's killed by Voldemort, huh? Alla: My previous reply was all based on Dungrollin's argument, NOT on what I think happened in canon. I do NOT think that Snape told Dumbledore about third clause of vow almost for sure and I am hesitant about whether DD was told about UV at all, although he probably did. But I won't exclude the possibility that Snape just told him about Draco's task after the fact, but not about making the UV. As I said , Snape does not strike me as type who confesses about the mistakes he made easily, but who thinks that he is always right. So, frankly, I am not sure that Dumbledore WAS pressed to make such a choice that far in advance. On the Tower, maybe. IMO of course. And sure, I can see DD wanting to protect Draco despite little shmuck not wanting such protection and plotting to kill the Headmaster, I can see that. I just don't see DD wanting Snape to kill him while trying to protect Draco. And the way DD was talking to Draco really really did not strike me as the "dead man" talking, but more like someone who was ready to carry out such protection. JMO, Alla From GAP5685 at AOL.com Fri Feb 24 18:40:34 2006 From: GAP5685 at AOL.com (gwen_of_the_oaks) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:40:34 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148737 > Lyra: > > All your arguments make sense to me, Gwen, except for one thing. If > Uncle Alphard got zapped off the family tree for giving money to the > runaway Sirius, don't you think Walburga would have zapped Dorea and > Charlus for taking in the same runaway Sirius and treating him like > a second son? > Gwen: I do think dear Walburga would have zapped them off with gusto, but I agree with Potioncat who said up thread: > what JKR gave the public is a chart based on the tapestry, not >the tapestry itself. Since it is the house of Black, none of the non- >Black branches would need to show up anyway. I can't think of any satisfactory explanation for the name *Potter* being on the 12GP tapestry and going unnoticed by Harry. Gwen From ms-tamany at rcn.com Fri Feb 24 19:04:37 2006 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:04:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4qag60$66q8np@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148738 > Alla: > > You see, that is my very main problem. Regardless of what Snape said > to DD, I cannot for the life of me to see Dumbledore EVER asking > Snape to do that, because IMO he would prefer Snape's soul not be > hurt more. > > Now Tammy says: > > Okay, so, Alla, let me see if I have this straight here. You think > Dumbledore would rather Snape be dead than hurt. You think Dumbledore finds > it preferable for Snape to die, leaving Draco to the gentle mercy of > Voldemort and the Death Eaters, rather than for Snape to hurt his soul so > that he can remain alive to protect and help a student. > > I can easily see Dumbledore being willing to sacrifice his own life for > Snape's sake -- indeed, for the sake of just about anyone there at Hogwarts, > come to think of it -- but I can NOT even begin to see Dumbledore being > willing to sacrifice A STUDENT'S life for the sake of the state of Snape's > soul, especially if it would also mean Snape dying as well. > > Sorry, but THAT just does not make any sense at all, putting Snape's soul > over and above a STUDENT'S LIFE. After all, unless Snape made a Horcrux for > himself, his torn soul would (most likely) eventually heal. There can be no > soul-healing if Snape is dead. And how does Draco, a STUDENT, profit if > he's killed by Voldemort, huh? Alla: My previous reply was all based on Dungrollin's argument, NOT on what I think happened in canon. I do NOT think that Snape told Dumbledore about third clause of vow almost for sure and I am hesitant about whether DD was told about UV at all, although he probably did. But I won't exclude the possibility that Snape just told him about Draco's task after the fact, but not about making the UV. As I said , Snape does not strike me as type who confesses about the mistakes he made easily, but who thinks that he is always right. So, frankly, I am not sure that Dumbledore WAS pressed to make such a choice that far in advance. On the Tower, maybe. IMO of course. And sure, I can see DD wanting to protect Draco despite little shmuck not wanting such protection and plotting to kill the Headmaster, I can see that. I just don't see DD wanting Snape to kill him while trying to protect Draco. And the way DD was talking to Draco really really did not strike me as the "dead man" talking, but more like someone who was ready to carry out such protection. JMO, Alla Tammy says, now: But Alla, right up at the top of this message, you say, "REGARDLESS of what Snape said to DD", meaning (at least, to my reading), that it wouldn't matter to you if Dumbledore knew of the whole UV, or of part of the UV, or of which part of the UV, or even if had never heard about the UV, you could never see Dumbledore asking Snape to put a student's life and welfare above Snape's own pristine soul. See, that doesn't track, for me. I don't think Dumbledore would have wanted Snape whole and Draco dead, if Snape could do *something*, even killing someone, to protect Draco, a student. Even if DD knew nothing about the UV, I still think that he would have preferred a student alive, at whatever cost to a teacher, regardless of who that student and teacher were. EVERYTHING was about and for the students, for their welfare and well-being (barring, of course, the usual and normal scrapes and bumps and broken bones and assorted minor curse and potion injuries of wizardly childhood, all so easily mended by Madam Pomfrey). To suggest that DD would have EVER put a teacher's welfare above a student's, for whatever reason, is ludicrous. Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 19:11:43 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:11:43 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148739 > Alla: > > See above. I will agree with you that Snape is telling the truth > here if you agree with me that he is telling the truth to Bella > about other things. :) As far as I am concerned, he can be lying > through his teeth the whole time OR he can be telling the truth the > whole time OR of course he can be doing both, but we both make > assumptions when he does what, no? zgirnius: OK, you believe that the blood of Sirius and Emmeline Vance is on Snape's hands, because he only told the truth to the Black sisters at Spinner's End. (Apparently-you seem to be saying we have to take it as an all or nothing proposition). So, if we are to believe everything Snape says, Snape seriously considered that Harry Potter might be a powerful Dark wizard, even a future Dark Lord. He continued in this belief through the first eleven years of Harry's life, and found this a good reason not to murder him the moment he first showed up at the castle (I guess Snape has no interest in being a Dark Lord himself, and prefers to follow one, or he would be wise to eliminate the competition before he becomes a highly skilled and powerful adult wizard). Why, then, did he set out to deliberately antagonize this person, who might grow up to be his leader in the future, the very first time they met? Or are you suggesting he could tell Harry was a mediocrity based on his answer to three question in Potions? It seems more likely that Snape is lying here, it is just a good reason to give because it is something that was considered by other Death Eaters. This seems to me the only sensible way to approach Snape's assorted statements at Spinner's End is not to make blanket assumptions, but rather weigh each statement against anything else relevant that we may know. Look at all available canon on the subject and then decide which is more likely-that a particular statement is true, or a lie. The statement about Sirius seems to be contradicted by other canon. We have heard the explanation of how Kreacher set Harry up to believe that Sirius was out of his house at the crucial moment, and how he passed information to the bad guys. Dumbledore has this information direct from Kreacher, and I think it is safe to assume it is accurate, since Dumbledore did not take his word for it, he also used Legilimency. When it comes to magical skills, I think the safe bet is that Dumbledore would not be duped by Kreacher. (Snape is another matter and not a good exmaple of Dumbledore's failings as a Legilimens, as we have canon he is duping SOMEONE who is an absolutely world-class wizard in terms of skill level. We have no reason to suppose the same is true of Kreacher). The statement about Vance is in the same sentence as the statement about Sirius, which tends in my mind to tar it with the same brush. So instead of deciding Snape is either the reincarnation of George Washington or constitutionally incapable of telling the Black sisters a single true thing, I think the only thing to consider is, together with everything else we know, is it more reasonable to suppose Voldemort did tell Snape about Draco's task, or that Snape was bluffing here? In favor of Voldemort telling him: 1) It is stupid to plan a potentially disruptive operation in a location where one has a mole, and NOT warn said mole at least in general terms. This will allow the mole to keep his head down and not become collateral damage if things go haywire. 2) It will also ensure that Snape does not interfere. In PS/SS Voldemort has already seen that Snape can be irritatingly interfering, He could (for example) prevent Draco from wandering the hallways at odd hours in all innocence if he is unaware Draco is on a mission for Voldemort. 3) Everyone seems to agree Draco has no chance of success: Snape, Narcisssa, Dumbledore, and based on their testimony, Voldemort himself. Yet at the end of OotP Voldmeort did make an attempt on Dumbledore's life, which suggests he would be pleased to see him dead. So Voldemort should know he may need a backup plan. 4) Snape as the backup plan makes a lot of sense. If Dumbledore is actually killed, Snape loses a lot of his value as a spy to Voldemort, so it is a fair trade for Voldemort to trade his cover for Dumbledore's life. In addition, if Peter's presense at Spinner's End betokens some suspicion about Snape's possible loyalty to Dumbledore, well, assigning Snape the task to kill Dumbledore ought to clarify matters. In favor of Snape bluffing: I can't really think of canon outside the scene itself that points to bluffing. But since it was my personal first impression, I'd say it is supported to some extent by the way the scene is written. 1) Snape appears to carefully ascertain that Bella is not in Voldemort's good graces before he makes the claim (it would be unwise to bluff in her presence if is she seems in on the plan up to her neck). 2) He refuses to discuss the matter with Voldemort (yes, this makes sense for other reasons, it would be futile, but it would be very bad for all concerned if Snape was not told of a plan, so this is at least consistent with the bluffing theory). 3) The way Snape echoes Bella's statement about what an honor for Draco this is about the task is also consistent with the theory. Were he bluffing, he would want to sound like he knows what he is talking about, so he takes his cues from Bella. And things like the twitch make sense either way, of course. "Uh oh, I just promised to kill Dumbledore" vs. "Uh oh, I have NO CLUE what I just promised to do." To me, both seem plausible. Dungrollin has won me over...I think Snape knew. Thinking about it from Voldemort's point of view, which I had not considered previosuly, I think this just makes more sense. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 20:19:42 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:19:42 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148740 > Tammy says, now: > > But Alla, right up at the top of this message, you say, "REGARDLESS of what > Snape said to DD", meaning (at least, to my reading), that it wouldn't > matter to you if Dumbledore knew of the whole UV, or of part of the UV, or > of which part of the UV, or even if had never heard about the UV, you could > never see Dumbledore asking Snape to put a student's life and welfare above > Snape's own pristine soul. See, that doesn't track, for me. I don't think > Dumbledore would have wanted Snape whole and Draco dead, if Snape could do > *something*, even killing someone, to protect Draco, a student. Alla: Yes, that is correct. I do NOT see DD asking Snape to kill him whether Snape told him about UV or not, BUT what I also do not see is how Dumbledore NOT asking Snape to kill him follows necessarily to Draco being dead. I see Dumbledore trying to protect Draco (way too generous of him, if you ask me, but totally IC for DD to give people second and third chances), I do NOT see DD actively willing to die on the Tower. I think Dumbledore was thinking of Draco's protection as in Him(DD) being alive and carrying through those plans. I think Dumbledore has very real tangible reasons to stay alive for the sake of all those students and of course the most important task on the horison IMO was to help Harry in his task. Tammy: > Even if DD knew nothing about the UV, I still think that he would have > preferred a student alive, at whatever cost to a teacher, regardless of who > that student and teacher were. To > suggest that DD would have EVER put a teacher's welfare above a student's, > for whatever reason, is ludicrous. Alla: Oh, Okay then. I agree with you - DD is trying to protect his students first and foremost. Would you agree then that Dumbledore would do ANYTHING to stay alive to protect Harry at whatever cost to Snape ? > > Alla: > > > > See above. I will agree with you that Snape is telling the truth > > here if you agree with me that he is telling the truth to Bella > > about other things. :) As far as I am concerned, he can be lying > > through his teeth the whole time OR he can be telling the truth the > > whole time OR of course he can be doing both, but we both make > > assumptions when he does what, no? > > zgirnius: > OK, you believe that the blood of Sirius and Emmeline Vance is on > Snape's hands, because he only told the truth to the Black sisters at > Spinner's End. (Apparently-you seem to be saying we have to take it > as an all or nothing proposition). Alla: No, Zara, the last part of the sentence you quote suggests( I hoped at least :)) that I don't think that it has to be all or nothing proposition, because I said that he can be doing both ( telling truth and lying). I am just having tremendous trouble with being sure what IS truth and what IS lie. What I AM saying is that I don't see the reliable criteria for figuring out which part of his speech is what and that is why everything is fair game, IMO. I do NOT have trouble with playing and speculating about it. I LOVE, LOVE speculating, always was, but I don't think that deciding that something is true and something is lie, when we don't know makes such assumption more canon-based, that is all. I think Dung's theory is a great one, it is just based on the assumption which can easily turned out to be an absolute lie, IMO. Zara: > Why, then, did he set out to deliberately antagonize this person, who > might grow up to be his leader in the future, the very first time > they met? Or are you suggesting he could tell Harry was a mediocrity > based on his answer to three question in Potions? It seems more > likely that Snape is lying here, it is just a good reason to give > because it is something that was considered by other Death Eaters. Alla: Are you sure that you are asking a right person? :-) I don't have a very favorable answer, you know. I think Snape has no rationality when it comes to Harry. I think all his rational assumptions flew out of the window when he saw James' face and Lily's eyes staring at him. I think he wanted to get back at Harry as much as he never got a chance to get back at James. Just speculating here, you know. :) Zgirnius: > The statement about Sirius seems to be contradicted by other canon. > We have heard the explanation of how Kreacher set Harry up to believe > that Sirius was out of his house at the crucial moment, and how he > passed information to the bad guys. Alla: I don't think it is contradicted, I think it can be easily supplemented by Snape's story, but Okay. What contradicts Snape playing a part in Vance murder? The only contradiction I see is the choice not to believe it because people see Snape as good guy. IMO of course. I think it is fair enough. I also explain many Snape's actions based on what I think about him. Zgirnius: So instead of deciding Snape is either the reincarnation of George > Washington or constitutionally incapable of telling the Black sisters > a single true thing, I think the only thing to consider is, together > with everything else we know, is it more reasonable to suppose > Voldemort did tell Snape about Draco's task, or that Snape was > bluffing here? Alla: Sure, it IS reasonable to think about that and I come to the conclusion as of today that he did not tell Snape. Zgirnius: > In favor of Voldemort telling him: > 1) It is stupid to plan a potentially disruptive operation in a > location where one has a mole, and NOT warn said mole at least in > general terms. This will allow the mole to keep his head down and not > become collateral damage if things go haywire. Alla: Just as stupid as giving Harry his wand back instead of killing him right away in Graveyard? I guess Voldy just does not strike me as too rational type. Zgirnius: > 2) It will also ensure that Snape does not interfere. In PS/SS > Voldemort has already seen that Snape can be irritatingly > interfering, He could (for example) prevent Draco from wandering the > hallways at odd hours in all innocence if he is unaware Draco is on a > mission for Voldemort. Alla: Wait, wait. Doesn't in Dung' scenario Voldemort WANTS Snape to interfere in order to test his loyalty? Am confused. I am literally cutting my post short because I have to run. Sorry! JMO, Alla From mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 20:44:07 2006 From: mmmwintersteiger at yahoo.com (Michelle) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:44:07 -0000 Subject: Why did not Voldemort Imperiod everyone? WAS: Re: Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148741 > Exodusts: > PS A more amusing question to ask is why, since we know from Viktor > Krum (in GoF) that Imperiused-persons can themselves cast > Unforgivable Curses, Voldemort doesn't just take over the world >using an army of daisy-chained Imperius victims? michelle says: While there is nothing in the canon to support this theory, I would think that the reason LV hasn't Imperized (correct spelling?) massive amounts of people would be that they would be too hard to control. It seems like you would have to do the curse individually therefore making each person a "puppet" if you will. How many puppets can one wizard handle, well I'm sure its not many more than the master Jim Henson :) michelle From paulspilsbury at btinternet.com Fri Feb 24 20:56:34 2006 From: paulspilsbury at btinternet.com (Paul) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:56:34 -0000 Subject: How will it all end? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148742 This is my first posting. Fans spend much time in discussing the contents of the still-awaited conclusion of the Harry Potter story. I offer a few thoughts of my own. First of all, I believe, we must ask ourselves what kind of story J.K.Rowling is telling. We have had six parts out of seven already, so it is possible to summarise the story so far. It is the story of Harry Potter. When he was only a year old, his parents were murdered by a cruel and powerful enemy, whose main aim was to kill Harry himself. At that time, Harry was saved, and the enemy for the time being disabled, by the love of his parents. He then had a miserable and neglected childhood in the home of his aunt and uncle for then years. Then he was given the opportunity to escape into a wider world, to develop his abilities, and to make new friends at school. However, by this time his old enemy was recovering, and for the next six years he made repeated attempts to destroy Harry, managing to kill two more people who stood in a quasi- parental relationship to him. How, then, will the story end? To take just one, important, point: either Harry will survive or he will die. Suppose he dies (even if he destroys his enemy as he does so)? The story-line then reduces to this: Voldemort spends seventeen years trying to kill Harry, and at last he succeeds. The lesson, however you dress it up, would seem to be that "if the bastards are out to get you, get you they will. If you are lucky, you may manage to take them with you." This is not a very hopeful message, nor particularly moral, and I do not think it represents Jo Rowling's own philosophy of life, and certainly not one she would wish to present to children. If Harry survives, on the other hand, due to his own resourcefulness and through his love for his friends, and theirs for him, then the lesson will be what Dumbledore has constantly maintained: love is stronger than all Voldemort's type of magic (which is simply based on power). To be loved gives one an enduring protection, and the ability to love is itself the power that overcomes evil. This does seem to be the author's own belief, and I therefore expect the end of the story to reflect it. But it is possible to argue that self-sacrifice for love's sake is also central to her belief, and that therefore Harry may surrender his life to save others. This must be taken seriously, and the objections to it as an outcome are not so much moral as artistic. Given the story as it has so far unfolded, who might Harry love so much as to lay down his life for them? It will not do for him to pursue Voldemort, and even destroy him, simply from motives of anger and revenge. This would subvert the moral framework the author has constantly presupposed. The obvious candidate to motivate Harry to die for would seem to be Ginny Weasley- but he has already taken this risk, in The Chamber of Secrets. It would be a poor ending merely to re-run this scenario, with Harry dying second time round. The problem with any scenario that has Harry dying is that it is an anti-climax. Although death has been referred to as "the next great adventure", and definitely not the worst thing one can suffer, it is always presented as an unknown mystery, from which no-one returns. What lies beyond is an object of faith, not experience. The ghosts (if they are actually the souls of the dead) are "neither here nor there", having failed to go on as they should. They do not know the secrets of death. Hence in Rowling's world, if Harry dies he is gone, and all his surviving friends are bereft. From a purely literary point of view, to let Harry die will not give a clear assurance that he has triumphed, as he needs to do. This is not Narnia, where the children can visit Aslan's country and see the aged Caspian renewed. That implies an explicit theological perspective that Rowling has consistently refused to adopt. Jo Rowling is not C.S.Lewis, or Philip Pullman. She is not Tolkien either, although she has this in common with him, that her personal religious convictions are not obviously exhibited in her "sub- created" world. Nevertheless, although in its physical laws her world may differ from the real world- cars may fly, people travel by floo-powder, etc.- its moral structure is the same. As Tolkien puts it, we make by the laws by which we are made. "Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear, nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own home." (The Two Towers, chapter 2) It would be rash to predict what J.K.Rowling will do in the final book, but given her strong moral perspective, and given the painstaking way she has built up the story of her young protagonist and his friends (including the love between Ron and Hermione, and Harry and Ginny), it would seem artistically a flaw simply to curtail these story-lines. This is, after all, a "fairy-story" in Tolkien's sense, for children and grown-ups. It requires its "eucatastrophe", and that "they all live happily ever after" within the story itself. It will not do for the survivors, whoever they may be- including people like Fudge, Draco, Uncle Vernon, etc.- simply to remember Harry Potter as "the boy with the scar", the Boy Who Died. Paul From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 24 21:13:22 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:13:22 -0000 Subject: Grammar question - differences in editions? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148743 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chrusotoxos" wrote: > > > Hi! > > I was surprised about a sentence DD told Draco on the tower, but maybe > it is a stupid sentence (English is not my first language...). > > DD: "I asked SS to watch over you..." > Draco: "He was protecting me because he made an UV to my mother" > DD: "This is what he may have told you, but" > > MAY have told you? Well, it was the truth, wasn't it? Whatever SS was > doing on DD's orders, his primary goal in watch over DM was to fulfill > the UV and thus save his own life. > > I've been trying to understand if indeed that "may" suggests that DD > didn't know about the UV. Geoff: (1) This is very interesting because, if you have quoted canon verbatim, I think we have another situation from the tower chapter where editions disagree. Unless I'm missing another reference, canon in my edition reads: '"Why didn't you stop me, then?" Malfoy demanded. "I tried, Draco. Professor Snape has been keeping watch over you on my orders -" "He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised my mother-" "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but-"' (HBP "The Lightning-struck Tower" p.549 UK edition) So there's something else for us to chew over to join past discussions on Dumbledore's offer to Draco to come over to his side a couple of pages later. (2) Referring back to the "may", there's nothing grammatically incorrect about it. As others have pointed out, the but could follow on to a number of conclusions. As imaginary examples: "We know that no one could have got into the murdered man's room without being seen." "That may be so, but I would like you to reconsider every possibility, however crazy." "I hate John and don't want to see him again." "That may be so, but you have to work with him whether you like him or not." As a canon example, Dumbledore's comment which you quote could have continued: "This is what he may have told you but the fact is that I had asked him to cary out this task and he had agreed." Food for thought? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 24 21:19:11 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:19:11 -0000 Subject: Why did not Voldemort Imperiod everyone? WAS: Re: Unbreakable Vow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148744 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Michelle" wrote: > > > Exodusts: > > PS A more amusing question to ask is why, since we know from > > Viktor Krum (in GoF) that Imperiused-persons can themselves cast > > Unforgivable Curses, Voldemort doesn't just take over the world > > using an army of daisy-chained Imperius victims? michelle: > While there is nothing in the canon to support this theory, I would > think that the reason LV hasn't Imperized (correct spelling?) massive > amounts of people would be that they would be too hard to control. It > seems like you would have to do the curse individually therefore > making each person a "puppet" if you will. How many puppets can one > wizard handle, well I'm sure its not many more than the master Jim > Henson :) Geoff: I wonder whether anyone on the group can give a post number because this idea was floated about a year or so ago and was discussed at some length. I didn't join in the replies so I can't offer a message source because I haven't got one in my own personal message archive. From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 21:38:33 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:38:33 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148745 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > Dung: > Do you not think it would be deeply ungrateful of DD to not even > say "sorry I got you into this, mate?" You don't think he might > feel just the teensiest bit guilty? Guilt doesn't strike me as the right emotion in this case, because Dumbledore hasn't been in the same kind of superior/controlling situation that we've seen in him when he actually has expressed guilt. I think he's trusted Snape to be an independent agent here, and so Dumbledore's responsibility for the situation is decidedly second-hand. More of a "Oh, Severus, how did you do this to yourself?" than 'guilt', but I guess as always. > Dung: > And you don't? No, it's a universal weakness. > *Any* interpretation of Spinner's End involves that, not just mine > and Alla's, because canon *is not consistent*. That's fair. What I would contend is not exactly shocking--we read the confusing and fragmentary evidence according to which larger pattern we want to validate. > Perhaps you missed the bit of my post where I said that I was > trying to prove my assumptions were more firmly rooted in > canon than Alla's. You seem to be dismissing them as equally valid > (or not) as any other assumptions, simply because they're > assumptions, without even looking at the evidence I presented. I am dismissing them as more valid than any assumptions because of the nature of the material, yes. I don't think one can make a solid canonically-backed decision between your position or Alla's (or a number of other variations), because of the level of destabilization of what we thought we knew. Previously, the idea that Snape was not on the side of good was much harder to challenge, because challenging Dumbledore's > Dung: > There's a good way of testing it. You come up with a hypothesis of > what is driving Snape's behaviour, and you try to predict what he > should do under a given set of circumstances. A lot of guessing, still. I don't even know if it will work in principle, because we're in the realm of literature and not the realm of real life. What it also is eminently open to is the BANG or the radical shift. I know a lot of listies (not saying that one is here) take the pattern argument most seriously, that certain things match with earlier patterns of behavior in the books. I distrust that argument as the kicker because it doesn't allow for disruptions. > Dung: > Thematic it might be, but it's lousy as far as a good story goes. > After six books of Harry wondering repeatedly *why* DD trusted > Snape, you think the answer's going to be "well, he just ... *did*." It may well be 'Dumbledore *really believed* Snape's tale of remorse'. That remorse may have been genuine, or it may have been faked. But I can imagine Dumbledore choosing to believe something like that, and then refusing to tell anyone else because he knew they wouldn't value it and treasure it as he did, and he's trying to protect Snape from the slammer. There's thematic connections there, and the additional kicker (great setup for conflict) of the event itself (confession, whatever) being somewhat unrecoverable. Of course, it's potentially hochdramatisch if you imagine Some Variation of Nasty Snape taunting Harry with this, too. :) -Nora's mileage varies on many things, but not on the sublime Finnish hockey team, wooooo! From GAP5685 at AOL.com Fri Feb 24 19:42:49 2006 From: GAP5685 at AOL.com (gwen_of_the_oaks) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:42:49 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148746 > > Gwen: > > Do you really think that Dorea and Charlus Potter are people other than Harry's grandparents, and that their one son is someone other than James? > > > Potioncat: > > Yes. > > Those Potters are Sirius's great-aunt and great-uncle. Which would > make Sirius and James cousins. The whole conversation that Sirius and > Harry had about the tapestry is pointless if that's something Sirius > wouldn't mention. It'd be like finding out in book 7 that the troll > leg umbrella stand at the door of 12GP was still attached to the > troll. > Gwen again: I agree for *Mr. Potter* to really be *Great-Uncle Potter* is very frustrating. But the fact remains that Sirius *did* have a Great- Uncle Potter, who must have been Harry's Uncle or Great-Uncle, if not his Grandfather. And Sirius *did* have a cousin Potter. Even if it wasn't James, what happened to him? What happened to this branch of Harry's family? Did he, his parents, and Harry's Grandparents all die peacfully in their beds in 1977? Was he a budding Death Eater like so many of the Blacks - after all there was no photo of Harry's Uncle with the original order members? Someone knew him - but no one mentions him to the boy whose hearts deepest desire is to know his family? I think its like finding the troll attached even if they are not James and his parents. So for me, its easier to excuse Sirius for not mentioning a family tie (which may be a more distant tie in JKR's mind than in ours) than to excuse all the adult characters for keeping secret a mysterious line of Potters that either still exist somewhere or all died simultaneously the year before Harry was born. Potioncat again: > It's beginning to look more and more like the Black family had a > major time-turner accident. > Hee-hee - I couldn't agree more. Gwen From arlenegustave at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 02:34:31 2006 From: arlenegustave at yahoo.com (Arlene) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:34:31 -0000 Subject: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148747 > Sid: > > DD knew that DADA department is cursed and no teacher can last > > for more than one year yet he appoints Snape as new DADA teacher. > Lupinlore: > 1) Are we sure that the DADA position is in fact cursed? > Given that, DD may simply have been taking a calculated risk in > giving Snape the position, rather than knowing for a fact that > Snape would be gone at the end of the year. > > > > 3) If the position is indeed cursed, DD may simply have been > attempting to force Voldemort's hand. Voldemort knows that Snape > is his "man" inside DD's camp. By giving Snape the job, DD is > forcing Voldemort to make a decision: Either remove the curse or > lose your man Arlene: It is an interesting thought to think that the DA position may NOT be cursed. However, 14 years (I believe) is a bit much for Every teacher to come and go within one year when the teachers in the other positions have been there as much as 30 years. I'm not really sure Voldemort is all that sensitive on the fact that he may lose Snape, for all we know, he may have another "Plant" there. My personal view is that LV has already suspected Snape (ie: Wormtail roommate) and Snape has to prove himself BIG TIME. This deal with DD, I believe came about to save Snape as I do believe Snape has saved DD at some other point in time which warrants his "Trust" so much. Another view I have is that, I think LV cursed DD as Hogwarts Headmaster, not the school itself. With DD gone, so too the curse. Aha!!! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 22:04:28 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:04:28 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings -Ramblings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148748 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gwen_of_the_oaks" wrote: > > > Lyra: > > > > All your arguments make sense to me, Gwen, except for one > > thing. If Uncle Alphard got zapped off the family tree for > > giving money to the runaway Sirius, don't you think Walburga > > would have zapped Dorea and Charlus for taking in the same > > runaway Sirius and treating him like a second son? > > > > Gwen: > > I do think dear Walburga would have zapped them off with gusto, > but I agree with Potioncat who said up thread: > > > Potioncat: what JKR gave the public is a chart based on the > > tapestry, not the tapestry itself. Since it is the house of > > Black, none of the non-Black branches would need to show up > > anyway. > > I can't think of any satisfactory explanation for the name > *Potter* being on the 12GP tapestry and going unnoticed by > Harry. > > Gwen bboyminn: Haven't been keeping track of my post today, hope I'm not too far over the limit. Here are a few thoughts. First, how do we know that Walburga knew that the Potters had taken Sirius in? We don't. Walburga seems like something of a recluse. She would only associate with the most elite and deserving of her company. So, it is entirely possible she didn't know and didn't care. As far as Harry not seeing 'Potter' on the tapestry, think about how big that tapestry is. It includes SEVEN centuries of Blacks. Can you imagine how large a family tree gets in seven centuries? Even if the tapestry concentrated on the direct line, it would still be huge. I'm sure Harry gave it an all encompacing glance, but he hardly had time to sort out single Potter in an unknown location amoung the many many names on the tree. Why would Harry even think to look for a Potter? Most likely, he would only see it, if he stubbled across it by accident. Next, after his all encompacing glance, Harry's eyes went directly to the bottom of the tree to find Sirius's name. All his attention was concentrated on the most recent history. Elsewhere in this thread (I think this thread) it was speculated that being burned off the tapestry was, in effect, an official disinheritance. I'm not buying that. I think it represents nothing more than Mrs. Black's vindictive attituted. Consider that there are other branches of the Black family, and it's possible that they have their own tapestry. Sirius would logically still appear on those tapestries since there is no guarantee that others would take as extreme an attitude as Mrs. Black did. So, which tapestry is the official one? Which tapestry invokes the rule of law? I say, none of them. Further, based on European standards of heredity, it would be next to impossible to disinherit a first born son. Further, the books seem to prove this out. Sirius was, hated as he was, able to claim his inheritance. As long as their is a first born son available, I don't think anyone can interfer with the line of inheritance. Upon Sirius's death, things get a bit more dicey. Now their is no clear 'direct line' heir, and who gets what becomes more complicated. Dumbledore claims that the oldest cousin would inherit. I guess he knows what he's talking about, but personally, I would have thought it would have gone to the oldest living male DECENDANT with Black blood. That would be Draco. However, if we can assume that Charlus Potter is related to Harry, and even speculate that it might be Harry's grandfather, then Harry becomes like Draco. He is the oldest living Male with Black blood. Futher, if we accept these assumptions, Harry's position is higher up on the family tree and that might give him priority, and make him both a true Black heir and the recipient of Sirius's Will. Which brings up another point. Others have speculated that the inheritance might have gone UP the family tree to one of the older uncles. Based on standard European inheritance (which is not as standard as one might think), the estate never passes UP. It always passes down to a decendant, or perhaps, sideways to someone of the same generation when no direct-line decendance exist. Finally, I agree with Potioncat, what we are seeing is more like a page from a geneology book than the actual Black Family Tapestry. Like most geneology books, it is next to impossible to get everyone on a single chart. So, charts usually cover relavant information to that specific page. Other details are found on other pages. For example, when decendants are represented by simply '1s' (one son) or '2d' (two daughters), those extensions of the family tree would be found on other pages. Not sure what it all adds up to, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From brahadambal at indiatimes.com Fri Feb 24 10:10:17 2006 From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:10:17 -0000 Subject: Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148749 Krista: > > I also think the whole idea of Snape's teenage writing being > mistaken for a girl's is very odd, I have to say. > As a guy with esteem issues, he'd probably write small; as a > wordy student, he'd have cramped handwriting on tests, to squeeze > everything in; as a guy whose mind is inclined to logic/math, > he'd have more linear, precise handwriting, closer to print than > cursive; and because he's trying to write quickly, no effort at > being "pretty." brady: On the issue of the handwriting, I have asked this same question before without getting any replies. Harry has seen Snape write his exam. He could see that the handwriting was cramped, small and he wrote a lot of matter. How is it that he didn't place the exam handwriting and the HBP book writing together? At least a faint - "I have seen this writing before...but where?" kind of contemplation would have been more suspenseful in HBP than this case where HP doesn't recognise it at all. Just wondering, Brady. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 23:13:57 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:13:57 -0000 Subject: Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148750 > Krista: > > > > I also think the whole idea of Snape's teenage writing being > > mistaken for a girl's is very odd, I have to say. > > As a guy with esteem issues, he'd probably write small; as a > > wordy student, he'd have cramped handwriting on tests, to squeeze > > everything in; as a guy whose mind is inclined to logic/math, > > he'd have more linear, precise handwriting, closer to print than > > cursive; and because he's trying to write quickly, no effort at > > being "pretty." zgirnius: The person who suggests the handwriting is that of a female is Hermione. Like Snape, she probably has a small, cramped hand from trying to fit it all in, too. And she has a logical mind with an intrest in Arithmancy (her favorite subject, and from the sound of it as close to math as we get in the Potterverse). I think the handwriting may have reminded Hermione of her own in its general features, hence her conclusion, since she may not be sufficiently aware of the Muggle discipline of handwriting analysis to realize she is atypical. > > brady: > > On the issue of the handwriting, I have asked this same question > before without getting any replies. Harry has seen Snape write his > exam. He could see that the handwriting was cramped, small and he > wrote a lot of matter. How is it that he didn't place the exam > handwriting and the HBP book writing together? At least a faint - > "I have seen this writing before...but where?" kind of contemplation > would have been more suspenseful in HBP than this case where HP > doesn't recognise it at all. zgirnius: Well, I think Rowling meant to mislead us the readers. We were meant to consider the possibility that the author of the notes was either James (as Harry wanted to believe). Or, more logically, that it was Lily, since she has an unusual gift for Potions. This might be an additional reason Rowling had Hermione suggest the writing was a girl's. I think you were unusual in concluding that the handwriting must belong to someone whose writing Harry had never seen, though it is certainly logical. Lots of people, myself included, guessed right off it was Snape (potions, and the handwriting clue, even if Harry was clueless about the handwriting). I've also read a lot of speculation it was Tom Riddle's book-Harry knew his handwriting from the Diary in CoS. And this criterion would also eliminate James-Harry saw his test paper in OotP as well. From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Feb 25 00:14:38 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:14:38 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148751 On Friday, February 24, 2006, at 04:10 AM, latha279 wrote: > > > brady: > > On the issue of the handwriting, I have asked this same question > before without getting any replies. Harry has seen Snape write his > exam. He could see that the handwriting was cramped, small and he > wrote a lot of matter. How is it that he didn't place the exam > handwriting and the HBP book writing together? At least a faint - > "I have seen this writing before...but where?" kind of contemplation > would have been more suspenseful in HBP than this case where HP > doesn't recognise it at all. > kchuplis: Maybe as an adult or if you were looking for some reason (and certainly Harry had no reason to connect The Prince, who he likes and admires, with Snape), but I know that at least for myself, at that age, that kind of thing wouldn't even hit my consciousness. I don't really find that odd at all. From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 00:36:28 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:36:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Secret Keeping business In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148752 bboyminn: >It is also possible that since the Potters died, there was no longer a >secret to keep, but again, Harry is a Potter and presumably part of >the secret, so he should be hidden by the charm were ever he is. I've also wondered if it were possible that he is still protected under that charm at his Aunt's house. No DE's have bothered him there nor has LV. Dumbledore could have added his own charms (the one that disappears when Harry becomes 17) to the SK charm already in effect. I know he's gotten owls from DD as well as his friends and the ministry but that's fairly easy to explain. DD knew where he was because he delivered him to the house, the ministry would have to know in order to keep an eye on any magic used in the area (early DE attack warning system?)and Harry himself told his friends where he lived. Perhaps if the house (and Harry) are invisible to DEs while Harry lives there that would help explain Petunia's odd look when told Harry will become an adult that next August. Just a stray thought. :) PJ From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 00:42:26 2006 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:42:26 -0000 Subject: Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148753 > > brady wrote: > > > > How is it that he [Harry] didn't place the exam handwriting and > > the HBP book writing together? At least a faint - "I have seen > > this writing before...but where?" kind of contemplation would > > have been more suspenseful in HBP than this case where HP > > doesn't recognise it at all. > kchuplis replied: > > Maybe as an adult or if you were looking for some reason (and > certainly Harry had no reason to connect The Prince, who he likes > and admires, with Snape), but I know that at least for myself, at > that age, that kind of thing wouldn't even hit my consciousness. I > don't really find that odd at all. zeldaricdeau now: I often wonder if Harry did recognize the writing on a subconcious level but by the time he did was so enamored of the Prince as a friend and mentor that the recognition only came subconciously. His concious mind may simply have ignored the information because the meaning wasn't something Harry wanted to accept: that the person he admired and who was helping him was Snape. This is similar to what I believe you are saying kchuplis? Please, correct me if I am wrong. However, I have often wondered why neither Ron nor Hermione recognized the handwriting? Surely both have seen the adult Snape's handwriting at some point. Most likely Ron has seen it a good deal more than Hermione. Why did neither of them recognize it? Has Snape's handwriting changed as he grew older (not unheard of)? Did Ron simply not pay attention? Has Hermione simply not seen as much of his handwriting owing to her homework probably having fewer snarky comments? Any thoughts? -ZR (who appologizes if this has been covered and she missed it) From sydpad at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 01:08:35 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:08:35 -0000 Subject: Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148754 > zeldaricdeau now: > > However, I have often wondered why neither Ron nor Hermione > recognized the handwriting? I suppose Snape cleaned up his his handwriting at about the same time he cleaned up his posture, his accent, his vocabulary, and his clothes. The Snape we see now is someone who has gone to enormous effort to create a smooth, educated, upper-class persona-- I mean, most people seemed to think pre-OoP that Snape was from the same sort of old wizarding money as Malfoy. To me he's always seemed like someone working very, very hard to create that impression, but his spitting, his failure to hit details like teeth and fingernails, and most of all his chip-on-shoulder touchiness about not getting proper respect, screamed just the opposite. Of course I predicted Knockturn-Alley urchin, not crappy mill-town urchin, but you can't have everything... Anyways, he seems like the sort of person who spent hours and hours practicing his signature-- I think he's trained himself in a fancy copperplate, so his notes on kid's papers can have an intimidating finality. -- Sydney, still hoping for a Knockturn Alley connection for Snape-- through the Princes, maybe? From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Feb 25 01:18:04 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:18:04 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <91E500D0-A59C-11DA-9AEF-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148755 On Friday, February 24, 2006, at 06:42 PM, zeldaricdeau wrote: > zeldaricdeau now: > > I often wonder if Harry did recognize the writing on a subconcious > level but by the time he did was so enamored of the Prince as a > friend and mentor that the recognition only came subconciously. His > concious mind may simply have ignored the information because the > meaning wasn't something Harry wanted to accept: that the person he > admired and who was helping him was Snape. This is similar to what I > believe you are saying kchuplis? Please, correct me if I am wrong. kchuplis: What I thought, but with a spin. I really meant that, well, kids just don't recognize things they see for what they are many times. I will say that Hermione might be the one I expect to recognize it. Then again, another thought is, I know my handwriting can look VERY different, plus, it has definitely undergone a change from when I was 16 to when I am 40. I don't know if it is a girl thing for the most part (although, I currently know a high school boy who has been obsessed with his handwriting and improving it, also learning copperplate and Spencerian, so maybe not) but I used to practice different ways of writing and even now, my writing is something that I still work on evolving. I don't know, I just find that this is not so stunning to me as other things Harry has missed. I find it more than natural he might not make the connection. From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Feb 25 01:37:03 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:37:03 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Handwriting example of what I mean In-Reply-To: <91E500D0-A59C-11DA-9AEF-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: <392306D6-A59F-11DA-A21E-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148756 I realized after my last post that I actually can point you all at an example of handwriting over time. You can see from this persons post that they unearthed samples of handwriting over an extensive period of time. Now, between 17 and adulthood there is not a huge difference, but I don't know that I would know it is the same writing or connect it unless I was specifically looking for a connection. Just thought it would be interesting for people to see one example. http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6706 (and as you can see from the forum, there *are* a lot of people who work and continue to work at changing their writing. Snape doesn't strike me as a pen nut, BUT there is no doubt he has worked on self esteem and image from when he was 16. It isn't unfathomable that handwriting might shift because of that alone.) From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 00:10:24 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:10:24 -0000 Subject: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148757 > Arlene: > It is an interesting thought to think that the DA position may NOT > be cursed. However, 14 years (I believe) is a bit much for Every > teacher to come and go within one year when the teachers in the > other positions have been there as much as 30 years. > Longer than 14, actually. It would be at least 20, I would guess, as DD refused Voldy the position before he ascended as Dark Lord the first time. Having said that, once again I believe we are going on pure speculation and circumstantial evidence, and we do have at least one example of a person, Quirrell, who held the position for more than one year, albeit his years were not, evidently, consecutive. But all this raises another interesting question: If the position is probably cursed, why on Earth does Snape want it so badly? Is he faking his desire? We have no evidence for that, indeed all the evidence we have including the application records cited by Umbridge show Snape has wanted the position badly for many years. Yet Snape hardly seems the type to to commit professional suicide for the sake of a principle. Does Snape dismiss the evidence of the curse as so much hooey? Does Snape believe he could remove the curse himself? If he's supposed to be Voldy's man tampering with Voldy's curse wouldn't endear him. Does Snape think that Voldy will remove the curse once he, at least supposedly Voldy's man, is in the job? It's true if there IS in fact a curse it's hard to know why DD would give Snape the job, but it's even harder to know why Snape would WANT a cursed job over his entire career at Hogwarts (evidently at least 14 years). It's especially hard to know why he would be jealous of Lupin getting the job. Given the situation with the prank, it would be logical for Snape to be gloating over Lupin's predicament and waiting eagerly for the Snape to work Lupin's comeuppance. Yet all the evidence we have is that Snape was extremely jealous and annoyed, and that he believed Lupin had received a valuable prize that rightly belonged to him, Snape. Lupinlore From tsavorite_1 at hotmail.com Fri Feb 24 22:31:57 2006 From: tsavorite_1 at hotmail.com (tsavorite_1) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:31:57 -0000 Subject: Of Souls and Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148758 Hi there: I've been rereading the series over again (who hasn't eh?)and have decided to delurk. It seems clear to me that Harry could not be a horcrux as he and Voldemort are, despite a sharing of 'abilities' are not linked on a soul level. My reasoning: Dumbledore was checking his little silver instrument, (OOP)after the incident of Harry being in Nagini's mind when the snake attacked Mr Wheasly, and a doubled smoke snake appeared. Dumbledore said: "Naturally, naturally," "But in essence divided." He then had a look of grim satisfaction on his face. It seems to me that although Harry shares some of Voldemort's powers and that he passed something along to Voldmort that they are two different entities. Destroying one would not destroy the other as they do not share a soul. Harry, therefor, could not have been made a horcrux by Voldemort the night he 'died'. Next point: One thing that keeps coming up in POA over and over again is that the Dementors kiss is a fate worse than death. Dumbledore, in the MOM, tells Voldemort that there are things that are much worse than death. Do ya think? Do you?? This would leave Voldemort soulless and defeated yet Harry, in the end, still would not have killed. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest! *phew* -Pamela From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Feb 25 02:55:05 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 02:55:05 -0000 Subject: Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148759 > brady: > > On the issue of the handwriting, I have asked this same question > before without getting any replies. Harry has seen Snape write his > exam. He could see that the handwriting was cramped, small and he > wrote a lot of matter. How is it that he didn't place the exam > handwriting and the HBP book writing together? At least a faint - > "I have seen this writing before...but where?" kind of contemplation > would have been more suspenseful in HBP than this case where HP > doesn't recognise it at all. Potioncat: Quite a few readers put the two samples of handwriting together and came up with the right conclusion. Harry...well, he doesn't even know McGlaggen, a Gryffindor only one year ahead of him. We saw that test-taking, teen Snape wrote in a cramped style...trying to fit all the information on the page. The same teen was trying to squeeze his notes onto the pages of his potions book. Have we seen Professor Snape's writing on the board? Yes, I know the kids have, but have we been given a description? I do recall one tall spikey D which Harry received on a paper. Professor Snape's handwriting, when he has enough room, or when he projects via wand to board, may not be so cramped. From kking0731 at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 03:34:39 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 22:34:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148760 zeldaricdeau now: I often wonder if Harry did recognize the writing on a subconcious level but by the time he did was so enamored of the Prince as a friend and mentor that the recognition only came subconciously. His concious mind may simply have ignored the information because the meaning wasn't something Harry wanted to accept: that the person he admired and who was helping him was Snape. This is similar to what I believe you are saying kchuplis? Please, correct me if I am wrong. However, I have often wondered why neither Ron nor Hermione recognized the handwriting? Surely both have seen the adult Snape's handwriting at some point. Most likely Ron has seen it a good deal more than Hermione. Why did neither of them recognize it? Has Snape's handwriting changed as he grew older (not unheard of)? Snow: Handwriting analysis was one of my Mom's favorite pastimes and although I don't claim to be as good as she was, having seen her accurately depict author's personalities she had never met, she couldn't help but explain to me what some things meant as far as personality traits according to handwriting analysis. The handwriting itself tells of a person's personality at the time of the writing: i.e. if they are tired - the writing has an upswing towards the end of the sentence that equals awake and energized (can only be visualized accurately on unlined paper); closed letters like o's, or g's that leaves no gap in the circle and tend to be heavily closed - are closed mouth, they don't inform others about themselves; you can tell the person's generosity level towards themselves and others by the margin space utilized on both sides of the page, the left side being yourself and the right being others; there is also a way in which to tell the maturity level of a person (not necessarily their age) by way of their handwriting; or the one that reflects on this situation is miniscule writing which is something attributed to a person with higher intellect. [one feature, alone, of handwriting cannot accurately depict a persons personality] As you suspect, zeldaricdeau, handwriting changes with age, as do personality traits that also change with age. The Snape we saw in school and the adult Snape's handwriting would vary from each other even if his values remained the same throughout because of the maturity factor let alone his spying for Dumbledore, Voldemort or both, so I would think that his handwriting now would not be comparable to his earlier days in any case. I would actually expect his writing in later years to become almost illegible given his spy status. As far as I am aware, you cannot determine the sex of the writer through the handwriting itself, many female and male traits can be noticed throughout but cannot be determined exclusively by the writing analysis itself, so the miniscule writing only reflects on many persons who reflect a higher intelligence level that could either apply to Lily or Snape as far as Potions abilities. It is curious what Hermione saw in the writing that made her feel that the author was a female. Snow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kking0731 at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 04:25:34 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:25:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148761 Gwen snipped: And Sirius *did* have a cousin Potter. Even if it wasn't James, what happened to him? What happened to this branch of Harry's family? Did he, his parents, and Harry's Grandparents all die peacfully in their beds in 1977? Was he a budding Death Eater like so many of the Blacks - after all there was no photo of Harry's Uncle with the original order members? Someone knew him - but no one mentions him to the boy whose hearts deepest desire is to know his family? Snow: And who knew more than anyone of Harry's deepest hearts desire but Dumbledore. If 'The Potters' on the chart were Harry's relatives why would Dumbledore keep this knowledge a secret from him? Or, like you imply, was there bad blood in his background that Dumbledore (or anyone close to Harry) didn't want Harry to dwell on? What immediately came to mind when I wrote this was Sirius telling Harry in OOP pg. 670 "?and James whatever else he may have appeared to you, Harry ? always hated the Dark Arts." Simply backs up the fact that Harry is not to dwell on his father (or ancestors ?) as having anything to do with the Dark Arts lest he feels it's in his blood. Snow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 05:05:36 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:05:36 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? WAS: Re: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148762 Lupinlore: > But all this raises another interesting question: If the position is > probably cursed, why on Earth does Snape want it so badly? Is he > faking his desire? We have no evidence for that, indeed all the > evidence we have including the application records cited by Umbridge > show Snape has wanted the position badly for many years. Alla: Actually, prior to OOP I was convinced that Snape does not really want DADA job and this is justa gossip, but OOP convinced me that he does and now I keep getting the craziest idea (SPECULATION) that Snape may not have really known about the curse( assuming that such curse exists of course). I tend to believe that it does, but you can be right, Lupinlore. Now for my idea of course you have to not believe in "Snape as DD right hand man and DD tell him everything" argument, but well, I did not really believe in this argument especially after JKR pretty much saying that DD has no confidants. So, that suits for me. Although I know it still sounds crazy, but bear with me. I was hesitant to even write it out loud :-), because I got it into my head for some reason that Percy in PS/SS says that position was cursed or something, but then when I thought about it, I realized that he really does not, since the first verbal acknowledgment of DADA curse we hear from Dumbledore in HBP. If there are gossips around school about position being cursed and I don't remember them, then of course please forget about this speculation as non-existent, since if students talk about it, Snape surely at least heard about it. But if they don't, well, I am not so sure that Dumbledore deemed it necessary to inform Snape about it. Lupinlore: Yet Snape > hardly seems the type to commit professional suicide for the sake > of a principle. Alla: HAHA. Very true. Lupinlore: Does Snape dismiss the evidence of the curse as so > much hooey? Alla: Right that sounds very possible to me OR to go even further, he does not think that DADA teachers not staying more than a year is nothing but happy or unhappy coincidence. I guess I just rephrased what you said. Lupinlore: It's > true if there IS in fact a curse it's hard to know why DD would give > Snape the job, but it's even harder to know why Snape would WANT a > cursed job over his entire career at Hogwarts (evidently at least 14 > years). Alla: Well, there is of course an argument of Dumbledore and Snape meticulously planning together for the events after UV and Dumbledore knowing that Snape will have to leave at the end of the year anyway, but yes, I am still not sure why Dumbledore would give him the job anyways if Snape is a white hat and Dumbledore values him somehow. Basically, from the position of DD!M Snape giving Snape a job means that Dumbledore does not even PLAN on staying alive, no? It means that Dumbledore is not even thinking at the end of the year of staying alive, he is planning his own death, nothing more than that, and after killing Dumbledore Snape of course will have no choice but to disappear. But since Dumbledore did not strike me as preparing his own death in great details during HBP, I have to look for explanation that would satisfy me more. Suppose Dumbledore really did not want to give Snape the job even during HBP AND at the beginning of HBP he informs Snape that he believes that position indeed cursed. What if Dumbledore simply decided again to let Snape make a choice? What if he simply caved in to Snape's desire to teach DADA? Maybe he learned from concealing information from Harry and decided not to make the same mistake with Snape anymore? What if Dumbledore put his cards on the table to Snape and told him that yes, I know that you wanted the position for fourteen years and that is the reason I was not giving it to you. I was trying to keep you safe in Hogwarts or something like that. You want it? I can give it to you. I think giving Snape's arrogance(IMO of course), it would be perfectly in character for Snape to take it, thinking that curse is just a gossip and other DADA teachers could not keep their positions because they were incompetent fools or undeserving of it OR if Snape believes in curse that he can remove it. Lupinlore: It's especially hard to know why he would be jealous of > Lupin getting the job. Given the situation with the prank, it would > be logical for Snape to be gloating over Lupin's predicament and > waiting eagerly for the Snape to work Lupin's comeuppance. Yet all > the evidence we have is that Snape was extremely jealous and annoyed, > and that he believed Lupin had received a valuable prize that rightly > belonged to him, Snape. Alla: I think it can actually be perfect evidence that Snape did not know and/or did not believe in DADA curse. You are so right. Snape should have been happy that Remus got the job, if he believed in curse. Now, all of that is a one big speculation, so please don't bother pointing this out. I know that. :-) It IS speculation, nothing more. JMO, Alla. