From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 1 01:02:55 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:02:55 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154667 Alla: > See, I fully accept that HBP may signal the potential change in > Draco, I mean if the events on the Tower will not cause him to wake > up, I think nothing will, BUT for five books he was the same > disgusting bigot ( my view of him only) without indicating ANY > positive qualities. > > What you say about him changing when stakes went up makes sense, BUT > I would love for JKR to drop me a SIGN, small sign that Draco is not > totally bad. I mean one can argue that there were signs in earlier > books, but I did not see any. > Pippin: The sign for me was in PS/SS when Draco fled screaming from the hooded figure he saw preying on the unicorn. That proved to me that he was not a psychopath, who would have shown no terror, nor a sadist at heart, who would have wanted to see an innocent creature suffer. (Draco does enjoy seeing his enemies suffer but, to be honest, who doesn't?) All that has to happen for Draco to be redeemed is for him to realize that all he'd been brought up to believe is a pack of lies. That won't be so easy for him, because the people who were lying to him were people he loved. I think Draco was raised to believe that Muggles and Muggleborns are his enemies, and that every thing they have was stolen from proper wizards, with the aid of deluded or self-serving traitors like the Weasleys and Dumbledore. How was Draco to know that Dumbledore was not seeking power for himself? Even Fudge thought so, with far less excuse. It wasn't until he confronted an utterly helpless Dumbledore who still maintained that using the word Mudblood was offensive that Draco could see for himself that this wasn't just a political position. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jul 1 01:28:36 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:28:36 -0000 Subject: Barty Crouch, Jr?/oddments of theoretical whims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154668 Jen D. > I always felt there was something fishy about the demise > of BC Jr. [...] > And then, we do the old polyjuice potion thingy yet > again, and viola! We have a perfect mole in the MOM! > Of course it falls apart in so many ways it's not even > worth considering but that period of time when it's > just Fudge, BC Jr. and a dementor continues to give > me pause.And as well, I do not like the way the > dialogue is so inconclusive as to who is doing the > talking upon Harry's return from the graveyard. > being Fudge and begins to be Moody/Crouch. houyhnhnm: I agree about the confusion over who is speaking. Fudge said that Harry needed to go to the hospital wing. Then there are three unattributed offers to take him. Finally someone picks him up and it is the man this and the man that--three times "the man", finally identified as "Moody". I think it was probably Fudge speaking the first time and Crouch!Moody the other three times. Maybe the point is only to show Harry's disoriented state and the general panic and confusion that reigned. It does seem strange though. There is definitely something fishy. However, your idea, appealing though it is, requires Fudge, Crouch, Jr., and the dementor to have been alone together, and it doesn't appear to me that they were. What's bothers me is Snape's use of the plural pronoun. Dumbledore told McGonagall to stand guard over Barty, Jr. He told Snape to send Madam Pomfrey down to Moody's office then to go into the grounds to find Fudge. Snape said, "When *we* told Mr. Fudge...." And McGonagall follows up, "I told him you would not agree, Dumbledore ... I told him you would never allow dementors to set foot inside the castle, but--" Then she added that the *moment* the dementor entered the room it swooped down on Crouch. It sounds as if McGonagall abandoned her post and accompanied Snape out into the grounds. And, if not, who are "we"? From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jul 1 01:47:10 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:47:10 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154669 Carol said At two distinct periods, he has risked his life > spying for Dumbledore. He has also saved or attempted to save Harry's > life on numerous occasions and saved three lives in HPB alone (Katie > Bell, Draco, and DD himself). He has aided DD against Quirrell!mort > and Crouch!Moody and he sent the Order to rescue to save Harry and > company from the DEs at the MoM. I was looking at this list and thinking of the characters whose lives we *know* were saved at Snape's direct intervention. Harry in SS/PS, all the kids at the MOM in OOTP, and in HBP Katie Bell, DD, and Draco (twice including Sectumsempra). Then there's his indirect help with the bezoar information that saved Ron, his taking unconscious persons to safety (from the werewolf) in POA, and helping DD and McGonagall overpower Crouch/Moody. Completely aside from plot considerations (does this or that prove Snape's loyalty, etc.), can anyone seriously suggest that JKR is going to have a character save this many lives and turn out being Evil?? I mean, I'm not certain -- I haven't counted up all the instances of saved lives in the books -- but has *any* other character saved this many lives within the actual events of the books? (I'm not including whatever DD may have done in years past.) What sort of peculiar character presentation would JKR be writing to have her Evil Villian be the one saving so many lives? Oh, sure, I feel certain anyone could -- with work -- come up for plenty of excuses for why all of these lives saved were just part of Evil Snape's Evil Plan, or he had to do it for various Awful Reasons, or maybe he had to save lives or be Found Out. But like I said, *aside* from what we think proves or disproves anything in the plot -- why would JKR have her Evil Villian save so many lives? wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 1 01:54:24 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:54:24 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154670 > > Alla: > > That's chronology question. I am saying that Dumbledore would need > dramatic reason to trust Snape "sorry" that if nothing else, plot > will require it. > > I think IF Snape is on DD side, he did something that convinced DD > that Snape is not on DE side and if DD simply believed that Snape is > sorry, without having some kind of proof, well then my opinion of his > intelligence would go further down. > > Does it make sense? Are you saying that DD valued Snape friendship > still when Snape went to serve Voldy and that is what caused him to > trust that Snape is sorry? Pippin: Yes, you make sense, but what you are saying to me is that you don't believe in second chances for DE's and if Dumbledore does, he's an idiot. Harry did not ask for proof from Ron that Ron would never be jealous of him again, and he didn't ask for proof from Hermione that Hermione would never rat him out to the authorities again. He didn't even ask Hermione to admit she'd done him wrong -- all he needed was the realization that she cared about Hagrid and Buckbeak as much as Harry did and was begging for his help even though he and Ron had been snubbing her for months. If Snape went to Dumbledore and said, "It's my fault Voldemort has gone after Lily and James. I'm a Death Eater and I told Voldemort about the prophecy you heard from Trelawney. I never meant it to happen.You can do what ever you want to me but you've got to save them" I honestly don't think Dumbledore would need anything else. After all, Snape was risking Azkaban or summary justice from the Aurors just by admitting what he was. > > Alla: > > > Alla, who also thinks that DD intended to say more because Harry > as an agrrieved party deserved to know. > > > > Pippin: > > I still don't get this. You are a lawyer, so maybe you can explain, > at least in your jurisdiction...if a criminal's record has been sealed > by the court, for example because he was a juvenile, do the aggrieved > parties have a right to look at it? Do you think they deserve to? > > Alla: > > Um, there are many things happening in legal system Pippin that I > think should not happen, just as there are many things in Potterverse > that I HOPE will not happen the way they would happen in legal system. > > And Harry getting the reasons of why DD trusted the man who had a > hand in delivering his parents to Voldemort ( as I see it) is one of > those things. > Pippin: Okay, so you are asserting a right which Harry would not have even in the usually liberal USA and certainly wouldn't have in the UK where there is an Official Secrets Act, because he personally wants it. IIRC. In that case, why shouldn't we assert that wizards have the right to keep others as slaves and that teachers have the right to use their power as they see fit? I don't think JKR is going there. It won't look very good if Harry thought Peter should be turned over to the Ministry, but insists on being judge, jury and executioner for Snape. That would clearly be putting his personal interest ahead of justice. I can't believe that JKR, supporter of Amnesty International, would think that is a good idea. I think Harry will get the reason that Dumbledore trusted Snape, from Snape himself, but by then he won't need it. Alla: > By the way, how do you know that Wisengamot sealed Snape's records? > > Is there a reference that people are not allowed to talk about his > past after those GoF proceedings? Pippin: It is implied because Sirius and Fudge seem to be very familiar with who was tried, and Fudge says there are public records, but no one seems to know as of GoF that Snape had been a Death Eater. Dumbledore says that Snape was "cleared" by the tribunal. Not that he is out on parole or that his release was in any way conditional. You might accuse Dumbledore of being soft on DE's, but hardly Crouch, and it was Crouch who was ultimately responsible for letting Snape off -- apparently with literal amnesty (which as I am sure you know, means 'forgetting'). Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 02:25:42 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 02:25:42 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154671 > wynnleaf > This is not surprising in SS/PS or other early years. But by the > time of OOTP, once would think a 15 year old would give at least a > tiny bit of thought to what Snape did in saving the lives of Harry > and his friends. Alla: Why would Harry give any thought to Snape saving his life ( which I completely disagree happened multiple times, but see below for that) if for five years all that Snape was doing ( the way I see it) sadistically tormenting Harry and NOT only during the lessons but also in between of those? Why would fifteen year old suddenly change his mind about the man who ( the way I see it)attacked him as a vicious dog ( IMO of course) on the very first lesson, who took a book from him when he was reading outside, who tormented Harry with the name of his dead father, whom it turns out Snape is complicit in putting to his grave - IMO of course. Snape gives a VERY nice explanation of why he bothered to save Harry's life in Spinner End. It could be of course that he is playing a game, but consider for a second if what Snape says there is actually the truth. Isn't it interesting that Dumbledore does NOT insist at all that eleven year old Harry thank Snape for saving his life? Instead Dumbledore gives Harry IMO a very clear suggestion that the ONLY reason Snape tried to save Harry was that he was hoping to pay his life debt and be done with it? Isn't it possible that Dumbledore is right here? It is funny because it is still would have been nice for eleven year old to thank Snape ( not that I blame him one second for not doing it after the year Snape gave him, but Dumbledore supposed to know better. So WHY he does not insist that Harry at least writes Snape a thank you note or something? > wynnleaf > Certainly it is understandable that Snape's attitude toward Harry > over the years as caused Harry to dislike him. But Snape has done > little to Harry other than sarcasm, insults, unfair detentions or > lost points, etc. Harry absolutely refuses to consider *anything* > that Snape has ever done *for* him, even when Dumbledore is sitting > right in front of him telling him about it. Alla: But if one evaluates what Snape did to Harry as continuous destruction of Harry's dignity on the day to day basis, then bigger picture becomes something very different IMO. As in that NOTHING that Snape ever did for Harry, if anything overweights what Snape did against Harry. That is just my opinion of course. Carol: (Maybe *that's* what motivates Snape--not > the > > life debt to James or love of Lily but guilt for placing the > burden of > > saving the WW on the Boy Who Lived.) Alla: Maybe, but I would hope to hear it from Snape that he feels guilty. Just once. > wynnleaf, > I agree. However, I don't necessarily think that JKR will take > Harry step by step through each of those items. Mainly, Harry has > to realize what's really been going on and that general nastiness - - > petty insults, detentions, etc. -- do not an Evil One make. Real > actions, like saving lives, putting one's own life on the line to > serve the greater good, etc., count a great deal. Alla: I'd like again refer you to Spinner End and imagine the possibility that everything that Snape said there is a truth. What "bigger actions" are we talking about then? JMO, Alla, who thinks that there is only ONE piece of evidence in the books which she cannot explain in the light of evil Snape and NO, that is not saving Harry in PS/SS, but who is not saying what it is. :-) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 03:09:12 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 03:09:12 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154673 > Betsy Hp: > I hope I wasn't *quite* as condescending to Draco as that , but I > am pretty much saying what you agree with above, Alla. Draco is > coming at the world with a certain set of values and a very strong > love for his parents, and I think it's expecting too much of Draco > to expect him to suddenly say, for example, in GoF "Oh, Father is > being cruel to those muggles. Father *must* be evil. I will now > disavow Father and everything he stands for and flee to Dumbledore's > side!" > Alla: I give up :) I guess I just understand Magpie's writing better than yours. It seemed to me very clear that she was not making excuses for Draco, just gave his reasons, but what I read from this paragraph reads to me as absolute excuse for Draco. WHY is it too much to expect from him? Doesn't he have his head on the shoulders to understand that murder is wrong/ Betsy Hp: > And I look to Harry's response to the twins toying with their chosen > muggle to back up the argument that the person doing the action > *will* affect how that action is perceived. Yes, it's morally more > mature, I think, to look at the action and divorce it from your > emotional feelings about the people involved. But it's *hard*. And > for some reason Draco is expected to make this massive leap, but > Harry is not. Alla: Because Harry is ALREADY on the right side. See, I kept thinking about your argument that Harry did not have the same crisis as Draco did at the end of HBP and I realised something. I don't think he is supposed to. Again, he makes mistakes as everybody, but he is altogether on the right side and I don't think he should have super gigantic crisis as in he is SO completely an utterly wrong. He was NOT after all the one who planned Headmaster' assasination, DRACO did and yeah, I would hope that this would force Draco to have crisis of faith, otherwise he should just drop dead as far as I am concerned. Harry had plenty of SHOCKS in his young life, as in realising that WW safety is on his shoulders, that DD is human, etc, but over what is he supposed to have super gigantic crisis? I mean, let me take myself as RL example. You know my age :) ( thirty ish). I sure made mistakes over the course of my life and I had to reevaluate things, apologise to people, etc, BUT honestly on the top of my head I am not sure that I ever had CRISIS of faith as in me being SO completely wrong that my system of beliefs crumbled in front of my eyes. I hope it does not sound arrogant and if you knew me in RL, you would see that I am not an arrogant person, but I am not sure if more or less decent person is supposed to have crisis of faith necessarily. I mean, I have plenty of flaws, but I never did anything criminal, I am TRYING to treat people the way I want them to treat me, etc, what is to have crisis about? Again, NOT talking about mistakes, since surely everybody does them DRACO is the one who HAS TO reevaluate his beliefs, I don't think that Harry's beliefs are so utterly wrong that he is supposed to do complete reevaluation. Acknowledge mistakes, judgmentalism, etc? Yes, sure, but Harry is not a criminal by the end of HBP, Draco is. Betsy Hp: > I don't think they're really *trying* to recruit people (well, > Hermione may have been, but she blew it) but once again I don't see > how Draco could have looked to them and said, "Ah, these are the > people who are on the right side of things." There's not a moment > in canon that I can think of where the Trio (or anyone, really) > offered Draco an alternative. Not until the Tower, anyway. Alla: Well, Amiable Dorsai upthread gave a very good list of decent things Trio did, if nothing of it convinced Draco, that's his loss IMO. BUT actually speaking about recruitment, I cannot call myself a student of judaism, far from it, but even I know that judaism for example does NOT recruit people, quite the contrary. People who want to convert supposed to see for themself and convince rabbi that they really want it, as far as I know. I don't think this is a good side obligation to recruit people necessarily, more like behave as good guys ( and yes, I think they often do) and if anybody wants to come, not to turn them away. Why were they supposed to OFFER Draco anything/ Betsy Hp: > Not that I'm saying Draco is dependent on the Trio for acheiving his > own moral maturity. I just disagree with the idea that Draco should > have realized he was evil because he was around the goodness of > Harry. If anything, because of the rivalry between Draco and Harry, > Draco would naturally shed *away* from anything Harry was a part > of. So that's two obstacles standing in Draco's way: his love for > his family and his dislike for Harry. Alla: Oh, no, I would not suggest that. How about being around Dumbledore and at least seeing that what Draco's side does is bad? I would not suggest Draco becoming Harry best friend and adoring him, that is not possible, but if nothing else as I said to realise that his side is bad and that is why maybe it makes sense to join the other even if he does not like people there much? Simply because they do not kill for a living and fun, if nothing else. Betsy Hp: If Draco does gain the ability to think and choose for > himself than he'll have gained something that Harry is, at this > point, still missing. Which is why I think Harry will be forced > into a similar position via DDM!Snape. Alla: See above. I don't think Harry HAS TO have the same crisis Draco did necessarily and yes, even if Snape turned out to be DD!M. That would be IMO a very understandable mistake Harry made, nothing to have crisis about. > > >>Alla: > > Or in the similar fashion narrator noticing that Malfoy was a bit > > upset when he hears about Cedric's death. > > Betsy Hp: > For me it's the quivering smirk. [GoF scholastic hardback p.729] > Too small? It is more than we get from either Harry or Hermione > over poor Marietta's fate. Alla: That is an interesting point. No, I like it, but no, I don't think that especially Harry should have expressed anything like that towards "poor Marietta" who placed all of them in such grave danger from Umbridge, IMO. JMO, Alla From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 01:31:01 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 01:31:01 -0000 Subject: Smith Connection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154675 bridge13219: I'm sorry if this has been covered, but I couldn't find any posts so here goes: I was just re-reading HBP (Chapter 20: Lord Voldemort's Request) where we meet Hepzibah Smith, and I was wondering if Zacharias Smith (the Hufflepuff prat) was/is related to her. There seems to be a lot of emphasis on his haughtiness, and it's made clear that Hepzibah is quite fond of herself as well as quite rich. I was wondering if there might be more to Zacharias than just being a jerk, and if that might be important later on. Or maybe Smith is a very common name. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 04:22:51 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:22:51 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154676 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Draco is coming at the world with a certain set of values and a > > very strong love for his parents, and I think it's expecting too > > much of Draco to expect him to suddenly say, for example, in > > GoF "Oh, Father is being cruel to those muggles. Father *must* > > be evil. I will now disavow Father and everything he stands for > > and flee to Dumbledore's side!" > >>Alla: > I give up :) Betsy Hp: Oh, I don't believe that. ;) > >>Alla: > I guess I just understand Magpie's writing better than > yours. It seemed to me very clear that she was not making excuses > for Draco, just gave his reasons, but what I read from this > paragraph reads to me as absolute excuse for Draco. WHY is it too > much to expect from him? > Doesn't he have his head on the shoulders to understand that > murder is wrong/ Betsy Hp: What murder? I'm talking about Lucius being among the crowd that twirled the muggle family in the air. No one died there. And Draco doesn't turn on his father because he loves him and because muggle- baiting is not seen as a horrible wrong within the WW. We saw that earlier with the twins. The *reason* Draco doesn't run screaming in the other direction is because he's a child of the WW and he loves his father. And the reason Harry doesn't run screaming from the twins is that he likes the twins, he dislikes his family, and everyone (except for Arthur) assures him that baiting muggles is a bit of harmless fun. > >>Betsy Hp: > > And I look to Harry's response to the twins toying with their > > chosen muggle to back up the argument that the person doing the > > action *will* affect how that action is perceived. Yes, it's > > morally more mature, I think, to look at the action and divorce > > it from your emotional feelings about the people involved. But > > it's *hard*. And for some reason Draco is expected to make this > > massive leap, but Harry is not. > >>Alla: > Because Harry is ALREADY on the right side. Betsy Hp: This is where you lose me. It's bad for Lucius to bait muggles and his own son, who loves him very much, should turn his back on his family because he father did such an evil thing. However, when the twins bait muggles, it's okay. The *only* difference I can see is that Harry is considered "good" and he likes the twins, and he's okay with their behavior. So it comes down to whatever Harry says is okay is okay, and if he turns around and says that same thing is bad, even though he's contradicting himself, everyone around him should intuit that he's changed his mind. Draco should then drop his family because they bait muggles, and join with the Weasleys, who also bait muggles but in a way that amuses Harry. I do agree that Harry is on the right side. But that doesn't give him (or his friends) a free pass. And Draco is on the wrong side, but it's asking too much of him, IMO, to magically realize it. Especially if the "good" side is engaged in the same sort of behavior. > >>Alla: > See, I kept thinking about your argument that Harry did not have > the same crisis as Draco did at the end of HBP and I realised > something. I don't think he is supposed to. > Betsy Hp: But that would mean the books would end with Draco as the wiser character. I don't think JKR is going to do that. > >>Alla: > > Harry had plenty of SHOCKS in his young life, as in realising that > WW safety is on his shoulders, that DD is human, etc, but over > what is he supposed to have super gigantic crisis? > Betsy Hp: There's not a need for the crisis of faith to be super gigantic. Frankly, I think Draco will have (is having) the bigger crisis of faith, because as you point out, he's starting out on the wrong side. So he's having to rethink all he's been taught. But Harry, if he's to acheive full adulthood, full wisdom, will have to have a moment when he steps away from his emotional reactions to people and actually considers their actions. To realize that even though he likes the twins and doesn't like Dudley that wizards baiting muggles is a bad thing. It doesn't even mean that Harry will have to see the twins as evil (I'd love it, but that's *my* emotional reaction ) just mistaken. I *do* think Harry will have to recognize that there is good in Slytherin, and I do think he'll have to recognize that Snape's been on the right side the whole time. > >>Alla: > DRACO is the one who HAS TO reevaluate his beliefs, I don't think > that Harry's beliefs are so utterly wrong that he is supposed to > do complete reevaluation. Betsy Hp: I actually agree, as I said above, that Draco will have to go through the bigger reevaluation. But I don't fault him for having to go through something like that, and I certainly don't fault him for not recognizing the need until he's fully faced with the true horror of Voldemort. There's nothing that occured up until HBP that was big enough, IMO, to turn him from the path his parents set him on. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > I don't think they're really *trying* to recruit people (well, > > Hermione may have been, but she blew it) but once again I don't > > see how Draco could have looked to them and said, "Ah, these are > > the people who are on the right side of things." There's not a > > moment in canon that I can think of where the Trio (or anyone, > > really) offered Draco an alternative. Not until the Tower, > > anyway. > >>Alla: > Well, Amiable Dorsai upthread gave a very good list of decent > things Trio did, if nothing of it convinced Draco, that's his loss > IMO. Betsy Hp: Ah, but then Amiable Dorsai pointed out that someone raised as Draco was would not see the things the Trio did as decent. So he showed his list to be meaningless as far as Draco was concerned. > >>Alla: > > I don't think this is a good side obligation to recruit people > necessarily, more like behave as good guys ( and yes, I think they > often do) and if anybody wants to come, not to turn them away. > Why were they supposed to OFFER Draco anything/ Betsy Hp: But you're suggesting that they *did* offer Draco something. That for some reason Draco was supposed to look at the actions of the Trio and look at the actions of his family and then turn on his family. I was only pointing out that the Trio don't actually do anything that might attract Draco. Or even give him pause for thought that I can recall. I'm not saying the good guys *should* recruit anyone. But if they aren't recruiting people, why does Draco get blamed for not being recruited? > >>Alla: > > How about being around Dumbledore and at least seeing that what > Draco's side does is bad? Betsy Hp: Well, at first you have that house cup debacle in PS/SS. That wasn't going to win Draco over. But when Draco *does* finally interact with Dumbledore (in HBP) he does start to question his beliefs, I think. Hence his hesitation and his lowering wand. > >>Alla: > I would not suggest Draco becoming Harry best friend and adoring > him, that is not possible, but if nothing else as I said to > realise that his side is bad and that is why maybe it makes sense > to join the other even if he does not like people there much? > Simply because they do not kill for a living and fun, if nothing > else. Betsy Hp: Draco's father doesn't kill for a living. And if he does kill for fun, Draco doesn't know anything about it. When Draco *is* faced with killing he does start to question things. But previous to HBP, Draco isn't surrounded by killers, that he knew about anyway. And as you pointed out above, no one on the good side is trying to win Draco over. > >>Betsy Hp: > > For me it's the quivering smirk. [GoF scholastic hardback > > p.729] Too small? It is more than we get from either Harry > > or Hermione over poor Marietta's fate. > >>Alla: > That is an interesting point. No, I like it, but no, I don't think > that especially Harry should have expressed anything like that > towards "poor Marietta" who placed all of them in such grave > danger from Umbridge, IMO. Betsy Hp: See!! So if disfiguring someone for life is such good behavior no one should feel any guilt about it, how the heck is Draco supposed to decide that his beloved family are the bad ones? I mean, where is the difference? Umbridge disfigures those who cross her, Hermione disfigures those who cross her. Where's the difference? Betsy Hp From arwenrjl at aol.com Sat Jul 1 00:08:54 2006 From: arwenrjl at aol.com (arwengryffin) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 00:08:54 -0000 Subject: Speculating on the deaths In-Reply-To: <20060629150208.8814.qmail@web52705.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154679 Katie wrote: > I know she would never kill Harry unless she absolutely > saw no other way (which the mugglenet folks also believe). And > I don't see that killing Harry serves any purpose at all. What > would he have gone through all this for, if he was just to die > at the hands of LV at the end. Lily's whole death was to > save that baby Harry, and if he died at the age of 17 or 18, > what was the point? I feel like it serves no good plot point > to kill off the hero. > > Secondly, because JK has never killed anyone without their > death serving a real purpose, if Ron, Hagrid, Ginny, or other > various Weasleys were to die, I know that it would be horribly > sad, but would serve the plot and feel right, like that was the > way it was supposed to be. Dear Katie, I agree with you, I don't think Harry dies. I suppose I could envision a scenario where this would be the ending, but I just don't think so. Harry is life, I think he is a character who represents life, "The Boy Who Lived". As you said, Lily's sacrifice is very important to the story. I think we are going to learn a lot more about her in Book 7. I think her son makes it, I think that's the point. I do think Ron may die, heroically at the end of the book. Harry has suffered a lot of loss, but not the loss of a peer. I know poor Cedric, but Harry did not know him well. However, as Ron's death would be huge, if it happens, I don't think this was one of the two JKR mentioned in her interview the other day. I think they may be second tier characters, someone we care about, but who is featured a little less than say the trio. The deaths may come before the end of the book, as I don't think she's there yet. I think she is talking about the good guys, a number of Voldemort's supporters will undoubtably meet their ends in Book 7. - Arwen From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 04:31:10 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:31:10 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154681 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > > wynnleaf: > It is interesting that Harry has not once acknowledged that his > life has been saved by Snape, or that Snape's actions have saved > anyone else's life that he cares about. Not once. > It would be utterly inappropriate for Harry to do so, I think, considering that Snape has systematically abused him from the time he set foot in Hogwarts. But, let us consider what such a consideration on Harry's part would entail. For you see, Harry did at least begin to consider this situation, once open a time -- as he was laying in the infirmary in PS/SS. And his consideration received an answer. No less than DD himself assured him that he need not be particularly grateful, as Snape was only trying to get out from under a debt to James. So, no less than the "epitome of goodness" himself has laid any gratitude Harry might (I think inappropriately) feel toward Snape to rest. Nor has DD ever really tried to bring the subject up again. His defense of Snape is, at best, passive, with the possible exception of the end of OOTP where even there he makes no real attempt to defend Snape in the Occlumency affair. And yes, I think abuse -- which is what Snape's behavior is -- DOES very much an evil one make. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 04:50:09 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:50:09 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154682 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > I believe that Harry *must* come to understand that Snape, however > much he dislikes Harry personally, is his ally and protector, and that > he had no choice but to kill DD (or pretend to kill him, if Pippin is > right) against his will. IMO, Harry *must* realize that these things > outweigh Snape's long-regretted revelation of the Prophecy, a mistake > whose consequences he tried to prevent by spying for DD and, failing > that, to atone for by faithful service to Dumbledore for sixteen > years. Harry must also realize that he has unfairly blamed Snape for > Sirius Black's death and acknowledge his own role in that unfortunate > event (not that Harry is to blame for the murder, but that it would > not have happened if he had listened to Snape's warnings that LV was > trying to get inside his head). > > Carol, thinking that, like Harry, the reader must get past the daily > interactions of Harry and Snape in Potions class (not so much DADA, > where Snape is teaching what the students need to learn) and look at > the bigger picture > And we are back, I think, once again to JKR failing reprehensibly by approving of the abuse of a child, or rather making a hero out of the man who abused said child, which is the same thing. I always fail to understand what would be so wonderful about that storyline. But, let's think for a moment if Harry does this ... which I think in addition to being reprehensible would be unbelievable and incredibly poor writing. Let us suppose he does. Where does that leave Snape? It's an interesting question. Does he scream "NOOOOOO" and throw himself onto his wand in horror at being condescended to by a Potter? Does he undergo an epiphany of his own, just in time to be thrown on someone else's wand (probably Voldemort's)? Does he return to Hogwarts to abuse yet more children? Indeed, what would become of the forgiven Snape? Lupinlore From marika_thestral at yahoo.se Sat Jul 1 06:51:43 2006 From: marika_thestral at yahoo.se (marika_thestral) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 06:51:43 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154683 > > Indeed, what would become of the forgiven Snape? > > > Lupinlore > Marika: Maybe the worse headmaster Hogwarts ever had - even counting Phineas Nigellus :-) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jul 1 07:38:22 2006 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 07:38:22 -0000 Subject: JKR and the Church of Scotland (Was Homosexuality in HP Series) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154684 > Geoff: Just to clarify this a little. > > I believe that JKR did worship as an Anglican. On the following URL: > > www.home.freeuk.net/webbuk2/harrypotter.htm > > there is some biographical detail about her. I couldn't make that link work, Geoff >Geoff: > She was born in Chipping Sodbury in Gloucestershire, about 15 > miles north-east of Bristol and lived from the age of 9 at > Tutshill which is on the west bank of the Severn a couple of miles > north of Chepstow. The site includes a picture of the Anglican > church at Tutshill which implies that JKR had connections with it. > > Her connections with the C of S date from her living in Edinburgh. > I'm not quite sure what the position is regarding "membership" of > the C of E or the C of S but, in the Baptist church, of which I am > currently a member, you do not have to be a member to come to > services. If you are not, you are excluded from church meetings > and hence from a say in the working and planning of the church. > > I think the C of E position used to be that you were welcomed at > Communion if you had been baptised - whether as a child or an > adult - but there wasn't a formal membership list. Perhaps someone > can confirm or correct me on that, Well, I'm an Anglican Churchwarden (elected lay leader of the congregation), so I'm probably qualified to comment {g}. Anyone is welcome at any service, baptised or not. However, if you wish to take Communion during a Holy Communion service (or Mass), you must be qualified to take Holy Communion in your own church (which must be one that believes in the Trinity). If you are not qualified to take Communion, but want to, you take a series of classes that lead to Confirmation in the Anglican church. Quite a lot of adults do that. Membership (we do have formal membership - called the 'Electoral Roll') requires only baptism, not Confirmation. If you are baptised in the Anglican denomination and live within a certain distance of the church, you are entitled to be a voting member. If you were baptised in another denomination, or live outside the 'parish bounds', you have to worship at a particular church for six months before you can become a voting member. So JKR's connections could legitimately range from the very vague to the highly committed. She might have worshipped, gone to Sunday School and been confirmed there, or she may have simply attended school services there. Or even just weddings and baptisms. Either way, in England the Anglican church is the 'local' church, and would also be used for things like Harvest Festivals, local fetes, possibly youth clubs, maybe Scout groups, that sort of thing. It's quite possible to have a genuine connection to the local church without ever going to a Sunday service. The impression I've got from various interviews is that her faith was the rather vague kind until she ended up a single mum in Scotland. At that point she was greatly helped by a woman friend who was a regular attender at a Church of Scotland church - which is why she became C of S. Geoff: > Since I was baptised as a baby and also as an adult, I'm OK either way. > :-) If adult baptism qualifies you to take Communion in your church, yup, you'd be fine to take Anglican communion. :-) Pip!Squeak From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Jul 1 07:53:43 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 07:53:43 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154685 Betsy Hp: > So now Draco is having to realize that he must choose a path based > on his *own* sense of right and wrong, not one formed by the > positive influence of his parents (they went this way, so I will > too) or the negative influence of Harry (he went that way, so I must > go another). Two points. One, I think you are right about where the draco plotline is headed. I think JKR is going to redeem him. or at least try. short of a miracle happening, I'm not going to buy a redeemed Draco for one simple reason. regardless of his dark night of the soul, moral revelation about Daddy, or the scales falling from his eyes, Draco will still have broken the law. He will still have nearly murdered Ron and that other girl whose name escapes me at the moment, he will still have allowed death eaters into the castle, still have created the situation that killed Dumbledore and mutilated Bill. Its good that Draco might have a change of heart, but ultimately, so what? he still needs to pay his debt to the people he hurt through his actions. that is my big problem with Dumbledore. His version of giving people second chances involves them not paying the debt for their screwed up first chance. I get second chances. I've spent more than a little of my teaching career working with some of the most troubled, violent, drug addicted kids in America. Draco has nothing on the problems they had. They got second chances in the school I taught at. I was good at giving second chances to my students and many of them did well in my class ('cause I'm a good teacher :). You know what? I also turned a bunch in for things like drug use, violating parole, and all sorts of other things. I did that even though it was going to affect their second chance, because turning a blind eye to their actions--even when they are sorry--never helps them. It enables them. I did that because they had to learn that there were consequences to their actions and they had to pay the piper when they screwed up. I've also had students die because parents and teachers didn't step up when they had the chance to enforce the rules. Nowhere in the dumbledore scene did I hear that Dumbledore wanted Draco to be punished for what he had already done. What right does he have to give draco that absolution? Or Snape for that matter? Isn't giving freedom to the man who helped get harry's parents killed rubbing salt in Harry's wounds? Or Nevilles? Do you think the victims of death eater attacks would like one of the black garbbed KKK wannabe's out free instead of in azkaban? So I ask those who want Draco redeemed, what price should he pay for the crimes he has already commited? If Draco does gain the ability to think and choose for > himself than he'll have gained something that Harry is, at this > point, still missing. Which is why I think Harry will be forced > into a similar position via DDM!Snape. I'm glad to see that we are getting back to the origin of the argument. I still say that Harry's moral development started at a higher plane than Draco will ever be at. Yes, Harry's has slipped, but most of the slips have been in moments of extremis. I can still remember the beginning of the series when Harry told Draco that he could figure out the bad sort for himself. Harry came out of abuse, he's spent every year at hogwarts in one type of war or another. Every year has tested his bravery, his judgement, and every year he has emerged bruised, battered and wiser. Harry has always chosen for himself. He chose his friends, he chose his allies, he chose his actions, and he always chose the light. By the end of the book, if Draco works real hard he might work his way up to Dobby's morality. *if* he works hard :) phoenixgod2000 From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Jul 1 10:15:10 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 06:15:10 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? Message-ID: <329.6d56f64.31d7a52e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154686 In a message dated 7/1/2006 12:31:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, marinacat06 at yahoo.com writes: On a different note, does anyone know how to get that interview JKR recently did? I would like to see it to see if I can glean any info from it. Thanks! ========================== Sherrie here: I can't recall the site that has the audio - someone else posted it earlier, IIRC - but there's a full transcript of the interview over on Mugglenet. (There's also a scan of a news article where those two "experts", the honchos of Mugglenet & TLC, were asked to rate the chances some of our favorites had of dying - surprisingly, they give Snape a 50-70% chance of survival.) Sherrie "Accept no one's definition of your life. Define yourself." - Harvey Fierstein [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jul 1 12:46:17 2006 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:46:17 -0000 Subject: Homosexuality: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154687 > Lanval writes: > > Why she has so far chosen not to include openly gay character(s) > is anyone's guess, and yours is a good as mine. Perhaps she really > did wish to avoid the controversy. What I'd find extremely hard to > believe is that she's personally opposed to it, be it for > religious or other reasons. All evidence so far points to JKR coming > down hard on intolerance. Dudley's and Uncle Vernon's remarks give > me a pretty clear idea concerning her views of homophobia... > I don't think it's to avoid controversy. I've had a theory about JKR avoiding openly gay characters (and openly religious characters) since before OOP, and it's to do with the way she wants to examine prejudice. I think that she has made a deliberate choice to examine prejudice by means of a form of discrimination that only exists in the world of the books and which makes the reader the target. Any other characteristic which is a 'major prejudice marker' is either ignored where possible; or if not possible is treated as utterly inconsequential in the Wizarding world. Race is treated like that. People's race in the WW becomes merely a description; it has no other significance. The only 'race' in the WW is 'pure-blood, half-blood and muggle-born'. But both homosexuality and religion are utterly ignored; they're not needed as descriptive markers, so they are dumped. JKR doesn't want to confuse her exploration of a fictional prejudice by introducing anything that might activate real-world prejudices in the minds of some of her readers. Some evidence in support of this theory came up in HBP. During Dumbledore's funeral, Ch.30, there's 'a little tufty haired man in plain black robes' [p.600 in the British hardback] who stands up after DD's body is placed on the marble table, and starts to speak. Harry can't hear what he's saying (though the few words that filter through suggest at least some of it was a eulogy). So - we have a funeral. We have one person speaking at the funeral. And he's in plain black robes. Who is he? In both Anglican and and Presbyterian funerals, that would be the priest or minister. But the way the scene has been set by JKR, this guy in black robes could fit almost any religion going (or no religion at all). Was Dumbledore C of E, C of S, some wizarding form of Christianity, Jewish, druid, wicca, secular humanist (with a friend who likes black robes giving the eulogy)? JKR has quite deliberately put our viewpoint character in a place where the reader is not going to find out. Funerals are the one situation where you usually discover someone's religious denomination. And in this funeral, that's exactly what we don't get. So, going by this theory, we're not going to get openly gay characters. Nor are we going to get characters who openly practice a religion. JKR wants to explore prejudice, and she thinks the best way to do that is to stick with the fictional invention. That way, she knows (hopes) that all her readers have the same information - rather than bringing in their real-life views. Pip!Squeak From distaiyi at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 12:52:15 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:52:15 -0000 Subject: Why are they even friends? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154688 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > > I've been reading, with some dismay, about how badly Hermione let down > Harry, and about how Ron betrayed him, and I've been thinking about > what a prick he was to both of them in "Order of the Phoenix", and I > was wondering about why each of them considered the other two bastards > friends. I think it's quite simple. Because to be otherwise would be to allow the Dark Lord to win. You see he is the one who has "friends" who aren't stuck by through thick and thin... he's the one who curses his friends who don't do what he wants. JkR is writing a series where Love, unconditional Love even, is the penultimate power (see LV and DD's discussion toward the end of the book you're reading, or perhaps it's in book 6). And unconditional love forgives errors... not punish them. Distaiyi From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 1 13:10:24 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:10:24 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154689 Phoenixgod: > that is my big problem with Dumbledore. His version of giving people > second chances involves them not paying the debt for their screwed up > first chance. Pippin: Well, that's secret war for you. It can't be fought without informers and prospective informants aren't much use if they're in jail. I'm sure you must have run into the same thing with gang members? Snape was eventually brought before the wizengamot and cleared because he had put himself at risk. You have noticed that a number of Snape's former DE cronies were exposed? Draco may get a chance to do the same. Draco is a little fish.The big fish is the one who put Rosmerta under the Imperius curse and made sure she stayed under it. The attempts on Katie and Ron could not have happened without that. The big fish was probably also the one who threatened Draco and his family, at which point Draco was acting under duress, which IMO diminishes his responsibility even more, especially since he was underage at the time. There is a very dangerous DE at large in Hogsmeade. Should Dumbledore have ignored that in order to make an example of Draco? I agree that Harry doesn't need to undergo the kind of transformation that Draco does. Like Sirius, Harry has an excellent moral philosophy. But like Sirius, he hasn't realized that he and his friends aren't doing nearly as good a job of living up to their excellent moral philosophy as they think they are. Pippin From carodave92 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 12:43:10 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:43:10 -0000 Subject: Smith Connection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154690 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bridge13219" wrote: > > bridge13219: > snip> Hepzibah Smith, and I was wondering if Zacharias Smith (the > Hufflepuff prat) was/is related to her. There seems to be a lot of > emphasis on his haughtiness, and it's made clear that Hepzibah is > quite fond of herself as well as quite rich. I was wondering if there > might be more to Zacharias than just being a jerk, and if that might > be important later on. > > Or maybe Smith is a very common name. > NOw Carodave: Later in the book his father is also described as being haughty. Given the importance of a Hufflepuff object as Horcrux, I think they must be related. Maybe one of the themes of Book 7 will be Harry learning to trust,work with - and even learn from - people he doesn't necessarily like/agree with in order to reach a common goal? (ie, Zacharias Smith, Draco Malfoy and even Severus Snape) Carodave, who agrees Smith is a common surname and still hasn't forgotten the Mark Evans theories...but still believes there must be something more to Zacharias. From carodave92 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 13:35:33 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:35:33 -0000 Subject: Smith Connection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154691 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bridge13219" wrote: > > bridge13219: > snip> Hepzibah Smith, I was wondering if Zacharias Smith (the > Hufflepuff prat) was/is related to her. There seems to be a lot of > emphasis on his haughtiness, and it's made clear that Hepzibah is > quite fond of herself as well as quite rich. I was wondering if there > might be more to Zacharias than just being a jerk, and if that might > be important later on. > > Or maybe Smith is a very common name. > Now Carodave: Sorry if this message posted twice, the first one seemed to be lost so I reposted. Given the importance of finding a Hufflepuff Horcrux, I think Zacharias MUST be related to Hepzibah. His father is also described as haughty or arrogant (can't remember the exact wording), it must be a family trait... Maybe one of the themes of Book 7 will be Harry discovering how to work with people he doesn't like or agree with in order to reach a common goal (ie, Zacharias Smith, Draco Malfoy, and even Severus Snape). Carodave, who agrees that Smith is a common name, and still remembers the Mark Evans theories...but believes Zacharias will serve a purpose. From hpfkuuipo at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 07:13:39 2006 From: hpfkuuipo at yahoo.com (hpfkuuipo) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 07:13:39 -0000 Subject: Evil Snape / 'Forgiven' Snape In-Reply-To: <20060630205609.69170.qmail@web32914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154692 > Christy: > Perhaps Snape is good, and the argument that he had with > Dumbledore was Snape refusing to kill him. So.. with this > evidence, I think Snape is good after all. hpfkuuipo: Hi everyone: I think Snape is good too. I just love how she has us going. > Lupinlore: > Indeed, what would become of the forgiven Snape? > Marika: > Maybe the worse headmaster Hogwarts ever had - even counting > Phineas Nigellus :-) hpfkuuipo: For some reason I believe in him. From blink_883 at hotmail.com Sat Jul 1 09:03:24 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 09:03:24 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154693 > Alla: > > That's chronology question. I am saying that Dumbledore would need > dramatic reason to trust Snape "sorry" that if nothing else, plot > will require it. > > I think IF Snape is on DD side, he did something that convinced DD > that Snape is not on DE side and if DD simply believed that Snape > is sorry, without having some kind of proof, well then my opinion > of his intelligence would go further down. > > Does it make sense? Are you saying that DD valued Snape friendship > still when Snape went to serve Voldy and that is what caused him > to trust that Snape is sorry? > > In any event, YES, I think Harry deserves to know. WG*: Apologies for the ubersnip, but I really had a bit of a brainwave late last night that concerns this section of your post. Is there any canon, that I've obviously missed or can't remember atm, that states that Snape went to LV and told him about the prophecy? If the only canon is *Harry's* realisation, and DD's...he doesn't deny it but doesn't approve when Harry confronts him either does he? So DD's ...nonchalance.. regarding this series of events, could it be that Snape *didn't* tell LV what he overheard, went to DD for clarification of what it meant instead and - understanding that someone was being born with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord - covered his back? Saved his own skin, again? What if he told LV either nothing, or something marginally important that LV would/could have gotten from Wormtail? What if, in fact, the only reason that LV went to the Potters' at all was because he wanted to *prove* that he could even kill those who chose to hide by the Fidelius charm? Terror and chaos, right? IF LV hadn't vaporised that night, imagine all those in hiding who would have been...well...pretty much going out of their minds with fear? And, in the interests of self-preservation, and just like is mentioned on another thread regarding Snape's hand in certain murders, what if he *overplayed* his role in the Potter's death or maybe didn't clarify to DD that he didn't tell LV what he had heard? I mean, JKR has, if this is the case, led us astray pretty efficiently by the use of *Harry's* realisation that Snape told LV the prophecy but actually, we do have an idea of how LV operates, and could surmise that that was not the case. Food for thought, in fact a veritable buffet lol... WG* - thinking that maybe she thinks too much..! From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 1 14:11:38 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:11:38 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154694 Alla: > Snape gives a VERY nice explanation of why he bothered to save > Harry's life in Spinner End. It could be of course that he is > playing a game, but consider for a second if what Snape says there > is actually the truth. Pippin: Okay, Snape is telling the truth and when Harry first came to Hogwarts Snape regarded him as the new Dark Lord. Um, when did that happen? I'm drawing a blank. :) Besides which, why *couldn't* Snape have allowed Harry to be killed in front of him? Dumbledore wasn't there and Snape is supposed to be so good at misleading him. McGongall didn't come under suspicion for failing to protect Barty Jr, did she? All Snape would have had to do was shed a few more of those crocodile tears he claims to be so good at producing (and when have we seen any?) If Snape's character hinges on his ability to display remorse, then JKR has let us down by not showing him in action. ( I cannot resist remarking that Lupin's displays of remorse are very much in evidence.: And that I agree with Phoenixgod that remorse alone is never enough.) Alla: > Isn't it interesting that Dumbledore does NOT insist at all that > eleven year old Harry thank Snape for saving his life? Pippin: When has Dumbledore told anybody they should feel grateful for anything? The only person who tries to feel grateful because he is obligated is Lupin, and even if you don't see him as negatively as I do, it doesn't sound like he's doing a very good job. Why would Dumbledore want Harry to feel like that? And when has the reason Dumbledore gives been the ONLY reason Dumbledore has? > > Alla: > > But if one evaluates what Snape did to Harry as continuous > destruction of Harry's dignity on the day to day basis, then bigger > picture becomes something very different IMO. Pippin: Oh, if that's what Snape has been trying to do, then I agree with you, he should be ashamed of himself. Very very ashamed. He could have done it so much better. :) He had Lockhart running for his life in five minutes, he reduced Umbridge to quivering shrieks in even less time, and in six years, day to day, he never managed to make Harry think of running away from Hogwarts or forced him to shed a single tear? With all the damaging information Snape gleaned in Occlumency he didn't spread one embarrassing rumor or make one pointed allusion in class? With all the weapons Harry handed to him, the worst thing Snape ever says about him is that he's arrogant? With all the things he did to Harry, he never did anything so terrible that Harry couldn't tell his friends about it? The only thing that ever happened in relation to Snape that was too terrible for Harry to discuss with his friends was something that happened to *Snape*. And Harry's father and his friends were responsible. I defy you to show me one moment when Harry's dignity was destroyed by Snape. The only thing that ever got destroyed was Harry's illusion that Hogwarts was a place where all the grownups liked him and would make it as easy as they could for him -- an illusion Voldemort's true servants Quirrell and Fake!Moody fostered with all their might. Look at Quirrell, telling Harry he didn't even need to study DADA, or Fake!Moody telling Harry that he had what it took to be an auror but never telling him that he'd need to pull his socks up in potions if he ever expected to become one. Pippin From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 13:47:37 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:47:37 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154695 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marika_thestral" wrote: > > > Lupinlore: > > Indeed, what would become of the forgiven Snape? > > Marika: > Maybe the worse headmaster Hogwarts ever had - even counting Phineas > Nigellus :-) > Chuckle. Now THAT would be a wood pulper moment, wouldn't it? Not only a child abuser, but with an entire school of children to abuse. However, I could actually see it happen. Lupinlore From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 14:25:56 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:25:56 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154696 phoenixgod2000: >that is my big problem with Dumbledore. His version of giving > people second chances involves them not paying the debt for > their screwed up first chance... AD: You're not the first person I've seen make this charge, and I have to ask, why do you believe it? What makes you believe that Dumbledore's little redemption projects pay no price for their sins? Let's take his most notorious rehab, Severus Snape. Assume, for the moment, that he is indeed DDM. If so, his redemption has come at a very great price. He's been playing an extremely dangerous game, betting his life and his soul daily for years. He may, eventually, be one of the keys to Voldemort's final destruction, and it likely will cost him his life. Certainly, if one interpretation of his actions at Spinner's End is correct, he took a vow that was quite likely to kill him, in an attempt to garner vital information about a Death Eater mole in Hogwarts itself. Take another of the men who got a "second chance" from Dumbledore: Hagrid. Now Hagrid never actually used up his first chance, it was taken from him. Nevertheless, he's repaid Dumbledore's benevolence in spades, if only by his envoy to the giants. We can guess that he undertook similarly dangerous work during the first war. So why do you believe that Draco would have paid no price, made no restitution? For that matter, why does anyone believe that Dumbledore's only objective on that roof was simply to reform Draco in some bleeding heart sense of the word? Consider the advantages to the war effort of turning Draco. With Lucius in prison, Draco is the key to the Malfoy fortune. Get him to turn his coat, and Narcissa will follow, depriving Voldemort of a vast source of cash, and potentially yielding a cornucopia of war intelligence for the Order. So, to my way of thinking, even if Draco never actually changed his thinking or served a penance, Dumbledore's efforts were worth the risk. And, who knows? Given time, maybe Dumbledore could have managed to polish the little turd. Amiable Dorsai From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 14:47:28 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 10:47:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD trust in Snape again. References: Message-ID: <00d001c69d1d$46bf4370$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154697 >> > Lupinlore: >> > Indeed, what would become of the forgiven Snape? >> >> Marika: >> Maybe the worse headmaster Hogwarts ever had - even counting Phineas >> Nigellus :-) >> > Lupinlore: > Chuckle. Now THAT would be a wood pulper moment, wouldn't it? Not > only a child abuser, but with an entire school of children to abuse. > However, I could actually see it happen. > Rebecca now: There's an old saying by country folks that when you make stew, fat always rises to the top. :) Now that I've completely confused you all with that, if Snape were forgiven, why isn't it possible that his behavior would change too? Carol's statement earlier to oull back from the Snape-Harry interaction and look at the bigger picture is spot on, IMO. I might also mention that JKR has also stated in interviews that bullying students is one of the worst things a teacher can do, so outright declarations of reprehensibility by fans that she supports abuse IMO are fairly overreaching. To me, such utterances remind me of the groups who endeavor to pull the books from public and school libraries because they contain "magic" and "evil" - it just makes the hairs on the back of my neck prickle. It's interesting to me that JKR's books are reacted to this way, when CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia and Pullman's His Dark Materials are not: both contain equally abusive characters, but they are truly fantasy and perhaps readers don't perceive these nuances as much because the world in which they are written isn't as "real" as what JKR has written the WW to be. That said, all in all, it's just fiction isn't it? Rebecca From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jul 1 15:01:50 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:01:50 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154698 > Alla: > > Why would Harry give any thought to Snape saving his life ( which I > completely disagree happened multiple times, but see below for that) > if for five years all that Snape was doing ( the way I see it) > sadistically tormenting Harry and NOT only during the lessons but > also in between of those? > wynnleaf *All* that Snape was doing? Of course, Harry forgets everything else. Alla > Why would fifteen year old suddenly change his mind about the man > who ( the way I see it)attacked him as a vicious dog ( IMO of > course) on the very first lesson, who took a book from him when he > was reading outside, who tormented Harry with the name of his dead > father, whom it turns out Snape is complicit in putting to his > grave - IMO of course. wynnleaf You know, there's a far cry between my words for Harry to give "a tiny bit of thought" and yours for why he shouldn't "change his mind." My point was that Harry won't think about it *at all.* Alla > Snape gives a VERY nice explanation of why he bothered to save > Harry's life in Spinner End. It could be of course that he is > playing a game, but consider for a second if what Snape says there > is actually the truth. wynnleaf Well, no, in fact he doesn't. He says absolutely nothing about ever saving Harry's life. He gives Bella an explanation for why he hadn't murdered Harry. They are really quite different things. It's one thing to convince Bella that why he didn't *murder* Harry, and quite another to convince her why he saved Harry's life. So he didn't try. Bella had no idea about any of the times Snape saved Harry or anyone else. Alla > Isn't it interesting that Dumbledore does NOT insist at all that > eleven year old Harry thank Snape for saving his life? > > Instead Dumbledore gives Harry IMO a very clear suggestion that the > ONLY reason Snape tried to save Harry was that he was hoping to pay > his life debt and be done with it? wynnleaf And since he paid it then, why's he still saving lives? Alla > Isn't it possible that Dumbledore is right here? wynnleaf Never said he wasn't. I tend to have a *great deal* of confidence in DD's opinions. Harry, on the other hand, takes those he likes and disbelieves those he doesn't. Quite convenient. Alla > It is funny because it is still would have been nice for eleven year > old to thank Snape ( not that I blame him one second for not doing > it after the year Snape gave him, but Dumbledore supposed to know > better. So WHY he does not insist that Harry at least writes Snape a > thank you note or something? wynnleaf I don't recall him asking Harry to thank any of the Order members who came to save him at the MOM either. Wonder why not? Did they all owe Harry some sort of debt, so thanks are unimportant? Therefore, I don't think DD's not *ever* asking Harry to thank *anyone* is particularly relavant. > Alla: > > But if one evaluates what Snape did to Harry as continuous > destruction of Harry's dignity on the day to day basis, then bigger > picture becomes something very different IMO. > > As in that NOTHING that Snape ever did for Harry, if anything > overweights what Snape did against Harry. That is just my opinion of > course. wynnleaf, Insults are worse than death? Better to be dead, but not insulted, than alive and insulted? Not in my opinion. Of course, anyone would prefer both to live *and* to not be insulted. But of the two, I imagine most people would rather be alive. > Alla: > > Maybe, but I would hope to hear it from Snape that he feels guilty. > Just once. wynnleaf And you might. But it's more likely to be for his part in the Potter's deaths. DD said it was his greatest regret. I figure DD must have had *some* communication from Snape to that effect. But of course, one would have to believe DD or his words about that would make little difference. > Alla: > > I'd like again refer you to Spinner End and imagine the possibility > that everything that Snape said there is a truth. wynnleaf Well, as I already pointed out, Snape didn't say *anything* about saving anyone's life in his discussion at Spinners End. Besides, completely aside from the saving lives thing, we already know that at least some of what he said at Spinners End was a lie. For instance, his comment where he implied that he had a "wait and see" attitude toward Harry at first, that Harry might have been the "standard" for DE's to rally around. That was a complete lie. Snape -- as you have clearly pointed out -- acted hatefully to Harry from the first. wynnleaf From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jul 1 14:47:05 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 10:47:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Being Good and Evil/DD trust in Snapean References: Message-ID: <006a01c69d1d$39c03cb0$037e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154699 Pheonixgod: > Two points. One, I think you are right about where the draco plotline > is headed. I think JKR is going to redeem him. or at least try. short > of a miracle happening, I'm not going to buy a redeemed Draco for one > simple reason. regardless of his dark night of the soul, moral > revelation about Daddy, or the scales falling from his eyes, Draco will > still have broken the law. He will still have nearly murdered Ron and > that other girl whose name escapes me at the moment, he will still have > allowed death eaters into the castle, still have created the situation > that killed Dumbledore and mutilated Bill. Its good that Draco might > have a change of heart, but ultimately, so what? he still needs to pay > his debt to the people he hurt through his actions. > > that is my big problem with Dumbledore. His version of giving people > second chances involves them not paying the debt for their screwed up > first chance. I get second chances. Magpie: Looking at it from the book's perspective I think the key is Dumbledore announcing that "no real harm has been done" on the Tower. Whether you agree with it or not, I took that as a key that Rowling had been very careful in HBP to limit the lasting damage so that Draco is still "innocent" according to DD. Near-misses don't count--just as Ginny isn't a murderer in CoS because everyone just gets petrified and then wakes up. (And just in case it needs to be said, of course Ginny was possessed so not responsible for what she did the Draco was, but the fact remains that if someone had died in CoS it would have been very different for Ginny's character.) As for paying the price in the story, it's probably a question of personal preference. I think I'm with Betsy in thinking that rehabilitation in this context is far more important and valuable than official punishment, and that punishment might even be counter-productive. (Which is not to say that I don't see the importance of justice and jailtime in the world or anything like that--but again I think this is why Rowling's very careful about the lasting damage Draco intentionally causes himself. Even Bill's scarring specifically comes from something Draco didn't intend.) In Narnia I much prefer Edmund the little Judas to Peter Penvensie. JKR puts Draco through the wringer in Book VI, and giving him outside pressure for his actions, so I think she is making him suffer for his crimes in a way I find more interesting than a defiant Draco being in jail, for instance. Harry's last thought of Draco is, while still despising him, to feel pity for him. As to whether Draco could only hope to be lower than how Harry started out, I wouldn't be surprised if that's how he ended up but objectively I don't see why that should be the way he had to wind up. Given where Draco starts out in canon he could absolutely become a better man than Harry, as could a lot of people. Morality isn't a set thing were you just are good or bad. Also, I agree with AD that a second chance from Dumbledore almost always carries with it a price. Maybe not a price that DD forces you to pay literally, but look at his second chance people--they're working their butts off for him, sometimes in more dangerous ways than they might have done otherwise. That's another thing I thought was important in the way JKR set up the end of HBP. Dumbledore offers to hide Draco and his family. Hiding--it implies to me that Draco gets to just be like a kid and be protected by others. Sure it's a hardship like the witness protection program, but it's not making up for what he did. But he doesn't get that. The DEs come in and the choice is taken away. I think it's to offer him a harder choice in the next book. Come to our side--and make yourself useful. If you're going to come to our side you have to actively choose our side, not just our protection. Where Dumbledore might have been seeking to neutralize the Malfoys, Harry may demand more, which could be a good thing. Lupinlore: No less than DD himself assured him that he need not be particularly grateful, as Snape was only trying to get out from under a debt to James. So, no less than the "epitome of goodness" himself has laid any gratitude Harry might (I think inappropriately) feel toward Snape to rest. Nor has DD ever really tried to bring the subject up again. His defense of Snape is, at best, passive, with the possible exception of the end of OOTP where even there he makes no real attempt to defend Snape in the Occlumency affair. Magpie: I suspect if we were seeing DD interact with Snape we'd see the same attitude about Harry, though, where DD never told Snape that he had to treat him more kindly or defended him in the Occlumency affair. DD doesn't force people to feel the way he thinks they should feel. I didn't get the impression in PS that DD was at all telling Harry why he didn't need to be grateful to Snape for saving his life--knowing Snape had done so would have to be enough for that. Either Harry would be grateful for not. I thought DD was just trying to get Harry to understand Snape. -m From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Jul 1 15:21:53 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 08:21:53 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154700 wynnleaf Never said he wasn't. I tend to have a *great deal* of confidence in DD's opinions. Harry, on the other hand, takes those he likes and disbelieves those he doesn't. Quite convenient. Sherry now: I have a great deal of confidence in what people in my life, close friends, mentors, family, in what they say and their opinions. But I still choose to think for myself, make my own decisions, form my own judgments of people and situations. They don't always mesh with what some of the most important and most trusted people in my life believe. It's a dangerous thing, I think, for Harry or anyone in the WW to believe this or that, just because Dumbledore did believe it, or just because he said it. That has nothing to do with respecting Dumbledore for all he is, or was, and his role in the story. But, to me, nobody should believe something just because someone else says it's so. Especially in forming opinions about other people. Harry has six years of reasons to distrust Snape. He can't just decide, well, Dumbledore says he's good and trustworthy, so in spite of the horrible way he treats me, I'm just going to believe it, too. And yet, I think Harry, though hating Snape, did tend to believe that Dumbledore was right about Snape on some level. He did tell Snape about Sirius being held at the ministry by Voldemort, as he believed was happening. As much as he hated Snape for his own personal reasons, I don't think he truly believed Snape was a death eater, loyal to Voldemort, till Snape pulled his wand and killed DD. Yes, I know he turned his unnecessary guilt and rage over the death of Sirius on Snape, but that's a pretty normal reaction to grief. Still, I think the final straw was the scene on the tower. No matter why anyone thinks Snape did it, good or bad or just plain old gray, Harry saw it with his own eyes, and of course, that's what he believes happens. If I saw someone pull out a gun, heard and saw the shot, and the person was dead, I would think the gun wielder killed him. Why on earth would I, or Harry, think anything else. And when it's someone you love, how could you ever come to believe it was for the greater good? I would hate that person to the end of my days and never forgive, no matter what the reasons behind the death. I don't know what will happen in the last book, but I don't think, even if Snape is redeemed, that it will change the relationship with him and Harry. I think Harry would hate him forever for killing Dumbledore. Unless, of course, DD is not dead. and I sincerely hope that is not the case. Too tired and traditional to bring back the wise old mentor. Just my opinion, of course. Sherry ] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 15:32:17 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:32:17 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154701 > Pippin: Besides which, why *couldn't* Snape have allowed > Harry to be killed in front of him? Dumbledore wasn't there and > Snape is supposed to be so good at misleading him. > > McGongall didn't come under suspicion for failing to protect Barty Jr, > did she? All Snape would have had to do was shed a few more of > those crocodile tears he claims to be so good at producing (and > when have we seen any?) If Snape's character hinges on his > ability to display remorse, then JKR has let us > down by not showing him in action. Alla: Because Harry is much more important figure than Barty Crouch and Dumbledore would have been much more displeased? Speculating here, but who knows maybe DD would not have resisted an investigation and dear Snape would have been put in front of Wizengamot again? And maybe he would have been sent to Azkaban, where he displayed no desire of going earlier? Pippin: > ( I cannot resist remarking that Lupin's displays of remorse are > very much in evidence.: And that I agree with Phoenixgod that > remorse alone is never enough.) Alla: Yes, and I LOVE Lupin for that, for his remorse. Something that I am still to see from Snape. > Alla: > > Isn't it interesting that Dumbledore does NOT insist at all that > > eleven year old Harry thank Snape for saving his life? > > Pippin: > When has Dumbledore told anybody they should feel grateful for > anything? The only person who tries to feel grateful because he is > obligated is Lupin, and even if you don't see him as negatively > as I do, it doesn't sound like he's doing a very good job. Why would > Dumbledore want Harry to feel like that? Alla: Nope, to me Lupin deserves a respect for trying, it is just when he tries to feel grateful to SNAPE I am not very convinced of his sincerity, that's all. Pippin: > And when has the reason Dumbledore gives been the ONLY reason > Dumbledore has? Alla: My point is that Dumbledore does not forget to remind Harry to call SNape Professor, but that is the only thing he insists on. Wouldn't that be much better if DD insisted on Harry thanking Snape right away? Could it be that there is a reason he did not? > > > > Alla: > > > > But if one evaluates what Snape did to Harry as continuous > > destruction of Harry's dignity on the day to day basis, then bigger > > picture becomes something very different IMO. > > Pippin: < HUGE SNIP> > I defy you to show me one moment when Harry's dignity > was destroyed by Snape. Alla: Sure, but I did not say that Snape succeeded in destructing Harry dignity. He TRIED, yes, the fact that Harry is strong does not make Snape ATTEMPTS less despicable to me. I don't need to show you how Snape destroyed Neville's dignity, don't I? But back to Harry. Of course when Harry is looking for DD to tell him about Barty Sr. counts to me, of course when Snape is too humiliated to confess that thirteen year old wizards overpowered him and comes up with the tale that they were confunded counts to me ( and no, I am not buying that Snape was trying to save them from expulsion there - if he truly did, all that he needed IMO was not to open his mouth AT ALL, there was no need to tell Fudge that Trio did ANYTHING to Snape in the first place to put them in danger of explulsion in the first place). Of course Snape "teaching" Occlumency to Harry counts to me and of course the fact that Harry feels "imprisoned" when he is in the room with Snape shows to me that Snape at least PARTIALLY suceeded in destroying his dignity. > wynnleaf > You know, there's a far cry between my words for Harry to give "a tiny > bit of thought" and yours for why he shouldn't "change his mind." My > point was that Harry won't think about it *at all.