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 07:05:50 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 07:05:50 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? WAS: Re: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148763 Super-long, sorry. Snape, DADA curse, Lupin, PoA...too many of my favorite topics! >Lupinlore: > Longer than 14, actually. It would be at least 20, I would guess, as DD refused Voldy > the position before he ascended as Dark Lord the > first time. zgirnius: Actually, the true number is on the order of 35-40 years. If you buy the Lexicon timeline, Tom Riddle graduated Hogwarts in 1945. He worked for a short time for Borgin and Burke's, then disappeared after his murder of Hepzibah Smith. He next resurfaces when he requests the job of DADA instructor from Dumbledore, an event that Dumbledore states (in the "Lord Voldemort's Request" chapter of HBP) occured about 10 years after the murder of Smith. So, depending on how long exactly he worked at B&B's, it could be, say, anywhere from 1955 to 1960, with closer to 1955 probably being the right number. I don't see young Tom Riddle wasting more time than he needs to as an assistant shopkeeper. OotP ends in 1996. By the time Snape is offered the position, Dumbledore has been unable to keep a teacher in that position for 35-40 years. >From Snape's point of view, this means that no teacher he had for DADA in his seven years there managed to last the year. In his (by the end of OotP) fourteen years of teaching, he has never seen a colleague last past a year in DADA. Thus, he has seen the phenomenon in action personally, for 21 different school years. And this is in a school where we see remarkably long tenures by teachers in other fields. This is *exceedingly* unlikely to occur by chance. (OK, I may be more likely to see this than JKR but still. We're talking win-the-powerball odds here.) > Lupinlore: > It's true if there IS in fact a curse it's hard to know why DD > would give Snape the job, > Alla: > Well, there is of course an argument of Dumbledore and Snape > meticulously planning together for the events after UV and > Dumbledore knowing that Snape will have to leave at the end of the > year anyway, zgirnius: There is actually more than one theory about Spy!Snape and why Dumbledore gave him DADA. I outline an alternative in my post 147014. (worth some laughs?) Very short form of theory-I am not happy with any other reason given for why Dumbledore would give Snape the job, so I have concluded that he gave Snape the job in order to achieve the one effect he is sure this move will have-to get Snape out of Hogwarts. Even a DADA plan of Book 6 does not explain why Snape would seem to want the position in other years. Unless, I suppose, Dumbledore has always had the idea of exploiting the curse in mind as a way of getting Snape back to Voldemort if the situation warrants. But that would mean Dumbledore has suggested to Snape that he keep applying. I suppose it serves other purposes for Dumbledore and Snape as well, creating that impression that Dumbledore does not really trust him. (As Snape gripes to Bella in Spinner's End, for example). Alla: > Basically, from the position of DD!M Snape giving Snape a job means > that Dumbledore does not even PLAN on staying alive, no? zgirnius: Not at all. My way, it is better if Dumbledore lives. Then DDM!Snape has someone to report back to from Voldie's camp without any fuss about proving his loyalties. Of course, the downside is Voldie is probably less happy with him, so he may have less of interest to report > Lupinlore: > It's especially hard to know why he would be jealous of > > Lupin getting the job. Given the situation with the prank, it > would be logical for Snape to be gloating over Lupin's predicament and > > waiting eagerly for the Snape to work Lupin's comeuppance. Yet > all the evidence we have is that Snape was extremely jealous and > annoyed, and that he believed Lupin had received a valuable prize that > rightly belonged to him, Snape. zgirnius: Could you give me some canon reference, please? I agree Snape has negative feelings about the appointment. Annoyed, or even stronger words, would describe his actions IMO. But I think jealous is coming straight out of the mouths of Harry and Ron, who can hardly know the reasons for Snape's annoyance. Given Snape's personal history, he could just be negative because extremely unpleasant memories of his schooldays are being forced on him, both by Lupin's presence at the school, and the escape of Sirius Black (who once tried to murder Me! says Snape). And I think there is a very strong, very logical, and also deeply personal reason for Snape to be less-than-thrilled with the idea of Lupin in a cursed DADA position, however much he may wish to see Lupin suffer. After all, if one tries to think of disastrous things that could happen to Lupin/with Lupin as a result of the curse, what is the first thing that comes to mind? Actually, only one thing comes to MY mind. Lupin is a calm, reasonable, kind person who simply WON'T mess up the way a Lockhart or an Umbridge would. But he is, alas, a werewolf. Snape standing over Lupin exhibiting his best bedside manner (HA!) trying to get the guy to down the potion when Snape can SEE it was never, in my opinion, about resentment, or trying to embarrass Lupin, or anything like that. It was simply wanting reassurance that he would not be seeing werewolf!Lupin again. Also likely why he agreed to brew the potion so perfectly every time all by himself he slept better nights knowing it was done right. From Nanagose at aol.com Sat Feb 25 07:14:30 2006 From: Nanagose at aol.com (spotsgal) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 07:14:30 -0000 Subject: Secret Keepers/JKR Poll Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148764 > lolita_ns wrote: > I repeat, *no one* but PP, Sirius and the Potters knew of the > switch, so, in order for Hagrid to be able to find the house, the > Secret had to have been revelaed to him by the SK. And it hadn't > been, for he honestly believed that Sirius had been the SK... Christina: Several other posters have run off of this same assumption, but it's important to remember that Harry is told the 12GP secret by the Secret-Keeper *without* the SK being present. Dumbledore writes the secret on a note, and it is given to Harry. Harry reads the note, absorbs the secret, and enters the house, all without knowing the identity of the SK. A few others have mentioned this, too, but it seems to have slipped under the radar - it is completely possible that PP was writing out notes for people (like Hagrid and Dumbledore) to tell them the secret. Those people would have had no reason to suspect that anybody other that Sirius was writing them. The *real* question here is - how did the Muggle authorities find the house after it had been destroyed? Either the house itself was visible all along (and the Potters themselves were invisible) or the charm broke when the Potters died and/or the house was destroyed. > Finwitch: > > As for forgetting an adress etc. Why not? She hasn't visited all > that often, has she? She probably wouldn't even notice unless she > needed it. People do forget things all the time. Christina: But Bellatrix has a very important reason to try and recall this particular piece of information. If Dumbledore was correct in his assumptions of the lines of inheritance, then Bella should have realized when she killed Sirius that the house would fall into her possession. Bella may be a bit unbalanced, but surely she follow a family tree, especially when there's something in it for her. > bboyminn: > PS: A short public apology to both Christina and Carol. In recent > posts I have agree with them in a way in which my agreement wasn't > clear. Christina: No problem - I figured that you had just read my post a bit fast and missed a double negative or two (I do that a lot if I'm in a hurry), but I see what you are saying now. Thanks for clarifying :) I'd also like to apologize again for the double-post the other day. Both Yahoo and my computer have been acting up lately...ick And as a complete sidenote - does anybody know what happened to the Potter Index (www.potterindex.com)? I've found it very helpful with posts to this list, and I wonder where it's gone. Christina From ms-tamany at rcn.com Sat Feb 25 07:44:12 2006 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 02:44:12 -0500 Subject: Trusting Snape (was: Is Snape good or evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4qag60$66urc7@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148765 Tammy: > Even if DD knew nothing about the UV, I still think that he would have > preferred a student alive, at whatever cost to a teacher, regardless of who > that student and teacher were. To suggest that DD would have EVER > put a teacher's welfare above a student's, for whatever reason, is ludicrous. Alla: Oh, Okay then. I agree with you - DD is trying to protect his students first and foremost. Would you agree then that Dumbledore would do ANYTHING to stay alive to protect Harry at whatever cost to Snape ? Now Tammy again: No, I don't agree that DD would do ANYTHING *to stay alive* to protect Harry, at whatever cost to Snape. I *DO*, however, believe that DD would to ANYTHING *to protect Harry*, even give up his life, at whatever cost to Snape or to any other teacher. Whatever DD knew beforehand, whether he knew of the UV at all, or of only part of it, or of the entirety of it, when it came down to the actual moment on the Tower, DD showed what he was willing to do by using his last moment with a wand to immobilize Harry under the Invisibility Cloak, so that Harry couldn't do anything stupid and draw attention to himself. DD put himself in front of Harry, in a sense, by ensuring that Harry couldn't reveal himself. DD basically *volunteered* to take whatever was coming, probably hoping that he would survive, of course, but certainly willing to do whatever it took to draw fire AWAY from Harry. When Snape appeared on the scene, then DD -- weakened by the potion, fading toward at least incapacity if not death because of it, wandless and nearly defenseless (I believe he could have done something with wandless magic, but I also believe that, in his state at the time, it would not have been very effective) -- didn't really have many options open to him, other than to trust Snape once again. He's said on several occasions that he trusts Snape completely. I can't remember offhand if he's ever said he'd trust Snape with his life (I know he's said that of Hagrid), but truly trusting someone completely *includes* trusting them to use you badly *if required for the greater good*. Whatever Dumbledore knew about Snape that had cemented that complete trust, I believe it was good enough, when it came down to the moment on the Tower, for DD to continue to trust Snape to do what was best for the students, at whatever cost to Snape or to DD himself. Now, whether that trust was misplaced or not remains to be seen, but I do believe that Dumbledore still trusted Snape, even through death, and that he was willing to pay even that price at Snape's hands. I see it this way -- if there were ever to arise in my life a situation where *someone* was going to kill me outright, I would much rather die at the hands of someone I trusted and cared for than at the hands of someone who I knew hated me. Have you ever heard of Masada? It was a Jewish town back in ancient Roman times, that was besieged by Roman troops. When it became clear after a long and costly siege that rescue was not coming to Masada in time, and that they would most certainly fall to the Romans the next morning, the people of Masada decided that, facing sure and certain death for all of them, they would rather die at the hands of their own leaders than be slaughtered by their enemy. The men killed their own families in a quick and relatively painless way (and their families submitted to it peacefully), and then killed themselves, so that when the Romans finally marched in the next day, there was no victory for them there. In the same way, I believe, Dumbledore was willing to be killed by Snape, if he MUST die, because he trusted and cared for Snape. I think the 'Severus, please' was not a plea for Dumbledore's life, but rather a plea that Snape not let a student or a DE kill DD, a plea that, if DD *must* die, let it be by Snape's hands rather than anyone else's. A final show of utter trust, basically handing over Dumbledore's own life, as well as Harry and the fate of the entire wizarding world, to Snape, who MUST have realized that Harry was there (he certainly noticed that second broom, and he KNEW that Potter had that dratted Invisibility Cloak, after all). As I said, though, whether that trust was misplaced or not remains to be seen, however, I do believe it was THERE, to the end and beyond, and that it was REAL for Dumbledore. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 25 07:45:28 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 07:45:28 -0000 Subject: Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148766 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "latha279" wrote: > > Krista: > > > > I also think the whole idea of Snape's teenage writing being > > mistaken for a girl's is very odd, I have to say. > > As a guy with esteem issues, he'd probably write small; as a > > wordy student, he'd have cramped handwriting on tests, to squeeze > > everything in; as a guy whose mind is inclined to logic/math, > > he'd have more linear, precise handwriting, closer to print than > > cursive; and because he's trying to write quickly, no effort at > > being "pretty." > > > brady: > > On the issue of the handwriting, I have asked this same question > before without getting any replies. Harry has seen Snape write his > exam. He could see that the handwriting was cramped, small and he > wrote a lot of matter. How is it that he didn't place the exam > handwriting and the HBP book writing together? At least a faint - > "I have seen this writing before...but where?" kind of contemplation > would have been more suspenseful in HBP than this case where HP > doesn't recognise it at all. Geoff: Just to add a couple of thoughts to the mix: if I look at my own handwriting, I have a lot of examples from my late teens at the end of the 1950s when it was rather untidy and scrawly. When I first worked in an office, I tidied it up because I was involved in designing data capture forms and others had to be able to interpret my heiroglyphics :-). Then, in teaching, I had to have readable blackboard work and was also involved in producing material for staff noticeboards - this when the school didn't have a photocopier. Nowadays, because I have a little bit of hand trouble,I'm back to scruffy handwriting. quite different from, say, 15 years ago. Secondly, I have two sons, both in their early 30s. I am almost unable to distinguish between their handwriting. I can only decide who a letter is from by looking at the postmark! So I can quite accept that Harry didn't make a connection between the two scripts. From srbecca at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 02:08:43 2006 From: srbecca at hotmail.com (Rebecca Dreiling) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 02:08:43 +0000 Subject: Basic Education In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148767 Rebecca wrote: > If most wizarding children don't start school until they enter > Hogwarts where do they learn to read and write? Pippin replied: >JKR's website FAQ says that wizard children are mostly home-schooled >before they go to Hogwarts. I suppose that in the case of less enlightened >headmasters than Dumbledore and less important students than Harry, >no great effort was made to follow up on students who didn't respond >to Hogwarts letters. That would self-select for literate students, magic >or Muggle. I'd guess that far fewer Muggle students made it >to Hogwarts in the days before literacy became common in the Muggle >world, which would put some developing social and economic pressure >behind the purebloods' support of Voldemort's radicalism. Rebecca: I would wonder, with all the home schooling, if a lot of students were not very literate. Not every parent is going to be a good teacher. I suppose this would also set apart pure-blood families too. Families like the Malfoys could afford to pay a tutor and work within the wizarding world full time if need be. However, families like the Weasleys would not be able to afford a tutor. Maybe this is part of the reason Molly stays at home? It seems being literate and being able to write a good story are not priorities at Hogwarts. What happens to the witch or wizard who really wants to be a writer? I guess we'd have to ask Rita Skeeter. From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 05:50:16 2006 From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:50:16 +1100 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148768 G.C.: Reading and re-reading the Black family tree gets extremely confusing after a while. What I have gathered from reading the books about 6 times each is that James Potter came from a wizarding family, so therefore I think that the '1 son' written on the Black family tree is probably his cousin or half cousin or something far removed from James. Does anyone else think it would be weird for people called Dorea and Charlus to call their son James. The name is just a bit too ordinary for me to think it was their son. Though, since Dorea and Charlus had a son, and they were about the same age as Sirius' parents, wouldn't he have to have gone to Hogwarts for schooling, therefore Sirius would know about him and so would ave James, they may have even gone to school at the same time. It is very confusing. Any further thoughts? G.C. _________________________________________________________________ Shopping made easy @ tradingpost.com.au http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etradingpost%2Ecom%2Eau%2F%3Freferrer%3DnmsnHMetagv1&_t=753082530&_r=emailtagline&_m=EXT From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 08:23:45 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 03:23:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trusting Snape (was: Is Snape good or evil?) In-Reply-To: <4qag60$66urc7@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148769 Tammy Rizzo: >I *DO*, however, believe that DD would to >ANYTHING *to protect Harry*, even give up his life, at whatever cost to >Snape or to any other teacher. Whatever DD knew beforehand, whether he >knew >of the UV at all, or of only part of it, or of the entirety of it, when it >came down to the actual moment on the Tower, DD showed what he was willing >to do by using his last moment with a wand to immobilize Harry under the >Invisibility Cloak, so that Harry couldn't do anything stupid and draw >attention to himself. DD put himself in front of Harry, in a sense, by >ensuring that Harry couldn't reveal himself. PJ: Ok,this arguement makes no sense to me. Surely Dumbledore understood that once he was dead the spell on Harry would lift and Harry could then "do something stupid", cloak or not? The first of which would be to get into a fight with all those death eaters on the tower and the second being to try and take out Snape! We've seen wandless magic done by Quirrel and it was quite good! Why would Dumbledore choose to leave Harry in the presence of a child loving werewolf and several other DEs? That's criminal and not Dumbledore's style at all! And what was Dumbledore going on about hiding Draco and his Mom if he'd planned to die there on the tower? Now Draco is with Snape (who I personally don't trust as far as I can throw) and, because there's no cannon either way, could hypothetically be on his way to LV at this very minute... Ya, I know you don't think so but we won't know for sure till book 7 is out. :-) Snape is now useless to the order and DDM!Snape or not, he is dead meat. He has the whole WW after him for killing his Headmaster. Was that what Dumbledore had planned for him? A life of running and hiding and eventual death? Can't be the same Dumbledore I've been reading about. Seems to me that if Dumbledore planned this he made a real mess of things. Harry's determined to kill Snape, we don't know where Draco is for sure AND Harry has a small problem with horcruxes which Dumbledore never managed to teach him how to find and destroy. If your theory is correct, I'd have to say Dumbledore blew it bigtime. PJ From ms-tamany at rcn.com Sat Feb 25 09:36:27 2006 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 04:36:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trusting Snape (was: Is Snape good or evil?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4qag60$66v137@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148770 Tammy Rizzo: >I *DO*, however, believe that DD would to ANYTHING *to protect Harry*, >even give up his life, at whatever cost to Snape or to any other teacher. >Whatever DD knew beforehand, whether he knew >of the UV at all, or of only part of it, or of the entirety of it, when it >came down to the actual moment on the Tower, DD showed what he was willing >to do by using his last moment with a wand to immobilize Harry under the >Invisibility Cloak, so that Harry couldn't do anything stupid and draw >attention to himself. DD put himself in front of Harry, in a sense, by >ensuring that Harry couldn't reveal himself. PJ: Ok,this arguement makes no sense to me. Surely Dumbledore understood that once he was dead the spell on Harry would lift and Harry could then "do something stupid", cloak or not? Why would Dumbledore choose to leave Harry in the presence of a child loving werewolf and several other DEs? Now Tammy: Ahh, but DD wasn't leaving Harry in the presence of a child loving werewolf and several other DEs. He was leaving Harry in the hands of Snape, whom he trusted completely, whether he was right or wrong to trust him so. Also, I'm convinced that DD, who has admitted to forgetting what it is like to be young, most likely thought that Harry had learned not to waste the efforts of those who have paid greatly to protect him. Remember Lupin's dressing Harry down in PoA, telling him that flitting over to Hogwarts while someone was out to get him was not a worthy way to repay his parents' sacrifice on his behalf, and how utterly lousy that thought made Harry feel? It was the ONLY thing that got through to him that he had been behaving stupidly. I'm sure that DD had become aware of that conversation, and had probably thought that Harry had learned that particular lesson. DD probably hoped that, while Harry was immobilized and invisible, out of the line of fire, he would come to realize that the best course of action would be to remain hidden until it was safe. Obviously, DD was wrong in that hope; that doesn't mean that he was wrong to hope that. Also just as obviously, he couldn't yell out to Harry to stay hidden, which Harry probably would have struggled to do, if DD had TOLD him to -- after all, he'd PROMISED to do what DD told him. DD made a major mistake with that situation, yes, but it is NOT out of character for him to have acted as he did. PJ again: And what was Dumbledore going on about hiding Draco and his Mom if he'd planned to die there on the tower? Now Tammy: I am firmly convinced that DD never PLANNED to die there on the Tower. That's just how things turned out, given the situation at the time. DD probably was not aware when he made the offer of hiding Draco and Narcissa that there were several DEs running through his school, coming to make sure he died. He had reassured Harry of the protections around the school before they headed out to the cave, remember? Yes, that was another major mistake on DD's part, underestimating the plans and resources of his enemy, but it was a reasonable mistake to make. After all, DD had to tweak the school's defences to even get Harry and himself in on brooms, only minutes before. How could he have thought that DEs could have come in to harrass his school? And he DID know more than Harry did, about almost everything, so it was a reasonable assumption on his part to believe that he had more information about Draco's plans than Harry did, and not unreasonable to try to assuage Harry's misgivings by assuring him of his own superior knowledge and understanding. Wrong, as it turned out, but not unreasonable. PJ: Snape is now useless to the order and DDM!Snape or not, he is dead meat. He has the whole WW after him for killing his Headmaster. Was that what Dumbledore had planned for him? Tammy: I don't believe DD had planned anything of the sort for anyone. However, I do believe that, given the safety of the students on one hand, and the future of one teacher on the other, he would have done anything to protect his students, regardless of the price one teacher must be called upon to pay. I also firmly believe that DD trusted Snape to be able to pay whatever price was required, for the sake of the students, just as DD himself was willing to pay the ultimate price if required. Whether DD was wrong or right to trust Snape so, I am convinced that he DID put that much trust in Snape. PJ: Seems to me that if Dumbledore planned this he made a real mess of things. Harry's determined to kill Snape, we don't know where Draco is for sure AND Harry has a small problem with horcruxes which Dumbledore never managed to teach him how to find and destroy. If your theory is correct, I'd have to say Dumbledore blew it bigtime. Tammy: I have never said that DD *planned* any of this -- I do not believe he did. I cannot see DD *planning* to have Snape kill him, or *planning* to leave Harry half-trained, at best, about Horcruxes, or *planning* to leave Snape dangling on the dubious mercies of Voldemort after having killed his Headmaster. I believe, though, that, given the situation in which DD found himself, and given that complete trust in Snape that he has told us about over and over and over again, DD was not acting out of character to rely upon that same trust when it came right down to it in the end. He may have been wrong, he may have been right, but he was not out of character to believe in that trust that he was so certain of. At most, the cloest I can see to DD *planning* anything like this would be to have given Snape similar orders as he had given Harry before they left for the cave, that regardless of what was asked of him, he'd DO it. Those orders most likely came to Snape many years ago, besides, and probably (if ever given) had a great deal of bearing on DD's utter trust of Snape. But that is, I believe, the whole and entire extent of any *planning* for that Tower scene, or any situation like it, that DD had ever made. Now, yes, Snape's future is (apparently) screwed beyond repair, Harry is (apparently) facing an impossible task, Draco is (apparently) still facing Voldemort's wrath, and Dumbledore is (most assuredly) quite dead. I'd call that some big time consequences to some major mistakes on DD's part. However, DD himself also admitted that his mistakes, when he makes them, are quite huge. I also believe that, all things considered, the outcome of the Tower scene, while terrible in all ways, was considerably LESS terrible than it could have been, and that Dumbledore's trust in Snape was not *entirely* misplaced -- Snape *DID* manage to get the DEs out of Hogwarts without further major injury to Harry or any other student or faculty. Both Dumbledore and Snape have had to pay huge prices for that outcome, but I do believe that DD was *willing* to pay such a price, and that he trusted that Snape, too, was able to pay such a price. Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 11:29:55 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:29:55 -0000 Subject: Back to horcruxes..... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148771 While I still believe that Harry is a horcrux.... I really do think the sorting hat may well be a Horcrux... 1. Voldy had the opportunity during the Job interview for the DADA position...Voldy's grabbing of the wand may have been a last ditch effort to create a horcrux w/in Hogwarts since he did not garner the position of DADA he was seeking. Also, this would fit with voldy's desire to create horcruxes that were closely tied to the founding members of hogwarts. I have been pondering what may have happened if TR's diary would have been written in by as many inidivuals who had worn the sorting hat... Perhaps Lucius also wrote in the diary==hence the replay of events that happened years before and seeing as Lucious also wanted to discredit Arthur..He placed the diary with one of the weasley children. (confirmed in the HBP--however, Lucious probably garnered a great deal more info from said diary than either Jenny or Harry.) I think this may explain why in the recent decade a certain sort tend to be in slytheryn... While voldie horcrux hat can influence...there are the influence of the other founders there--even if horcruxhat voldie tried to take control...the other influences of the hat exerted their power so that free choice should prevail! Hence the dialoge between Harry and the hat, and the dialogue between Hermione and the hat--among others...including Sirius....Harry was considered for slyteryn...Hermione was considered for Ravenclaw.---What if...it was the horcrux talking..trying to convince them to go elsewhere.. It also makes sense when considering the Diary-Tom-Riddle's words in COS when he states something to the effect of the fact that the sorting hat..is an OLD hat....(makes sense in the time-line...of the horcrux diary)..Yet of course the "hat" gives Harry the tool to save the day. The sorting hat would be the ultimate horcrux that could be created in the absence of founders objects.(what if the only safe way to drink the potion in the cave was the hufflepuff cup?!?) Creating said horcux would be something Voldy would do after being turned down for the DADA position. It would be wonderfuld if the sorting hat was a horcrux...If Harry destroyed it, it would be a first step in uniting the houses. It would revamp the house system. Doddie (who wonders what and how much either Lucius or Draco may had written in said diary) From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Feb 25 11:55:20 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:55:20 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148772 G.C. wrote: > Though, since Dorea and Charlus had a son, and they were about the same age > as Sirius' parents, wouldn't he have to have gone to Hogwarts for schooling, > therefore Sirius would know about him and so would ave James, they may have > even gone to school at the same time. It is very confusing. Potioncat: There are two possiblities. Either Charlus and Dorea are James's parents. Or they are not. Given the subjective nature of "later in life" and "getting on in years"; and given JKR's vague use of numbers: this couple could be Harry's grandparents. They could just as likely be James's aunt and uncle. Harry saw a mirror full of people. Could they all have been distant ancestors? Lupin says in PoA that LV went to GH to kill the last of the Potters. That implies there were other Potters who had been killed. By the time Harry is looking at the tapestry, those Potters are dead and gone. If this is a cousin, he could be incredibly unimportant to the story and we'll likely never hear of him again. If, however, you take the dates off the chart, you have a different option. If you look at each line of characters as a generation, the "1s" appears in the same generation with Sirius's parents. He could be James's father, rather than James. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 25 14:53:02 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:53:02 -0000 Subject: Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148773 > > brady: > > On the issue of the handwriting, I have asked this same question > before without getting any replies. Harry has seen Snape write his > exam. He could see that the handwriting was cramped, small and he > wrote a lot of matter. How is it that he didn't place the exam > handwriting and the HBP book writing together? At least a faint - > "I have seen this writing before...but where?" kind of contemplation > would have been more suspenseful in HBP than this case where HP > doesn't recognise it at all. > Pippin: I think the suspense is supposed to come from the reader realizing that the handwriting may be Snape's while Harry never even thinks of it. Like the scene in a horror movie where you can see the monster creeping up on the oblivious hero. No one has ever complained that they can't read the adult Snape's handwriting. Considering what a dandy excuse that would make for overlooking an instruction, Snape's writing in class must be crystal clear. Most likely Snape has more than one script at his disposal-- a large, legible bookhand for communicating with students, and a cramped, hard to read but efficient script he used when the goal was to get as many words on the page as he could. An expert would be able to tell they were the same hand, but Harry is not an expert on handwriting. The only time he saw teenage Snape's writing was in the pensieve. Unlike the readers, Harry has not had the opportunity or the desire to endlessly revisit the experience, hunting for clues. He didn't try to read what Snape was writing on his examination paper, and I doubt he even consciously remembers now that he saw it. Certainly it wasn't the part of the experience that left the greatest impression on him. Pippin From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Feb 25 15:14:47 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:14:47 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148774 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > [Two interesting points occur which are not directly linked to this > thread. It is interesting that Petunia actually vetoes Aunt Marge > because she "hates the boy". Seems to run counter to some of the > treatment they hand to him elsewhere. Well, I read this as that it was not fair to ask this of Marge. Or that it would be a lost case because she would refuse. Gerry From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 25 15:20:58 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:20:58 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148775 Nora: > > It may well be 'Dumbledore *really believed* Snape's tale of > remorse'. That remorse may have been genuine, or it may have been > faked. But I can imagine Dumbledore choosing to believe something > like that, and then refusing to tell anyone else because he knew they > wouldn't value it and treasure it as he did, and he's trying to > protect Snape from the slammer. There's thematic connections there, > and the additional kicker (great setup for conflict) of the event > itself (confession, whatever) being somewhat unrecoverable. > > Of course, it's potentially hochdramatisch if you imagine Some > Variation of Nasty Snape taunting Harry with this, too. :) > Pippin: Can you explain how this would make dramatic or psychological sense? If Snape's betrayal on the tower was his big dramatic moment, it's awfully flat -- after sixteen years of treachery, or indecision, or whatever non-DDM!Snape is supposed to be playing at, he blows Dumbledore away without a word? Then somewhere in HP & the Satisfying Conclusion he goes, "I didn't have a chance to say so at the time, Potter, but let me tell you how good it feels to have that meddling old fool out of my greasy hair at last. I can't believe he bought my story about being remorseful over your poor father's death, but it's a good thing, because I never would have been in a position to do him in otherwise!" The most powerful feeling Snape expresses in the concluding chapters is *anguish*. Here's the passage, in case you've forgotten it "DON'T--" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he were in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog in the burning house behind them--"CALL ME COWARD!" Do you expect Rowling to tell us that um, no, Snape wasn't really in pain, he was actually very happy, er, deep down? I think, myself, that the DON'T was like Myrtle's in chapter 24, meant to stand alone, and the CALL ME COWARD was an afterthought meant to hide what Snape was really upset about. But I don't doubt that he was really upset, do you? It's strange that for all of Snape's gloating, we never hear him say that it was satisfying to fool Dumbledore, even when he's telling Bella about how he did it. I'm curious why evil Snape would pass up the opportunity. Pippin From 4harveys at comcast.net Sat Feb 25 15:39:31 2006 From: 4harveys at comcast.net (Gina) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:39:31 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter Group -Book Theories Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148776 Hey!!! There is another great group on yahoo we started called HarryPotter21 Due to spam you must request to join and be approved but it talks about books, movies, etc. It caters to adults or very mature teens that want to discuss anything Harry Potter but mostly theories for the next book!! Latest topic - Harry and Dumbledore both Phoenixes? From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 11:46:00 2006 From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:46:00 +1100 Subject: The House of Black family tree In-Reply-To: <4qag60$66v137@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148777 G.C.: Just quickly, has anyone noticed, that only the date of birth and death of the true decendentants of the Black's are listed on the tree? Like if the female was a Black and a guy married into the family, then only the womans birth and death dates would be recorded, only the name of the person marrying into the family is recorded. Accept there is one acception to this. Sirius' mother's birth and death dates are recorded. Is this strange to anyone else or am I just digging too deep into this family tree business? I am also thinking that Tonks and her mother may play some major part against Tonks' aunts and her mum's sisters? Does anyone agree? Because I think there could be a pretty big family arguament if they all decided to show up at the same place, bring back some old family heartache or something? G.C. _________________________________________________________________ realestate.com.au: the biggest address in property http://ninemsn.realestate.com.au From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Sat Feb 25 13:26:07 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 08:26:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Of Souls and Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060225132607.11719.qmail@web37014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148778 Pamela wrote: (about Dementors) Dumbledore, in the MOM, tells Voldemort that there are things that are much worse than death. Do ya think? Do you?? This would leave Voldemort soulless and defeated yet Harry, in the end, still would not have killed. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest! *phew* -Pamela Catherine writes: Hi Pamela, I have been wondering the same thing. To add to your point, to conjure a Patronus, one must have a very powerful *happy* memory. What *happy* memory does Voldemort have to conjure a Patronus? Also, it keeps coming up that the Dementors don't care about who's soul they suck out, just that they have enough human prey to feed on. So despite the fact that Voldemort thinks he's controlling them, is he really? One thing's for sure: we haven't seen the last of the Dementors! Catherine 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 Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! SPONSORED LINKS Half-blood prince Adult education Culture club Organizational culture --------------------------------- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "HPforGrownups" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: HPforGrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 17:15:15 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:15:15 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148779 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Can you explain how this would make dramatic or psychological > sense? If Snape's betrayal on the tower was his big dramatic > moment, it's awfully flat -- after sixteen years of treachery, or > indecision, or whatever non-DDM!Snape is supposed to be playing at, > he blows Dumbledore away without a word? Dramatic and psychological sense are both things which mainly run on the mileage of the reader. You find it flat, I find it interesting, particularly when I think about possibilities for where it could go. What I think we all have to avoid is going "I find this lame, so it can't possibly be an option." That way lies, dare I say, an unharmonious state of mind. > The most powerful feeling Snape expresses in the concluding chapters > is *anguish*. Here's the passage, in case you've forgotten it > > "DON'T--" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, > inhuman, as though he were in as much pain as the yelping, howling > dog in the burning house behind them--"CALL ME COWARD!" You read that as 'anguish', but it can be read any number of ways, particularly if you follow a line of thought from the text proceeding which you didn't provide. Pain is something which can come about in intense anger, for instance, or even rage--and if there's any character who seems to have a substantial base of rage built up, for me it's Snape. Is that a scream of anguish about what he's had to do, or a scream of rage that he can finally vent at that godforsaken child, the spitting image of a man he's still obsessed with? > But I don't doubt that he was really upset, do you? I'm not the one who's argued artfully for the theory that he's just acting when he blows his stack and becomes CAPSLOCK!Snape in the past, am I? :) No, I think he's caught up in emotion, but it's a deliberately open subject what that emotion is centered upon. I don't think he brought up James as a feint, for instance--I think that idee fixe is genuine. > It's strange that for all of Snape's gloating, we never hear him > say that it was satisfying to fool Dumbledore, even when he's > telling Bella about how he did it. I'm curious why evil Snape > would pass up the opportunity. Argument from absence, particularly in JKR's style of writing and character development, is a dangerous and delicate thing, so I think I'll leave it at that. -Nora sits down to read on her Krimi, a twistier novel than JKR for sure From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 17:25:15 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:25:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trusting Snape (was: Is Snape good or evil?) In-Reply-To: <4qag60$66v137@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148780 Tammy: >Ahh, but DD wasn't leaving Harry in the presence of a child loving werewolf >and several other DEs. He was leaving Harry in the hands of Snape, whom he >trusted completely, whether he was right or wrong to trust him so. Also, >I'm convinced that DD, who has admitted to forgetting what it is like to be >young, most likely thought that Harry had learned not to waste the efforts >of those who have paid greatly to protect him. DD made a major >mistake with that >situation, yes, but it is NOT out of >character for him to have acted as he did. PJ: With each and every explanation Dumbledore just seems to get more and more stupid. He trusted Snape, he *forgot* that Harry hasn't backed down from a fight since he was 11, he *forgot* that Harry and Snape hate and distrust each other and he *forgot* what Harry went through when Sirius died and how reckless and angry that made him... Maybe the twists and turns made to show how DD wasn't hoodwinked by Snape and done in at the end by someone he mistakenly trusted don't seem out of character to you but to me it makes it sound as though somewhere between book 5 and 6 Dumbledore has had a lobodomy! Tammy: >I am firmly convinced that DD never PLANNED to die there on the Tower. >That's just how things turned out, given the situation at the time. PJ: Well finally!! From there it's just a short hop to either ESE or OFH!Snape. C'mon, you can do it! lol >DD probably was not aware when he made the offer of hiding Draco and >Narcissa >that there were several DEs running through his school, coming to make sure >he died. He had reassured Harry of the protections around the school >before >they headed out to the cave, remember? Yes, that was another major mistake >on DD's part, underestimating the plans and resources of his enemy, but it >was a reasonable mistake to make. PJ: A reasonable mistake? So we're back to moronic Dumbledore? Why didn't DD just reach out and check the status of the school in Draco's mind? Even Snape said Draco's skills at occlumency were crude at best. Again, I think DD's being shortchanged. I think DD expected Snape to come in, wands blazing, with several Order members in tow to help him out! Instead Snape puts Flitwick out of commission and AK's him! Not a good end to a supposedly great friendship. Tammy: >I don't believe DD had planned anything of the sort for anyone. However, I >do believe that, given the safety of the students on one hand, and the >future of one teacher on the other, he would have done anything to protect >his students, regardless of the price one teacher must be called upon to >pay. PJ: But Dumbledore's death *didn't* make the students any safer! Not that night and not for the future! Two reasons more didn't get hurt or die in that fight was Harry's potion and the fact that most DE's seem to be the "gang who couldn't shoot straight". Let's face it, either the kids are extrordinarily good at spells or the DE's skills are laughable! That's twice a bunch of underaged Wizards have kicked big, bad Death Eater butt!! Tammy: >I have never said that DD *planned* any of this -- I do not believe he did. >I cannot see DD *planning* to have Snape kill him, or *planning* to leave >Harry half-trained, at best, about Horcruxes, or *planning* to leave Snape >dangling on the dubious mercies of Voldemort after having killed his >Headmaster. PJ: Good... neither do I. I think he put his trust in the wrong Professor and things went to hell in a handbasket from there... Tammy: >Now, yes, Snape's future is (apparently) screwed beyond repair, Harry is >(apparently) facing an impossible task, Draco is (apparently) still facing >Voldemort's wrath, and Dumbledore is (most assuredly) quite dead. I'd call >that some big time consequences to some major mistakes on DD's part. >However, DD himself also admitted that his mistakes, when he makes them, >are >quite huge. PJ: Yes, he did. And, imo, putting his trust in Snape was his largest mistake yet. So much is left undone - Dumbledore's wisdom will be sorely missed. Especially by Harry. Tammy: >I also believe that, all things considered, the outcome of the >Tower scene, while terrible in all ways, was considerably LESS terrible >than >it could have been, and that Dumbledore's trust in Snape was not *entirely* >misplaced -- Snape *DID* manage to get the DEs out of Hogwarts without >further major injury to Harry or any other student or faculty. Both >Dumbledore and Snape have had to pay huge prices for that outcome, but I do >believe that DD was *willing* to pay such a price, and that he trusted that >Snape, too, was able to pay such a price. I agree that Dumbledore wouldn't been ready to make that sacrifice if he'd thought it necessary but I don't see that it was. Snape getting the DE's off the tower was fine but, in case you hadn't noticed, they were getting their heads handed to them inside the school! So was Snape beating a hasty retreat because his team was losing badly already or was he trying to save the school? My guess is Snape hates to lose and sooner or later everyone would hear who killed DD. He wanted to be long gone by then! Besides, both Snape and Draco had another apointment to keep and Snape didn't want to be late... PJ From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Feb 25 19:39:39 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:39:39 -0000 Subject: Grammar question - differences in editions? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148781 > Geoff: > (1) This is very interesting because, if you have quoted canon > verbatim, I think we have another situation from the tower chapter > where editions disagree. houyhnhnm: It is "what he would tell you" in the US edition as well. I replied to the original post while at work, without checking the source. I see little difference in meaning between "may have told you" and "what he would tell you", however. Either phrase implies that what DD has just heard conforms with what he would *expect* Snape to tell Draco, not what he *knows* Snape has told Draco. In other words, he is using the Berkeley Subjunctive to obscure the actual degree of confidence that exists between Snape and himself. (IMHO) I agree that what comes after the "but" is probably of greater significance, than the "would have". By now, any unfinished statement in a Harry Potter book is bound to be food for thought, though the food sometimes turns out to be smoked herring. I don't really have any ideas about it yet. From carodave92 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 19:56:27 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:56:27 -0000 Subject: Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148782 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "latha279" > wrote: > > > > Krista: > > > > > > I also think the whole idea of Snape's teenage writing being > > > mistaken for a girl's is very odd, I have to say. > > > As a guy with esteem issues, he'd probably write small; as a > > > wordy student, he'd have cramped handwriting on tests, to squeeze > > > everything in; as a guy whose mind is inclined to logic/math, > > > he'd have more linear, precise handwriting, closer to print than > > > cursive; and because he's trying to write quickly, no effort at > > > being "pretty." > > > > > > brady: > > > > On the issue of the handwriting, I have asked this same question > > before without getting any replies. Harry has seen Snape write his > > exam. He could see that the handwriting was cramped, small and he > > wrote a lot of matter. How is it that he didn't place the exam > > handwriting and the HBP book writing together? At least a faint - > > "I have seen this writing before...but where?" kind of > contemplation > > would have been more suspenseful in HBP than this case where HP > > doesn't recognise it at all. > > Geoff: > Just to add a couple of thoughts to the mix: if I look at my own > handwriting, I have a lot of examples from my late teens at the end > of the 1950s when it was rather untidy and scrawly. When I first > worked in an office, I tidied it up because I was involved in > designing data capture forms and others had to be able to interpret > my heiroglyphics :-). Then, in teaching, I had to have readable > blackboard work and was also involved in producing material for staff > noticeboards - this when the school didn't have a photocopier. > Nowadays, because I have a little bit of hand trouble,I'm back to > scruffy handwriting. quite different from, say, 15 years ago. > snip Carodave: Wouldn't Harry have seen Snape's handwriting for years on the blackboard, on returned homework and on exams? I don't think his handwriting could have changed that much in 20 years as to be completely unrecognizable. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 20:12:42 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:12:42 -0000 Subject: The House of Black family tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148783 > G.C.: > Accept there is one acception to this. Sirius' mother's birth and death > dates are recorded. Is this strange to anyone else or am I just digging too > deep into this family tree business? zgirnius: Mrs. Walburga Black was born Miss Walburga Black. She is the daughter of Pollux Black, the granddaughter of Cygnus Black, and the great- granddaughter of Phineas Nigellus Black. She married her second cousin, Orion Black (also a descendant of Phineas Nigellus, but through another of his sons). So as you point out, even if she had married a non-Black, her dates would have been on the tree, as she is a Black by birth. From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Feb 25 20:55:41 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:55:41 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) Message-ID: <1f3.1c2e6ac9.31321e4d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148784 In a message dated 2/25/2006 2:58:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, carodave92 at yahoo.com writes: I don't think his handwriting could have changed that much in 20 years as to be completely unrecognizable. ============================ Sherrie here: I know mine has - in some cases completely. (For one thing, my handwriting is far more legible now than when I was a teenager!) I recently found a folder of old essays from my high school days, sometime back before Nixon was a crook - anyone who knew me then would never recognize my current handwriting. (The signature on my Social Security card, which I signed when I was 16, looks NOTHING like my signature today.) I've changed the forms of some of my letters (particularly my capital S and H, which happen to be my initials) totally; I spent some time during the intervening years practicing Celtic Commoncase and Blackletter Gothic calligraphy, so there's that influence; I've recently been working with Spencerian penmanship (ca. 1840s), so THAT has started creeping into my handwriting. Most importantly, wrist surgery a few years back has forced me to slow my writing down (which I'm sure contributes to its legibility!) I find it quite believable that Harry - who, IMHO, doesn't really pay that much attention to Snape's handwriting in the first place - wouldn't necessarily recognize Snape's teenaged writing in the Prince's potions book. Even in the one instance when he SAW the teen version of Snape's quillmanship, the only thing he noticed about it was that it was cramped - he didn't look closely enough to be able to say, e.g., "Oh, gee, he uses a Greek E in the lower case!" Just my 2 Knuts - as ever, YMMV. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Feb 25 21:12:46 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:12:46 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <77FF9094-A643-11DA-9D53-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148785 On Saturday, February 25, 2006, at 01:56 PM, carodave92 wrote: > > Carodave: > Wouldn't Harry have seen Snape's handwriting for years on the > blackboard, on returned? homework and on exams?? I don't think his > handwriting could have changed that much in 20 years as to be > completely unrecognizable. > > > kchuplis: IMO, unless Snape writes in a tiny cramped handwriting on the blackboard (or puts more than a spikey D on essays - which I kind of doubt) no one is going to notice anything. Particularly a sixteen year old and especially Harry who has formed a tender spot for "The Prince' and can't imagine feeling anything close to that for Snape. Also, since Sluggo is teaching I think that adds to it. It breaks up the association even more. Call me naive, but I don't think this is something we have to suspend a lot of disbelief for. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 25 21:20:54 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:20:54 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148786 Pippin: > > Can you explain how this would make dramatic or psychological > > sense? If Snape's betrayal on the tower was his big dramatic > > moment, it's awfully flat -- after sixteen years of treachery, or > > indecision, or whatever non-DDM!Snape is supposed to be playing at, > > he blows Dumbledore away without a word? Nora: > Dramatic and psychological sense are both things which mainly run on > the mileage of the reader. You find it flat, I find it interesting, > particularly when I think about possibilities for where it could go. Pippin: Yes, exactly. It's those possibilities I was asking you to expand on, if you would. I don't doubt that you find your interpretation interesting, dramatic and psychologically consistent with Snape's other behavior, I'm just asking how you think it would be more dramatically powerful for the reader to see Snape to gloat over his betrayal when the shock of his betrayal has had a chance to wear off rather than at the moment when it took place. I'm just failing to think of an example from literature or film where we see the betrayal in one installment and get the gloating in the next installment, two years later. Do you have one in mind? You seem to be supposing that Evil!Snape killed off the most powerful wizard in existence, established his cred as an evil wizard now and forever, and then with Harry whom he hates so much at his mercy, demanded the recognition he's been denied so long -- for the spells he invented in high school! I suppose you could see that as twisted, but the thing is, he could have used sectum sempra on Dumbledore, and if he's been longing to come out as a dark wizard, why not? Pippin: > > The most powerful feeling Snape expresses in the concluding chapters > > is *anguish*. Here's the passage, in case you've forgotten it > > > > "DON'T--" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, > > inhuman, as though he were in as much pain as the yelping, howling > > dog in the burning house behind them--"CALL ME COWARD!" Nora: > You read that as 'anguish', but it can be read any number of ways, > particularly if you follow a line of thought from the text proceeding > which you didn't provide. Pain is something which can come about in > intense anger, for instance, or even rage--and if there's any > character who seems to have a substantial base of rage built up, for > me it's Snape. Is that a scream of anguish about what he's had to > do, or a scream of rage that he can finally vent at that godforsaken > child, the spitting image of a man he's still obsessed with? Pippin: Um, "anguish" means intense mental or physical pain. And "pain" is what canon refers to. I was not speculating about the cause, it could be rage, of course, but Snape's been looking at Harry for six years, now -- clearly it's what Harry said, not how he looked (which we don't even know) that set Snape off. Nora: > No, I think he's caught up in emotion, but it's a deliberately open > subject what that emotion is centered upon. I don't think he brought > up James as a feint, for instance--I think that idee fixe is genuine. Pippin: Agreed. But then, is it being accused of killing *James* that provokes Snape? Nora; > Argument from absence, particularly in JKR's style of writing and > character development, is a dangerous and delicate thing, so I think > I'll leave it at that. Pippin: But the whole "Snape isn't really remorseful, or he got remorse and changed his mind later" set of theories is an argument from absence. Beware -- that way lies vampires :) Pippin From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Sat Feb 25 21:23:54 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:23:54 +0100 Subject: Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) References: Message-ID: <00f001c63a51$c92b2dd0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148787 > brady: > On the issue of the handwriting, I have asked this same question > before without getting any replies. Harry has seen Snape write his > exam. He could see that the handwriting was cramped, small and he > wrote a lot of matter. How is it that he didn't place the exam > handwriting and the HBP book writing together? At least a faint - > "I have seen this writing before...but where?" kind of contemplation > would have been more suspenseful in HBP than this case where HP > doesn't recognise it at all. > Pippin: > Most likely Snape has more than one script at his disposal-- > a large, legible bookhand for communicating with students, and > a cramped, hard to read but efficient script he used when the goal > was to get as many words on the page as he could. An > expert would be able to tell they were the same hand, > but Harry is not an expert on handwriting. Miles: I'm really not sure that we - or HRH - ever saw Snape's adult hand. As far as I remember, he only set a single letter as a mark onto students' essays, nothing to recognise at all. What we "see" are instructions on the blackboard - but did we see him WRITE them? He made them appear with a flick of his wand - I would think it's possible that what appears is written in Snape's hand, but it could as well be an entirely "magical" hand that "writes" the instructions. Does anyone have canon for Professor Snape actually WRITING anything? Miles From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 25 21:29:32 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:29:32 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148788 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > > [Two interesting points occur which are not directly linked to this > > thread. It is interesting that Petunia actually vetoes Aunt Marge > > because she "hates the boy". Seems to run counter to some of the > > treatment they hand to him elsewhere. Gerry: > Well, I read this as that it was not fair to ask this of Marge. Or > that it would be a lost case because she would refuse. Geoff: Maybe, but we know from POA that Aunt Marge takes a sadistic pleasure in getting at Harry: 'Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia usually encouraged Harry to stay out of their way, which Harry was only too happy to do. Aunt Marge, on the other hand, wanted Harry under her eye at all times, so that she could boom out suggestions for his improvement. She delighted in comparing Harry with Dudley and took huge pleasure in buying Dudley expensive presents whilst glaring at Harry as though daring him to ask why he hadn't got a present too. she also kept throwing out dark hints about what made Harry such an unsiatisfactory person.' (POA "Aunt Marge's Big Mistake" p.24 UK edition) I think she would have revelled in having him under her thumb for a day. She might well have been safer, because he might not have been so able to produce such devastating wandless magic at the age of eleven as he did two years later... Actually, this raises an interesting point. If Marge was close enough to be asked if she could take Harry while the Dursleys were at the Zoo for the day, why does she come to /stay/ with them for a week? Why doesn't she just drop over for the day? From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 21:43:43 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 21:43:43 -0000 Subject: Handwriting (WAS:Re: CHAPDISC, HBP 10) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148789 Carodave: > Wouldn't Harry have seen Snape's handwriting for years on the > blackboard, on returned homework and on exams? I don't think his > handwriting could have changed that much in 20 years as to be > completely unrecognizable. Ceridwen: It might not be so totally different, but it wouldn't be the same. Here is a link to four examples of my handwriting: http://www.geocities.com/ceridwennight/handwriting.html The first and third were written when I was thirteen/fourteen, the second and fourth are from when I was 28/29, or fifteen years' difference, more or less. Don't let the size scare you, btw. I gave up fiddling with the images. Writing in margins, which I don't have on my site there, can distort the writing, too. It goes sideways, it piles together at the edge of the page or where the writer doesn't want to run into other words, it will often be scrawled in a hurry, and due to the place on the page, the writer's hand will not always be in the best position. And, as someone else has already said, Snape seems to have made a conscious effort to present a very different image as an adult than he did as a child. He has altered his dress, and his walk, and probably his speech. He probably worked on his penmanship as well. Also, as an adult, he has different requirements for what he is writing, and he has twenty more years of experience at writing. Ceridwen. From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 22:13:27 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:13:27 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148790 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > I'm just asking how you think it would be more dramatically powerful > for the reader to see Snape to gloat over his betrayal when the > shock of his betrayal has had a chance to wear off rather than at > the moment when it took place. I'm just failing to think of an > example from literature or film where we see the betrayal in one > installment and get the gloating in the next installment, two years > later. There's always the BANG of JKR finally slamming the door on the question of guilt. ;) (Not the BANG you wanted?) Hmmm. I can't say that I can call an example of high literary provenance to mind, but in all my years of reading delightfully trashy genre literature, I've run across at least one or two. They usually do involve sudden exits via betrayal, and then later confrontation with the traitor (often standing next to the Evil Overlord; you'd think they knew that was a bad position...) It really depends, for me, on the surrounding scenario and context, and none of us have done a good job at speculating on those kinds of specifics. What connects it thematically for me is that Snape certainly does like to sit on some things, and pull them out at times which he thinks they're going to do some damage. That's how I read the whole "See what a bastard your father and friends were" scene which he gives as punishment for the bathroom. It certainly does nothing to help Harry realize 'what he's done wrong', but does smack of attempted gloating after the fact. Is Snape the kind of person to bring past things up and use them when he thinks they're good weapons? It's a scenario that works for me. He gets out of there to consolidate this position now, but he has a powerful verbal weapon in the wings. > I suppose you could see that as twisted, but the thing is, he could > have used sectum sempra on Dumbledore, and if he's been longing > to come out as a dark wizard, why not? Because he wants to kill him dead? Because while Sectumsempra is nasty, AK is Unforgiveable--and JKR wants that image in our minds? There is a difference, it seems to me, between intending Sectumsempra "I cut you bloody", and intending Avada Kedavra "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die". > Pippin: > Um, "anguish" means intense mental or physical pain. And "pain" > is what canon refers to. I take the connotations of 'anguish', at least in this situation, to include some kind of regret or deep sorrow. One is anguished 'over' something, one is usually angry 'at' something. I know this is a fine splitting of hairs on English grammar and prepositions are notoriously idiomatic, but I'm trying to express why I see a difference here. The problem with shadings like this is that even if you try not to speculate about the cause, it's going to sneak in because the cause determines the specific effect. > I was not speculating about the cause, it could be rage, of course, > but Snape's been looking at Harry for six years, now -- clearly > it's what Harry said, not how he looked (which we don't even know) > that set Snape off. Or it's just who Harry is; the right person flings out the comment, and he could have said almost anything--that's my perception. > Pippin: > But the whole "Snape isn't really remorseful, or he got remorse and > changed his mind later" set of theories is an argument from absence. > Beware -- that way lies vampires :) Eh, one dead Headmaster isn't quite absence. :) If you admit the simple principle that there is now support for the proposition, trusting wholeheartedly in Dumbledore is a little dangerous and maybe even skeezy, almost everything else follows. And if you don't, there are a lot of statements that get marked with the "Oh, not really serious/meaningful" label. Possible, yes--I could be wrong in my application of all the hints about mistakes, etc. But this is a position with ammo and support which it didn't have post-OotP, although the hints were picking up even there, that "Dumbledore says so and I trust him even if I don't know" was going to take some lumps. -Nora is even now a little surprised to have found herself calling that one a year or so or maybe more post-OotP From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sat Feb 25 22:40:35 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:40:35 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4400DCE3.1070906@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148791 lupinlore wrote: > years). It's especially hard to know why he would be jealous of > Lupin getting the job. Given the situation with the prank, it would > be logical for Snape to be gloating over Lupin's predicament and > waiting eagerly for the Snape to work Lupin's comeuppance. Yet all > the evidence we have is that Snape was extremely jealous and annoyed, > and that he believed Lupin had received a valuable prize that rightly > belonged to him, Snape. We have the evidence for annoyed, but not for jealous. That's just interpretation. And Snape has lots of legitimate reasons to be annoyed. First of all, he might think Lupin is dangerous to be around children. He might believe Lupin is in league with Black, so it's not good to have him around when Black is likely to attempt to break into the school. He might find it unpleasant to have to deal with Lupin on the superficially polite professional level. Lots of reasons for him to be annoyed before we need to invoke jealousy as an explanation. Irene > > > Lupinlore > > > > > > From kchuplis at alltel.net Sat Feb 25 23:36:19 2006 From: kchuplis at alltel.net (Karen) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:36:19 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <85B744FC-A657-11DA-A64F-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148792 On Saturday, February 25, 2006, at 03:29 PM, Geoff Bannister wrote: > > > Actually, this raises an interesting point. If Marge was close enough > to be asked if she could take Harry while the Dursleys were at the Zoo > for the day, why does she come to /stay/ with them for a week? Why > doesn't she just drop over for the day? > > kchuplis: I recently saw an interview with Emma Thompson and she was talking about people coming to stay. She was referring to Christmas and said "it's not like over here where people come and then they leave. They come and then stay for days!" From various reading, I get the impression that it may be a cultural thing to come for a week and stay, even if you don't live that far. It's not like here where you travel 8 hours to get somewhere. I had a director from Ireland who was constantly going on about how LONG it takes to go anywhere here. So, for those from the UK, I imagine, yes, you could put Harry on a train for two hours to get to Marge's for a day (or two, most likely),but if she came to "visit" that would be considered a trip and 4 or 5 days isn't out of the question. From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Sat Feb 25 15:27:17 2006 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 07:27:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Handwriting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060225152717.40486.qmail@web81212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148793 Does anyone else wonder if at least some of the writing in the HBP's potions book is Snape's mothers? I believe the canon is that the book was published years before the Marauders' time at Hogwarts, and that makes it a used book for SS - I assumed it was a hand-me-down from his mother. -Witherwing (who never, ever, EVER wrote in her own textbooks...) From bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net Sat Feb 25 13:36:00 2006 From: bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net (William Bernard) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 07:36:00 -0600 Subject: Of Souls and Death References: Message-ID: <005d01c63a10$6ac41180$4101a8c0@COMPUTER1> No: HPFGUIDX 148794 -Pamela: It seems clear to me that Harry could not be a horcrux as he and Voldemort are, despite a sharing of 'abilities' are not linked on a soul level. My reasoning: Dumbledore was checking his little silver instrument, (OOP)after the incident of Harry being in Nagini's mind when the snake attacked Mr Wheasly, and a doubled smoke snake appeared. Dumbledore said: "Naturally, naturally," "But in essence divided." He then had a look of grim satisfaction on his face. It seems to me that although Harry shares some of Voldemort's powers and that he passed something along to Voldmort that they are two different entities. Destroying one would not destroy the other as they do not share a soul. Harry, therefor, could not have been made a horcrux by Voldemort the night he 'died'. Bill: I'm new here myself, but I just want to comment that I've come to the opposite conclusion: I believe that Harry will find that he is the "something from Gryffindor" horcrux. My reasons? 