* Alla: I am sorry. Let me rephrase it then, I don't think Harry has a reason to think about it at all. One can argue that day to day interactions are less important, but IMO from day to day interactions comes the bigger picture. Snape's "everyday evil" that is if he is on DD!Side may as well cloud from Harry his "bigger actions" IF they exist, but I think it is very understandable. > wynnleaf > Well, no, in fact he doesn't. He says absolutely nothing about ever > saving Harry's life. He gives Bella an explanation for why he hadn't > murdered Harry. They are really quite different things. Alla: Yes, so my point is maybe he was NOT saving Harry's life and just not murdering him? > Alla > > Isn't it interesting that Dumbledore does NOT insist at all that > > eleven year old Harry thank Snape for saving his life? > > > > Instead Dumbledore gives Harry IMO a very clear suggestion that the > > ONLY reason Snape tried to save Harry was that he was hoping to pay > > his life debt and be done with it? > > wynnleaf > And since he paid it then, why's he still saving lives? Alla: No, I don't think that he did. DD said - tried to pay. I will refer you to Neri's posts about Life debt, but it would make perfect sense to me that for Debt to be paid Snape had to be the ONLY one who saved Harry in PS and as we know, he was not. Of course we do not know how Life debt precisely works, but to me it makes perfect sense that precisely because we don't know, it will be hugely important in the resolution of the books. So, I think Snape debt is still alive and well. > > Alla > > Isn't it possible that Dumbledore is right here? > > wynnleaf > Never said he wasn't. I tend to have a *great deal* of confidence in > DD's opinions. Harry, on the other hand, takes those he likes and > disbelieves those he doesn't. Quite convenient. Alla: Um, not sure about Harry :), but I for example take a great deal of confidence in Dumbledore's "FACTUAL' opinions and very little confidence in his emotional opinions , in his judgments about people, since both JKR and DD said that he makes mistakes. JMO, Alla From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jul 1 15:37:17 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:37:17 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154702 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > wynnleaf > Never said he wasn't. I tend to have a *great deal* of confidence in DD's > opinions. Harry, on the other hand, takes those he likes and disbelieves > those he doesn't. Quite convenient. > > > > Sherry now: > > I have a great deal of confidence in what people in my life, close friends, > mentors, family, in what they say and their opinions. But I still choose to > think for myself, make my own decisions, form my own judgments of people and > situations. wynnleaf, I wanted to clarify. In the context of the question I was answering and the discussion at the moment, we were talking about Harry's giving any credence or acknowledgement of Snape's part in saving his life (and those of his friends in OOTP). My point was regarding DD's telling Harry about Snape saving his life in SS/PS and Snape's part in sending the Order to the MOM in OOTP. This is factual info, not opinion on DD's part. Yet Harry pays no attention to it at all. Certainly, I agree that one listens to others opinions and decides what to agree with and what not to. But if Harry believes DD at all, and supposedly he does, he still gives no acknowledgement when DD gives him those facts about Snape. So it's not DD's *opinion* Harry was disagreeing with, it was the factual info that DD was giving him that Harry disregarded. wynnleaf From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jul 1 16:00:17 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:00:17 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154703 > > > wynnleaf > > Well, no, in fact he doesn't. He says absolutely nothing about > ever > > saving Harry's life. He gives Bella an explanation for why he > hadn't > > murdered Harry. They are really quite different things. > > Alla: > > Yes, so my point is maybe he was NOT saving Harry's life and just > not murdering him? wynnleaf You're saying Snape *didn't* cast a counter-spell on the broom in SS/PS? You're saying he didn't move the students to safety in POA? You're saying he didn't go with DD and McGonagall to stop Crouch/Moody? You're saying he didn't tell the DE at the end of HBP to stop cursing Harry? That he didn't notify the Order to go to the MOM in OOTP? The fact is that while one can give any sort of Evil Snape *reasons* for those things, according to the books he did actually do them. I'm confused as to your meaning. First you said he gave Bella explanations for why he saved Harry's life -- but actually he never even mentioned saving Harry's life to her. Then you said maybe he was NOT saving Harry's life after all. Clearly he did. Is it what you really mean that regardless how many lives Snape saves, he does it for Evil purposes? > Alla > Of course we do not know how Life debt precisely works, but to me it > makes perfect sense that precisely because we don't know, it will be > hugely important in the resolution of the books. > > So, I think Snape debt is still alive and well. wynnleaf, I agree that it is possible that the life debt is still in effect. I doubt it though. > > Alla > > > Isn't it possible that Dumbledore is right here? > > > > wynnleaf > > Never said he wasn't. I tend to have a *great deal* of confidence > in > > DD's opinions. Harry, on the other hand, takes those he likes and > > disbelieves those he doesn't. Quite convenient. > > Alla: > > Um, not sure about Harry :), but I for example take a great deal of > confidence in Dumbledore's "FACTUAL' opinions and very little > confidence in his emotional opinions , in his judgments about > people, since both JKR and DD said that he makes mistakes. > wynnleaf Yes, I agree about *opinions.* I don't necessarily think Harry should trust Snape just because DD does. However, in this case we're not talking about opinions, but facts. DD relates factual information that Snape saved Harry's life in SS/PS and sent the Order to save Harry and his friend's lives in OOTP. Harry refuses to acknowledge that. DD also relates factual info that Snape saved his own life and that of Katie Bell's, yet Harry will not acknowledge that either. He doesn't come right out and say "it didn't happen," exactly, but he will not give it the slightest consideration in his estimation of Snape -- so for all practical purposes, he doesn't really believe it. wynnleaf Suppose Snape is Evil, and since he did not give any explanation for his saving lives in his comments at Spinners End -- then does that mean JKR is going to have some time in Book 7 when we go step by step through all of those lives saved (Harry, other students, DD) and get an explanation for "why Evil Snape saved so many good guys?" It's hard to imagine that, since Snape's already made his excuses to Bella and his AKing of DD supposedly will put him beyond most DE's suspicions (one would think), that he'd need to make any more excuses to the Evil side. Besides, they don't even *know* about the saving lives thing. And it's hard to imagine him as the stereotypical Evil Villain gloating about how he saved all these lives while he really meant it all for evil. wynnleaf From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 15:45:00 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:45:00 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154704 Lupinlore: > > Indeed, what would become of the forgiven Snape? Marika responded: > Maybe the worse headmaster Hogwarts ever had - even counting Phineas > Nigellus :-) > Carol: Or there's the idea that appeared in a Leaky Cauldron poll: give him his own private island for potions research and spell research. I imagine he'd need a lot of bookshelves and an owl so he could trade his potions and other inventions for supplies and food. But I personally prefer having him do a stint of community service for St. Mungo's, after which he'd become a highly paid researcher and Healer. Why not put all his many talents to good use? Carol, wondering if that would make "the forgiven Snape" happy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 16:16:27 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:16:27 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154705 > Betsy Hp: > What murder? I'm talking about Lucius being among the crowd that > twirled the muggle family in the air. No one died there. And Draco > doesn't turn on his father because he loves him and because muggle- > baiting is not seen as a horrible wrong within the WW. We saw that > earlier with the twins. Alla: I was talking about Cedric. Sorry. > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > And I look to Harry's response to the twins toying with their > > > chosen muggle to back up the argument that the person doing the > > > action *will* affect how that action is perceived. Yes, it's > > > morally more mature, I think, to look at the action and divorce > > > it from your emotional feelings about the people involved. But > > > it's *hard*. And for some reason Draco is expected to make this > > > massive leap, but Harry is not. > > > >>Alla: > > Because Harry is ALREADY on the right side. > > Betsy Hp: > This is where you lose me. It's bad for Lucius to bait muggles and > his own son, who loves him very much, should turn his back on his > family because he father did such an evil thing. However, when the > twins bait muggles, it's okay. > > The *only* difference I can see is that Harry is considered "good" > and he likes the twins, and he's okay with their behavior. So it > comes down to whatever Harry says is okay is okay, and if he turns > around and says that same thing is bad, even though he's > contradicting himself, everyone around him should intuit that he's > changed his mind. Draco should then drop his family because they > bait muggles, and join with the Weasleys, who also bait muggles but > in a way that amuses Harry. > > I do agree that Harry is on the right side. But that doesn't give > him (or his friends) a free pass. And Draco is on the wrong side, > but it's asking too much of him, IMO, to magically realize it. > Especially if the "good" side is engaged in the same sort of > behavior. Alla: NO, I meant that Harry is on the right side and he is not supposed to have crisis of faith, not specifically in relation to this accident. I was trying to avoid discussing it,honestly. I love Twins to death, but even if one does not, IMO ( I understand you disagree, but that is how I feel) that first they are supposed to be funny and second they turned on on BAD guys only. To me Dursleys are bad guys, whether they are Muggles or not does not matter. Twins to me are the tools of carmical justice. Are they sometimes over the top? Yes, sure, but I find it hysterical. I think that JKR is not intending her bad guys to get away , so she cannot call social services on Dursleys, instead we get Twins and later Dumbledore. I cheer them up, again specifically in book context, of course I would not advocate that in RL, but in Potterverse, comparing them with DE? I just don't see it at all. Sorry. Besides, I think you mentioned earlier that the muggles whom DE were baiting also could have been cruel or something. Well, to tell you the truth IF we would have been shown that, I would say that this was a carmic justice to those muggles. Does it make sense? It would not make muggle baiting right thing for me, it would have still been evil, but if before the Cup JKR showed us that those muggles are killers or child abusers, I would have been like - oh well, it is wrong, but they had it coming, again in the books only. I just think that JKR's books are not the once where author is shy of giving out moral judgments sometimes. IMO of course. But JKR did not show us anything of the kind and that is why I think that Muggles who were baited by DE are innocent people, who did NOT deserve what was done to them and Dursleys deserved everything they got and more. > Betsy Hp: > I actually agree, as I said above, that Draco will have to go > through the bigger reevaluation. But I don't fault him for having > to go through something like that, and I certainly don't fault him > for not recognizing the need until he's fully faced with the true > horror of Voldemort. Alla: Right. I do fault him for agreeing to assasinate Dumbledore, I fault him a lot. :) > Betsy Hp: > See!! So if disfiguring someone for life is such good behavior no > one should feel any guilt about it, how the heck is Draco supposed > to decide that his beloved family are the bad ones? I mean, where > is the difference? Umbridge disfigures those who cross her, > Hermione disfigures those who cross her. Where's the difference? Alla: The difference is that Marietta got it for BETRAYING DA. And yes, I think the fact that she betrayed Light side matters. As I said earlier wouldn't you agree that Snape's betrayal of Voldemort and Peter betrayal of Potters should be judged differently precisely of WHOM they betrayed? Otherwise, aren't they both Judas? ( If Snape is DD!M obviously) Didn't Snape supposedly turned in the whole bunch of his friends? Why? because they were doing very bad things, no? JMO, Alla From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 1 16:34:09 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:34:09 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154706 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > > So now Draco is having to realize that he must choose a path based > > on his *own* sense of right and wrong, not one formed by the > > positive influence of his parents (they went this way, so I will > > too) or the negative influence of Harry (he went that way, so I must > > go another). phoenixgod2000: > Two points. One, I think you are right about where the draco plotline > is headed. I think JKR is going to redeem him. or at least try. short > of a miracle happening, I'm not going to buy a redeemed Draco for one > simple reason. regardless of his dark night of the soul, moral > revelation about Daddy, or the scales falling from his eyes, Draco will > still have broken the law. He will still have nearly murdered Ron and > that other girl whose name escapes me at the moment, he will still have > allowed death eaters into the castle, still have created the situation > that killed Dumbledore and mutilated Bill. Its good that Draco might > have a change of heart, but ultimately, so what? he still needs to pay > his debt to the people he hurt through his actions. Geoff: But redemption - at least in a Christian sense - doesn't mean that lawbreaking is overlooked. There are examples of folk who have become Christians when they were already in a prison cell and that didn't earn them a pardon. They still had to deal with the results of their wrongdoing. They were able to show their change of heart and its effect on their life style after they had finished their pounishment for whatever they had done wrong. Certainly within the Baptist church, I know of one minister who had been in prison when he experienced this and he used his experiences to develop a very effective ministry to the underprivileged and lawbreakers with whom he came in contact. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jul 1 16:28:33 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:28:33 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154707 Alla: > Because Harry is much more important figure than Barty > Crouch and Dumbledore would have been much more displeased? > Speculating here, but who knows maybe DD would not have > resisted an investigation and dear Snape would have been > put in front of Wizengamot again? houyhnhnm: If Quirrell had succeeded in his attempt on Harry's life, why would *Snape* have been investigated? What would connect him in any way? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 16:35:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:35:49 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154708 Phoenixgod wrote: I get second chances. Nowhere in the dumbledore scene did I hear that Dumbledore wanted Draco to be punished for what he had already done. What right does he have to give draco that absolution? Or Snape for that matter? Isn't giving freedom to the man who helped get harry's parents killed rubbing salt in Harry's wounds? Or Nevilles? Do you think the victims of death eater attacks would like one of the black garbbed KKK wannabe's out free instead of in azkaban? Carol responds: I agree with you that Draco committed crimes. He's very lucky that Katie Bell (the girl whose name you can't think of) and Ron didn't die, and even though he claims that he didn't know Fenrir Greyback would be joining the party of DEs, he still let him into the castle and led him along with the others toward the tower, so, yes, he's partly to blame for what happened to Bill and he was deliberately trying to engineer Dumbledore's death. Whether a stint in Azkaban would do him more good than forgiveness is another matter; I think what he must do is stop making excuses ("I didn't know *he* was coming!" "He [Voldemort] was going to kill my family!") and acknowledge that he did wrong. *That's* the first step toward redemption. What the young Snape (age twenty) did is different. He reported a partially overheard Prophecy to his master. He didn't know who was involved. He didn't know that Voldemort would try to thwart the Prophecy rather than waiting to see who appeared to be "the one" and dealing with him as an adult. (Maybe he should have figured that out, but even Harry saw Voldemort's action as illogical and Snape has a logical mind.) In any case, once he realized what Voldemort planned and who was involved, Snape went to Dumbledore, confessed what he had done, and began spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk." It was probably as a result of his information that Dumbledore proposed the Fidelius Charm idea and offered to be the Potters' Secret Keeper. It's not Snape's fault that James Potter wanted to make Sirius Black the SK instead, or that no one told Dumbledore, much less Snape, that the SK was changed to Peter Pettigrew. So "giving freedom to the man who helped get Harry's parents killed" is an inaccurate assessment (if Snape's remorse is real). Having him spy on Voldemort made far more sense than sending him to Azkaban. It proved his willingness to risk his life to provide useful information to Dumbledore, whereas sending him to Azkaban would have had no useful consequences. Azkaban, especially in the days of Dementor guards, doesn't reform people. It robs them of their health and sanity and sometimes their life. Snape's second chance confirmed his loyalty to DD, at least in DD's mind. It showed his courage and resourcefulness. And DD, knowing that Snape was valuable for his knowledge and his connections, and believing (IMO rightly) that he was "now no more a Death Eater than I am," kept him at his side even after Godric's Hollow, never giving him the cursed DADA position until he had no alternative. I'm not sure what will happen to Draco now that he's seen Voldemort's treatment of his Death Eaters and witnessed death at first hand. I would hope that he understands and acknowledges his own role in Dumbledore's death. Without question, Dumbledore would not be dead if it weren't for him. Nor do I think that Snape would have killed him in any other circumstances. The presence of the Death Eaters forced his hand as nothing else could have done. But I don't think Azkaban, even without the Dementors, is the answer for either of them. When has it ever reformed anyone? Even Sirius Black, who had committed no crime (though perhaps he had intended to take justice into his own hands by murdering Pettigrew) nearly became the homicidal maniac he was thought to be. It won't help Draco, who may already have learned a painful but valuable lesson. (Does he also realize that his father is a "scum bag," as Harry puts it? That may be the next obstacle he has to face.) And Snape has been risking his life working for the good guys and protecting Harry all along, snide comments and unfair point deductions aside. If he had no choice but to kill Dumbledore to save Harry, what he needs is vindication, not imprisonment. He has been trying to pay for his mistake (or crime, if you prefer) for sixteen years. Now he has the additional burden of having been forced to kill the man he has loyally served, with little recognition of his efforts, for sixteen years. Is the mental anguish that entails not sufficient punishment? Carol, who's voting for redemption in both cases but is less sure of Draco's than snape's From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 1 17:01:50 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:01:50 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154709 > > Alla: > > Because Harry is much more important figure than Barty Crouch and > Dumbledore would have been much more displeased? Pippin: But Dumbledore was *furious* and rightly so. Who knows how many lives might have been saved if Barty had been able to give evidence, Sirius's not least. Yet he never questioned McGonagall, AFAWK. Brooms aren't supposed to be hexable, so I imagine a countercurse for a broomstick hex wouldn't be common knowledge. How could the wizengamot expect Snape to know one, much less realize that he needed to use it? Most likely the curse itself wouldn't have been recognized. Everyone would have thought Harry was showing off and tragically fell to his death, Dumbledore included. > Pippin: > > ( I cannot resist remarking that Lupin's displays of remorse are > > very much in evidence.: And that I agree with Phoenixgod that > > remorse alone is never enough.) > > Alla: > > Yes, and I LOVE Lupin for that, for his remorse. Something that I am > still to see from Snape. Pippin: I, like Phoenixgod, do not think remorse in itself is any good. I want to see some restitution. I've seen plenty of that from Snape. Of course if Harry's life doesn't matter to you...:) > > Pippin: > < HUGE SNIP> > > I defy you to show me one moment when Harry's dignity > > was destroyed by Snape. > > Alla: > > Sure, but I did not say that Snape succeeded in destructing Harry > dignity. He TRIED, yes, the fact that Harry is strong does not make > Snape ATTEMPTS less despicable to me. > > I don't need to show you how Snape destroyed Neville's dignity, > don't I? Pippin: Um, I don't remember Neville's dignity being destroyed. Snape destroyed Neville's confidence at potions, I suppose. But surely there is more to Neville than that? And potions is an unforgiving art--like surgery or piloting airplanes. You don't want it being done by second-raters. I don't think confidence at potions is a good thing to have, if you are not very skilled with them. Look what happened to Luna's mother. > > But back to Harry. Of course when Harry is looking for DD to tell > him about Barty Sr. counts to me, Pippin: This caused Harry to lose his dignity? How? Harry did feel that Snape wasn't taking him seriously. I suppose that Arthur was attempting to destroy Harry's dignity in HBP when he pooh-poohed Harry's suspicions about Draco? Alla: of course when Snape is too > humiliated to confess that thirteen year old wizards overpowered him > and comes up with the tale that they were confunded counts to me ( > and no, I am not buying that Snape was trying to save them from > expulsion there - if he truly did, all that he needed IMO was not to > open his mouth AT ALL, there was no need to tell Fudge that Trio did > ANYTHING to Snape in the first place to put them in danger of > explulsion in the first place). Pippin: How was this an attempt to take Harry's dignity? If anybody seems to have lost dignity here it is Snape, who is still admitting that he was overcome by three thirteen year old wizards. Fudge was assuming that Sirius had wounded him. If Snape had said nothing, then Sirius would have looked all the more guilty and Snape all the more heroic. Alla: Of course Snape "teaching" > Occlumency to Harry counts to me and of course the fact that Harry > feels "imprisoned" when he is in the room with Snape shows to me > that Snape at least PARTIALLY suceeded in destroying his dignity. Pippin: Um, considering that any number of Harry's teachers have tried to kill him or do him permanent harm behind closed doors, I should think that feeling afraid when a teacher closes the door on him is a conditioned and understandable response. Constant vigilance! But Harry knows in this case why secrecy is required and he masters his fear. Very commendable. He also knows why Snape has to invade his mind. Snape does not show any sign of enjoying poking around in Harry's past. He never takes any advantage of what he learns. He keeps encouraging Harry to stop him by any means he can think of, and unlike in potions class, he never smirks when Harry fails. Instead, he's angry, just as he is with Neville. I don't doubt Snape's anger is counterproductive, I just don't see it as aimed at destroying a students' dignity. It's supposed to get them to apply themselves. It's interesting that he doesn't use it in the NEWT classes, where he can assume that everyone is motivated and basically competent-- no dunderheads allowed. Pippin From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 17:44:43 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 17:44:43 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154710 > houyhnhnm: > > If Quirrell had succeeded in his attempt on Harry's > life, why would *Snape* have been investigated? What > would connect him in any way? AD: A Potions class worth of students who could all testify to Snape's antipathy to Harry, his own record as a Death Eater (Many people seem to have believed Dumbledore's testimony only reluctantly), and the fact that, of the small group of people present who could be expected to have the knowledge and power to hex a broom, he was the most likely suspect. And then, there's the fact that Harry was playing against Slytherin. ;-) Amiable Dorsai From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 18:05:47 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:05:47 -0000 Subject: Homosexuality: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154711 Pip!Squeak wrote: > I don't think it's to avoid controversy. I've had a theory about JKR avoiding openly gay characters (and openly religious characters) since before OOP, and it's to do with the way she wants to examine prejudice. I think that she has made a deliberate choice to examine prejudice by means of a form of discrimination that only exists in the world of the books and which makes the reader the target. Race is treated like that. > People's race in the WW becomes merely a description; it has no other significance. The only 'race' in the WW is 'pure-blood, half-blood and muggle-born'. > > But both homosexuality and religion are utterly ignored; they're not needed as descriptive markers, so they are dumped. JKR doesn't want to confuse her exploration of a fictional prejudice by introducing anything that might activate real-world prejudices in the minds of some of her readers. > > JKR wants to explore prejudice, and she thinks the best way to do that is to stick with the fictional invention. That way, she knows (hopes) that all her readers have the same information - rather than bringing in their real-life views. Carol responds: I agree completely. But I think that JKR also takes for granted certain (modern Western) values in her readers. They don't approve of slavery (which no longer exists in their part of the world but has not been wholly abolished) and they don't approve, at least in theory, of prejudice or intolerance (though some people who preach "tolerance" mean tolerance of their own views; I once had a student who told me that other students had called him a bigot because he was Catholic and he was beginning to believe it was true). At any rate, I think that JKR expects her readers to make their own analogies rather than having allegorical equivalents forced on us (werewolfism = AIDS, for example). While the prejudice against Muggleborns has some applicability to our world (and the prejudice against Muggles is a prejudice against us!), the whole question of "half-breeds" in the WW really bears no relation to our world. In RL, an interspecies marriage couldn't exist because there are no other human or near-human species now that Neanderthals are extinct. (I don't think any sane person would contemplate a union with a chimpanzee, and the unfortunate offspring of such a union, if it could even be conceived, would be placed in a zoo or a scientific laboratory.) On one level, the existence of "half-breeds" like Hagrid is almost comical in its improbablilty (and painful to contemplate). On another level, prejudice against such unions, and against giants themselves, is perfectly understandable. Imagine Grawp wanting to marry "Hermy," or even special remedial classes for giants at Hogwarts. (Even Crabbe and Goyle must be able to speak and read and use a wand, and they're not so large that they require a whole classroom with an extra-high ceiling just for themselves.) And though Flitwick is supposedly part goblin, who can seriously contemplate such a union? Surely not even Millicent Bulstrode or Marcus Flint would marry a goblin. Or how about a human/house-elf marriage? Winky or Dobby as your husband or wife, anyone? Not only that, but the so-called part humans aren't even part human. Merpeople appear to be their own species, not half-human, half-fish, and Centaurs are "a race apart," who hold humans in contempt (reverse prejudice carried to extremes in the case of Umbridge, whose insults and spells would have been better answered by a show of Centaur superiority than with mockery and brutality--not that she didn't deserve whatever they did to her, but it certainly didn't demonstrate the superiority of their laws and behavior to those of humans). And werewolves aren't "part humans" at all; they're human beings who once a month lose all vestiges of their humanity--mind, body, perhaps even soul--and become dangerous beasts who certainly need to be controlled or contained in some way for their own sake as well as that of other people. Nothing in our world is analogous to a person who is only contagious--and genuinely dangerous--once a month. (No PMS jokes, please.) For all its applicability, which as Tolkien says, "resides in the freedom of the reader," prejudice in the WW is unique to that imaginary world, and some of it is not only understandable but inevitable. Perhaps it doesn't even deserve to be called prejudice. Who besides Hagrid would really want a giant for a neighbor? Or a troll, even if they can be trained as security guards? And even species with "near-human intelligence" like Centaurs and house-elves or goblins (all of them actually as intelligent as humans and at least as gifted magically) don't need the same education as witches and wizards since none of them use wands. What's the answer? Discourage the use of inaccurate and disparaging terms like "half-breeds" (applicable only to a few characters in any case) and let them run their own lives (live and let live)? End abuse of house-elves and let them serve the human family of their choice? what else would a house-elf do? I doubt they'd go off somewhere and form their own society. At any rate, as Pip!Squeak says, JKR has deliberately omitted questions of religious and racial prejudice because they would interfere with and complicate the types of prejudice she's discussing, including the important question of why those prejudices exist and whether, at least in some cases, that prejudice is justified. Carol, who is not talking here about pureblood ideology but about the views that seem to predominate throughout the WW, even among liberal-minded Muggleborns like Hermione, who for some odd reason prefers boyfriends with two legs From juli17 at aol.com Sat Jul 1 18:29:32 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:29:32 -0400 Subject: All or Nothing justice system (was Re: Being Good and Evil) In-Reply-To: <1151753795.1186.80556.m19@yahoogroups.com> References: <1151753795.1186.80556.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C86B536E7C700D-2088-5988@MBLK-M05.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154712 Phoenixgod2000 wrote: that is my big problem with Dumbledore. His version of giving people second chances involves them not paying the debt for their screwed up first chance. I get second chances. I've spent more than a little of my teaching career working with some of the most troubled, violent, drug addicted kids in America. Draco has nothing on the problems they had. They got second chances in the school I taught at. I was good at giving second chances to my students and many of them did well in my class ('cause I'm a good teacher :). You know what? I also turned a bunch in for things like drug use, violating parole, and all sorts of other things. I did that even though it was going to affect their second chance, because turning a blind eye to their actions--even when they are sorry--never helps them. It enables them. I did that because they had to learn that there were consequences to their actions and they had to pay the piper when they screwed up. I've also had students die because parents and teachers didn't step up when they had the chance to enforce the rules. Nowhere in the dumbledore scene did I hear that Dumbledore wanted Draco to be punished for what he had already done. What right does he have to give draco that absolution? Or Snape for that matter? Isn't giving freedom to the man who helped get harry's parents killed rubbing salt in Harry's wounds? Or Nevilles? Do you think the victims of death eater attacks would like one of the black garbbed KKK wannabe's out free instead of in azkaban? So I ask those who want Draco redeemed, what price should he pay for the crimes he has already commited? Julie: Work for the good side until his debt to society is paid and he earns his redemption? Oh, wait, that's what Snape is doing! Seriously, the WW has a pretty much all or nothing justice system. It's either Azkaban, where you get all your good feelings sucked out until you're driven insane--or nothing. We don't hear of any minimum security prisons (where prisoners might actually get some air in an exercise yard, or make license plates for a pittance!), juvenile detention centers, work camps or community service programs, parole or probation programs, etc, etc. Maybe they exist in some form, but all we know of is Azkaban, where the treatment would be unacceptable in even the most notorious RW prison. So perhaps if a wizard who's done even some of the things Draco (and Snape) has done shows genuine regret and desire to atone for his crimes, then Dumbledore's version of "community service" isn't such a bad idea. If Draco decides to switch sides and serve the Good side, at great risk to his life and perhaps the lives of his parents, then perhaps that is enough. Technically it isn't "punishment" but punishment doesn't really serve the good of the victims but rather their desire for retribution (which I am not disputing is a reasonable desire!). I know this isn't enough for some, but it seems to be what Dumbledore considers sufficient repayment for even serious crimes when the perpetrator sincerely repents and reforms. It's no doubt a utopian ideal unachievable in our real world, but turning criminals back into productive members of society is more useful to society than imprisoning them with like minds and hoping they don't escape or return to their life of crime once they've done their time (which they almost certainly will). And while Dumbledore may not be an official "judge", he certainly holds a position of great authority in the WW, which may be enough within the WW's justice system to allow him the right to give "absolution" under certain circumstances. Two more notes on this: We don't know whether Draco being "hidden" would have precluded later punishment for his crimes. Dumbledore didn't say it would for certain, did he? Also, Draco did commit those crimes as a minor, not an adult, and so far we don't know anything about juvenile justice in the WW. I know Harry's been threatened with Azkaban, but really, can juveniles be put in Azkaban? If so, I can understand Dumbledore doing everything in his power to keep Draco out of there, as even Draco doesn't deserve THAT, IMO. Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 18:56:58 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 18:56:58 -0000 Subject: Lupin's gratitude to Snape (Was: DD trust in Snape again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154713 Alla wrote: > > Nope, to me Lupin deserves a respect for trying, it is just when he > tries to feel grateful to SNAPE I am not very convinced of his > sincerity, that's all. Carol responds: Forgive me for snipping the rest of your post, but I wanted to focus on this tidbit. Lupin has suffered once a month since he was a small boy enduring very painful transformations that involved biting himself when there was no one else to attack. For about ten months per year in his last five years at Hogwarts, he had the company of his fellow Marauders to solace him (and the fear and guilt that preceded and followed these adventures, which involved several "near-misses" in which some innocent person might have been killed or transformed into a werewolf). After Hogwarts, these adventures stopped, and he nothing to ease the pain of the transformations. He appears on the Hogwarts Express some fifteen years later looking ill, shabby, and prematurely lined and grey. For the next nine months, Snape makes and promptly delivers perfectly prepared wolfsbane potion and stays to make sure that Lupin drinks it (PoA Am. ed. ). For those same nine months (and for the tenth, if Lupin hadn't run off forgetting to take the potion that Snape was bringing), Lupin's suffering is eliminated or at least greatly diminished. He transforms, perhaps painfully, first to a wolf and then back to human form, but the beast he transforms into is "a harmless wolf," not a savage, blood-maddened werewolf that endangers any human who comes near him and tears his own flesh when the blood thirst is unslaked. After Hogwarts, Lupin, who can't prepare the potion himself, is left to suffer again. Each time we see him, he's shabbier, greyer, and more lined. Surely he remembers those nine months of peaceful transformations and wishes he could return to that time of safety and tranquility. Surely he does feel a deep and genuine debt of gratitude to Snape. And surely he regrets his own folly in forgetting to take the potion that one night, losing his chance to return to Hogwarts as DADA teacher, with Snape the Potions master still dutifully and perfectly preparing him the wolfsbane potion every month. Carol, who does not for one moment doubt Lupin's sincere gratitude to Snape for giving him a nine-month respite from otherwise inescapable suffering From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 19:58:16 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:58:16 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154714 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I do agree that Harry is on the right side. But that doesn't > > give him (or his friends) a free pass. And Draco is on the > > wrong side, but it's asking too much of him, IMO, to magically > > realize it. Especially if the "good" side is engaged in the same > > sort of behavior. > >>Alla: > NO, I meant that Harry is on the right side and he is not supposed > to have crisis of faith, not specifically in relation to this > accident. > I was trying to avoid discussing it,honestly. I love Twins to > death, but even if one does not, IMO ( I understand you disagree, > but that is how I feel) that first they are supposed to be funny > and second they turned on on BAD guys only. > To me Dursleys are bad guys, whether they are Muggles or not does > not matter. > Twins to me are the tools of carmical justice. Are they sometimes > over the top? > Yes, sure, but I find it hysterical. I think that JKR is not > intending her bad guys to get away , so she cannot call social > services on Dursleys, instead we get Twins and later Dumbledore. > I cheer them up, again specifically in book context, of course I > would not advocate that in RL, but in Potterverse, comparing them > with DE? > I just don't see it at all. Sorry. Betsy Hp: If that is the case, if JKR is trying to write a story in which one person baiting muggles is bad, but another person baiting muggles is *not* bad, then she's not writing a morally informed book. She's writing a comedy, I suppose. But not something children can learn from. Because then it's not about good vs. evil, it's about winners vs. losers. In which case hating Draco or even judging him because of his "moral choices" is a waste of time and effort. He's not evil, he's a foil. And children shouldn't look at him as an example of how *not* to act, just as they shouldn't look to Harry as an example of how *to* act. Because Harry isn't "morally" good either. He's just as much a foil. However, I really, really, really doubt this is what JKR is doing. For one thing, it's too conventient that we've got two examples of muggle-baiting in the same book. And it's too convenient that we've got two examples of disfigurement as punishment in the same book. Honestly, I strongly suspect JKR *is* expecting us to laugh at the twins, but then get pulled up with the realization that they're behaving exactly as the Death Eaters are. There's a reason she shows Arthur (laid back Arthur) in a fit of utter rage over his sons' actions, even though the rest of his family blows him off. > >>Alla: > > I just think that JKR's books are not the once where author is shy > of giving out moral judgments sometimes. IMO of course. Betsy Hp: If muggle baiting is both a good and a bad thing, and it merely depends on the emotional attachment we have to the ones doing the baiting and the ones being baited, morality has nothing to do with it, IMO. Because I don't think ethics work that way, one set of rules for one type of people and another set of rules for another. And neither does Karmic justice for that matter. I think the Dursleys are karmically punished by just being the Dursleys. Having wizards torture them only goes to prove their fears as being well grounded. And the bizarre expectation that Draco is supposed to figure out that his father is bad because he baites muggles, but should realize that the twins are on the right side because *they* bait muggles... It doesn't make any sense. > >>Alla: > But JKR did not show us anything of the kind and that is why I > think that Muggles who were baited by DE are innocent people, who > did NOT deserve what was done to them and Dursleys deserved > everything they got and more. Betsy Hp: That's what you think. And Draco's father thinks (and Draco follows his lead) that the muggles at the quidditch cup deserved everything *they* got and more. Why are you right? Why is Lucius wrong? Since muggle baiting is purely a neutral act that says nothing about the folks doing the baiting you'll have to prove that the muggles *don't* deserve it, and you'll have to prove that the ones doing the baiting weren't doing it for a laugh. > >>Alla: > Right. I do fault him for agreeing to assasinate Dumbledore, I > fault him a lot. :) > > As I said earlier wouldn't you agree that Snape's betrayal of > Voldemort and Peter betrayal of Potters should be judged > differently precisely of WHOM they betrayed? > Betsy Hp: I think it's dangerous to make those sort of decisions based on personal attachment. There *must* be something more, some sort of solid principle that you can turn too. Otherwise it's just a battle of the charismas. Voldemort is okay with killing children, his supporters, innocent bystanders, basically anyone who gets in his way. When Peter betrays the Potters to Voldemort he knows he's betraying them to their deaths. And Peter is doing it not because he thinks Voldemort is in the right, but because he thinks Voldemort is the most likely to win. When Snape betrays his friends to Dumbledore (and spies are, by definition, betrayers) he's betraying them to the law, not the whim of one man. We see that those turned in Death Eaters were given trials and I can't think of any who were executed. And DDM!Snape didn't choose Dumbledore's side because Dumbledore was winning (quite the contrary, per canon). Therefore I believe he must have chosen it because he agrees with Dumbledore's principles. When Draco agrees to assassinate Dumbledore he thinks he's doing a good thing. (Or at least, he's made himself think that way because facing the suggestion that his beloved father is wrong is so very painful.) Just as Harry agreeing to kill Voldemort (walk willingly into the arena) believes he is doing so for a higher good. Obviously Draco is wrong, and he starts to figure that out throughout HBP. I think he first realizes that he's not all that thrilled with killing in general, and then he starts to realize that Voldemort isn't the great saviour of the WW that Draco was raised to think he was. And he figures that out by Voldemort's actions. If actions within Potterverse are really as neutral as you seem to be positing then it would have been impossible for Draco to come to the realizations he comes to. He'd have had to base his thinking (as Harry still does) on how much he likes the people involved. Draco doesn't like the Trio, the Weasleys, Gryffindors or Dumbledore. But he's still able to figure out that what Voldemort (and his family) is asking of him is wrong. Harry needs to realize the same thing. He likes the twins, he likes Hermione, but he needs to be able to recognize that some of the actions they took are wrong. Otherwise, his thinking will remain childish, based on his own immediate emotional reactions and not on any set principles. And that way lies danger. It's the same path Tom Riddle walked. (He knew the muggles he killed deserved it. And more.) Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 19:51:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:51:41 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154715 Alla wrote: > > I love Twins to death, but even if one does not, IMO ( I understand you disagree, but that is how I feel) that first they are supposed to be funny and second they turned on on BAD guys only. > > To me Dursleys are bad guys, whether they are Muggles or not does > not matter. > > Twins to me are the tools of carmical justice. Are they sometimes > over the top? > > Yes, sure, but I find it hysterical. I think that JKR is not > intending her bad guys to get away , so she cannot call social > services on Dursleys, instead we get Twins and later Dumbledore. > > I just think that JKR's books are not the once where author is shy > of giving out moral judgments sometimes. IMO of course. > > But JKR did not show us anything of the kind and that is why I think > that Muggles who were baited by DE are innocent people, who did NOT > deserve what was done to them and Dursleys deserved everything they > got and more. > Carol responds: But just as in the case of Hagrid giving Dudley a pig's tail, it's Dudley whom the Twins (knowing that Dudley is on a starvation diet) tempt with potion-laden toffees and Dudley who is tormented by having his tongue not only swollen and lengthened grotesquely but having it pulled on by his mother, who thinks she's rescuing him from strangulation. For observers, this scene might be darkly comic, but for Dudley it's agonizing. (I'd guess that this moment is Dudley's worst memory and the one he relives when the Dementor descends on him.) Dudley is a bully, but he can't be a child abuser, being a child himself. And even though he's being punished by bullying, the "sin" that's being punished here, and with the pig's tail, is gluttony. When were the Twins or Hagrid appointed as Dudley's keepers, and what right have they to punish him even if they have the right to judge him? And how is it right or fair for so-called Karmic justice to fall on Dudley, who is himself, according to Dumbledore, a victim of the adult Dursleys' (in this case unintentional) abuse? I wouldn't even want to see Vernon Dursley degraded and abused in this way, harsh as he often is to Harry. But at least, if that were the case, the right person would be receiving the punishment. In this instance, as with Hagrid, the sins of the father are being visited on the son. Carol, who hopes that the Twins don't receive Karmic retribution for all the suffering they've inflicted on other people, from Montague to innocent firsties From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 20:17:26 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 20:17:26 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154716 >> wynnleaf Is it what you > really mean that regardless how many lives Snape saves, he does it for > Evil purposes? Alla: Heee. Yes, sometimes I am very annoyed at myself for the awkward ways my arguments come out. More or less you are correct, I think that EVERYTHING Snape did "to help" Harry can be argued that Snape did for if not evil, but then self-serving purposes and that fits very well with Snape's explanation to Bella of biting his time and not wanting to loose Dumbledore's protection. Does it mean that it is necessarily true? No, of course not I can be completely wrong, but in light of how Snape character reads to me that is how I see it now. Besides, except saving Harry's life in PS/SS ( I call it an attempt, because Snape sure did not let Harry fell, but he was unable to stop the curse either, till Hermione made a fire and forced Quirrell to stop unwillingly) to me none of the example you gave is a definite SNape's "doing something" to help. Warn Order about MoM? Except the time delay that Neri so brilliantly argues. Come with Dumbledore and Mcgonagall to stop Crouch? Yes, except Dumbledore did all the work, didn't he? Snape just went to bring the potion, etc, etc. Snape COULD have done all of it for good purposes and even if he genuinely wanted to save Harry, I would still give him a cookie, BUT if Snape did it for self-preservation, no, I don't think it shows that he is good. > > Alla: > > > > Um, not sure about Harry :), but I for example take a great deal of > > confidence in Dumbledore's "FACTUAL' opinions and very little > > confidence in his emotional opinions , in his judgments about > > people, since both JKR and DD said that he makes mistakes. > > > > wynnleaf > Yes, I agree about *opinions.* I don't necessarily think Harry should > trust Snape just because DD does. However, in this case we're not > talking about opinions, but facts. DD relates factual information > that Snape saved Harry's life in SS/PS and sent the Order to save > Harry and his friend's lives in OOTP. Harry refuses to acknowledge > that. DD also relates factual info that Snape saved his own life and > that of Katie Bell's, yet Harry will not acknowledge that either. He > doesn't come right out and say "it didn't happen," exactly, but he > will not give it the slightest consideration in his estimation of > Snape -- so for all practical purposes, he doesn't really believe it. Alla: I guess I have to say that it all connected. then - I cannot call DD's opinions about Snape deeds as facts, because he did not witness all of them. Dumbledore was NOT there when Snape " intended to search the forrest" Dumbledore does not exactly say that Snape saved his life in HBP ( what was it? took the necessary steps? Must go to look up the quote. What if what he did was purposefully delaying DD death for the time convenient for Snape? Yes, Dumbledore says that Snape tried to save Harry in PS/SS in order to pay his life debt, but that is it, no? > Carol responds: > So "giving freedom to the man who helped get Harry's parents killed" > is an inaccurate assessment (if Snape's remorse is real). Alla: Even IF Snape remorse is real, he still helped getting Harry's parents killed by reporting the Prophecy, he may have tried to correct his mistake, but that is does not change the fact that he did it. IMO of course. But as you also know, I think that Snape committed many other crimes in his DE days and killed people if not by AK (although personally by clean and efficient way he killed DD, I'd say he has plenty of experience with that one), then by potions for Voldie and no, I don't think that those potions could be anything else but poisonous. So, I think Snape deserved Azkaban not only for reporting the Prophecy. > > Lupinlore: > > Chuckle. Now THAT would be a wood pulper moment, wouldn't it? Not > > only a child abuser, but with an entire school of children to abuse. > > However, I could actually see it happen. Alla: I don't AT ALL. :) I can be wrong of course, but I feel pretty safe making this prediction ( and anybody can tell me told you so at the end of book 7 :)) Of course I cannot predict what happens to Snape , maybe he would even return to Hogwarts ( shudders for the next generation of Hogwarts kids subjected to this bastard character), BUT Snape will NOT be Headmaster. The reason why I am going on record with it, because IMO it would be a very wierd symbolism - the Headmaster who succeeds the most beloved Headmaster of the times is the one who killed him for ANY reasons. > > Rebecca now: > I might also mention that JKR has also stated in interviews that bullying > students is one of the worst things a teacher can do, so outright > declarations of reprehensibility by fans that she supports abuse IMO are > fairly overreaching. Alla: I agree with you on this part, yes. JKR said several times in the interviews that she well... does not like bullies teachers. That is the reason that I feel fairly (less safe than first one), but still fairly safe to be confident enough that Snape's treatment of Harry and Neville SOMEHOW will be acknowledged. She is too vocal about bullying teachers to let Snape be glorified IMO. But even if she won't talk about it at the end, I will still NOT think that she supports child abuse. My conclusion will be that she would simply choose more RL route and show that sometimes abusive teachers do not get punished for their misdeeds, at all. BUT again as I said earlier I think she is not shy about punishing her characters ( both good and bad), so I am keeping my fingers crossed. JMO, Alla From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 1 20:32:27 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 20:32:27 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154718 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Phoenixgod: > I get second chances. Nowhere in the dumbledore scene did I > hear that Dumbledore wanted Draco to be punished for what he had > already done. What right does he have to give draco that absolution? > Or Snape for that matter? Isn't giving freedom to the man who helped > get harry's parents killed rubbing salt in Harry's wounds? Or > Nevilles? Do you think the victims of death eater attacks would like > one of the black garbbed KKK wannabe's out free instead of in azkaban? > Carol: > I agree with you that Draco committed crimes. He's very lucky that > Katie Bell (the girl whose name you can't think of) and Ron didn't > die, and even though he claims that he didn't know Fenrir Greyback > would be joining the party of DEs, he still let him into the castle > and led him along with the others toward the tower, so, yes, he's > partly to blame for what happened to Bill and he was deliberately > trying to engineer Dumbledore's death. Whether a stint in Azkaban > would do him more good than forgiveness is another matter; I think > what he must do is stop making excuses ("I didn't know *he* was > coming!" "He [Voldemort] was going to kill my family!") and > acknowledge that he did wrong. *That's* the first step toward redemption. Geoff: With respect, Carol, I must disagree with you - at least over Fenrir Greyback. I don't think he was making an excuse. Draco's reaction suggests to me that FG's appeaerance was a complete shock and surprise to him: '"Well, I cannot pretend that it does not disgust me a little," said Dumbledore. "And, yes, I am a little shocked that Draco here invited you, of all people, into the school where his friends live..." "I didn't," breathed Malfoy. He was not looking at Greyback; he did not seem to want to even glance at him. "I didn't know he was going to come -"' (HBP "The Lightning-Struck Tower" p.554 UK edition) That, to me does not read as an excuse but as a shock response. I accept that Draco has a lot to answer for, but I am not prepared to load everything that went wrong on to him. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 20:37:21 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 20:37:21 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154719 ?? Betsy Hp: > If that is the case, if JKR is trying to write a story in which one > person baiting muggles is bad, but another person baiting muggles is > *not* bad, then she's not writing a morally informed book. She's > writing a comedy, I suppose. But not something children can learn > from. Because then it's not about good vs. evil, it's about winners > vs. losers. Alla: The thing is I do not see what Twins do as muggle baiting, I see it as relatively harmless prank, that's all. Significantly less that what Dudley deserves for his misdeeds, IMO. > > >>Alla: > > > > I just think that JKR's books are not the once where author is shy > > of giving out moral judgments sometimes. IMO of course. > > Betsy Hp: > If muggle baiting is both a good and a bad thing, and it merely > depends on the emotional attachment we have to the ones doing the > baiting and the ones being baited, morality has nothing to do with > it, IMO. Alla: Agreed IF you see what twins to as "muggle baiting". I don't and I find it very hard to understand. Betsy Hp: > Because I don't think ethics work that way, one set of rules for one > type of people and another set of rules for another. And neither > does Karmic justice for that matter. I think the Dursleys are > karmically punished by just being the Dursleys. Having wizards > torture them only goes to prove their fears as being well grounded. Alla: Torture? Isn't that a bit too harsh of the word? Where are Dursleys screaming from pain? Where are they left with permanent disfigurement? And Dudley Tongue is not permanent either. And no, I don't think Dudleys are punished by being Dursleys. That is IMO way too easy. They seem to be perfectly happy to me in their "normal" little world. I don't want them to be happy. Call me bloodfirsty, but even what Dumbledore did to them in HBP is not enough for me, I want more :) Although I guess if I don't get more, I will be satisfied with what I already saw. > Betsy Hp: > That's what you think. And Draco's father thinks (and Draco follows > his lead) that the muggles at the quidditch cup deserved everything > *they* got and more. Why are you right? Why is Lucius wrong? > Since muggle baiting is purely a neutral act that says nothing about > the folks doing the baiting you'll have to prove that the muggles > *don't* deserve it, and you'll have to prove that the ones doing the > baiting weren't doing it for a laugh. Alla: No, that is not what I think. There are no indications in cannon that those folks hurt anybody, isn't it? That could have happened of course, but we do not see it, that is why I see no justification for what DE did and PLENTY for prank ( I don't see it as muggle baiting) which Twins did. > > >>Alla: > > Right. I do fault him for agreeing to assassinate Dumbledore, I > > fault him a lot. :) > > > > As I said earlier wouldn't you agree that Snape's betrayal of > > Voldemort and Peter betrayal of Potters should be judged > > differently precisely of WHOM they betrayed? > > > > Betsy Hp: > I think it's dangerous to make those sort of decisions based on > personal attachment. There *must* be something more, some sort of > solid principle that you can turn too. Otherwise it's just a battle > of the charismas. > > Voldemort is okay with killing children, his supporters, innocent > bystanders, basically anyone who gets in his way. When Peter > betrays the Potters to Voldemort he knows he's betraying them to > their deaths. And Peter is doing it not because he thinks Voldemort > is in the right, but because he thinks Voldemort is the most likely > to win. > > When Snape betrays his friends to Dumbledore (and spies are, by > definition, betrayers) he's betraying them to the law, not the whim > of one man. We see that those turned in Death Eaters were given > trials and I can't think of any who were executed. And DDM!Snape > didn't choose Dumbledore's side because Dumbledore was winning > (quite the contrary, per canon). Therefore I believe he must have > chosen it because he agrees with Dumbledore's principles. Alla: Eh, that is not my point. Wasn't your argument that no matter what Marietta did Hermione was WRONG to "brand" her? I responded that why Hermione did it matters very much to me. The fact and the matter is that your argument tries to give the reasons of WHY Peter and Snape betrayed their sides, isn't it? Your argument judges their betrayals differently, BECAUSE Snape supposedly chose good principles, power of the law, etc. By the way, betraying his friends to Azkaban seems equal to betraying them to death to me, but that is not very relevant for my purposes. I ALSO judge their betrayals differently because of WHY they did. Especially if Snape truly repented. The same thing is with Lucuis muggle baiting and Twins giving Dudley toffey tongue. I don't see it as same action, but even if I would, the WHY matters to me it matters very much. Hermione giving Marietta a "SNEAK" and Umbridge hurting Harry with the quill I see as COMPLETELY different actions because of WHY they did it. Hermione marked a traitor, Umbridge hurt an innocent. Lots of difference to me. > Carol responds: > Dudley is a bully, but he can't be a child abuser, being a child > himself. And even though he's being punished by bullying, the "sin" > that's being punished here, and with the pig's tail, is gluttony. Alla: The sin being punished here I think is whatever reader imagines. I imagine Dudley getting his dues for years of "Harry hunting" Carol: When > were the Twins or Hagrid appointed as Dudley's keepers, and what right > have they to punish him even if they have the right to judge him? And > how is it right or fair for so-called Karmic justice to fall on > Dudley, who is himself, according to Dumbledore, a victim of the adult > Dursleys' (in this case unintentional) abuse? Alla: Dudley may be a victim, but he was also doing pretty well with hurting Harry himself. As to what right Twins have? None in RL, but in books since as I said it would be very boring story IMO to call child services on Dursleys, we have Twins and Hagrid. Carol: > I wouldn't even want to see Vernon Dursley degraded and abused in this > way, harsh as he often is to Harry. But at least, if that were the > case, the right person would be receiving the punishment. In this > instance, as with Hagrid, the sins of the father are being visited on > the son. Alla: Harry remarks casually ( or narrator does) in HBP that experience taught him to stay out of Vernon hands. It has a VERY clear implication to me that Vernon did abuse Harry physically. He also deserves any punishment JKR comes up IMO, but no I don't think his sins are transferred to Dudley. I think he has plenty of his own. > > Carol, who hopes that the Twins don't receive Karmic retribution for > all the suffering they've inflicted on other people, from Montague to > innocent firsties > Alla: They did receive karmic justice for Montague though, no? He was the only one "sort of innocent" Twins turned onto, IMO. JMO, Alla From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Jul 1 15:01:51 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 15:01:51 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? In-Reply-To: <20060630164413.3146.qmail@web37008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154721 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, marina catalano wrote: > > On a different note, does anyone know how to get that interview JKR recently did? I would like to see it to see if I can glean any info from it. Thanks! > > marinacat06 > Ken: You can find the transcript at: http://www.mugglenet.com/mnnews/06262006/transcriptrandjudy.shtml Since we are grasping at straws I'm surprised no one has mentioned this exchange: ****************** QUOTE FROM RICHARD AND JUDY SHOW ***************** R: And is that in the future then? I mean, can you envision yourself picking up another huge idea like Harry Potter and running it over? JK: Yeah if I liked the idea enough I definitely would, but I don't think that I'm - I don't think I'm ever going to have anything like Harry again. I think you just get one like Harry. J: Well I think most people will be hoping that at some point in your life, that you will come back to him in some way, shape, or form...there will be something. `Cause you'll have generations. JK: Harry Potter's midlife crisis. J: Yeah. R: Should he survive to see it. JK: Right. ************************************* END QUOTE *************************************** Probably just a joke but wouldn't it be like her to give out a hint in this way? Ken From distaiyi at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 22:49:38 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 22:49:38 -0000 Subject: JKR borrows from heroic literature/ who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154722 ---"Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > JK: Harry Potter's midlife crisis. > R: Should he survive to see it. > JK: Right. > She's been saying that since book 4 or 5. That people assume Harry is going to survive and that she would make that assumption so casually. She's been giving out hints (or maybe red herrings) for a number of years about the eventual demise of Harry. From littlehorn489 at hotmail.com Sat Jul 1 23:07:05 2006 From: littlehorn489 at hotmail.com (bigestbarda) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:07:05 -0000 Subject: If Regulus lives ... Re: The Veil and The Mirror In-Reply-To: <001901c68b06$d4b78760$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154723 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Sorry, but I believe it's how Sirius and James communicated. > We know that Sirius and James communicated via a pair of mirrors, but we don't know for sure that the mirror in Harry's possession is one of that pair- presumably James' was in Godric's Hollow or on his person when he died, which would be difficult for Sirius to obtain. If Regulus also had a mirror, which he left on his death (or 'death') in Grimmauld Place Sirius could pair it up with his own- perhaps stored in his bank vault, or perhaps they were two seperate pairs. It would, perhaps, explain why Sirius never tried to use it, or didn't mention it in the fireplace after Christmas, if he knew saying 'James Potter' didn't work. bigestbarda From mros at xs4all.nl Sat Jul 1 18:13:31 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 20:13:31 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man References: Message-ID: <000901c69d3a$0fa3e0e0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 154724 Phoenixgod2000: >>>Two points. One, I think you are right about where the draco plotline is headed. I think JKR is going to redeem him. or at least try. short of a miracle happening, I'm not going to buy a redeemed Draco for one simple reason. regardless of his dark night of the soul, moral revelation about Daddy, or the scales falling from his eyes, Draco will still have broken the law. He will still have nearly murdered Ron and that other girl whose name escapes me at the moment, he will still have allowed death eaters into the castle, still have created the situation that killed Dumbledore and mutilated Bill. Its good that Draco might have a change of heart, but ultimately, so what? he still needs to pay his debt to the people he hurt through his actions.<<< Marion: I agree. Harry will still have to pay for nearly killing Draco whilst attacking the crying, distraught boy in the toilets (because let's face it, he only got a few detentions for near-murder and he resented even *that* little slap-on-the-wrist by Snape, whilst he *should've* been grateful that Snape healed Draco, hauling his bacon out of the fire yet *again* because if he hadn't Harry had been in Azkaban for murder) Hermione will still have to pay for disfiguring Marietta. Harry casts a Unforgiveble twice ('though unsuccesfully). Still has to pay for that.The Weasley twins will still have to pay for stuffing the Slytherin Prefect Montegue in a Vanishing Closet (God knows what happened to that child during the days between being stuffed into that cabinet and being found stuffed in the toilets. Can't have been healthy; we never hear from him again) this giving Draco the idea and the means of smuggling DE's in the castle. Arthur Weasley (and Ron and Harry) will still have to pay for illegally charming an Muggle object (a car) and flying it (breaking several international laws). I mean, talking of 'breaking the law'... That seems to be a Gryffindor speciality. Arthur Weasley, the head of the Department of Illegally Charmed Muggle Objects has an Illegally Charmed Object and doesn't mind when his underage children play with it. Hagrid kept a dragon as a pet: that's illegal too. Sirius is already dead, but if he were not, he would still have to pay for being an unregistred Animagus, not to mention that whole Werewolf Caper in his fifth year, which nearly ended in murder of a classmate. Because of that impeteous, rash, criminal 'prank', Dumbledore had to stop his experiment of allowing werewolves at Hogwarts. Who knows what damage that might have caused? How many werewolves are deprived of their magical inheritance and education? Might Voldemort have less werewolves for his 'army' if Sirius hadn't pulled that stunt? I have no particular liking for Draco, but this is not about *liking*. This is about justice. About people breaking the law and people harming other people. Draco does not seem to have the monopoly on that one. But it seems that he is the only one of the above-mentioned who might even *realize* that he might have been amiss is Draco. The rest of them - Gryffindors all - don't even seem to realize that what they did (intentionally or not) was *wrong* or caused *harm*. Gryffindors! Full of hot air, self-righteous and so obsessed with the splinters in other people's eyes that they don't even notice the beam in their own. I'm all for holding Draco responsible for his actions, but if Draco Malfoy is held responsible for his actions, then so should Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Sun Jul 2 00:53:47 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 20:53:47 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7 news Message-ID: <54d.151f9ad.31d8731b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154725 > > > > Tonks: > > > Oh I can't STAND it!! Why does she do this to us? ESE Rowling!! > > > Better to say nothing. *Nothing*!!. My anxiety level is a 10+. > > > > > > > > > > Sandy now: > > > > Thanks for that Tonks! I mean the ESE! Rowling. I have said on > other lists > > (and have been met with very negative feedback) that I don't much > care for JKR > > for just this reason. It has been hard enough having to wait for > the next and > > final book, but now, with at least a year still to wait, she drops > this > > bombshell on us. I can't stand her teasing and taunting while the > wait drags on and > > on. You are absolutely right, it is better for her to say nothing, > and most > > certainly nothing this dramatic this far in advance of the book > being released. > > Hell, it isn't even finished yet. My anxiety level is right up > there with yours > > and it is going to be a miserably long wait to find out what she > means. > > Grrrrrrrrrrrr! Shut up, JO! > > Alla: > > Um, but on the other hand isn't it fun to speculate? I mean, Jo > admitted more than once that she loves watching us go crazy with > speculations. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt that she > does it for her own amusement more than for blatant advertisement > campaign, which IMO is not needed at all right now. Sandy responds: Um, actually no, for me it isn't fun to speculate because I don't like any of the choices. It was my hope that Dumbledore would be the last *significant* death for the Order and good side. I'm sure she does do it for her own amusement and this does not endear me to her. I think she definitely has a mean evil streak in her. Small wonder she writes these books so well. You are right, the last book will sell like hotcakes without her opening her mouth and saying a word, and I, personally, think she should keep her mouth shut. Her teasing and taunting is a major turn-off for me. > > > > > > Alla: > > I do like spoilers, but yes, I do think that Jo tries to pump the > interest to the books by making us guess about the deaths. I ( > contrary to many) love being spoiled, but I guess by the end of > writing this post I agree that this kind of teasing is > IMO pure advertisement trick. She is entitled to that, IMO, they are > her babies, but I don't find it necessary at all. > > Sandy: I don't mind spoilers either. Hell, I read the last chapter first. I knew Dumbledore was dead before I even got to the counter to pay for HBP. But what she is doing is NOT spoiling the book, but creating suspense. I can't stand suspense. That is exactly *why* I read the last chapter first. She isn't spoiling the book, she isn't promoting the book, she is just creating tension. I have enough of that in my life already, thank you very much. Alla: > Really, Jo, I would buy book 7 without those type of announcements, I > promise. I mean, if Harry dies, I am not rereading the books, but I > will BUY it to read for the first time in any event. > > If you want to tell me who dies, I will be happy to listen to :), but > just give me the names. ;) > Sandy: I think this is the only time I have 100% agreed with you. I will buy the book no matter what. If Harry dies I'm done with it and will wait in line behind Tonks to borrow Lupinlore's chipper. And I will gladly listen if she wants to name names. Sandy, who is running hopelessly behind and trying feverishly to catch up. P.S. to the list elves. I tried very hard to do this right but my computer gave me a fight with it. I hope the chevrons turned out right. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Sun Jul 2 01:21:52 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 21:21:52 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... Message-ID: <50c.2c25007.31d879b0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154726 In a message dated 6/28/06 9:22:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, horridporrid03 at yahoo.com writes: > Betsy Hp: > You prove my point. Why do we know Voldemort is bad? Well, look at > his *actions*. Until HBP Draco doesn't have any actions to look at > because Voldemort is taking a time out. But he can take a look at > the actions of Harry and his friends. And there ain't nothing there > pointing a big neon sign saying "these are the good guys". > Generally, if you've branded someone's face, or tortured someone > significantly weaker than you, you're not wearing a white hat. > > Sandy: I don't have a problem one with what Hermione did to Marietta but you have made it abundantly obvious through your many, many posts about it that you do. What do you suggest should or would have been an appropriate way to handle the matter? What would be appropriate punishment for a traitor? Marietta betrayed 27 other people and put them in jeopardy by her actions. This was okay? I think she got off lucky, and with that scar as a permanent reminder maybe she'll think twice in the future before she lets herself be pressured into doing something just because a friend wants her to even though she doesn't agree or believe in it. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jul 2 02:00:44 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 22:00:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... References: <50c.2c25007.31d879b0@aol.com> Message-ID: <009b01c69d7b$54ae86e0$116c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154727 > Sandy: > > I don't have a problem one with what Hermione did to Marietta but you have > made it abundantly obvious through your many, many posts about it that you > do. > What do you suggest should or would have been an appropriate way to handle > the > matter? Magpie: I'm not Betsy, but my appropriate way to deal with it would be that if Hermione was going to put a curse on the Parchment it should have been a hex that would alert her that someone had told, and say who did the telling, period. Then she could have set up a warning system to keep others from getting caught. That would do something towards protecting the people in the DA (who knowingly put themselves in jeopardy when they joined Hermione's study group). Punishment probably wouldn't have been much of a priority for me--the rest of the DA didn't seem to feel too strongly about it either. Given a vote I don't know if they'd have all agreed to this. Frankly, if I'd been one of the other members I'd have been angrier at Hermione than Marietta once I learned that I, too, had been secretly hexed and that if I'd decided I ought to tell someone about her club I'd have been permanantly scarred. I guess I'm just always confused by the implication that this was the most appropriate thing for Hermione to do, or that she was boxed into a corner with this her only option when her hex does no good whatsoever. It doesn't protect anyone or warn anyone or prevent any trouble, it just provides some sadistic pleasure after the fact for Harry. Iirc the jinx slows Marietta down a bit in her telling, only because she happens to be standing by a mirror, but it doesn't really seem to make any difference whatsoever to what happens. Sandy: I > think she got off lucky, and with that scar as a permanent reminder maybe > she'll > think twice in the future before she lets herself be pressured into doing > something just because a friend wants her to even though she doesn't agree > or > believe in it. Magpie: I really don't think that's a crime that deserves permenant facial scarring. Perhaps it's Hermione who got off lucky in this case. If this were a different kind of series she might be the one on the receiving end of some scarring years from now, with a detective left to track down the psycho attacker and discovering some girl Hermione casually mutilated at 15 who decided this was the only appropriate way to deal with the situation. Hermione would then think twice the next time she started up a personal army before she counts passersby and friends of acquaintances as members. You want peple loyal to you you don't recruit any random person who shows up to the pub the first day (including the girl who clearly didn't want to be there) and think your secret punishment nobody knows about will act as a deterrant. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 02:06:50 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 02:06:50 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... In-Reply-To: <50c.2c25007.31d879b0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154728 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Generally, if you've branded someone's face, or tortured someone > > significantly weaker than you, you're not wearing a white hat. > >>Sandy: > I don't have a problem one with what Hermione did to Marietta but > you have made it abundantly obvious through your many, many posts > about it that you do. > What do you suggest should or would have been an appropriate way > to handle the matter? What would be appropriate punishment for a > traitor? Betsy Hp: Traitor? She told about a study group. Snitch is probably a better word. And no, I really don't think permanent disfiguration is a civilized form of punishment. It's pretty revolting to me to mark someone like that. And especially when you've got one fifteen year old girl marking another teenage girl... It's anarchy to my mind. If the mark had lasted for a few days, so that everyone knew what Marietta had done and then they moved on, I'd have been a bit more comfortable with it. But instead Marietta's life has been ruined. All because she supported her friend. Nasty, IMO. But in the end, Marietta didn't break any rules. Not even school rules. So honestly, I'm not sure *any* punishment was necessary. In either case, Hermione is not an authority figure and the DA is not a governmental group. They don't have the authority, IMO, to mete out punishment. Once the other DA members realized Marietta was the snitch (which they would have without the mark because Harry found it out) there would have been social consequences, and I think that would have been enough. And Hermione wouldn't have been tarred, herself. > >>Sandy: > I think she got off lucky, and with that scar as a permanent > reminder maybe she'll think twice in the future before she lets > herself be pressured into doing something just because a friend > wants her to even though she doesn't agree or believe in it. Betsy Hp: Marietta's life is ruined. Can you imagine her job interviews? Meeting new people? I'm not sure why you consider her lucky. I do think lessons were learned. IIRC, Ravenclaw doesn't have much to do with Harry once the DA is done. And I'm fairly confident the rest of the student body recognize that Hermione is completely untrustworthy, if not out and out dangerous. Hermione has shown herself to be to Harry as Umbridge is to Fudge. Personally, that bothers me. That sort of self-righteousness is dangerous, IMO. Betsy Hp From honeykissed246 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 01:02:14 2006 From: honeykissed246 at yahoo.com (honeykissed246) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 01:02:14 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154729 Alla wrote: > Doesn't he have his head on the shoulders to understand that murder is wrong Honeykissed: Doesn't Harry have a head on his shoulders to understand that Snape has saved his life several times, (smile)...Just my two cents Honeykissed From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Jul 2 02:59:31 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 22:59:31 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] If Regulus lives ... Re: The Veil and The Mirror Message-ID: <51e.2a8cc6b.31d89093@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154730 In a message dated 7/1/2006 8:35:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, littlehorn489 at hotmail.com writes: We know that Sirius and James communicated via a pair of mirrors, but we don't know for sure that the mirror in Harry's possession is one of that pair- presumably James' was in Godric's Hollow or on his person when he died, which would be difficult for Sirius to obtain. If Regulus also had a mirror, which he left on his death (or 'death') in Grimmauld Place Sirius could pair it up with his own- perhaps stored in his bank vault, or perhaps they were two seperate pairs. It would, perhaps, explain why Sirius never tried to use it, or didn't mention it in the fireplace after Christmas, if he knew saying 'James Potter' didn't work. ------------------------- Sherrie here: IMHO, the simplest explanation is that Harry's mirror is a new one - Sirius enchanted it fresh for him, & attuned it to his. Sherrie (sorry for the short post - it's late, & the race just got over) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 03:00:47 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 03:00:47 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154731 > >>Alla: > The thing is I do not see what Twins do as muggle baiting, I see it > as relatively harmless prank, that's all. > Betsy Hp: Arthur Weasley seems to think it is: "I spend half my life campaigning against the mistreatment of Muggles, and my own sons --" [GoF scholastic hardback p.53] I define "mistreatment" as baiting. And I'm using baiting as a word for activities that seem less than out and out murder. Something that, from a certain view point, could be seen as good times. But not, of course, for the muggles. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I think the Dursleys are karmically punished by just being the > > Dursleys. Having wizards torture them only goes to prove their > > fears as being well grounded. > >>Alla: > Torture? Isn't that a bit too harsh of the word? Where are Dursleys > screaming from pain? > Betsy Hp: "At that moment, however, a horrible gagging sound erupted behind him, and Aunt Petunia started to scream." [ibid p.48] Then we have Vernon described as bellowing, and Petunia screams some more while trying to shield her son with her body. She also "sobs hysterically". The torture Petunia is going through is the intense fear for the life of her child. Vernon is described in a more humorous manner "bellowing like a wounded hippo" [50] but I think his anger also springs from fear. And, of course, Dudley spends the whole time unable to breathe. Harry knows the Weasleys aren't likely to *murder* his cousin, but the Dursleys aren't too sure. So they go through some real fear and are made to feel utterly helpless. Which is pretty much what the Death Eaters do to the muggle family at the Quidditch Cup. > >>Alla: > Eh, that is not my point. Wasn't your argument that no matter what > Marietta did Hermione was WRONG to "brand" her? > I responded that why Hermione did it matters very much to me. > The fact and the matter is that your argument tries to give the > reasons of WHY Peter and Snape betrayed their sides, isn't it? > Betsy Hp: I do think purposefully and permanently disfiguring someone as a form of punishment is wrong. I also think wizards baiting muggles is wrong. However, I do not think spying is, in and of itself, wrong. Good guys and bad guys can both spy. So for spying it *is* important to look at the reasons and the methods, etc. > >>Alla: > Hermione giving Marietta a "SNEAK" and Umbridge hurting Harry with > the quill I see as COMPLETELY different actions because of WHY they > did it. > Hermione marked a traitor, Umbridge hurt an innocent. Lots of > difference to me. Betsy Hp: Ah, but Umbridge hurt someone she saw as totally *not* innocent, someone she saw as betraying her beloved Ministry and who needed to be punished. Exactly the same thought Hermione had. Harry felt he was standing up for the truth, but so did Marietta. Both did what they felt was the right thing, both did what they thought their families would want them to do. Hermione and Umbridge both thought they knew better and that therefore they had the right to visit the punishment of their choice upon them. And, I imagine, both Hermione and Umbridge feel they did the right thing. I expect better of Hermione. And I hope she learns her lesson before she becomes Umbridge. Hermione, by employing the same methods as Umbridge, lowers herself to Umbridges level. The twins, by using their powers against someone with no ability to defend themselves, acted in a way Death Eaters would approve of. As good guys they should be above that sort of behavior. IMO, anyway. Betsy Hp From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Sun Jul 2 03:12:49 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 23:12:49 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: birthday Message-ID: <9e.3b8f82bc.31d893b1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154732 Ken: > She is being such a tease about this. I can understand her not wanting > to spoil anything for those many fans who don't want spoilers. I have > to agree with those who have said it would be better to just smile and > say nothing when asked for spoilers though. She likes to say that > Hermione is based on herself as a child. This taunting of her readers > in this fashion makes it seem like Snape is based on herself as an adult. > > Sandy: Thank you, Ken! What a perfect comparison. So much better said than I did in an earlier post. I am a DDM!Snaper but Snape IS mean and cruel, as is JKR when she pulls this kind of crap. Yes, perfect comparison, thank you. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 03:22:59 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 03:22:59 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione and Umbridge v Snape and Peter actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154733 > > >>Alla: > > Eh, that is not my point. Wasn't your argument that no matter what > > Marietta did Hermione was WRONG to "brand" her? > > I responded that why Hermione did it matters very much to me. > > The fact and the matter is that your argument tries to give the > > reasons of WHY Peter and Snape betrayed their sides, isn't it? > > > > Betsy Hp: > I do think purposefully and permanently disfiguring someone as a > form of punishment is wrong. I also think wizards baiting muggles > is wrong. However, I do not think spying is, in and of itself, > wrong. Good guys and bad guys can both spy. So for spying it *is* > important to look at the reasons and the methods, etc. Alla: Okay, I am snipping the rest of your post, because we just see it too differently , but I still want to return to Snape and Peter. Um, BEFORE Snape started spying he had to BETRAY his boss and his friends, didn't he, so I am not sure how Snape's betrayal suddently become his spying. Snape had to be a traitor before he became a spy, not vice versa, no? Do you mind telling me what IS different in the action Snape and Peter committed? In the action itself, NOT in the reasons. Peter betrayed his childhood friends, Snape betrayed his chidhood if not friends then classmates at least. Peter betrayed the Leader of the Order to whom he belonged and supposedly promised loyalty, Snape betrayed the Leader of the DE to whom he pledged his loyalty. Why do you think it matters for what reasons Snape betrayed Voldemort? If you think that no matter what Hermione's action is just despicable as Umbridge, no matter what REASONS are behind it, protecting children who decided to fight against unjust regime of Umbridge or Umbridge not happy with Harry Potter, doesn't it mean that Snape and Peter actions are equally bad? If With Snape betrayal you are willing to look on the reasons behind the actions, then shouldn't you look at the reasons behind Hermione's actions too? I mean I am not saying that you should, I just find your argument to be highly inconsistent. I mean if you would say that YES you think that Snape and Peter are both nasty traitors, Judas who betrayed the group of their peers and their masters, then yes, I can see where you are coming from, but when you are condemning Hermione's actions without looking at her reasons and do look at the reasons behind Snape's actions, I do not understand it at all. As Snape would say if I look at Snape and Peter's actions, "I see no difference", NONE. If I look further, then YES of course I see difference, but I ALSO see plenty of difference between what Hermione did and what Umrbidge did. JMO, Alla From lunalovegood at shaw.ca Sun Jul 2 03:14:10 2006 From: lunalovegood at shaw.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 03:14:10 -0000 Subject: The Ethical Imperative in Harry Potter - why Rowling talks about death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154734 So, Jo has been talking about death again, and the fandom goes banana-float. But why is she on this subject now? It's not like we knew before who was going to die, or live, so the fact that she told us she's altered some character's fates is, well, utterly and fascinatingly meaningless. What IS meaningful is exactly what the fandom too often forgets, or ignores, overrun as it is by a kind of television gnosis. The fandom forgets that Rowling is writing, in all cases and at all times, about life and death. There is no other subject, there is no other theme, there is never anything else at stake in Rowling but life and death. One of the first things Harry learns at Hogwarts, besides meeting those who will be his best mates, is that a horrible death awaits those who venture into the forbidden corridor, and that forest seems dangerous too. In every book, it is death that threatens - a weak, scheming teacher, a giant snake, a creepy sociopathic boy, dementors and the grim, dragons and drowning and finally Voldemort himself, DE henchmen.... Is this because Rowling has some odd fascination with death? Or is it, as I hold, a sense that, in this world, almost every day, we are making life and death decisions (but are generally careful not to face the facts) - making decisions all the time, compromises, that keep us from precisely the spot Harry is in, originally not by choice, but by this point in the story, is there by conviction. Harry is at the centre of things, and always on that razor edge. The comfortable fandom, however, can only refer obliquely to a part of themselves that identifies with Harry and would do as he does "if compelled". (I know that the personal automobile is the most destructive thing in the world environmentally, and so I have never even wanted to own or drive one. But all the time we hear car owners, even SUV owners, talking about the environment, and still driving these things. How is that possible? I*s there an automatic justification going on, that is claimed by those with the money to own and drive such things? - no one and nothing, in actual fact, compels people to buy what they don't want to buy. What a strange concept - compelled to use and SUV! These same people talk about poor people "choosing" their poverty.) In other posts here and all over my fandom, I have said that Rowling writes continuously about a kind of ethical imperative - one that is not discrete, nor is it limited by methodological considerations - an ethical imperative that operates within a facsimile of the difficult and complex situations that obtain in our lives, written up as fantasy. Rowling insists that in all things, there is an ethical dimension (Dumbledore insisting on consulting with the judges at the second task!) that, ultimately, is what matters, regardless of the outcome. In fact, outcome-based motivation is practically anathema to Rowling - this is a criticism of both Slytherin and Ravenclaw - of ends justifies the means (sort of) and of knowledge for knowledge's sake. The first can lead to simple opportunism (rather like the GOP to the south, and that creepy little Nixon guy who turned it into the anti-intellectual redneck organization it is today) or worse, a kind of fascism. The second can lead to cultish behaviour like Luna's, which is not dangerous, and a kind of traitor mentality (Edgecombe) that looks only at the letter and not the spirit, which is much more dangerous, and to which Rowling attaches a particularly nasty stigma, no doubt a reference to collaborators. There is a circle of people in the Harry Potter series who operate within this ethical imperative - it is not based on anything as goofy as common beliefs or traits - it is based solely on whether or not people facing difficult times share courage, friendship, and love, or become self-centred, nasty little pricks, who worry only about themselves. That Rowling can be so clear about these things, and that the vast majority of the fandom, including almost all of those over the age of 10, don't get it, is weird as felt bananas. Rowling is saying: You know what's going on, don't pretend you don't know. If you act in ways that exacerbate things because you kid yourself, you are not operating within the ethical imperative, and you risk being a traitor, a mindless follower of orders (like real world armies or terrorists, where being a whole human being is anathema, cause whole human beings don't blast other people to bits) or just really ugly and stupid, like the Dursleys. So Rowling writes about death because we live in a world that is shot through with it. This is no Stephen King instruments of destruction lame-ass stuff, this is our world. Hogwarts is almost a Breslan, nascently. Without the trio and their accomplices, perhaps it would have been a Breslan by now. Certainly without Dumbledore it would have been. What if Draco had had explosives tied to him? That's the manner of ethic he has! But on the tower, he had a way out - I don't know if the bombers in the real world feel that they have a way out. Some failed one's (who weren't shot in the head) have said no, they felt there was no other way to go... We pass a nastiness on the street - do we run away? Help without endangering ouselves? Drive on? At any moment of the day, we can (and sometimes are, whether we admit it or not) faced with choices that could be really uncomfortable, but mostly we avoid it. Harry Potter cannot. He inscribes himself with a tattoo of honesty, that, although it came from that sad cow Umbridge, is the centre and circumference of his ethic. dan From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jul 2 03:39:11 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 03:39:11 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154735 AD: > A Potions class worth of students who could all testify > to Snape's antipathy to Harry, houyhnhnm: Well, half a potions class worth at least, although I don't know if I'd trust the rest of the Gryffindors to be behind Ron and Hermione 1000 percent, based on their behavior the following year. And then there would be the insistance that Snape was after the philosopher's stone which wouldn't help their credibility much. But then, you were being facetious, weren't you? From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Sun Jul 2 03:55:47 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 23:55:47 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7 news Message-ID: <554.13d037d.31d89dc3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154736 In a message dated 6/29/06 4:39:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, patriciah711 at yahoo.com writes: snip> > with > interacting with her fans and giving them something to have fun > speculating about. Because it should be fun to get to think and guess > and argue. It's just a book series. It's not like she told us that two > members of our family are going to die and it's excruciating to find > out which. She means it to be fun. > > Sandy: You and I have a vastly different idea of what is and isn't fun. I don't think it is fun, and I am not conviced that JKR does it for fun. I think it is an ego trip for her and that she is metaphorically sticking her tongue out at us. I know what's going to happen and you don't, nah--nah-nah-nah-nah. I think it's hateful. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 2 04:18:04 2006 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (Emily) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 04:18:04 -0000 Subject: Where are the horcruxes (was Re: Smith Connection) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154737 > bridge13219: > I'm sorry if this has been covered, but I couldn't find any posts so > here goes: > > I was just re-reading HBP (Chapter 20: Lord Voldemort's Request) where > we meet Hepzibah Smith, and I was wondering if Zacharias Smith (the > Hufflepuff prat) was/is related to her. snip > Or maybe Smith is a very common name. > imamommy: I think it's a Mark Evans. That brings something else up though; does anyone have any guesses where the Hufflepuff Cup could be? Or something from Ravenclaw? imamommy From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 2 04:31:55 2006 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (Emily) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 04:31:55 -0000 Subject: Barty Crouch, Jr? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154738 > From Michael- > > I wondered this too. Actually, I wonder if the Dementor actually kissed > Crouch. After all we never see it, but only hear about it. It could be that > some of the Dementors were on LV side already, so they could have just > pretended. Also, it might be possible for the Dementors to restore the soul > by re-kissing the victim. > imamommy: I will render my opinion, and attempt to tie it to canon so the elves don't get mad. I do think Crouch Jr. was kissed, because McGonagall seems to have a first-hand account. I think the dementors must be hard to control, or else why not have them invade Hogwarts with the DE's at the end of HBP? Then they could just suck the souls out of whomever LV wanted them to. I think they are probably used more in situations where he doesn't much care about what happens. He wouldn't want a dementor running amok and kissing his DE's, when there are so few left. I would guess the only way to keep a dementor doing your bidding is to keep it satiated with other people's souls and happiness. Also, again just IMO, I think that once a dementor sucks your soul it's gone; I think it gets used as food or fuel or whatever. I think I think this b/c of CS Lewis' book, "The Screwtape Letters." In it, the demons feed on the souls of those they are able to drag down to Hell. It's interesting to note that this is what terrifies Harry the most, as contrasted with LV's preoccupation with physical death. imamommy From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jul 2 05:13:51 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 05:13:51 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154739 Dark Ally wrote in : << Btw, `karkar' means black in Mongol. >> At one time, a Russian listie told us that it is common for Russians to name pet crows or ravens 'Karkarov' after their call: 'kar-kar' (spelled 'caw-caw' in American) and added that his father had a pet raven named Karkarov. According to The Online Etymology Dictionary , our very words 'crow' and 'raven' originated from the sound of their call: << raven : O.E. hr?fn (Mercian), hrefn; hr?fn (Northumbrian, W.Saxon), from P.Gmc. *khrabanas (cf. O.N. hrafn, Dan. ravn, Du. raaf, O.H.G. hraban, Ger. Rabe "raven," O.E. hroc "rook"), from PIE base *qer-, *qor-, imitative of harsh sounds (cf. L. crepare "to creak, clatter," cornix "crow," corvus "raven;" Gk. korax "raven," korone "crow;" O.C.S. kruku "raven;" Lith. krauklys "crow"). >> and << crow (n.) : O.E. crawe, imitative of bird's cry. >> (two more too good to resist: << croak (v.) : c.1460, crouken, onomatopoeic or related to O.E. cracian (see crack). Slang meaning "to die" is first recorded 1812, from sound of death rattle. Croaker "prophet of evil" (1637) is from the raven (cf. M.E. crake "a raven," c.1320, from O.N. kraka "crow," of imitative origin). >> Bode and Croaker, anyone? and << rook (1) : "European crow," O.E. hroc, from P.Gmc. *khrokaz (cf. O.N. hrokr, M.Du. roec, M.Swed. roka, O.H.G. hruoh), possibly imitative of its raucous voice. Used as a disparaging term for persons since at least 1508, and extended by 1577 to mean "a cheat," especially at cards or dice. The verb "to defraud by cheating" (originally especially in a game) is first attested 1590. Rookery "colony of rooks" is from 1725. >> Rookwood?) Crows and ravens are such famously black birds that sometimes 'raven' is an adjective meaning 'black' (e.g. 'her raven hair'). Similarity to your Mongol word is probably a complete co-incidence. But ravens are also famous as carrion-eaters, and 'Karkaroff' has always sounded to me like 'carcase' (and 'canker' and 'cancer'), altho' that is purely a resemblance of sound without etymological value, and possibly idiosyncratic as well. Tonks_op wrote in : << Black family names (snip) Walburga is a Saint. Fabian is a Saint and was a Pope. Gideon was one of the Greater Judges of Israel. I think the early DE were named the Knights of Walburga. What it all means is a mystery IMO. >> IIRC, the Knights of Walpurgis was some organization that pre-existed Lord Voldemort, but he took it over and renamed it Death Eaters. As Carol in has pointed out, that is a pun on 'Walpurgis Night'. I suspect it was also named after a witch named Walburga who had nothing to do with the saint. I further suspect that it began as a movement to protect witches and wizards from Muggles by killing or burning down the houses of five Muggles for every witch or wizard who was killed or had their house burned down by Muggles. Maybe the Walburga after whom it was named was a great Healer who was killed by the anti-wizard relatives of a Muggle whose life she had saved from a terrible injury or disease. I think Rowling emphasized that the Prewett brothers were fighters by naming them after historical war leaders. The Biblical Judge Gideon in his role as a general. THe Roman after whom 'Fabian warfare' was named. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Strategy << The Fabian strategy is a military strategy where pitched battles are avoided in favor of wearing down an opponent through a war of attrition. While avoiding decisive battles, the side employing this strategy harasses its enemy to cause attrition and loss of morale. Employment of this strategy implies that the weaker side believes time is on its side, but it may also be adopted when no feasible alternative strategy can be devised. This strategy derives its name from Quintus Fabius Maximus, the Roman dictator given the thankless task of defeating the great general of Carthage, Hannibal, in southern Italy during the Second Punic War (218-202 BC). At the start of the Second Punic War, the Carthaginian general Hannibal boldly crossed into Italy by traversing the Alps during winter-time and invaded Italy. Due to Hannibal's skill as a general, he repeatedly inflicted devastating losses on the Romans despite his numerical inferiority ?quickly winning two smashing victories over the Romans at the Battle of Trebbia and the Battle of Lake Trasimene. After these disasters the Romans appointed Fabius Maximus as dictator. Well-aware of the military superiority of the Carthaginians and the ingenuity of Hannibal, Fabius initiated a war of attrition which was designed to exploit Hannibal's strategic vulnerabilities. >> Sherrie Snape wrote in : << [Puddifoot] is a perfectly normal surname - if you're a Hobbit. (snip) In the first "book" of FotR, the Puddifoots are listed as a Hobbit family that lives in Stock and the Marish; their name is supposedly derived from "puddle-foot", a reference to the marshy nature of the land they inhabit >> Thank you. I was misled by my obsession, thinking only of 'pussyfoot' plus 'puddytat', and not at all of puddles. The former idea made me contemplate changing my middle name from Prince to Puddifoot! It does make sense to me that a retail businesswoman whose customers are mainly adults would use Madam Firstname for a friendly atmosphere, but a retail businesswoman whose customers are mainly children (teen-age students -- the 17-18 year olds among them are only LEGAL adults) would use Madam Lastname to maintain some authority and order in her business. Pippin wrote in : << perhaps even supplied Draco with Peruvian darkness powder. (Do we really think Fred and George would sell Draco anything?) >> They're businessmen. I doubt they would reject a good customer simply for being loathsome. Especially his owl orders. Even if they did reject Draco, they wouldn't reject the whole House of Slytherin, so Draco could have had Pansy or Blaise buy it for him. << I do think it was Lupin, but in fairness Tonks and McGonagall are also suspect. >> Considering that Tonks was acting like a fake Tonks (someone else using Polyjuice) all through HBP, which was supposed to be explained away as the effects of unrequited love, maybe the unrequited love was the fake and the real traitor was the person Polyjuiced into Tonks. Geoff wrote in : << First witch: I come, Graymalkin. All: Paddock calls anon; Fair is foul, and foul is fair, Hover through the fog and filthy air." (Macbeth Act 1: Scene 1) Paddock is apparently an old name for a toad. Seeing Catladfy's comment in reply, I've never heard of a cat called Malkin. The only place I've come across this is in the Shakespeare quoted above. >> I wasn't clear. Male cats are called tomcats because it was popular in the twentieth century to name male cats Tom. Female cats were called malkins in the past because it was popular to name female cats Malkin in Shakespeare's time, not now. I may be influenced by the American version of a tale about a man who came home late at night and told his wife that he had seen a big funeral procession of cats crossing the bridge. lots of cat mourners, and cat pall-bearers carrying a cat-sized mahogony coffin, and one of the cat mourners saw him and called out to him: "Tell everyone that Old Tom McGillicuddy the miser is dead!" And when the man said that, the sleeping tabby, Molly, who had been purring in his wife's lap, leapt up and shouted: "Old Tom is dead and I, Molly McGillicuddy his only daugher, am his heir! I'm the richest cat in America!" and she leapt out the window and was never seen again. In one of the British versions, there is a cat-sized golden crown being carried on the coffin, the announcement is 'Tell everyone that King Tim is dead!" and the sleeping tabby, Tom, shouts: "King Tim is dead! Now I, King Tom, am King of All Cats!" before leaping up the chimney to never be seen again. Rebecca quoted in : << "Yes indeed," said Dumbledore, and he raised his blackened, burned-looking hand. "The ring, Harry. Marvolo's ring. And a ter?rible curse there was upon it too. Had it not been - forgive me the lack of seemly modesty - for my own prodigious skill, and for Professor Snape's timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, des?perately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale. However, a withered hand does not seem an unreasonable exchange for a seventh of Voldemort's soul. The ring is no longer a Horcrux. >> And, in fact, he DID not live to tell the tale. He kept PROMISING to tell it when there was time to do justice to the drama, but he was killed before that happened. Alla wrote in : << But once again, how does Marietta comes into play? Is the argument that good guys like traitors IF they are good guys? I did not see it anywhere. >> Once again, Dobby and Kreachur. Both are House Elves who betray their owners in order to advance the faction whose beliefs they sincerely support. Kreachur betrayed the last remaining Black because of his loyalty to pureblood supremacist ideology. Dobby betrayed the Malfoys because of his loyalty to House Elf Rights (that most House Elves don't want). Dobby is viewed as a good guy who did the right thing even by those who find him exceeding annoying to associate with (and even tho' his motives are largely selfish: his own freedom, himself not being tortured any more). Snape and Pettigrew (as Alla points out in more recent posts) are another pair of traitors who did the same thing: betrayed their organization AND their old school friends to their deaths at the hand of the other side by way of joining the other side and serving it as spy. This case is not as equally balanced as Dobby/Kreachur, because it is emphasized that Pettigrew was joining the then-winning side for self-protection while Snape joined the then-losing side to help it at 'great personal risk' because he made a judgment of right and wrong. Those who accept this view of Snape regard him as a good guy (not neccessarily a good person) despite his magor flaws. Liking him is more variable. Firenze is a traitor to his Centaur herd, who broke Centaur law, and is viewed as a good guy because his treason consisted of saving Our Heroes. Honeykissed wrote in : << I am curious to see exactly "HOW" James and Lily got together. (snip) What if James put Lily under a "love spell". I am saying this because Lily obviously did not like James initially. How and why did she all of the sudden like him enough to marry him?? >> To me, Lily in the Pensieve scene ranting: "Messing up your hair because you think it looks cool to look like you've just got off your broomstick, showing off with that stupid Snitch, walking down corridors and hexing anyone who annoys you just because you can ? I'm surprised your broomstick can get off the ground with that fat head on it. You make me SICK." is So Obviously a teen-age girl who is in denial about having a crush on the boy she is condemning. She watches him closely enough to see the hair-mussing, Snitch-playing, corridor-hexing because he is a magnet for her eyes because of the crush. Pippin wrote in : << if a criminal's record has been sealed by the court, for example because he was a juvenile, do the aggrieved parties have a right to look at it? Do you think they deserve to? >> I recall reading a newspaper article a few years ago about adoption records, including original birth certificates, that were sealed by courts (20 to 50 years ago now) to protect the birth mother's privacy, that were being opened, without even notifying the birth mother (which would be difficult if she hadn't kept a steady stream of Change of Address notices there), by lawsuits by the adopted children claiming that they had a right to information about their biological parents. Some of them used the information to seek and contact their birth mothers for various reasons. Some of the birth mothers were pleased to see their former baby had turned out all right; one woman's current husband found out who this stranger was, and the woman had told him she didn't have any previous children, and they had a big fight about it, ending in divorce. My point is only that records being sealed by the courts cannot be trusted to stay sealed. "wombknower" wrote in : Professor Hooch. Besides the fact that I thought she was hot - she wore no hat, was as tom-boyish as JKR would allow any of the profs to be; and she had a butch hair cut. Anyone else notice that? .. oh, and she barely had any lines.. folks love to do that for those queer characters that get tossed into the movies. >> I'm pretty sure that Hooch in the book of PS/SS was somewhat less hot and more old-lady-ish than Hooch in the movie of PS/SS, but I have been certain since reading the PS/SS, CoS, and PoA in one week (before the movie rights were even sold) that Hooch and McGonagall are a couple, have been a couple for a long time, and probably Dumbledore hired Hooch for the Flying teacher position as kind of McGonagall nepotism: thus they can live together in their quarters in Hogwarts Castle without incurring much comment. I think (with no canon basis) that Hooch was a professional Quidditch player before she retired to a teaching position, and that she teaches a lot more Quidditch skills and strategy than we see; maybe the Gryffindor Team doesn't want it, but kids who failed the team try-outs might. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jul 2 06:42:32 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 02:42:32 EDT Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/ Message-ID: <52f.241b5c9.31d8c4d8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154740 Hermione marked a traitor, Umbridge hurt an innocent. Lots of difference to me. JMO, Alla Julie: Hermione marked a 15 YEAR OLD girl. Let's try not to forget that. She's still a child. The more this incident gets discussed the more I'm bothered by it. To leave Marietta with purple pustules all over her face for months on end, perhaps forever (assuming Hermione has no intention of removing them, which she hasn't shown to date), is not a nice thing, certainly not the act of a truly "good" person. I mean, would you do that, even if a girl betrayed your secret and almost got you expelled? And would you leave her that way for months, passing her in the hallway and seeing her disfiguring purple pustules--all the while knowing she doesn't even remember how or why it was done!--and feel not the slightest twinge of guilt or the impulse to remove the curse, thinking perhaps she's suffered enough? Or would you be like Hermione and not give it a second thought when passing her, feeling perhaps nothing but satisfaction at her mortification and pain (aren't pustules open sores?) Jeez, I'm really starting to dislike Hermione when I focus on the reality of what she's done (again, not just the jinx itself, but the permanence of it and her apparent disinterest in reversing it). But JKR referring to this incident in HBP does give me hope she will address it in the next book. Perhaps Hermione will get her come- uppance, and Ravenclaw their day, when Marietta saves Hermione's butt during battle! Oh, and while there is a difference in intent--Hermione marking Marietta for betraying her and her friends, and Umbridge marking Harry because she's a vile sadist--that doesn't make one action right and the other wrong. It just makes one wrong and one even more wrong. Same with some of the twins' pranks. Perhaps their intent isn't the same as the Dursley's, yet their "pranks" still hurt others at times. JKR is all about the grey, IMO. The bad guys can have noble impulses and the good guys can give into their worst impulses. That was the whole purpose of the pensieve scene. We like to imagine we are far removed from those who practice evil, but it's just not so. It's not that far a fall once you start down that slope. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jul 2 07:01:42 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 07:01:42 -0000 Subject: Book 7 news In-Reply-To: <554.13d037d.31d89dc3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154741 > patriciah711 at ... writes: > > snip> > > with > > interacting with her fans and giving them something to have fun > > speculating about. Because it should be fun to get to think and guess > > and argue. It's just a book series. It's not like she told us that two > > members of our family are going to die and it's excruciating to find > > out which. She means it to be fun. > > Sandy: > > You and I have a vastly different idea of what is and isn't fun. I don't > think it is fun, and I am not conviced that JKR does it for fun. I think it is an > ego trip for her and that she is metaphorically sticking her tongue out at us. > I know what's going to happen and you don't, nah--nah-nah-nah-nah. I think > it's hateful. > Julie: And I think she's giving the fans what they (most of them) want. Besides the thousands of online posts to various HP sites and forums speculating on what will happen and if/when JKR will please impart some information, JKR probably gets hundreds of letters a day asking her what is coming next--Is Snape good or bad? What does the prophecy really mean? Will someone die in book 7?, etc, etc--and her way of dealing with that is to reveal a tidbit of information here and tidbit there, without giving away any critical information on the plot. I don't think she is on an ego trip at all. Fans, especially in our Internet age, crave spoiler information. Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldron (to name two sites) don't have entire pages devoted to Book 7 spoilers for no reason ;-) While I'm sure the creative satisfaction is immense, and the money is great, being such a public figure means JKR simply *cannot* win. If it's not one fan demanding she drop a hint or two about what's coming, it's another calling her hateful for doing so. Ouch. Julie From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 07:52:47 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 07:52:47 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154742 > Geoff wrote in > : > > << First witch: I come, Graymalkin. > > All: Paddock calls anon; > Fair is foul, and foul is fair, > Hover through the fog and filthy air." > > (Macbeth Act 1: Scene 1) > > Paddock is apparently an old name for a toad. > > Seeing Catladfy's comment in reply, I've never heard of a cat called > Malkin. The only place I've come across this is in the Shakespeare > quoted above. >> Catlady wrote: > I wasn't clear. Male cats are called tomcats because it was popular in > the twentieth century to name male cats Tom. Female cats were called > malkins in the past because it was popular to name female cats Malkin > in Shakespeare's time, not now. > Neri: In John Macefield's "Midnight Folk" (BTW, a classic British witch story, highly recommended and had probably influenced JKR somewhat) there's a cat named Blackmalkin and a cat named Greyalkin, both males, which serve the witches in the story in their rituals and schemes. Macefield was perhaps alluding to Shakespeare's Macbeth, or they were both drawing from and older tradition, as suggested below. Some of the confusion may arise from the word Malkin coming from two different languages, Scottish and Hebrew. "Malkin" is probably a Russian form of the Hebrew word "Melech", which means "King". In the Hebrew translation of Midnight Folk (one of my favorite books as a kid) Blackmalkin and Greymalkin were translated "Black King" and "Grey King". According To Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malkin Malkin may refer to: * a cat, or a hare in Scotland * an old woman, especially if unpleasant, or a woman who is slatternly, lewd, or drab (also called maukin) * In European folklore, a demon pretending to be a cat [1] * Evgeni Malkin (1986 ? ), Russian ice hockey player * Michelle Malkin (1970 ? ), American political columnist * Myron Samuel Malkin (1924 ? 1994), director of the NASA space shuttle program * Peter Malkin (1927 ? 