1) We are told by Lupin in PoA that one can live without a soul, but only while the heart and brain still work. This implies that someone without a soul is in what might be called a 'vegatative state' and that all abilities, to walk, talk, do magic, etc. are a property of the soul. 2) In CoS, when Harry has returned from the chamber and is speaking with DD, he is told that LV transferred some of his powers to Harry the night Harry's parents were killed. Harry responds that "Voldemort put something of himself in me?". This is not what DD had said necessarily, but DD does not correct Harry, but rather confirms it. He also points out that Harry had pulled Godric Gryffindor's sword out of the hat, and only a 'True Gryffindor' could do that. 3) The scene in DD's office, in OotP, after Harry has seen the attack on Mr. Weasley, when DD uses the little silver instrument. My take on this is that this confirms for DD that a portion of LV's soul does indeed reside in Harry but that it has not fused with Harry's soul. 4) DD tells Harry in HBP that it is indeed possible to make a horcrux of a living being, but is not advisable to do so. I know that this has serious implications for the end of the series, and wonder how JKR will resolve this. It seems that we are being set up for Harry sacrificing himself to save the world. This is not exactly the ' lived happily ever after' ending, but one consistent with a "hero'es journey" style of novel. Bill. From paulspilsbury at btinternet.com Sat Feb 25 15:46:10 2006 From: paulspilsbury at btinternet.com (Paul) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:46:10 -0000 Subject: Of Souls and Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148795 Tsavorite_1 wrote: > > > It seems clear to me that Harry could not be a horcrux as he and > Voldemort are, despite a sharing of 'abilities' are not linked > on a soul level. > >From at least the age of sixteen, Tom Riddle has been obsessed with escaping death. For him, it is the worst thing that can happen to him. Riddle is not, like Sauron or Morgoth, a cosmic or superhuman being. He is just a very bad man, who uses the technology available to him (aka magic) to preserve his life and to dominate others. He discovers that there is a way to achieve his first end, by making a "horcrux", that is by encasing a part of his soul in a material object. (This, by the way, suggests a further reason for not normally using a living creature as horcrux, since it would itself be naturally mortal.) In order to do this, he must somehow "split" his soul. Without querying what the implications of this are for the nature of the soul itself, we note simply that it requires a deliberate murder. Why? I can only speculate, but as the noblest act possible for a human being is to sacrifice one's own life to save another, so it would seem to follow that the vilest act is deliberately to take another's life to preserve one's own. There is a certain symmetry here. However, all that one achieves by splitting and then "horcruxing" one's soul is that part of it becomes as it were anchored in a material object. If one is "killed", which would normally mean that one's soul leaves the world entirely and goes "beyond", or at least remains simply as a powerless ghost, the fact that part of one's soul is thus anchored means that the whole soul is kept in (this- worldly) existence. In fact, one cannot be killed. But the process of dividing up one's soul clearly diminishes the primary part which animates the body- Voldemort/Riddle shows actual physical signs of this effect, in his appearance. The "horcruxed" part cannot act independently, except in extraordinary circumstances, as with the diary interacting with Ginny and Harry. What happens to the soul if a horcrux is destroyed? This is an interesting question. Does the released part "go on"? Does it continue as a ghost? Or does it re-unite itself with its primary part? It is clear that, though divided, the soul somehow remains "one", linked with its other parts- that is how the person's life is preserved. The point of the process is to keep all parts of the soul earth-bound. I speculate, then, that as the horcruxes are destroyed, Riddle (perhaps unconsciously) regains the separated parts, perhaps reverting to his natural appearance. He is, after all, little more than fifty years older than Harry, so still not seventy at the end of The Half-Blood Prince. But a bigger flaw is involved. The use of one or more horcruxes may prevent death, but it does not increase life, it only prolongs it, like Sauron's Ring. Riddle's secondary aim is to dominate others, but how satisfying will that prove to be in the long-term? Riddle's nemesis (apart from anything Harry may achieve) may be simply boredom- a never ending but ultimately aimless life, just being beastly to people. I think, eventually, he would be glad to destroy the horcruxes himself! What do you think? Paul From arlenegustave at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 18:36:49 2006 From: arlenegustave at yahoo.com (Arlene) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:36:49 -0000 Subject: Back to horcruxes..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148796 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" wrote: > > While I still believe that Harry is a horcrux.... > > I really do think the sorting hat may well be a Horcrux... > >(Snip) JK has already answered that question. She says the sorting hat is NOT a Horcrux. She also states that Horcruxes do not sing in public and attract attention to themselves. Sorry. Good thought though. Arlene. From little_scottie6 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 25 22:20:07 2006 From: little_scottie6 at hotmail.com (Victoria Scott) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:20:07 +1100 Subject: Handwriting In-Reply-To: <1f3.1c2e6ac9.31321e4d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148797 G.C.: Just adding onto all that handwriting recognition/Snapes Potions Book business. In the books we never actually hear of teachers actually writing on the blackboard themselves, all we hear is something like 'they flicked their wand and the writing appeared'. How do we know that the writing that appears is how they would write with a quill? In addition, the marks that Harry gets back are only that, marks, like E.E. (exeeds expectations) or something of the sort, well for potions it was a T for troll. Some letters you can't really match with scribbles in a book. And we also know from the book that in the HBP's potion book, the writing had to be small enough to fit between the lines, and it was tiny, sometimes hard to read, so i may have been smaller than even Snape was writing in his OWL exam that Harry saw. And, when Harry went into the pensieve, I may be wrong here, but didn't he only glance at his writing, and then move on to find Lupin, James and Sirius? G.C. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 18:58:46 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:58:46 -0000 Subject: Cursed Jobs, Cursed Locations, and plain ol' bad luck (was RE: Why does Snape... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148798 Zgirnius wrote: > > > Actually, the true number is on the order of 35-40 years. If you buy > the Lexicon timeline, > And this is in a school where we see remarkably long tenures by > teachers in other fields. This is *exceedingly* unlikely to occur by > chance. (OK, I may be more likely to see this than JKR but still. > We're talking win-the-powerball odds here.) > Okay, first of all let me say that IF I were to bet (and I'm not a betting man, so I wouldn't, but if I were to do so) I would bet that the DADA position IS in fact cursed. As you rightly point out, the evidence for such a curse is pretty strong, if entirely circumstantial. I just wanted to point out the fact that all the evidence we have IS circumstantial, and that if JKR wanted to pull an interesting little BANG then having Voldemort say, in effect, "Curse? What curse? Do you honestly think I have time, in the midst of conquering the world, to put curses on schoolteaching jobs?" would not only be amusing but would not outright contradict the actual evidence we have at hand. Like I say, I don't think it will happen, but it would be possible, if very implausible. I don't really buy the Lexicon timeline, but not because of any mistakes in the Lexicon calculations. It's just that given JKR's glaring and admitted weakness when it comes to anything having to do with numbers, (the ages of the various Weasley siblings, the number of students at Hogwarts, the size of the WW, the fact that 1 September always seems to come on the same day of the week) I think any calculations based on the idea that she has some well-worked-out and consistent set of numbers in mind are likely to be in error. Rather I suspect she has a vague idea of the timeline she wants to suggest and throws out statements without really bothering to determine whether they are in fact consistent with a set of firm dates and time intervals. I also don't think that we are dealing with winning-the-lottery odds. Like I say, I agree that it seems very odd that no one has held the job for two years consecutively over a long period of time. However, things like that DO happen in real life, where curses do not exist (or at least I don't think they exist). I'm thinking particularly of the phenomenon common to every American city, the cursed location. I'm not talking about haunted houses, although every city has those, of course. I mean the location where no business ever seems to thrive, despite the fact that it seems to be a perfectly good business site and businesses to either side of it have been open for decades. I've lived in many different cities over the past twenty years, and in every one I've run across boaded-up buildings located between and/or among well-established businesses. Very often a long-term resident of the city says to me "I just don't understand it. It's a perfectly good location, but nothing's been in there more than a year or so since "X" closed up, and that was back in '84 or '85." Sometimes it's been more like '74 or '75 since anything worked in that particular place. And the comment is always something to the effect of "I guess the place must be jinxed." People say it jokingly, of course, but such is the way that talk of jinxes and curses circulates. (And I admit that, even though no one will acknowledge believing in curses, you aren't likely to find people willing to take chances on that location, either). By the way, for those of you who live in other countries, do you see similar things? I'm guessing you probably do. These kinds of implausible and improbable runs of failure and bad luck seem to be universal to the human experience. They are unusual enough that people talk about them, and that they give rise to joking talk of supernatural causes. But they are really not all THAT unusual, and certainly not within the beating-the-lottery category of improbability. Anyway, all of that is just to say that although I agree, for storyline reasons if nothing else, that the DADA position probably is genuinely cursed, I don't think it would be wildly unbelievable for the whole thing just to be a long run of bad luck combined with loose talk. Such improbable runs of failure and bad luck do happen in real life with more regularity than one might initially think. Lupinlore From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Feb 26 01:17:09 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 01:17:09 -0000 Subject: Cursed Jobs, Cursed Locations, and plain ol' bad luck (was RE: Why does Snape... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148799 Lupinlore: > However, things like that DO happen in real life, where curses do not > exist (or at least I don't think they exist). I'm thinking > particularly of the phenomenon common to every American city, the > cursed location. I'm not talking about haunted houses, although > every city has those, of course. I mean the location where no > business ever seems to thrive, despite the fact that it seems to be a > perfectly good business site and businesses to either side of it have > been open for decades. I've lived in many different cities over the > past twenty years, and in every one I've run across boaded-up > buildings located between and/or among well-established businesses. > Very often a long-term resident of the city says to me "I just don't > understand it. It's a perfectly good location, but nothing's been in > there more than a year or so since "X" closed up, and that was back > in '84 or '85." Sometimes it's been more like '74 or '75 since > anything worked in that particular place. And the comment is always > something to the effect of "I guess the place must be jinxed." Ceridwen: I've noticed that, too. And I've tried to figure it out. The location seems perfect for a business, but nothing seems to thrive. But, considering where we are (*looking around at the Hallowed Cyber- Halls of HPfGU with the sun glinting off the waters of the T-Bay just beyond the steeply plunging hillside*), it got me to thinking. On the larger level, could places like St. Mungo's, apparently abandoned shops which are in reality WW businesses or service facilities, be JKR's way of explaining away the same sorts of places you're talking about? The inexplicably deserted storefront between two thriving businesses *could be* an entrance to a secret Wizarding location now, to any child who sees it day after week after year. Another writer could explain them away by making them secret criminal headquarters, I suppose. On the topic of the DADA position, it does seem more likely that the position has been cursed, since curses do exist in the Potterverse. But, it would be pretty funny if the only reason they lose teachers there is because they've exhausted the pool of decent teachers and so can only get the dregs to fill that slot. Ceridwen. From saberbunny at yahoo.ca Sun Feb 26 01:00:34 2006 From: saberbunny at yahoo.ca (catherine higgins) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:00:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: Of Souls and Death In-Reply-To: <005d01c63a10$6ac41180$4101a8c0@COMPUTER1> Message-ID: <20060226010034.46304.qmail@web37011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148800 -Pamela: Destroying one would not destroy the other as they do not share a soul. Harry, therefor, could not have been made a horcrux by Voldemort the night he 'died'. Bill: I'm new here myself, but I just want to comment that I've come to the opposite conclusion: I believe that Harry will find that he is the "something from Gryffindor" horcrux. Catherine adds: The real question is how exactly is a Horcrux made? Let's take for example the FC "an immensly complex charm..." that we read in canon, it seems to me that hiding a secret in a living being is pretty hard work. So how can a Horcrux be made by mistake? If to hide a secret inside of somebody takes skill, then it seems pretty likely to me, that encompassing a part of your soul takes a bit of skill and power as well. If a Horcrux could be created accidentally, then there must be a whole bunch of other Horcrux around of all the DE who have commited murder. It doesn't really make sense that either Harry or the hat could be a horcrux. When did Riddle have a chance to make the Hat a Horcrux? He would have had to kill DD to rip his soul apart to then be able to encompass it inside the hat. He was in the process of killing Harry to possibly make a Horcrux out of that bit of soul, but he didn't finish the job, did he? His soul couldn't have been torn apart at that time. He had however killed 2 people, just previous to Harry. Was he saving his Horcrux making for after Harry was killed? Or could he have made a Horcrux after Lily or James was killed? When exactly does one start the Horcrux creating spell? It seems again unlikely that it could be started before you AK someone, because then the caster of the horcrux-creating spell would be unable to guard him/herself while casting the spell. Also the soul is not torn apart *prior* to the AK, only after. My thoughts are that he took something of Lily and James (maybe they had an old school relic or something in the house) to make a Horcrux. There might be something at GH. Catherine From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Feb 25 18:22:33 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:22:33 -0500 Subject: Basic Education (preHogwarts) In-Reply-To: <1140685705.1649.57459.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148801 kchuplis: >> I don't know if this was a suggestion I read here or something in the books or an article, but I thought that some homeschooled until then (the Weasley's in particular I think this applied to) or some might go to public schools even if not muggles?" << JKR said that most Wizardling children are home schooled preHogwarts, but that some do attend Muggle primary schools. BAW From arlenegustave at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 18:45:55 2006 From: arlenegustave at yahoo.com (Arlene) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:45:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death was planned Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148802 In light of PJ and Tammy's "argument" preciously which were good and extensive so I did not list it here. Instead I propose my own question / theory. I belive DD did in fact have that night planned. I always wondered why DD did not just "Accio" his wand to save his life??? It was right there. Which coincidentally, what happened to it in death, don't they usually break the wand of a powerful wizard when he dies? (So it doesn't fall into the wrong hands). There was no mention of DD wand at all. He repeatedly asked for Harry to fetch Snape. It had to be Snape. He stopped Harry from intervening by freezing him. Then he "dropped" his wand and did not retrieve it. (He had enough strength to stand there and talk to Draco for a while.) If anything was not expected at the tower that night, I'd say it was confronting Draco. "Arlene" From exodusts at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 04:43:03 2006 From: exodusts at yahoo.com (exodusts) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 04:43:03 -0000 Subject: Snape at GH? (Was: Snape Loved or In-Love with Lily?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148803 > Sydney: > It's not so much that Snape COULDN'T have acted so convincingly upset, > so much as, why would you want to turn a great scene with so much > genuine emotion and tragedy, into "GOTCHA! he was just pretending, no > real drama here, folks". *is mystified* Exodusts: For the shock of the cunning twist? Further, I don't think that a later revelation would at all detract from the power of the earlier scene when it is being read. > Sydney: > Well, yeah. Sort of like, I prefer this building to be supported by > iron t-bars, rather than balsa wood! JKR is a superb plotter in that > she rests the weight of the story structure on exquisitely opposed and > powerful motivations. If you jump up and down on a motivation, and it > snaps, you pretty much have to discard it as a theory. Exodusts: Agree, but don't quite see the relevance. > Sydney: > It's canon that Snape turned spy before Lily died-- unless Dumbledore > was lying for some reason in the Pensive scene in OoP. He testifies > that Snape 'returned to our side' BEFORE V-mort's fall. Otherwise, > not only would Dumbledore be lying, there would have to be a mystery > OTHER spy to have tipped off the Potters to the danger they were in, > as per Fudge in PoA. Exodusts: Since Fudge specifically says DD had a "number of useful spies", that isn't a problem. And why shouldn't DD lie (in GoF, by the way, not OotP) if he knows it will protect a now-repentant Snape from Azkaban? But, quite apart from all that, you appear to be assuming that Snape becoming DD's spy = Snape becoming DDM. Not if he was ordered to start "spying" for DD by Voldemort, and he was a double agent until the horror of Lily's death made him properly a good guy. It all depends upon your view of Snape's wavering loyalties. As someone once said: Treason is a matter of dates? > Sydney: > Again, this is pretty explicity against canon, again, unless > Dumbeldore is lying. He says Harry would have no idea of the remorse > Snape felt "WHEN HE DISCOVERED HOW VOLDEMORT INTERPRETED THE > PROPHECY". The Potters went into hiding before they died; so Snape > would have known who V-mort was targeting before he actually killed them. Exodusts: See above. > Sydney: > I just don't see how it's remotely in character for Voldemort to be > sparing the lives of his enemies as a favour to the softer feelings of > one of his minions. It rather seems to me like an instant death > sentence for Snape to even suggest such a thing. The only thing I can > picture is Snape successfully putting on an act of wanting to revenge > himself on James by violating Lily, which is a motive Voldemort could > understand; but how on earth JKR would introduce such an idea into > the story, which so far has maintined a PG, nudge*nudge*wink*wink, > rating is hard for me to imagine. Exodusts: We know LV made the offer to Lily, so we know that he didn't care that much if she lived or died. That being so, it isn't a leap to say that Snape might make a request that affects him a lot, but doesn't affect LV much one way or the other. > Sydney: > By the way, is there a reason, aside from JKR's evasiveness in > answering questions, to think there was anyone else at Goderic's > Hollow? Even if Snape was there in a white leotard trying to save > Lily, I still wouldn't be enthusiastic about it! It seems to me the > central mystery of the series narrows down to the crucible containing > Lily, Voldemort, and Harry; everyone else, including Snape, is one > circle out in importance. JKR might write someone else in, but at the > moment I don't see why. Exodusts: Her evasiveness is a pretty strong hint when you consider her track record, and policy on declarations. As for it being Snape - haven't you noticed how he is creeping in to the bigger picture with each successive book? Book 6 was even titled after him! Isn't Snape's-bad vs Snape's-good now the central mystery of the series? From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Feb 26 05:30:10 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 05:30:10 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? WAS: Re: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148804 Alla: > Suppose Dumbledore really did not want to give Snape the job even > during HBP AND at the beginning of HBP he informs Snape that he > believes that position indeed cursed. > > What if Dumbledore simply decided again to let Snape make a > choice? What if he simply caved in to Snape's desire to teach > DADA? Maybe he learned from concealing information from Harry and > decided not to make the same mistake with Snape anymore? What if > Dumbledore put his cards on the table to Snape and told him that > yes, I know that you wanted the position for fourteen years and > that is the reason I was not giving it to you. I was trying to > keep you safe in Hogwarts or something like that. You want it? I > can give it to you. > I think giving Snape's arrogance(IMO of course), it would be > perfectly in character for Snape to take it, thinking that curse > is just a gossip and other DADA teachers could not keep their > positions because they were incompetent fools or undeserving of it > OR if Snape believes in curse that he can remove it. Jen: This sounds perfectly in-character for both Snape and Dumbledore to me! JKR didn't make it sound like Dumbledore had ever told Snape the job was cursed in this response: Jackson: "Professor Snape has always wanted to be Defence Against Dark Arts teacher. In book 5 he still hasn't got the job. Why does Prof Dumbledore not allow him to be Defence Against The Dark Arts teacher?" JK Rowling: "That is an excellent question and the reason is that I have to be careful what I say here. To answer it fully would give a lot away about the remaining two books. When Prof Dumbledore took Prof Snape onto the staff and Prof Snape said 'I'd like to be Prof of Defence Against the Dark Arts please' and Prof Dumbledore felt it might bring out the worst in Snape so said 'I think we'll get you to teach Potions and see how you get along there'." (Royal Albert Hall, June 2003) Jen again: After HBP we know JKR was hiding information about the DADA curse with that answer, yet she says nothing to indicate Dumbledore and Snape *both* knew there was a problem with Snape getting the job. It sounded more one-sided: Snape continued requesting and Dumbledore continued denying. My brain can spin all sorts of theories about why Snape got the position and for efficiency reasons my personal favorite is simple: Voldemort, for whatever twisted Dark Lord reason, said to Snape: "Get the DADA job or else", so Snape went to Dumbledore and said, "give me the DADA job or I'm a dead man" and Dumbledore said, "Hmm, compelling reason. OK." Simple, efficient, and requiring only a modicum of explanation. Zgirnius' take on it in 147014 is good, Dumbledore needed a way to get Snape out of Hogwarts without Voldemort suspecting. Favorite theories aside though, JKR's answer says to me the UV was Snape's own 'worst' doing, influenced by the DADA curse. In fact, we may have learned all there is to know! Maybe seeing the UV and finding out there really is a DADA curse is all we'll get, except possibly finding out Voldemort had a hand in there somewhere. Still, the idea Snape's hubris & the DADA curse trapped him in the UV and brought down Dumbledore with him is just so.....Snape. HE is jinxed. Harry may be wrong about this one, it may be the people Snape *loves* who end up dead, and because of his own costly mistakes. Jen From kjones at telus.net Sun Feb 26 06:05:28 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 22:05:28 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Souls and Death In-Reply-To: <20060226010034.46304.qmail@web37011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060226010034.46304.qmail@web37011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44014528.8070107@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148805 catherine higgins wrote: > The real question is how exactly is a Horcrux made? Let's take for example the > FC "an immensly complex charm..." that we read in canon, it seems to me that > hiding a secret in a living being is pretty hard work. So how can a Horcrux be > made by mistake? If to hide a secret inside of somebody takes skill, then it > seems pretty likely to me, that encompassing a part of your soul takes a bit of > skill and power as well. If a Horcrux could be created accidentally, then there > must be a whole bunch of other Horcrux around of all the DE who have commited > murder. > > It doesn't really make sense that either Harry or the hat could be a horcrux. > When did Riddle have a chance to make the Hat a Horcrux? He would have had to > kill DD to rip his soul apart to then be able to encompass it inside the hat. He > was in the process of killing Harry to possibly make a Horcrux out of that bit > of soul, but he didn't finish the job, did he? His soul couldn't have been torn > apart at that time. snip > Catherine KJ writes: I think that JKR answered some of these questions by stating that this was something that had never happened before, that Lily did not intentionally provide any specific protection for Harry other that choosing death rather than giving Harry up. Voldemorte had no idea that protections had been put in place and the backlash of the killing curse was completely unexpected. Indeed, throughout the books, it has been emphasized that no one, other than Harry, had ever survived the killing curse. For this reason, we are made to understand that something happened that night that would never be guessed at because there was no prior history of anything similar happening. If we look at it logically, we know that Harry has a scar, which means that some foreign body penetrated his flesh. We know that the force of the backlash destroyed the house, and Voldemorte's body. We know that a special connection was forged between Harry and Voldemorte, which never bothered Harry until V. began gaining in strength. We know that Harry also has some of the same abilities as V. We also know that V. had split his soul into at least two parts just prior to the attempt on Harry, so we know that there were pieces available, and finally, as a result of HBP we see that while Riddle may have killed his Riddle relatives during the summer before his seventh year, he had not yet made a horcrux. For this reason, I believe that once the split has been accomplished, the horcrux can be made any time afterward. It was not necessary for Voldemorte to prepare anything to make a horcrux of Harry, as it was never his intention to do so. He was intending on making a horcrux as a result of the split in his soul after Harry's death. With the force of the blast and the loose pieces of soul waiting for a horcrux home, I think we are led to the conclusion that while not an actual horcrux, Harry is carrying a piece of V. soul which will have to be destroyed one way or another. "A difference which makes no difference is no difference". JMO KJ From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sun Feb 26 06:37:26 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 06:37:26 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? WAS: Re: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148806 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Zgirnius' take on it in 147014 is good, Dumbledore needed a way to > get Snape out of Hogwarts without Voldemort suspecting. > > Favorite theories aside though, JKR's answer says to me the UV was > Snape's own 'worst' doing, influenced by the DADA curse. In fact, we > may have learned all there is to know! Maybe seeing the UV and > finding out there really is a DADA curse is all we'll get, except > possibly finding out Voldemort had a hand in there somewhere. > > Still, the idea Snape's hubris & the DADA curse trapped him in the > UV and brought down Dumbledore with him is just so.....Snape. HE is > jinxed. Harry may be wrong about this one, it may be the people > Snape *loves* who end up dead, and because of his own costly > mistakes. > > Jen > The idea that it was Snape's mistakes that brought about the debacle in HBP along with a helping hand from Voldemort (perhaps) is, IMO, perhaps the most...compelling, interesting, insert other word here...outcome of the events of HBP. It makes Snape into a truly tragic figure in a way that him being DDM!Snape (with a master plan) or ESE!Snape can't really present. It also makes it...easier on Harry to come to terms with what Snape did because Snape allowed his pride and the cunning of Lord Voldemort to bring about the events. In a way it's like Ginny in CoS and like Dumbledore said "older and more experienced wizards have been hoodwinked by Lord Voldemort." (I find there's a lot of cross over between CoS and HBP) What's more it seems to fit with the whole Marauders/Snape thing where in the end they're their own worst enemies. Sirius and James certainly paid for their mistake about Peter quite dearly. Although I'll admit that I'm biased...I love the idea of Snape having no clue at the end of HBP what he's going to do. The idea that Dumbledore had some sort of plan bothers me because 1) the Harry and Snape being forced to work together was done in OotP (ask Sirius how that turned out), and 2) both Harry and Snape need to become independent of Dumbledore. The whole concept of forcing people that hate one another to work together doesn't seem to hold after OotP...Dumbledore's attempts with Sirius and Snape and Snape and Harry both seem to fall flat. The idea of independence from Dumbledore appeals to me because Harry has to make his own choices now and for most of his adult life Snape has been in the shadow of Dumbledore (in many different ways)...both are things that I think have limited the growth of Harry and Snape. In many ways I think that Dumbledore constantly insisting on Snape's trustworthiness was a bad thing because it interfered with the natural development of a relationship between the two. Quick_Silver From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 26 07:46:49 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:46:49 -0000 Subject: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: <85B744FC-A657-11DA-A64F-000393B04DDE@alltel.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Karen wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 25, 2006, at 03:29 PM, Geoff Bannister wrote: > > > > > > > Actually, this raises an interesting point. If Marge was close enough > > to be asked if she could take Harry while the Dursleys were at the Zoo > > for the day, why does she come to /stay/ with them for a week? Why > > doesn't she just drop over for the day? > > > > > > kchuplis: > > I recently saw an interview with Emma Thompson and she was talking > about people coming to stay. She was referring to Christmas and said > "it's not like over here where people come and then they leave. They > come and then stay for days!" From various reading, I get the > impression that it may be a cultural thing to come for a week and stay, > even if you don't live that far. It's not like here where you travel 8 > hours to get somewhere. I had a director from Ireland who was > constantly going on about how LONG it takes to go anywhere here. So, > for those from the UK, I imagine, yes, you could put Harry on a train > for two hours to get to Marge's for a day (or two, most likely),but if > she came to "visit" that would be considered a trip and 4 or 5 days > isn't out of the question. Geoff: It is not a cultural thing to come and stay for days when you are close at hand goegraphically. My sons, who live in the London area and are about 170 miles away will come for a long weekend - say Friday to Sunday - at intervals. But families don't tend to go to relatives for long periods unless, like us, we live in a National Park where they can get out to do things like walking or visiting. But let's return to Privet Drive. It is the morning of Dudley's birthday and the news of Mrs.Figg's accident comes at breakfast time. I don't seriously think that the Dursleys would take time to set up a two hour rail journey for Harry; they certainly wouldn't let him loose on his own! They've also got the terrifying thought of placating Dudley who would probably go ballistic if his birthday trip was delayed because of the problem. No, Aunt Marge has got to be somewhere fairly close. From iluvmuffins at hotmail.com Sun Feb 26 04:26:23 2006 From: iluvmuffins at hotmail.com (bohemian_faith) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 04:26:23 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Phoenix Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148808 I haven't really kept up to date with the ideas being thrown around here, so if this has been discussed already (as it probably has) then my most sincere apologies. But, do you think it's likely that Dumbledore did indeed turn into a phoenix at his burial? Harry (I haven't got the book to do a direct quote from atm) sees 'for a brief moment' what looks like a phoenix rising from the white flames that burst to life, but then it vanishes. Do we think that this is just what happens at a wizard burial, are Harry's eyes playing tricks on him, or has Dumbledore evolved and started his next great adventure in the body of a phoenix, and 'flashed' away before he is noticed? Could he have known this before he gave his life? hmm, *ponders* Lauren From sydpad at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 08:37:51 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:37:51 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148809 Okay, this post is going to be massive, but I'm so interested in this subject-- unlike pretty much every other Potter mystery, I've never heard a theory that made me go, aha! As nearly everyone on this thread agrees, it's difficult to reconcile all the facts and make people's motivations make sense. And, people, Snape wanting the DADA job and not getting it, is BIG. In the first three books, it's nearly the FIRST THING we're told about this character: PS: "Who's that teacher talking to Professor Quirrell?" he asked Percy. "Oh, you know Quirrell already, do you? No wonder he's looking so nervous, that's Professor Snape. He teaches Potions, but he doesn't want to -- everyone knows he's after Quirrell's job. Knows an awful lot about the Dark Arts, Snape." CoS: "Hang on. . . " Harry muttered to Ron. "There's an empty chair at the staff table .... Where's Snape?" Professor Severus Snape was Harry's least favorite teacher. (...) "Maybe he's ill!" said Ron hopefully. "Maybe he's left," said Harry, "because he missed out on the Defense Against Dark Arts job again!" PoA: "Look at Snape!" Ron hissed in Harry's ear. Professor Snape, the Potions master, was staring along the staff table at Professor Lupin. It was common knowledge that Snape wanted the Defense Against the Dark Arts job... Okay, so in GoF she waits a little longer-- it's not mentioned in the feast, but it comes up in Snape's first class: "You know why Snape's in such a foul mood, don't you?" said Ron to Harry as they watched Hermione teaching Neville a Scouring Charm to remove the frog guts from under his fingernails. "Yeah," said Harry. "Moody." It was common knowledge that Snape really wanted the Dark Arts job, and he had now failed to get it for the fourth year running. She didn't bring it up for ages in OoP, but then of course we get an actual scene about it: You applied first for the Defence Against the Dark Arts post, I believe?' Professor Umbridge asked Snape. Yes,' said Snape quietly. 'But you were unsuccessful?' Snape's lip curled. 'Obviously' Professor Umbridge scribbled on her clipboard. 'And you have applied regularly for the Defence Against the Dark Arts post since you first joined the school, I believe?' 'Yes,' said Snape quietly, barely moving his lips. He looked very angry. 'Do you have any idea why Dumbledore has consistently refused to appoint you?' asked Umbridge. 'I suggest you ask him,' said Snape jerkily. And in HBP, Snape finally getting the gig seems to be pretty deeply woven in, one way or another, to the course of events as they unfold, signalling that something is about to drastically change about Snape's situation. We know very little here, but this seems pretty established: -- Snape has applied for the DADA job every year since he joined the staff-- and one year before did that, as well. -- Dumbledore, every year, did not give him the job, and in fact has been willing to go to great lengths to appoint ANYBODY but Snape-- entrusting his students to dangerous losers like Umbrige and Lockhart, and subjecting people he likes, like Moody or Lupin, to a curse -- Snape seems, from the Umbrige scene, to have some sort of emotional stake in this dispute-- he speaks 'jerkily' and looks 'very angry'; it's the only time, in fact, that we see him angry at Umbrige, even when she's yelling at him about the Veritaserum So, we need a theory that covers all this stuff... ready? Here's a big fat list for you: -- Snape DOESN'T want the DADA job; his yearly applications are just a front to give Dumbledore a chance to make a public display of not trusting Snape. Pros: Snape seemed to think this was a line worth pitching Bella. Cons: Bella was, like, that's a stupid reason to think you're still evil. Which it is-- it's just too lame, IMO, to be a cover story. Also, no payoff. Why does JKR keep bringing it up every single book? -- Snape doesn't know the job is cursed; he just kept applying for 14 years because teaching DADA to snot-nosed brats seemed cooler than teaching Potions to snot-nosed brats, even though he loves both potions and DADA, and hates snot-nosed brats, so why the big difference? Ah, who cares... . anyways, Dumbledore didn't give it to him because he though Snape was more worth protecting from the curse than than his old friend Moody or that sweet Lupin fellow. Actually, it was just fun to piss Snape off. Finally, for no particular reason, Dumbleodore said, sod it, it's been 14 years, I'll give him the job already. Pros: Snape doesn't have real motivations, he just does stuff to be mean and weird, and who knows what goes through Dumbledore's head? The end. Cons: If there's one thing JKR does not get wrong, it's motivations (math, not so much.. ). Her whole system of plotting is based on it. There's just no way she'd keep whacking us on the head with this DADA job thing and then not motivate it properly. Moving on... -- Snape doesn't want the DADA job: he wants the DADA Curse. Here we have to sub-categorize: -- Snape thought he, as Mr. Dark Arts, could break the curse, and was, what, seeing it as a challenge? Dumbledore did not think Snape would succeed, and he was right. Pros: certainly in character for Snape, and has a classical hubris-and-fall structure. Cons: It's almost TOO in character for Snape; it doesn't tell us anything new or take the character forward in a way that justifies making the whole thing mysterious. I would tend to think that if that was the case JKR would have revealed the existence of the curse much earlier, have Snape brag about being able to break it, and made it more overt that it was the curse whot done him. It also doesn't contribute much to the story arc in terms of how Harry would relate to this, or how it plays in to Snape's goodness or badness, or where the story came from or where it's going. Meh. -- Snape wants to leave Hogwarts because he did a career aptitude test and 'teaching grade school' wasn't in the top five hundred. But Dumbledore wants him to stay, because (paraphrasing JKR) he thinks it's good for kids to be exposed to a teacher like Snape. Snape feels obliged enough to Dumbledore that he won't just quit, but he likes to make a coded song-and-dance every year by applying for the 'one year and you're out' job. Pros: Sort of funny, which is what I like best about it. Cons: this makes Dumbledore more than a little mean, plus, it's not a very emotionally intense payoff, plus, if this was the case, Snape probably WOULD just quit. -- Snape expects-- rightly as it turns out-- that the effect of the curse would be to expose him as a double agent. He's sick of spying and wants permission to quit, which he's asking for, again in a coded way, by appying for the job; and D-dore is codely refusing. Pros: this is a pretty good motivation, and takes the character in an interesting direction. Cons: Again with the mean Dumbledore: if Snape really wanted to quit, wouldn't Dumbledore just let him, especially as a reluctant spy could do more harm than good? Plus, being exposed as a double-agent is pretty close to a death-sentence, which brings us to: -- Snape expected-- wrongly as it turns out-- that the DADA curse would kill him, as he has darker secrets than most. Snape wanted this outcome and Dumbledore didn't; Snape has enough obligations to D-dore to drag out his miserable existence under his kindly eye, but applies for the DADA job yearly as a scab-peeling excercise in Dumbledore's face. Pros: You have to love the irony of the actual outcome of the curse. Big emotional payoff, and probably the most shocking thing for Harry to discover. Plus, the scab-peeling does sound so very Snapey. Probably the most in-character option for Dumbledore Cons: does Snape really seem suicidal? Would he do himself in before he could take V-mort with him? I'm the world's leading suicidal!Snape proponent, and even I'm dubious about this. -- Here's an intriguing one: there's something beyond the DADA Curse that is magically attached to the post, something desirable; I don't know, access to rarefied magical knowledge via the secret DADA library? Part of the Golden Key that gets you to Level 5? Really cool hat? Riddle did, after all, apply for THAT job, so maybe there was already something weird and unique about it. So, Snape felt that the Magic Thingie was worth enduring the curse to get, and Dumbledore didn't? Pros: introduces cool new stuff. Actually makes sense as a motivation. Cons: the thing would have to be REALLY COOL, as there's very little EMOTIONAL payoff to this revalation. Hard to see why JKR would keep hitting it so hard as a key thing about Snape. Zero canon evidence. -- Oh, all right, I'll throw a bone to ESE!Snapers: Snape, as Voldemort's man, expects the curse to be lifted for him. He keeps applying for the job because.. he's after the mystery thing from the preceding theory. Dumbledore doesn't give it to him, because... oh, I give up, I just can't make ESE!Snape theories make any sense. -- adding Jen's theory: >My brain can spin all sorts of theories about why Snape got the >position and for efficiency reasons my personal favorite is simple: >Voldemort, for whatever twisted Dark Lord reason, said to >Snape: "Get the DADA job or else", so Snape went to Dumbledore and >said, "give me the DADA job or I'm a dead man" and Dumbledore >said, "Hmm, compelling reason. OK." Simple, efficient, and >requiring only a modicum of explanation. Pros: it's certainly simple. Cons: this has been going on for 14 years-- before V-mort's return. Wait: okay, I got one: V-mort gave Snape an assigment to get the DADA job, and dagnab it, Snape just hates to leave a job half done. Okay, this is now my favorite. -- -- The real reason Snape wants the DADA job: Comes with parking space. Argh. You know what? I don't really like any of these! Any other suggestions? -- Sydney, forlorn for lack of a pet theory. From siddhu1616 at yahoo.co.in Sun Feb 26 06:39:18 2006 From: siddhu1616 at yahoo.co.in (s d) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 06:39:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: DADA job cursed???? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060226063918.60466.qmail@web8610.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148810 Lupinlore: > But all this raises another interesting question: If the position > is probably cursed, why on Earth does Snape want it so badly? Is > he faking his desire? We have no evidence for that, indeed all the > evidence we have including the application records cited by > Umbridge show Snape has wanted the position badly for many years. s d: I don't think the job is cursed because when Voldie was explaining his return to death eaters at the end of GoF he said that he met Prof. Quirrell who was teaching at Hogwarts, this is the time before Harry joined the school so this mean Quirrell was teaching at Hogwarts for atleast two years? So it should be appropriate to say that the job has been jinxed from the year Harry joined the school? But how is it possible? From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 07:00:27 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:00:27 -0000 Subject: Cursed Jobs, Cursed Locations, and plain ol' bad luck (was RE: Why does Snape... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148811 Ceridwen wrote: > On the larger level, could places like St. Mungo's, apparently > abandoned shops which are in reality WW businesses or service > facilities, be JKR's way of explaining away the same sorts of > places you're talking about? The inexplicably deserted storefront > between two thriving businesses *could be* an entrance to a secret > Wizarding location now, to any child who sees it day after week > after year. Another writer could explain them away by making them > secret criminal headquarters, I suppose. Chuckle. Yes, other writers would explain them another way. I read a piece by Stephen King several years ago and it addressed that very issue. He said something to the effect that if you showed him, (Western writer) Louis Lamour, and (Romance writer) Barbara Cartwright all the same small lake, he would write a story about a dark and demonic presence rising from the depths of the lake to prey on the surrounding towns, Lamour would write a saga of a range war touched off by water rights, and Cartwright would write a tale of two people who meet on the shores of the lake and fall passionately in love despite both being engaged to rich, powerful, and thoroughly unsuitable people. In this case, if you showed Rowling, King, (Adventure and Espionage writer) Tom Clancy and (Police Procedural writer) Dan Mahoney a deserted storefront amid thriving businesses, Rowling would explain it as an entrance to a wizarding facility, Mahoney would, as you suggest, explain it as a front for a drug ring, Clancy would make it the headquarters of an espionage operation, and King would blame the vampires hiding from the sun under the floorboards. > On the topic of the DADA position, it does seem more likely that > the position has been cursed, since curses do exist in the > Potterverse. But, it would be pretty funny if the only reason > they lose teachers there is because they've exhausted the pool of > decent teachers and so can only get the dregs to fill that slot. It would be interesting to see a complete list of the DADA teachers and the reasons they left, wouldn't it? Often you can come up with at least plausible explanations for strings of bad luck if you examine the circumstances closely. For instance, I've noticed that when you look carefully at a lot of "jinxed" locations it turns out that their parking is poor compared to their neighbors and they often don't have much frontage for advertising -- neither of which might be apparent at first glance but both of which are killers for certain kinds of businesses, like bars and restaurants. With regard to the HP saga, I can think of several reasons why it might be hard to keep a DADA position filled. As you say, maybe there just aren't very many good teachers of that subject around -- it would require a very special skill set, after all. Or maybe it's an economic problem. If Hogwarts follows the model of the Muggle world, even the Muggle world when the Edwardian Public School tradition was at its height, then it probably doesn't pay very well. Maybe DADA skills are in enough demand that most people who would be good at the job can make a lot more money working elsewhere, for instance as curse-breakers for Gringott's or as Aurors for the Ministry (I can speak from personal experience when I say that although government jobs may not pay as well as some other lines of work, they tend to pay a LOT better than teaching). If we were to discover that all the DADA teachers in the last two or three decades had spectacular meltdowns that would be one thing, but if there are a lot of notations like "Went to work at Gringott's" or "Joined the Auror office" that would be another thing entirely. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 08:47:43 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:47:43 -0000 Subject: Getting people to work together (was Why does Snape...)--Long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148812 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" wrote: > The whole concept of forcing > people that hate one another to work together doesn't seem to hold > after OotP...Dumbledore's attempts with Sirius and Snape and Snape > and Harry both seem to fall flat. The idea of independence from > Dumbledore appeals to me because Harry has to make his own choices > now and for most of his adult life Snape has been in the shadow of > Dumbledore (in many different ways)...both are things that I think > have limited the growth of Harry and Snape. In many ways I think > that Dumbledore constantly insisting on Snape's trustworthiness was > a bad thing because it interfered with the natural development of a > relationship between the two. > Hmmm. Let me add a little modification to your main thesis. I think that Dumbledore's attempts to get Snape and Harry to work together fall flat in large part because of his bad habit of witholding necessary information. We know that he never tells Harry *why* he trusts Snape. We don't know what he has said to Snape, but I have my own theories about that. I tend to agree with Nora and Alla that Snape was *not* Dumbledore's "right-hand man" or even anything close to it. JKR has told us flatly the Dumbledore had no confidant. She has also told us that it is McGonagall, not Snape, whom she regards as Dumbledore's lieutenant and second-in-command. As we know that DD witheld important information from McGonagall, there is no reason to believe he did not do the same in Snape's case (although he was probably more forthcoming about different things with each of them). We also know from DD's own statement that he has shared the full truth about the prophecy with no one. Finally, Dumbledore doesn't seem the type to share his emotional side with much of anyone (except I suppose for Fawkes, who in HBP develops the habit of making that musical sound whenever Dumbledore has a gooey moment). Now, if you put all that together, I think it's very plausible that many of DD's conversations with Snape were mirror images of his conversations with Harry. That is, Snape was constantly demanding to know what Dumbledore *saw* in the cheeky brat, and DD was constantly turning his questions aside in much the same way he turned aside Harry's questions about Snape. For example: SNAPE: Headmaster, you must admit that Potter's actions in cursing Mr. Malfoy were unforgiveable. DD: Now, Severus. You know Harry had no way of knowing what the effects of the spell would be. SNAPE: Which only makes it worse! Surely you don't retain your confidence in him! Any other student would be expelled immediately! DD: I continue to have every faith in Harry, Severus. SNAPE: I simply do not understand, Headmaster. How can you continue to disregard all the evidence... DD: I have disregarded nothing, Severus. I assure you that my grasp of the facts is as secure as it ever was. SNAPE: But surely the battle against Voldemort must be waged by wiser people than Potter! I know that the prophecy indicates that he has the power to defeat the Dark Lord, but please don't tell me you STILL believe in Trelawney's mumblings! DD: You are aware that I have great regard for Mr. Potter's abilities, Severus. And for his potential. SNAPE: So you continually say, Headmaster, but... WOULD YOU QUIT MAKING THAT SOUND YOU STUPID BIRD! Now, the problem with all this, as you rightly point out, is that it only makes things worse. DD is insisting, in his backhanded way, that the two of them work together, but by not giving them any concrete reasons to work together beyond a very understated "Because I said so," he is adding a large measure of frustration and annoyance to the mix. Frustration and annoyance, when added to a dislike which by HBP has shaded into active hatred, make for a totally impossible situation. I don't agree that the ROOT of the problem lies in DD's interference, however, even if that interference did make things worse. Come down to it, I wouldn't really label DD's actions as interference. He is the Headmaster, after all, and given the situation I really don't see any way he could NOT have become involved. In fact, I think much of the problem comes from DD trying NOT to interfere unduly. I think part of the point of his cryptic comments and the backhanded nature of his guidance is that he was hoping that the relationship would evolve in a positive direction. I think he genuinely thought that Snape, in particular, would get over his hurt feelings if DD just gave him time and a few nudges along the way. That was, I think, a highly moronic attitude to take, but DD just ain't very good when it comes to emotions. Here, I think, is one place where the "emotional mistakes" to which JKR referred come into play. DD has, as we know, rather intense feelings where Harry is concerned. When Snape evinces a different attitude, DD is convinced that it's because Snape doesn't *know* Harry. How often have we all run into THAT situation? A friend or a loved one goes gaga over somebody that you can't stand. If you make the mistake of letting your friend or loved one get a hint of your attitude, you get the response "If you really knew "X" you wouldn't say that." This is all made worse by the fact that DD is an isolated and, one suspects, a lonely man. Possibly DD sees in Harry someone who might, one day, actually be the confidant DD doesn't presently have. DD just can't imagine, emotionally speaking, that anyone who really gets to know Harry would dislike him. So he is serenely confidant that as Snape gradually and reluctantly gets to know Harry, Snape's dislike and hurt feelings will fade. When that doesn't happen, DD sees an opportunity with occlumency. I think DD was being very honest with Harry about the chief reason he had Snape do the occlumency lessons. But I think he also probably thought that surely once Snape got inside Harry's head (literally) and saw how mistaken he had been, that Snape would get over his hard feelings. The problem with all this is that it didn't work. To go back to common experience, when your friend or loved one pulls out the "You don't know them," argument, your response, whether spoken or not, is almost always, "Oh yes I do." I think that is the situation here. Snape did get to know Harry, and still didn't like him. Snape did see that he was wrong about Harry's childhood, but although he was surprised, when push came to shove he just didn't particularly care. By the time DD realizes his mistake -- i.e. by the time he realizes that Snape just genuinely dislikes Harry and no amount of time or patience or "getting to know the boy" is going to make the slightest bit of difference -- it is already too late to do anything about it. The only thing that could work is to say to Harry/Snape "I know you dislike him and I won't try to change your mind but he's to be trusted and worked with because of ..." And for whatever reason -- habit or misplaced loyalty or tiredness or just plain inertia -- DD is not willing to do that. Lupinlore From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Feb 26 13:20:56 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:20:56 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148813 Sydney: *(big snip)* > -- Snape seems, from the Umbrige scene, to have some sort of emotional > stake in this dispute-- he speaks 'jerkily' and looks 'very angry'; > it's the only time, in fact, that we see him angry at Umbrige, even > when she's yelling at him about the Veritaserum *(big snip)* > -- Snape doesn't know the job is cursed; he just kept applying for 14 > years because teaching DADA to snot-nosed brats seemed cooler than > teaching Potions to snot-nosed brats, even though he loves both > potions and DADA, and hates snot-nosed brats, so why the big > difference? Ceridwen: As you can see, I'm cherry-picking. I like this one because it seems almost right to me. It's too bad that JKR saw fit not to show much of the DADA class this year! From what we did see, IMO, there was a very subtle difference between the first DADA intro and the first Potions intro. Snape is somewhat sarcastic in DADA, but not to the point of calling nearly every student he has ever taught a 'dunderhead' (if memory serves). The students crane their necks to keep him in view as he circuits the classroom. Parvati asks a question and he answers without sarcasm. He calls on Hermione to answer a question, he doesn't ignore her hand. He makes a comment about her definition being straight out of a book (and names the book, which is not their text). There is little else for classtime with Snape this book. Harry doesn't seem to spend a lot of time musing about Snape, in or out of class. So there must be some difference. Someone mentioned the fact that Snape isn't as OTT this year, at least not from Harry's point of view. Snape 'says' instead of 'sneers', for instance, when Harry makes that 'sir' crack. As opposed to Potions, where he seemed tense. Maybe he really does want to teach DADA. Sydney: > -- Snape doesn't want the DADA job: he wants the DADA Curse. Here we > have to sub-categorize: > -- Snape thought he, as Mr. Dark Arts, could break the curse, > and was, what, seeing it as a challenge? Dumbledore did not think > Snape would succeed, and he was right. *(snip: Read pros and cons upthread)* > -- Oh, all right, I'll throw a bone to ESE!Snapers: Snape, as > Voldemort's man, expects the curse to be lifted for him. He keeps > applying for the job because.. Ceridwen: Let's put these two together. Snape thought he could break the curse. He assumed that either a) LV would lift it, or b) LV would give him the formula to break it, both suggestions because if there's a curse, it seems LV placed it, and Snape is, to LV, LV's man in Hogwarts. Why would he want his man ousted? If Snape really prefers this job, then he might want this to be true. *(snip)* Sydney: > -- Snape expects-- rightly as it turns out-- that the effect of > the curse would be to expose him as a double agent. He's sick of > spying and wants permission to quit, which he's asking for, again in a > coded way, by appying for the job; and D-dore is codely refusing. > Pros: this is a pretty good motivation, and takes the character in an > interesting direction. Cons: Again with the mean Dumbledore: if > Snape really wanted to quit, wouldn't Dumbledore just let him, > especially as a reluctant spy could do more harm than good? Plus, > being exposed as a double-agent is pretty close to a death-sentence, > which brings us to: Ceridwen: ...the argument in the forest. Sorry, that's exactly where this possibility brought me. Dumbledore took too much for granted. Maybe Snape didn't want to do it any more (HBP, US, p. 405). A lot can be read into that conversation, as even Hagrid notes. But, this is one possibility that has been mentioned before: Snape wants out. But, could it be that he wants out of the DADA job, having realized through personal experience now that it really is cursed? My puny brain is not equipped to chase the shadows this possibility raises. Sydney: > -- Snape expected-- wrongly as it turns out-- that the DADA > curse would kill him, as he has darker secrets than most. Snape > wanted this outcome and Dumbledore didn't; Snape has enough > obligations to D-dore to drag out his miserable existence under his > kindly eye, but applies for the DADA job yearly as a scab-peeling > excercise in Dumbledore's face. Pros: You have to love the irony of > the actual outcome of the curse. Big emotional payoff, and probably > the most shocking thing for Harry to discover. Plus, the scab- peeling > does sound so very Snapey. Probably the most in-character option for > Dumbledore Cons: does Snape really seem suicidal? Would he do > himself in before he could take V-mort with him? I'm the world's > leading suicidal!Snape proponent, and even I'm dubious about this. Ceridwen: Not suicidal. I've never read him like that. Angry, yes; longing for a nice, quiet life, yes, preferably one without students. But, what if he's so tired and stressed that death suddenly seems like a nice, long nap, one that won't be disturbed by the Dark Mark burning, or Dumbledore coming up with yet another plan? Sydney: *(snip)* > Riddle did, after all, apply for THAT job, so maybe there was > already something weird and unique about it. Ceridwen: I can see that working without Snape's part in it. But again, the puny brain, too many shadows, but intriguing. Something to play with while doing the dishes. Sydney: > -- adding Jen's theory: > >My brain can spin all sorts of theories about why Snape got the > >position and for efficiency reasons my personal favorite is simple: > >Voldemort, for whatever twisted Dark Lord reason, said to > >Snape: "Get the DADA job or else", so Snape went to Dumbledore and > >said, "give me the DADA job or I'm a dead man" and Dumbledore > >said, "Hmm, compelling reason. OK." Simple, efficient, and > >requiring only a modicum of explanation. Ceridwen: We can put some other things in HBP toward this one, I think. Wormtail is living at Snape's house. Some of us believe he's there to spy on Snape. Now I'm wondering if the spying, if it's true, has more to do with Snape getting the job? Did LV just get tired of excuses and say it had to be done? Does he doubt Snape's sincere efforts? Is the curse there to do Dumbledore in? It's had its chances, with Lupin being outed as a werewolf, which would reflect badly on the headmaster for hiring him in the minds of a lot of the parents; Quirrell (Q-Mort, unbeknownst to most) tried to kill The Boy Who Lived (long before the Ministry tried to discredit him), again, a bad reflection on DD if it would have happened; the CoS being opened and several students attacked. If one or more died, that would reflect badly on DD, and as well, the Weasleys *could have* gotten upset that no one noticed their daughter was possessed by a budding Dark Lord; Umbridge was able to oust DD from the school temporarily; Crouch! Moody embarrassed the school internationally, on DD's watch, by messing with the TriWizard Tournament, and DD didn't seem to know (by outside observation; the entire curse took place during Dumbledore's tenure as headmaster, more than twenty years, possibly forty years, of losing one DADA professor after another. This reflects very badly on Dumbledore. Wouldn't the board be expected to want to get rid of him after a while? No other headmaster that we know of, has had this sort of problem. The more I think about it, the more I think the position was cursed to bring Dumbledore down. But, why? Just anger on LV's part that DD actually told him to his face that he would never give him the job? Or does LV desperately want to get into Hogwarts for other reasons? And, not just because of Harry - the curse was put into place before Harry's parents were born, since he applied for the job just out of school (1945?), then again, ten years later (1955?). The whole Harry, BWL, thing is just a part of a larger whole, if this is true. Anyway, if the curse is there to get Dumbledore out, then someone tied to LV (Snape has the Dark Mark, and is at least supposedly working for LV) would finally get it done, even if he or she didn't want to. Maybe that's the nature of the curse, and now that Dumbledore is no longer headmaster, the curse is over. *Maybe*. Sydney: > -- -- The real reason Snape wants the DADA job: Comes with parking space. Ceridwen: That's it. Got to be. A perk of the job everyone suspects is cursed, just to attract applicants. Right next to the front doors, even ahead of Dumbledore's space. And, a house elf valet thrown in. Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Feb 26 14:06:09 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:06:09 -0000 Subject: Marge (wasRe: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148814 > Geoff: snip They've also got the terrifying thought of > placating Dudley who would probably go ballistic if his birthday trip > was delayed because of the problem. No, Aunt Marge has got to be > somewhere fairly close. Potioncat: PoA, chapter 2; "Aunt Marge lived in the country in a house with a large garden, where she bred bulldogs." Her train came in at 10 in the morning. How far away is the country and how often do trains run? Or could Vernon be so terrified that he was grasping at impossible straws? As for trains, my youngest has discovered the Beatles and we recently watched "A Hard's Day's Night." A portion of it takes place on a train. Which to me looked just like the Hogwarts Express. You would have thought the movie would take me back to my Beatles days, but no, I kept thinking the boys were on their way to Hogwarts. >From my current point of view, they looked young enough. Potioncat, who hasn't worked something this OT into a canon-based post in a long time. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 26 14:25:45 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:25:45 -0000 Subject: Marge (wasRe: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148815 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Geoff: > snip > They've also got the terrifying thought of > > placating Dudley who would probably go ballistic if his birthday trip > > was delayed because of the problem. No, Aunt Marge has got to be > > somewhere fairly close. > > > Potioncat: > PoA, chapter 2; > > "Aunt Marge lived in the country in a house with a large garden, where > she bred bulldogs." > > Her train came in at 10 in the morning. > > How far away is the country and how often do trains run? Or could > Vernon be so terrified that he was grasping at impossible straws? > > As for trains, my youngest has discovered the Beatles and we recently > watched "A Hard's Day's Night." A portion of it takes place on a train. > Which to me looked just like the Hogwarts Express. > > You would have thought the movie would take me back to my Beatles > days, but no, I kept thinking the boys were on their way to Hogwarts. > From my current point of view, they looked young enough. > > Potioncat, who hasn't worked something this OT into a canon-based post > in a long time. Geoff: Depends on what you mean by the country. Staff I used to work with who lived in the Epsom area would say that they lived in the country, yet that was only 3-4 miles beyond the edge of "suburbia". I am surprised that Marge came by train. I would expect many folk living any distance into the country, particularly Marge's type to have a car. Mark you, it is possible that she moved house between 1991-1993. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 15:14:25 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:14:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148816 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bohemian_faith" wrote: > But, do you think it's likely that Dumbledore did indeed turn into a phoenix at his burial? Harry (I haven't got the book to do a direct quote from atm) sees 'for a brief moment' what looks like a phoenix rising from the white flames that burst to life, but then it vanishes. Do we think that this is just what happens at a wizard burial, are > Harry's eyes playing tricks on him, or has Dumbledore evolved and > started his next great adventure in the body of a phoenix, > and 'flashed' away before he is noticed? Could he have known this > before he gave his life? Tonks: I have wondered about the whole phoenix thing for some time now. I haven't quite been able to put the pieces together. We have the fact that DD's arm looked burnt, so that made me wonder if it was his "burning time". This could have just been a foreshadowing of his death. Of course the whole phoenix symbolism is the symbol that the early Christian Church used for the death and resurrection of Christ. The phoenix as a Christ symbol is seen in many of the artistic works of the middle ages. So I don't know if it is specific to DD as a Christ figure or if, as you say, a great wizard transfigures into a phoenix at his death. I like the idea because this means that if Harry should have to die, maybe he too will become a phoenix. On the other hand, JKR has said that Fawkes has only had one owner and that was DD. I take that to mean that no other wizard has ever had a phoenix and we also know that they are rare. If every great wizard became one at their death there would be more of them around. Then again we have the fact that DD's body just bust into flames at the end and the phoenix rising out of the ashes and going off to the heavens. I tend to think of this as a playing out of the Christian symbolism of death and rebirth and specific to DD. I do wonder what role Sirius will have since JKR has says that he has a role to play now that he is behind the veil. I think that is what she said. Also she said that at some point Harry would get a new "pet". Maybe a phoenix? And will it be Fawkes or the new DD? Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 15:43:48 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:43:48 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148817 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > (Snips long interesting post) > Argh. You know what? I don't really like any of these! Any other > suggestions? Tonks: Ok, how about this one: SS wants the DADA position because he knows the Dark Arts and would be a very good teacher of the subject. And (due to the whole LV killed Lily and James and now I am a bitter and damned man) he hates LV and wants to teach the young wizards how to defend themselves against him. "Don't be a fool like I was in my youth", "Don't fall for the Dark Lord's lure". DD can't give the job to him because it would "out" Snape as DD's man. Or maybe Snape wouldn't come straight out and say those thing but would teach the class with those thoughts in his mind. Snape's secret which he is able to conceal in any other job would, because of his strong emotional connection to the whole James and Lily death, guilt and damned thing, would just come out at some point in class no matter how much he tried to hide it. Draco would see this and tell. And then Snape's cover would be blown. Or.. somehow SS in that position would be used by LV against the students and the school. Thats my best shot. Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 26 16:23:39 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:23:39 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148818 Sydney > -- -- The real reason Snape wants the DADA job: Comes with parking space. > > Argh. You know what? I don't really like any of these! Any other > suggestions? Pippin: Maybe it's not the perks that come with the job but the secondary responsibility. PS/SS: Along with the four Heads of Houses, the DADA teacher contributes an obstacle to the set of protections around the Stone. CoS: "You're the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher!" said Harry. "You can't go now! Not with all the Dark stuff going on here!" PoA: "This parchment is plainly full of Dark Magic. This is supposed to be your area of expertise, Lupin. Where do you imagine Potter got such a thing?" GoF: Moody joins the conference discussing Harry's unexpected entry into the contest, though apparently Dumbledore did not invite him. (He enters after the others.) HBP: "He must have known a spell we didn't," whispered McGonagall. "Afer all, he was the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher." It sounds as if the DADA teacher has special responsibilities, maybe even additional abilities conferred by the spells of protection on Hogwarts, to protect the school from Dark Wizards. It could be that Snape wanted those powers, or wanted to show he could be trusted with them. It *is* common knowledge that there's a curse, by the way. "People aren't too keen to take it on, see. They're starting to think it's jinxed. No one's lasted long fer a while now" -- Hagrid, ch 7, CoS. Pippin From tifflblack at earthlink.net Sun Feb 26 16:31:55 2006 From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (Tiffany Black) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:31:55 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore the Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148819 Lauren: I haven't really kept up to date with the ideas being thrown around here, so if this has been discussed already (as it probably has) then my most sincere apologies. But, do you think it's likely that Dumbledore did indeed turn into a phoenix at his burial? Harry (I haven't got the book to do a direct quote from atm) sees 'for a brief moment' what looks like a phoenix rising from the white flames that burst to life, but then it vanishes. Do we think that this is just what happens at a wizard burial, are Harry's eyes playing tricks on him, or has Dumbledore evolved and started his next great adventure in the body of a phoenix, and 'flashed' away before he is noticed? Could he have known this before he gave his life? hmm, *ponders* Tiffany: I also think that Dumbledore is a phoenix. Phoenixes seem to be everything that Dumbledore was, brave, loyal, inspiring courage in the brave in fear in the cowardly. Plus his patronus was a phoenix. I'm looking forward to Harry meeting a blue eyed phoenix in the next book. Tiffany 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 Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Feb 26 16:57:51 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:57:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's new pet, was: Dumbledore the Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060226165751.90815.qmail@web53303.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148820 Tonks: I do wonder what role Sirius will have since JKR has says that he has a role to play now that he is behind the veil. I think that is what she said. Also she said that at some point Harry would get a new "pet". Maybe a phoenix? And will it be Fawkes or the new DD? Luckdragon: Perhaps Buckbeak/Witherwings is the "new pet" Jo referred to. Harry now officially owns him after all, although I'm sure Hagrid will be more involved in his care than Harry. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 26 17:08:14 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:08:14 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148821 Alla: > And sure, I can see DD wanting to protect Draco despite little > shmuck not wanting such protection and plotting to kill the > Headmaster, I can see that. Pippin: You make it sound like Dumbledore was foolish to want to do that. Indeed that's your argument against "Snape took the vow to protect Draco" isn't it? But if Draco were a real child, surely you wouldn't call him foul names in Yiddish and suggest that because his gangster family had involved him in a murder plot, he didn't deserve the help and protection of his teachers. Snape did *not* vow to help Draco carry out the task itself -- in fact he made it very clear to Bella and Cissy that the Dark Lord expected Draco to try first and he couldn't interfere with that. I think it's a mistake to assume Dumbledore wouldn't risk both himself and Snape for Draco's sake. The parable of the lost sheep, which is part of both Jewish and Christian teaching, comes into play here. It's usually seen as a metaphor for tender-heartedness, but there's practical wisdom in it. The good shepherd left the flock and sought for the lost lamb, not only because he was tender-hearted but because he knew the flock was safe in its numbers and the lost lamb had more need. JKR shows us this. Ultimately it was not Dumbledore who drove Voldemort off in OOP but the arrival of the Ministry in force. Though no single wizard is as powerful as Dumbledore, together those who oppose him can do more against Voldemort than Dumbledore ever could. Dumbledore knows that Harry, and Draco, if he returns to the right side, will have protection from the good wizards in the Order and the Ministry whether Dumbledore himself is around or not. I think that if Dumbledore knew about the vow, he would do what every good leader seeks to do in a crisis: find a way to turn it to his advantage even if it meant his own death. No good leader considers himself indispensable --as Charles DeGaulle once said, "The graveyards are full of indispensable men." Even a young leader has the responsibility to see that his organization can survive without him. Dumbledore would not designate a single successor for all his jobs if he knew that no one person could replace him, but that does not mean that he did not choose individuals he trusted for each of his responsibilities and make sure they were prepared. Harry now knows what Dumbledore knew about Voldemort's past. There are surely others who know what Dumbledore knew about other things. The trick will be for them to find each other and work together. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Feb 26 17:36:19 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:36:19 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148822 > > Pippin: > > I'm just asking how you think it would be more dramatically powerful > > for the reader to see Snape to gloat over his betrayal when the > > shock of his betrayal has had a chance to wear off rather than at > > the moment when it took place. I'm just failing to think of an > > example from literature or film where we see the betrayal in one > > installment and get the gloating in the next installment, two years > > later. Nora: > There's always the BANG of JKR finally slamming the door on the > question of guilt. ;) (Not the BANG you wanted?) Pippin: But the door's already nailed shut, as far as Harry's concerned. If Snape is in fact guilty, all that's left of DDM!Snape is the pfffft of deflating expectations and the fizzle of extinguished hopes. Not much of a bang there. Nora: What connects it thematically for me is that Snape > certainly does like to sit on some things, and pull them out at times > which he thinks they're going to do some damage. That's how I read > the whole "See what a bastard your father and friends were" scene > which he gives as punishment for the bathroom. It certainly does > nothing to help Harry realize 'what he's done wrong', but does smack > of attempted gloating after the fact. Pippin: But how can it? It won't be a painful experience for Harry unless he's ashamed of what James and Sirius were up to -- one imagines that Fred and George would be delighted to discover that their old Dad had been in one scrape after another. What it bespeaks is that Snape no longer assumes Harry would think his father was an "amusing man." In fact, Snape's attitude towards Harry must have changed significantly since OOP. Pippin: > > > I suppose you could see that as twisted, but the thing is, he could > > have used sectum sempra on Dumbledore, and if he's been longing > > to come out as a dark wizard, why not? Nora: > Because he wants to kill him dead? Pippin: We're reminded in HBP that cutting someone, even with a blunt axe, will kill even a wizard quite dead. Or do you think Snape doesn't know how to cut a throat? > > Pippin: > > But the whole "Snape isn't really remorseful, or he got remorse and > > changed his mind later" set of theories is an argument from absence. > > Beware -- that way lies vampires :) Nora: > Eh, one dead Headmaster isn't quite absence. :) > If you admit the simple principle that there is now support for the > proposition, trusting wholeheartedly in Dumbledore is a little > dangerous and maybe even skeezy, almost everything else follows. Pippin: Trusting Dumbledore is dangerous and skeezy?? Where do you get that? Who in canon has come to harm by trusting Dumbledore? Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Feb 26 17:44:29 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:44:29 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148823 > Sydney: > -- adding Jen's theory: > My brain can spin all sorts of theories about why Snape got the > position and for efficiency reasons my personal favorite is simple: > Voldemort, for whatever twisted Dark Lord reason, said to > Snape: "Get the DADA job or else", so Snape went to Dumbledore and > said, "give me the DADA job or I'm a dead man" and Dumbledore > said, "Hmm, compelling reason. OK." Simple, efficient, and > requiring only a modicum of explanation. > Ceridwen: > We can put some other things in HBP toward this one, I think. > Wormtail is living at Snape's house. Some of us believe he's > there to spy on Snape. Now I'm wondering if the spying, if it's > true, has more to do with Snape getting the job? Did LV just get > tired of excuses and say it had to be done? Does he doubt Snape's > sincere efforts? [ ] Is the curse there to do Dumbledore in? It's > had its chances... Jen: Now *this* would qualify as a twisted Dark Lord motivation in my book; I'm going to place my bets here, Ceridwen. Plus this would make sense of the moment in Dumbledore's office when Voldemort appeared to be considering pulling his wand. "No, not here where he's protected, but he'll rue the day he defied me!" The more I think about it, the more compelling it becomes--if Dumbledore won't let Voldemort back into Hogwarts, then Dumbledore won't be able to stay there, either. As for why this would be enough motivation, I think the visit to see boy Riddle in chap 13 might explain it. He gets obsessively attached to things and felt the same way about Hogwarts. I believe he felt that as Slytherin's heir he belonged there much more than Dumbledore. And can I add that it would infuriate him Gryffindor's heir, Dumbledore, would get to stay at the castle while he was cast out just like his ancestor? No, I won't let that one die . If it was a curse that could die with the caster as we found out in HBP can happen, then it might have weakened during the years Voldemort was vapor. The year of Umbridge with Voldemort returned was definitely the worst for Dumbledore, being discredited in the WW and sent into hiding. And notice how Dumbledore rebounded only when Umbridge herself was brought down by the curse? Ceridwen: > Anyway, if the curse is there to get Dumbledore out, then someone > tied to LV (Snape has the Dark Mark, and is at least supposedly > working for LV) would finally get it done, even if he or she > didn't want to. Maybe that's the nature of the curse, and now > that Dumbledore is no longer headmaster, the curse is over. > *Maybe*. Jen: This makes sense to me because it could also explain why the DADA's before Voldemort-as-vapor didn't bring Dumbledore down, that because Dumbledore is so powerful, it took the synergistic effect of two to work. I think this adds more weight to the idea Voldemort was involved in the UV, even if it was only indirectly by forcing Snape into the DADA, and that he certainly viewed Snape as both powerful enough to complete the task and completely expendable. Now I'm pretty certain Draco was merely a decoy (and delicious punishment): He kept Dumbledore busy until the end and probably proved once again to Voldemort that love is only the road to death. Jen R. From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 18:24:07 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:24:07 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148824 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > What it bespeaks is that Snape no longer assumes Harry would think > his father was an "amusing man." In fact, Snape's attitude towards > Harry must have changed significantly since OOP. If he now understands how Harry thinks, why is he trying to rub his face further in it? Is he equating Harry's actions towards Draco (which he doesn't seem to even plumb in depth) with James and Sirius' pranking during school? That seems way off the mark to me, and it's certainly not a constructive result. No, this strikes me more as "the cat is out of the bag--so now I feel free to point it out to you at any opportunity possible". > Pippin: > We're reminded in HBP that cutting someone, even with a blunt axe, > will kill even a wizard quite dead. Or do you think Snape doesn't > know how to cut a throat? That doesn't change the connotations and their resultant kick in the gut of the AK curse, one bit. That curse seems put on another plane, into another category, by the author. > Pippin: > Trusting Dumbledore is dangerous and skeezy?? Where do you get > that? Who in canon has come to harm by trusting Dumbledore? Trusting in Dumbledore because 'he's Dumbledore!' and not using your own critical faculty is dangerous. It's the kind of obedience, because Dumbledore just *must* know best (because he knows the most), which generated a good portion of Harry's misery in OotP. Dumbledore flat-out admits how badly he's mishandled things at the end of the book there. And of course, Dumbledore himself has come to harm by trusting in himself enough not to share his thoughts or deep reasons with other members of the Order. I suspect there's been some kind of harm done to the cause by the profound disarray which the white hats are in at the end of HBP. And they really are shocked there, aren't they? I myself was a little surprised at the depth of their dependency; I suppose that post-OotP I had wanted to see the Order as a more engaged and equitable body than that. I know many listies may vary on this, but I myself will be very disappointed if it boils down to "See, Dumbledore was right all along, and all you have to do (and what you should have done all along, foolish child who thinks he knows more than he does) is just trust in where he's leading you." Perhaps I should have been clearer that it's the turning off of the willingness to question and not be satisfied by statements of faith (which is, entertainingly, Hermione's position in OotP) which bothers me, and I think has been marked in big flashing lights as a dangerous option. That doesn't mean that there's a slippery slope to total skepticism, though. -Nora resists the flippant tendency to insert an O RLY and a NO WAI! in the above From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Feb 26 18:24:19 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:24:19 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? WAS: Re: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148825 quicksilver: > The idea that it was Snape's mistakes that brought about the > debacle in HBP along with a helping hand from Voldemort (perhaps) > is, IMO, perhaps the most...compelling, interesting, insert other > word here...outcome of the events of HBP. It makes Snape into a > truly tragic figure in a way that him being DDM!Snape (with a > master plan) or ESE!Snape can't really present. It also makes > it...easier on Harry to come to terms with what Snape did because > Snape allowed his pride and the cunning of Lord Voldemort to bring > about the events. In a way it's like Ginny in CoS and like > Dumbledore said "older and more experienced wizards have been > hoodwinked by Lord Voldemort." (I find there's a lot of cross > over between CoS and HBP) Jen: This is sort of a 'me too' because I like the way you explain how Harry might see Snape in the case of such events. Harry only sees Snape as having all the power in their relationship, unlike the other adults in his life where he's noticed and accepted their failures. The idea that Lily saw another side of Snape seems almost a given to me now as the sand in the hourglass runs out and those two seem to be the last ones shrouded in mystery. If I remember right from past posts, you're also in the camp of believing Voldemort had more to do with the events of HBP than we saw. I really do think JKR is trying to point out all roads lead to Voldemort even when they appear to be solely about another character; all the time spent on his back story cemented that idea for me. He's not taking away people's power to make choices, he's just arranging it so their choices are all ones with bad outcomes. That's the key to his power. I will be disappointed to find out he wasn't behind manipulating Snape's and Dumbledore's fates in HBP to a *certain* extent because all the options were SO bad. My estimation of him as an evil overlord would move up to 'impressed'. quicksilver: > Although I'll admit that I'm biased...I love the idea of Snape > having no clue at the end of HBP what he's going to do. The idea > that Dumbledore had some sort of plan bothers me because 1) the > Harry and Snape being forced to work together was done in OotP > (ask Sirius how that turned out), and 2) both Harry and Snape need > to become independent of Dumbledore. The whole concept of forcing > people that hate one another to work together doesn't seem to hold > after OotP...Dumbledore's attempts with Sirius and Snape and Snape > and Harry both seem to fall flat. Jen: I think so, too, about Snape not having a clue. He and Harry were probably not so different in believing Dumbledore could always manage to save the day. Talk about illusions shattered on both sides on the tower! Weak!Dumbledore was not supposed to be one of the options. Jen R. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 18:48:16 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:48:16 -0000 Subject: Of Souls and Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148826 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Paul" wrote: > Paul: > > ...edited... > > But a bigger flaw is involved. The use of one or more horcruxes may > prevent death, but it does not increase life, it only prolongs it, > like Sauron's Ring. Riddle's secondary aim is to dominate others, > but how satisfying will that prove to be in the long-term? Riddle's > nemesis (apart from anything Harry may achieve) may be simply > boredom- a never ending but ultimately aimless life, just being > beastly to people. I think, eventually, he would be glad to destroy > the horcruxes himself! > > What do you think? > > Paul > bboyminn: Excellent post Paul; every insightful. On the subject of 'Harry-the Horcrux', there is one small flaw in the thinking that I think must be cleared up before I can accept the theory. That is - Dumbledore doesn't seem to agree. No one knows more about what has happened to Harry and to Voldemort, or about what has happened between them than Dumbledore. He is the one who acknowledges that some of Voldemort's powers were transferred to Harry. It is from or through Dumbledore that all our knowledge of Horcruxes comes. In one speach, Dumbledore warns Harry of the distinction betwen Voldemort's power and Voldemort's soul. If he hasn't put two and two together, then I find it hard to believe it is there. So, if someone could explain how the great all-knowing Dumbledore could have missed this bit, then I would like to hear the explanation. To the last point made by Paul, I certainly agree. Voldemort has prevented death, that is he has guarded himself against being killed, but he hasn't extended life. By that I mean, his physical body is aging at a somwhat normal rate. What is Voldemort, assuming he doesn't advance his anti-death precausions further, going to do in a hundred or two hundred years when his physical body starts to fail? He has used the 'bones of his father', so I suspect that old 'create a new body' charm is out. Perhaps in the final showdown, Harry will not have all the Horcruxes destroyed, yet to prevent Voldemort from harming any more people, Harry will be force to (AK) destroy Voldemort's body. When Voldemort's Vapor!Soul form appears, Harry will quickly encase it in an inanimate object, Horcrux style. Now Voldemort has his wish. He will live, trapped in that object, fully alive and fully self-aware, for eternity. Now that is a fate worse than death. To be trapped in a life that can't actually be lived. To be trapped, fully conscious, in time that simply passes. All knowledge that you ever existed, lost to the centuries. I suspect with a moderate degree of certainty, that this is also the fate of Voldemort if he is soul-sucked into a Dementor. His soul, or conscious self-awareness will reside inside that Dementor, trapped forever, while the Dementor feeds on the torment. Bit of Irony really, Voldemort's greatest most agonizing punishment is to finally get his deepest wish, for his dream to finally come true. Now that is sweet sweet sweet Karmic punishment. Though a bit too horrible to imagine. Steve/bboyminn From bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net Sun Feb 26 13:21:12 2006 From: bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net (William Bernard) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 07:21:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Souls and Death References: <20060226010034.46304.qmail@web37011.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007301c63ad7$83efd370$4101a8c0@COMPUTER1> No: HPFGUIDX 148827 -Pamela: Destroying one would not destroy the other as they do not share a soul. Harry, therefor, could not have been made a horcrux by Voldemort the night he 'died'. Bill: I'm new here myself, but I just want to comment that I've come to the opposite conclusion: I believe that Harry will find that he is the "something from Gryffindor" horcrux. Catherine adds: The real question is how exactly is a Horcrux made? Bill again: That's exactly the question. We really don't know. My impression, supported by nothing, is that the spell to create the horcrux is done first and then the process is completed with the murder. There are too many unknowns at this stage to say. I based my conclusion on what I perceived was the most logical conclusion from statements made in the books. Bill [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From d_ehrlich at walla.co.il Sun Feb 26 17:10:26 2006 From: d_ehrlich at walla.co.il (danitehrlich) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:10:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death was planned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148828 Arlene wrote: > I belive DD did in fact have that night planned. I always > wondered why DD did not just "Accio" his wand to save his life??? > It was right there. "danitehrlich": About DD bring able to "accio" his wand- that just isn't possible because in order to summon an object you need a wand- and that's the object that was needed.... So no- he didn't have that option. From rkdas at charter.net Sun Feb 26 19:32:21 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:32:21 -0000 Subject: Marge (wasRe: Harry Cunning or Manipulative? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148829 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" > wrote: > > > > > > > Geoff: > > snip > > They've also got the terrifying thought of > > > placating Dudley who would probably go ballistic if his birthday > trip > > > was delayed because of the problem. No, Aunt Marge has got to be > > > somewhere fairly close. > > > > > > Potioncat: > > PoA, chapter 2; > > > > "Aunt Marge lived in the country in a house with a large garden, > where > > she bred bulldogs." > > > > Her train came in at 10 in the morning. > > > > How far away is the country and how often do trains run? Or could > > Vernon be so terrified that he was grasping at impossible straws? > > > > As for trains, my youngest has discovered the Beatles and we > recently > > watched "A Hard's Day's Night." A portion of it takes place on a > train. > > Which to me looked just like the Hogwarts Express. > > > > You would have thought the movie would take me back to my Beatles > > days, but no, I kept thinking the boys were on their way to > Hogwarts. > > From my current point of view, they looked young enough. > > > > Potioncat, who hasn't worked something this OT into a canon- based > post > > in a long time. > > Geoff: > Depends on what you mean by the country. Staff I used to work with > who lived in the Epsom area would say that they lived in the country, > yet that was only 3-4 miles beyond the edge of "suburbia". I am > surprised that Marge came by train. I would expect many folk living > any distance into the country, particularly Marge's type to have a > car. > > Mark you, it is possible that she moved house between 1991-1993. Jen D here with her two cents: I think Marge comes to stay even though she may not be so very far away to get a break from all of those dogs! Only brings Ripper because he can't do without her. Even if she's relatively close, this could be her only form of holiday. Jen D, not really caring a fig about Aunt Marge but just letting her mind roam... > From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 19:34:38 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:34:38 -0000 Subject: Getting people to work together (was Why does Snape...)--Long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" > wrote: > > > > The whole concept of forcing people that hate one another to > > work together doesn't seem to hold after OotP...Dumbledore's > > attempts with Sirius and Snape and Snape and Harry both seem > > to fall flat. .... > > > Lupinlore: > > ....edited.... > > DD just can't imagine, emotionally speaking, that anyone who > really gets to know Harry would dislike him. So he is serenely > confidant that as Snape gradually and reluctantly gets to know > Harry, Snape's dislike and hurt feelings will fade. When that > doesn't happen, DD sees an opportunity with occlumency. I think > DD was being very honest with Harry about the chief reason he > had Snape do the occlumency lessons. But I think he also > probably thought that surely once Snape got inside Harry's head > (literally) and saw how mistaken he had been, that Snape would > get over his hard feelings. > > The problem with all this is that it didn't work. To go back to > common experience, when your friend or loved one pulls out the "You > don't know them," argument, your response, whether spoken or not, is > almost always, "Oh yes I do." ...edited.. > > > Lupinlore > bboyminn: Excellent essay, Lupinlore, very insightful, and for the most part, right on target. I guess this is one of those rare times, especially when regarding Snape, that we agree. I am only going to add one small extension to what you have already said. Dumbledore's plan ALMOST worked, and I have to wonder, if on a very distant subconsious level that 'almost worked' didn't work better than we think. First a side-side comment, in difficult circumstances, it is usually ideal to set your 'best man' to the task at hand. However, a wise man would realize that sometimes circumstances dictate that most effective choice is to send your 'second best man' to do the job. If the primary job here was Harry learning Occumency, then I think the second best would have been more effective. However, Dumbledore very likely does have a secondary purpose in putting Harry and Snape together, and that is some small degree of the mending of fences and getting his two greatest hopes of success working together. Well, that mostly failed miserably, but I still say it almost worked, and still has some microscopic chance of working. Notice, that when Snape sees the nature of Harry's earlier life, he doesn't take any malicious or vindictive glee in the visions he sees. His response is quiet and reflective. Harry is certain that upon seeing Harry's misery, Snape will rub it in and use it against him. Instead, Snape's response is almost profound, as if Snape never considered how thoroughly miserable Harry's life has been. Something that I am sure never really occurred to Snape. In Snape's own Snape-ish way, there is almost a seed of respect planted. Further, when Harry is able to turn the spell around on Snape and view his memories, he is not met with a life he had every given any thought to. He sees that Snape's life too has been miserable. Snape is still a hard task-master when it comes to learing Occlumency, he cuts Harry no slack. Yet, we see the usual snipping and snarky comments between them have stopped. It's just the business at hand. Snape almost treats Harry in a civil fashion. Then oddly Harry commits the one unforgivable breach of faith that sets Snape against him. Yet, the one unforgivable act that brings to Harry a true and deep understanding of and sympathy for Snape. He looks into Snape's pensieve, and worse, gets caugth at it. Even after this, as Harry talks with Sirius about what he saw in the Pensieve, he admits, that even after Snape's brutal dismissal, Harry still feels sorry for him. I have to think that in the next book Harry and Snape are going to have to come to an understanding on their own because they are going to have to work together, and I believe that what they saw in the Occulmency lessons will help them in that process. Snape and Harry know things about each other that not even their closest friends and confidants know about them. I think that gives them an insight that in some small way will help bridge the gap between them. They can't really, at heart ,dismiss each other as annoying prats; there is a shared humanity between them, and that is bound to make a difference. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 18:14:13 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:14:13 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148831 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > > Ceridwen: > Let's put these two together. Snape thought he could break the > curse. He assumed that either a) LV would lift it, or b) LV would > give him the formula to break it, both suggestions because if there's > a curse, it seems LV placed it, and Snape is, to LV, LV's man in > Hogwarts. Why would he want his man ousted? If Snape really prefers > this job, then he might want this to be true. > I think this is very plausible, if only because it is the type of thing you see in the real world all the time. And everybody's going "What are you talking about?" Let me explain: Perhaps the question of Snape wanting the DADA job is a "Sometimes a cigar..." moment. Sometimes things really don't go any deeper than they appear. We've already had some of those. In the wake of OOTP, there was a thriving industry of threads having to do with DD's "real" intent in Harry living with the Dursleys. That is he was "training" Harry, he did not want Harry to grow up spoiled, yada, yada, yada. But, it would appear from HBP that, no, there was never any reason other than the obvious one -- he really thought it was the only way to keep Harry alive. Similarly, there was a major, in fact overwhelming, group of threads having to do with the "real" shipping patterns under the surface of the Potterverse. But no, sometimes -- in fact very often -- the obvious answer is the correct one. With regard to Snape, the answer may be that his apparent irrational obsession is... well... an irrational obsession. We've all known such cases -- i.e. someone who has a deep seated and fundamental desire for something that we can clearly see will not only NOT bring them the happiness they think it will but will, in fact, be actively harmful. Ever tried to talk somebody out of one of those obsessions? Good luck. It's both horrible and fascinating in a twisted way, like watching a train wreck proceed in slow motion. In a very real sense, people possessed by such obsessions are addicts -- it's just that they are addicted to certain dreams and goals as opposed to drugs or alcohol or abusive relationships. And addicts are accomplished liars, both to themselves and others. It's the way they protect and preserve their addiction. If you buy into the DADA curse, it would nevertheless be very realistic, from a human standpoint, for Snape to constantly be making up reasons to himself and others why he should get the job, anyway. For a long time he probably opined loudly that all this curse talk was so much rot. After Voldy's returned, he probably convinced himself just as firmly that the curse would not apply to HIM. He could break it if he wanted to, or else Voldemort would remove it once Snape, who is at least playing at getting Voldemort's man, gets the job. In fact, he probably believed all three things at once. That is, he didn't believe there was a curse and Voldemort would remove it and he could break it, anyway. Of course those are three partially contradictory things. If there isn't a curse Voldemort can't remove it. If Voldemort did put a curse on the position then he wouldn't take kindly to Snape, Voldy's man or not, tampering with it. But that isn't psychologically unrealistic. Only computers and Vulcans can't hold multiple contradictory ideas simultaneously, humans do it all the time. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that a human who couldn't do that, at least in benign situations, would strike us as so very odd that we would strongly suspect them of mental illness. The objection to this, which Sydney has laid out, is that this isn't very bangy and doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. It is an obvious answer, and being an obvious answer can't serve as a revelation that moves the plot forward to any profound degree. I acknowledge all of that. But I guess I'm going to have to agree with some of the things Nora has been saying in the "Is Snape evil?" thread. Not every answer needs to be some kind of profound revelation that moves the plot in new directions. In fact, if every answer WERE some kind of profound revelation it would get really annoying, really fast. Basically, that would consist of JKR playing a perpetual game of gotcha! in which she constantly taunted her readers with "Aha! Thought you had it figured out, didn't you! Gotcha!" In point of fact, I think JKR plays that game far too often, already, and we really don't need an increase in the gotcha! rate. But back to the point, like Nora I think answers that show psychological and factual plausibility, even at the expense of not being very bangy, often deepen characters much more than profound revelations and suprising twists. It's true that Snape just being irrationally obsessed with the DADA job to the point that he is self- destructive about it doesn't tell us much that we didn't already know, and doesn't tell Harry much that Harry didn't already know. So what? Life is full of situations where answers don't run past the obvious and where people's motivations are very clear, even if they are irrational. In a lot of cases the outcome is even more powerful because it could be so very clearly foreseen, and still could not be avoided. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 19:01:31 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 19:01:31 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148832 > > Nora: > > There's always the BANG of JKR finally slamming the door on the > > question of guilt. ;) (Not the BANG you wanted?) > > Pippin: > But the door's already nailed shut, as far as Harry's concerned. If > Snape is in fact guilty, all that's left of DDM!Snape is the pfffft > of deflating expectations and the fizzle of extinguished hopes. > Not much of a bang there. You are quite right, however I don't see why that is an objection to what Nora is saying. Whatever JKR does will destroy one view of Snape or another. Why should the hopes of DDM!Snapers be privileged over the theories of OFH!Snapers or the expectations of ESE!Snapers? Many OFH!Snapers hold that Snape's guilt makes for an extremely plausible and satisfying revelation. ESE!Snapers feel that Snape's guilt is a very believable scenario that brings his actions and attitudes into logical clarity after six books of murky and contradictory messages. There are people in both camps who hold that DDM!Snape, far from being a profound revelation that deepens the plot and characters, would simply be a cheap trick -- in essence JKR painting herself into a corner and then getting herself out again with a great deal of forced and unbelievable hand-waving. I understand your point that Snape's guilt in this instance isn't very bangy. I guess my reply is "So what?" Not every answer to every question has to be some profound revelation that sends the plot and characters off in bold new directions. In fact, such twists don't necessarily deepen characters -- they often cheapen them by making the characters psychologically unbelievable and the plot annoyingly and unnecessarily baroque, in effect just vehicles for a self-indulgent author bent on playing a perpetual game of Gotcha! > > Pippin: > But how can it? It won't be a painful experience for Harry unless > he's ashamed of what James and Sirius were up to -- one imagines > that Fred and George would be delighted to discover that their old > Dad had been in one scrape after another. What it bespeaks is that > Snape no longer assumes Harry would think his father was an "amusing > man." In fact, Snape's attitude towards Harry must have changed > significantly since OOP. > Why must it have changed significantly? Does Snape show any sympathy for Harry whatsoever? Does he cease going out of his way to taunt Harry? No. In fact he goes WELL out of his way during the Welcome Feast to be just as nasty as ever. In fact, the idea that Snape must have changed in his attitudes is based, it seems, on the assumption that Snape must have a consistent and logical view of Harry and Harry's mental relationship with James and Sirius. That doesn't make Snape a deeper character or a more believable one. In fact it makes him very shallow. Why should Snape have a logical and consistent view of Harry? Real people often don't have logical and consistent views of other people, particularly other people about whom they have strong feelings. The idea here seems to be that Snape must think that Harry either would celebrate his father's sins or would be ashamed of them. I don't think that's very realistic. I see no reason that Snape could not believe fervently both that Harry would be ashamed of his father's actions and that Harry would celebrate his father's actions. Vulcans and computers can't hold mutually contradictory ideas with equal fervor, but humans do it all the time. What it comes down to is that Snape just flat dislikes Harry, and he will use whatever rationalization/defense/mental buttressing for that dislike that lies at hand and seems to work in any given moment. He happened to have a set of old detention cards and thought "Potter will be ashamed" because in that circumstance the idea that Harry would be ashamed supported his intense dislike of the boy, at least in the roundabout way of giving him pleasure through hurting Harry. In another instance, say if Lupin were to mention something about Harry and Sirius, I'm sure Snape would snarl "I have no doubt that Potter thinks of Black and James Potter as paragons of virtue!" because in THAT instance the idea that "Harry will support his father's actions" gives rationalization to Snape's dislike. Here is where I firmly agree with Nora that Dumbledore is an emotional moron. Anyone with even a modicum of emotional wisdom would readily recognize that Snape simply has a fundamental dislike for Harry and no amount of new knowledge or opportunity to learn about Harry will shake his views. Yet, at least until the end of OOTP, Dumbledore seems to believe that given time and exposure to Harry, including maybe the forced intimacy of occlumency, Snape will change. But that just isn't the way people are, and Dumbledore's moronic ignorance of that fact has led to complete disaster. Lupinlore From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Feb 26 20:00:36 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 26 Feb 2006 20:00:36 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 2/26/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1140984036.2447.26869.m7@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148833 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday February 26, 2006 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Notes: Don't forget, chat happens today, 11 am Pacific, 2 pm Eastern, 7 pm UK time. Chat times do not change for Daylight Saving/Summer Time. Chat generally goes on for about 5 hours, but can last as long as people want it to last. To get into Chat, just go to the group online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups and click on "Chat" in the lefthand menu. If you have problems with this, go to http://www.yahoo.com and in the bottom box on the left side of the page click on "Chat". Once you're logged into any room, type /join *g.HPforGrownups ; this should take you right in. If you have an Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 20:12:42 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:12:42 -0000 Subject: Of Souls and Death In-Reply-To: <007301c63ad7$83efd370$4101a8c0@COMPUTER1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148834 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "William Bernard" wrote: > > Catherine adds: > > The real question is how exactly is a Horcrux made? > > Bill again: >That's exactly the question. We really don't know. My impression, > supported by nothing, is that the spell to create the horcrux is > done first and then the process is completed with the murder. > There are too many unknowns at this stage to say. > > I based my conclusion on what I perceived was the most logical > conclusion from statements made in the books. > > Bill bboyminn: Here is a bit of information that may affect your belief on this matter. First, Tom kills his father and grandparents, and steals the Ring and Locket from the Gaunts. Then, unless I am mistake, later, Slughorn tells Tom about Horcruxes. I believe when viewing that memory, Harry notices that Tom is wearing the Gaunt Ring. So, first death, then object, then knowledge, then Horcrux. For Tom to have used those three significant deaths to create Horcruxes, he couldn't have prepared in advance. To something mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Someone speculated that once a soul was torn, that soul piece remained available indefinitely, and therefore always available to be made into a Horcrux. I only believe that to a limited extent. I'll buy that the soul piece remains, but not indefinitely. Of course, this is based more on personal beliefs than hard canon. In the Christian sense, all sins can be forgiven if you are truly repentant and remorseful. So, I believe that in time the torn soul can heal itself. Even so, it is certain to remain damaged and scarred. Still that implies that for many months and perhaps for years, the torn bit of soul is available for a Horcrux. I believe for most people, like soldiers, even without conscious repentance and remorse, the soul will heal on its own. For those who are truly evil, that tear in the soul could easily last a lifetime. So, the torn soul last, though the amount of time is long but variable. So, the main point is that the Horcrux doesn't have to be made immediately, and most likely, anyone evil enough to create one, is not likely to have that portion of the soul heal any time soon. So, I guess I am agreeing with that concept, but simply expanding the parameters of it. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sun Feb 26 20:13:00 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:13:00 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148835 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Ceridwen: > As you can see, I'm cherry-picking. I like this one because it seems > almost right to me. It's too bad that JKR saw fit not to show much > of the DADA class this year! From what we did see, IMO, there was a > very subtle difference between the first DADA intro and the first > Potions intro. Snape is somewhat sarcastic in DADA, but not to the > point of calling nearly every student he has ever taught > a 'dunderhead' (if memory serves). The students crane their necks to > keep him in view as he circuits the classroom. Parvati asks a > question and he answers without sarcasm. He calls on Hermione to > answer a question, he doesn't ignore her hand. He makes a comment > about her definition being straight out of a book (and names the > book, which is not their text). > > There is little else for classtime with Snape this book. Harry > doesn't seem to spend a lot of time musing about Snape, in or out of > class. So there must be some difference. Someone mentioned the fact > that Snape isn't as OTT this year, at least not from Harry's point of > view. Snape 'says' instead of 'sneers', for instance, when Harry > makes that 'sir' crack. As opposed to Potions, where he seemed tense. > Maybe he really does want to teach DADA. I always wondered if it doesn't simply come down to a combination of two things...Snape doesn't want to be a professor and Snape would rather just teach the Defense against the Dark Arts. Do we have any real idea that Snape seriously considered teaching as a career while he was in Hogwarts or soon after it? Wasn't he ordered to take the post by Voldemort and then stayed on for Dumbledore's protection and to maintain the image for Voldemort? So it seems like Snape never really had a choice as to becoming a teacher (which could explain the good teacher/bad teacher debate...we're dealing with a teacher who doesn't want to be a teacher). Secondly perhaps Snape just prefers the idea of teaching DADA over Potions...it could be personal choice, it could be because he likes DADA more, it could be because he feels he has more experience in one then the other (name one potions related thing Snape has done outside of Hogwarts...I can't seem to think of any), etc. So maybe Snape feels that if he has to be a teacher he'd rather be teaching DADA then Potions. Quick_Silver From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 20:28:27 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:28:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death was planned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148836 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Arlene" wrote: > > ...edited... > > I belive DD did in fact have that night planned. I always wondered > why DD did not just "Accio" his wand to save his life??? It was > right there. > > ...edited... > > He repeatedly asked for Harry to fetch Snape. It had to be Snape. > > He stopped Harry from intervening by freezing him. > > Then he "dropped" his wand and did not retrieve it. (He had enough > strength to stand there and talk to Draco for a while.) > > If anything was not expected at the tower that night, I'd say it > was confronting Draco. > > "Arlene" > bboyminn: I have one question that I always ask when people speculate that this was all planned by Dumbledore. How does Dumbledore enlist the cooperation of the Death Eaters? How can Dumbledore instigate any plan that involved the cooperation of is enemies? Couldn't Dumbledore in his infinite wisdom come up with a better plan that this? It's too unfathomable to think that Dumbledore would attempt to instigate a plan this complex with so much room for error and with so much risk to so many innocent people. Would Dumbledore really fake his death by inviting Death Eaters into a castle filled with innocent students and teachers? That seems a pretty careless even reckless plan to me. I remember when Sirius died, many people speculated that Dumbledore and/or Sirius had used the situation to fake Sirius's death. But this is equally absurd. I just don't see the good guys creating grand schemes that involve the complex cooperation of the bad guys. Especially when the general circumstances are so unlikely. There are hundreds of way to fake a death that don't involve such wacky and unlikely schemes. Now, I will admit that once fate had set the circumstances into motion, Snape and Dumbledore could have improvised a plan on the spot that worked the bad circumstances to their own best advantage. But, I simply can't see how this whole event was planned by Dumbledore. Just too absurd and unlikely. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Feb 26 20:36:57 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:36:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) References: Message-ID: <00a501c63b14$63e4c6c0$92b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 148837 >> Pippin: >> Trusting Dumbledore is dangerous and skeezy?? Where do you get >> that? Who in canon has come to harm by trusting Dumbledore? Nora: > > Trusting in Dumbledore because 'he's Dumbledore!' and not using your > own critical faculty is dangerous. It's the kind of obedience, > because Dumbledore just *must* know best (because he knows the most), > which generated a good portion of Harry's misery in OotP. Dumbledore > flat-out admits how badly he's mishandled things at the end of the > book there. And of course, Dumbledore himself has come to harm by > trusting in himself enough not to share his thoughts or deep reasons > with other members of the Order. Magpie: I lean towards wanting people to think for themselves too, but I don't see Harry's troubles in OotP as coming from trusting Dumbledore. Had he done that he would have not made the mistakes he made-he's not trusting DD throughout the book. In fact, he's so angry at him he's keeping things from him. I seem to recall thinking Harry sometimes acted like a neglected girlfriend in OotP.:-) The lesson to me seemed more that it was unreasonable for Dumbledore to expect Harry would do that. One of the things that drives me crazy about DD's ending speech in OotP, in fact, is that while he starts off saying he's made all these mistakes what he then goes on to explain is how other people screwed up. His mistake was in expecting too much of them. He knew about Snape's issues with Harry and Sirius' hating to be cooped up with Kreacher, but he thought they'd overcome those things if he let them try. So in a sense I'd say a lot of the tragedy in OotP, unfortunately, comes from people not trusting Dumbledore and trying to go on their own instints when they themselves aren't making clear decisions either. Molly agrees with DD to not tell Harry the truth--but I think that's in a large part because Molly herself doesn't want Harry to know the truth. The problems seem to come almost from people being in between: they don't completely trust Dumbledore so feel they have to act on their own, but they don't have the information they need so they do the wrong things. Had they all just docily followed Dumbledore's orders thngs wouldn't have turned out the way they did in that book. Would things have worked differently if Hermione hadn't just felt the boys should trust Snape because Dumbledore did? I don't know. It just seems like the lack of trust of Snape caused more problems in OotP. The one time I can think of where the book makes a point of showing that Dumbledore doesn't know all is, imo, in the Draco story. That, I think, was a situation where Dumbledore was ready to make the same mistake he had made in the past, where he knew everything about the situation but underestimated its affect on the person involved and so thought he could control everything in his hands-off way. Harry did not know what Draco was up to the way DD did, but he instinctively knew to not underestimate him because he was the person who'd been put in the most similar type situations in the past, so luckily he had some backup ready when the DEs arrived. It wasn't that Harry was right and DD was wrong, but that they both had blindspots in their pov that the other one covered. I think before DD's death he and Harry both acknowledged the other was "right" as well as wrong. With Snape, I don't know. We've got, imo, evidence that DD makes his usual mistake with Snape in that he knows the story but can't really relate to the emotions. Harry instinctively feels Snape is more of a threat, however Harry's instincts about Snape are the opposite of his instincts about Draco in that he just sees Snape as the enemy and doesn't really have an idea of what Snape's situation is like from his own pov. He doesn't like empathizing with Snape, yet that's the insight Dumbledore lacks that Harry might have. So...I don't know where it's going, exactly, of course. I guess based on what I've seen I'd say Dumbledore is correct in his ideas of where Snape's heart lies, but has underestimated the emotions Snape is dealing with. That seems Dumbledore's MO thusfar. I don't see much coming from the idea that Dumbledore just fell for an act. It seems like Rowling is more interested in this other kind of thing, where Dumbledore is right about Snape but still can't predict everything Snape will do. Which means yeah, Snape could have changed sides at some point, but I have to agree with those who think that if this was Snape's big reveal as a betrayer of DD, it was pretty undermined and confused. Both sides think Snape is their guy, so there's going to be that deflating of expectations somewhere. That we got this first makes me assume it's the second possibility that's the more interesting and the truth. That is, if Snape's true loyalties are really a central question in the books, which they have seemed to me to be. -m From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Sun Feb 26 20:56:26 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:56:26 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? WAS: Re: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148838 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" > wrote: > ... > > > > Still, the idea Snape's hubris & the DADA curse trapped him in the > > UV and brought down Dumbledore with him is just so.....Snape. HE > is > > jinxed. Harry may be wrong about this one, it may be the people > > Snape *loves* who end up dead, and because of his own costly > > mistakes. > > > > Jen > > > > The idea that it was Snape's mistakes that brought about the debacle > in HBP along with a helping hand from Voldemort (perhaps) is, IMO, > perhaps the most...compelling, interesting, insert other word > here...outcome of the events of HBP. It makes Snape into a truly > tragic figure in a way that him being DDM!Snape (with a master plan) > or ESE!Snape can't really present. It also makes it...easier on > Harry to come to terms with what Snape did because Snape allowed his > pride and the cunning of Lord Voldemort to bring about the events. > In a way it's like Ginny in CoS and like Dumbledore said "older and > more experienced wizards have been hoodwinked by Lord Voldemort." (I > find there's a lot of cross over between CoS and HBP) > ... > > Quick_Silver > La Gatta Lucianese: I like this theory very much, being a student of Greek literature. ;D However, Snape falling victim to a tragic flaw and a clever enemy doesn't preclude the idea of a plan worked out between him and Dumbledore to deal with such a contingency. I have always seen this plan as being more like a cat's cradle than a bronze tablet: "*If* it becomes necessary to convince Voldemort that you are his man,..." "*If* it becomes necessary to get you out of Hogwarts,..." "*If* I am ever incapacitated to the point that I am a danger to you and the school,..." "...this is what we do." This is where my own pet theory of the reverse horcrux kicks in--convince the world, Voldemort, and for good measure Harry Potter, that Dumbledore is dead and Snape, the nasty traitor, killed him. You can bet that such a plan would include wiggle room for getting Dumbledore (if he is still alive) and Snape to a safe haven, and either securing the school or getting the students and other faculty safely away. I *love* the idea of Harry walking flat-footed into the aftermath of such a plan and ending up with egg on his face--again. ;D From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 21:03:26 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:03:26 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: <00a501c63b14$63e4c6c0$92b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148839 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > Magpie: > I lean towards wanting people to think for themselves too, but I > don't see Harry's troubles in OotP as coming from trusting > Dumbledore. I see them as resulting from the decisions of others to trust in Dumbledore on the whole silence and lack of information front. Let me state that I take it as important here that people don't control their emotions and feelings with an iron fist, and that these things are desperately important, maybe even more than the rational side of things in this fictional universe. Dumbledore's actions cause a great deal of upset on this front, enough that it can't be neglected and enough that it eventually trumps the "I should sit down and shut up and obey because I've been told to" line. If someone had challenged Dumbledore on this front (irony of ironies that it's Sirius, the casualty, who wanted to?), this central tension of the book could have been worked out. Of course, then the book wouldn't have had a driving conflict, but it could have had another one, hypothetically. While on some fronts it is the lack of trust which is important, I tend to view the "sit down and shut up and obey" order as a primary generator for said lack of trust. Trust is not a shiny coin which one can generate out of nowhere and hand along from person to person, having it or not; it's a subtle and complicated thing with layers which takes time to develop. > I don't see much coming from the idea that Dumbledore just fell for > an act. I see a lot of potential in the idea that Dumbledore fell for seeing some of what he wanted to see, precisely because he's not capable of putting himself into someone else's shoes and really understanding the irrational/emotional sides of others. He knows what he thinks is Good, but I'm not sure at all that he's cognizant of what it takes for each individual to reach the state that he would want them to. > That we got this first makes me assume it's the second possibility > that's the more interesting and the truth. Sadly, 'interesting' and 'true' have nothing to do with each other, in my experience. :) -Nora finds her current work to prove that point very, very solidly From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 21:06:02 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:06:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060226210602.54957.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148840 One quick question: Are we going to accept this family tree (and the implications it might have) as canon? Or is it just an entertaining item that can be ignored? Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Feb 26 21:49:10 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:49:10 -0000 Subject: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: <20060226210602.54957.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148841 Magda: > One quick question: > > Are we going to accept this family tree (and the implications it > might have) as canon? Or is it just an entertaining item that can be > ignored? Potioncat: This family tree is a whomping willow. Everytime you try to connect something on one branch to a known fact, another branch swings around and whomps you. The dates are particularly wild. I vote for enjoying the entertainment value...just don't fly too close! From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 26 22:13:34 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:13:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Souls and Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148842 bboyminn: >On the subject of 'Harry-the Horcrux', there is one small flaw in the >thinking that I think must be cleared up before I can accept the >theory. That is - Dumbledore doesn't seem to agree. If he >hasn't put two and two together, then I find it hard to believe it is >there. >So, if someone could explain how the great all-knowing >Dumbledore could have missed this bit, then I would like to hear the >explanation. PJ: I'm not sure whether I believe Harry is a horcrux or not at this point but I do see a bit of wiggle room in Dumbledore's explanations for it to go either way. If Harry is a horcrux you can bet Dumbledore hasn't missed the possibility at all... In OOtP He tells Harry "I cared about you too much." "I cared more for your happiness than you knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed. In other words, I acted exactly as Voldermort expects we fools who love to act." "Is there a defense? I defy anyone who has watched you as I have--and I have watched you more closely than you can have imagined--not want to save you more pain than you had already suffered. What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy?" (OOtP pg 838/839 US) He cares so much for Harry's peace of mind and happiness that he's given him half truths and avoided some cold, hard facts that Harry should have known all those years, right? Well, then when he names Nagini as a *possible* horcrux and tells Harry that yes, living things can be horcruxes too even though it's not a good idea, I see that as one of those times where Dumbledore *might* just have fudged a bit in order to keep Harry happy... Realistically speaking, telling Harry he's one of 6 horcruxes would not do much for his peace of mind or happiness. Knowing he's a horcrux could provoke Harry into suicide (If I jump off this bridge that's one horcrux gone, DD can find the rest) or into a major depression making him a sitting duck for LV. The possibility would also exist that this information would make Harry much less interested in going after LV (figuring he also HAD to die in the process) and therefore much less valuable to the WW - not to mention totally mucking up Dumbledore's grand plans..... However, telling Harry that a living thing *can* be a Horcrux and letting him wander off to think it over and come up with the possibility of a Horcrux in the scar on his own seems a very Dumbledoreish thing to me. Is it cannon? No. Has the door been left open a teeny bit in these paragraphs? Yes... maybe. :-) Will one of the 3 consider the possibliity in the last book? I can almost bet on it. PJ From sydpad at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 22:38:43 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:38:43 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148843 Lupinlore: >If we were to >discover that all the DADA teachers in the last two or three decades >had spectacular meltdowns that would be one thing, but if there are a >lot of notations like "Went to work at Gringott's" or "Joined the >Auror office" that would be another thing entirely. Random speculation: Slugnhorn says love potions "can strengthen, you know, the longer they're kept" (hbp am. ed., pg.395). So maybe the DADA curse is the same? It's hard to picture Dumbeldore being able to get ANYBODY, if candidates consistently got killed, brain-wiped, outed, or stuffed in trunks for a year (did the DADA curse hit Moody, or Crouch Jr., or both?). Hagrid says in CoS: "People aren't too keen to take it on, see. They're starting to think it's jinxed. No one's lasted long fer a while." (thanks, Pippin!). So maybe it went from relatively mild stuff, escalating to the catastrophes we get by the time Harry's there. Actually, this could further be explained by V-mort's increasing corporeality-- the more anchored his spirt is in the world, the stronger his curse gets? Ceridwen: >From what we did see, IMO, there was a >very subtle difference between the first DADA intro and the first >Potions intro. ... Someone mentioned the fact >that Snape isn't as OTT this year, at least not from Harry's point of >view. Snape 'says' instead of 'sneers', for instance, when Harry >makes that 'sir' crack. As opposed to Potions, where he seemed tense. >Maybe he really does want to teach DADA. I think a more resonant explanation for Snape's calmer demeanor, is that he knows this is his last year teaching, and is already focusing ahead to... getting back to V-mort at last, getting back to bringing down V-mort full-time at last, dying, whatever. I'd say 'frustration' was Snape's dominant mood in Potions class, but I really think it makes more sense that this was due to being stuck there, wheras, unless he's an idiot, he must realize the DADA job only lasts one year. Look, there was a reason so many people thought Snape wanting the DADA job so badly was just one of those school rumours-- it's because it really doesn't ring true. It's a child's view of an adult, that the one job would be sooo much more important to someone than the other. Snape's problem with teaching Potions is obviously the teaching, not the Potions. If they were making Snape teach gym, I would understand, but Snape love of Potions and Dark arts is about on the same level--his Potions book was crammed with notes on both. Okay, maybe he loves Dark Arts a sliver more, but it's a difference without a distinction. Ceridwen: >Let's put these two together. [Maybe he really does want to teach DADA.] Snape thought he could break the >curse. He assumed that either a) LV would lift it, or b) LV would >give him the formula to break it, both suggestions because if there's >a curse, it seems LV placed it, and Snape is, to LV, LV's man in >Hogwarts. Why would he want his man ousted? If Snape really prefers >this job, then he might want this to be true. Well, Snape was applying for this every year when V-mort was missing-vapourmort as well, so I don't see how he thought he could communicate to him that, by the way, could he lift the DADA curse for him while he was floating around in limbo?'. Also, this doesn't explain why Dumbledore doesn't give him the job. This is a very important point that I haven't seen anybody cover. I can't see that it's because Dumbledore is more worried about something happening to Snape than something happening to, say, Lupin or Moody. I don't know, maybe Dumbledore really, really likes Snape as a Potions teacher and doesn't want to lose him? *is dubious*. Lupinlore: >Perhaps the question of Snape wanting the DADA job is a "Sometimes a >cigar..." moment. Sometimes things really don't go any deeper than >they appear. We've already had some of those. In the wake of OOTP, >there was a thriving industry of threads having to do with DD's "real" >intent in Harry living with the Dursleys. That is he was "training" >Harry, he did not want Harry to grow up spoiled, yada, yada, yada. >But, it would appear from HBP that, no, there was never any reason >other than the obvious one -- he really thought it was the only way to >keep Harry alive. Similarly, there was a major, in fact overwhelming, >group of threads having to do with the "real" shipping patterns under >the surface of the Potterverse. But no, sometimes -- in fact very >often -- the obvious answer is the correct one. I think your example points towards another trait of JKR's writing though-- not 'obviousness', but strength, simplicity, and clarity in motivations. The thing that pops into my head is Ludo Bagman wanting Harry to win the tournament: Bagman presents it as simply taking a sudden liking for Harry for no particual reason; the reader is left to play with ESE!interpretations, and then we resolve it with the very simple, straightforward, and in-character bet with the goblins. Lupinlore: >With regard to Snape, the answer may be that his apparent irrational >>obsession is... well... an irrational obsession. We've all known such >cases -- i.e. someone who has a deep seated and fundamental desire for >something that we can clearly see will not only NOT bring them the >happiness they think it will but will, in fact, be actively harmful. ... >In a very real sense, people possessed by such obsessions are addicts -- > it's just that they are addicted to certain dreams and goals as >opposed to drugs or alcohol or abusive relationships. And addicts are >accomplished liars, both to themselves and others. It's the way they >protect and preserve their addiction. >If you buy into the DADA curse, it would nevertheless be very >realistic, from a human standpoint, for Snape to constantly be making >up reasons to himself and others why he should get the job, anyway. >...After Voldy's returned, he probably convinced himself >just as firmly that the curse would not apply to HIM. He could break >it if he wanted to, or else Voldemort would remove it once Snape, who >is at least playing at getting Voldemort's man, gets the job. In fact, >he probably believed all three things at once. You lose me with the 'addict' analogy-- he's addicted to applying for the DADA job? He's addicted to the Dark Arts? But couldn't he be practicing Dark Arts without teaching them? Why the obsession with the job itself? You say, oh, it's just an irrational obsession-- you seem to be saying that there is simply no understandable explanation for Snape's mindset here, so why even bother? I'll call this the, "How am I supposed to understand how a werewolf's mind works" explanation... I just want to know, why do you think Snape keeps appying for the DADA job? All I'm getting is, he wants the job because he wants the job. What about the curse? "Oh, either he's psychologically blocked it out (which is an expalantion without explaining anything), or maybe it's just been a cooincidence or something". What emotional need do you see this fulfilling for him, that he's applied for 14 years? Why does Dumbledore NOT give it to Snape? He gives it to other people. Why specifically not Snape? Why has JKR plugged this fact about Snape every single book and flagged a big plot development with it in HBP? >It's true that Snape just being >irrationally obsessed with the DADA job to the point that he is self- >destructive about it doesn't tell us much that we didn't already know, >and doesn't tell Harry much that Harry didn't already know. So what? >Life is full of situations where answers don't run past the obvious and >where people's motivations are very clear, even if they are >irrational. See, this is where I'm like, yeah, that's why people read books and go to movies. Because life is boring and it doesn't make sense and it doesn't really go anywhere. Why doesn't JKR have the books consist of entire chapters where people do laundry? That's life-like! Maybe the war with Voldemort will just sort of peter out! Maybe Hermionie will drop out of the fight because she suddenly gets obsessed with ponies instead! Sorry I sound frustrated, it's just that I feel like I'm in a story meeting where someone is actually arguing for a option that's weaker-- less tied in to the plot, less motivated, less informative, less surprising, less meaningful, and with some big consistency issues-- BECAUSE it's weaker. How am I supposed to argue with that? -- Sydney, seriously considering using the, "it's more lifelike if it doesn't make sense and is sort of random" pitch in a meeting, just to see the looks on people's faces... From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Feb 26 23:19:53 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:19:53 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148844 sydney: > Hagrid says in CoS: "People aren't too keen > to take it on, see. They're starting to think it's jinxed. No one's > lasted long fer a while." (thanks, Pippin!). So maybe it went from > relatively mild stuff, escalating to the catastrophes we get by the > time Harry's there. Actually, this could further be explained by > V-mort's increasing corporeality-- the more anchored his spirt is in > the world, the stronger his curse gets? zgirnius: The problem with the increasing corporeality argument is that Voldemort was fully corporeal at the time he cast the curse, and remained so for a good twenty years. I think I'll go for the 'curses that stay too long get worse' argument instead. Another thought I had was that maybe Voldemort's personal involvement with the curse magnifies it. The only two to die were Quirrell and Crouch, Jr. One possessed by Voldemort while under the curse, and the other a Death Eater. Of course, this would suggest ths curse should also take a particularly malign form for Snape, ss he too is a Death Eater. (I mean, in the sense that he still has that mark...so a magical connection to Voldemort, whether or not he still wants it). And the other three holders we saw really were more problematic, I would hope, than the average teacher who has held the post. (Lockhart and Umbridge because they are bad people, Lupin, because he does have a bigger and more dangerous secret.) Sydney: > him while he was floating around in limbo?'. Also, this doesn't > explain why Dumbledore doesn't give him the job. This is a very > important point that I haven't seen anybody cover. I can't see that > it's because Dumbledore is more worried about something happening to > Snape than something happening to, say, Lupin or Moody. I don't know, > maybe Dumbledore really, really likes Snape as a Potions teacher and > doesn't want to lose him? *is dubious*. zgirnius: I think Dumbledore wanted Snape to still be at Hogwarts when Voldemort returned. And with the DADA curse, there was a possibility that would not work out if he gave Snape that position. Dumbledore always intended to send Snape back to spying on Voldemort (as he did when Voldemort returned in GoF). And, to help get Snape initially accepted back to the fold, Snape had to have something to offer Voldemort-. And that, Dumbledore always planned to be his position at Hogwarts in close proximity to Dumbledore. Something he knew Voldemort valued, as he had ordered Snape to seek employment there himself. From kking0731 at gmail.com Sun Feb 26 23:41:16 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:41:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The House of Black - family tree musings In-Reply-To: References: <20060226210602.54957.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148845 On 2/26/06, potioncat wrote: > > Magda: > > One quick question: > > > > Are we going to accept this family tree (and the implications it > > might have) as canon? Or is it just an entertaining item that can be > > ignored? > > Potioncat: > This family tree is a whomping willow. Everytime you try to connect > something on one branch to a known fact, another branch swings around > and whomps you. The dates are particularly wild. > > I vote for enjoying the entertainment value...just don't fly too close! > > > Snow: > > > > The analogy that you made, Potioncat, was just too cute to pass up > admiration for?even if this is an elf rule no-no. Great comment! Couldn't > have put it better! > > > > Thanks for the giggle! > > > > Snow > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Feb 27 01:05:34 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:05:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore the Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148846 > ... > > But, do you think it's likely that Dumbledore did indeed turn into a > phoenix at his burial? Harry (I haven't got the book to do a direct > quote from atm) sees 'for a brief moment' what looks like a phoenix > rising from the white flames that burst to life, but then it vanishes. > ... > > Lauren > > ... > > But, do you think it's likely that Dumbledore did indeed turn into a > phoenix at his burial? Harry (I haven't got the book to do a direct > quote from atm) sees 'for a brief moment' what looks like a phoenix > rising from the white flames that burst to life, but then it vanishes. > Do we think that this is just what happens at a wizard burial, are > Harry's eyes playing tricks on him, or has Dumbledore evolved and > started his next great adventure in the body of a phoenix, > and 'flashed' away before he is noticed? Could he have known this > before he gave his life? > ... > > Lauren > La Gatta Lucianese: I think there is something a lot less "mystical" going on here. I have been wondering for some time why JKR went to the trouble of showing us Fawkes on a burning day, bursting into flames and reappearing as a baby phoenix from the ashes (CoS.12). (This being JKR, I'm willing to bet she wasn't just filling the gentle reader in on the reproductive habits of the phoenix.) Here is what we learn (Cos.12): "[Harry] wasn't alone after all. Standing on a golden perch behind the door was a decrepit-looking bird that resembled a half-plucked turkey. Harry stared at it and the bird looked balefully back, making its gagging noise again. Harry thught it looked very ill. Its eyes were dull and, even as Harry watched, a couple more feathers fell out of its tail. "Harry was just thinking that all he needed was for Dumbledore's pet bird to die while he was alone with it, when the bird birst into flames. "Harry yelled in shock and backed away into the desk....the bird, meanwhile, had become a fireball; it gave one loud shriek and next second there was nothing but a smoldering pile of ash on the floor.... "'Professor,' Harry gasped. 'Your bird--I couldn't do anything--he just caught fire--'... "'Fawkes is a phoenix, Harry. Phoenixes burst into flame when it is time for them to die and are reborn from the ashes. Watch him...' "Harry looked down in time to see a tiny, wrinkled, newborn bird poke its head out of the ashes. It was quite as ugly as the old one. "'It's a shame you had to see him on a Burning Day," said Dumbledore, seating himself behind his desk. 'He's realy very handsome most of the time, wonderful red and gold plumage. Fascinating creatures, phoenixes. The can carry immensely heavy loads, their tears have healing powers, and they make highly *faithful* pets.'" This was in December of Harry's second year at Hogwarts. Six months later, early in the following summer, Fawkes was fully grown and able to rescue Harry and Co. from the Chamber of Secrets (Cos.17, HPL.Timelines: Harry Potter). Hold that thought. Now, we know that Dumbledore's Patronus is a phoenix (confirmed by JKR, EBF.2004). If he is also an animagus, and it seems likely that such a powerful wizard would be, odds are that his animagus form is also a phoenix. Now, then: Let us assume for the sake of argument that whatever Snape did on the Astronomy Tower (HBP.27) and however Dumbledore or Snape got Dumbledore down from the tower (HBP.28), Dumbledore is alive at the end of HBP. He is also old enough to be losing his touch (HBP.2), and he has sustained a serious injury from the ring horcrux that may be continuing to sap his strength (HBP.3). He is also much the worse for having drunk the potion in the cave (HBP.27). If he were a phoenix, he would be ripe and overdue for burning, as he himself must know (CoS.12): "'About time too,' [Dumbledore] said. 'He's been looking dreadful for days; I've been telling him to get a move on.'" Fast forward to Dumbledore's funeral (HBP.30). Hagrid carries something "wrapped in purple velvet spangled with gold stars" to the white marble table. His burden is "what Harry knew to be Dumbledore's body." Well...it may or it may not be Dumbledore's body; Harry has been known to be wrong before. But let's assume that it is--only not Dumbledore's *dead* body. Hagrid places his burden tenderly on the marble table and withdraws. The "little, tufty-haired man" gets up to speak. At the end of his eulogy, he resumes his seat, and quite suddenly (enough to startle the audience), "Bright, white flames...erupted around Dumbledore's body and the table on which it lay. White smoke spiraled into the air and made strange shapes: Harry thought, for one heart-stopping moment, that he saw a phoenix fly joyfully into the blue, but next second the fire had vanished. In its place was a white marble tomb, encasing Dumbledore's body and the table on which he had rested." Everybody gets up and files reverently out... ...and later that night, Snape, alerted by Dumbledore's patronogram that he sent off in the last instant before he transformed and burned (the white phoenix Harry saw rising from the smoke), returns, retrieves Phoenix!Dumbledore from the tomb, and takes him into hiding until he has matured enough to turn back into Dumbledore and get on with whatever Plan B is. It fits. I like it. Some random related thoughts: 1. The HPL notes that Fawkes is red and gold, "...[which] happen to be the colors of Gryffindor House, interestingly enough." If Dumbledore's animagus form is also a phoenix, this could be further evidence that he was a Gryffindor. 2. Dumbledore "burning", being reborn as an infant phoenix, maturing in phoenix form, and then restoring himself to a mature human form neatly parallels Voldemort's immolation at Godric's Hollow, interval as Baby!mort, and return to an adult body. 3. If we accept my theory about Dumbledore's Spanish "vacation" (HP4GU #144575), HBP is not the first time Dumbledore has "phoenixed". Which may explain his exceptionally long life, even for a wizard. 4. I anticipate some arguments on maturity and lifespan of a wizard in animagus form. Peter Pettigrew doesn't acquire a rat's lifespan when he transforms into a rat; he lives for twelve years as Scabbers. On the other hand, he looks considerably older than the thirty-three or so years he must be when he is transformed back (thin, colorless hair, going bald, grubby skin, watery eyes), so perhaps his rat-years have told on him (PoA.19). The phoenix is also a magical creature, so it may be that when a wizard transforms into one, he becomes more akin to his animagus than he would if the animagus were a regular animal. Or perhaps Dumbledore used some heretofore undiscussed charm to allow him to mature at the phoenix's rate. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Feb 27 01:16:03 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:16:03 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148847 > Ceridwen: > >Let's put these two together. [Maybe he really does want to teach > DADA.] Snape thought he could break the > >curse. He assumed that either a) LV would lift it, or b) LV would > >give him the formula to break it, both suggestions because if there's > >a curse, it seems LV placed it, and Snape is, to LV, LV's man in > >Hogwarts. Why would he want his man ousted? If Snape really prefers > >this job, then he might want this to be true. Sydney: > Well, Snape was applying for this every year when V-mort was > missing-vapourmort as well, so I don't see how he thought he could > communicate to him that, by the way, could he lift the DADA curse for > him while he was floating around in limbo?'. Also, this doesn't > explain why Dumbledore doesn't give him the job. This is a very > important point that I haven't seen anybody cover. I can't see that > it's because Dumbledore is more worried about something happening to > Snape than something happening to, say, Lupin or Moody. I don't know, > maybe Dumbledore really, really likes Snape as a Potions teacher and > doesn't want to lose him? *is dubious*. Ceridwen: You're probably not going to get too many bites for Dumbledore's reasons when the thread is about Snape's reasons for wanting the position. But, if that's what you want, I'll play. There are a few things readily apparent in HBP. One is that Dumbledore has gone out of his way to get a new *Potions* professor. Harry thinks Slughorn is slated for DADA, and frankly, so did I. Isn't that the usual pattern? Hindsight tells me that I should have realized that a veteran Potions master would naturally take up his old position, especially since he taught the current Potions master. Hindsight is wonderful. You can see so clearly! Another thing which is not obvious, but is part of the knowledge behind the series so far, and which also ties in with my above, is that the school had a hard time finding a DADA professor the year before, hence Umbridge from the Ministry. It could have come to the point that no one else applied for it, and Dumbledore didn't want another meddling, potentially harmful drone from the MoM to traipse along and fill the slot. Dumbledore could have been worried about Snape. Or, more accurately, his spy in Voldemort's camp. If Snape takes the position and ends up leaving Hogwarts, two things happen. One, Snape is discredited somehow. In the most extreme example, which we got in HBP, Snape is discredited to the Order. He loses his usefulness to the Order as a spy. Two, Snape is no longer useful to Voldemort. He has lost his position near Dumbledore and can pass no useful information. This could mean Snape's life in the extreme, or it could mean limited ability to maintain contact with Dumbledore. Neither situation would be good. Some of us have speculated that Dumbledore knew this was his last year at Hogwarts/alive. He makes the request of the Dursleys to have Harry stay one more period of time the next summer all the way up in chapter three. This sounds like taking care of affairs, since he probably will not have another chance to speak with the Dursleys. When Slughorn mentions that DD ought to retire (slowing down), Dumbledore agrees and says he just might. Foreshadowing? Dumbledore is curt with Harry throughout the book, uncharacteristic behavior. He seems urgent in wanting to get things done in a hurry. His hand has been injured, and is described as looking dead. More foreshadowing? If Dumbledore is making arrangements for his own end throughout the book, then he believes he will not be at Hogwarts, or able to make these arrangements, later on. Could he want Snape to go 'deep cover' with LV? If Snape goes deep-cover, he may become privy to more information than he otherwise would have gotten by being only peripheral to the DEs, since his time necessarily had to be spent at Hogwarts. Or, he could become a catalyst for disgruntled DEs to turn against LV and be hidden by DD and/or the Order. He would be in a place which is more suitable to throwing monkey wrenches, or spanners, into the works on the DE end of things. He might become a free agent wandering around, finding things, or helping Harry on his quest. Were you one of the people who think that DD didn't mean to actually die at the end of HBP? If so, this scenario might make some sense. Because even if Snape was discredited somehow to everybody else, he would still, in the initial theory, have DD to take his reports. A dead DD was not on the table. On Snape applying every year, apparently Dumbledore never quite believed that Voldemort was gone. Dumbledore would certainly inform Snape of this suspicion, so they could carry out the charade every year. No matter whether Snape turns out to be any sort of Alphabet! Snape, Dumbledore insisted that he trusted him, and would have provided for his spy. And, since the DADA curse is apparently automatic, then, in the Potterverse, could the lifting of the curse for the 'right' applicant also be automatic? How's that for a start? Ceridwen, who wonders how the Dramaturgical Approach would apply? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 01:33:43 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:33:43 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148848 > Alla: > > And sure, I can see DD wanting to protect Draco despite little > > shmuck not wanting such protection and plotting to kill the > > Headmaster, I can see that. > > Pippin: > You make it sound like Dumbledore was foolish to want to do that. > Indeed that's your argument against "Snape took the vow to protect > Draco" isn't it? > > But if Draco were a real child, surely you wouldn't call him foul > names in Yiddish and suggest that because his gangster family > had involved him in a murder plot, he didn't deserve the help > and protection of his teachers. Snape did *not* vow to help > Draco carry out the task itself -- in fact he made it very clear to > Bella and Cissy that the Dark Lord expected Draco to try first > and he couldn't interfere with that. Alla: Erm... sure, Pippin. My frustration with DD giving generous second chances to Draco is because of my extreme dislike of this character, nothing more. And no, I don't think Dumbledore was foolish, but too noble for his own good. He IS a better person than me, that's for sure. I don't know if I would go out of my way to protect a teenager who was delighted to started serving Dark Lord by preparing my assasination, but the teacher like Dumbledore - sure. See, I can NOT forget how HAPPY Draco looked on his Hogwarts express and that was before he knew that Voldemort would threaten his family. So, I am not quite buying "trapped Draco". I mean SURE Voldemort intented to trap Draco, but Draco's mindset BEFORE he knew that he would be trapped means a huge difference to me. Believe me, despite my extreme dislike of his character, I would be able to feel pity for him, if from the beginning Voldemort would have said "You have to kill DD, or your family is dead", but Draco did not know all that yet and STILL he was eager to do it. Katie almost died. Did that stop Draco? Nope. Ron almost died. Did that stop Draco? Nope. So, to answer your question, if that was a real child who was eager to assasinate me ( and where do you get "his family trapped him?"), I would not feel much warm fuzzy feelings towards him, but I do respect and admire people who would. Of course, situation would be quite different in RL, I would surely try and remember his age and I suppose would try to help such teenager, if I could, but I don't know. I hope I won't be in such situation, frankly. Pippin: > I think it's a mistake to assume Dumbledore wouldn't risk both > himself and Snape for Draco's sake. Alla: I actually don't think that DD won't risk himself for his students sake, I just don't think that he was ready to DIE for Draco that night. I think he intended to help Draco by staying alive. IMO of course. And yes, I do think that Draco can still go both ways. He can return or become faithful DE. The main question for me whether he becomes like Snape or not. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 03:17:33 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 03:17:33 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? WAS: Re: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148849 > > Ceridwen: Now I'm wondering if the spying, if it's > > true, has more to do with Snape getting the job? Did LV just get > > tired of excuses and say it had to be done? Does he doubt Snape's > > sincere efforts? [ ] Is the curse there to do Dumbledore in? It's > > had its chances... > > Jen: Now *this* would qualify as a twisted Dark Lord motivation in > my book; I'm going to place my bets here, Ceridwen. Plus this would > make sense of the moment in Dumbledore's office when Voldemort > appeared to be considering pulling his wand. "No, not here where > he's protected, but he'll rue the day he defied me!" The more I > think about it, the more compelling it becomes--if Dumbledore won't > let Voldemort back into Hogwarts, then Dumbledore won't be able to > stay there, either. Alla: Hee. I like this motivation too, since it works with ESE!Snape or Grey! or OFH!Snape also or even if it does not, I STILL like it, just for the elegance. Bravo, Ceridwen and Jen too. :-) But yes, if Voldemort placed the real curse, which is supposed to play out as described - namely Voldemort's man getting DADA job and doing Dumbledore in, wouldn't it mean that the curse ONLY works if someone who is truly Voldemort man gets the job? Or am I confused here? I am just talking about intentions. If Snape only applies for the job for fourteen years to fool Voldemort and in reality he has no intention of ever getting the job, wouldn't it mean that when he does get a job, the circumstances or fate( driven by the curse) will not conspire against him and will not lead him to killing Dumbledore since he is not really Voldemort's man? > Ceridwen: > > Anyway, if the curse is there to get Dumbledore out, then someone > > tied to LV (Snape has the Dark Mark, and is at least supposedly > > working for LV) would finally get it done, even if he or she > > didn't want to. Maybe that's the nature of the curse, and now > > that Dumbledore is no longer headmaster, the curse is over. > > *Maybe*. Alla: So, basically you are saying that the curse will work even if Snape is not Voldemort's man anymore, sort of like "Imperio" through Dark Mark? Just curious. Pippin: > It *is* common knowledge that there's a curse, by the way. > > "People aren't too keen to take it on, see. They're starting to think it's > jinxed. No one's lasted long for a while now" -- Hagrid, ch 7, CoS. Alla: Thanks, Pippin. Yeah, that means I should discard "Snape did not know about the curse" speculation as not valid, since if Hagrid knows about it, surely Snape does. :-) But I still like Snape believing that he as supremely capable wizard can deal with the curse ( that is if he DD!M of course). > Jen: I think so, too, about Snape not having a clue. He and Harry > were probably not so different in believing Dumbledore could always > manage to save the day. Talk about illusions shattered on both sides > on the tower! Weak!Dumbledore was not supposed to be one of the > options. Alla: You know, I just thought of something. Not that I dig completely DD! M Snape of course, but if he emerges and what you said was true - that Snape just as Harry expected DD to save the day, there is certainly a hint that Snape respected DD power. When Harry tells Snape in OOP that DD calls Voldie by his name, Snape says that DD is a powerful wizard and can afford to do it ( paraphrase). I prefer to think that Snape also started to deeply resent DD of course. :-) JMO, Alla From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 02:46:28 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:46:28 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148850 Sydney wrote: > > > Sorry I sound frustrated, it's just that I feel like I'm in > a story meeting where someone is actually arguing for a option that's > weaker-- less tied in to the plot, less motivated, less informative, > less surprising, less meaningful, and with some big consistency > issues-- BECAUSE it's weaker. How am I supposed to argue with that? > > You know, I agree with you totally. The kind of explanation about which Nora and I are talking would not make for a very good movie at all (it's my understanding that the meetings to which you refer are part of the film industry). But then, we aren't talking about a movie. The kind of psychologically realistic take we are discussing might not be good on film, but at least some of us think that it is, at least occasionally, good in novels. I agree totally that if JKR went that way, it would make the eventual movie rather problematic -- but that's beside the point. There are plenty of novels that work well as novels that would NEVER work as movies. Often it's because they aren't very cinematic in their take on things -- i.e. that they just let irrationality be irrationality and self-destructive behavior be self-destructive behavior and they acknowledge that sometimes human motivation is neither logical nor meaningful for anyone other than the person being motivated. They don't try to make every answer to every question be some kind of deep revelation that takes the plot and characters in a surprising or new direction. That's terribly uncinematic and would make for a horrible film script -- but it can make for a very good novel. Lupinlore From juli17 at aol.com Mon Feb 27 03:51:02 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:51:02 EST Subject: Getting people to work together (was Why does Snape...)--Long Message-ID: <102.713296d3.3133d126@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148851 Lupinlore wrote: She has also told us that it is McGonagall, not Snape, whom she regards as Dumbledore's lieutenant and second-in-command. Julie: Just curious, when did JKR say that? To all appearances she is his second at Hogwarts in regards to teaching and administration there, and she is now acting Headmistress. But I've never read anything where JKR said or implied McGonagall was Dumbledore's lieutenant and second-in-command (i.e., right-hand person) in regards to the war or the Order, which is where many of us think Snape has probably been privy to the most inside information. Which only makes sense, as Snape is spying for Dumbledore. (And that is sharing of strategy and information, not sharing of deep emotional feelings, which is the area where I fully agree Dumbledore has no "confidante".) Lupinlore: Now, if you put all that together, I think it's very plausible that many of DD's conversations with Snape were mirror images of his conversations with Harry. That is, Snape was constantly demanding to know what Dumbledore *saw* in the cheeky brat, and DD was constantly turning his questions aside in much the same way he turned aside Harry's questions about Snape. For example: Julie now: Of course, it could have also gone something like this: Snape: Potter could have killed Malfoy! He had no business using that curse! I've said it before, that boy's impetuousness and his inability to control his emotions will be his downfall, as well as *ours*, Headmaster. Dumbledore: I agree it is something we must help him overcome. But Harry learned a very valuable lesson today, not so dissimilar to one you once learned, I believe. Snape: I never almost killed someone with that curse! And it wasn't my idea to put my old Potions textbook where Potter could so *coincidentally* obtain it. I can't believe you pilfered it from my -- Dumbledore (smiling): Pilfered? That's a rather strong word, Severus. Snape: When the word fits-- Dumbledore: And I don't hold you responsible for how Harry uses the information he gleans from it. That is his judgment, which he must live with, as we all must live with our own decisions. But the information he's learning from the Half-Blood Prince--from you--will be important for him. Snape: Which he could have learned it in my Potions classes, if he'd ever *bothered* to actually pay attention. Dumbledore: That would have been the easiest way, I agree. As to why it failed to happen, well, that's neither here nor there now. What is critical is that Harry must be prepared for what he will very soon face. And don't scowl at me, Severus, I'm not any happier about it than you are. But we both know some things are...inevitable. Now, I understand that you've already assigned appropriate punishment for Harry's, um, misdeed? Snape: Saturday detentions for the rest of the year. Unfortunately for him, he'll have to miss his beloved Quidditch games. Dumbledore: Indeed. Though I suppose it does give the other Houses a fighting chance at the trophy this year. (smiles) Snape (snorts): Once again, you are overestimating Potter's abilities and importance, Headmaster. Dumbledore: You think so? I don't agree, of course. Nor does Fawkes. Snape (wincing at Fawkes' sudden trill): Of course. And Fawkes has questionable skill when it comes to judging a wizard's real merit. Dumbledore (eyes twinkling): Then why does he want you to pet him? Snape scowls, has no answer to give, and grudgingly pets Fawkes. (see, I agree Snape doesn't quite see Harry with the same rosy glasses as Dumbledore, in fact his glasses need a good cleaning! But I think deep-down Snape does know Harry *is* the only one who will eventually defeat Voldemort, thus he acquiesces to Dumbledore's judgment even when he gives voice to his "doubts.") Julie --who just wanted to stick that Potions book into the conversation ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lynx412 at AOL.com Mon Feb 27 03:50:49 2006 From: Lynx412 at AOL.com (Lynx412 at AOL.com) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:50:49 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DADA job cursed???? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148852 In a message dated 2/26/2006 4:17:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, siddhu1616 at yahoo.co.in writes: > s d: > I don't think the job is cursed because when Voldie was explaining > his return to death eaters at the end of GoF he said that he met > Prof. Quirrell who was teaching at Hogwarts, this is the time before > Harry joined the school so this mean Quirrell was teaching at > Hogwarts for atleast two years? Hm, odd but explainable. Quirrell taught for a year, took his vacation, and linked up with LV. Before he actually started his second term, LV possessed him. So, that second year wasn't Quirrell it was LV or, more accurately QuirrellMort. Works for me, anyway. The Other Cheryl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 04:02:21 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 04:02:21 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148853 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: >> Sydney: >> >> I feel like I'm in a story meeting where someone is actually >> arguing for a option that's weaker-- less tied in to the plot, >> less motivated, less informative, less surprising, less >> meaningful, and with some big consistency issues-- BECAUSE it's >> weaker. How am I supposed to argue with that? I don't think that characterization of said option is entirely fair, but I'll actually take a different line on its usefulness. > Lupinlore: > They don't try to make every answer to every question be some kind > of deep revelation that takes the plot and characters in a > surprising or new direction. Not to mention the point made above, that not everything has Meaning in the grand scheme of things. I've read many writers talking about the craft of details, which go into setting a scene and creating atmosphere, but not all of them turn out to be hidden clues or particularly meaningful--yet the writing would be impoverished without them. It's often a trainwreck in literary terms when an author tries to make every single thing count for as much as he can, because there are too many balls in the air. It can become exhausting and tiring to read from making too many connections (and there are good musical analogues to this, too.) What is gained in this (or any case) by saying "Hey, sometimes obsession is just obsession, and this is a fundamental trait of the character" is that one doesn't take up time and space exploring it, which leaves it free for other things. I don't claim to know JKR's priorities, but I have noticed that they are not nearly as much with the adults as many readers would like. I'm not saying she's going to shunt aside all aspects of the Snape question (far from it), but I *am* fairly sure that she's not going to linger lovingly over them in detail, as we all would probably like her to just to settle some perpetual arguments. The gain of a simple explanation is that it's there on the table and characters can then do things that react to it and relate to it. It doesn't threaten to overgrow the rest of the story like kudzu. I recall a comment someone on another forum once made: "You know, with most other fantasy writers, Snape would be the main character and angst would be indulged in." -Nora is so very happy that some genre norms aren't being followed here From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Feb 27 04:05:24 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 23:05:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG References: Message-ID: <011b01c63b53$09557e40$92b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 148854 Lujpinlore: > But then, we aren't talking about a movie. The kind of psychologically > realistic take we are discussing might not be good on film, but at > least some of us think that it is, at least occasionally, good in > novels. I agree totally that if JKR went that way, it would make the > eventual movie rather problematic -- but that's beside the point. > There are plenty of novels that work well as novels that would NEVER > work as movies. Often it's because they aren't very cinematic in their > take on things -- i.e. that they just let irrationality be > irrationality and self-destructive behavior be self-destructive > behavior and they acknowledge that sometimes human motivation is > neither logical nor meaningful for anyone other than the person being > motivated. They don't try to make every answer to every question be > some kind of deep revelation that takes the plot and characters in a > surprising or new direction. That's terribly uncinematic and would > make for a horrible film script -- but it can make for a very good > novel. Magpie: But not the type of novel JKR is writing--she actually is very cinematic with a lot of mass-market in her style. She's not writing slice of life or stream of consciousness. Not that she doesn't ever have answers to questions that aren't that hugely important. Sydney mentioned Bagman having his own, rather mundane, reason for wanting Harry to win the tournament. Tonks' loss of looks were just love, not anything connected to Harry's troubles. Mark Evans was just a coincidence. The Droobles Gum Wrappers were just a symbol of Neville's mum trying to give him something, not a clue. But Snape's true motivations...I dunno. That seems like a pretty big issue that's been highlighted and brought up over and over. Whatever the answer is, I do think it's got to be something that means something--possibly everything. I think that's one question where the answer is going to have a deeper meaning, one way or the other. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 04:08:38 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 04:08:38 -0000 Subject: DADA Curse-a way to get rid of Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148855 > Alla: > > Hee. I like this motivation too, since it works with ESE!Snape or > Grey! or OFH!Snape also or even if it does not, I STILL like it, > just for the elegance. Bravo, Ceridwen and Jen too. :-) zgirnius: Yes, thumbs up for this idea! And I do not see why the idea would not work with every possible flavor of Snape, since it is all about Voldemort's motivation in making the curse. Alla: > But yes, if Voldemort placed the real curse, which is supposed to > play out as described - namely Voldemort's man getting DADA job and > doing Dumbledore in, wouldn't it mean that the curse ONLY works if > someone who is truly Voldemort man gets the job? zgirnius: Well, as I understood the explanation, the curse wants to get Dumbledore out of Hogwarts, period. And it strives to do so every year, regardless of the loyalties of the DADA teacher. Since many of the teachers are purely useless for this purpose, nothing happens and they are removed from the position in hopes someone more useful comes along, in various ways. Killing Dumbledore will do, of course, but so will lesser means. If Lupin had (horrible thought) managed to bite someone that one night, this might have led to Dumbledore's permanent removal by the Board of Governors, for example. And incidents in other years, as Ceridwen points out, could have (or did) cause Dumbledore's removal, though he was always reinstated at the end. Alla: > If Snape only applies for > the job for fourteen years to fool Voldemort and in reality he has > no intention of ever getting the job, wouldn't it mean that when he > does get a job, the circumstances or fate( driven by the curse) will > not conspire against him and will not lead him to killing Dumbledore > since he is not really Voldemort's man? zgirnius: The curse is always working to remove Dumbledore, and the teacher in case it fails, so it could try again with someone new. So it tried, and finally succeeded, with Snape. It had some excellent raw material to work with in terms of circumstances, in the form of an assassination plot already underway (courtesy of Voldemort). I wouldn't say this necessarily tells us anyting new about Snape's loyalties. After all, Barty Crouch was not led by the curse to kill Dumbledore, and he was most fervently Voldemort's man. > Alla: > > So, basically you are saying that the curse will work even if Snape > is not Voldemort's man anymore, sort of like "Imperio" through Dark > Mark? Just curious. zgirnius: No, it does not work like Imperius, I wouldn't say. I believe that the fact that the triggers for the climactic events of PoA occurred on a full moon night can be attributed to the curse. It did not Imperio Lupin into not drinking his potion, it just provided such a great shock to him at the wrong time that he (understandably) forgot. But it 'wanted' Lupin to skip a dose because it saw in his lycanthropy the perfect means to raise a sufficiently big stink to discredit Dumbledore for hiring him. In Snape's case, if he's ESE!/OFH! and planned to serve Voldemort at least in the murder of Dumbledore, the curse made it easy for him. All he had to do was show up and say the magic words. If he's OFH!/DDM! and didn't really want to kill Dumbledore for whatever OFH! reasons/out of loyalty to Dumbledore, it forced his hand. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Feb 27 04:29:10 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 04:29:10 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148856 Sydney: > Also, this doesn't explain why Dumbledore doesn't give him the > job. This is a very important point that I haven't seen anybody > cover. I can't see that it's because Dumbledore is more worried > about something happening to Snape than something happening to, > say, Lupin or Moody. I don't know, maybe Dumbledore really, really > likes Snape as a Potions teacher and doesn't want to lose him? > *is dubious*. zgirnius: > I think Dumbledore wanted Snape to still be at Hogwarts when > Voldemort returned. And with the DADA curse, there was a > possibility that would not work out if he gave Snape that > position. Dumbledore always intended to send Snape back to spying > on Voldemort (as he did when Voldemort returned in GoF). And, to > help get Snape initially accepted back to the fold, Snape had to > have something to offer Voldemort-. And that, Dumbledore always > planned to be his position at Hogwarts in close proximity to > Dumbledore. Something he knew Voldemort valued, as he had ordered > Snape to seek employment there himself. Jen: Ooh, that's good zgirnius. Would that qualify as 'strength, simplicity, and clarity in motivations' Sydney? Cause I agree JKR is pretty believable in her motivations. Fans don't always agree on the nature of said motivations, but they are laid out pretty cleanly. Still, what do people think about JKR's own explanation to Stephen Fry, that Dumbledore is worried the DADA position will 'bring out the worst' in Snape? Why would she say something so directly she doesn't mean? Such an unambiguous statement has weight in my mind. And I don't think it undermines Dumbledore's trust of Snape because we have examples where a person under a curse isn't him/herself and acts in ways they wouldn't normally do, like under the Imperio for instance. This is also in keeping with Dumbledore's actions regarding others' health and safety, isn't it? He tried to keep Sirius safe by ordering him to stay put in Grimmauld. He tried to prolong Harry's 'normal' life by keeping the information about the prophecy from him. Protecting Snape from the DADA because of his own past would be a safety issue and not a trust issue. It's sort of akin to the dementors affecting Harry more severely because he has 'horrors in [his] past that others don't have'; maybe Snape's past makes him more vulnerable to the curse, or at least Dumbledore worries it could. Lupinlore: > With regard to Snape, the answer may be that his apparent > irrational obsession is... well... an irrational obsession. We've > all known such cases -- i.e. someone who has a deep seated and > fundamental desire for something that we can clearly see will not > only NOT bring them the happiness they think it will but will, in > fact, be actively harmful. Jen: Obsession *was* a major theme in HBP and not all obsessions have a rational base. Look at Riddle's fascination with trinkets. That turned into an obsession he was willing to murder for in order to get specific treasures which held symbolic value for him. Not a rational idea to most people! And we have no basis for his obsession, it started as a young boy and grew stronger over the years until he was putting parts of his soul into these objects, almost deifying them. His connection to Hogwarts was the link for going after Founder's objects specifically, but the original fascination with trinkets? Nothing, zilch, nada on why that started. To get back on the topic , it might be there's *not* much more of an answer to why Snape wanted the DADA position other than being attracted to the dark arts. I think the reason Dumbledore finally gave him the position in HBP is the important question without an answer. And back to JKR's answer to Fry. Even though I don't always believe in my Grey!Snape theory, I have to say JKR's own answer fits best with what Lupinlore is proposing here and what Grey!Snape proposes-- Dumbledore was concerned a weakness in Snape, almost an addiction to the dark arts, would be his undoing if he took the DADA position. Simple and clear. Jen R. From katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com Mon Feb 27 05:24:09 2006 From: katmac at katmac.cncdsl.com (lagattalucianese) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:24:09 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148857 > ... > > There are plenty of novels that work well as novels that would NEVER > work as movies. Often it's because they aren't very cinematic in their > take on things -- i.e. that they just let irrationality be > irrationality and self-destructive behavior be self-destructive > behavior and they acknowledge that sometimes human motivation is > neither logical nor meaningful for anyone other than the person being > motivated. They don't try to make every answer to every question be > some kind of deep revelation that takes the plot and characters in a > surprising or new direction. That's terribly uncinematic and would > make for a horrible film script -- but it can make for a very good > novel. > > > Lupinlore > La Gatta Lucianese: But not, I think, for children or young adults, an audience that expects a more artistic and emotionally satisfying structuring. Kids don't really want to read about people doing laundry, however realistic it is. And I think they'd be really bothered by character motivation that doesn't make sense. Sydney: > > Why doesn't JKR have the books consist of entire chapters where > people do laundry? That's life-like! > Because the house elves do the laundry, silly! ;D From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 05:45:29 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 05:45:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death was planned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148858 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "danitehrlich" wrote: > Arlene wrote: > > I belive DD did in fact have that night planned. I always > > wondered why DD did not just "Accio" his wand to save his life??? > > It was right there. > > "danitehrlich": > About DD bring able to "accio" his wand- that just isn't possible > because in order to summon an object you need a wand- and that's the > object that was needed.... So no- he didn't have that option. Tonks: I don't think that DD's death was planned. Expected, yes. Planned, no. I think that DD had a premonition of his death. He knew that Draco was planning it, and he knew that Draco would not be able to do it. He knew about Snape's vow. He probably told Snape to do it in the end if and when it came to that. They both knew what they would have to do if the worst came, but it was not planned. A wizard with DD's power, one who does not need a cloak to be invisible, also does not need a wand to do whatever magic needs to be done. DD is the most powerful wizard of all time. DD is the only one that LV fears. Do you really think for one moment that DD needed a wand?!! Of course he did not. We saw what he could do when in his office with Fudge and the others. We saw what he could do when having a "little chat" with LV. DD does not need a wand to defend himself against a few Death Eaters and a kid. If nothing else Fawkes would have come to help him. He did not send for Fawkes. He did not do any magic to defend himself. He knew that this time would come and he willing gave his life to save them all, Draco, Harry, Snape and to help Snape maintain his cover. And like others here have said DD trusted Snape to keep Draco and Harry safe after the deed was done. And for those who will argue this, remember DD said "it is my mercy that matters now". He said that because he was still a very powerful wizard even with poison in his body and no wand. And it was His mercy that we saw in the end. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 06:52:49 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:52:49 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA curse. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148859 Alright here is another idea that I haven't seen here yet. If someone came up with this and I missed it, sorry. DD needs Slughorn to be at Hogwarts so that he can get the memory out of him. This is more important than Snape not getting the DADA position. Since in order to get Slughorn DD has to offer him the Potions Masters Position, DD then naturally has to give Snape the DADA position. Before he went to find Slughorn DD knew he would probably get him to say yes. DD told Snape that he could have the DADA position before he went to Slughorn. In this way the DADA curse already had a chance to start and this is part of what caused Snape to get into the position of having to take the unbreakable vow. Tonks_op From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 27 06:53:38 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 06:53:38 -0000 Subject: Improving the series Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148860 I love the Harry Potter series, it's a masterpiece, but there is always room for improvement. Although I feel a little silly, like lecturing Leonardo da Vinci about how to improve the Mona Lisa this is what I would tell JKR. 1) "Don't use so many adverbs in describing dialog", he said furiously. 2) In book 1 have Marcus Flint the Slytherin Quidditch Captain be in his fifth year not his sixth, that way in book 3 poor Marcus won't be in his 8'th year. 3) Eliminate that part in book 2 about 1492 and the 500'th anniversary; in 6 books that is the only place you can fix an exact date and I think it the stories would age better if it were more ambiguous about the era. I mean, would it really make much difference if it were set in the 1920's or 50's? I don't think so, just don't talk about Playstations and wide screen TV's. 4) In book 4 during the astronomy final exam don't have Harry looking at Venus and Orion because Venus can only be seen near sunrise or sunset and this was about midnight, and Orion is a winter constellation and it was June. Have him looking at Sagittarius and Jupiter or Saturn. 5) Also in book 4 when Harry asks the Sphinx a question she just smiles, but this is THE SPHINX, the queen of puzzles, it's the perfect time to engage in a little word play. Instead of just smiling how about she say something like "I couldn't fail to disagree with you less". 6) I'd like to see a little of Harry's dark side, and I'm not just talking about raising his voice at his friends and being a little rude from time to time like he did in book 5, I want to see him do something REALLY controversial. I don't want to see Harry kill Voldemort with love, I want to see Harry get medieval on Voldemort's ass. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 07:27:05 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:27:05 -0000 Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148861 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "P J" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > >On the subject of 'Harry-the Horcrux', there is one small flaw > >in the thinking that I think must be cleared up before I can > >accept the theory. That is - Dumbledore doesn't seem to agree. > >If he hasn't put two and two together, then I find it > >hard to believe it is there. > > >So, if someone could explain how the great all-knowing > >Dumbledore could have missed this bit, then I would like > >to hear the explanation. > > PJ: > > I'm not sure whether I believe Harry is a horcrux or not at > this point but I do see a bit of wiggle room in Dumbledore's > explanations for it to go either way. If Harry is a horcrux > you can bet Dumbledore hasn't missed the possibility at all... > > In OOtP He tells Harry "I cared about you too much." "I cared > more for your happiness than you knowing the truth, more for > your peace of mind than my plan, ..." (OOtP pg 838/839 US) > > He cares so much for Harry's peace of mind and happiness that > he's given him half truths and avoided some cold, hard facts > that Harry should have known all those years, right? Well, > then when he names Nagini as a *possible* horcrux ... I see > that as one of those times where Dumbledore *might* just have > fudged a bit in order to keep Harry happy... > > ...edited... > > Is it cannon? No. Has the door been left open a teeny bit in > these paragraphs? Yes... maybe. :-) Will one of the 3 > consider the possibliity in the last book? I can almost bet > on it. > > PJ > bboyminn: A fair analysis, but I have to respond with a question. Have we ever seen Dumbledore LIE to Harry? Yes, we have seen Dumbledore lie to other people, we have seen half truths to Harry, diversion, avoidance, and refusal to answer, but has he ever lie to Harry. I consider telling Harry that Nagini was the final Horcrux when he knew that wasn't true to be a lie. So, while it's not impossible, I have my doubts. Further, Dumbledore knows Harry has the task of destroying the Horcruxes ahead of him. Misleading his so grossly would put Harry in great danger, and certainly would not be good for his well-being. Can't prove it, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From catlady at wicca.net Mon Feb 27 07:35:55 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:35:55 -0000 Subject: too many topics to fit in this subject line, sorry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148862 angie gelite67 wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148497 : << he also desired to kill Sirius in POA and couldn't do it (never understood how he would have at that point anyway, b/c he didn't know about any killing curses then). >> There are ways to kill other than AK. Harry killed the basilisk in CoS by sticking a sword through its soft palate into its brain and Harry in HBP almost killed Draco with Sectumsempra. Harry in PoA didn't know Sectumsempra yet, but I think he'd learned spells to start fires so that he could have set Sirius's clothes on fire. In PS/SS, Wingardium Leviosa on the troll's club caused it to fly up and bash the troll's head, which merely knocked out the troll, but would have killed a human. If Ron hadn't been in the four-poster bed, the bed would probably have been massive enough that bashing Sirius with it would have killed him. Or how about levitating Sirius to a great height and dropping him? When I suggested Transfiguring part of his aorta to tissue paper (which would promptly dampen and burst, causing MASSIVE internal hemorrhage and death), another listie said 'Accio Heart!' would be easier. Lealess summarized Chapter 10 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148506 : << 10. This had probably been discussed to death, but: Why can't Ron read the Prince's instructions? Hermione won't try to read them because she is opposed to "cheating" with the HBP book ? is this the real reason? >> I think the HBP's Potions textbook is a magic book. JKR was originally planning to introduce it in CoS and we heard about magic books in CoS when Ron warned Harry about the mysterious diary: "You'd be surprised," said Ron, who was looking apprehensively at the book. "Some of the books the Ministry's confiscated Dad's told me - there was one that burned your eyes out. And everyone who read Sonnets of a Sorcerer spoke in limericks for the rest of their lives. And some old witch in Bath had a book that you could never stop reading! You just had to wander around with your nose in it, trying to do everything one-handed. And -" (p 172 of my UK paperback that appears to be printing 23) I think the HBP's book has a slightly less dangerous enchantment -- it attracts the person it belongs to and repels all others. It attracted Harry and made him trust the Prince for no logical reason. It repelled Ron by being illegible to him and repelled Hermione emotionally. Let me change 'it belongs to' to 'who belongs to it' -- it somehow chose Harry and may its way to him, perhaps even teleporting itself from Snape's office or wherever to the cupboard in Slughorn's classroom. Perhaps if Harry already had an Advanced Potions textbook, it would have come up with some way to get that one out of the way long enough to ensnare Harry. *Why* the book now prefers to own Harry rather than Snape ... maybe part is that its feelings were hurt by Snape ceasing to teach Potions, and another part is that the book shared Snape's hypothetical fondness for Lily's green eyes? Eric Oppen wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148511 : << The House of White and Green >> I know 'silver and green' doesn't scan, but I think 'grey and green' would be closer. Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148529 : << But as to the teaching of moral lessons in the WW, you've hit on a failing in the system. Hogwarts does nothing to undo the values that its students learn at home. It only enables them to earn a living and survive the hardships of existence in the WW. >> The Dark Side seems well-accepted, even if slightly illegal, in the Wizarding WOrld. Parents on the Dark Side would be outraged if Hogwarts tried to teach their children a set of values contrary to what the parents had taught them. Dumbledore, as leader of the Light Side rather than as Headmaster, ought to be dong something subtle to propandize the students towards goodness, but anything more than subtle would have the Board of Governors firing him. Phineas Nigellus probably belonged to the Dark Side when he was alive, and parents who were on the Light Side would have been equally outraged if his Hogwarts had tried to teach their children Dark values. Tonks_op wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148548 : << Speaking of trophies. What about the trophy room? Remember Ron polishing them? And the room on JKR's site? There is one there for Lily. Now I don't think of Lily as a Quidditch player, so what did she win a big trophy for? And are any of them a horcrux? >> Maybe Lily won first place in a Potions Fair (like Science Fair). I've previously suggested that Bellatrix and Sirius earned their trophies as Duelling Club Champions (in different years). Lisa wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148554 : << What if the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape is because Snape has promised (perhaps even made an unbreakable vow?) to protect Harry. >> There are listies who say that Dumbledore is too good to allow an Unbreakable Vow even if Snape insisted. On the other hand, if Snape made an Unbreakable Vow to Dumbledore and Hagrid was the Bonder, that would explain why Hagrid completely trusted Professor Snape until he saw DD's dead body. << if Dumbledore did plan to have Snape be his killer, is it possible that some transfer of power occured there? >> At one time, someone posted a theory that killing someone by AK transfers the victim's magic power to the killer, so the Death Eaters took that name because they gain magic power from their victim's deaths. I know nothing in canon to support it. Steve quoted in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148563 : << "...or, to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else." >> I'm wondering if she really meant that written notes lose their power to transmit the information. PJ wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148582 : << IMO, Harry is the dark young man. (snip) The questioner is always whoever the cards are laid out for - the person with the question. I think she did the reading for herself but decided it had to be wrong because she couldn't believe that anyone could possibly dislike her. :) >> This is a forbidden 'I agree' post. << My money is on it being Lily's school book because Slughorn has never raved about Snape being a great potions maker but goes into total rapture over Lily's abilities in class... >> Slughorn *had* noticed that his student Severus was a great potions maker. P.299 of my UK adult cover hardcover HBP: "You should have seen what he gave me, first lesson, the Draught of Living Death -- never had a student produce finer on a first attempt, I don't think even you, Severus --" Surely that was "I don't think even you, Severus, did it better" and even a flatterer wouldn't have said that without *some* basis in reality. Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148585 : << And I don't understand why he didn't have the marriage annulled and marry his beloved Cecilia >> Someone suggested that when Tom eloped with a girl that Cecilia didn't even know, Cecilia married her nextest suitor in a snit. So even if Tom had the marriage annulled, Cecilia was no longer available to marry. Let us hope that Cecilia didn't have a miserable married life with her second choice. houyhnhnm wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148616 : << Therefore what he did was right action. Hence he did not tear his soul. >> I don't think it follows that just because one chooses what is right over what is easy, one's soul is not torn. (If Severus killed Albus against his own desire and for only the highest motives, I expect it tore his soul anyway.) This is the cost of participating in the world rather than being a hermit -- even right action is sinful. The torn soul is part of what makes it Not Easy. hpotter284 asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148648 : << If we take Dumbledore and Marchbanks as a guideline for wizard lifespans, then the average wizard life should last about 200 years. Yet none of the Blacks in the family tree lived anywhere close to that long (the oldest seem to have lived for about 80 years or so, which is barely above half of Dumbledore's age). >> Same for all the Famous Witches and Wizards on the Famous Wizards cards (Wizard of the month on JKR's website). I think some listies have theorized that JKR's interview statement that wizards live longer than Muggles is generally false, except that a few wizards including Dumbledore live very long by magical means -- in Dumbledore's case, Elixir of Life from Flamel's Philosopher's Stone rather than Horcruxes. Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148714 : << You are proceeding on the Dungrollin assumption that Snape knew about the task, right? Then I see so MANY things that are wrong with agreeing to take UV to protect Draco. First one is what I said in my earlier post - to me it strikes VERY close to being an accessory to the murder. Snape does NOT just takes UV to protect Draco. He takes UV to protect and help him while Draco tries to carry out the assasination of the Headmaster. >> The first and second parts of the UV: "Will you, Severus, watch over my son Draco as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?" "And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm?" (p41) The first is cheap and easy -- watching doesn't specify to which side he reports what he observes. The second is less easy, but does not equal promising to be an accessory to whatever crime Draco commits -- If Snape is DDM, he believes harm to one's soul is worse than harm to one's body, and would want primarily to protect Draco (of whom I remain convinced he is fond) from harming his soul by murder, only secondarily to protect Draco's life by hiding him from the Dark Lord. Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148821 : << But if Draco were a real child, surely you wouldn't call him foul names in Yiddish and suggest that because his gangster family had involved him in a murder plot, he didn't deserve the help and protection of his teachers. >> You probably could say 'surely' if Draco was 12, but in HBP he's 16 and as far as I know it isn't even controversial nowadays that 16 year old wrongdoers are tried as adults and sent to adult prison. Jen R. wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148856 : << Still, what do people think about JKR's own explanation to Stephen Fry, that Dumbledore is worried the DADA position will 'bring out the worst' in Snape? Why would she say something so directly she doesn't mean? >> I think it was a clever little JKR joke. The ways we've seen the curse get rid of DADA professors has involved 'outing' their worst secrets. That Quirrel had LV on the back of his head, that Lockhart was a fraud, that Lupin was a werewolf, that Moody was Crouch with Polyjuice... I think Snape being the killer of Dumbledore could be 'the worst' in Snape, and it was brought out by the curse. From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 27 07:42:57 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:42:57 -0000 Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148863 > >> bboyminn: > > A fair analysis, but I have to respond with a question. Have we ever > seen Dumbledore LIE to Harry? Yes, we have seen Dumbledore lie to > other people, we have seen half truths to Harry, diversion, avoidance, > and refusal to answer, but has he ever lie to Harry. Well.... I do think he has and it's when he tells Harry that Snape only heard the first half of the prophesy. Since ST only knows what's going on around her before and after a trance she'd either have to have been going into it or coming out of it when Snape came into the room. If she were just going into a trance he'd have heard *none* of it... if after then he'd probably heard much more than Harry is told. Just my opinion. I consider > telling Harry that Nagini was the final Horcrux when he knew that > wasn't true to be a lie. So, while it's not impossible, I have my doubts. He says it's possible Nagini is the final horcrux. He never says he's certain, just that he *thinks* she is because of the level of control Voldermort has over her... That's not lying, that's stating a possibility. > > Further, Dumbledore knows Harry has the task of destroying the > Horcruxes ahead of him. Misleading his so grossly would put Harry in > great danger, and certainly would not be good for his well-being. Harry's been in danger his entire life. Nothing new there. lol! PJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 07:53:04 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:53:04 -0000 Subject: too many topics - Magic Notes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148864 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > ...edited... > > Steve quoted in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148563 : > > << "...or, to put it another way, the status of their secret > will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody > in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden > information, but nobody else." >> > CatLady: > > I'm wondering if she really meant that written notes lose their > power to transmit the information. > > ...edited... bboyminn: What magic notes are these that have lost their power??? I don't think the Secret Keeper or his friends are in the habit of leaving notes lying around with critical secrets on them. The Secret Keeper takes the secret to his grave with him. Everything remains as it was at the moment of his death. Those who knew, still know, and those who don't, can't. Since no one but the Secret Keeper can reveal the secret, and he is now dead, no new note can be written, and no new people can be brought into the secret. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 27 08:42:08 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:42:08 -0000 Subject: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148865 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sidd_m2003" wrote: > > OK, OK, you may say "not again" but I had had a really an interesting > idea last night. DD knew that DADA department is cursed and no teacher > can last for more than one year yet he appoints Snape as new DADA > teacher. Which makes me think that DD knew that Snape will not need to > teach at Hogwarts after this year. In other words, he knew all about > the plan and he had decided that he will need to die in the end. And > that famous "please" was a request to kill. If this is true, then > Snape is on DD's side. Please let me know what you think. > > Sid > A couple of days ago I had another idea. LV is back and especially after the Umbridge disaster DD really, really needs a competent DADA teacher. And he has only one: Snape. What if he decided to give Snape the DADA post, both knowing it was cursed but deciding that then at least all the students had one year of decent teaching? And then the curse kicked in with the UV and Snape was now bound to kill him? That would be a truly horrible way of the curse to work. DD had probably figured out by now that the curse settled on the weak spot of the teacher. For Snape they would have figured it to settle on his spying, probably thinking he would be outed as a spy for DD somewhere during the year. Instead it settled on his loyalty: he broke is oath as a Death Eater and now is in a bind he cannot get out alive. He has to betray DD or he has to die. Or it settled on his self image: not being weak. To me this means DDMSnape, because otherwise the DADA curse would not make such a difference. So what if he would not teach at Hogwarts any more? No big deal for him, if he was truly loyal to LV and only had the job for spying reasons and later for comfort. But if he was truly DDM than this is one cursed bind he is in now. Did he tell DD? Either he did, or he decided to work for DD as good as he could during the year as a kind of apology for when he would save his own skin. Or as a loyal DE it was not DD's business I think he told DD and they worked out a plan. The reason I think so is the final exchange between Snape and Harry. The 'don't call me coward.' The first time Harry called Snape a coward he was fine with it. It was only when Harry called him a coward in relation to his killing of DD that he snapped. Why would that be if he was ESE? It was not a sporting act, killing a man who was almost dying. But would that truly matter to a Death Eater who just had succesfully completed a mission? It would matter, however to DDM!Snape who knows from now on he will be reviled by everyone he wanted to respect him. It would matter to WEAK!Snape who had chosen the easy (well comparatively) over right and saved his own skin at the cost of the live of DD. Because of how he got the DE's out of Hogwarts and protected Draco, I'm in favour of DDM. But the other options also make sense to me. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 27 09:27:03 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:27:03 -0000 Subject: Owner of Riddle House - House of Mystery? In-Reply-To: <43FEE5D1.2060602@aapt.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148867 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Fiona wrote: > Fiona: > > I got the impression from HBP that, when Merope gave birth to Voldemort, > she was "in extremis" and didn't give much information to the orphanage > (workhouse?) about his parents (maternal or paternal). If this is > right, his birth certificate wouldn't give details of parentage. Gerry But that would not matter. A bit of digging which the authorities would have done, would have proven Tom was married to Merope. Merope's death was also in the Muggle records, as was the birth of her son. So he was born within a legal marriage and therefore the heir. > > So, although there could well be a Muggle marriage certificate for Tom > Snr and Merope, a birth certificate linking that marriage to the birth > of Tom Jnr would not exist, making his claim to the Riddle estate much > harder to prove. Gerry Why? There is a birht certificate linking Tom Jr. to Merope. I don't know about English law, but in Dutch law a birth when the parents are maried is viewed as from that mariage no matter what is on a birth certificate. Of course, Voldemort could probably quite easily have > his birth certificate say anything he wanted, but he was so against > anything to do with his "filthy Muggle father", I doubt he would have > wanted the house anyway. Well, he made it the place where he waited out his plans in GOF, so I think he wanted it. Besides, he might not like his muggle father, he is not the kind of person who would say no to a fortune. He probably would have taken it as compensation for having a muggle father. Gerry From h2so3f at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 09:49:17 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:49:17 -0000 Subject: Back to horcruxes..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148868 CH3ed: Below is from: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm? id=43 Q: The Sorting Hat is a Horcrux JKR: No, it isn't. Horcruxes do not draw attention to themselves by singing songs in front of large audiences CH3ed :O) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Feb 27 11:25:39 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:25:39 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? WAS: Re: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148869 > Alla: > > Hee. I like this motivation too, since it works with ESE!Snape or > Grey! or OFH!Snape also or even if it does not, I STILL like it, > just for the elegance. Bravo, Ceridwen and Jen too. :-) > > But yes, if Voldemort placed the real curse, which is supposed to > play out as described - namely Voldemort's man getting DADA job and > doing Dumbledore in, wouldn't it mean that the curse ONLY works if > someone who is truly Voldemort man gets the job? Or am I confused > here? I am just talking about intentions. If Snape only applies for > the job for fourteen years to fool Voldemort and in reality he has > no intention of ever getting the job, wouldn't it mean that when he > does get a job, the circumstances or fate( driven by the curse) will > not conspire against him and will not lead him to killing Dumbledore > since he is not really Voldemort's man? Ceridwen: I think the curse senses the Dark Mark and says to itself, 'oho! Here's our man!' It utilizes whatever talents the prof. in question has, but somehow or other, the DM adds into it, strengthening the curse. Crouch!Moody wasn't effective, but Crouch!Moody had problems. He wasn't necessarily smart, and he reminded me a bit of a male Bellatrix, too wrapped up in LV to have a decent brain of his own. He still did a bit of damage, though, and could have created an international incident by Imperio'ing Krum. Pretty big for substandard material! During HBP, Dumbledore said that intelligent (or was it powerful? I think 'intelligent') wizards (don't have the book handy, just paraphrasing from memory) make correspondingly larger mistakes. Snape is an intelligent wizard. So his mistakes will be correspondingly larger. And, if the curse is also set to punish whoever has the job LV wanted, then what better punishment for DDM!Snape than killing his mentor? I've toyed with the idea that maybe the curse senses loyalty, but then, Crouch!Moody shouldn't have been Kissed. > > > Ceridwen: > > > Anyway, if the curse is there to get Dumbledore out, then > someone > > > tied to LV (Snape has the Dark Mark, and is at least supposedly > > > working for LV) would finally get it done, even if he or she > > > didn't want to. Maybe that's the nature of the curse, and now > > > that Dumbledore is no longer headmaster, the curse is over. > > > *Maybe*. > Alla: > > So, basically you are saying that the curse will work even if Snape > is not Voldemort's man anymore, sort of like "Imperio" through Dark > Mark? Just curious. Ceridwen: Not like Imperio, but like Imperio. Not like Imperio in the sense that it doesn't compel the person outside of their will. As zgirnius said, Lupin was understandably unsettled enough to leave the castle without his Wolfsbane. He didn't resist, thinking 'OMG, I've got to get that potion!' He was compelled, which is what the Imperio does, but through circumstances, not through active agent. If Snape is DDM, the circumstances on the tower would have compelled him to perform the AK for whatever reasons (so DD wouldn't be savaged and die slowly at Greyback's claws? or whatever). Since Snape has the DM, the curse may be more potent. *(snipping)* Alla: > > You know, I just thought of something. Not that I dig completely DD! > M Snape of course, but if he emerges and what you said was true - > that Snape just as Harry expected DD to save the day, there is > certainly a hint that Snape respected DD power. When Harry tells > Snape in OOP that DD calls Voldie by his name, Snape says that DD is > a powerful wizard and can afford to do it ( paraphrase). I prefer to > think that Snape also started to deeply resent DD of course. :-) Ceridwen: I do think that Snape had some resentment toward DD, on something like a sibling rivalry level, because of Harry. And sure, it could go all the way back to James, and to Sirius and the Prank. I don't think that would necessarily make him turn away from DD, though. I can only go by personal experience and what I hear from others. But resenting a parent figure doesn't necessarily mean you'll turn on them. It just means you have resentment. And, Snape does admit that Dumbledore is a powerful wizard. Just as DD admits that LV is powerful. It's dangerous to delude oneself. I think Jen has it right in thinking that Snape, like Harry, believed DD could pull this one out of the fire. He always has before, right? Why not now? I don't see how this respect could mean only DDM!Snape, since even enemies can have respect and admiration for competency. But it has a bigger BANG for DDM!Snape, since he must have thought that everything would work out... Surprise, it didn't! Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Feb 27 12:08:56 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:08:56 -0000 Subject: handwriting (was Re: too many topics to fit in this subject line, sorry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148870 Catlady wrote: >snip> >I think the HBP's book has a slightly less dangerous enchantment -- it > attracts the person it belongs to and repels all others. It attracted > Harry and made him trust the Prince for no logical reason. It repelled > Ron by being illegible to him and repelled Hermione emotionally. Let > me change 'it belongs to' to 'who belongs to it' -- it somehow chose > Harry and may its way to him, perhaps even teleporting itself from > Snape's office or wherever to the cupboard in Slughorn's classroom. > Perhaps if Harry already had an Advanced Potions textbook, it would > have come up with some way to get that one out of the way long enough > to ensnare Harry. >snip< Potioncat: Oh, I really like this idea. I'm not sure if canon gives any hints for it, but I'll be looking for them now. I never gave it a second thought when I first read it, that one person could read the writing and the other two couldn't. I assumed Ron was too impatient to bother and Hermione was determined not to. But an enchantment, possible done by Snape himself, makes a great deal of sense. He would have wanted his spells protected from maraudering eyes. It explains why he wouldn't have looked for it when it first went missing. (this year or when he was a teen?) It sort of explains Snape's reaction in the bathroom...of course he wasn't ready to admit knowing about the book. Yep, I like this. Someone else had suggestd that Harry subconsciously recognised the writing and on that level already had something of an understanding of the teenager who wrote the notes, having experienced bullying himself. Whether or not he did, he and Snape do have a lot in common. Teen Snape had more anger it seems and less compunction about revenge. But we've seen Harry come very close. Might it then fit that somehow the enchantment's wording recognised Harry as a kindred soul? Didn't the signature read something like, "property of the half-blood prince"? Isn't Harry a sort of half-blood prince himself? Potioncat From pmah4600 at mail.usyd.edu.au Mon Feb 27 12:09:32 2006 From: pmah4600 at mail.usyd.edu.au (The Kirk) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:09:32 -0000 Subject: DADA Curse-a way to get rid of Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148871 > zgirnius: > No, it does not work like Imperius, I wouldn't say. I believe that > the fact that the triggers for the climactic events of PoA occurred > on a full moon night can be attributed to the curse. It did not > Imperio Lupin into not drinking his potion, it just provided such a > great shock to him at the wrong time that he (understandably) forgot. > But it 'wanted' Lupin to skip a dose because it saw in his > lycanthropy the perfect means to raise a sufficiently big stink to > discredit Dumbledore for hiring him. > > In Snape's case, if he's ESE!/OFH! and planned to serve Voldemort at > least in the murder of Dumbledore, the curse made it easy for him. > All he had to do was show up and say the magic words. If he's > OFH!/DDM! and didn't really want to kill Dumbledore for whatever OFH! > reasons/out of loyalty to Dumbledore, it forced his hand. Me: Sorry if thsi has been mentioned before. Haven't been on the list in ages. . . This reminds me of Riddle's diary. As a hocrux, it was able to exercise some sort of power over those who read/wrote in it. When Voldemort visited Hogwarts, ostensibly for the DADA position, Dumbledore theorised that Voldemort intended to search Hogwarts for an object belonging to one of the founders. What if it was actually to drop something off? Perhaps the curse was premeditated - he wanted to implement a curse within Hogwarts. He'd need a cover story for being at Hogwarts in the first place, so he goes along asking for a job. Either before or after meeting the Headmaster he hides a freshly made horcrux, able to exercise a will of its own, somewhere in the castle (the DADA teacher's office, perhaps?). This horcrux is what has been preventing any of the DADA teachers staying on more than a year. Highly fanciful and no canon, I know, but if there's a horcrux lurking somewhere in Hogwarts, it gives him a good reason to spend a substantial amount of time there in book 7. From rkdas at charter.net Mon Feb 27 12:26:14 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:26:14 -0000 Subject: handwriting (was Re: too many topics to fit in this subject line, sorry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148872 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: SNIPPED> > Potioncat: > Oh, I really like this idea. I'm not sure if canon gives any hints for > it, but I'll be looking for them now. I never gave it a second thought > when I first read it, that one person could read the writing and the > other two couldn't. I assumed Ron was too impatient to bother and > Hermione was determined not to. > > But an enchantment, possible done by Snape himself, makes a great deal > of sense. He would have wanted his spells protected from maraudering > eyes. It explains why he wouldn't have looked for it when it first went > missing. (this year or when he was a teen?) It sort of explains Snape's > reaction in the bathroom...of course he wasn't ready to admit knowing > about the book. > > Yep, I like this. > > Someone else had suggestd that Harry subconsciously recognised the > writing and on that level already had something of an understanding of > the teenager who wrote the notes, having experienced bullying himself. > Whether or not he did, he and Snape do have a lot in common. Teen Snape > had more anger it seems and less compunction about revenge. But we've > seen Harry come very close. Might it then fit that somehow the > enchantment's wording recognised Harry as a kindred soul? Didn't the > signature read something like, "property of the half-blood prince"? > Isn't Harry a sort of half-blood prince himself? > > Potioncat > P-cat: I was so struck by the idea that Harry and young Snape have so much in common, that they could have related to each other in some other life! Yes, both were half-bloods and did feel, obviously, left out somehow. Snape chose the Dark Arts to find his place and Harry chose the other way but still, they both shared common experiences. I felt the same way, much more uncomfortably about Harry and LV. How much they shared in common, the love of Hogwarts, trying to find out about their families and not having so much luck with it. Struggling to find a place in this world neither knew existed until their 11th years. Orphans, at least on the face of it, for LV. It's got to be key to LV, the things that he and Harry share, and to Snape. The dramatic action may seem like it will be finding the Horcruxes, but a huge chunk of the action will be in how Harry deals with, accepts, works into his own consciousness the similartities he shares with the two wizards he hates the most in the whole world. Jen D. From paulspilsbury at btinternet.com Mon Feb 27 10:58:43 2006 From: paulspilsbury at btinternet.com (Paul) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:58:43 -0000 Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148873 PJ wrote: > Harry's been in danger his entire life. Nothing new there. lol! > Yes, and that is the trouble with all this "Harry the horcrux" thingy. As I pointed out in "How will it all end?", Voldemort/Riddle has been out to kill Harry for nearly seventeen years, before Harry even knew he existed. If Harry dies, in whatever circumstances, Riddle wins, even if he himself dies. I mean, at least he wins on points: kills the Potters, kills Sirius, kills Dumbledore etc. and now kills Harry. Harry just kills Riddle. Harry loses, umpteen kills to one. And don't say, "But Harry saves the world." Riddle isn't "evil incarnate", he's just one very nasty and powerful man. And Harry isn't Aslan, or Christ, or whatever. "Saving the world" is too big for him- thank goodness! He'll survive! Paul From siddhu1616 at yahoo.co.in Mon Feb 27 09:09:13 2006 From: siddhu1616 at yahoo.co.in (s d) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:09:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Snape and the DADA curse. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060227090914.3478.qmail@web8602.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148874 Tonks wrote: >> DD needs Slughorn to be at Hogwarts so that he can get the memory out of him. This is more important than Snape not getting the DADA position. Since in order to get Slughorn DD has to offer him the Potions Masters Position, DD then naturally has to give Snape the DADA position. Before he went to find Slughorn DD knew he would probably get him to say yes. DD told Snape that he could have the DADA position before he went to Slughorn. In this way the DADA curse already had a chance to start and this is part of what caused Snape to get into the position of having to take the unbreakable vow. << s d: No, I am not agree - even in 5th year no one was responding to the offer of DADA positions, so Snape was right person than anyone from ministry in that situation then. Also DD had never asked him; there is more than we can see? From bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 27 13:33:34 2006 From: bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net (William Bernard) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 07:33:34 -0600 Subject: Snape and the DADA curse. References: Message-ID: <008101c63ba2$69132180$4101a8c0@COMPUTER1> No: HPFGUIDX 148875 Tonks_op said: >> DD needs Slughorn to be at Hogwarts so that he can get the memory out of him. This is more important than Snape not getting the DADA position. Since in order to get Slughorn DD has to offer him the Potions Masters Position, DD then naturally has to give Snape the DADA position. Before he went to find Slughorn DD knew he would probably get him to say yes. DD told Snape that he could have the DADA position before he went to Slughorn. In this way the DADA curse already had a chance to start and this is part of what caused Snape to get into the position of having to take the unbreakable vow. << Bill Here: There might be a simpler explanation for events. Suppose that DD expected Slughorn to stay for only 1 year. He moved SS to DADA and had Slughorn teach potions. At the end of the year, Snape would go back to teaching potions and a new DADA teacher would be found, or at least looked for. This takes into account the jinx that DD suspects is there, but solves his problem for a year. Things just didn't work out in the fashion expected. Bill From ms-tamany at rcn.com Mon Feb 27 14:23:06 2006 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:23:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trusting Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4qag60$67famn@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148876 > Tammy: >Ahh, but DD wasn't leaving Harry in the presence of a child loving werewolf >and several other DEs. He was leaving Harry in the hands of Snape, whom he >trusted completely, whether he was right or wrong to trust him so. PJ: With each and every explanation Dumbledore just seems to get more and more stupid. He trusted Snape, he *forgot* that Harry hasn't backed down from a fight since he was 11, he *forgot* that Harry and Snape hate and distrust each other and he *forgot* what Harry went through when Sirius died and how reckless and angry that made him... Tammy again: Sorry to have taken so long, but my weekend was quite busy. Okay, so you think that DD putting so much hope and trust in Harry and Snape being able to act like grown ups is moronic. Why? It was wrong, obviously, but how can it be considered moronic? Think for a moment -- Dumbledore is well over 150 years old. He's always been shown to us as 'large and in charge', so to speak -- always quite secure, almost always nearly preternaturally calm (a major exception is when Harry's name came out of the Goblet), always rational. He's had GENERATIONS of practice at being cool, calm, collected, rational, and of considering the outcomes. I don't know about you, but after I have practiced a particular state of mind for a few weeks, it kinda becomes a set habit. I can only imagine that, after well over a century of practicing a cool, calm, considerate (not as in 'kindly' but as in 'pros and cons') state of mind, I might very well have completely forgotten that there were any OTHER way to be. *Of course* he would hope and expect and trust that Harry and Snape would be able to rise above their less mature, more emotional behavior, given time. He probably thought that they'd had plenty of time to learn to be more rational. Harry had behaved quite rational on the cave expedition, after all. Besides all that, I seem to remember in some after-HBP interview that JKR said something about DD being 'out of touch' about emotions. (Am I mis-remembering? I've never had much luck searching the sites.) PJ: Maybe the twists and turns made to show how DD wasn't hoodwinked by Snape and done in at the end by someone he mistakenly trusted don't seem out of character to you but to me it makes it sound as though somewhere between book 5 and 6 Dumbledore has had a lobodomy! Tammy again : Twists and turns? What twists and turns? It all reads perfectly straightforward to me. I don't understand what you mean, here. >Tammy: >I am firmly convinced that DD never PLANNED to die there on the Tower. >That's just how things turned out, given the situation at the time. PJ: Well finally!! From there it's just a short hop to either ESE or OFH!Snape. C'mon, you can do it! lol Tammy again: Oh, no, I'm quite firmly convinced of DDM!Snape. In fact, the Tower scene and aftermath merely cemented my convictions that Snape is completely loyal to Dumbledore personally, and to the fight against Voldemort in general. Why does my conviction that DD did not plan the Tower fiasco automatically lead to an ESE/OFH!Snape reading? That makes no sense whatsoever. > Tammy: > DD probably was not aware when he made the offer of hiding Draco and >Narcissa >that there were several DEs running through his school, coming to make sure >he died. . . . it was a reasonable mistake to make. PJ: A reasonable mistake? So we're back to moronic Dumbledore? Tammy again: No, we're still with cool, calm, collected, rational, reasonable, not-in-touch-with-emotions DD, who has been that way for so very long he's probably forgotten completely what it's like to be driven by feelings. His own feelings towards Harry frighten him, I believe -- they're so much stronger than he's had to deal with in over a century (my guess). He's out of practice with emotional responses, and doesn't understand them anymore, except possibly as an intellectual exercise. > Tammy: ... he would have done anything to protect >his students, regardless of the price one teacher must be called upon to >pay. PJ: But Dumbledore's death *didn't* make the students any safer! Not that night and not for the future! Two reasons more didn't get hurt or die in that fight was Harry's potion and the fact that most DE's seem to be the "gang who couldn't shoot straight". Let's face it, either the kids are extrordinarily good at spells or the DE's skills are laughable! That's twice a bunch of underaged Wizards have kicked big, bad Death Eater butt!! Tammy again : Well, have we yet seen any *competent* DE action? What we've seen, first hand, has been more like disorganized mob work, and a bunch of toadies grovelling in the graveyard. Let us not forget, too, that almost all of these DEs were trained in a Hogwarts that had the DADA curse in place, which means very likely they were trained by incompetent DADA professors who were never able to finish a year. I'm sure they were confident that anyone fighting against them would also have been trained by incompetents. Unfortunately for them, Harry is anything but incompetent in applied DADA, and was able to instruct the DA in flexibility and spontenaity when fighting Dark Arts. At least, that's how I read it. And the FF potion certainly boosted the kids' luck, of course! And also, Snape was trying to hurry the DEs out of Hogwarts, and since he had just killed their main enemy, Dumbledore, of *COURSE* they would follow his orders at the moment -- how could he NOT be faithful to LV if he'd just killed DD, right? At least, in their minds. After all, they seem to all have rather weak minds, believing the tripe LV's been feeding them. *** Tammy Rizzo ms-tamany at rcn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 15:01:19 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:01:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and the DADA curse. In-Reply-To: <008101c63ba2$69132180$4101a8c0@COMPUTER1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148877 > Bill Here: > There might be a simpler explanation for events. Suppose that DD expected Slughorn to stay for only 1 year. He moved SS to DADA and had Slughorn teach potions. At the end of the year, Snape would go back to teaching potions and a new DADA teacher would be found, or at least looked for. > This takes into account the jinx that DD suspects is there, but solves his problem for a year. Things just didn't work out in the fashion expected. zgirnius: I see two problems with this explanation. First, Slughorn probabyl needs to stay on. I don't think Dumbledore wants him out in the world unprotected, where Voldemort mught learn that he shared the Horcrux memory with Harry. Second, this dodge was tried already. I believe it was stated expokicitly that Moody was going to take the job for just a year, to help out Dumbledore. Yet the curse certainly struck him. It could easily affect Snape in a way that would render him unemployable by the school in the following year, in any capacity. (As, in fact, he is, being doubtless the second-most-wanted wizard in the WW!) From lealess at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 16:50:13 2006 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:50:13 -0000 Subject: handwriting (was Re: too many topics to fit in this subject line, sorry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148878 --- "potioncat" wrote: > > Catlady wrote: >> >snip< >> I think the HBP's book has a slightly less dangerous enchantment -- >> it attracts the person it belongs to and repels all others. It >> attracted Harry and made him trust the Prince for no logical >> reason. It repelled Ron by being illegible to him and repelled >> Hermione emotionally. Let me change 'it belongs to' to 'who >> belongs to it' > >snip< > > Potioncat: > But an enchantment, possible done by Snape himself, makes a great > deal of sense. He would have wanted his spells protected from > maraudering eyes. > > Someone else had suggestd that Harry subconsciously recognised the > writing... > > I am wondering if this has something to do with Harry having Lily's eyes? Perhaps the book was enchanted so Lily could look at the notes, as well as Snape. Lily, if I remember correctly (always problematic), had the power of seeing the good in people. Maybe this was part of the reason Harry defended the Prince so vehemently; he could see the good in the Prince where others could not. lealess From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Feb 27 17:24:55 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:24:55 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148879 Alla: > So, to answer your question, if that was a real child who was eager > to assasinate me ( and where do you get "his family trapped him?"), > I would not feel much warm fuzzy feelings towards him, but I do > respect and admire people who would. Pippin: I didn't say his family trapped him, I said they involved him. I base this on the fact that Narcissa and Bella were involved and that Voldemort is supposed to be hard to find -- Draco couldn't just show up on his doorstep with his brainstorm about using the vanishing cabinets. > Pippin: > > I think it's a mistake to assume Dumbledore wouldn't risk both > > himself and Snape for Draco's sake. > > Alla: > > I actually don't think that DD won't risk himself for his students > sake, I just don't think that he was ready to DIE for Draco that > night. I think he intended to help Draco by staying alive. IMO of > course. Pippin: *Anyone* who defies the Dark Lord must be ready to die. Dumbledore made that clear back in OOP when he explained to Harry that there was no one else who had escaped Voldemort as often as Harry had. Dumbledore would have to be in total denial not to put his affairs in order. Hiding people from Voldemort seems to be one of the Order's standing operations -- do you really think Dumbledore wouldn't arrange for it to be carried on without him? He expected to be off hunting horcruxes too -- he could hardly have done it with Draco under his wing. I agree that Dumbledore hadn't planned all along to die that night, but there were few options left once Snape arrived on the tower. IF the poison could be cured, IF Snape could do it in time, IF the other Death Eaters didn't interfere, IF the vow could be hoodwinked, ... if we set all the odds at 50/50, there would still be only one chance in sixteen that Dumbledore would survive. With those odds it would make sense that Dumbledore would plead with Snape *not* to try and save him. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Feb 27 18:53:06 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:53:06 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148880 > > Pippin: > > What it bespeaks is that Snape no longer assumes Harry would think > > his father was an "amusing man." In fact, Snape's attitude towards > > Harry must have changed significantly since OOP. Nora: > If he now understands how Harry thinks, why is he trying to rub his > face further in it? Is he equating Harry's actions towards Draco > (which he doesn't seem to even plumb in depth) with James and Sirius' > pranking during school? That seems way off the mark to me, and it's > certainly not a constructive result. No, this strikes me more > as "the cat is out of the bag--so now I feel free to point it out to > you at any opportunity possible". Pippin: Are you saying Harry didn't need to be punished? I thought his punishment was very much an object lesson on what Dumbledore told Riddle -- he wasn't the first or the last young wizard to let his powers run away with him, some magic is neither taught nor tolerated at Hogwarts, and those who enter the wizarding world agree to abide by its rules or face punishment. That was true for Harry, as it was true for Sirius and James, and it would have been better for Riddle if had been true for him. Actually I see Harry's actions very much parallel with James' and Sirius' pranking. Harry may have used the curse in self-defense but he learned it because he thought it would be fun to try -- he was planning to use it on McClaggen, remember? And he hid the book hoping he would be able to use it again. The damage he did was inadvertent but the carelessness definitely was not. Harry did let his powers (or the Prince's) run away with him. Snape *didn't* tell Harry how much he was like his father when he was scolding him for the fiasco on the train, he's no longer constantly on Harry's case in class, and as I've said, the punishment of copying the detention cards only works if Snape is sure that Harry will be ashamed of his father's actions. Definitely not the attitude Snape had in OOP. > > > Pippin: > > Trusting Dumbledore is dangerous and skeezy?? Where do you get > > that? Who in canon has come to harm by trusting Dumbledore? Nora: > Trusting in Dumbledore because 'he's Dumbledore!' and not using your > own critical faculty is dangerous. It's the kind of obedience, > because Dumbledore just *must* know best (because he knows the most), > which generated a good portion of Harry's misery in OotP. Dumbledore > flat-out admits how badly he's mishandled things at the end of the > book there. And of course, Dumbledore himself has come to harm by > trusting in himself enough not to share his thoughts or deep reasons > with other members of the Order. Pippin: I think Dumbledore was being kind when he said that if Harry had been told more, he would have known not to go to the Ministry. Voldemort thought Harry had been told everything, and he still expected Harry to fall for his ruse. But Dumbledore has many valid reasons not to share all his thoughts and deep reasons with other members of the Order. Dumbledore should have realized that Harry was ready to hear about the prophecy, yes. But that was a tactical error, IMO, not a strategic one. There *is* information that Harry simply doesn't have the critical faculties to grasp. For example, suppose Dumbledore trusted Snape for the simplest and most obvious reason there could be: because Snape served him bravely and faithfully for sixteen years. Harry wouldn't accept it because he has no experience of a commitment like that. He might believe it if Fawkes backed it up, but put the cart before the horse like that and Harry might never learn to recognize true loyalty. Anyway, it was not only Dumbledore who cleared Snape of being a Death Eater, it was a ministry tribunal. To let Harry to review the evidence and come to his own conclusion is in effect to put Snape on trial again -- why should Dumbledore allow it? Similarly, Snape might have respected Harry more if he'd known the last part of the prophecy. But to Dumbledore, it's Harry's power of love that validates the prophecy, not the other way around. How could Snape be expected to grasp that, when all he seems to know of love is that fools wear it on their sleeves? Finally, one of the reasons that Dumbledore is trusted so deeply is that he respects the secrets he's entrusted with. To put the blame for Dumbledore's failures on his need-to-know strategy rather than on the emotional weakness Snape and others highlight -- his desire to see only the best in people and his tendency to underestimate their weaknesses -- is to take the story on a tangent, IMO. Nora: > I suspect there's been some kind of harm done to the cause by the > profound disarray which the white hats are in at the end of HBP. And > they really are shocked there, aren't they? I myself was a little > surprised at the depth of their dependency; I suppose that post-OotP > I had wanted to see the Order as a more engaged and equitable body > than that. Pippin: I didn't see disarray. The situation reminded me of when President Kennedy was assassinated. People were stricken and horrified, just as they are in HBP, but the world didn't come to an end. In the books, it doesn't either. Dumbledore's funeral was organized and McGonagall met with her staff, dealt with the Ministry and planned to consult the board of governors. Scrimgeour was his opportunistic self, but still far better equipped to do his job without Dumbledore's advice than Fudge was. Harry hasn't got a very clear idea of how he's going to finish his tasks, but then he never has, and he's not panicked. We don't know who (if anyone) has taken over as Head of the Order, but then Harry's not *in* the Order, so why should it be anyone's business to tell him? Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 19:17:57 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:17:57 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148881 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Are you saying Harry didn't need to be punished? No. It would have been nice to see a punishment which would have actually made an impression on Harry as to what *he* did, rather than setting the tone with statements such as: "It must be such a comfort to think that, though they are gone, a record of their great achievements remains..." That's just snide. :) Of course, I'm sure someone will now come forward to offer a reading of how this was Snape offering his belated condolences, in the only way he knew possible. > That was true for Harry, as it was true for Sirius and James, and > it would have been better for Riddle if had been true for him. I think you have a far higher estimation of the subtle nature and profound consideration of Snape's actions here than I do, especially as this parallel fails to get through to Harry at all. It's interesting, that except for the expected boil of anger when Snape is his usual charming self, it just doesn't have an effect. No moral drawn. > Pippin: > > There *is* information that Harry simply doesn't have the critical > faculties to grasp. It's profoundly infantilizing to do that, though, and that's part of what I think one of Dumbledore's most negative aspects is--and why it's appropriate if it helped bring him down, for it's an object lesson in what not to do and a way in which the young hero can avoid a mistake of his mentor. > Anyway, it was not only Dumbledore who cleared Snape of being a > Death Eater, it was a ministry tribunal. To let Harry to review > the evidence and come to his own conclusion is in effect to put > Snape on trial again -- why should Dumbledore allow it? Because there was never an allocution for Harry, one of the wronged parties, to hear. Dumbledore has been protecting Snape for years, and refusing to allow anyone else to examine the evidence. Is it any shock that that attitude doesn't produce trust, but only wary toleration at best? There's one parallel which strikes me as potentially meaningful. We see Dumbledore omit information, but very rarely do we actually see him lie. One place where we do is in the scene in his office in OotP, where he outright lies to protect the students. Could he have done some of the same for Snape, because he thought Snape's remorse and conversion were genuine, and he wanted to protect him? Again, I'm nervous with Dumbledore's position as sole judge, here. > How could Snape be expected to grasp that, when all he seems to > know of love is that fools wear it on their sleeves? I've never quite understood your poor damaged Snape. He's been around Dumbledore all of these years, is deeply loyal to him and respects him and has this close working relationship, but he's still this angry and stunted and none of Dumbledore's philosophy has gotten through to him? None of it has worn off, because the damage is too deep? That seems odd at best. > Finally, one of the reasons that Dumbledore is trusted so deeply is > that he respects the secrets he's entrusted with. And that can be both good and harmful, which is a point I hope I've managed to bring out. It reminds me of an episode of CI from earlier in this year, but that's a total tangent and off-canon. Or, if you want an RL parallel, think of both the harm and the good done by varied situations of leaks of classified information. > To put the blame for Dumbledore's failures on his need-to-know > strategy rather than on the emotional weakness Snape and others > highlight -- his desire to see only the best in people and his > tendency to underestimate their weaknesses -- is to take the story > on a tangent, IMO. Ummm, I think that Dumbledore's need-to-know strategy is *intimately* tied into his emotional weaknesses. He keeps people in the dark precisely because he doesn't think they should have to deal with the knowledge that he has, that it will be too hard for them. He doesn't understand that as much as knowledge can hurt, it can also be the balm to soul because it means that people feel trusted and engaged, and can make better decisions. From Dumbledore's lofty perch on high, need-to-know makes sense, but he's forgotten the nature of what he's trying to shift the waves of. > We don't know who (if anyone) has taken over as Head of the Order, > but then Harry's not *in* the Order, so why should it be anyone's > business to tell him? Because they have as much of an investment as anyone in the success of his venture, and they have probably more of an idea than J. Random Wizard out there both who and what he is? I think he's worth their consideration. -Nora finds a warmer hat for the afternoon From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 16:12:33 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:12:33 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lagattalucianese" wrote: > > > La Gatta Lucianese: > > But not, I think, for children or young adults, an audience that > expects a more artistic and emotionally satisfying structuring. Kids > don't really want to read about people doing laundry, however > realistic it is. And I think they'd be really bothered by character > motivation that doesn't make sense. > Yeah, I understand what you mean. And I think you are right about JKR's primary audience. Of course, as Nora has pointed out that kind of thing cuts both ways. JKR's primary audience probably isn't nearly as fascinated by the adults and their motivations as this list is. I think in this they are probably much closer to JKR's own attitude toward things. Although many of us might find it fascinating for Snape and Dumbledore and others to be psychologically dissected and their motivations and understandings lovingly and thoroughly explained, I just don't think JKR is very interested in that at all (not totally disinterested, but it just isn't very high on her priorities list). Whatever explanation we get, whether a major revelation or not, is highly unlikely to be the kind of thing this list wants (i.e. where the adults are deeply examined with their motivations linked to childhood and adult fears and dreams with complicated and plausible webs of belief and emotion). To put it another way, I disagree with Magpie that Snape and his motivations may be the key to everything. I think JKR has made it very clear that HARRY and HIS motivations are the key to everything. The motivations and beliefs of other characters, even of Dumbledore himself, just aren't very important when compared to Harry's. If Snape ends up being very important, the person whose motivations and understandings undergo loving examination will be Harry. Even if Snape is the catalyst for that examination, his importance will clearly lie in his interaction with Harry's story arc. In the end, I just don't think we're going to get the intense emphasis on Snape's own story arc that many people want. Snape just isn't the hero. Along those lines, I disagree that kids necessarily find it upsetting when people's motivations don't make a lot of sense. I think it depends a lot on what role the person in question ends up playing in the story. Villains never really make sense, that's part of the reason they're villains. Heroes or "good" characters, however, are supposed to make at least a surface kind of sense. So a lot of it depends on what role JKR intends Snape to play. If he is a quasi-hero, then kids probably would expect his motivations to make sense. If he is a (quasi) villain or clear supporting character, I don't know that they would be particularly demanding of him with regard to clear motivation. Lupinlore From enlil65 at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 17:36:38 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:36:38 -0600 Subject: handwriting (was Re: too many topics to fit in this subject line, sorry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360602270936v51debda8s1d6df1c30d1ef3c5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148883 Catlady wrote: > >I think the HBP's book has a slightly less dangerous enchantment -- it > > attracts the person it belongs to and repels all others. It attracted > > Harry and made him trust the Prince for no logical reason. It repelled > > Ron by being illegible to him and repelled Hermione emotionally. > >snip< Potioncat: > Oh, I really like this idea. I'm not sure if canon gives any hints for > it, but I'll be looking for them now. I never gave it a second thought > when I first read it, that one person could read the writing and the > other two couldn't. I assumed Ron was too impatient to bother and > Hermione was determined not to. When I first read this proposal, I thought it was an unlikely idea, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. In particular, I think it could tie in to Dumbledore's insistence that Harry had the ability to obtain the Horcrux memory from Slughorn. Did Dumbledore himself "make sure" that Harry would end up with the Half Blood Prince's book, thus ensuring his high performance in Potions and immediately ingratiating Harry to Slughorn? Did Dumbledore himself suggest the Felix potion as a first day prize? Or perhaps Slughorn made a yearly habit of giving away Felix on the first day, and Dumbledore was banking on his continuing the practice. Dumbledore is probably also counting on Harry's character: that Harry wouldn't use Felix on something wasteful or selfish. No direct evidence for this, but an interesting idea nonetheless. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Feb 27 21:43:43 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:43:43 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148884 lupinlore: To put it another way, I disagree with Magpie that Snape and his motivations may be the key to everything. I think JKR has made it very clear that HARRY and HIS motivations are the key to everything. The motivations and beliefs of other characters, even of Dumbledore himself, just aren't very important when compared to Harry's. If Snape ends up being very important, the person whose motivations and understandings undergo loving examination will be Harry. Even if Snape is the catalyst for that examination, his importance will clearly lie in his interaction with Harry's story arc. In the end, I just don't think we're going to get the intense emphasis on Snape's own story arc that many people want. Snape just isn't the hero. Magpie: Just to clarify, I don't think that Snape will be getting tons of focus either. I agree Harry is the main character and it's his emotional arc we're following--Snape's importance, I agree, lies in how he interacts with Harry, not his own story. When I called Snape's motivations 'the key to everything' I'm just referring to his being, imo, the central running question throughout the books. Even Voldemort at this point has been revealed to Harry through the Pensieve. Snape is, imo, really the character who's always been the primary antagonist. In each book we get more pieces of his story, tying him closer and closer to Harry himself. So when I say I think it's important I mean I think it's an important reveal for Harry to understand just who he's dealing with with Snape. Up until now it seems like JKR has had fun doing a sort of "blind men with the elephant" thing where we see Snape in a slightly different way (while he's still obviously the same person, hitting a small range of notes). In the end all those things have to be tied together, imo, so Harry can get a handle on them. So far it seems like that's the main mystery thread that runs through every book, so while I don't expect an intense examination of Severus Snape, the kind we'd get in fanfic, I do think it's probably going to be important for Harry to understand who Snape was, how he came to join the DEs, how he came to leave them, how he really felt about Dumbledore, and possibly how he feels about the Malfoys and some other DEs. (And how exactly he felt about all the Marauders as well, perhaps.) -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Feb 27 22:15:12 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:15:12 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148885 "pippin_999" wrote: > Are you saying Harry didn't need to be punished? Yes. > Harry may have used the curse in self-defense That's right self defense. In my opinion Harry did absolutely nothing wrong. All Harry did was walk into the boy's bathroom and without warning Draco attacked him with an unforgivable curse. Harry would have been entirely justified if he'd killed Draco. > he learned it because he thought it would be fun to try I can sympathize with that, it would be fun to try. > he was planning to use it on McClaggen, remember? Yes but he didn't use it on McClaggen, fortunatel. I don't like McClaggen much but he didn't deserve that; and you can't put somebody in jail for what they ALMOST did. > And he hid the book hoping he would > be able to use it again. Good for Harry! If I were in Harry's position I'd do exactly the same thing, there is power in that book and there is no way I'd throw it away. > Snape might have respected Harry more if he'd > known the last part of the prophecy. Oh I think Snape has quite a bit of respect for Harry, not that he'd ever tell anybody. The reason Dumbledore thought Snape only heard only the first half of the prophecy is that he knew Snape only told Voldemort about the first half, but I think Snape heard every word of it. Snape knew the first half would make Voldemort want to attack the baby Harry, and from the second half he knew that would be very dangerous. Snape wanted Voldemort dead just as he wanted Dumbledore dead. Eggplant From sydpad at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 22:18:07 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:18:07 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148886 Alla: >I'm not saying she's going to ?shunt aside all aspects of the Snape question (far from it), but I >*am* fairly sure that she's not going to linger lovingly over them in >detail, as we all would probably like her to just to settle some >perpetual arguments. >The gain of a simple explanation is that it's there on the table and >characters can then do things that react to it and relate to it. Snape wanting the DADA job because he wants the DADA job and he doesn't care about the curse ISN'T AN EXPLANATION, simple or otherwise. I'm not asking JKR to 'linger lovingly' on it-- her brisk efficiency is one of my favorite things about her writing. I'm wondering what, when All Is Revealed, is going to turn out to have been going on, with a point that relates DIRECTY to Snape's motivations and to the relationship between Snape and Dumbledore, which, like it or no, remains one of the central driving forces of the entire series. I don't expect a chapter of stream-of-consciouness internal monologue; I expect three lines of dialogue similar to what we got with Bagman. Look, I'm not saying that every teeny detail in the books is due for some Huge Twist and ties in to a big plot thing. What we're doing here in the predictions game is reverse-engineering a plot. On this monumental machine is a large ensemble of gears marked 'Snape'. Now, that's a pretty big important part of the engine here. And there a big widget sticking out of it marked "wants DADA job". Now, as a 'motivaton', it's a gear, it exherts force-- it's not an ornamental feature like the engraved "coolio wizarding history" curlicues on the "Horcrux objects" turbine. Naturally, as someone who is trying to figure out how the whole machine works, I want to know about this gear. What drives it? What is it driving? What's it attched to? What's its purpose here? Now, you may well say, 'oh, I really do think that bit is just ornamental' or 'no, no, that's actually part of the Red Herring Noisemaker', or, "God, I hate that Snape bit, I don't want to deal with it". But from where I'm standing it seems to be connected in some way to the "Snape's motivations" lever and the "Dumbledore's relationship with Snape" axle which goes deep down into the workings of the whole shebang. Lupinlore: > But then, we aren't talking about a movie. The kind of psychologically > realistic take we are discussing might not be good on film, but at > least some of us think that it is, at least occasionally, good in > novels. ... they just let irrationality be > irrationality and self-destructive behavior be self-destructive > behavior and they acknowledge that sometimes human motivation is > neither logical nor meaningful for anyone other than the person being > motivated. They don't try to make every answer to every question be > some kind of deep revelation that takes the plot and characters in a > surprising or new direction. That's terribly uncinematic and would > make for a horrible film script -- but it can make for a very good > novel. I'll just reiterate what Magpie and Gatta said, are you suggesting that JKR is something along the lines of Virginia Woolf, who is writing outside the classical tradition of storytelling? There's a reason every Hollywood studio was bidding in the 7 figures for the film rights to the series, and it's not because it's a novel of murky interiority where things just sort of happen. And in any event, what kind of 'realistic' novel doesn't find human motivations 'meaningful'? In War and Peace, the most random little characters are given clear, consistent, and understandable motives. Even Captain Ahab, king of the "irrational impulse", had his leg eaten before deciding the whale embodied universal evil. In the sort of 'good novels' that I think you're referring to, a prominent character being driven by an odd self-destructive impulse would be precisely the sort of thing that woud be the most interesting and the most attached to 'deep revelations'. The word I would use for novels where people's motivations don't make sense and have nothing to do with what happens in the story is, well, "bad novels". Just to be sure I understand Lupinlore and Alla's position-- Lupinlore, you yourself started this thread with this excellent question: >If the position is >probably cursed, why on Earth does Snape want it so badly? Is he >faking his desire? We have no evidence for that, indeed all the >evidence we have including the application records cited by Umbridge >show Snape has wanted the position badly for many years. Yet Snape >hardly seems the type to to commit professional suicide for the sake >of a principle. And you have settled on the explanation that Snape has fixated on the DADA post from an irrational drive that will not be further explained by JKR. You deal with Snape's attitude to the curse by suggesting a soup of denial and arrogance that will not be of any particular interest. Personally I think this wouldn't fly in either a movie or a novel, even one by Virginia Woolf, but maybe it's just because I'm a Hollywood hack . Or, this just in from Lupinlore: >Villains never really make sense, that's part >of the reason they're villains. Heroes or "good" characters, >however, are supposed to make at least a surface kind of sense. Okaaaaay... so either it's a hyper-realistic slice-of-life 'good' novel where we can't really know anything about anything because people are too complex; or it's a sub-Disney fairy tale where the Evil Stepmother is mean because she wants her own children to succeed and not Cinderella. Wait, that's actually a reasonable motivation...*tries feverishly to think of totally unmotivated villians*. Anyways, personally, I happen to think Snape is EXACTLY the sort of person to commit professional suicide for the sake of a principle. I would say this is one of his most prominent characteristics. When have we ever seen Snape do anything to make his life easier-- trying to get along with people, letting things go, giving easier assignments in his classes so he doesn't have to work so hard? Who kept fighting back for the sake of sheer stupid pride against James and Sirius in the Pensivescene, when even I was mentally shouting, "dude, STAY DOWN!"? The expression to 'cut your nose off to spite your face' was invented for people like Snape. I would say that the "out-for-himself" Snape theorist could not, to be blunt, possibly be more wrong, which is why they are having cognitive disonance with him doing something as manifestly NOT out-for-himself as, as Lupinlore initially put it: >WANT[ing] a cursed job over his entire career at Hogwarts (evidently at least 14 years). So. WHAT principle is it that Snape wants to commit professional suicide for? zgirnius: > I think Dumbledore wanted Snape to still be at Hogwarts when > Voldemort returned. And with the DADA curse, there was a > possibility that would not work out if he gave Snape that > position. Dumbledore always intended to send Snape back to spying > on Voldemort (as he did when Voldemort returned in GoF). And, to > help get Snape initially accepted back to the fold, Snape had to > have something to offer Voldemort-. And that, Dumbledore always > planned to be his position at Hogwarts in close proximity to > Dumbledore. Something he knew Voldemort valued, as he had ordered > Snape to seek employment there himself. Right-- I like this as a motivation for Dumbledore. So, let's clean up one of the possibilities on the list: Snape wants to quit spying, which he knows he can do by leaving Hogwarts, which in turn he knows he can do by securing the DADA job. Dumbleodre wants to keep him at hand, ready to return to V-mort's side in his original capacity. Pros: the advantage to this is that Snape could plausibly be using the DADA job as cover for leaving Hogwarts TO VOLDEMORT. Because he could always, say, well, master, you DID tell me to get the DADA job! I kept applying! If you didn't want it to result in my leaving the school and reducing my usefulness to you, you shouldn't have put a curse on it! Cons: it feels a out of character for me to have Snape trying to get out of action-- he seems more prone to butting in to things! And he seemed ready enough at the end of GoF. But on the whole this theory stands the kick test, consistency-wise. >Still, what do people think about JKR's own explanation to Stephen >Fry, that Dumbledore is worried the DADA position will 'bring out >the worst' in Snape? Why would she say something so directly she doesn't >mean? Ooooh, but she DID mean it! "Bringing out the worst" in people is exactly what the DADA curse DOES. It's takes the victims darkest secret, and then belts them in the gut with it. Of course Dumbledore is worried the curse will bring out the worst in Snape-- it was bound to somehow out him as a double-agent, just as it was bound to out Lupin as a werewolf. >Even though I don't always believe >in my Grey!Snape theory, I have to say JKR's own answer fits best >with what Lupinlore is proposing here and what Grey!Snape proposes-- >Dumbledore was concerned a weakness in Snape, almost an addiction to >the dark arts, would be his undoing if he took the DADA position. >Simple and clear. And inconsistent. If Dumbledore is worried that exposure to the Dark Arts will cause him to revert to his old ways, what on earth is he doing sending him to infiltrate the Death Eaters? I mean, it's like not trusting someone to teach a grade school Drug Awareness course, but trusting them to go into deep cover with a bunch of heavy-using drug dealers. "I trust Severus Snape completely-- but, hoo-boy, not enough to let him near any Dark Arts!" does NOT stand the kick test. Ceridwen: >[The curse acts] not like Imperio in the sense >that it doesn't compel the person outside of their will. As zgirnius >said, Lupin was understandably unsettled enough to leave the castle >without his Wolfsbane. He didn't resist, thinking 'OMG, I've got to >get that potion!' He was compelled, which is what the Imperio does, >but through circumstances, not through active agent. If Snape is >DDM, the circumstances on the tower would have compelled him to >perform the AK for whatever reasons (so DD wouldn't be savaged and >die slowly at Greyback's claws? or whatever). Maybe it's like a reverse Felix Felicis-- it creates bad luck, and impulses the victim to actions likely to have bad consequences? The most basic thing you would mean if you said you were 'cursed' is that you were having extraordinary bad luck. Random note: If Quirrel DID teach DADA twice, (one year, then a year off, then back for Harry's year), did the poor devil actually get hit by the curse TWICE? Once when he got the brilliant idea to go get hands-on experience in the Dark Arts, and once when he got fried or whatever by V-mort leaving him? --Sydney From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 22:25:23 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:25:23 -0000 Subject: Trusting Snape - Dumb Dumbledore; Dumber DE's In-Reply-To: <4qag60$67famn@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148887 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tammy Rizzo" wrote: > ...edited... > > Tammy again: > > ... Okay, so you think that DD putting so much hope and trust > in Harry and Snape being able to act like grown ups is moronic. > Why? ... Think for a moment -- Dumbledore is well over 150 > years old. He's always been shown to us as 'large and in charge', > so to speak -- always quite secure, almost always nearly > preternaturally calm (...), always rational. He's had > GENERATIONS of practice at being cool, calm, collected, rational, > and of considering the outcomes. > ...edited.. bboyminn: The old and wise men will not suffer fools easily. Dumbledore has seen it all before; stubborn pig-headed fools, ineffective bureaucrats, love-sick idiots, power hungry overlords, people who are pathetic passive sheep, war, famine, plague, pestilence, and much much more. At some point, despite I'm sure much effort on Dumbledore's part, you just have to let fools be fools; it's the only way they learn. I have a philosophy that says that 'Revelation is a far better teacher than explanation', or, 'the lessons you teach yourself are the lesson you learn the best'. I'm sure when Dumbledore was young WISE and idealistic, he tried to explain the folly of men to them, yet they never learned, they presisted in endless folly. Eventually he realized that they would continue on their self-chosen path of destruction until they either learned for themselves that they were their own worst enemy or they destroyed themselves. But either way, they had to learn it for themselves. So, now Dumbledore does his best, but beyond a certain point, he can only create opportunities, from there on, people have to get on with it by themselves. They sink or swim by their choices. It has to be incredibly frustrating to be Dumbledore, to be so wise, yet live in a world where you find fools at every turn. Fools who refuse to listen to reason or truth, so thoroughly convinced that only they know the real truth or what has real value. Like I said, at some point, you just have to withdraw and just let fools be fools. >...edited... > > > PJ: > ... Two reasons more didn't get hurt or die in that fight was > Harry's potion and the fact that most DE's seem to be the "gang > who couldn't shoot straight". Let's face it, either the kids are > extrordinarily good at spells or the DE's skills are laughable! > .... > > Tammy again : > > Well, have we yet seen any *competent* DE action? What we've seen, > first hand, has been more like disorganized mob work, and a bunch > of toadies grovelling in the graveyard. ... I'm sure they were > confident that anyone fighting against them would also have been > trained by incompetents. ...edited... After all, they seem to all > have rather weak minds, believing the tripe LV's been feeding them. > > *** > Tammy Rizzo bboyminn: The problem with the Death Eaters is that they are the typical evil overlord toadies. The Evil Overlord is so convinced of his own superiority and genius, that any plan he conceives is the 'perfect plan' by virtue of the fact he thought of it. Compound that by the fact that he is such an absolute ruthless vindictive ruler, that there is no room for analysis, discussion, or any attempt to refine the plan. It is simply 'do as I say, or die'. That doesn't lead to the most innovative or creative planning. Further, 98% of the DE's are morons, so that the Evil Overlord will look like a genius by comparison, and with the added benefit that none of them are capable of challenging him. The remaining DE's while intelligent are moderately deranged and blinded by illusions of power. So, we have a pack of blind, deranged, deluded, power-mad, afraid to think for themselves morons trying to carry out ill-concieved plans, and you wonder why nothing ever works. People wonder why street thugs are so dangerous. It's not because they CAN hit you; it's because they WILL. The same is true with DE's, they will strike without provocation or warning. They act for selfish pleasure, and to re-enforce an exaggerated sense of power. They act because they can act, and neither do they fear the consequences nor think that there will be any consequences. That is until they are dead or in jail, then they are convinced that 'everybody is always picking on me, I never get a break'. Well, no one ever said they were smart. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Mon Feb 27 22:52:50 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:52:50 -0000 Subject: Lily's eyes (was handwriting (was Catlady's post)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148888 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: > > --- "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Catlady wrote: > >> >snip< > >> I think the HBP's book has a slightly less dangerous enchantment -- > >> it attracts the person it belongs to and repels all others. It > >> attracted Harry and made him trust the Prince for no logical > >> reason. It repelled Ron by being illegible to him and repelled > >> Hermione emotionally. Let me change 'it belongs to' to 'who > >> belongs to it' > > >snip< > > > > Potioncat: > > But an enchantment, possible done by Snape himself, makes a great > > deal of sense. He would have wanted his spells protected from > > maraudering eyes. > > > > Someone else had suggestd that Harry subconsciously recognised the > > writing... > > > > > > I am wondering if this has something to do with Harry having Lily's > eyes? Perhaps the book was enchanted so Lily could look at the > notes, as well as Snape. Lily, if I remember correctly (always > problematic), had the power of seeing the good in people. Maybe this > was part of the reason Harry defended the Prince so vehemently; he > could see the good in the Prince where others could not. > > lealess > AmanitaMuscaria now - Lily's eyes fits this so well! I think, between you all, that you've got the importance of Lily's eyes! I do wonder, however, what Lily would have said about the Sectumsempra and some of the other doubtful spells in the book? Snape appears to be very jealous of the spells in the book - would that be because he hates the thought of Harry being able to read them? Could there have been some leakage of the Levicorpus spell to a Marauder, leading to Snape's calling Lily mudblood? Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From rkdas at charter.net Mon Feb 27 23:02:27 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:02:27 -0000 Subject: Lily's eyes (was handwriting (was Catlady's post)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148889 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amanitamuscaria1" wrote: Ample and ruthless snipping > AmanitaMuscaria now - Lily's eyes fits this so well! I think, between > you all, that you've got the importance of Lily's eyes! > I do wonder, however, what Lily would have said about the > Sectumsempra and some of the other doubtful spells in the book? Snape > appears to be very jealous of the spells in the book - would that be > because he hates the thought of Harry being able to read them? > Could there have been some leakage of the Levicorpus spell to a > Marauder, leading to Snape's calling Lily mudblood? > Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria > Hi there! Yes, there was some kind of passing around of Levicorpus because James used it on Snape (from the pensieve memory) and although Hermione hinted at it to Harry (and he didn't catch it- he assumed she was talking or his mind was thinking of the poor muggles at the QWC) that people were making other people float along asleep (Snape being brought out of the tunnel under the Whomping Willow) and even Lupin admitted at Christmas that all sorts of people were using "levi" during his time at Hogwarts, spells and things going in and out of fashion and all...So while you don't have any canon for Lily spilling th beans, levicorpus was widely known. It doesn't seem likely Snape got any credit since Lupin didn't mention him in conjunction with it though... Way too much information in one sentence... Jen D. From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Feb 27 23:35:18 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:35:18 +0100 Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent References: Message-ID: <00e201c63bf6$78c4b9f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148890 PJ wrote: > Well.... I do think he has and it's when he tells Harry that Snape > only heard the first half of the prophesy. Since ST only knows > what's going on around her before and after a trance she'd either > have to have been going into it or coming out of it when Snape came > into the room. If she were just going into a trance he'd have heard > *none* of it... if after then he'd probably heard much more than > Harry is told. Just my opinion. Miles: I agree with this idea, and I always like to present my theory that knowing the entire prophecy, but telling LV only the first part of it is the reason for DD's trust in Snape. I would agree to repeat it once more if anyone wants to read it again. (Looking into the bored faces of the list members). Ok, ok... But I do not agree that Dumbledore told Harry a lie here: "(Snape) ... heard the first half of Professor Trelawney's prophecy. ... he hastened to tell his master what he had heard..." (HBP 25) Did Dumbledore tell Harry that Snape did NOT hear the second part? He made Harry think, but he didn't say so. So if the theory mentioned above (ignoring the boos of the crowd) is true, he didn't lie. Miles :) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Feb 27 23:38:26 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:38:26 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148891 Jen previous: > Still, what do people think about JKR's own explanation to Stephen > Fry, that Dumbledore is worried the DADA position will 'bring out > the worst' in Snape? Why would she say something so directly she > doesn't mean? Sydney: > Ooooh, but she DID mean it! "Bringing out the worst" in people is > exactly what the DADA curse DOES. It's takes the victims darkest > secret, and then belts them in the gut with it. Of course > Dumbledore is worried the curse will bring out the worst in Snape-- > it was bound to somehow out him as a double-agent, just as it was > bound to out Lupin as a werewolf. Jen: Well, that's what I meant, JKR already gave us a motivation for Dumbledore not wanting Snape to have the DADA position. I'm confused why you would buy this explanation, but not this one: > Even though I don't always believe in my Grey!Snape theory, I have > to say JKR's own answer fits best with what Lupinlore is proposing > here and what Grey!Snape proposes--Dumbledore was concerned a > weakness in Snape, almost an addiction to the dark arts, would be > his undoing if he took the DADA position. Simple and clear. Sydney: > If Dumbledore is worried that exposure to the Dark Arts will cause > him to revert to his old ways, what on earth is hedoing sending > him to infiltrate the Death Eaters? [snip] "I trust Severus Snape > completely-- but,hoo-boy, not enough to let him near any Dark > Arts!" does NOT stand the kick test. Jen: Being put near the dark arts and being put into a cursed position which brings 'out the worst in you' are two very different things in my book. Snape teaching DADA without the curse would likely be fine (extrapolating from what JKR said above). Snape infiltrating the DE's and being near the practice of dark arts is fine. Snape put in a position near the dark arts while under a heavy- duty Voldemort curse is NOT fine, it would 'bring out the worst in him'. I don't see how this weakens Dumbledore's trust in Snape for him to worry that Snape won't be able to handle the curse very well--who could? No one so far. I've always felt Dumbledore is more protective of Snape than other people except Harry, and maybe in part because he knows how much he needs him to defeat Voldemort when he returns. So I could definitely see him being wary of putting Snape into a situation which could ruin everything because of a powerful curse in play. Jen R. From arlenegustave at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 18:15:29 2006 From: arlenegustave at yahoo.com (Arlene) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:15:29 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148892 > Tonks: Or.. somehow SS in that position would be used by LV against the > students and the school. > Arlene here: Ahh!! I don't know about that so much Tonks. My belief is that while DD is all great and powerful. So too is LV. I actually think, if LV wanted to he probably could kill DD. Just here me out..... I believe LV has a tiny, idy bidy bit of respect for DD (Coming to the orphange to him). Just enough to not harm him (Why not curse DD instead of the school) Having said that. I believe LV would take over the DA position once Snape got it and did what HE wanted to do. Afterall while Snape is good at Occlumency...why would he block out his master??? The reason DD never gave the job to LV in the first place was because he felt he would train them wrong or to follow him... What would stop LV from doing this once his man (Snape) was in this position? This would either out Snape (not following orders) or succeed and take over the school Just my 2 cents... Arlene. From arlenegustave at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 18:02:00 2006 From: arlenegustave at yahoo.com (Arlene) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:02:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death was planned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148893 > bboyminn: > > I have one question that I always ask when people speculate that this > was all planned by Dumbledore. How does Dumbledore enlist the > cooperation of the Death Eaters? edited... Would Dumbledore really fake his death by inviting Death Eaters into a castle filled with innocent students and teachers? Arlene here: Thanks you guys for the imput danitchlich, you made a good point about the wand being needed to retrieve the wand... However, Tonks made another good point that DD doesn't need a wand to save himself, and he's so powerful and great. Which I agree....Yet DD is dead. Which brings me to my original point that it was planned. I know Tonks say it was expected, but not planned. I think it was planned. For the same reason Snape wasn't given the DA job any sooner than 14 years... it wasn't time yet. As far bboyminn, I don't believe DD enlisted help from the DE (Just one Snape)nor did he "Invite" them into the school (I believe that was Draco). Did he know these things were going to happen.... maybe, would he have planned it on the same day he went after a Horcrux and drank poison and was weakend no I don't think that was planned. What I do think was planned, was that IF the DE's ever surrounded him and Snape had to PROVE himself in front of DD, and someone had to die..... it would have to be DD (for a number of reasons). It HAD to be Snape. which is why DD was asking only for him. Arlene. From bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 27 18:23:38 2006 From: bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net (William Bernard) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:23:38 -0600 Subject: Snape and the DADA curse. References: Message-ID: <002a01c63bca$ee29fec0$4101a8c0@COMPUTER1> No: HPFGUIDX 148894 Bill here: > There might be a simpler explanation for events. Suppose that DD expected Slughorn to stay for only 1 year. He moved SS to DADA and had Slughorn teach potions. At the end of the year, Snape would go back to teaching potions and a new DADA teacher would be found, or at least looked for. > This takes into account the jinx that DD suspects is there, but solves his problem for a year. Things just didn't work out in the fashion expected. Zgirnius: I see two problems with this explanation. First, Slughorn probably needs to stay on. I don't think Dumbledore wants him out in the world unprotected, where Voldemort mught learn that he shared the Horcrux memory with Harry. Second, this dodge was tried already. I believe it was stated explicitly that Moody was going to take the job for just a year, to help out Dumbledore. Yet the curse certainly struck him. It could easily affect Snape in a way that would render him unemployable by the school in the following year, in any capacity. Bill Again: But if Slughorn is such a risk, why hasn't he been at Hogwarts all along? Aftr all, DD gave ST a job, even though she's a fraud, just to keep her safe. Is it more likely that DD wanted to avoid a situation in which the MoM would want to install another DADA teacher? That decree is probably still in effect and the Ministry obviously has an interest in the teachers at Hogwarts. I would argue that Alastor (Mad-Eye) Moody still owes DD a year of teaching. After all, all he did was lie in his trunk for a year. Barty Crouch Jr. is the one who had to deal with all the kids . Actually, I just want to point out that maybe things are not as convoluted and devious and well planned as some of the threads have suggested. There might have been simpler motivations. Bill From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 01:01:50 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:01:50 -0000 Subject: Handwriting In-Reply-To: <20060225152717.40486.qmail@web81212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148895 Rebecca Scalf wrote: > > Does anyone else wonder if at least some of the writing in the HBP's potions book is Snape's mothers? I believe the canon is that the book was published years before the Marauders' time at Hogwarts, and that makes it a used book for SS - I assumed it was a hand-me-down from his mother. > Carol responds: We know from "Flight of the Prince" (both the title and Snape's own words) that he is the Half-Blood Prince. The words "This Book is the Property of the Half-Blood Prince" are in "the same small, cramped writing as the instructions that had won [Harry] the bottle of Felix Felicis" (HBP Am. ed. 193). This is almost certainly the same writing that we see young Severus using in his DADA OWL: "His hand was flying across the parchment; he had written at least a foot more than his closest neighbors, and yet his writing was minuscule and cramped" (OoP Am. ed. 641). The Pensieve scene shows us two things: first, even as a student, Snape knew *a lot* about DADA; and second, he wrote in a small, cramped hand that allowed him to get a lot of words on the page. The reader, IMO, is meant to catch the first one immediately and connect it with Snape's known desire to teach the DADA course. The second is a planted clue to connect young Severus in "Snape's Worst Memory" to the Half-Blood Prince, who shares Snape's gift for Potions. Harry, it appears, noticed the handwriting but did not register its significance--or even its similarity to or difference from the adult Snape's handwriting. His focus is elsewhere--he's looking for, and soon finds, his father. And when he sees his father bullying young Snape without provocation, everything else slips from his mind. We have, BTW, seen Professor Snape writing on the board without magic at least once--I believe it's in GoF--but only because JKR needs to have Snape's back turned at that moment (or else she hadn't yet thought of the idea of writing the potion instructions on the board with a flick of the wand). In OoP Snape uses the wand flick, but no difference in the handwriting is indicated. Harry, who seldom pays attention to details, doesn't see the similarity or difference, if any exists. Also, there's no indication that Snape, who has a *lot* of essays to mark and return quickly, makes extensive comments on them. And even if he did, Ron can't read the small writing and Hermione refuses to read the improved instructions, so neither of them can help Harry to connect the HBP's writing with the adult Snape's. Now if Snape were still Harry's Potions instructor, even he (Harry) might notice a similarity between the HBP's writing and Snape's--and wouldn't dare to use the shortcuts in the Potions book because he'd know whose they were. But JKR takes care to keep him (and the reader) from seeing Snape's handwriting in HBP. Even the message about his first detention (the one for "cheek") is delivered by word of mouth (HBP Am. ed. 235-36). That, along with the red herrings about the writing resembling a girl's (wishful thinking on Hermione's part and based on a cursory glimpse, not on careful study of the marginal notes she distrusts) and the age of the book (which, I agree, is a hand-me-down from Snape's mother--Slughorn is too lazy to change to a more modern textbook even now), prevents Harry from figuring out what an observant reader suspects from the first description of the writing at the end of the "Half-Blood Prince" chapter. The similarity of the descriptions in HBP and OoP and the hint we've already received in OoP that teen!Snape was obsessed with DADA, along with what we already know of the adult Snape's skill at Potions and his recognition of the book as his, makes the identification of the Half-Blood Prince, the writer of both the spells and the potions hints, as certain as anything we know to be true in the HBP books. We may be in doubt regarding Snape's motives and his loyalties, but the title mystery has been solved just as surely as the identity of the person who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire. So unless Eileen used the same nickname as her son and called herself "the Half-Blood Prince," which I rather doubt, the writing throughout the book is that of the teenage Potions and DADA genius, Severus Snape--a sublime irony given the empathy and admiration Harry feels for the unknown boy in contrast to the determined hatred he now feels for the man that boy became. Carol, who *does* pay attention to details and hopes she has not obscured her argument by including too many in this post From rkdas at charter.net Tue Feb 28 01:39:53 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 01:39:53 -0000 Subject: Handwriting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: >SNIPPED--Slughorn is too lazy to change to a > more modern textbook even now), prevents Harry from figuring out what > an observant reader suspects from the first description of the writing > at the end of the "Half-Blood Prince" chapter. Jen D here, After reading a very convincing discussion elsewhere on Slughorn, I can't help but believe he knew what he was doing by giving Harry that "old textbook." And, a complete and total non-sequitor but,who was it that said Snape knew more hexes and curses on arrival to Hogwarts than kids in their last year? Snape came equipped somehow to immerse himself into the dark arts! Appropo of your next bit here, thank goodness! Jen D. > > The similarity of the descriptions in HBP and OoP and the hint we've > already received in OoP that teen!Snape was obsessed with DADA, along > with what we already know of the adult Snape's skill at Potions and > his recognition of the book as his, makes the identification of the > Half-Blood Prince, the writer of both the spells and the potions > hints, as certain as anything we know to be true in the HBP books. We > may be in doubt regarding Snape's motives and his loyalties, but the > title mystery has been solved just as surely as the identity of the > person who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire. > > So unless Eileen used the same nickname as her son and called herself > "the Half-Blood Prince," which I rather doubt, the writing throughout > the book is that of the teenage Potions and DADA genius, Severus > Snape--a sublime irony given the empathy and admiration Harry feels > for the unknown boy in contrast to the determined hatred he now feels > for the man that boy became. > > Carol, who *does* pay attention to details and hopes she has not > obscured her argument by including too many in this post Jen here again! Thank goodness Carol I play well off of your side thoughts! Jen D. > From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 02:17:13 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:17:13 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148897 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: First of all, you have Alla miscited as myself in what I've snipped. I take care in crafting my posts (well, okay, five minutes), I want my credit! =) > Snape wanting the DADA job because he wants the DADA job and he > doesn't care about the curse ISN'T AN EXPLANATION, simple or > otherwise. It may not be an *explanation* in the sense that you want it, no, but it is certainly potentially illustrative of character at a very simple level, one that doesn't need much more than that. "He wants it because he thinks it's his rightful position" isn't much more, close enough for me to barely call it different, but it may well be all we get. > So. WHAT principle is it that Snape wants to commit professional > suicide for? I think that's a good question, although I'm not sure it's going to be the right question. > I mean, it's like not trusting someone to teach a grade school Drug > Awareness course, but trusting them to go into deep cover with a > bunch of heavy-using drug dealers. True, but Snape as a spy is not Snape in direct proximity to the students, is he? Perhaps Dumbledore thinks that Snape could actually better handle that sort of stuff than being in the position of power. I don't know, but it could almost fly. And I will simply reiterate the tiresome point that consistency depends on perspective and what standards you define it with. -Nora pretty much wastes a post just because she, umm, really hates being misattributed. Look before you leap? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 02:18:34 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:18:34 -0000 Subject: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148898 Gerry: > I think he told DD and they worked out a plan. The reason I think so > is the final exchange between Snape and Harry. The 'don't call me > coward.' The first time Harry called Snape a coward he was fine with > it. It was only when Harry called him a coward in relation to his > killing of DD that he snapped. Why would that be if he was ESE? It was > not a sporting act, killing a man who was almost dying. But would > that truly matter to a Death Eater who just had succesfully completed > a mission? It would matter, however to DDM!Snape who knows from now on > he will be reviled by everyone he wanted to respect him. > > It would matter to WEAK!Snape who had chosen the easy (well > comparatively) over right and saved his own skin at the cost of the > live of DD. > > Because of how he got the DE's out of Hogwarts and protected Draco, > I'm in favour of DDM. But the other options also make sense to me. > Alla: As I said many times in the past - WEAK!Snape (other names are also valid)is the only variation of the "sort of" DD!M Snape which I like. As always credit goes to amazing Severely Siguine who introduced in her "Snape the riddle" essay ( it is in the recommended posts and if somebody did not read it yet, absolutely recommended :-)) Snape who did not tell DD about third provision of the UV, and Snape who killed DD because he truly felt that he had no other choice. Now, I have not reread Siguine essay for quite some time, so I don't remember if in her version DD IS dying from the poison on the Tower or not, but to me it really does not matter in such scenario. Snape may have truly felt that for the greater good he has no other choice but to kill DD, otherwise he won't be able to save Draco and /or Harry and indeed to force DE out of school, blah, blah, blah. Snape may have had all the best intentions in the world (Okay, I really don't think that he did but for this scenario, I am ready to buy it), when he thought that he IS indeed more valuable for the light than DD is. The thing is I truly believe that if this is the case, JKR intends to prove him wrong. Namely put him through hell for committing the murder, even if for the "greater good". It also plays into my conviction that if Snape IS to be redeemed , he needs to have something to be redeemed from within the course of the story and while I sure think that his mistreatment of Harry qualifies, his murder of DD (of course I call it murder - opinions vary on that) qualifies even more. And when JKR was talking about "redemptive pattern" in Snape, probably, hopefully she was talking about pattern, which will show up in book 7. Alla, who wants Snape to be evil, but who also likes Weak and Arrogant Snape. From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 02:26:10 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:26:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent In-Reply-To: <00e201c63bf6$78c4b9f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148899 Miles: >Did Dumbledore tell Harry that Snape did NOT hear the second part? He made >Harry think, but he didn't say so. So if the theory mentioned above >(ignoring the boos of the crowd) is true, he didn't lie. PJ: A lie by omission is still a lie. Sorry but if I were Harry I would definitely say I'd been lied to. PJ From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 02:28:19 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:28:19 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148900 Jen: > I don't see how this weakens Dumbledore's trust in Snape for him to > worry that Snape won't be able to handle the curse very well--who > could? No one so far. ... > So I could definitely see him being wary of putting Snape into a > situation which could ruin everything because of a powerful curse in > play. Sorry, just so I'm clear-- are you arguing that Dumbledore was worried that the curse would act in such a way as to make Snape ACTUALLY change sides back to V-mort? That's how I read this: > > Dumbledore was concerned a > > weakness in Snape, almost an addiction to the dark arts, would be > > his undoing if he took the DADA position. Simple and clear. It's that word, 'addiction', that loses me. If Dumbledore thinks Snape is addicted to the Dark Arts, he doesn't trust him, period. If Dumbledore thinks the Curse could produce any set of circumstances that would result in Snape ACTUALLY changing sides, he doesn't trust him. And nothing is more canon than that Dumbledore trusts Snape completely. By sending him as a spy back into Voldemort's camp he must have known that Snape would be put through every imaginable sort of stress on his loyalties. Wheras what I mean by: > > Of course > > Dumbledore is worried the curse will bring out the worst in Snape-- > > it was bound to somehow out him as a double-agent, just as it was > > bound to out Lupin as a werewolf. is that the likely result of the curse was to force a situation where Snape's position as a double-agent was a catalyst for him to leave the school under personally catastrophic circumstances. Noone could have anticipated excactly HOW those circumstances would play out-- it could have been a stupid accident like Lockhart's rebounding memory charm. Or it could have been a byzantine coincidence like the tangle that led up to Lupin's werewolf transformation. But the curse hits people PRACTICALLY. I don't think it affects their CHARACTER. If Dumbledore trusted Snape's character under the stresses of spying, I don't think he'd worry about his cracking psychologically from the curse. Purely theoretically, a similar curse could produce a set of circumstances in which Sirius would unwittingly, or accidentally, or have not other option than to betray the Secret he was Keeping for James. But no curse could result in him changing his character so that he would WILLINGLY betray James. So, I think what was meant (trickily!) by the curse 'bringing out the worst' in Snape, is not, making him act out their worst qualities as you would say, teaching Neville 'brings out the worst' in Snape. It's more by way of a play on words-- the curse 'brings out' into the open, by creating bad luck, the worst secrets that the victim is hiding to maintain his status quo, and destroys them with it. Clear? -- Sydney From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 02:31:35 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:31:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148901 Paul: >Yes, and that is the trouble with all this "Harry the horcrux" thingy. PJ: I've read some compelling arguements for both sides but still, I'm not convinced either way. The only reason I wrote on the subject at all is because Steve asked a question that interested me and I thought I had a fairly good answer for him. :) PJ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 03:13:13 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:13:13 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? WAS: Re: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148902 > > Alla: > > > > So, basically you are saying that the curse will work even if > Snape > > is not Voldemort's man anymore, sort of like "Imperio" through Dark > > Mark? Just curious. > > Ceridwen: > Not like Imperio, but like Imperio. Not like Imperio in the sense > that it doesn't compel the person outside of their will. As zgirnius > said, Lupin was understandably unsettled enough to leave the castle > without his Wolfsbane. He didn't resist, thinking 'OMG, I've got to > get that potion!' He was compelled, which is what the Imperio does, > but through circumstances, not through active agent. If Snape is > DDM, the circumstances on the tower would have compelled him to > perform the AK for whatever reasons (so DD wouldn't be savaged and > die slowly at Greyback's claws? or whatever). Since Snape has the > DM, the curse may be more potent. > > *(snipping)* Alla: Right that is pretty much what I thought - that in your scenario the curse works sort of like Imperio through circumstances, but I am still unclear on how the curse will work in your scenario upon the person without Dark Mark. Is in your scenario "brings the worst secret or the worst part of their natures and oust DADA teachers" still true? Are you theorising in essense that if curse is unable to "force" or "compel" DADA teacher directly or indirectly to kill Dumbledore, then the curse still "outs" the person? Basically is it EITHER/OR scenario? Because it seems that in Snape scenario curse did both ( if we assume that this is curse's doing of course :)) What I am trying to say that it seems logical to me that IF your scenario is correct or the way I see it, the curse should not be able to work AT ALL upon someone who is not wearing DADA mark or who is in his heart faithful to Voldemort. Makes sense? It would be funny if what LL said earlier would turn true, but partially - namely all previous DADA teachers left not because of the curse and for the first time curse worked was on Snape and why because Snape had the potential, the intent and/or Dark mark to make the curse recognise him as true Voldemort's man /or simply compelled him through Dark Mark. >> Ceridwen: > And, Snape does admit that Dumbledore is a powerful wizard. Just as > DD admits that LV is powerful. It's dangerous to delude oneself. I > think Jen has it right in thinking that Snape, like Harry, believed > DD could pull this one out of the fire. He always has before, > right? Why not now? I don't see how this respect could mean only > DDM!Snape, since even enemies can have respect and admiration for > competency. But it has a bigger BANG for DDM!Snape, since he must > have thought that everything would work out... Surprise, it didn't! Alla: Oh, of course not - this respect was shown in neutral context, it could EASILY be Evil Snape too :-). I was just trying to say that IF we get DD!M Snape this could be used to support after the fact Snape's respect of Dumbledore in a good way, if that makes any kind of sense. :-) Just another example IMO how one piece of canon can be intepreted in TWO opposite ways and both interpretations would be correct till book 7 comes out. JMO, Alla From aceworker at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 02:30:42 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:30:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ways to Kill in HP (was Re: too many topics) In-Reply-To: <1141030195.731.66845.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20060228023042.27966.qmail@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148903 angie gelite67 wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148497 : << he also desired to kill Sirius in POA and couldn't do it (never understood how he would have at that point anyway, b/c he didn't know about any killing curses then). >> Catlday wrote: <> Maybe this is a bit of a morbid topic, but I found this interesting. Avada Kavada kills, but so do many other spells. Accio Heart would probrably work. So would Sectusampra. But the reason Avada Kavada, Crucio and Imperius are unforgivable curses are that the are all seem to be Unblockable. You can break Imperious and Crucio but only after the initial effect has taken hold. This is why they are unforgrivable. In order of the Phoenix Bellatrix tells Harry that he can't effectively cast Crucio, because he doesn't hate enough! All three of these curses are driven by the need for absolute hatred (which means Dumbledore can be dead only if Snape absolutely hated him!) You can kill by other spells and even physical means a Wizard or witch, however in all other cases he or she has a chance to avoid it, or even caste a shield or counter curse. The three unforgivrable can only be blocked by physical objects in their path or perhaps by something else called love. I'm going on the limb here and speculating, about what will be revealed in the last book, but I think that they can only be blocked by a shield charm fueled by Absolute Love. Voldermort will probrably try to kill Harrys's friends or Harry and either he or his friends will block Avada Kavada and it will bounce back to Voldy like Lily's did. I'm even willing to bet they will even find this curse in the potions book. Hermoine saw a womens handwritting in the book. Has Lily written in the book too but somehow Harry overlooked his mother's handwritting? Thats my two Galleons! D.A. Jones From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 03:23:10 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 03:23:10 -0000 Subject: Snape Horcux and DADA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148904 Ok this is way off the wall, but what if Snape is the Horcrux that we are all looking for? The DADA position comment about "bringing out the worst in him" takes on a new meaning if that were true, huh?? Comments anyone?? Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 04:20:11 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:20:11 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148905 Tonks wrote: > > Ok, how about this one: > SS wants the DADA position because he knows the Dark Arts and would > be a very good teacher of the subject. And (due to the whole LV > killed Lily and James and now I am a bitter and damned man) he hates > LV and wants to teach the young wizards how to defend themselves > against him. "Don't be a fool like I was in my youth", "Don't fall > for the Dark Lord's lure". DD can't give the job to him because it > would "out" Snape as DD's man. > > Or maybe Snape wouldn't come straight out and say those thing but > would teach the class with those thoughts in his mind. Snape's > secret which he is able to conceal in any other job would, because > of his strong emotional connection to the whole James and Lily > death, guilt and damned thing, would just come out at some point in > class no matter how much he tried to hide it. Draco would see this > and tell. And then Snape's cover would be blown. Carol responds: I think you've hit close to the mark. Teaching Potions, however useful the subject may be and however exceptional his own abilities in the subject may be, does not provide Snape with a way to teach the students to fight Voldemort (except indirectly, for example, the lessons on bezoars and antidotes). DADA, at which he also excels (and has done for a long time, as his DADA OWL and Potions book indicate), *does* provide that opportunity. Since Snape also excels at putting two and two together, he must know that the course is cursed and who cursed it (he would know the fates of his immediate predecessors and of the professors who taught the subject when he was in school and put that together with LV ordering him to teach it), but he may believe that he can overcome the curse. I suspect, however, that he knows why DD won't give him the post for the first fifteen years--not just because his cover would be blown, but because of the danger in which it would place him. Yes, others are of necessity exposed to the same danger, Lupin and the real Moody among them, but DD knows that Snape, unlike those other wizards, has a unique knowledge of DADA and the Dark Arts combined. The teachers at Hogwarts don't just teach, they perform duties related to their position--Sprout grows the Mandrakes for the Mandrake Restorative Potion (which Snape presumably prepares); Lockhart is *supposed* to go after the monster in the Chamber of Secrets; Snape prepares the Wolfsbane Potion, etc. It stands to reason that DD expects Snape in his position as DADA teacher to handle cursed objects and heal Dark curses beyond Madam Pomfrey's capabilities, but he is saving him until the last minute, even allowing Umbridge to take the position rather than giving it to Snape, knowing that the DADA position could destroy him (kill him or expose him as a DE, real or fiegned or force him to commit some evil deed). Now DD's options have run out; Voldemort is back and he desperately needs Snape's expertise. Moreover, there really is no one else he can hire. At the same time, he needs Slughorn to take the Potions position so he can protect *him* and get that memory (and have him available to act as HOH when Snape inevitably loses the position). IMO, they both know that the jig is up. They are out of options. And there's just the slightest hope that Snape can end the curse, returning as either DADA or Potions master the following year. If it's a triumph for Snape, it's a grim and dark one. But that he is indeed the best man for the job, both as a teacher and as a staff member who can either heal Dark curses, or at least prevent them from being fatal, is, I think, made abundantly clear by HBP. But that the position is still cursed, and that both Snape and DD are its victims, is also, to me at least, abundantly clear. Carol, certain that the spell LV silently casts in DD's office ten years after he leaves B&B has nothing to do with Horcruxes and everything to do with the DADA curse From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Feb 28 08:40:17 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:40:17 -0000 Subject: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148906 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > And when JKR was talking about "redemptive pattern" in Snape, > probably, hopefully she was talking about pattern, which will show > up in book 7. > What I'm afraid of is that it will be Harry's eyes. That the redemption will be that Lily's eyes will make Snape choose finally good over evil or right over easy and of course he will die in the process. I've always been afraid that this is where she is going with Lily's eyes, because why else would they be important than in a crucial moment remind someone with two choices about Lily, making him choose the right road. Now Peter already owns his life to Harry, so that would be redundant. Slughorn already did his Lily bit, so I believe those eyes will do their work on Snape. This means chances for him to be weak or evil are much bigger, unless he has to overcome -his- hatred of Harry to stay good. And that would make it interesting again. Gerry From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 11:34:33 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:34:33 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? WAS: Re: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148907 Alla: > > Right that is pretty much what I thought - that in your scenario the > curse works sort of like Imperio through circumstances, but I am > still unclear on how the curse will work in your scenario upon the > person without Dark Mark. Is in your scenario "brings the worst > secret or the worst part of their natures and oust DADA teachers" > still true? Ceridwen: Still true. Worst secret, worst nature (and the two could be the same thing - look at Lockhart). It has never been a good thing for the soul who holds that position. Alla: > Are you theorising in essense that if curse is unable to "force" > or "compel" DADA teacher directly or indirectly to kill Dumbledore, > then the curse still "outs" the person? Basically is it EITHER/OR > scenario? Because it seems that in Snape scenario curse did both ( > if we assume that this is curse's doing of course :)) Ceridwen: Not kill Dumbledore necessarily, just get him out of the school in any feasable way. Of course, Dumbledore being so powerful, that would almost make it a necessity to kill him, as he will never really leave while he is alive. We saw that in OotP. But, you know, OotP (book 5) was worse than GoF (4), which was worse than CoS (3), which was... maybe not worse, but farther reaching than PS/SS (1). At least, that's how I see the DADA exposures. Quirrel the victim, Lockhart the charlatan (sp?), Lupin the tragic victim of his 'furry problem', Moody the victim and Crouch the failed manipulator, Umbridge the truly evil, and now, Dead Dumbledore (YMMV on Snape's motivation). This could be because of LV growing more powerful as someone suggested, or it could be that the curse is growing stronger, as someone else suggested. Alla: > What I am trying to say that it seems logical to me that IF your > scenario is correct or the way I see it, the curse should not be > able to work AT ALL upon someone who is not wearing DADA mark or who > is in his heart faithful to Voldemort. Makes sense? Ceridwen: It does. Which means I'm not explaining it well. Think of the curse as the TV signals you can receive on your set. If you have an antenna, you can get the UHF and VHF stations, which don't go above 70-something, IIRC. This is the way the curse affects the non-DE DADA teacher. He or she is affected by the curse, but only up to 70- some-odd channels. But the Dark Mark acts like an amplifier and superior signal catcher, like a cable box or satellite dish. The DE holding the DADA position is affected more by the curse than the non-DE. Five hundred channels, more or worse potential damage to Dumbledore, as well as to the DADA professor. Crouch jr. couldn't pull it off, though he did almost create an international incident. His own instability was a kink in the wiring of his receiver. Every flaw we've seen in the DADA professors was a kink, I think, which affected the curse adversely. Even LV couldn't circumvent it on the back of Quirrell's head, because of Quirrell's defect (being scared? weak? fighting LV for the stone for himself?). IF this is true, and it's only just occurred to me as I think of this, then oddly enough, Snape is the only DADA prof. we've seen who didn't have some flaw that was capable of short-circuiting or otherwise misdirecting the curse. Looking below to the respect part, maybe Snape was the only great wizard of the bunch, and therefore a purer conduit for the curse to work through. But don't take me too seriously on this paragraph, it's only a thought. Alla: > It would be funny if what LL said earlier would turn true, but > partially - namely all previous DADA teachers left not because of > the curse and for the first time curse worked was on Snape and why > because Snape had the potential, the intent and/or Dark mark to make > the curse recognise him as true Voldemort's man /or simply compelled > him through Dark Mark. Ceridwen: But the curse did work. Dumbledore was more powerful. Each year that we have seen, there was the potential for Dumbledore's ouster from his position as headmaster. We've only seen years when Harry's involvement was also a factor. And I think that Harry's presence, as the only person who has survived an AK, and LV's AK at that, does throw a wrench into the works. This is, in part, why Dumbledore said Harry has defied LV numerous times - he has defied the curse every year as well as outright attempts on his life. But each DADA teacher has been outed under a cloud. Lockhart didn't leave at the end of the year throwing kisses and handing out autographs, after all. None of them left in good shape. Quirrell even died. Alla: > > Oh, of course not - this respect was shown in neutral context, it > could EASILY be Evil Snape too :-). I was just trying to say that IF > we get DD!M Snape this could be used to support after the fact > Snape's respect of Dumbledore in a good way, if that makes any kind > of sense. :-) Ceridwen: Yes, it could, but only as a bit of supporting evidence. The real denouement (sp?) will have to be something BANGY to Harry, and therefore to us. Respect is something he already knows to be neutral, through Dumbledore's teachings, as well as the rest of the staff (*Professor* Snape, Harry...) For any flavor of Snape, the respect will only serve to prove that, in his own way, he was a great wizard. Because only the great can see the neutral viewpoint on respect, IMO, the petty or less worthy will grouse and complain. Alla: > Just another example IMO how one piece of canon can be intepreted in > TWO opposite ways and both interpretations would be correct till > book 7 comes out. Ceridwen: Absolutely! Or even in three or four ways. Or more. That's why I like the HP series. It can be a mental exercise, and there is certainly a lot to talk about! Ceridwen. From erikog at one.net Tue Feb 28 12:02:45 2006 From: erikog at one.net (krista7) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 12:02:45 -0000 Subject: Snape/DADA and why 6th year Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148908 Here's my thoughts about Snape/DADA and "why now?" question. Let's say you are Dumbledore, about 17 years ago. You know, thanks to Trelawney, that Voldie's undoer is about to be born. You realize that into your hands is about to come a major weapon against Evil, and you've got to prep the child for the Ultimate Battle. Now, consider you have at hand a *genius* in the Dark Arts. One who is just busting to teach the subject. Obviously, you want to use him to teach the child. But you suspect there's something wonky with the DADA job--do you want to use Snape's DADA expertise now, or later in the child's life? For all kinds of reasons, to me, the child would benefit the most from learning at the hand of a genius in this topic only when he's nearly a complete adult. (It IS a nasty subject.) You could use Snape in the kid's founding years, but do you really want to waste Snape on basics of DADA (if the curse should take him out in a year)? Plus, you know Snape's not one for warm and fuzzy, and there's more than a bit of resentment between him and the child; it's probably better to give them time to mature, so the kid at least understands he *has* to learn this subject, regardless of Snape's social issues, and can profit from Snape's teaching. (Likewise his peers, who will also witness the Battle to Come.) So that gets us to when Harry's 15-18, let's say, to profit most from Snape's teaching. And wouldn't you want to put that experience off as long as you can, believing the closer we are to the Final Confrontation that Harry will be able to take on more significant leaps in knowledge? (Plus, it's probably good for the school to keep Snape around as long as possible; he appears to be physically the strongest staff member, in terms of a battle. And don't discount Snape's ability to keep an eye on Harry et al.) Okay, so why *this* year and not Harry's last year? Dumbledore knows the confrontation will be soon, and that the kids in Harry's group (including Harry) have stalled in their DADA growth, thanks to Umbridge. (Okay, some kids moved forward, thanks to independent learning, but Harry didn't really profit like he could have with a real teacher.) And if Snape manages to buck the curse, he could always return to the job for another year. That's my initial thought on why, in 6th year, Snape gets the job. I might have my timeline a bit off (away on research, without my books, sob!), but I think it matches up in general. Krista From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 06:30:03 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 06:30:03 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148909 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > > And you have settled on the explanation that Snape has fixated on the > DADA post from an irrational drive that will not be further > explained by JKR. You deal with Snape's attitude to the curse by > suggesting a soup of denial and arrogance that will not be of any > particular interest. Interesting, of course, begs the question "Interesting to whom?" I would find such a realistic and complex look at Snape's motivations to be very interesting. On the other hand, I would find an explanation that Snape is, for example, deeply motivated by an intense desire to nobly fight Voldemort, to be unrealistic, unbelievable, and frankly silly in the worst Hollywood tradition of silliness. What's wrong with a soup of denial and arrogance? Sounds like a perfectly good explanation to me, and one completely in keeping with what we know of Snape and the situation at Hogwarts. In other words, its utterly and completely believable. It's also completely in keeping with the realities of human thought and motivation. I don't know if JKR will further explain Snape's desire for DADA. If she does, I seriously doubt it will be the kind of explanation many listees want. Snape just isn't the hero, and, when push comes to shove, his wants and desires and motivations just aren't the important ones. Lupinlore From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 13:50:36 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:50:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trusting Snape In-Reply-To: <4qag60$67famn@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148910 Tammy : >Okay, so you think that DD putting so much hope and trust in Harry and >Snape being able >to act like grown ups is moronic. Why? It was wrong, obviously, but how >can it be considered >moronic? PJ: Because DD's already tried that with Snape and Harry via the lessons and realized it was a fiasco. Harry and Snape don't trust each other enough to work together! At 150 yrs old DD would have the intelligence as well as this past experience to finally see this and know that it would turn into a disaster even if both tried very hard to do as he wished. Tammy: Twists and turns? What twists and turns? It all reads perfectly straightforward to me. I don't understand what you mean, here. I know it does. The people who trust Snape and the people who don't seem to be reading two different books - or reading the same book in two different ways. Both views *must* be considered valid at this point though since we don't know what the author intends until the last book is finally released so I suppose we just agree to disagree? :) Tammy: >Why does my conviction that DD did not plan the Tower fiasco automatically >lead to an ESE/OFH!Snape reading? That makes no sense whatsoever. PJ: Well, for me it says that Dumbledore was not expecting Snape to come running up to AK him but rather that he'd been waiting for Snape to bring the posse to dispose of the DE's so he could work with Draco as well as find an antidote for that green potion. And I believe it was Potioncat (if not, my apologies to whoever it was) who brought up the "It's my mercy that matters now" speech. The way I read that was that even wandless DD had more power than Draco did and if Draco couldn't be reached than he would go the way of the other DE's once Snape got there. DD was trying to extend mercy but he wasn't going to be a fool about it! Tammy: His own feelings towards Harry frighten him, I believe -- they're so much stronger than he's had to deal with in over a century (my guess). He's out of practice with emotional responses, and doesn't understand them anymore, except possibly as an intellectual exercise. Y'know, I also believe that his depth of feeling for Harry scares him (which is why he went on and on about it at the end of OOtP) so at least we agree on something. :) But to say he doesn't understand emotional responses except as an intellectual exercise makes him way too much like Voldermort for me. > Tammy: ... he would have done anything to protect >his students, regardless of the price one teacher must be called upon to >pay. PJ: But again this in my eyes makes DD no better than Voldermort since it would say that the plan is much more important than the people involved. To show Dumbledore as someone who feels people are of no more worth once their job is finished isn't what my vision of Dumbledore is about. Let's say for arguement sake that you're right and Snape is solidly DD's man. Well, if after 14+ years of sacrifice and deprivation all Snape receives for his loyalty and hard, dangerous work on Dumbledore's behalf is to be hunted down like a rabid dog and either thrown in prison or killed by an Auror for AK'ing DD - especially if some are right and it was on DD's orders? What a horror!! That would make DD's "retirement plan" for loyal, competent service no better than Voldermort's! Sorry, I just can't buy that! Dumbledore is so much better than that! Tammy: Well, have we yet seen any *competent* DE action? What we've seen, first hand, has been more like disorganized mob work, and a bunch of toadies grovelling in the graveyard. PJ: No, we really haven't. Even Voldermort's been bested over and over again by an underaged wizard so I think we have to conclude that the only thing that separates the DE's and the rest of the wizarding world isn't their skill, but the fact that they are willing and eager to use unforgivables while no one else will. PJ From ms-tamany at rcn.com Tue Feb 28 15:00:06 2006 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:00:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trusting Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4qag60$67uu3t@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148911 Tammy : >Okay, so you think that DD putting so much hope and trust in Harry and >Snape being able >to act like grown ups is moronic. Why? It was wrong, obviously, but how >can it be considered >moronic? PJ: Because DD's already tried that with Snape and Harry via the lessons and realized it was a fiasco. Harry and Snape don't trust each other enough to work together! At 150 yrs old DD would have the intelligence as well as this past experience to finally see this and know that it would turn into a disaster even if both tried very hard to do as he wished. [Now Tammy says:] But they've had at least another whole year in which to grow up some, to mature more. Most people do grow and change at least a little in a year -- it can't have been moronic for DD to have hoped for that change. Hope is *never* moronic, though hopes can be misplaced, and DD seems to have misplaced his, hoping that Harry would behave in a rational manner under the Cloak on the Tower, and stay put where he was safely concealed, rather than risk himself uselessly after his safety had been purchased so dearly. I do believe that is what we were talking about, right? Harry acting like a grown-up and not doing something stupid on the Tower? Snape acting like a grown-up, too? Or at least, acting like Dumbledore expects that they ought to be able to by now? After all, Harry *had* showed more maturity than he had last year, especially in following painful orders only a short while before, in the cave. > Tammy: ... he would have done anything to protect >his students, regardless of the price one teacher must be called upon to >pay. PJ: But again this in my eyes makes DD no better than Voldermort since it would say that the plan is much more important than the people involved. To show Dumbledore as someone who feels people are of no more worth once their job is finished isn't what my vision of Dumbledore is about. [Now Tammy says:] Once their job is finished? The plan is more important than the people involved? Where do you get that from what I said? I'm saying that the students, who are under DD's protection for as long as they're enrolled at Hogwarts, are first in his concerns -- their safety (barring the usual small accidents of wizardly childhood, which are so easily repaired) is paramount, more important even than that of their teachers, who OUGHT TO BE willing and able to pay alomst any price for the sake of those students. How does the importance to DD of students' lives translate to a scheming DD who puts plans above people, or sees people as worthless once their job is finished? PJ: Let's say for arguement sake that you're right and Snape is solidly DD's man. Well, if after 14+ years of sacrifice and deprivation all Snape receives for his loyalty and hard, dangerous work on Dumbledore's behalf is to be hunted down like a rabid dog and either thrown in prison or killed by an Auror for AK'ing DD - especially if some are right and it was on DD's orders? What a horror!! That would make DD's "retirement plan" for loyal, competent service no better than Voldermort's! Sorry, I just can't buy that! Dumbledore is so much better than that! [Now Tammy says:] Now, somehow, we're back to plotting, scheming, planning DD, choreographing the scene atop the Tower. "Now, Severus, once Draco has failed to kill me and the Death Eaters have come to support him, you'll arrive and do the job for him, and then you'll be a hunted man for the rest of your life, but you'll go through your miserable existance knowing that you followed the plan." That's just ridiculous, and I've never said or implied anything of the sort. DD didn't plan this, I'm sure. He surely expected *something* to happen, but I'm positive he did NOT *PLAN* anything of the sort. He may well have considered several possible options before that night had come, contingencies if you will, and how to possibly deal with them, but I highly doubt that these contingencies were planned out in any great detail. Circumstances dictate so much of how any contingency will be dealt with. The circumstances in which DD and Co. found themselves atop the Tower had to be dealt with AS THEY WERE, and as they were, were not very good. I still see the outcome as the best one DD or Snape could come to at the time, given the circumstances. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 15:57:14 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:57:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trusting Snape In-Reply-To: <4qag60$67uu3t@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148912 Tammy : >But they've had at least another whole year in which to grow up some, to >mature more. Most people do grow and change at least a little in a year -- >it can't have been moronic for DD to have hoped for that change. Hope is >*never* moronic, though hopes can be misplaced, PJ: Ok then if Dumbledore is still beating that dead horse then yes, that makes Dumbledore seem moronic. Senile even. Snape is well into his 30's and hasn't gotten over his intense hatred of James even though he's had almost 20 years to do so - what's one more year to him? He can't even put that hatred aside long enough to teach Harry occlumency even though he *knows* how important it is to Dumbledore that he does so! No way Dumbledore is *that* dense. Sorry but that's how I feel about it... >PJ: >- especially if some are right and it was on DD's >orders? What a horror!! That would make DD's "retirement plan" for loyal, >competent service no better than Voldermort's! Sorry, I just can't buy >that! Dumbledore is so much better than that! Tammy: >Now, somehow, we're back to plotting, scheming, planning DD, choreographing >the scene atop the Tower. PJ: Please untwist your knickers and see above. I did not say that YOU said it was planned but that others have. I was trying to explain ..... never mind... In short, as I've read the theories expressed here by MANY members I've come to the conclusion that either Dumbledore is 1) an senile old man who means well but who's entire "plan" is based on nothing more than wishful thinking, 2) no better than Voldermort in his treatment and feelings for people other than Harry or 3) Snape can not possibly be DDM! Nothing else makes sense for me. PJ From ms-tamany at rcn.com Tue Feb 28 16:09:35 2006 From: ms-tamany at rcn.com (Tammy Rizzo) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:09:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trusting Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4qag60$67vpvu@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> No: HPFGUIDX 148913 PJ: In short, as I've read the theories expressed here by MANY members I've come to the conclusion that either Dumbledore is 1) an senile old man who means well but who's entire "plan" is based on nothing more than wishful thinking, 2) no better than Voldermort in his treatment and feelings for people other than Harry or 3) Snape can not possibly be DDM! Nothing else makes sense for me. [Now Tammy says:] Hmmm. And since I cannot fathom how anyone could come up with any of those three conclusions, myself, I suppose we *will* just have to agree to disagree, and wait for book 7 to clear it all up for us. :-) Thank you, though, for the stimulating discussion! :-D Tammy ms-tamany at rcn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 18:53:52 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:53:52 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148914 Lupinlore > What's wrong with a soup of denial and arrogance? Sounds like a > perfectly good explanation to me, and one completely in keeping with > what we know of Snape and the situation at Hogwarts. In other words, > its utterly and completely believable. It's also completely in > keeping with the realities of human thought and motivation. Right. So, watches 14 years of profs go, including two card-carrying minions of Voldemort killed and soul-sucked respectively, ignores this because of his ferocious desire for the coveted DADA parking space. In any case, Snape=Villain=who cares! Check. Well, folks, after all the replies to this subject, nothing covers with sufficient tightness and banginess (to my *sniff* high standards, anyways), these three basic facts: a. Snape has applied for the DADA job every year for 14 years b. Dumbledore has refused him every year c. Both of them (almost certainly) know there's a curse on it, a curse placed by the most powerful Dark Wizard of his generation. This is an important enough feature of Snape's character that it was the FIRST THING we are told about him in the first three books. Book 6 reveals him getting the job with an AHA EL HUGEO TWISTO!! piece of theater from JKR. And, just in case anyone needs a little more canon on what is involved with getting the DADA job: "Well, there's one good thing," [Harry] said savagely, Snape'll be gone by the end of the year[...]. That job's jinxed. No one's lasted more than a year... Quirrel actually died doing it... Personally, I'm going to keep my fingers crossed for another death." (HBP am. ed. pg 107) And if that's not enough foreshadowning: "You've had five teachers in this subject so far, I believe." You believe... like you haven't watched them all come and go, Snape, hoping you'd be next, Harry thought scathingly. Harry, WAKE UP. Why would anybody be "hoping they'd be next" after all that's happened to the DADA profs??! *thwacks Harry on head* You know, looking at those two lines... I'm back to Suicidal!Snape (or Kamikaze!Snape if you prefer). It hits every point. It has bang. It has irony. It wouldn't be out of place in a Victorian novel. It has a lot of potential energy to drive cool scenes. It can generate motion from Harry. It can connect in interesting ways to other Unsolved Snape Mysteries like why Dumbledore trusts him so much and ties into the remorse thing. And, pace Lupinlore, it's not excessively heroic. Ladies and Gentlemen-- THE WINNNEEEER! -- Sydney, holding up the scrawy, cut-scarred wrist of suicidal!Snape, who is trying with his other hand to strangle himself with the laces of his boxing gloves From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 28 19:28:04 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:28:04 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148915 > > Pippin: > > Are you saying Harry didn't need to be punished? > > No. It would have been nice to see a punishment which would have > actually made an impression on Harry as to what *he* did, rather than > setting the tone with statements such as: > > "It must be such a comfort to think that, though they are gone, a > record of their great achievements remains..." > > That's just snide. :) Pippin: Of course it's snide, this is Snape we're talking about. :) But it might occur to Harry at least subconsciously that a legacy of hexing people in the corridors is not a great thing to leave behind. He stops, no? > > > Pippin: > > > > There *is* information that Harry simply doesn't have the critical > > faculties to grasp. Nora: > It's profoundly infantilizing to do that, though, and that's part of > what I think one of Dumbledore's most negative aspects is--and why > it's appropriate if it helped bring him down, for it's an object > lesson in what not to do and a way in which the young hero can avoid > a mistake of his mentor. > Pippin: You think JKR meant Dumbledore to be wrong when he said, "Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels." (OOP ch37) ? It's maddening, of course, to be told that one is too young to understand something, and it's wretchedly unfair when that's the case, but it is, from my perspective, reality, and I understand that it's Dumbledore's reality too. The most obvious reason for me, as a middle-aged person, to trust someone with whom I've had a working relationship for sixteen years, would be because I've had a working relationship with them for sixteen years. Harry's never had a working relationship with *anyone* for that long. I'm not infantilizing him (I don't think) when I say I wouldn't expect him to understand what it means to me. > > > > Anyway, it was not only Dumbledore who cleared Snape of being a > > Death Eater, it was a ministry tribunal. To let Harry to review > > the evidence and come to his own conclusion is in effect to put > > Snape on trial again -- why should Dumbledore allow it? Nora: > Because there was never an allocution for Harry, one of the wronged > parties, to hear. Dumbledore has been protecting Snape for years, > and refusing to allow anyone else to examine the evidence. > > There's one parallel which strikes me as potentially meaningful. We > see Dumbledore omit information, but very rarely do we actually see > him lie. One place where we do is in the scene in his office in > OotP, where he outright lies to protect the students. Could he have > done some of the same for Snape, because he thought Snape's remorse > and conversion were genuine, and he wanted to protect him? Again, > I'm nervous with Dumbledore's position as sole judge, here. > Pippin: ::looks up 'allocution':: Harry heard this in the pensieve: Crouch: Severus Snape has been cleared by this council. He has been vouched for by Albus Dumbledore. Dumbledore: I have given evidence already on this matter. Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am. First, Dumbledore was not the sole judge. Crouch cleared Snape. Maybe Dumbledore hoodwinked him (though that doesn't seem to have been an easy thing to do) but if the evidence was not made part of the public record, then Harry has no more right to review it than anyone else. If Dumbledore's real reasons for trusting Snape are an old man's reasons, then to give Harry reasons that would convince him but aren't the truth (in the sense that they're what Dumbledore and Crouch found decisive) would be misleading. Pippin: > > How could Snape be expected to grasp that, when all he seems to > > know of love is that fools wear it on their sleeves? Nora: > I've never quite understood your poor damaged Snape. He's been > around Dumbledore all of these years, is deeply loyal to him and > respects him and has this close working relationship, but he's still > this angry and stunted and none of Dumbledore's philosophy has gotten > through to him? None of it has worn off, because the damage is too > deep? That seems odd at best. Pippin: ::grins:: We're even, then, because I've never quite understood your poor damaged Harry. He's resilient enough to survive ten years of the Dursley's bullying with no emotional caregiving to speak of, he faces down Voldemort and his Death Eaters on their own ground, he laps up Dumbledore's private seminar on abnormal psychology, cooly admiring Voldemort's technique instead of throwing up, but he's so fragile he can't deal with mean, nasty Snape 'cause Snape *hurts* him. Geez, I hope the poor kid never gets arthritis...:) As for my Snape, I think he's damaged in a different way than Harry. Because Harry is damaged, according to JKR, Harry is always aware of his feelings (to the very grave detriment of his attempts to learn occlumency.) The thinking and feeling parts of his brain are mixed up. But he is starting to be able think about how he feels -- he seems aware, if dimly, that he's using his anger at Snape to push his guilt over Sirius aside. Snape, IMO, is the opposite -- the thinking, reasoning part of his brain and the feeling, hurting part don't communicate well at all. Snape has a very hard time articulating, to himself or other people, why he feels the way he does -- in OOP he can't seem to tell Harry why he doesn't want to say "Voldemort" yet he appears frightened. The best he can manage is that he's not a great wizard like Dumbledore. IMO, it's hard for Snape to reason his way to a change of heart, as you seem to think he should, because he can't manage to feel and think at the same time. Most of the time the thinking Snape is in charge, but when the feelings take over he seems "demented" (HBP) and "beyond reason" (PoA). He knows he's very vulnerable in that state ("fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves") but he can't get at his feelings to integrate them with what the rational part of him knows -- it'd be like trying to bite yourself on the elbow. So, the rational reasoning part of his mind is redeemed and solidly behind Dumbledore, (IMO) but the hurting feeling part still wants its revenge for the bullying he suffered so long ago, and he can't get at those feelings to process them. It might help if there were someone who could mirror those feelings for him. I think that's a role Dumbledore hoped Harry could play in Snape's healing. Dumbledore couldn't really help Snape there, I think, because he was someone who's hard to bully. He couldn't know "how it felt to be humiliated in a circle of onlookers." He did know remorse, though, if what we saw in the cave is true. Knowing how it feels to feel so guilty that you want to die, he could both judge the depths of Snape's remorse and mirror it back so that Snape could understand it. That's something Dumbledore wouldn't expect Harry to do, because Harry, with his pure soul, can't ever have felt that way. Does that make sense? Pippin From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 20:39:55 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:39:55 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148916 My apologies for the delay, I've had three posts half-written since Saturday, and various bits of life have conspired to stop me finishing them. But I have two of them finished now, so here they are. Hope the discussion hasn't moved on so far that they're not worth reading... > Dung, previously: > Do you not think it would be deeply ungrateful of DD to not even > say "sorry I got you into this, mate?" You don't think he might > feel just the teensiest bit guilty? Nora: Guilt doesn't strike me as the right emotion in this case, because Dumbledore hasn't been in the same kind of superior/controlling situation that we've seen in him when he actually has expressed guilt. Dung: You doubt that DD would feel guilt in this situation because we've only seen him show guilt once before and it's not exactly the same situation? Nora: I think he's trusted Snape to be an independent agent here, and so Dumbledore's responsibility for the situation is decidedly second-hand. Dung: DD got him into this in the first place. "Severus," said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, "you know what *I must ask you to do*. If you are ready... if you are prepared..." DD wanted him to find out what Draco was up to ? which encouraged him to fish for information and take the vow. "Professor Snape has been keeping watch over you [Draco] on my orders." Compare and contrast with DD taking the responsibility for Sirius's death ? was his responsibility for *that* situation not a little second-hand? Yet he still took responsibility. "It is *my* fault that Sirius died." Dung: > *Any* interpretation of Spinner's End involves that, not just mine > and Alla's, because canon *is not consistent*. That's fair. What I would contend is not exactly shocking--we read the confusing and fragmentary evidence according to which larger pattern we want to validate. Dung: Certainly there's a necessary element of picking and choosing canon, but there's still plenty of room to be inconsistent in your method of doing so. When evaluating evidence, I reckon asking ourselves the following questions (in decreasing importance) should lead to some insight: 1. Is there a firm canonical reason to suspect that a character may be lying, or wanting to conceal the whole truth? (Particularly immediately obvious reasons, which do not rely on a re-read and a theory.) 2. Does all or part of your chosen morsel factually conflict with existing canon? 3. Is there any conveniently missing piece of information of which the readers are already aware in an otherwise comprehensive account? If the answer to any of the above is yes, then you've got a good basis for speculating that a character is lying. If the answer to all of the above is no, you can still speculate that a character is lying, of course, but your argument is weaker. I would then rank canonical evidence in the following way (strongest to weakest): a. A direct statement from a character's mouth (Hypothetical example: "It is better for us all to die and lose the war against Voldemort than for even one member of our side to tear their soul," said Dumbledore.) b. An indirect statement from which a reasonable conclusion can be drawn (Hypothetical example: "What could possibly be worth killing for, Tom?" asked Dumbledore.) c. Reports from another character (Hypothetical example: "Dumbledore would never have wanted you to kill anyone, Potter," said McGonagall.) d. Actions directly portrayed in canon which are not commented upon, but can be logically shown to support a particular point of view for that character. (E.g. DD not AKing the DEs in the DoM, but immobilising them for the Ministry to deal with later.) e. Actions not directly portrayed in canon for which one interpretation supports a particular point of view for that character. (E.g. DD *defeated* the Dark Wizard Grindelwald, not *killed*.) Point out where my logic fails, or explain why logic has no place here (properly please ? not just the "this is literature and therefore not logical" assertion, 'cause I'm thick and need it spelled out). Alla is trying to use the story that Snape spins Bella as pure type a, when the answers to the first three questions are yes. Number 1. Snape is a *known* double-agent (who immediately thought on their first read through of Spinner's End "Aha! Firm evidence that Snape's a traitor?" Very few, I'd bet, because it was nothing like firm evidence.) Number 2. There are two bits, actually: - "I was curious, I admit it, and not at all inclined to murder him the moment he set foot in the castle" is certainly at odds with the look Snape gives Harry at the start of term feast in PS, which gave him the feeling that Snape "didn't like Harry at all", and of course Snape's treatment of Harry in their first ever potions lesson. - "...it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black..." is blatantly at odds with the canon we have in OotP. Number 3. Why is there no mention *at all* of Snape having alerted the Order and royally screwed up Voldy's plan to get the prophecy? I'm not arguing that I'm *right*, so please don't try to claim that I am. I'm arguing that my assumptions are better supported by canon than Alla's. A fine distinction, but an important one. > Perhaps you missed the bit of my post where I said that I was > trying to prove my assumptions were more firmly rooted in > canon than Alla's. You seem to be dismissing them as equally valid > (or not) as any other assumptions, simply because they're > assumptions, without even looking at the evidence I presented. Nora: I am dismissing them as more valid than any assumptions because of the nature of the material, yes. I don't think one can make a solid canonically-backed decision between your position or Alla's (or a number of other variations), because of the level of destabilization of what we thought we knew. Dung: Well if no theory can be more convincing than any other because no assumption can have more canonical support than any other (which is nonsense, by the way), why on earth are you wasting your time discussing it? Or are you just trying to gently point out the foolishness of the exercise? Did you read what I wrote about that cutlass and the word na?ve? ::poke poke:: If you don't think it's worthwhile, don't join in, but clearly Alla and I (at least) disagree with you. My assumptions *do* have more canonical support than Alla's, otherwise she'd have provided it. You are refusing to even consider that as a possibility, and are trying to stop the discussion altogether. Boo hiss! Go rain on someone else's parade! Nora: What it also is eminently open to is the BANG or the radical shift. Dung: But *you're* the one who's denying the need for BANGs ? I'm trying to put them in. And you've missed the point, anyway, I'm trying to construct a coherent theory, and defend the assumptions on which it is based, not trying to determine what's actually going to be correct, because none of us can do that. The anti-DDM!Snapers' argument is basically that they refuse to consider that DD might *not* think death preferable to tearing the soul in all situations. Yet what canon is there to support that? I'm not saying it's not *possible*, it *is*, but I would like to see a firm source for the conviction, and I haven't, anywhere. In fact, we have seen DD act in ways which suggest the opposite, leaving Harry with the Dursleys knowing that he would be mistreated, keeping a monster like Snape on the staff because he thinks that kids need to learn the lesson that not everyone is nice. Please, if you can see canon (or even interview comments) to defend the anti- DDM!Snapers' utter certainty that *no matter what* DD would *never* ask Snape to tear his soul, please, please share it. I may as well say right now that shouting "JKR's a Christian!" won't hack it. Now I have no problem with people believing that DD wouldn't ever ask someone to tear their soul, I'm not interested in trying to make them change their minds. I would just like to point out that it is simply their opinion, and I can't see any canon behind it. If there *is* canon, please present it. > Dung: > Thematic it might be, but it's lousy as far as a good story goes. > After six books of Harry wondering repeatedly *why* DD trusted > Snape, you think the answer's going to be "well, he just ... *did*." Nora: It may well be 'Dumbledore *really believed* Snape's tale of remorse'. That remorse may have been genuine, or it may have been faked. But I can imagine Dumbledore choosing to believe something like that, and then refusing to tell anyone else because he knew they wouldn't value it and treasure it as he did, and he's trying to protect Snape from the slammer. Dung: I don't deny it, it sounds plausible to me too, yep, I'll even go so far as to agree that it could be IC for DD. Just utterly rotten from the point of view of the story. Which is as good a point as any to ask you the question, Nora: Why do you always try to take the BANG out of everything? There was no good reason for it, DD just *trusted* Snape; there was no reason Snape kept applying for DADA, he just *wanted* it; there was no dramatic turning-point, Snape *slowly* became sickened by Voldemort... (Back in the days when you thought he had.) Is it because you want to keep your expectations low so that you're not disappointed by book 7? Or are you being more disingenuous ? you don't like Snape's popularity among the fans and you're hoping for a finale that pulls the rug out from under them, that reveals his story as *boring*? Before HBP I didn't think Snape was the eavesdropper. I thought it was too ... delicious. I thought that Snape was not a central character, that his involvement with the story was not important enough to put him in the role of a major protagonist like that. Neither did it even occur to me to even consider and then dismiss Snape as the HBP, I would have hoped very much that he was (had I considered it), but nobody would ever have convinced me. I would have found the idea that Snape was at the bottom of so many mysteries nice, but not convincing. Forgive me if I'm intent on not making that mistake again. The fact that JKR is so reluctant to tell us anything about Snape in interviews to my mind paints a big neon sign saying "BANGs imminent!" Dungrollin P.S. Questions for the anti-DDM!Snapers: Why do you think that we the readers are privy to clause 3 of the Unbreakable Vow, but that Harry is not? Do you think that Harry *will* find out about it? If so, why would it be necessary for the plot, and why did we find out about it before Harry? I can think of some answers, but I'm interested to know what you all think. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 20:52:37 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:52:37 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148917 More massive apologies for the lengthy delay in replying... Life - loathe it, or ignore it, you can't *like* it. Alla: Erm... sure it [the scenario] is plausible. I said that already if you can convince me that those basic assumptions that we differ on could come true as you predict and so far I was not convinced. But let's continue then. :-) Dungrollin: Sorry, that should have been "my *assumptions*" were plausible, rather than "my *scenario*", mea culpa. > ****************************************************** > SNAPE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT DRACO'S TASK > Alla: > Couldn't that [that Snape knew about Draco's task] be a lie too to find out information for Dumbledore or something? > > Dung: > Of course he *could* be lying, I don't deny that possibility, but > give me *some* argument, proof, canon ? whatever that suggests he > is, please. Otherwise, you have to admit that it is at least > *possible* that he is telling the truth, and that your assumption > that he's lying is just that: an assumption based on *no* canon. > Whereas I am making no assumptions at all, I'm taking canon at face value. Alla: I can say the same thing - your assumption that Snape was not telling the truth in the part of the story which does not portray him in a good light is also not based on the canon. Dung: It's more canonical than your assumption. You have no good reason for not taking "I know about the plan" at face value other than your fondness for the eventual theory you are trying to support, whereas not taking Snape's excuses to Bella at face value is at least how we are supposed to read the chapter the first time through. I doubt that anybody considered it certain proof of Snape's treachery before they had read the end of HBP, and a healthy number still don't. This is because Snape is *known* to be a double-agent. Can I cross-reference my reply to Nora in message 148916? > ****************************************************** > VOLDY DIDN'T PROMPT BELLA AND CISSY TO SPINNER'S END > Alla: But again this is goes from different assumptions we have. I > am NOT as sure as you are that the meeting was instigated by > Voldemort, I can totally see Narcissa going to Snape of her own > initiative and Bella tagging along maybe hoping to give Voldemort > useful spying info, BUT I see no definite evidence that Voldemort > was behind arranging the meeting in the first place, from very > beginning. > > Dung: > Right, this is the toughest bit for me, because (I may as well come clean) it's basically a hunch. But even if I turn out to be wrong, I think it's a good theory (which is the whole point, after all). Alla: Right, this is a great theory, no question about it, but my main objection to it would be that IMO you give Voldy way, way too much credit. I don't see Voldie capable of giving everybody that set of complicated different instructions you described. Sorry, but my belief in Voldie analytical and loeadership skills shook very very firmly if they ever existed after instead of killing Harry in Graveyeard he let him have his wand back. Dung: (Ta for the compliments! ? but back to business...) One mistake due to over-confidence (thinking it was all ok because he'd used Harry's blood) and you dismiss the best student Hogwarts has ever seen as a blundering fool who can't plot for toffee? If Voldy's so dumb, who was it who came up with the trick to get Harry to the graveyard in GoF? Who put together all the little bits of evidence from Bertha Jorkins ? that Crouch The Younger was still alive and faithful, that the TWT would be held at Hogwarts, that Crouch could pretend to be Moody for a whole year? That plan worked perfectly, it got Harry to the graveyard and Voldy regenerated using his blood thus overcoming one of the protections left by Lily's sacrifice. And for at least the first few months of that he was keeping Crouch Senior under Imperio and making him write convincing letters to the ministry. Sure, he mucked it up afterwards, but that seems to be his problem: when he's being Slytherinish and plotting in the background, he does a damn fine job, it's in the heat of the moment that he makes mistakes. Again, I won't repeat the whole plot of OotP, but he used several strategies to get at the prophecy before settling on a fine plan which Harry fell for hook line and sinker. In the event, the DEs b*llsed it up, making him so angry that he turned up in person to kill Harry (and there was no mistake there, he intended Harry to die), but DD turned up and saved his neck... It's the heat of the moment where he makes mistakes, not the planning beforehand. Or do you have canon for a stupid Voldemort plan? Alla: I do think that Voldie is not above little manipulation, but not that complex manipulation you described - as in keeping three level operation together in his little head - trying to kill Dumbledore, testing Snape's loyalty and punishing Malfoys. I can barely give him credit for doing two levels at the same time - planning to kill DD and punishing Malfoys. I think testing Snape's loyalty at the same time would be a bit out of Voldie's league. Dung: Got any evidence, aside from giving Harry his wand back? Ok, so why didn't he order Snape and Draco to work together then? Don't tell me that he only wanted Draco to fail, because then of necessity, DD would have survived, and you don't think he wanted that, do you? I've got canon which shows Tom Riddle being manipulative, subtle and very clever ? see how he quietly flatters Hepzibah to get a look at her treasures, how he flatters Slughorn to get information about Horcruxes. By the time I'm talking about, Voldemort is a highly accomplished legilimens ? it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that along with his talent for manipulation he can see exactly when he's planted an idea in someone's head. Alla: Come to think of it, maybe I got confused, but why exactly Voldie does need to test Snape's loyalty from your position? Dung: Erm ? *somebody*, mentioning no Snapes ? um, names ... called Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix to the Ministry of Magic at *just* the wrong moment a few weeks previously. Harry and co evidently hadn't contacted the Order themselves, otherwise they would have been told that Sirius was fine. There was only one member of the Order of the Phoenix left at Hogwarts that night, who might have noticed they were missing and contacted HQ. Go on, add 2 + 2 ? you can do it... So can Voldy. Alla: I mean, he seemed to accept ALL his followers back after many years of them doing whatever things, when he was Vapormort. And if Snape was telling the truth in Spinner's End, he was perfectly satisfied with Snape's appearance in GoF? Oh, and again if you think Snape was lying, what is your reason for that assumption? Dung: Whether he was loyal to Voldemort or not, and whether he knew for sure that Voldy trusted him or not, he would insist to Bella that Voldemort had accepted his excuses. FWIW I don't think that Voldy trusts anyone, and a double-agent is *always* the first person upon whom suspicion falls. If he's unsure of a DE's loyalty he's *certainly* not dumb enough to actually tell that DE that he mistrusts them. But Bella has noticed Snape slithering out of action, why should Voldy be oblivious? Dung: > Snape has *already* discussed this with Dumbledore, before Cissy and Bella even turn up, he knows that Draco is ordered to kill DD or die trying. What would Dumbledore tell him? "Find out as much as you can about what Draco's planning, and we'll have an excellent chance of stopping the whole thing, we might even be able to find a way of > maintaining your cover," surely? > Or do you think he'd rather insist that Snape has nothing more to do with Draco on moral grounds because Draco's plotting *murder*? > Neither DD nor Snape has that luxury, this is a *war*. There are > more important things at stake; there is spying to be done, and > lives hang in the balance. Based on the information Snape has before he takes the vow, I think DD wouldn't blame him at all. Alla: Sorry, I can see DD saying find out as much as you can. But I cannot see Dumbledore saying take an UV, even if it helps you finding out as much as you can. Dung: I don't think DD stopped Snape just before he left the office and said, "by the way, if a Death Eater asks you to take an Unbreakable Vow, go ahead." I doubt very much whether DD would be particularly fond of them, but I suspect it was Bella who was performing the Dark Magic (it *is* an assumption that it's Dark Magic), not Snape and Narcissa. Given that Snape was fishing for information to discover what Draco was planning and *save DD's life*, I imagine that DD's dislike of them (which, by the way is also a *massive* assumption ? when Harry mentions the UV, DD's face doesn't even darken) runs mostly to how very *dangerous* they are, but I can't see him blaming Snape too much for doing so. It seemed like a good gamble at the time. I submit that any spy who was actually capable of acting like a Death Eater without being detected would have done the same thing. Dumbledore might not have, it's true, but he'd never have made it as a spy (aside from the obvious reasons that everyone knows him), you need Slytherins for that. It was a risk which didn't pay off, anyway ? a mistake, if you insist, but *only with hindsight*. Just like Harry high-tailing it to the MoM ? a risk which didn't pay off, taken with the very best of intentions. Tell me, do you think DD forgave Harry for having been so rash? Or for using Sectumsempra on Draco? Tell me why he wouldn't forgive Snape for taking a UV. In trying to save Sirius's life Harry got him killed, in trying to save Dumbledore's life, Snape got *him* killed. The parallels are delicious... Alla: I don't see the books as "spying games", before you start giving me examples of erm...spies, I know they are there, but IMO they are there for very different purposes than to create as someone suggested in the past the books a la John Le Carre "Spy who came from the cold". Dung: I don't know what you're talking about at all here. Snape was a double-agent run by Dumbledore and reporting to the OotP. It's canon ? what exactly are you accusing me of arguing now? I suspect it's something else that I never said. Alla: I see the books as the books about human nature, power of love and forgiveness AND carmic punishment too and to tell you the truth so far I had been incredibly happy with the directions they are going. I don't see Dumbledore as Puppetmaster!. I see him as a good man struggling to make horrible choices and trying to keep the souls of his soldiers intact too. Dung: Erm ? when did I ever propose Puppetmaster!Dumbledore? What did I say which implied this? What did I say which contradicts the above sentence about HORRIBLE CHOICES? Alla: That is why it is so HARD for me to imagine that Dumbledore would order Snape to kill him, basically impossible, ESPECIALLY planning for it in advance. Dung: You're saying that DD doesn't love Snape enough to die for him, and wouldn't have forgiven him for taking the UV. Yet you think the books are about love and forgiveness. Uhm... Only loving and forgiving the right people, the ones with shiny white teeth, right? Alla: I cannot see alive and healthy Dumbledore to ask that of Snape. I especially cannot see alive and healthy Dumbledore so easily abandoning Harry to Horcrux hunt and going to die for Snape. Dung: So it's a non-canon based assumption which relies on a failure of your imagination ? I believe the technical term is an 'argument from incredulity'. And you still insist that your assumptions are more canonical than mine? You are presenting no evidence for any of this. Alla: I think it is very possible that by saving Sirius' life in PoA Dumbledore unknowingly helped to stir growing resentment in Snape. IMO of course. Dung: Yup, until you can point to canon in GoF, OotP or HBP which suggests this is the case, it is indeed *only your opinion*. And not a canon- based one. I tell you what, I'll get up on my soap box and shout about my theory of the magic troll who lives in the lake and is the long-time companion of the Giant Squid. *He* was the one who put Snape under the Imperius Curse and forced him to be nasty to Harry for so many years, and of course it's his fault Snape took the UV, and killed DD. Voldemort's not the real villain at all. What is your very first criticism of this theory? Dung: > Besides, since Snape clearly told DD about clauses 1 and 2 of the > vow, and when Harry mentions it he says "I think you might even > consider the possibility that I understood more than you did," > again, canon favours me saying that he did tell DD. You're pointing to a lack of concrete evidence and shouting that it's evidence of absence, which I'm afraid it is not. Alla: I am afraid we do have to agree to disagree, because frankly I am not even sure that Dumbledore knew about first two clauses, although of course it is possible that he did based on that conversation, Dung: Possible? It's canon! Since you appear not to have read this bit, I'll quote it for you: Dumbledore listened to Harry's story with an impassive face. When Harry had finished he did not speak for a few moments, then said, "Thank you for telling me this, Harry, but I suggest that you put it out of your mind. I do not think that it is of great importance." "Not of great importance?" repeated Harry incredulously. "Professor, did you understand -?" "Yes, Harry, blessed as I am with extraordinary brainpower, I understood everything you told me," said Dumbledore, a little sharply. "I think you might even consider the possibility that I understood more than you did. Again, I am glad that you have confided in me, but let me reassure you that you have not told me anything that causes me disquiet." Alla: But maybe he [DD] learned [about the UV] from using legilimency on Draco for example, no? Dung: Draco didn't know about the UV until Slughorn's Christmas party at the end of term, and the meeting with Harry which I quoted above (A Sluggish Memory) happens on the *first day of term* in January. Not a huge amount of time for DD to find Draco and quiz him ? even if that wouldn't have looked horribly suspicious. And in any case, legilimency doesn't work like that, there's no simple image which could be brought to the surface of Draco's mind which DD could interpret as clauses 1 and 2 (the way Snape found the image of Harry's potions book), neither could he do it without alerting Draco to the fact that he was doing it (Harry knew exactly what Snape was doing in Myrtle's bathroom, Draco said "I know what you're trying to do" to Snape at Slughorn's party). Alla: In any event, to me the lack of evidence is enough to assume that DD did not know about clause three. Sorry! Dung: Sorry to tell you this, but you're wrong again. It is not. Absence of evidence is *never* evidence of absence no matter how many times you insist that it is. Repeatedly stating that black is white will not change the rules of logic. By all means disagree, by all means cling to your conviction that Snape did not tell DD, but *please* do not try to pretend that it has more canonical support than the opposite BECAUSE THAT IS NOT TRUE. > Dung: > I never made the "Snape as DD's right-hand man" argument. Alla: Oh, I think you are the first Snape defender then not to make such an argument. Sorry! Seems like everybody does, while I don't buy it all. Dung: It would really help if you actually responded to the arguments which I am putting forward, rather than inventing things you would like me to say because you find them easy to knock down. Alla: But that begs a question - if you don't think that Snape knmew about Horcruxes, which I think is perfectly plausible too - DD did not have to tell Snape how he got hurt, just what curse was used to protect the ring. What use do you think Snape may have to help Harry in book 7? Dung: Just because Snape doesn't know about the Horcruxes at the end of HBP doesn't mean that he won't a) figure it out for himself b) be told by Harry & co at some point c) be told by DD's portrait (when Hogwarts is closed and the DEs move in ? har har) He may never find out about them, but that doesn't mean he can't still be vital in defeating the DEs and/or Voldemort in the Last Battle. Even if he's just the one person Harry can AK without feeling guilty (at least until he finds out the truth from DD's portrait) so he can rid himself of the horcrux inside him and go on to kill Voldemort, he'll be of some use. Alla: > Just to be clear - by fooling the UV I was suggesting that > Dumbledore would tell Snape to try and keep postponing the task > indefinitely, NOT meticulously planning his death all year. > > Dung: > Alla, you know full-well that Snape was NOT meticulously planning > DD's death all year (whether he's DDM or not), *Draco* was, and he > *wouldn't let Snape know what he was up to*. Please stick to canon. Alla: Erm... Sorry. I meant that DUMBLEDORE would not be meticulously planning his own death all year in order to help out Snape. Dung: It's still false hyperbole, and nothing to do with any arguments I've put forward. DD was not *planning his own death* all year any more than Harry was *planning* to go down the trap-door all year in book 1. It was a worst-case scenario. You proposed that DD wouldn't even have thought about it, that he'd have stuck his head in the sand and pretended that nothing was happening; I think he would have thought about it, he would have forgiven Snape for taking the UV, and he would have insisted that if the worst came to the worst, if it looked like all three of them were going to die (DD at the hand of another DE, Snape at the hand of the vow, and Draco at the hand of Voldemort for having failed), Snape should kill DD himself, saving his and Draco's lives. Please don't twist what I write, or I'll have to accuse you of making straw-man arguments. > Dungrollin: > :: mind boggles :: You think sticking his fingers in his ears and > singing loudly is typically Dumbledorean?! You don't think he would > have tried to give Snape a little direction, perhaps some sympathy, > somewhere? Are you really telling me that you think once Snape has > told DD about clause 3, Dumbledore ignores him, sticks his head in > the sand, and *never mentions it again*? Alla: Prior to book 6, how many examples we have of Dumbledore's "PROACTIVE" planning? Yes, I know we have him netioning of his "plan" in OOP, but since no more detailed description to follow, I will stick to the assumption that DD plan was to keep Harry safe. Oh, and not checking on Harry during his before Hogwarts time also tells me that DD let's things play out and hopes for the best. I can be wrong of course. Dung: Why are you only asking prior to book six? Is it because that's where the best evidence for plans which are not merely Harry- centred, and you'd rather I didn't mention the rather PROACTIVE Horcrux hunt which has (incidentally) been going on for years? Well, we were not let into any of Dumbledore's plans before book six because Harry was not... but anyway, how about the protections around the Philosopher's Stone aimed at keeping the stone out of Voldy's hands? Doesn't that count as "PROACTIVE" planning? How about the watch set on the DoM in OotP in order to keep the prophecy out of his hands? That's two. Apparently you have a good reason for dismissing the plan which involved keeping Harry safe at the Dursleys ? I'm not sure why that doesn't count, perhaps you could elaborate? That's three. Include the Horcruxes and that's four... Enough? Dung: > Ok, let's (for the sake of argument) assume that you're partially > right, and that Dumbledore doesn't demand anything of Snape, he > allows Snape to make the choice for himself. DDM!Snape says "I've > had enough anyway, I want out. I'll die with the vow, thanks." > (Frankly, I think that dying would be the soft option, the "easy" > rather than the "right", but you'd probably disagree.) Alla: Yes, I think we do disagree again. But mostly because I think Snape is too cowardly to embrace his great adventure with head up. Again my speculative opinion. Dung: Another argument from incredulity with no canonical backing. You are most definitely *not* providing evidence against my proposition, or even providing evidence for an alternative. You say that you think DD would not have taken a proactive approach to the consequences of the vow, so I offer you the suggestion that DD offered Snape the choice. That Snape made the very choice you think Dumbledore would have *wanted* him to make, (dying rather than killing DD, right?) And suddenly that's not allowed because Snape's a coward. Tell you what: here's some canon that portrays Snape as *really quite brave*. What say you come up with some which shows him to be a coward? Then we'll weigh the evidence. - Snape turned spy before Voldemort's fall at *great personal risk* - Snape cornered Quirrell alone in the Forbidden Forest - Snape dashed off to the Shrieking Shack *knowing* that there was a werewolf who hadn't taken his potion in there, and under the impression that there was a mass-murderer with him - Snape (admittedly accompanied by DD and McG) burst into the room of an unknown enemy to save Harry's skin - Snape went back to Voldemort at the end of GoF - risking his neck since he was two hours late - Snape continued the very risky job of spying ? and it's risky no matter which side he was really on, risking death from Voldy, and Azkaban from DD if he were discovered - Snape gave Umbridge fake Veritaserum ? if he'd been discovered, he'd have been sacked - I won't bother with all the details of HBP, because surely it's clear that no matter whose side he was on throughout, he was walking a very fine and dangerous line I'm betting you'll mention the schoolboy nickname 'Snivellus', which is *very* tenuous because it's so indirect. It relies on the name having been chosen because Snape showed some cowardice at some point, for which there is no evidence. Also, the fact that the Marauders hated Snape is a pretty good indication that they were never going to nickname him Braveheart. Doesn't compare terrifically favourably to my list, but you might have something up your sleeve that I haven't thought of. ? I hope so, it'll make the discussion more fun! Dung: > Dumbledore would (I think) say: "All right, if that's what you want. > But promise me one thing, if Draco fails, and I am unable to protect him for any reason ? for example if he manages to produce a Death Eater accomplice who will kill me instead, promise me you'll do it,> promise me that you'll kill me first so that you are alive and able > to keep Draco safe, away from Voldemort." Alla: You see, that is my very main problem. Regardless of what Snape said to DD, I cannot for the life of me to see Dumbledore EVER asking Snape to do that, because IMO he would prefer Snape's soul not be hurt more. Dung: How do you know? What evidence do you have that DD puts Snape's soul over Draco's life? It really *is* Just Your Opinion at the moment Alla, because it's not based on anything except your insistence that it's true. Show me canon in support. I've got canon which suggests DD can be remarkably utilitarian. Leaving Harry with the Dursleys *knowing* that he would be badly treated (you reckon he was abused, don't you?), and keeping Snape on as a teacher because he thinks a bit of nastiness is good for kids (erm ? you reckon that was abuse, too, right? ? Correct me if I've misremembered your position on that.) Where's your canon on DD's certainty that absolutely *nothing* is worse than tearing your soul? > Dung: > I've never denied that I have to make assumptions ? in fact I made > it explicit. Perhaps you missed the bit of my post where I said that > I was trying to prove my assumptions were more firmly rooted in > canon than Alla's. You seem to be dismissing them as equally valid > (or not) as any other assumptions, simply because they're > assumptions, without even looking at the evidence I presented. Alla: So far I absolutely don't see how your assumptions are more firmly rooted in canon than mine. Sorry! Dung: Well since you rest all your other assumptions on *no evidence* perhaps you can just agree to believe me on this one... Alla: I base my assumption of Snape bad behaviour(in part) on one part of Spinner's End, which I choose to believe is true, you on the other hand choose to believe that another part of Snape's story is true, which I think is a lie Dung: Again I will cf my reply to Nora about the evaluation of canonical evidence, and my response at the top of this post. Alla: (and I think that I am actually helping DD!M Snape by believing that this is a lie) Dung: That's precisely why I think your argument lacks legs. You're arguing from the theory you're trying to give support to (which you don't like anyway), instead of from what canon shows. Dungrollin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Feb 28 21:03:37 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:03:37 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148918 Sydney: > So, I think what was meant (trickily!) by the curse 'bringing out the > worst' in Snape, is not, making him act out their worst qualities as > you would say, teaching Neville 'brings out the worst' in Snape. > It's more by way of a play on words-- the curse 'brings out' into > the open, by creating bad luck, the worst secrets that the victim is > hiding to maintain his status quo, and destroys them with it. Jen: I see where our difference is now, so I'm cutting down to the core idea here. To me if the DADA curse acts to bring out the worst secret a person is hiding, then Snape was outed as a murderer and a DE, wasn't he? If that's all it does, then like Lupin showing his werewolf side and Crouch his DE side and Lockhart his fraudulent side, Snape exposed his secret on the tower. If he was exposed as a double agent up there, the rest of the Order missed it and presumably Voldemort as well. Since I don't believe that idea , I think the DADA curse acts to force a person to grapple with their shadow side, a personal weakness they hide to *themselves*. Lupin was outed as a werewolf but what led to that was his need to be liked & witholding information. Umbridge was outed to be pretty evil in sending the dementors and wanting to Crucio Harry, but what got her there was a lust for power. Lockhart was outed as a fraud, but his pride in general and ego about memory charms in particular were his undoing. As for Snape, my thoughts are a weakness for the dark arts or whatever attracted him to Voldemort in the first place was what the curse acted on (I'm using weakness instead of addiction here since that's probably a better word for it). Not that he was at risk of joining Voldemort, but he got ensnared in that world again with the Unbreakable. His options became very limited and that's what the dark arts *do* in my opinion--exert control and limit options. Jen R. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Feb 28 21:47:21 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:47:21 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148919 > Jen: I see where our difference is now, so I'm cutting down to the > core idea here. To me if the DADA curse acts to bring out the worst > secret a person is hiding, then Snape was outed as a murderer and a > DE, wasn't he? If that's all it does, then like Lupin showing his > werewolf side and Crouch his DE side and Lockhart his fraudulent side, > Snape exposed his secret on the tower. If he was exposed as a double > agent up there, the rest of the Order missed it and presumably > Voldemort as well. Pippin: Hmm...except being a secret servant of Dumbledore isn't a bad secret, so the curse wouldn't expose it. But on the whole I agree with Jen. The curse makes you unlucky, which exposes your weaknesses, which in turn causes you to lose your job. I think Snape applied for the job every year because Voldemort ordered him to -- since Voldemort never said, "You can stop applying for the job if I get vaporized," Snape continued to ask for it. It would be a cheap way of demonstrating his loyalty to Voldemort -- as long as Dumbledore didn't give it to him. Of course when he finally got it, it became rather expensive. I think the greatest weakness exposed was the feeling, whatever it was, that made him look as if he was in as much pain as the dog in the burning house. Quitting the DE's is signing your own death warrant, so when Snape defected (assuming he really did) he was suicidal in a sense -- he had accepted that it would be better to die than to go on serving Voldemort. His remorse over James might have been so deep that he wanted to die -- but I think Dumbledore convinced him that that was because of the damage he'd done to himself by harming someone to whom he was so indebted, and that when Snape was healed he wouldn't feel that way anymore. It could be this subconscious death wish that made Snape risk taking the vow. Pippin From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 22:34:24 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:34:24 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148920 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > Which is as good a point as any to ask you the question, Nora: Why > do you always try to take the BANG out of everything? Short answer: because as I've detailed elsewhere, I thought that the end of HBP *was* BANGy, and I'm interested in how much of the fandom wants to deny this BANG and shunt off the actual BANGiness to the next book, when we get 'Another BANG, But One I Like The Ramifications Of Better' in a perpetual delaying strategy. It reminds me of the heyday of the MDDT, where we kept being told that next book, next book! would come the manifest proof of the theory. (Still waiting, I think...) I can specifically see something BANGy coming from un-Snape related areas, such as the ultimate method of disposal of Voldemort. I just like the ending of the book to be as genuinely shocking as it seems to be, although I'm the first to admit all kinds of mitigators are possible without massive retcons. > Or are you being more disingenuous ? you don't like Snape's > popularity among the fans and you're hoping for a finale that pulls > the rug out from under them, that reveals his story as *boring*? I think that no matter what happens Snape's story will not be as detailed and important as at least some of the fandom would like it to be. I've come gradually to the bitter understanding that the kids matter a lot more to the author than the adults do, and that a lot of the fun with said adults is precisely that we get less on them-- that's how she's constructed them, and it's one of the major reasons for their fan popularity. I think that especially obtains with Snape: go out into the world of fanfic, and pick the one that you like best. We all do it, but a limited number of options survive each book. I am totally open to being wrong on this, but I get the feeling that all the mystery around Snape is a house of cards built up to be very interesting in the process of reading the series in order, but ultimately to be collapsed in the service of closing the story. I don't claim to know what kind of story ending she's looking for, but that's one option, something designed to snip off loose ends. Or at least to try, for fandom has an infinite loose end generator. > The fact that JKR is so reluctant to tell us anything about Snape > in interviews to my mind paints a big neon sign saying "BANGs > imminent!" She clearly doesn't want to spoil anything, for which I salute her. Of course, that spoilage could also be that yes, the BANG was what it seemed to be, no comforting mitigation here. I give that option half odds. > P.S. Questions for the anti-DDM!Snapers: Why do you think that we > the readers are privy to clause 3 of the Unbreakable Vow, but that > Harry is not? Do you think that Harry *will* find out about it? If > so, why would it be necessary for the plot, and why did we find out > about it before Harry? I can think of some answers, but I'm > interested to know what you all think. I'll take a stab, although it's like what I've said before: it makes the process of reading the book more complicated than if we were only from the Harry!perspective. (And I think these books are very much about the process of reading them, where we have to go and rethink what we thought earlier as we go along and learn more.) It means that we know (or at least we think we know) more than Harry, so we may be inclined to say "Oh, look, he's wrong again--we've already brought up this possibility, but since Dumbledore knows as much or more than we do, we're going to go with him." Real kick in the pants at the end, if you read the book in this way. It's subjective, but I think we *are* encouraged to take Dumbledore as our most trusted character, and that's what sets up the end of the book BANG. -Nora admires the ability to hide things in plain sight...my keys are where? From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Feb 28 22:42:23 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:42:23 +0100 Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent References: Message-ID: <00d001c63cb8$3f369ab0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148921 P J wrote: Miles: > Did Dumbledore tell Harry that Snape did NOT hear the second part? > He made Harry think, but he didn't say so. So if the theory > mentioned above (ignoring the boos of the crowd) is true, he didn't > lie. > PJ: > A lie by omission is still a lie. Sorry but if I were Harry I would > definitely say I'd been lied to. Miles: What was the alternative? If he told Harry the truth (I'm still assuming the theory above) he could as well cast an Avada Kedavra at Snape. Harry is unable to keep any secret from a Legilimens, it is still possible for Voldemort to intrude Harry's mind at distance, and it will be easy for him to read Harry's mind in their showdown. Snape's cover would be blown up if DD told Harry the reason for trusting Snape. If you really would call this a "lie by omission", I'd call it a white lie. Miles From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 22:51:45 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:51:45 -0000 Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent In-Reply-To: <00d001c63cb8$3f369ab0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148922 > > PJ: > > A lie by omission is still a lie. Sorry but if I were Harry I would > > definitely say I'd been lied to. > > Miles: > What was the alternative? If he told Harry the truth (I'm still assuming the > theory above) he could as well cast an Avada Kedavra at Snape. Harry is > unable to keep any secret from a Legilimens, it is still possible for > Voldemort to intrude Harry's mind at distance, and it will be easy for him > to read Harry's mind in their showdown. Snape's cover would be blown up if > DD told Harry the reason for trusting Snape. If you really would call this a > "lie by omission", I'd call it a white lie. zgirnius: I happen to think that Snape only heard part of the prophecy. I see no reason to suppose otherwise, I find the backstory hangs together just fine as Dumbledore tells it. However, if Snape did hear the whole thing and Dumbledore knows it, there is no question he lied to Harry about it. He brought up the subject a different time which neither of you is addressing in this exchange, in Ch.4, HBP, where he told Harry: "There are only two people in the whole world who know the full contents of the prophecy, ". Which, of course, would still perhaps be a necessary lie, as Miles says. From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Tue Feb 28 22:58:47 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:58:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent In-Reply-To: <00d001c63cb8$3f369ab0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148923 Miles: >If you really would call this a "lie by omission", I'd call it a white lie. PJ: Whatever floats your boat. :) A lie is a lie is a lie... same 3 letters no matter how you slice it. :) But anyway, Steve got his answer. PJ From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Feb 28 23:00:35 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 00:00:35 +0100 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG References: Message-ID: <00d601c63cba$c97cc9e0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148924 Sydney wrote: > Well, folks, after all the replies to this subject, nothing covers > with sufficient tightness and banginess (to my *sniff* high standards, > anyways), these three basic facts: > > a. Snape has applied for the DADA job every year for 14 years > b. Dumbledore has refused him every year > c. Both of them (almost certainly) know there's a curse on it, a > curse placed by the most powerful Dark Wizard of his generation. Miles: a. and b. are not facts. I agree that there is canon to support it, but this canon is not clear. We get the information about Snape desiring to become DADA from several people - but Snape himself only once ackknowledges it (in OotP). But he is talking to Umbridge then, so we can't be sure that he speaks the truth - it could easily be a tactical move, particularly because he spoke in front of a class with Slytherins (and Draco). I agree that Snape is not that stupid to think that he could lift this DADA curse, or that his desire for this job is so much stronger than his intellect. But your solution - Suicide!Snape - is not supported by any single bit of canon, it is just a possible solution for the mystery of Snape taking the DADA job - but only if you forget the most obvious solution: Snape never applied for the job, and DD never refused to give it to him. Miles From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 23:15:18 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:15:18 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148925 > >>Dungrollin: > > Which is as good a point as any to ask you the question, Nora: > > Why do you always try to take the BANG out of everything? > >>Nora: > Short answer: because as I've detailed elsewhere, I thought that > the end of HBP *was* BANGy, and I'm interested in how much of the > fandom wants to deny this BANG and shunt off the actual BANGiness > to the next book, when we get 'Another BANG, But One I Like The > Ramifications Of Better' in a perpetual delaying strategy. > Betsy Hp: But doesn't that deny a basic rule of story telling? The climax happens at the *end* of the story, therefore the biggest BANG *will* be in the last book. I'm curious though, who's out there denying the BANG of HBP? I, an unapologetic, Snape-fangirl extraodinaire, found HBP *very* BANG-y. I actually exclaimed out loud. Sure, I think there's another shoe waiting to drop (with a much bigger bang), but that's based a great deal on the basic rules of story-telling. It ain't over til the final chapter of the final book in the series, and I imagine JKR is hoping to bring us screaming over the finish line. > >>Dungrollin: > > Or are you being more disingenuous ? you don't like Snape's > > popularity among the fans and you're hoping for a finale that > > pulls the rug out from under them, that reveals his story as > > *boring*? > >>Nora: > I think that no matter what happens Snape's story will not be as > detailed and important as at least some of the fandom would like > it to be. Betsy Hp: Well, sure! I'd have loved to have witnessed every single DADA class Snape taught. I'd have loved to be a fly on the wall at every single meeting between Snape and Dumbledore. And yet I still manage to realize that Harry is the star. But that doesn't mean that Snape has exited stage left to never be heard from again. This isn't that type of story. > >>Nora: > > I am totally open to being wrong on this, but I get the feeling > that all the mystery around Snape is a house of cards built up to > be very interesting in the process of reading the series in order, > but ultimately to be collapsed in the service of closing the > story. > Betsy Hp: In that questions will be answered, yes I agree with you. But I will be surprised if the answers aren't *satisfying*. Aren't *worthy* of all the effort JKR has gone through to make Snape such a mystery. We know a bit more about the man, a half-breed, wrong side of the tracks, dweeby little, anti-social prodigy. That's *fasinating* to me, and statisfying. There's more to learn, I'm sure. But I doubt it'll be boring. :-) > >>Dungrollin: > > The fact that JKR is so reluctant to tell us anything about > > Snape in interviews to my mind paints a big neon sign > > saying "BANGs imminent!" > >>Nora: > She clearly doesn't want to spoil anything, for which I salute > her. Of course, that spoilage could also be that yes, the BANG was > what it seemed to be, no comforting mitigation here. I give that > option half odds. Betsy Hp: But JKR doesn't mind giving negative spoilage. Snape is *not* a vampire. Dumbledore is *not* a time-traveled Ron. Luna and Neville will *not* hook-up. Luna is *not* Snape's (or was it Voldemort's?) daughter. (Frankly, I think she does this a bit more than she should, but I imagine she's trying to prevent the little ones building castles in the sky and hating the non-conforming canon.) If Snape was nothing at all to the tale, or if the tower scene was exactly what it seemed, she'd flat out tell us I think. Instead of doing her version of the mysterious twinkle. Betsy Hp, back from non-computer land, filled to the brim on Mary Renault's novels and *aching* to drop an analogy to fifth century b.c. Athens, or Alexander the Great on y'all. From bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 28 14:31:37 2006 From: bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net (William Bernard) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:31:37 -0600 Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent References: <00e201c63bf6$78c4b9f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: <004101c63c73$af95e620$4101a8c0@COMPUTER1> No: HPFGUIDX 148926 PJ: > Since ST only knows what's going on around her before and > after a trance she'd either have to have been going into it > or coming out of it when Snape came into the room. Miles: > ... and I always like to present my theory that knowing the > entire prophecy, but telling LV only the first part of it is > the reason for DD's trust in Snape. > But I do not agree that Dumbledore told Harry a lie here: > > "(Snape) ... heard the first half of Professor Trelawney's > prophecy. ... he hastened to tell his master what he had > heard..." (HBP 25) > > Did Dumbledore tell Harry that Snape did NOT hear the second > part? He made Harry think, but he didn't say so. So if the > theory mentioned above (ignoring the boos of the crowd) is > true, he didn't lie. Bill Here: There might be another explanation here. It could be that DD's explanation that Snape only heard the first part is correct. He has also said that the eavesdropper was overpowered and expelled from the Hog's Head. Suppose, in the middle of the prophecy, Snape was found and confronted by Aberforth. Assuming Aberforth is a wizard, he might have stunned him. Perhaps he grabbed him and they were wrestling outside the door. DD would hear the struggle, but listen to the whole prophecy. Then he would open the door, and ST, coming out of her trance, would see Snape. ST makes no mention of Aberforth, but does not say that Snape is alone either. So it seems possible that Snape could be present at the end of the prophecy, but not have heard it all, because he was being ejected from the tavern at the time. Bill From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 23:27:16 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:27:16 -0000 Subject: DID Snape want the DADA job (was:Re: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? In-Reply-To: <00d601c63cba$c97cc9e0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148927 > >>Miles: > > But your solution - Suicide!Snape - is not supported by any > single bit of canon, it is just a possible solution for the > mystery of Snape taking the DADA job - but only if you forget the > most obvious solution: Snape never applied for the job, and DD > never refused to give it to him. Betsy Hp: Then how did Umbridge get the information onto her little clip-board of doom? I was under the impression she was going by a tangible paper- trail. Betsy Hp From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 23:31:37 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:31:37 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: <00d601c63cba$c97cc9e0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148928 > a. and b. are not facts. I agree that there is canon to support it, but this > canon is not clear. We get the information about Snape desiring to become > DADA from several people - but Snape himself only once ackknowledges it (in > OotP). Just for reference, here it is: You applied first for the Defence Against the Dark Arts post, I believe?' Professor Umbridge asked Snape. Yes,' said Snape quietly. 'But you were unsuccessful?' Snape's lip curled. 'Obviously' Professor Umbridge scribbled on her clipboard. 'And you have applied regularly for the Defence Against the Dark Arts post since you first joined the school, I believe?' 'Yes,' said Snape quietly, barely moving his lips. He looked very angry. 'Do you have any idea why Dumbledore has consistently refused to appoint you?' asked Umbridge. 'I suggest you ask him,' said Snape jerkily. >But he is talking to Umbridge then, so we can't be sure that he > speaks the truth - it could easily be a tactical move, particularly because > he spoke in front of a class with Slytherins (and Draco). So I take it you like solution 1, from 148809: >-- Snape DOESN'T want the DADA job; his yearly applications are just >a front to give Dumbledore a chance to make a public display of not >trusting Snape. Well, that IS the one requiring the least explanation. Although, not that it affects this theory, Snape must at least have been making a fake formal application and Dumbledore a fake formal refusal, seeing as Umbrige has a paper trail. Anyways, from the initial post: >Pros: Snape seemed to think this was a line worth >pitching Bella. Cons: Bella was, like, that's a stupid reason to >think you're still evil. Which it is-- it's just too lame, IMO, to >be a cover story. Also, no payoff. Why does JKR keep bringing it up >every single book? Snape: "He wouldn't give me the Defense Against the Dark Arts job, you know. Seemed to think it might, ah, bring about a relapse... tempt me into my old ways" "This was your sacrifice to the Dark Lord, not to teach your favorite subject?"she jeered. This might well be the long and the short of it-- it's a cover story. But my inital objections still stand. It's a very lame cover story. What does it really gain Snape with the Slytherins or with Voldemort? Why is that a better cover story than that he's just plain teaching Potions? Why would they make a cover story out of D-dore NOT completely trusting Snape? When a couple of pages later Snape is bragging that D-dore never stopped trusting him? Also, it seems like a pretty trite point for JKR to keep hitting so many times. And, like any theory requiring someone to be acting upset rather than being genuinely upset, I don't liiiike it. Snape looks "very angry" in that scene, and speaks downright 'jerkily' (n.b. Tom Swiftie fans.. lots of material in HP... ). You could take the option that he's just acting, but, I mean, that's a little boring, isn't it? > I agree that Snape is not that stupid to think that he could lift this DADA > curse, or that his desire for this job is so much stronger than his > intellect. But your solution - Suicide!Snape - is not supported by any > single bit of canon, it is just a possible solution for the mystery of Snape > taking the DADA job But it's such a FUN solution, no? Sydney From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Feb 28 23:34:24 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 00:34:24 +0100 Subject: Of Souls and Death - Dumbledore's Intent References: <00e201c63bf6$78c4b9f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> <004101c63c73$af95e620$4101a8c0@COMPUTER1> Message-ID: <00e601c63cbf$8335d080$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 148929 William Bernard wrote: > There might be another explanation here. It could be that DD's > explanation that Snape only heard the first part is correct. He has > also said that the eavesdropper was overpowered and expelled from the > Hog's Head. Suppose, in the middle of the prophecy, Snape was found > and confronted by Aberforth. Assuming Aberforth is a wizard, he might > have stunned him. Perhaps he grabbed him and they were wrestling > outside the door. DD would hear the struggle, but listen to the whole > prophecy. Then he would open the door, and ST, coming out of her > trance, would see Snape. Miles: No question, this is possible. My interpretation of canon is far from being true beyond any doubt, it is just a theory. But I think it is ... sexy, because we do not have to assume any major part of it without canon support or canon interpretation. The theory takes some pieces of canon, interpretes it slightly different from other points of view (and totally different from Harry's), and it can explain some major mysteries yet to be solved. Just to put another question into the discussion: Why don't we dive into the pensieve to listen to the prophecy? Why don't we hear any sounds apart from Trelawny's voice in the memory version Dumbledore presents to Harry (and to us)? Miles From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 23:34:21 2006 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:34:21 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148930 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > But doesn't that deny a basic rule of story telling? The climax > happens at the *end* of the story, therefore the biggest BANG > *will* be in the last book. That conflates a climax with a BANG. Something BANGy is usually something shocking and sudden, a major catastrophic event and/or revelation. The climax of a story does not have to follow this model of the sudden infraction, but could be something which has been built steadily towards throughout the story, before we finally arrive at what we've known has been coming for a while. Novels with battles often work this way, for instance. [As an aside, 'basic rules of storytelling' is also very much a YMMV thing...] > I'm curious though, who's out there denying the BANG of HBP? I, an > unapologetic, Snape-fangirl extraodinaire, found HBP *very* BANG- > y. Maybe I should elaborate; there are a lot of theories out there looking to mitigate or explain away what makes the end of HBP so devastatingly BANGy. There was a plan, it wasn't a real AK curse so Snape didn't do something deeply evil, Snape is now going to help in the Horsluts hunt and be an inside agent, it'll all turn out alright in the end. All of these things work against the impact of the HBP BANG, it seems to me: hence the comment of "Another BANG, but one that I'm more comfortable with". If JKR wants to take that route, it's certainly open and the revision model is a familiar one, but it shouldn't be taken for granted. That's not to mention that another BANG, if it happens, may simply *not* deal with the same territory or material as the one at the end of HBP. You seem, if I read things correctly, to be looking for another and larger BANG to reverse the effects of that one. But say we do get a BANG at the climax of the novel, which involves Harry and Voldemort and some sudden revelation on Harry's part of What He Has To Do. This need not have anything to do with the HBP BANG. > But that doesn't mean that Snape has exited stage left to never be > heard from again. This isn't that type of story. I would be rather disappointed if he did, as there are clearly issues left over to be dealt with. I just don't know how much page time and influence they're going to exert. HBP itself provides an interesting example. Who expected the bulk of the book to be taken up with teenagers and their daily lives? > Betsy Hp: > In that questions will be answered, yes I agree with you. But I > will be surprised if the answers aren't *satisfying*. I waver. I think they may be depressingly simple to the listies, such as how almost everyone was "That's IT?" when we got to the prophecy. There may be more to come with all of that, but her answers do tend to the kind that can be distilled down to the 'short answer' format. > Betsy Hp: > > If Snape was nothing at all to the tale, or if the tower scene was > exactly what it seemed, she'd flat out tell us I think. Instead of > doing her version of the mysterious twinkle. I don't think she'd tell us because the motivations for the tower scene are interesting and may come into play no matter what the outcome is. And she knows that she's built something that *seems* ambiguous, although it ultimately is almost certainly not. Not to mention that the negative spoilage she's given us tends more towards the character delineation type, although anyone surprised to learn that Draco and Hermione wouldn't date *in canon*... Plot spoilers, those she is quite spare with. Even when they're things which would have turned out to be quite minor. -Nora ponders using Smyth to prop up a wobbly shelf From lealess at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 23:36:50 2006 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:36:50 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148931 --- "Sydney" wrote: > > > You know, looking at those two lines... I'm back to Suicidal!Snape > (or Kamikaze!Snape if you prefer). It hits every point. It has bang. > It has irony. It wouldn't be out of place in a Victorian novel. It > has a lot of potential energy to drive cool scenes. It can generate > motion from Harry. It can connect in interesting ways to other > Unsolved Snape Mysteries like why Dumbledore trusts him so much and > ties into the remorse thing. And, pace Lupinlore, it's not > excessively heroic. Ladies and Gentlemen-- THE WINNNEEEER! > Personally, I expect that JKR will give us Gollum!Snape at the end, a schizophrenic creature of ultimately weak character, scrabbling for the ring, shouting, "IT'S MINE! [Lily, Fame, DADA] MY PRECIOUS!" as he goes down in flames. I am trying to prepare for the worst... but I prefer to be delusional. Rather than Suidical!Snape, let's try Self-Sacrificing!Snape, similar to Self-Sacrificing!Dumbledore, only with more bite. Dumbledore constantly says he trusts Severus Snape. Assuming he does not lie, the threshhold for trust is much higher than it is for giving a second chance. Dumbledore seems not to have trusted Harry until HBP. He kept Harry in the dark, not even looking at him in OOTP until the end. Dumbledore never trusted Tom Riddle Jr., of course. Snape must have done something profound to earn Dumbledore's trust, something more than telling him Voldemort was after the Potters, something more than showing the Dark Mark to Crouch, something more than spying on the Death Eaters. If you consider that Dumbledore not only let Snape teach children, who some say Dumbledore wanted to protect above all else, he also let Snape into the Order when he probably didn't have to, and he apparently let Snape care for him when he was injured -- that's an awful lot of trust to put in one person. Keep in mind that this is Dumbledore, a man who stands back from emotional involvement with others. Dumbledore engaged many DADA professors before Snape. He was apparently willing to sacrifice them once he realized the job was cursed. He's seen Snape's weaknesses, his inability to continue Occlumency training with Harry, his inability to put aside mistrust of Lupin. Yet, he still insists he trusts Snape, to all those who apparently do not share this trust. If he had to vouch for Snape, then people must have told Dumbledore they didn't trust Snape -- how naive could Dumbledore have been? I think that Snape has been willing to sacrifice himself, and that makes all the difference to Dumbledore. That is why Dumbledore ultimately comes to trust Harry, after all, because Harry demonstrated he will put the interests of others before his own. Snape had to know about the DADA curse, no matter how hubristic or spiteful some think he is, if only because he does make observations and can put two-and-two together. He probably didn't have to leave his Potions position to make way for Slughorn. He agreed to leave Potions and take the DADA position, probably knowing he was making a sacrifice. (And perhaps the thing he didn't want to do in the forest was to sacrifice someone else, namely, Dumbledore.) WHY Snape is self-sacrificial -- that is something I am still pondering. Maybe it's the life debt to James Potter. I do not believe Dumbledore would have asked for an Unbreakable Vow, which would have voided choice. And if the DADA curse works to bring out the hidden flaw in an individual, then it may be that when it comes right down to it, Snape is a Slytherin and has to choose to save his own neck, no matter how self-sacrificial he may want to be (if Phineas Nigellus is to be believed). Everyone agrees that Snape has character flaws, whatever the reason. Dumbledore's flaw is that he needs to believe the best of people. Even so, it seems Dumbledore's trust of Snape cannot have been that simple. lealess From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Tue Feb 28 23:46:14 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Luckdragon) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:46:14 -0000 Subject: Snape Survey Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148932 Luckdragon: Everytime I read my HP for Grownups email I see pages and pages of Snape. I don't think we will see the end of the "Is Snape ESE or ESG or OFH" until book seven is released; so, just for the sake of being able to tell each other "I told you so", let's tally up what we believe Snape is before we actually know, and see which way the majority of us are thinking. A brief paragraph is sufficient. Myself for example, I am somewhat like DD and just have to look for the good in people, so obviously I believe Snape will be found out to be ESG. Well maybe not good exactly, but neither ESE or OFH. Lupin said it well in book six; " It comes down to whether or not you trust Dumbledore's judgement. I do; therefore, I trust Severus." (Chpt 16) So in your Opinion, who's side is Snape on? From enlil65 at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 16:22:52 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:22:52 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trusting Snape In-Reply-To: References: <4qag60$67famn@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: <1789c2360602280822q3d544146tf14ec4e34b27b950@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 148933 On 2/28/06, P J wrote: > Let's say for arguement sake that you're right and Snape is solidly DD's > man. Well, if after 14+ years of sacrifice and deprivation all Snape > receives for his loyalty and hard, dangerous work on Dumbledore's behalf is > to be hunted down like a rabid dog and either thrown in prison or killed by > an Auror for AK'ing DD - especially if some are right and it was on DD's > orders? What a horror!! That would make DD's "retirement plan" for loyal, > competent service no better than Voldermort's! Sorry, I just can't buy > that! Dumbledore is so much better than that! The above is an interesting way of putting it, I think. If Snape is trustworthy, what Snape really gets in the end is Voldemort's defeat. His being hunted after HBP is then a sacrifice he makes: a great personal sacrifice, in service of a plan to defeat Voldemort. From this point of view, Snape killed Dumbledore because he had no alternative: all other options put the large scale plan in jeopardy. I'm not just talking about his UV with Narcissa, and saving Draco's life, though those things play into it; but he's up on that tower with Death Eaters, they are all witnesses, and if it's important for Snape to appear to be on Voldemort's side in the end (and I believe it is) in order to carry out the plan to completion, then it is very important that he not appear to betray Voldemort. He has his role to play. Dumbledore is the author of that plan, and though he may not have planned to die on this particular night, I think he knew as well as Snape that there was no alternative. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 21:27:19 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:27:19 -0000 Subject: Why does Snape wants DADA job if it cursed? LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148934 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > You know, looking at those two lines... I'm back to Suicidal!Snape (or > Kamikaze!Snape if you prefer). It hits every point. It has bang. It > has irony. It wouldn't be out of place in a Victorian novel. It has > a lot of potential energy to drive cool scenes. It can generate > motion from Harry. It can connect in interesting ways to other > Unsolved Snape Mysteries like why Dumbledore trusts him so much and > ties into the remorse thing. And, pace Lupinlore, it's not > excessively heroic. Ladies and Gentlemen-- THE WINNNEEEER! > :-), it certainly isn't excessively heroic. Having said that, Suicidal! Snape seems to be extraordinarily incompetent when it comes to getting what he wants. He's wanted to kill himself for almost twenty years and STILL hasn't managed it? Oh yes, he is determined to kill himself IN A PARTICULAR WAY, and only THAT WAY will do. May I introduce my old friend, IrrationalObsession!Snape. It's just that in this particular scenario, his irrational obsession is with dying in a specific way for a specific cause, as opposed to getting a specific job. Okay, I can buy that one. Makes me think, though, that Harry could have solved all of his Potions problems with relative ease. Picture it: Snape walks into a Potions Dungeon that a certain loyal house-elf has done up in Japanese Medieval. There is a Wakazashi sitting on his desk in a black-laquered stand. In front of the sword a note: MY DEAREST SEVERUS. TAKE THE HONORABLE WAY OUT. LOVE, LILY. Out of consideration for Dobby, Harry should, of course, have Kreacher clean up the mess. Lupinlore, who thinks the Wizarding World could solve a lot of its problems by arranging junkets to Argentina. I'm told psychiatric services there are excellent, plentiful, and relatively inexpensive. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 22:09:12 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:09:12 -0000 Subject: Is Snape good or evil? (longer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Pippin: > You think JKR meant Dumbledore to be wrong when he said, "Youth > cannot know how age thinks and feels." (OOP ch37) ? I, for one, do not think she meant him to be wrong. But I don't think she meant for that to be a statement of something Harry was supposed to learn, but rather an apology from Dumbledore about something Dumbledore should have remembered. There is a big difference there. > > The most obvious reason for me, as a middle-aged person, to trust > someone with whom I've had a working relationship for sixteen years, > would be because I've had a working relationship with them for sixteen years. > Harry's never had a working relationship with *anyone* for that long. > I'm not infantilizing him (I don't think) when I say I wouldn't expect > him to understand what it means to me. > Not infantilizing, necessarily, I don't think. However, I DO think that such a statement, without an attempt to explain the facts as much as one can and to lay out one's reasons OTHER than sixteen years, etc. is profoundly condescending. It amounts to, "I know better than you so shut up and do as you're told." And I think the problem with Dumbledore here is that he IS being profoundly condescending in this particular instance. I don't think he MEANS to be condescending, but that's beside the point. And I grant there are other instances where he is very much NOT condescending to Harry. But in THIS particular instance, condescension is Dumbledore's downfall. > > So, the rational reasoning part of his mind is redeemed and solidly > behind Dumbledore, (IMO) but the hurting feeling part still wants its > revenge for the bullying he suffered so long ago, and he can't get > at those feelings to process them. It might help if there were someone > who could mirror those feelings for him. I think that's a role > Dumbledore hoped Harry could play in Snape's healing. Well, I think you are right. The problem is, that means Dumbledore is kind of like an idiot savant. He's an absolute genius at some things, but at other's he's so strangely blind and downright moronic that you have to wonder if he hasn't suffered a series of small strokes over the years. Now, as I've stated on other threads I have no problem with that, as I think DD is a moron in many ways. But it doesn't match the image of DD to which many people want to cling. > > He did know remorse, though, if what we saw in the cave is true. > Knowing how it feels to feel so guilty that you want to > die, he could both judge the depths of Snape's remorse and mirror it > back so that Snape could understand it. > The scene in the cave is very interesting, all right. But I'm not sure what to make of it. Was DD expressing his own emotions? If so, emotions over what? Was he expressing someone ELSE's emotions? If so, whose and over what? Could they be Snape's emotions? Wormtail's? Did DD make a mistake and lose someone he loved? Could this, as you say, mean that Snape's remorse (genuine or not) resonates with him profoundly? Could this help explain his willingness to sacrifice almost everything else to guard against possible threats to Harry? The last possibility is an interesting one, and it resonates, perhaps, with DD's mindset both after Godric's Hollow and after the events of GoF. To look just at the last example, if DD does indeed blame himself for what happened to someone he loved, the events of Harry's fourth year must of have shaken him very badly. He would be fiercely determined, almost obsessed, with regard to keeping Harry out of danger. So determined, in fact, that he put Harry IN danger. JKR's last interview focused on her fear of losing people she loves. Maybe DD is meant to represent, in some instances, an unhealthy response to this fear. If so, it would explain why she says there is more to come on DD and that she hesitates to speak about it because it's important to the overall theme. DD could represent a person who lost someone he loves and therefore reacts with an unhealthy determination NEVER to let that happen again. Therefore he goes to great lengths to insure this doesn't happen, taking extreme measures like foisting a child on someone who doesn't want it, methodically witholding information from said child, and perhaps taking other actions we don't yet know about (for instance, maybe requiring a certain supposedly repentant DE to make an Unbreakable Vow to keep said child alive?) Lupinlore From arlenegustave at yahoo.com Tue Feb 28 18:13:00 2006 From: arlenegustave at yahoo.com (Arlene) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:13:00 -0000 Subject: Snape again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 148940 Edit > > Gerry: > What I'm afraid of is that it will be Harry's eyes. That the > redemption will be that Lily's eyes will make Snape choose finally > good over evil or right over easy and of course he will die in the > process. Arlen Here: This is a very deep and interesting thought. And it makes sense. JR has been talking about Harry has his mother's eyes from Book one. It has to play out somehow. However, just to throw a wrench into it.... Snape has been in Harry's face for 5 years now, you'd think "his eyes" would have done something to him by now. Another wrench might be that "because" of his eyes he despises him. Not to mention DD's man, and his former girlfriend's child (which probably should have been his). Harry represents EVERYTHING bad in Snape's past and "his eyes" are just the icing. It is the one thing he ALWAYS sees and probably hurts most from it. Coincindentally, it may be Lily herself who "comes out of Harry or elsewhere (as she's done before) and urges Snape to help. Or Snape sees Harry but hears Lily or vice versa through Harry's eyes at the end.