2005), Israeli secret agent Also according to: http://www.takeourword.com/TOW126/page1.html Between 1543 and 1661, Matthew Hopkins the "witchfinder-general" ordered the executions of three to four thousand women. One of these was accused of having a dog called Grizzel-greediguts and a cat named Grimalkin, both of which were (of course) demons in disguise. Grimalkin, is grey + malkin, that is, "a gray cat". In a drama by Middleton [1604], Hecate, Queen of the witches, exits with the line "Now I goe, now I flie, Malkin my sweete spirit and I.". Even Shakespeare used this clich? in Macbeth, when one of the three witches says "I come, Grey-malkin." Neri From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jul 2 12:28:25 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 12:28:25 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154743 Neri: > Between 1543 and 1661, Matthew Hopkins the "witchfinder-general" > ordered the executions of three to four thousand women. One of these > was accused of having a dog called Grizzel-greediguts and a cat named > Grimalkin, both of which were (of course) demons in disguise. > Grimalkin, is grey + malkin, that is, "a gray cat". In a drama by > Middleton [1604], Hecate, Queen of the witches, exits with the line > "Now I goe, now I flie, Malkin my sweete spirit and I.". Even > Shakespeare used this clich? in Macbeth, when one of the three witches > says "I come, Grey-malkin." Potioncat: Three to four ***thousand***? In 20 years??? OK, some of the Slytherin mentality is a bit more understandable. From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Jul 2 13:31:53 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:31:53 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, L... Message-ID: <554.1493ebf.31d924c9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154744 In a message dated 7/2/2006 8:29:48 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, willsonkmom at msn.com writes: Three to four ***thousand*Three to four =============== Sherrie here: Whoa - that's a bit much! Matthew Hopkins was a sick, twisted, sadistic SOB - but his reign of terror only lasted about TWO years, from 1644-1646 (he died in 1647 or 1648, apparently not long after the publication of his pamphlet, "The Discovery of Witchcraft"). The largest number of victims I've seen reliably attributed to him is about three hundred - which, considered he operated in East Anglia (his base was at Manningtree and Mistley, in Essex) rather than in a metropolitan area, is quite a few. At twenty shillings a witch, sounds like a pretty good living in the mid-seventeenth century. Still, average out 150 a year - that's a witch being "discovered" every couple of days or so. His "trials" were always public spectacles (though his torture was carried out very privately), so yes, I'd imagine that would be enough for anyone to get the wind up! It's certainly enough to have his name reviled in most Witch circles I know! IIRC, his title "Witch-Finder General" was apparently self-bestowed - there's no record that Parliament ever appointed him or gave him any such commission. His pamphlet was one of the resources referred to by the Special Court of Oyer and Terminer at Salem, which enthusiastically adopted some of his methods of "discovery". Sherrie History Fanatic Second Class [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katbofaye at aol.com Sun Jul 2 06:16:57 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 06:16:57 -0000 Subject: Saved from death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154745 I think Dobby is the one she has just saved from death. I believe that is the reason he was newly added to the birthday list. I think the timing of the two was a freebie to us from JKR. Did anyone else see this as a clue? katssirius From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 2 04:17:19 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 04:17:19 -0000 Subject: ESE! JKR ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154746 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Ken wrote: > > > > At times I wonder if JKR is trying to avoid the criticism that has > been leveled at Tolkien that he killed off too few of his main > characters. If so, she is overcompensating. I don't see where any of > the deaths that have happened to date are needed to move the plot > forward. We are not dealing with a war here in spite of how it is > described, we are dealing with a gangster and it is possible to bring > a gangster to heal without any deaths. For me the most telling > death in the book was the casual killing of the fox at Spinner's End. > Maybe it is just the canine lover in me but that one struck home for > me where the others just seem artificial. It almost seems like JKR > kills because she needs to, not because the plot needs to. > > Carol responds: > I disagree. JKR has described Voldemort's first reign of terror as a > war and has said that the second war is beginning. For that statement > to appear valid, she must have deaths, most of them offstage and > reported in newspapers but a few of them involving characters close to > the hero and the reader (Cedrid, Black, Dumbledore). Ken: I know what JKR and her characters say, but she has not sold me on the notion that this is a war and I know I am not alone in this. The DE are not an army, they hardly number 50 even counting those who have gone missing. They have allies that swell their numbers somewhat yet they are still hardly an army. They are a street gang. Maybe you could consider them terrorists. They are opposed by the Order which even though they are the white hats could be considered a rival street gang. You might consider them a citizen's committee or a posse, I suppose. Neither group represents a government. It is not clear to me that the MoM is a government either. It seems more like a free standing bureaucracy with self declared police powers. It is almost a third rival street gang. If none, or at most one, of the three organizations that are engaged are a government this cannot be a traditional war. It can't be a civil war, the closest thing the WW has to a government is not splitting. In fact it has hardly been engaged at all to this point. LV may be attempting a coup as he apparently intended the first time around but a coup is not a war either. I'm not as familiar with the body count as many of you are but my impression is that the DE are the only side that is slaughtering their rivals. Aren't the order capturing DE's as often as they can rather than killing them? Police capture thier opponents, soldiers do not capture when they can avoid it. Soldiers would prefer to seriously wound the opposing soldiers if possible, kill them if they have to, and capture them as a last resort. A soldier's prime mission becomes capturing the opposing army only in the final stages of a war when mass captures will quickly end the conflict. Another defining characteristic of a war is that military equipment is used. What military equipment does the WW world have? The closest thing I have seen so far is time turners and the less said about them the better. Thank goodness they are gone. Like policeman and gangsters this conflict is being waged with civilian equipment. It is curious how powerful the WW's civilian equipment is. All the more so when you consider that the society it is embedded in restricts ordinary civilians to using airguns of very limited power unless some very difficult hurdles are jumped. An ordinary wand is much, much more powerful than the weapons US citizens can easily buy, but it is considered civilian, not military equipment. JKR has said these books are about death. Any serious attempt to consider death has to be limited to very few, preferably one, death(s). When death is given to the reader wholesale it loses its meaning. War cheapens death as much as it cheapens life. Neither death nor life means much in a war. The death of Harry's parents was a totally sufficient platform on which to build a story about death. Because of Harry's partial responsibility Sirius' death could have been added to the mix. All this additional killing will just detract from the story, if its point is indeed to consider death. It would have been better if LV's return had been permanently thwarted or his second defeat quickly and easily accomplished in fact. I think the Harry/Snap relationship could be a very powerful framework on which to build a story about life and death and the choices we make. It seems to me that the noise of all the deaths that have happened and apparently will happen in the next book will drown out the message JKR says is central to the story. Ken From glykonix at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 19:48:18 2006 From: glykonix at yahoo.com (Adriana) Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:48:18 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154747 Glykonix: I'm supposed to be studying for my exams but I can't help but join in. >>Alla: It seemed to me very clear that she was not making excuses for Draco, just gave his reasons, but what I read from this paragraph reads to me as absolute excuse for Draco. WHY is it too much to expect from him? Doesn't he have his head on the shoulders to understand that murder is wrong/ Betsy Hp: What murder? I'm talking about Lucius being among the crowd that twirled the muggle family in the air. No one died there. And Draco doesn't turn on his father because he loves him and because muggle- baiting is not seen as a horrible wrong within the WW. We saw that earlier with the twins. Glykonix: For one thing no one seemed to think much of those muggles any way the way they obilviated them all day long. Wouldn't it have been easier to give them a sleeping potion or something for as long as the World Quidditch Cup was happening. And of course Draco should have been horrifeied by how father was dangling muggles in the air. But the memory of Draco turned into a ferret and bounced in the air is one of the best moments for Harry and Ron. so I totally agree with what Betsy Hp says: Yes, it's morally more mature, I think, to look at the action and divorce it from your emotional feelings about the people involved. But it's *hard*. And for some reason Draco is expected to make this massive leap, but Harry is not. >>Alla: See, I kept thinking about your argument that Harry did not have the same crisis as Draco did at the end of HBP and I realised something. I don't think he is supposed to. Glykonix: As a matter of fact I believe Harry had a very similar moment in PoA. Through the whole book he was set on killing Sirius, and yet when the moment comes he can't. (although I always questioned how did he plan to kill Sirius, I don't believe he knew any useful spells) That night he also really understand what killing is about and he stops Sirius and Remus from Killing the real traitor. >>Alla: How about being around Dumbledore and at least seeing that what Draco's side does is bad? Betsy Hp: Well, at first you have that house cup debacle in PS/SS. That wasn't going to win Draco over. But when Draco *does* finally interact with Dumbledore (in HBP) he does start to question his beliefs, I think. Hence his hesitation and his lowering wand. Glykonix: Exactly, I was wandering when would somebody bring the `house cup debacle in PS/SS'. It's not that the Gryffindors didn't deserve all those points, but did Dumbledore have to award them once the whole school knew Slytherin had won. Can't say I blame draco for not having a high opinion on Dumbledore, not only has he heard the worst about the headmaster from his father but he also Dumbledore humiliates his house. And yes when he actually interacts with Dumbledore, when Dumbledore actually goes and offers him a second chance, protection for himself and his family, yes only then does he understand that what he had been thought was wrong. >>Alla: I would not suggest Draco becoming Harry best friend and adoring him, that is not possible, but if nothing else as I said to realise that his side is bad and that is why maybe it makes sense to join the other even if he does not like people there much? Simply because they do not kill for a living and fun, if nothing else. Betsy Hp: Draco's father doesn't kill for a living. And if he does kill for fun, Draco doesn't know anything about it. When Draco *is* faced with killing he does start to question things. Glykonix: Again I totally agree with this. Draco doesn't know about the killings, he certainly hasn't seen death since he can't see the Thestrals. To him death is ghosts roaming around the castle and bed time stories about when the chamber of secrets was first opened. And on the topic of the chamber of secrets, I saw an earlier post about how he wanted to kill Mudbloods and help the heir. Well what can I say he was a 12 year old kids. Even in the RL 12 year old kids are quite thrilled about killing and gory stuff. Ron was very excited about the disfigured skeletons in the pyramids. >>Betsy Hp: For me it's the quivering smirk. [GoF scholastic hardback p.729] Too small? It is more than we get from either Harry or Hermione over poor Marietta's fate. Glykonix: Darn not only did I miss the 'kill the spare' but also the quivering smile, because I read the translated version of the book. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 14:28:11 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 14:28:11 -0000 Subject: On the Life and Death of Harry Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154748 This post was stimulated by a comment in another group and several news articles as well as general discussion on the subject. Many people are speculating that JKR will kill off Harry so she can end the series and never have to write another Harry story again. To that I say... bullocks. Harry is already dead...or alive as the case may be, his fate was determined many many many years ago, and I simply can't see JKR compromising or modifying her original story for such a petty reason as not wanting to write more stories. We know that JKR has written the final chapter many years ago, so Harry fate was already sealed. JKR has said she doesn't compromise her story to appease the masses; she writes for herself and if other do or don't enjoy the ride, so be it. But Harry's fate was sealed way back when no one ever heard of Harry Potter, way back when only one person on earth cared about him (JKR...of course), and no superfical or petty needs or desires of the moment is going to change his fate. While I certainly and desperately hope that Harry won't die, I am reminded of what Sirius said, (paraphrased) 'some things are worth dying for'. Somethings are worth dying for, and if Harry dies, it will certainly be one of those things. I hardly think that Harry will be hit by a bus the day after he defeats Voldemort; if it dies, it will be the most noble death. As someone else pointed out, JKR's books are essentially about life and death. In the first book, Harry parents have been killed, the Quirrel tries to kill him, he sees Voldemort in Unicorn blood sucking form, and ultimately meets Voldemort at the end. While we are at it, let's not forget the Dementors, that's not a happy image. So, JKR deals with lifes harsh realities, and regardless of a reader's youth, it is beneficial for them to deal with life's darker moments in books before experiencing them in real life. It established a safe framework in which they are able to comtemplate, and mentally and emotionally resolve those darker moments of life. In an odd sense, books are how we practice life. So, Harry is already dead (or alive as the case may be) and he has been so for several years now. That is not changing, and that is certainly not changing for any petty 'in the moment' reasons. Just thought I would pass that along. Steve/bboyminn From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 14:42:39 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 10:42:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Ethical Imperative in Harry Potter - why Rowling talks about death References: Message-ID: <012501c69de5$c4ed8590$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154749 > What IS meaningful is exactly what the fandom too often forgets, or > ignores, overrun as it is by a kind of television gnosis. The fandom > forgets that Rowling is writing, in all cases and at all times, about > life and death. > > There is no other subject, there is no other theme, there is never > anything else at stake in Rowling but life and death. > > Is this because Rowling has some odd fascination with death? Or is it, > as I hold, a sense that, in this world, almost every day, we are > making life and death decisions (but are generally careful not to face > the facts) - making decisions all the time, compromises, that keep us > from precisely the spot Harry is in, originally not by choice, but by > this point in the story, is there by conviction. Harry is at the > centre of things, and always on that razor edge. > > The comfortable fandom, however, can only refer obliquely to a part of > themselves that identifies with Harry and would do as he does "if > compelled". > > There is a circle of people in the Harry Potter series who operate > within this ethical imperative - it is not based on anything as goofy > as common beliefs or traits - it is based solely on whether or not > people facing difficult times share courage, friendship, and love, or > become self-centred, nasty little pricks, who worry only about themselves. > > That Rowling can be so clear about these things, and that the vast > majority of the fandom, including almost all of those over the age of > 10, don't get it, is weird as felt bananas. Rowling is saying: > > You know what's going on, don't pretend you don't know. If you act in > ways that exacerbate things because you kid yourself, you are not > operating within the ethical imperative, and you risk being a traitor, > a mindless follower of orders (like real world armies or terrorists, > where being a whole human being is anathema, cause whole human beings > don't blast other people to bits) or just really ugly and stupid, like > the Dursleys. > > We pass a nastiness on the street - do we run away? Help without > endangering ouselves? Drive on? At any moment of the day, we can (and > sometimes are, whether we admit it or not) faced with choices that > could be really uncomfortable, but mostly we avoid it. Harry Potter > cannot. He inscribes himself with a tattoo of honesty, that, although > it came from that sad cow Umbridge, is the centre and circumference of > his ethic. Rebecca now: Forgive the liberal snipping, please, as I hated to do it. This is one of those posts that I wish, I wish, I wish I had the eloquence you had in writing it. Like a soap opera, fans get caught up in the mashinations between characters, deciding on who is "bad" or "good" "abusive" or "manipulative" when focus on choices in a life vs death society can ripple as life moves forward beyond those who have perished. For example, as with any dictator, if enough people choose to join together and overcome the bane of their existence it would be so. The problem is, only a handful do make a choice. As Sirius says, there aren't just wizards who are Death Eaters and people who are not; the WW and our world are far more complex than that. Even making the choice "well, it won't happen to me so I'll do nothing" has its affects. I have often found it funny that the WW focuses on Harry as "The Chosen One" to rid them of Voldemort (ethically lazy on their part somewhat, yes?), yet all could band together and be Chosen Ones if they made the right choice or indeed, any choice at all. Rebecca From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Jul 2 14:43:42 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 14:43:42 -0000 Subject: Interview link In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154750 > Marianne: > > Agreed. I have not seen the whole transcript but I know she said > something ... aussie writes: Transcript http://www.mugglenet.com/mnnews/06262006/transcriptrandjudy.shtml Video http://www.mugglenet.com/mnnews/06262006/richandjudyjkr.shtml Sorry Marianne, I took you out of context a bit. Hope you enjoy catching up on Jo. I hope the elves don't mind this here instead of links. I thought it was relavent to current discussions. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 14:57:20 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 14:57:20 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/ In-Reply-To: <52f.241b5c9.31d8c4d8@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154751 Alla: > Hermione marked a traitor, Umbridge hurt an innocent. Lots of > difference to me. > > Julie: > Hermione marked a 15 YEAR OLD girl. Let's try not to forget that. > She's still a child. The more this incident gets discussed the more > I'm bothered by it. To leave Marietta with purple pustules all over her > face for months on end, perhaps forever (assuming Hermione has > no intention of removing them, which she hasn't shown to date), is > not a nice thing, certainly not the act of a truly "good" person. I > mean, would you do that, even if a girl betrayed your secret and > almost got you expelled? And would you leave her that way for > months, passing her in the hallway and seeing her disfiguring > purple pustules--all the while knowing she doesn't even remember > how or why it was done!--and feel not the slightest twinge of > guilt or the impulse to remove the curse, thinking perhaps she's > suffered enough? Or would you be like Hermione and not give it a > second thought when passing her, feeling perhaps nothing but > satisfaction at her mortification and pain (aren't pustules open sores?) Alla: Just wanted to briefly comment that I have not noticed that being fifteen diminishes the seriousness of other characters actions in Potterverse. Draco at sixteen planns to do Dumbledore assasination. Harry at fifteen has the burden of saving the world. At fifteen those kids play in the adults league and have to do something that some adults in RL will never get the chance to do. So, NO the fact that Marietta is fifteen does not help her much in my eyes, I mean, I will not put her in the "terrible person" forever, but I won't cut her slack only because of her age. BUT I wanted to clarify, while I perfectly UNDERSTAND what Hermione did and do not begrudge her trying to protect the illegal group from the traitor , I do not think that she employed the perfect strategy either. She should have talked and explained to them more before making them signt he parchment AND while I stand by that Marietta deserved what she got, I also think that leaving it for that long is cruel. But who says that Hermione can remove the hex, maybe it will dissappear when the concequences of Marietta's actions will be healed? Alla, who does not dispute that Hermione can be ruthless, but who does not have much problem with it because IMO her heart is in the right place. From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 2 04:44:53 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 00:44:53 -0400 Subject: Dr Neil shuddered for ONE of them (Was: Who dies?) References: Message-ID: <005101c69d92$43271a60$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 154752 snip > maria8162001 here: > IMO, JKR would not kill any character that is so obvious > to die or we expect to die in the next book. Like what she said > she love to pull the wool over her reader's eyes. > > Sherry now: > Actually, she has already done that, and it was the manner of the > death that was the shocking twist. Most people believed DD would > die in book six. But she managed to do it in such a way, > that even though almost everyone was correct in their guesses > about DD dying, I don't know of anyone who expected that Snape, > for whatever reason, would be the one to do it. end snip Kellie now: I agree with J. K. shocking us in book 6. I admit that I didn't expect Dumbledore to die until book 7, but I was upset when it happened, but I totally didn't expect it to happen as it did. When Snape made that unbreakable vow, I thought, there has to be a way out of it. It is way too obvious that he would end up being the one to kill Dumbledore. In the past, the most obvious person was always the wrong one. I couldn't believe the scene on the tower. I have to say, though, I was proud of myself for guessing who the half blood prince was, before we found out. I don't know why it came to me. But, I remember, going to sleep and right before I dozed off, it popped into my head. Snape I bet is the half blood prince, and it turned out to be so. Kellie From Cherokee.Angels at gmail.com Sun Jul 2 08:10:43 2006 From: Cherokee.Angels at gmail.com (Cherokee Angels) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 03:10:43 -0500 Subject: Book 7 news/who dies References: Message-ID: <00b001c69daf$04cab930$0300a8c0@aurora> No: HPFGUIDX 154753 > patriciah711 at ... writes: > > snip> > > with > > interacting with her fans and giving them something to have fun > > speculating about. Because it should be fun to get to think and > >guess > > and argue. It's just a book series. It's not like she told us > >that two > > members of our family are going to die and it's excruciating to > >find > > out which. She means it to be fun. Okay First off let me say Hi to you all I am a new member here. My name is Michele or Cherokee Angels or Mystical Cherokee are my nick names.................lol I have a few things I want to add to this subject for all to think about. First I don't think that DD is dead............ I see to many things that could be happening with this. First off we know that when Harry and DD went to the cave to get the locket it was told to Harry that no matter what Harry had to make DD drink the posion. If the posion was the same when the first locket was replaced with the fact then it killed RAB also. Because he would have to drink it to get the locket in the first place. But what if when he got the real locket you replaced the posion with a daughting posion that would seem to make the person look like they were died. It Book 6 the Posions teacher was teaching the class how to make this posion. And in the very First story Snape told the class that he could teach them a posion that would cheat death and also make them look like they were dieing. OR something to those words. I am not much for exact wording...............lol Now back to my train of thought...........lol What if RAB replaced the first posion with this daughting posion after drinking the real posion to replace the fact locket. What if the two posions looked the same and no one could see the difference. So I think that DD drank the daughting posion beliveing that he was dieing and Harry also believing the same. So before not knowing what DD would be facing when he got there He asked Snape and made him give him the same type of Unbreakable Vow, That so that DD would die a noble death to kill him so that he would not die a unforgiveable painful death. But if I think that this Daughting posion works the way I think it does it would protect him from the unforgiveable curse. OR to a point protect him. I believe that DD at the funneral was the Phonix that Harry saw in the smoke. I think that we might see that DD knew that Harry would not try to stop LV if DD was there to help him and Harry needs to do it all on his own for it to work. Now on to the question at hand. I think that JKR has many options to who to kill off in book 7 I think that it would not be a good thing for her to kill off Harry because that like in the reall world we all need to have a hero so to speak during war. And as if all the children in the world are watching to see Harry stop the Evil known as Lord Voldermort So it is more likely He will be the very last to die. As for the two others it could be many main people...............starting with Ginny ..............no I don't think she will go that way because Harry has had to much heart ache and needs to have a few good things happen to him. Ron and Hermione ...................no for about the same reason. Fred and George ...................could happen but I am in hopes that she will let all the Weasley family live because Harry lost all of his first family and really needs a true family to know and love that loves him . Lupin ......................could happen but I hope not being that he has already lost one of his Godfathers and in Siruis will lupin was to take his place as a God father. Tonks.....................no I don't think so because Lupin needs her in the true story to have a better life like harry needs Ginny and Ron and Hermione and the others........ to let Love concer all............. which is the one thing that LV knows not...................and can not have...................... Draco ................... Very well could happen because he messed up and was not the one to kill DD when he was told too by LV. Lucius ..................Very well could happen because he has messed up many times. But is still under the protection of the MoM in Askaban. Snape ...................Very well could happen because of many reason in the past and yet to be shown to us. Belltrix............very well could happen because she might try and kill Harry for her Lord which would be a big mess up because I think that LV knows he must kill Harry and no one else. Neville....................well this could happen being that he is also thought to be the one that could have been the one marked. And also has helped Harry so many times. If He dies harry will also fight harder because of him being one of his friends. Luna......................well could happen also just because she is one of the ones helping Harry. Hagrid....................could happen but it would be a shame...............because he has helped and loved Harry from the beinging....... Magongal.............. well it could happen but happen now would be a shame do to the fact that the school needs her to go on. any of the other Teachers are to small for it to be a magor effect on the story line. These are just my ideas on this and I love to hear what you all think. I have enjoyed reading everyones thoughts on this and other subjects. and Thank you again for letting me Join your Group. Michele From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Jul 2 15:07:17 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 15:07:17 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154754 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > And that Harry doesn't call Hermione on her behavior (Hermione > clearly knew almost *exactly* how many people were coming. She > invited the Hufflepuffs for goodness sake) allows Hermione to think > that this sort of behavior is good. And she continues it into her > bigoted manipulation of the Centaurs, her cheating Ron onto the > quidditch team (disgusting behavior that she *still* doesn't see as > wrong), and her trashy date shopping for Slughorn's Christmas part. > Of the Trio Hermione has become their weakest link. Not that she'll > *knowingly* do wrong. She'll honestly think she's doing right. > But, just like Umbridge, I think Hermione's self-righteousness has > left her with a broken moral compass. Hopefully her problems will > be recognized before she gets someone killed. > > Betsy Hp > Gerry Ron caught five, so she did not cheat him into the team, it would have been a draw. And it is clear that she does see it as wrong, but she did it anyways. Trashy date shopping? A seventeen year old trying to make the boy who she is in love with jealous? Her manipulation of the centaurs is not bigoted at all, she uses Umbridge's bigotry. Yes, she knows she is using the centaurs, but what is her alternative? Waiting till she gets another plan, waiting until Umbridge crucious Harry so much he tells her everything? Do you seriously compare Hermione's spur of the moment attempt to get Harry out of the claws of a very dangerous criminal to the actions of that same dangerous criminal? Besides, Hermione does know best: "Knowing they were doing someting to resist Umbridge and the Ministry, and that he was part of the rebellion gave Harry a feeling of immense satisfaction. He kept reliving Saterday's meeting in his mind: all those people coming to learn Defense Against the Dark Arts ... and the looks on their faces as they heard some of the things he had done..." p. 312 Bloomsbury edition To compare Hermione to Umbridge to me is just as ridiculous as comparing Ron's abuse of his prefects powers to Umbridge's abuse of her's. As for manipulation: what about Harry's manipulation of Ron? Ron who was completely prepared to play Quidditch when he thought Harry had spiked his drink with the Felix Felicitas potion, though he perfectly knew that this was illegal, and everything but sporting. I found the last actually very disturbing. Gerry, astonished at the negativity Hermione gets not only in this, but in other posts as well. From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 2 04:38:27 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 00:38:27 -0400 Subject: Being Good and Evil References: <007301c69bc5$c9c01870$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> <004b01c69bea$429632b0$f472400c@Spot> Message-ID: <004501c69d91$5ce46ad0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 154755 snip>>> > Magpie: > I would never say that we as readers can't see a clear difference, > but this "Those of us not raised by a corrupt, racist, abusive, > slave-holding, boot-licking murderer may have a different view of > life" is the whole point. One isn't really an objectively better > person just for being smart enough to be not raised by corrupt, > racist, abusive, slave-holding, boot-licking murderers. There are > tons of people like that in the world who grow up into corrupt, > racist, abusive, slave-holding (heh--like Harry?), boot-licking > (wonder if any of the heroes seem that way to some?) murderers. > Honestly, most people go through life never challenging the > morality that they were taught growing up--it's rare. And yet > still they often talk about their morality as if it's something > they earned or figured out themselves, unlike those other people > who think differently. end snip>>> Kellie now: I apologize. I meant to snip that part about the us being raised by people who aren't slave owners and things like that. I don't agree with that. Often, people who are raised in loving homes, with no abuse of any kind grow up to do terrible things. How often have we heard, he came from a good family, I don't know what caused him to kill someone. I wonder what Draco is going to do in the next book. If he will question what he has been taught all his life. I don't like Draco, for how he is, but I did pity him at teh end of Halfblood Prince. The fact that he wasn't able to kill Dumbledore, proves, to me, that he isn't all bad. Misguided perhaps. Kellie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 15:28:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 15:28:32 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione and Umbridge v Snape and Peter actions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154756 Alla wrote: > I mean if you would say that YES you think that Snape and Peter are > both nasty traitors, Judas who betrayed the group of their peers > and their masters, then yes, I can see where you are coming from, > but when you are condemning Hermione's actions without looking at > her reasons and do look at the reasons behind Snape's actions, I do > not understand it at all. > > As Snape would say if I look at Snape and Peter's actions, "I see > no difference", NONE. > > If I look further, then YES of course I see difference, but I ALSO > see plenty of difference between what Hermione did and what Umrbidge > did. Carol responds: Forgetting Hermione for the moment, I don't understand this comparison. Peter's information to Voldemort led directly to the murders of various Order members--the Bones, the Prewitts, the entire McKinnon family, Benjy Fenwick, who was blown to bits, his own best friends, the Potters. Snape's information to Dumbledore apparently consisted of plans and activities, as no one was arrested before Godric's Hollow, though it may also have involved the confirmation that certain people really were Death Eaters. Certainly he was a traitor to Voldemort, the irredeemably Dark Lord, but how is that a bad thing? And if his information led to the arrest and conviction of such people as Walden Macnair and Antonin Dolohov, why should we condemn him for "betraying" them? didn't they deserve to be sent to Azkaban? Should he have kept his mouth shut and let them continue to commit murder and mayhem just because they were his friends, if indeed they were? It would clarify your argument if you'd specify the differences you see. Thanks. As for Hermione and Umbridge, I see two differences: Umbridge repeatedly drew blood when she scarred Harry, and sadistically reveled in his pain. Hermione caused permanent disfiguration and humiliation, but she did it once, and not repeatedly, and drew impersonal satisfaction rather than obscene gratification from her action. Nevertheless, both thought that they were doing the right thing, and it's Hermione's, not Umbridge's action, that ruins a life. Umbridge is evil; Hermione is, I would say, mistaken in her actions and her view of herself as self-appointed judge and jury, an all too common failing among the Gryffindors. Carol, who thinks that Snape should receive credit, not condemnation, for risking his life to spy for the good side even if it involves "betraying" a gang of thugs, murderers, torturers, and Imperio specialists From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 15:33:32 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 15:33:32 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154757 > Also according to: > http://www.takeourword.com/TOW126/page1.html > > Between 1543 and 1661, Matthew Hopkins the "witchfinder-general" > ordered the executions of three to four thousand women. AD: He held the job for 118 years? Amiable "Must have been a Wizard" Dorsai From winkadup at yahoo.com Sat Jul 1 22:49:42 2006 From: winkadup at yahoo.com (Wendy Dupuy) Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 15:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060701224942.542.qmail@web34110.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154758 > houyhnhnm: > If Quirrell had succeeded in his attempt on Harry's > life, why would *Snape* have been investigated? What > would connect him in any way? AD : > A Potions class worth of students who could all testify to > Snape's antipathy to Harry, his own record as a Death Eater > , and the fact that, of the small group of people > present who could be expected to have the knowledge and > power to hex a broom, he was the most likely suspect. Winkadup: Might I ask if Quirrell could have conversations with LV, why then did he not confide to Snape? If Snape is truly on the Dark Lord's side, then why wasn't he helping him? From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sun Jul 2 15:47:23 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:47:23 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44A7EA8B.6040704@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154759 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: >> Hermione marked a traitor, Umbridge hurt an innocent. Lots of >> difference to me. >> >> Julie: >> Hermione marked a 15 YEAR OLD girl. Let's try not to forget that. >> She's still a child. The more this incident gets discussed the more >> I'm bothered by it. > Alla: > > Just wanted to briefly comment that I have not noticed that being > fifteen diminishes the seriousness of other characters actions in > Potterverse. Oh, of course not. Never, ever. Unless your name is James. ;-)))) I don't care to count how many times the argument "We can't define a man's whole life by his one moment of stupidity when he was 15" came up. But it is a popular one, I think you would agree. And yet people are perfectly happy to define Marietta's life by this one moment. She signed for study group. Suddenly it turned into "how to take on Ministry employees" course. Yes, her crime of believing the official stance of her society and not subscribing immediately to Harry's cult following certainly merits disfigurement for life. Sure. Now, sarcasm aside, I love Hermione, but she is becoming scary. I don't know if JKR intends to deal with it somehow or not, but the wizarding world is very lucky that Hermione is muggle-born. Irene From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 15:55:07 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 11:55:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/ References: <52f.241b5c9.31d8c4d8@aol.com> Message-ID: <018701c69def$e4b32c90$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154760 >Alla: > Hermione marked a traitor, Umbridge hurt an innocent. Lots of > difference to me. > > > Julie: > Hermione marked a 15 YEAR OLD girl. Let's try not to forget that. > She's still a child. The more this incident gets discussed the more > I'm bothered by it. To leave Marietta with purple pustules all over her > face for months on end, perhaps forever (assuming Hermione has > no intention of removing them, which she hasn't shown to date), is > not a nice thing, certainly not the act of a truly "good" person. I > mean, would you do that, even if a girl betrayed your secret and > almost got you expelled? And would you leave her that way for > months, passing her in the hallway and seeing her disfiguring > purple pustules--all the while knowing she doesn't even remember > how or why it was done!--and feel not the slightest twinge of > guilt or the impulse to remove the curse, thinking perhaps she's > suffered enough? Or would you be like Hermione and not give it a > second thought when passing her, feeling perhaps nothing but > satisfaction at her mortification and pain (aren't pustules open sores?) > > > Oh, and while there is a difference in intent--Hermione marking Marietta > for betraying her and her friends, and Umbridge marking Harry because > she's a vile sadist--that doesn't make one action right and the other > wrong. It just makes one wrong and one even more wrong. Same > with some of the twins' pranks. Perhaps their intent isn't the same > as the Dursley's, yet their "pranks" still hurt others at times. > > JKR is all about the grey, IMO. The bad guys can have noble impulses > and the good guys can give into their worst impulses. That was the whole > purpose of the pensieve scene. We like to imagine we are far removed > from those who practice evil, but it's just not so. It's not that far a > fall > once you start down that slope. Rebecca now: Hermione is a 15 year old girl who understands that betrayal can lead to the death, and loyalty and trust are virtues/values highly prized. For example, Marietta's betrayal of a "secret" if she were an adult and in the Order would have gotten someone else in the Order killed - instead, it almost got Harry tortured by Umbridge. Marietta made a choice to rat them out, it wasn't a mistake. In effect, she's a traitor: 'She's a lovely person really,' said Cho. 'She just made a mistake -' Harry looked at her incredulously. 'A lovely person who made a mistake? She sold us all out, including you!' 'Well. we all got away, didn't we?' said Cho pleadingly. 'You know, her mum works for the Ministry, it's really difficult for her -' 'Ron's dad works for the Ministry too!' Harry said furiously. 'And in case you hadn't noticed, he hasn't got sneak written across his face -' The next line in that exchange is Cho thinking that it was wrong of Hermoine to jinx the list and not tell them, but unfortunately I disagree. You take an oath, you perform to the oath. And yes, Julie, I would in this case as Hermoine pass Marietta with her disfigurement and not give a damn - loyalty and trust are that important to me. To me, the whole structure of what JKR has written emphasizes that this is serious business, acts of committment, trust and loyalty are not to be taken lightly. It's also intriguing that instead of going to her mother and telling her, Marietta chose to tell Umbridge directly. Doubly worse, IMO. I also think that even though her memory was modified, Cho could have told her why she had them. God knows one can speculate that Umbridge wouldn't have shut up about it to Marietta's mother, since they're both in the Ministry and Umbridge seems to play dirty pool pretty well so there's another avenue there for someone to tell her why she's afflicted. Curious how Marietta still has the pimples (not pustules) so the jinx must be wearing off in HBP - one would think since Marietta's mother works for the Ministry, she would have taken her to St. Mungos. They cured Katie Bell, so one would think a 15 year old's jinx wouldn't be something they couldn't have handled. Rebecca From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jul 2 16:11:07 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:11:07 -0000 Subject: Homosexuality: Was: Snape as the lover of Regulus Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154761 Carol: > For all its applicability, which as Tolkien says, "resides in the > freedom of the reader," prejudice in the WW is unique to that > imaginary world, and some of it is not only understandable but > inevitable. Perhaps it doesn't even deserve to be called prejudice. > Who besides Hagrid would really want a giant for a neighbor? Or a > troll, even if they can be trained as security guards? And even > species with "near-human intelligence" like Centaurs and house-elves > or goblins (all of them actually as intelligent as humans and at least > as gifted magically) don't need the same education as witches and > wizards since none of them use wands. > > What's the answer? Discourage the use of inaccurate and disparaging > terms like "half-breeds" (applicable only to a few characters in any > case) and let them run their own lives (live and let live)? End abuse > of house-elves and let them serve the human family of their choice? > what else would a house-elf do? I doubt they'd go off somewhere and > form their own society. > > At any rate, as Pip!Squeak says, JKR has deliberately omitted > questions of religious and racial prejudice because they would > interfere with and complicate the types of prejudice she's discussing, > including the important question of why those prejudices exist and > whether, at least in some cases, that prejudice is justified. Pippin: I think what JKR has done is show us a world where bigotry, rather than that traditional Western bugaboo, lust, is the universal temptation and the emblem of man's divided nature. In order to bring that off, sex and sexuality have had to be subdued, and all their attendant issues given short shrift, much to the delight of fan fiction writers everywhere. I don't think JKR shows prejudice as justified in any case, but rather, to put it another way, a sort of original sin: an inevitable consequence of being human. As childhood innocence fades away, we all come to regard some groups of people as more dangerous than others, though in truth every individual has the capacity to do harm. Even the good characters cannot escape prejudice. They can only recognize it as something they will have to struggle with all their lives. The problem then is not only with the conventionally wicked characters who reject the notion that prejudice is bad, but with the 'good' ones who falsely believe that they are untouched and prejudice is something that happens to other people. This reflects the RW teaching that prejudice is indeed universal. At the Los Angelese Museum of Tolerance, one can only enter through the door marked 'PREJUDICED'. The door marked 'NOT PREJUDICED' is, like some of the doors at Hogwarts, just pretending. I wonder if JKR means to tie this to her Christian beliefs by showing that through courage and forgiveness for one's enemies one can attack prejudice at the root and so resist the temptation to harm the innocent? Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jul 2 15:36:08 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 15:36:08 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154762 Alla:> > who does not dispute that Hermione can be ruthless, but who does not > have much problem with it because IMO her heart is in the right > place. > Pippin: Aha! That is just the way some of us feel about Snape. We don't dispute that he can be cruel and that he goes too far at times, but we don't have much problem with it because we think his heart is in the right place. I understand you feel that nobody whose heart was in the right place could act like that, but that is just the way some of us feel about what Hermione does to Marietta, do you see? Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jul 2 16:42:11 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:42:11 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/ In-Reply-To: <018701c69def$e4b32c90$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154763 Rebecca: > I also think that even though her memory was modified, Cho could have told > her why she had them. God knows one can speculate that Umbridge wouldn't > have shut up about it to Marietta's mother, since they're both in the > Ministry and Umbridge seems to play dirty pool pretty well so there's > another avenue there for someone to tell her why she's afflicted. > > Curious how Marietta still has the pimples (not pustules) so the jinx must > be wearing off in HBP - one would think since Marietta's mother works for > the Ministry, she would have taken her to St. Mungos. They cured Katie Bell, > so one would think a 15 year old's jinx wouldn't be something they couldn't > have handled. Pippin: Medically, pimples and pustules are the same thing, AFAIK. We can't tell from that if Marietta's condition is improving. Saying that a fifteen year old did it so St Mungo's should be able to fix it is underestimating youth again. Hermione mentions at the beginning of HBP that there are old curses which can't be removed, so she obviously knows about them. Harry learned in Snape's class how unfair it is to be hated for things you can't remember, for lessons you haven't had a chance to learn, and to be punished as if you were a grownup for errors you made childishly, in naive ignorance of the possible consequences. Too bad Hermione hasn't applied those lessons to her own actions as yet. It was all very Snapish, I must say. If Hermione was worried about a Pettigrew style betrayal, she would have done better to explain her fears to the group. Then they would all be aware of the dangers and they could all decide whether they wished to take the risk and what might be done to lessen it. Instead she let the whole 'Dumbledore's Army' thing be treated as a joke, yet she secretly enchanted the parchment to deliver a very serious punishment to anyone who betrayed the group. Of *course* she'd use a curse she didn't think could be removed -- the whole thing would be useless if Umbridge could have the traitor cured immediately. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 17:27:17 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:27:17 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154764 Amiable Dorsai wrote: A Potions class worth of students who could all testify to Snape's antipathy to Harry, his own record as a Death Eater (Many people seem to have believed Dumbledore's testimony only reluctantly), and the fact that, of the small group of people present who could be expected to have the knowledge and power to hex a broom, he was the most likely suspect. > > And then, there's the fact that Harry was playing against Slytherin. ;-) Carol responds: I hope that the wink in your signature line indicates that you're being facetious here. But if that's not the case, let's look at this incident realistically, shall we? Evidently only two people realized that the broom was being hexed, Snape (who muttered the countercurse) and Hermione, who saw Snape's lips moving and leaped to the conclusion that he was hexing the broom. Neither McGonagall nor Flitwick seems to have done anything more than watch, horrorstruck, like the other spectators, and yet surely they, too, would know the proper countercurses considering that they stripped down the Firebolt that Sirius Black sent to Harry to detect and remove any hexes he might have placed on it. And note that hexing brooms doesn't seem to be an uncommon skill at all, since they suspected Black of doing it, and many brooms are equipped with anti-jinx charms. Suppose that Harry had fallen and been seriously injured or killed (not likely since someone, perhaps McGonagall, would have slowed his fall, and besides, we've seen many falls in Quidditch and not one death at Hogwarts or the QWC). Suppose that *someone* suspected Snape. All they'd have to do is check his wand to determine whether it had recently cast a broom hex. Either the wand would show that he'd cast the countercurse, or, if he were ESE! and had just let Harry fall, it would show nothing related to the broom hex--exactly like McGonagall's and Flitwick's and everyone else's. IMO, if a hex was suspected, *Quirrell's* job would be on the line because he, as DADA teacher, would be expected to detect it and thwart it, just as it was Lockhart's job to deal with the monster in the Chamber of Secrets (however badly he botched that job). At any rate, if we examine motive, means and opportunity, all of the spectators had the opportunity to cast a hex (hundreds of people were present and no one would be watching them), and many of the adults and older students had the means (not only their wands but a knowledge of hexes). Any Slytherin or former Slytherin in the stands would have had a motive if being a Slytherin supporter counts as a motive. And if being sarcastic to a student who demonstrates ignorance of his subject is evidence of intent to murder that student, the WW's justice system is worse off than we thought. At any rate, I seriously doubt that OFH!Snape would have been thinking along these lines. He would have let him fall to rid himself of the rule-breaking brat. And ESE!Snape would have aided Quirrell rather than thwarting him and questioning his loyalties. (Merely keeping "unworthy Quirrell" away from the stone, as Snape tells Bellatrix he was doing, does not explain his thwarting Quirrell's attempt to kill Harry, who at that point did not seem likely to defeat Quirrell or even get inside the door.) As for Snape's record as a Death Eater, he had been cleared of all charges by Barty Crouch Sr. himself and had risked his life to spy on Voldemort and the Death Eaters. It's most unlikely that he would have been suspected of trying to kill Harry given that background, nor could it have been used against him in court. (Also, as I've stated in other posts, Snape's DE background does not seem to have been common knowledge.) You refer to "the small group of people present who could be expected to have the knowledge and power to hex a broom" and "he [Snape] was the most likely suspect" as "facts." Neither is a fact. Both are your opinions, and the second is the point you're trying to prove. Calling your thesis (main point) a fact is begging the question (taking the point you're trying to prove for granted)--which, of course, I know you didn't intend to do. The part about Gryffindor playing against Slytherin is indeed a fact, but it hardly makes Snape the most likely suspect, especially if Lucius Malfoy and other former Slytherins who'd pleaded Imperius to charges of being DEs were in the stands. And for all we know, Quirrell himself was a former Slytherin, who would be expected to know both the curse/hex and its countercurse. If there's a "most likely suspect," surely it would be p-poor, stuttering Professor Quirrell"? Carol, who hopes that disliking a student does not make a person a murder suspect even in the WW From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 17:29:51 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:29:51 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154765 > Neri: > In John Macefield's "Midnight Folk" (BTW, a classic British witch > story, highly recommended and had probably influenced JKR somewhat) > there's a cat named Blackmalkin and a cat named Greymalkin, both males, Neri again: It's of course John *Masefield* and not as I wrote before. This whole post was full of typos ? blame the late hour. If you like E. Nesbit's books I recommend ordering "The Midnight Folk" from the amazon.co.uk. For some reason Masefield seems to have been forgotten in the US, which is a great pity. The Midnight Folk is IMO better than Nesbit's best, and will give you some idea of the tradition that JKR builds upon in the HP series. I don't have any proof that JKR had read Masefield but I'd be very surprised if she hadn't. Her Madam Pince is probably an allusion to Masefield's head witch Madam Pounce. The Midnight Folk also has a sequel "The Box of Delights" which I gather is a popular Christmas story in the UK (a BBC mini-series was based on it) but IMO isn't as good as The Midnight Folk. > > Also according to: > > http://www.takeourword.com/TOW126/page1.html > > > > Between 1543 and 1661, Matthew Hopkins the "witchfinder-general" > > ordered the executions of three to four thousand women. > > AD: > He held the job for 118 years? Neri: At least this mistake is in the original website, not mine. As Sherrie mentions in another post Matthew Hopkins' regain of terror was 1645-1647. For more details see http://www.sawneybean.com/horrors/matthew.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins But the dates of 1543-1661 approximately fit the height of the Great Hunt in Europe. > Potioncat: > OK, some of the Slytherin mentality is a bit more understandable. > Neri: Well, it would have been if JKR hadn't made it clear that all these women were muggles, while true witches and wizards were never in real danger from witch hunts. I suppose the Slytherin faction could use them to justify muggle hunting. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 18:11:14 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:11:14 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154766 Potioncat wrote: > > OK, some of the Slytherin mentality is a bit more understandable. > > > Neri responded: > Well, it would have been if JKR hadn't made it clear that all these > women were muggles, while true witches and wizards were never in real danger from witch hunts. I suppose the Slytherin faction could use them to justify muggle hunting. Carol notes: But the Statute of Secrecy was passed in 1692, the year of the Salem Witch Trials, in which the convicted witches were hanged (and the one convicted warlock, IIRC, crushed to death by a stone block). Historically speaking, I don't doubt that they were all innocent (i.e., Muggles), but from the perspective of the books, they were probably witches and a wizard. The spells that froze the flames of the burned witches (who must somehow have faked their deaths or the punishment would have been abandoned as ineffectual) would not have saved them from strangulation or the bone-crushing weight of a block of stone). That these deaths occurred in Morth America wouldn't have mattered because the colonies were considered part of England at the time. The Salem Witch trials can't explain Salazar Slytherin's hatred of Muggles and Muggleborns, but they could certainly explain the new burst of fear that prompted the Statute of Secrecy and the continuing prejudice against Muggles that permeates the WW, at least among purebloods and some half-bloods, ranging from virulent hatred (Voldemort) to contempt (Hagrid) to condescension (Arthur Weasley). Just a thought. Carol, who thinks that the Salem Witch Trials showed the WW that it really was in danger, ironically just at the time that the danger was passing From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 18:13:29 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 14:13:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/ References: Message-ID: <026d01c69e03$38bc68c0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154767 > Pippin: > Medically, pimples and pustules are the same thing, AFAIK. We can't tell > from that if Marietta's condition is improving. Saying that a fifteen year > old did it so St Mungo's should be able to fix it is underestimating youth > again. Hermione mentions at the beginning of HBP that there are old curses > which can't be removed, so she obviously knows about them. > > Harry learned in Snape's class how unfair it is to be hated for things you > can't remember, for lessons you haven't had a chance to learn, and to > be punished as if you were a grownup for errors you made childishly, > in naive ignorance of the possible consequences. > > Too bad Hermione hasn't applied those lessons to her own actions as yet. > It was all very Snapish, I must say. > > If Hermione was worried about a Pettigrew style betrayal, she would have > done better to explain her fears to the group. Then they would all be > aware > of the dangers and they could all decide whether they wished to take the > risk and what might be done to lessen it. Instead she let the whole > 'Dumbledore's Army' thing be treated as a joke, yet she secretly > enchanted the parchment to deliver a very serious punishment to > anyone who betrayed the group. Of *course* she'd use a curse she didn't > think could be removed -- the whole thing would be useless > if Umbridge could have the traitor cured immediately. Rebecca: Actually, Pippin, I think she did actually worry about the "Pettigrew" style betrayal and she took the idea of trust between the members of the DA seriously as well. She didn't treat it, IMO, as a joke and others, including Ernie Macmillian, didn't either: 'I - I think everybody should write their name down, just so we know who was here. But I also think,' she took a deep breath, 'that we all ought to agree not to shout about what we're doing. So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge or anybody else what we're up to.' Fred reached out for the parchment and cheerfully wrote his signature, but Harry noticed at once that several people looked less than happy at the prospect of putting their names on the list. 'Er.' said Zacharias slowly, not taking the parchment that George was trying to pass to him, 'well. I'm sure Ernie will tell me when the meeting is.' But Ernie was looking rather hesitant about signing, too. Hermione raised her eyebrows at him. 'I - well, we are prefects,' Ernie burst out. 'And if this list was found. well, I mean to say. you said yourself, if Umbridge finds out -' 'You just said this group was the most important thing you'd do this year,' Harry reminded him In my opinion, she made them choose - put thy money (or this case signature) where thy mouth is. Some signed it right off the bat - others vacillated, which was quite interesting. Some would feel that it would have been better served ethically if no jinx was attached to the parchment the DA members signed, and I disagree with that. If you're committed to the cause and loyalty to your fellows in arms (so to speak) you're not going to think twice about signing anything. There is always a price to be paid on any contract where a signed party defaults (think of buying a house, a car, etc.) That's just the way I see it, and everyone is free to have their own opinion. Also, I wasn't discounting Hermione's youth at all - forgive me if I gave you that impression with my comment about St. Mungos. Actually, I'm giving her credit in a way, putting her jinx up with the big bad one on the opal necklace, which was very dark magic. Rebecca From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jul 2 18:14:07 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:14:07 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154768 wrote: > At one time, a Russian listie told us that it is common > for Russians to name pet crows or ravens 'Karkarov' after > their call: 'kar-kar'(spelled 'caw-caw' in American) and > added that his father had a pet raven named Karkarov. > According to The Online Etymology Dictionary > , our very words > 'crow' and 'raven' originated from the sound of their call: [...] > But ravens are also famous as carrion-eaters, and > 'Karkaroff' has always sounded to me like 'carcase' > (and 'canker' and 'cancer'),altho' that is purely a > resemblance of sound without etymological value, and > possibly idiosyncratic as well. houyhnhnm (not wishing to dispute any of this, merely to add to it): Karkaroff's name makes me think of the Latin word /carcer/ (prison) and its modern derivatives: Kerker (German), carcel (Spanish), carchar (Welsh-which without the aspiration would sound like karkar). Even though we don't see him actually in*car*cerated until nearly the end of GoF (in the Pensieve), he gives me the feeling of someone who is imprisoned, imprisoned by fear, during the whole time he is at Hogwarts, as he observes the Dark Mark growing stronger. His body is found in a shack where he has been hiding from Voldemort's followers. That also has the feel, to me, of a tiny prison. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jul 2 19:51:24 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:51:24 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154769 > Neri: > At least this mistake is in the original website, not mine. As Sherrie > mentions in another post Matthew Hopkins' regain of terror was > 1645-1647. For more details see > http://www.sawneybean.com/horrors/matthew.htm > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins > > But the dates of 1543-1661 approximately fit the height of the Great > Hunt in Europe. Potioncat: And then I just looked at the dates very quickly and came up with 20 years...I really am better at math than that, but this sort of thing explains why there's no credibility in any timeline post I write. It also explains why I don't find missing 5 hours a big deal . > Neri: > Well, it would have been if JKR hadn't made it clear that all these > women were muggles, while true witches and wizards were never in real > danger from witch hunts. I suppose the Slytherin faction could use > them to justify muggle hunting. Potioncat: Yeah, after I posted, I realized I'd made a pretty bad mish-mash of fact and fiction. Still--I never realized in RL so many women were executed as witches!!! From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jul 2 20:07:27 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 16:07:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/ References: <026d01c69e03$38bc68c0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <008201c69e13$24c2c7f0$d872400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154770 > Rebecca: > > Actually, Pippin, I think she did actually worry about the "Pettigrew" > style betrayal and she took the idea of trust between the members of the > DA seriously as well. She didn't treat it, IMO, as a joke and others, > including Ernie Macmillian, didn't either: > > 'I - I think everybody should write their name down, just so we know who > was here. But I also think,' she took a deep breath, 'that we all ought to > agree not to shout about what we're doing. So if you sign, you're agreeing > not to tell Umbridge or anybody else what we're up to.' Magpie: And you're suggesting that that is the equivalent of letting people know that they're pledging personal loyalty upon pain of disfigurement to the group? Do you think that's how Voldemort gets people into the Death Eaters? " 'I - I think everybody should get a tattoo, just so we know who was here. But I also think,' [takes a deep breath] 'that we all ought to agree not to shout about what we're doing. So if you get your tattoo, you're agreeing not to tell Dumbledore or anybody else what we're up to.' Hermione's hedging. First it's that they shouldn't be "shouting about" what they're doing, and then at her most strong they're just "agreeing not to tell Umbridge or anybody else what we're up to." This in no way suggests this is anything on the line of the Order of the Pheonix. Hermione herself would have broken that kind of promise easily if she felt things were getting out of hand and the right thing would be to go to the authority. And then she pressures people into signing the thing when they show right up front they don't like pledging allegiance to her. People aren't as loyal as she'd like them to be, but she plows ahead anyway. Rebecca: Some would feel that it would have been better served ethically if no jinx was attached to the parchment the DA members signed, and I disagree with that. If you're committed to the cause and loyalty to your fellows in arms (so to speak) you're not going to think twice about signing anything. There is always a price to be paid on any contract where a signed party defaults (think of buying a house, a car, etc.) That's just the way I see it, and everyone is free to have their own opinion. Magpie: But they're NOT committed to a cause, they're just joining a study group. Hermione's roping them into her own personal vision any way she can. When you default on a car loan you've been told what the consequences are. Hermione doesn't tell anyone the real stakes. You don't agree with Cho thinking it was a dirty trick of Hermione's, but Cho is a DA member and she obviously does. Hermione is very into her activism in OotP, pulling strings, knitting hats, figuring out things in the paper, picking the bad ass pub for the meeting. Maybe she's getting off on the idea that she's starting her own Order. But she's not. She doesn't inspire the loyalty to start a group like that, which is why she presents it as a study group and the Parchment as just agreeing not to tell on the group as opposed to a blood vow with punishment (and needs Harry as leader). When faced with kids who aren't even really sure they feel strongly enough to write down their name (which I believe is actually the thing that gives their names to Umbridge in the end), she guilts them and pressures them into signing, because she wants her army rather than reminding them to think about it carefully. The following year Luna or Neville asks if the DA's continuing and Harry says no, since Umbridge is gone and they can take DADA. It was never the Order of the Phoenix for him. It was just what it was, a secret DADA class to make up for the DADA they weren't getting from Umbridge. When it came time to go to the MOM Harry didn't call for the DA, nor was he surprised when most of the DA didn't come to his aid in HBP. Only Neville and Luna came, because they liked the social aspect of it. Ironically, In HBP the war really does come to Hogwarts--Voldemort is working at the school (as opposed to Umbridge who represented a slightly different evil, one that personally annoyed Hermione) and Hermione has nothing to do with stopping it. She's got different interests this year that replace stuff like the DA and SPEW (she doesn't even bother to protest when Harry gets his own slave). I think JKR has said that Hermione is a parody of herself as a teenager, and I see her punishment of Marietta as perfectly in line with the exaggerated teenaged girl activist. If she was really thinking on the level of stuff like Peter Pettigrew etc. I don't think she's be so impatient about getting the thing started. I mean, if you compare this to Peter it seems to me opposite every which way. Peter spent years earning the trust that rested on him, and there was no punishment for him if he broke the trust. The priorities of the Order seem to be exactly the opposite of the way they are with Marietta. -m From katbofaye at aol.com Sun Jul 2 19:03:48 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:03:48 -0000 Subject: Witch trials Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154771 Witch trials had been going on in Europe for 100's years prior to the Salem witch trial and estimates from 100,000 to one million people were tortured and murdered in Europe during that time. JKR consistently has shown a grasp on history that would indicate a knowledge of this early holocaust. Making it unlikely that a handful of people dying an ocean away would have bothered anyone in Europe. The actual history of witch persecution does explain Slytherin's hatred of Muggles. Of course at the time midwives, non-Christians, women who inherited estates, and inconvenient wives were the targets. katssirius From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Jul 2 21:32:55 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 17:32:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, L... Message-ID: <521.28d08d3.31d99587@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154772 In a message dated 7/2/2006 3:52:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, willsonkmom at msn.com writes: Still--I never realized in RL so many women were executed as witches!!! ------------------------------------ Sherrie here: The numbers depend on your sources - and of course, they weren't all women. Of the nineteen hanged at Salem, just as one of the best-documented examples, five were men; another man died under torture, and at least one died in jail. (And one of the accused was a five-year-old child.) For the period of the witchcraft executions (which is dated from approximately 1100 AD and by no means ended in the 17th century - Scotland's last recorded legal execution for witchcraft took place in 1727, about 600 years, all told), estimates run from a low of about 600,000 to a high of nine million. Given that Prince Bishop von Dornheim of Bamberg tortured and executed some 600 in two years in one city alone...well, I won't go with the 9,000,000, but 600,000 seems a bit low. One estimate for Scotland only (SCOTTISH REVIEW, 1891) says that some 3400 were burned in the 16th and 17th centuries in Scotland alone. Most of these people weren't witches by ANY definition of the word - they were misfits, or those whose accusation profited the witch-hunters, or sometimes women who'd refused the advances of powerful men. But - that's in RL. Twist it into the Potterverse - if even some of those were truly witches or wizards, tortured and murdered by Muggles, well, you wouldn't invite Muggles to your birthday party, either. The Knights of Walburgis might have begun as a defensive organization - but Tommyboy twisted it into something entirely other. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 21:34:49 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:34:49 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154773 > > Carol notes: > But the Statute of Secrecy was passed in 1692, the year of the Salem > Witch Trials, in which the convicted witches were hanged (and the one > convicted warlock, IIRC, crushed to death by a stone block). > Historically speaking, I don't doubt that they were all innocent > (i.e., Muggles), but from the perspective of the books, they were > probably witches and a wizard. The spells that froze the flames of the > burned witches (who must somehow have faked their deaths or the > punishment would have been abandoned as ineffectual) would not have > saved them from strangulation or the bone-crushing weight of a block > of stone). That these deaths occurred in Morth America wouldn't have > mattered because the colonies were considered part of England at the > time. The Salem Witch trials can't explain Salazar Slytherin's hatred > of Muggles and Muggleborns, but they could certainly explain the new > burst of fear that prompted the Statute of Secrecy and the continuing > prejudice against Muggles that permeates the WW, at least among > purebloods and some half-bloods, ranging from virulent hatred > (Voldemort) to contempt (Hagrid) to condescension (Arthur Weasley). > Neri: I don't see any reason to suppose that the people hanged in the Salem trials were (in the Potterverse) true witches and wizards. There are many spells that would enable a witch or a wizard escape from a muggle jail ? no reason for them to stay around for the hanging ? even if we don't consider that the wizarding community would probably come to their aid. As a whole I doubt JKR is even familiar with the particulars of the Salem trials. From her point of view we have Newt Scamander, Bathilda Bagshot and Prof. Binns all agreeing that persecutions by muggles weren't a danger for true wizards. It is true that there seems to be a disparity in time ? Binns' essay in PoA refers to the 14th century while in FB the Statue of Secrecy is from the 17th century. The most likely explanation for this disparity is that JKR, like most people that aren't very familiar with the history of the witch-hunts, mistakenly believed it mainly happened during the Dark Ages. Only when she did a bit of research for FB she discovered it was mainly a phenomenon of the 16th and 17th centuries. But still, she had Newt Scamander in FB mention Bathilda Bagshot's book as his reference. Note also that Florean Fortescue, who knows a lot about the history of the witch-hunts and is apparently from an old wizarding family (another Fortescue was a Hogwarts headmaster) doesn't appear to be part of the Slytherin faction: In HBP (Ch. 6) he's described as "a good man" by Bill and "disappears" with his place trashed, apparently by the DEs. OTOH the purebloods and DEs never mention the witch-hunt as justification for their deeds and indeed AFAIK never even suggest that muggles might be a threat to wizards in any way. Also, in the pretty long list of "famous wizards" cards and "Wizard of the Months" in JKR's site I can't recall a single wizard who was persecuted or hurt by muggles in any way. On the contrary, the current Wizard of the Month is Tarquin Mc'Tavish (1955 ? present) "imprisoned for crimes against Muggle neighbor, who was discovered trapped inside Mc'Tavish's kettle". Neri From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jul 2 21:55:27 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:55:27 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154774 Neri: > Also, in the pretty long list of "famous wizards" cards > and "Wizard of the Months" in JKR's site I can't recall a > single wizard who was persecuted or hurt by muggles in any way. houyhnhnm: Not killed but possibly persecuted, and certainly inconvenienced. Cornelius Agrippa--imprisoned by Francis I. Paracelsus--driven out of Basel and forced to wander Europe as a pauper. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jul 2 22:28:17 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 18:28:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/ References: <026d01c69e03$38bc68c0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> <008201c69e13$24c2c7f0$d872400c@Spot> Message-ID: <02d901c69e26$d12c6010$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154775 > Magpie: > And you're suggesting that that is the equivalent of letting people know > that they're pledging personal loyalty upon pain of disfigurement to the > group? Do you think that's how Voldemort gets people into the Death > Eaters? > " 'I - I think everybody should get a tattoo, just so we know who was > here. > But I also think,' [takes a deep breath] 'that we all ought to agree not > to > shout about what we're doing. So if you get your tattoo, you're agreeing > not > to tell Dumbledore or anybody else what we're up to.' Rebecca: Nope, that's not how Voldemort inducts folks into the Dark Eater Hall of Infamy. He does it by fear and intimidation instead, although I gotta agree there's a certain amount of coersion and manipulation. There is a parallel in canon though, where Sirius states it's a lifetime of service or death, and you can't "quit" being a DE (least according to his words in OoP when describing Regulus.) >Magpie: > snip> > But they're NOT committed to a cause, they're just joining a study group. > Hermione's roping them into her own personal vision any way she can. When > you default on a car loan you've been told what the consequences are. > Hermione doesn't tell anyone the real stakes. You don't agree with Cho > thinking it was a dirty trick of Hermione's, but Cho is a DA member and > she > obviously does. >She doesn't inspire the loyalty to start a group like that, > which is why she presents it as a study group and the Parchment as just > agreeing not to tell on the group as opposed to a blood vow with > punishment > (and needs Harry as leader). Rebecca: For a study group, it sure has a lot of importance, doesn't it? This is where we differ, I think, because I see the following and wonder if it really is a study group to pass an OWL: 'You want to pass your Defence Against the Dark Arts OWL too, though, I bet?' said Michael Corner, who was watching her closely. 'Of course I do,' said Hermione at once. 'But more than that, I want to be properly trained in defence because. because." she took a great breath and finished, 'because Lord Voldemort is back.' 'Well, they've forbidden me to get on the wrong side of Umbridge, too,' said Cho, drawing herself up proudly. 'But if they think I'm not going to fight You-Know-Who after what happened to Cedric -' 'Oh, please,' said Zacharias Smith, rolling his eyes and folding his arms. 'I don't think Expelliarmus is exactly going to help us against You-Know-Who, do you? "The attack might have succeeded had it not been for the fact that they unwittingly chose to stage the attack right outside a compartment full of DA members, who saw what was happening through the glass and rose as one to rush to Harry's aid. By the time Ernie Macmillan, Hannah Abbott, Susan Bones, Justin Finch-Fletchley Anthony Goldstein and Terry Boot had finished using a wide variety of the hexes and jinxes Harry had taught them, Malfoy Crabbe and Goyle resembled nothing so much as three gigantic slugs squeezed into Hogwarts uniform...." Interestingly enough, that group served to bring together those from different houses - and some of those relationships remain even after school, at least that year. And you're right, it wasn't the Order of the Phoenix for Harry, or any of them, even Hermoine. However there is a lot of focus on Voldemort being back and the students comment on being able to "fight" against him. My comparison is for ethics sake, not saying that the DA was the equivalent. The Order is based on such values as trust, loyalty, courage and honor, and as Lupin says: "The Order is comprised only of overage wizards,' he said. 'Wizards who have left school,' he added, as Fred and George opened their mouths. "There are dangers involved of which you can have no idea, any of you. I think Molly's right, Sirius. We've said enough." I'll be flamed by many for saying at this point, but the Weasley Twins, Ron, Harry are too young in the beginning of OoP to understand these concepts fully and the dangers involved if one person in the Order violates the trust. The last time it happened, at the very least Harry's parents died if not others prior to that as a result of 1 person's betrayal. (It's not discounting youth, it's just a question of life experience.) Hermoine's actions, while uncomfortable for some, reveal to me that she has learned that not everyone can be trusted and tries to avert disclosure at the very least. I believe this because I think some thought had to be put into the parchment, jinx, and the approach and begets the question "why?" IMO, see the aforementioned sentence. >Magpie: > Ironically, In HBP the war really does come to Hogwarts--Voldemort is > working at the school (as opposed to Umbridge who represented a slightly > different evil, one that personally annoyed Hermione) and Hermione has > nothing to do with stopping it. Rebecca: I'm sorry, Voldemort is working at the school? I must have misunderstood what you're trying to say, as I wasn't aware he working there. >Magpie: > I mean, if you compare this to Peter it seems to me opposite every which > way. Peter spent years earning the trust that rested on him, and there > was > no punishment for him if he broke the trust. The priorities of the Order > seem to be exactly the opposite of the way they are with Marietta. Rebecca: I don't know about Peter not getting any punishment for violation of his friends' trust whether he earned the trust in the past or not; LV says it far better than me: "You returned to me, not out of loyalty, but out of fear of your old friends" He lost everything that mattered, didn't he? He may not have signed a contract, but he sure paid didn't he? And note, he's no longer in the OoP. Somehow, I think Peter's situation is far worse than Marietta's. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Jul 3 00:20:22 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 20:20:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maybe Harry doesn't die??? Message-ID: <3bd.497629c.31d9bcc6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154777 In a message dated 6/29/06 6:33:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk writes: > Geoff: > I might be totally wrong but I quoted this before and have always > taken a measure of hope from it: > > "In years to come, Harry would never quite remember how he had > managed to get through his exams when he half expected > Voldemort to come bursting through the door at any moment." > > (PS "Through the Trapdoor" p.189 UK edition) > > I don't think he had time for these retrospective thoughts in his > Hogwarts years - he was too busy dodging bludgers, Inquisitors, > Voldemorts and proto-Voldemorts. > > Geoff > Life member of IWHTLC. > > > > > Sandy: I think that's an astute observation and I remember having the impression he was looking back on his school years when he had that thought too. May I join your IWHTLC too? A lifetime membership just like yours? Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 00:30:16 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 00:30:16 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione , Marietta etc/ DD trust in Snape LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154778 > Alla wrote: >> > As Snape would say if I look at Snape and Peter's actions, "I see > > no difference", NONE. > > > > If I look further, then YES of course I see difference, but I ALSO > > see plenty of difference between what Hermione did and what Umrbidge > > did. > > Carol responds: > Forgetting Hermione for the moment, I don't understand this > comparison. It would clarify your argument if you'd specify the differences you > see. Thanks. Alla: Sorry, I thought I was clear enough this time. :) Let me try again. The argument goes like this. First for the sake of this argument only I accept that Snape betrayal of Voldemort was genuine, he repented, etc,etc. Now, back to the ACTION only. The argument was made that what Hermione did to Marietta was bad no matter what, that ACTION in itself was bad, just as what Umbridge did to Harry was bad in itself no matter what the reason. I disagreed saying that for me it is necessary to look beyond the action very often, to look at WHY the action happened. I mean sure some actions to me are bad no matter what, but this one to me can be either good or bad depending on the reasons and motivations behind it. So, to illustrate the idea that I very often look at the AIM behind the action, I brought up Snape and Peter. Wouldn't you agree that IF we do not look at the reasons behind their betrayal, betrayal in itself is BAD. I mean, as I told someone yesterday if I am not mistaken in Dante "Divine comedy" the last and worst circle of hell is occupied by traitors. I mean, if we forget about what views the people on both sides held, Snape betrayed his friends and comrades AND his boss to other side, who holds diametrally opposed views, who will put all of them to Azkaban, with or without trial. Now I AGREE with all the reasons you gave that if Snape's betrayal is genuine, it is the RIGHT thing to do, BUT to find that out I need to look at WHY he did it. Makes sense? Just as with what Hermione did, I look at the WHY and while I do not find her strategy perfect, I find it perfectly understandable. > > Alla: > > > > Just wanted to briefly comment that I have not noticed that being > > fifteen diminishes the seriousness of other characters actions in > > Potterverse. Irene: > Oh, of course not. Never, ever. Unless your name is James. ;-)))) > > I don't care to count how many times the argument "We can't define a > man's whole life by his one moment of stupidity when he was 15" came up. > But it is a popular one, I think you would agree. > > And yet people are perfectly happy to define Marietta's life by this one > moment. Alla: I am trying very hard to find where I said that Marietta's LIFE should be defined by this one moment and fail. Help me? Quite the contrary, in the part that you snipped I said that I would not call Marietta a "terrible person" because of this one action, but I refuse to diminish the seriousness of this ACTION just BECAUSE she is fifteen. I think it is a little bit different from how you stated my argument. I am also not sure what relevance James has to this discussion, who I don't remeber betrayed anyone. > >Magpie: > > > snip> > > > But they're NOT committed to a cause, they're just joining a study group. > Alla: JUST a study group? It is at the very least a study group who studying something that ministry appointed official purposefully refuses to teach them, so IMO being in study group makes them in opposition to this ministry official and by extension to the Ministry. Sorry, sounds as much much more than a study group to me. > Rebecca: > > For a study group, it sure has a lot of importance, doesn't it? This is > where we differ, I think, because I see the following and wonder if it > really is a study group to pass an OWL: > Interestingly enough, that group served to bring together those from > different houses - and some of those relationships remain even after school, > at least that year. And you're right, it wasn't the Order of the Phoenix > for Harry, or any of them, even Hermione. However there is a lot of focus on > Voldemort being back and the students comment on being able to "fight" > against him. My comparison is for ethics sake, not saying that the DA was > the equivalent. Alla: Bec dear, I love you. YES, me too, me too with everything you said. > Carol responds: > And if being sarcastic to a student who demonstrates ignorance of his > subject is evidence of intent to murder that student, the WW's justice > system is worse off than we thought. > > At any rate, I seriously doubt that OFH!Snape would have been thinking > along these lines. He would have let him fall to rid himself of the > rule-breaking brat. Alla: or OFH!Snape could have realized that Dumbledore memory is " as good as ever" and that Dumbledore may have remember how much love Snape hold towards James ( and vice versa) and by extension towards Harry AND OFH!Snape may have realized that no matter how much Dumbledore closes his eyes at abuse ( my opinion only of course) Snape dishes at Harry, Dumbledore is HIGHLY unlikely to close his eyes at Snape murdering him. That means Snape loosing the most valuable thing he IMO has going for himself - the safety of Hogwarts, the protection of strongest wizard in WW. Nope, if I were OFH SNape I would not DARE to let Harry fall, IMO of course. > Alla:> > > who does not dispute that Hermione can be ruthless, but who does not > > have much problem with it because IMO her heart is in the right > > place. > > > > Pippin: > Aha! That is just the way some of us feel about Snape. We don't > dispute that he can be cruel and that he goes too far at times, but > we don't have much problem with it because we think his heart is > in the right place. > > I understand you feel that nobody whose heart was in the right place > could act like that, but that is just the way some of us feel about what > Hermione does to Marietta, do you see? Alla: Pippin, I really do not mean to sound snippy here, but what is your point? IF the point is to ask me whether I understand the analogy then sure, I absolutely do. If the point is whether I can see HOW Snape's heart can be in the right place BECAUSE he behaves like this, then no I don't see it at all. Above in this post I said that I for the most part have to look at WHY of the actions, yes, but I also said that some of the actions are so unconscionable on its face that they are just bad and YES I understand that this is how some ( or many, don't have the mumbers) list members feel about what Hermione did. I understand that, it is basically not possible for me to understand where they are coming from on this issue, but yes, I accept that it is also not possible for them to understand where I am coming from on the issue on Snape's actions. JMO, Alla From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 3 01:07:03 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 21:07:03 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... Message-ID: <3b0.4762b38.31d9c7b7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154779 >Magpie >Likewise Marietta is not scarred because her actions passively led to disfigurement, she's scarred because Hermione intentionally created a disfigurement hex and placed it on her without her knowing, ready to go if Marietta told anyone about her (Hermione's) secret study group/army. It's not only a case of just the natural consequence of Marietta's actions even if Marietta activated the hex by telling about the DA (something I can easily imagining Hermione herself doing under different circumstances with different people leading the DA). (By this line of reasoning had Slughorn drunk the mead he bought for Dumbledore and died of it in HBP, it wouldn't be because Draco intentionally poisoned it and got it inside the school, but because Slughorn was greedy and drank a bottle of mead meant for Dumbledore.) There are plenty of times in canon when, imo, characters wind up suffering the bad consequences of their own actions, but I don't think that applies to situations when one character decides to hurt another for whatever reason. When that happens the choice lies with them for introducing the violence/poison whatever. "This person did this bad thing so I had to punish him!" I think that kind of thinking gets into worse ethical territory than the things they're punishing. When the person is really just suffering the consequences of his/her own actions, or feels like they are, I think it's usually cause for more reflection on their part and the readers. Nikkalmati: I cannot agree here. Marietta is a clear case of someone suffering the bad consequences of her own actions. HG never intentionally hexed Marietta and did not intend for anyone to be hexed. I am sure she would have been perfectly happy if no one had set off the SNEAK mark. HG set a trap for anyone who violated the contract. Retribution was automatic and not within HG's control. Maybe she should have made the consequences explicit, but IMO in the WW even teenagers should know there are consequences for breaking a magical oath. Marietta did not happen upon rule breaking like Draco finding out about Norbert by spying on the Trio. She took a magical oath. I have never been a fan of the idea that "ratting" on your friends is wrong where there is real harm being done, but in this case Marietta had agreed not to do precisely what she did do. She did have other choices IMO, including going to Harry and asking for an explanation. As far as the length of time she is marked, I don't think several months is an indication that she will be marked "forever." If she does not know how she got the marks, it may not be possible to remove them. A countercurse logically requires knowledge of the curse. She would not know to go to HG for help and she may be afraid of DD now. Why can't Cho help her? She could ask Harry to find out what the curse was, if she does not want to talk to HG. Nikkalmati (who thinks the marks will fade eventually or go away when LV is gone and the DA is not needed). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jul 3 02:32:37 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 22:32:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... References: <3b0.4762b38.31d9c7b7@aol.com> Message-ID: <00c601c69e48$fed95e10$d872400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154780 > Nikkalmati: > I cannot agree here. Marietta is a clear case of someone suffering the > bad > consequences of her own actions. HG never intentionally hexed Marietta > and > did not intend for anyone to be hexed. Magpie: She intentionally created a hex and it worked as intended. That she threw the hex pre-emptively or would have been happy if no one tripped that trap doesn't remove her from the equation. Marietta was unaware of taking a magical oath, and the oath started with the person who created it. I understand that many people stand behind Hermione's decision to cast the curse, but at least that acknowledges Hermione being the one acting. A lot of work went into that result, all on Hermione's part. Nikkalmati: > As far as the length of time she is marked, I don't think several months > is > an indication that she will be marked "forever." If she does not know how > she got the marks, it may not be possible to remove them. A countercurse > logically requires knowledge of the curse. She would not know to go to HG > for > help and she may be afraid of DD now. Why can't Cho help her? She could > ask > Harry to find out what the curse was, if she does not want to talk to HG. Magpie: I think once we talk about something continuing on into a second book we're talking about a significantly long time--JKR could have easily just had it gone by HBP or not brought it up. Hermione could also take the initiative and help Marietta without being asked. To me it sounds very much like the whole Montague story, which I think turned out to be a little sour for them. Nikkalmati: > Nikkalmati (who thinks the marks will fade eventually or go away when LV > is > gone and the DA is not needed). Magpie: The DA's gone with the OotP. Harry states early on it's not needed now they've got a real DADA teacher. Rebecca: For a study group, it sure has a lot of importance, doesn't it? This is where we differ, I think, because I see the following and wonder if it really is a study group to pass an OWL: 'You want to pass your Defence Against the Dark Arts OWL too, though, I bet?' said Michael Corner, who was watching her closely. 'Of course I do,' said Hermione at once. 'But more than that, I want to be properly trained in defence because. because." she took a great breath and finished, 'because Lord Voldemort is back.' Magpie: Yes, it's a special study group because it's illegal. All the students acknowledge that learning the Dark Arts is especially important because Voldemort is coming back. But they're still having a secret DADA class. The results would not have been very different if they'd been having secret Quidditch games after Umbridge forbid their houses to play. What they say doesn't reflect the life they're actually in--as you said, the kids are too young to really understand this sort of thing with regards to the Order in OotP. Rebecca: I'm sorry, Voldemort is working at the school? I must have misunderstood what you're trying to say, as I wasn't aware he working there. Magpie: I was referring to the assassin of Dumbledore plot in HBP which only Harry correctly recognizes as important. Rebecca: I don't know about Peter not getting any punishment for violation of his friends' trust whether he earned the trust in the past or not; LV says it far better than me: "You returned to me, not out of loyalty, but out of fear of your old friends" He lost everything that mattered, didn't he? Magpie: Peter's punishment is the natural result of his actions that he must live with, not a secret hex that James put on him in case he ever betrayed him. I'm totally supportive of that type of punishment--and I do think it's a lot more chilling too. -m From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Jul 3 03:21:20 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:21:20 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE! JKR ?/not hardly Message-ID: <573.691c09.31d9e730@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154781 Jen D wrote: > Lupinlore, > As the recipient of your pleasantries in previous times, I can only > ask yet again why do you continue to waste your very precious time > with JKR? Is your time of so little value that you will come on this > list to degrade her writing (notice I didn't say give a valid and > concise critique) and say it's contemptible and still stick around? > Isn't that more than a bit odd? Something about her is has gotten > under your skin and I do believe it's more than the desire to see how > badly she wrecks the series. Do share. > Jen D. heard the stuff about the chipper before... > > Sandy responds: I am not Lupilore, nor do I advocate his opinion of child abuse in the series, but I do believe he has a right to his opinions and to express them. I am responding to this because I, myself, do not like JKR, no way, no how. Furthermore, I do not like the last two books. It is my hope that she will redeem herself with the last and final book, but I have my doubts, which have been fueled by her recent interview which also lowered my opinion of her more. I would not, for love nor money, state my reasons for disliking JKR on this list. I have done so on other lists and been viciously attacked for them. I have learned my lesson and will never again express my opinions, even though I have the right to have them. I "waste my time" on JKR and this list because I do love Harry Potter and am willing to listen to other people's ideas, opinions and theories and possibly change my own. I have already done so once because I am now firmly in DDM!Snape's camp, but was not when I joined this list. Once the Harry Potter series is over I am done with JKR, no matter what the outcome is, but I have asked for a place in line to borrow Lupinlore's chipper IF Harry dies. I have not invested all this time, money and emotion rallying behind a boy having to overcome so much adversity, only to see him die in the end. There is no doubt that JKR has a macabre side to her, but that would be going too far. I don't know if it was Lupinlore or someone else who said that , despite what JKR says, she does care whether she has only 6 fans left at the end of the series. I will expand on that and say she *should* care. Her fans have made her what she is today, and since she intends to continue her career as a writer she needs to care about how her fans feel. Sandy, upholding Lupinlore's right to state his opinions without being attacked for having them. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 03:28:15 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:28:15 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154782 Neri wrote: > I don't see any reason to suppose that the people hanged in the Salem trials were (in the Potterverse) true witches and wizards. There are many spells that would enable a witch or a wizard escape from a muggle jail ? no reason for them to stay around for the hanging ? even if we don't consider that the wizarding community would probably come to their aid. As a whole I doubt JKR is even familiar with the particulars of the Salem trials. From her point of view we have Newt Scamander, Bathilda Bagshot and Prof. Binns all agreeing that > persecutions by muggles weren't a danger for true wizards. >OTOH the purebloods and DEs never mention the witch-hunt as justification for their deeds and indeed AFAIK never even suggest that muggles might be a threat to wizards in any way. > > Carol responds: In which case, why was the Statute of Secrecy passed in 1692? I, for one, doubt that the date is a coincidence. Not everyone is familiar with medieval witch hunts of whatever variety, but the Salem witch trials are very well known. And those witches and wizards *were* British. It seems to me a perfect justification--or excuse--to separate the Muggle and Wizarding worlds, and to keep the existence of the WW a secret. What Binns, Bagshot, et al. were agreeing is that witch *burning* did not hurt witches. They said nothing about hanging and the other methods used in Salem. We've seen that witches and wizards can suffer bruises, broken bones, and drowning like anyone else; it seems likely that they would die from hanging as well if they didn't have their wands; and using their wands would have proven them guilty. I'm not suggesting that the DEs used the Salem witch trials as justification for Muggle baiting. I'm saying that it may well have prompted the Statute of Secrecy in the same year. And FWIW, the Salem Institute has its own tent at the QWC, indicating that JKR is indeed familiar at least with the trials themselves and their results if not with the details, and making a definite connection between Salem and witches. Carol, convinced that the date is no coincidence and thinking that JKR may not be aware of the vast numbers of people who actually died in the European persecutions From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 03:29:24 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:29:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... References: <3b0.4762b38.31d9c7b7@aol.com> <00c601c69e48$fed95e10$d872400c@Spot> Message-ID: <038d01c69e50$e1c9f840$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154783 > Magpie: > Yes, it's a special study group because it's illegal. All the students > acknowledge that learning the Dark Arts is especially important because > Voldemort is coming back. But they're still having a secret DADA class. > The results would not have been very different if they'd been having > secret > Quidditch games after Umbridge forbid their houses to play. What they say > doesn't reflect the life they're actually in--as you said, the kids are > too > young to really understand this sort of thing with regards to the Order in > OotP. Rebecca: If they were having a secret DADA class, they probably shouldn't have allowed it to be named Dumbledore's Army ;) Sorry, found that ironic...but understand it lends to the plot so off we go... Let me be perfectly clear here with what I am about to say. IMO, the canon I provided is indicative of the environment in which they are portrayed as believing they need to cope with - Voldemort's back, and we need to be able to defend ourselves. Even Umbridge herself asks them if they think that Voldemort is going to come skating in to attack them during one of their first DADA classes. In comparison, Quidditch is a game - not a life or death reality, like Voldemort and his Merry Band of Death Eaters, that they believe they are faced with. Again, IMO they are old enough for fear, worry, and anxiety. What teenageer does anyone know that isn't afflicted by those same emotions naturally? :) I find it interesting that some wish to hold Hermione, as a 15 year old girl, to the same standard of ethical perfection as an adult. I wonder why these "kids" aren't seen by the fandom as just making mistakes or bad judgement while maturing to adults? IMO, it's all about growing up and learning, isn't it? Rebecca From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jul 3 03:56:30 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:56:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... References: <3b0.4762b38.31d9c7b7@aol.com> <00c601c69e48$fed95e10$d872400c@Spot> <038d01c69e50$e1c9f840$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <00d901c69e54$ab8e77c0$d872400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154784 > Rebecca: > > If they were having a secret DADA class, they probably shouldn't have > allowed it to be named Dumbledore's Army ;) Sorry, found that > ironic...but understand it lends to the plot so off we go... Magpie: No problem--the name itself is ironic, after all. It's a joke about what the group isn't--and then looks bad when they get caught. Rebecca: > Let me be perfectly clear here with what I am about to say. IMO, the canon > I provided is indicative of the environment in which they are portrayed as > believing they need to cope with - Voldemort's back, and we need to be > able to defend ourselves. Even Umbridge herself asks them if they think > that Voldemort is going to come skating in to attack them during one of > their first DADA classes. In comparison, Quidditch is a game - not a life > or death reality, like Voldemort and his Merry Band of Death Eaters, that > they believe they are faced with. Magpie: Oh yes, I understand the difference between the two, and see that's a good reason why the kids have the DA and not a secret Quidditch squad. But another clear storyline in OotP is that Voldemort's return isn't something that everyone believes. The experience of the kids who are in Harry's inner circle is different from the kids on the outside, like Marietta. It just seems very odd that this character out of everyone in OotP is the one who needs such a permenant and serious punishment. I can't help but think we are supposed to wonder this too, because otherwise I wonder why JKR felt it was necessary to tell us that this minor character is still hexed. I fully expected it to be dropped by HBP, with the understanding it had cleared up, so now I wonder if it's there for a specific reason. Umbridge herself is back and work in HBP (even if I think JKR said she's going to be tortured later). Rebecca: > I find it interesting that some wish to hold Hermione, as a 15 year old > girl, to the same standard of ethical perfection as an adult. I wonder why > these "kids" aren't seen by the fandom as just making mistakes or bad > judgement while maturing to adults? IMO, it's all about growing up and > learning, isn't it? Magpie: I think people who have a problem with what Hermione did are happy to see her as making a mistake or having bad judgment. The problem isn't that Hermione isn't allowed to grow and learn but that this is a situation where she needs to do that. Within canon this isn't something that's been treated that way so far. Most adults aren't perfectly ethically either (especially not in the Potterverse) but relatively few have probably disfigured anyone either.;-) -m From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 3 04:36:54 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:36:54 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... In-Reply-To: <3b0.4762b38.31d9c7b7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154785 Nikkalmati: > Maybe she should have made the consequences explicit, > but IMO in the WW even teenagers should know there are > consequences for breaking a magical oath. Marietta did not > happen upon rule breaking like Draco finding out about > Norbert by spying on the Trio. She took a magical oath. houyhnhnm: First of all, I want to say that responsibility is not the same thing as blame, IMO. Blaming is a game. If I can pin the blame on someone else, then I'm off the hook. Responsibility doesn't work that way. Certainly Marietta was responsible for her actions. She knew before she signed the parchment that she was getting involved in something questionable; she knew it as soon as she found out they were meeting in a dodgy place like the Hog's Head. She should have known when Hermione gave Fudge's fear of Dumbledore as the reason for students' not being trained in DADA, that they were already setting themselves up against the Ministry, whatever the talk of a "study group". She should have walked out then and there if she thought what they were doing was wrong. You don't join an insurgency group because your best friend wants company. It's not a shopping trip. I'm not sure she knew she was taking a magical oath, however. Are we to assume that every time people sign a parchment in the WW they are binding themselves with a magical oath? When parents of third years sign permission to visit Hogsmeade forms, for instance, are they entering into a magical contract? Still, I agree that for someone from the "smart" House, Marietta was very stupid. However I don't have nearly as much invested in Marietta as a character as I do in Hermione. Therefore Marietta's irresponsibility doesn't concern me as much as Hermione's does. It was badly done. Hermione's skills as an orgainzer of underground resistance movements is about on a par with her talent as a gumshoe in "Draco' Detour". Her decision to meet in a honky tonk like the Hog's Head where they would stick out like sore thumbs instead of the Three Broomsticks where no one would notice them was a poor one, as Sirius pointed out to her. Not recruiting carefully, not sounding people out before letting them in on secrets poor tactics also. The hex on the parchment was not well thought out either. As many others here have pointed out, it did not serve as a deterrent because no one outside of the inner circle knew about it. It did not give them any advance warning of betrayal. Its only pupose was revenge and its action, apparently irreversible facial disfigurement, was overkill. It parallels Harry's use of sectumsempra and I think we are meant to see it that way. I, too, think there is unfinished business between Hermione and Marietta in book 7. I think it also parallels Hermione's S.P.E.W. involvement. In the case of Hermione's house elf crusade, the author's judgement is unambiguous. She accomplishes nothing for the house elves, who don't want her help, except to force Dobby to do all the cleaning in the Gryffindor common room and bury himself under a mound of hats. Her well-intentioned benevolence toward Kreacher, who casts it back in her face and reviles her for being Mudblood filth, is pitiable. But in no way are we supposed to conclude that it is wrong to care about the welfare of enslaved and mistreated peoples. What is wrong is the rash, egocentric, condescending way she goes about it. Hermione knows what's best for everybody. I don't think cruelty was her motive in putting a curse on the parchment that would scar someone for life. I don't think she thought it out at all. And that's the problem. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 06:17:05 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:17:05 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154786 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > In which case, why was the Statute of Secrecy passed in 1692? I, for one, doubt that the date is a coincidence. Not everyone is familiar with medieval witch hunts of whatever variety, but the Salem witch trials are very well known. And those witches and wizards *were* British. It seems to me a perfect justification--or excuse--to separate the Muggle and Wizarding worlds, and to keep the existence of the WW a secret. > Tonks: What date does the Status of Secrecy start in the UK? What does it say in the UK editions? Maybe it only says 1692 in the US version of the book to correspond with the Witch Trials in the US. The reason I question this is because according to what I can dig up about Witchcraft in the UK the law against it was in 1602 and then the modified law, the Witchcraft act of 1736, denied that there was such a thing as witches. Anyone in the UK that can tell us what date your editions have? Tonks_op From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 06:21:31 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:21:31 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154787 Amiable Dorsai wrote: > A Potions class worth of students who could all testify to Snape's > antipathy to Harry, his own record as a Death Eater (Many >> people seem to have believed Dumbledore's testimony only >> reluctantly), and the fact that, of the small group of people >> present who could be expected to have the knowledge and >> power to hex a broom, he was the most likely suspect. > > And then, there's the fact that Harry was playing against Slytherin. ;-) Carol responds: > I hope that the wink in your signature line indicates that you're > being facetious here. But if that's not the case, let's look at this > incident realistically, shall we? AD: I meant only the "Harry was playing against Slytherin" comment facetiously. I stand by the rest of it. Keep in mind the question I was answering: > houyhnhnm: > If Quirrell had succeeded in his attempt on Harry's > life, why would *Snape* have been investigated? What > would connect him in any way? "Investigated", not convicted, not, necessarily, even run out of Hogwarts (Though I think that a possibility. The Ministry is not always overly scrupulous about guilt or innocence.) I am not arguing that Snape is ESE!, OFH!, or even Mostly Good But With A Bug Up His Arse About Anyone Named Potter (MGBWABUHAAANP!), but I do assume that DDM! Snape will try to save Harry as a matter of course, so only the other flavors of Snape need be assumed to be acting to throw off suspicion. And none of Snape's 57 varieties will want Dumbledore to even suspect that he might have tried to kill Harry, or that he failed to act when hecould have to prevent Harry's death. Carol: > Evidently only two people realized that the broom was being > hexed, Snape (who muttered the countercurse) and Hermione, > who saw Snape's lips moving and leaped to the conclusion that > he was hexing the broom. AD: On the contrary, even Hagrid recognized the possibility: "No one seemed to have noticed that Harry's broom was behaving strangely. It was carrying him slowly higher, away from the game, jerking and twitching as it went. "Dunno what Harry thinks he's doing," Hagrid mumbled. He stared through his binoculars. "If I didn' know better, I'd say he'd lost control of his broom but he can't have. " Suddenly, people were pointing up at Harry all over the stands. His broom had started to roll over and over, with him only just managing to hold on. Then the whole crowd gasped. Harry's broom had given a wild jerk and Harry swung off it. He was now dangling from it, holding on with only one hand. "Did something happen to it when Flint blocked him?" Seamus whispered. "Can't have," Hagrid said, his voice shaking. "Can't nothing interfere with a broomstick except powerful Dark magic ? no kid could do that to a Nimbus Two Thousand."" (SS) > Neither McGonagall nor Flitwick seems to have done anything > more than watch, horrorstruck, like the other spectators, and yet > surely they, too, would know the proper countercurses > considering that they stripped down the Firebolt that Sirius Black > sent to Harry to detect and remove any hexes he might have > placed on it. AD: They spent several weeks at the job, looking for various magical booby-traps that could be placed on a broom in advance of its use. They could operate at leisure, taking time to go to the library or to consult other experts. Snape, to his credit, seems to have figured out, on the fly, that someone was cursing the broom in real time, and to have guessed or deduced the correct countercurse. Carol: > And note that hexing brooms doesn't seem to be an uncommon > skill at all, since they suspected Black of doing it, AD: Sirius was believed to have been Voldemort's right hand man, and a powerful Dark Wizard in his own right. He could be assumed to have "uncommon skill(s)". Carol: ...and many brooms are equipped with anti-jinx charms. AD: Hence, Hagrid's comment: "Can't nothing interfere with a broomstick except powerful Dark magic..." Carol: > Suppose that Harry had fallen and been seriously injured or > killed (not likely since someone, perhaps McGonagall, would > have slowed his fall, and besides, we've seen many falls in > Quidditch and not one death at Hogwarts or the QWC). AD: You know, I was given a hard time when I argued this very thing a while back. If someone else saves him (my money's on the twins), it's moot, of course, but if Snape is anxious to avoid being investigated, why would he take that chance? Carol: > Suppose that *someone* suspected Snape. > All they'd have to do is check his wand to determine whether it > had recently cast a broom hex. AD: Because no wizard, anywhere, has ever thought of using a holdout wand. If you were premeditating murder under circumstances where you would certainly be investigated, wouldn't you acquire another wand for the job? Carol: > Either the wand would show that he'd cast > the countercurse, or, if he were ESE! and had just let Harry fall, > it would show nothing related to the broom hex--exactly like > McGonagall's and Flitwick's and everyone else's. AD: So you agree with Severus and me that the smart thing for Severus to do, the thing that would most allay suspicion in the event of an investigation, would be to cast the countercurse? Carol: > IMO, if a hex was suspected, *Quirrell's* job would be on the > line because he, as DADA teacher, would be expected to detect > it and thwart it, just as it was Lockhart's job to deal with the > monster in the Chamber of Secrets (however badly he botched > that job). AD: Well, I assume an even semicompetent investigator would investigate anyone present who was capable of casting "powerful Dark magic". Let's see... who do we know on the Hogwarts staff who knows a thing or two about Dark magic besides Quirrell? Carol: > At any rate, if we examine motive, means and opportunity, all > of the spectators had the opportunity to cast a hex AD: "Can't nothing interfere with a broomstick except powerful Dark magic ? no kid could do that to a Nimbus Two Thousand." Carol: >(Any Slytherin or former Slytherin in the stands would have > had a motive if being a Slytherin supporter counts as a motive. AD: As I mentioned earlier, I was kidding about that. Volatile as Wizards seem to be, I suspect that few of them would commit murder over a school Quidditch match. Carol: > And if being sarcastic to a student who demonstrates ignorance > of his subject is evidence of intent to murder that student, the > WW's justice system is worse off than we thought. AD: Antipathy, what I said was antipathy--and Snape has shown plenty of that. If someone starts looking at the small number of people in the stands capable of using "powerful Dark magic", that will come out. While it may not be a reason to convict Snape, it's certainly a reason to focus suspicion. Carol: > At any rate, I seriously doubt that OFH!Snape would have been > thinking along these lines. He would have let him fall to rid > himself of the rule-breaking brat. And ESE!Snape would have >aided Quirrell rather than thwarting him and questioning his > loyalties. (Merely keeping "unworthy Quirrell" away from the > stone, as Snape tells Bellatrix he was doing, does not explain his > thwarting Quirrell's attempt to kill Harry, who at that point did > not seem likely to defeat Quirrell or even get inside the door.) AD: Much as I dislike Snape, I've never claimed he was as stupid as you just have. Snape is dependent on Dumbledore's goodwill. If he is seen by Dumbledore to have protected Harry, he gets brownie points. If he thwarts an attempt on the Stone, he gets brownie points. On the other hand, if Quirrell is smart enough to lay a few false leads, Snape could be splashed with some mud, and Snape is surely intelligent enough to understand this. Carol: > As for Snape's record as a Death Eater, he had been cleared of > all charges by Barty Crouch Sr. himself and had risked his life > to spy on Voldemort and the Death Eaters. It's most unlikely that > he would have been suspected of trying to kill Harry given that > background, nor could it have been used against him in court. > (Also, as I've stated in other posts, Snape's DE background does > not seem to have been common knowledge.) AD: A whole courtroom full of people know about it, and a reporter was present at at least one of the trials. Snape's status is not secret. Any investigator is going to know about it or find out about it. At least one Auror, Mad Eye Moody (the real one, not Crouch Jr.) had doubts about Snape, and any cop is going to have his suspicions about a reformed criminal, whether he was acquitted or not. Carol: > You refer to "the small group of people present who could be > expected to have the knowledge and power to hex a broom" and > "he [Snape] was the most likely suspect" as "facts." Neither is a > fact. Both are your opinions, AD: I think that the idea that there was only a small group of people present who could be expected to have the knowledge and power to hex a broom is well supported by the narrative. Even if there's a Death Eater Alumni Association cheering section (none is mentioned, though Rowling spends a bit of ink describing the crowd), we have only a dozen or so possibilities. (I don't really need to quote Hagrid again, do I? That quote is starting to look a little shopworn.) Granted, if the hypothetical DEAA is present, my claim that Snape is the most likely suspect goes out the window. He is still a likely suspect, however, for the reasons I've elucidated. Carol: > and the second is the point you're trying to prove. Calling > your thesis (main point) a fact is begging the question (taking the > point you're trying to prove for granted)--which, of course, I >know you didn't intend to do. AD: My thesis was that Snape was likely to be investigated, not that he was the most likely suspect. I admit that I simply asserted that he was the most likely suspect without explicitly examining the other suspects, though. I assume that the only adults present were the ones mentioned in the book (Hooch, Hagrid, McGonagall, Snape and Quirrell, plus a smattering of other teachers, not mentioned, but likely to be present, I think.) I think that if that assumption is correct (certainly it's possible that it is not, but have we seen other adults come to Hogwarts Quidditch matches?), Snape will be seen as the most likely suspect, given what we know. He did work for Voldy once upon a time, and is well-known to have hated Harry's father, and there will be plenty of students who can tell an investigator that he seems to have it in for Harry. The only other adult present with a shady (on parchment) past that we know about is Hagrid, and he simply isn't capable of casting... well, you know. If the DEAA is there, or if Hooch is working with a Quidditch gambling ring, or if Vector is carrying the Slytherin Seeker's love child, we may have better suspects than Snape, but if we stick to what Rowling has told us, I think Snape takes the brass ring. Carol: And for all we know, Quirrell himself was a former > Slytherin, who would be expected to know both the curse/hex > and its countercurse. If there's a "most likely suspect," surely it > would be p-poor, stuttering Professor Quirrell"? AD: If he had a shady past that we've not been made aware of, I suppose he would be a good suspect. Without one, he's no more (and no less) suspect than McGonagall, Slytherin or not. Snape is known to have a deep and abiding interest in the Dark Arts, and certainly could be expected to know ways to hex a broom > Carol, who hopes that disliking a student does not make a person > a murder suspect even in the WW AD: Anywhere you go, if you have a just a small group of possibilities, only one of whom is known to have disliked the victim, that person will be a prime suspect. Amiable Dorsai From scarah at gmail.com Mon Jul 3 06:48:37 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:48:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE! JKR ?/not hardly In-Reply-To: <573.691c09.31d9e730@aol.com> References: <573.691c09.31d9e730@aol.com> Message-ID: <3202590607022348nfe95d94ob42b808d149d72a4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154788 > Sandy responds: > I > don't know if it was Lupinlore or someone else who said that , despite what JKR > says, she does care whether she has only 6 fans left at the end of the series. > I will expand on that and say she *should* care. Her fans have made her what > she is today, and since she intends to continue her career as a writer she > needs to care about how her fans feel. The thing is, not all fans want the same thing. There is no solution she can write that will disappoint zero of her fans. Trying to please them all would be a losing battle. Therefore, she has no responsibility to any fans, unless Some Fans Are More Equal Than Others. I want the Matrix ending, personally. I think it would be a great ending. If there were no Horcruxes, and the books took place in the 70s and were called "Lily Evans and the..." I think that ending would have been awesome. But if we get OBHWF instead, I'm sure I'll still like the books. Sarah From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jul 3 07:33:02 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 03:33:02 EDT Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape Message-ID: <488.4600568.31da222e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154789 Alla: Just wanted to briefly comment that I have not noticed that being fifteen diminishes the seriousness of other characters actions in Potterverse. Draco at sixteen planns to do Dumbledore assasination. Harry at fifteen has the burden of saving the world. At fifteen those kids play in the adults league and have to do something that some adults in RL will never get the chance to do. So, NO the fact that Marietta is fifteen does not help her much in my eyes, I mean, I will not put her in the "terrible person" forever, but I won't cut her slack only because of her age. Julie: I guess we'll agree to disagree then. It's a fact that the brain in both an emotional and logical sense is not completely developed at 15, 16 or even 18 or 19. Teenagers do *not* think the same way adults do. (Fact.) A teenager does not understand all the ramifications of their actions in the same way an adult does. A teenager is more likely to make rash decisions based on emotions like anger and fear, to react rather than to think things out. (Fact.) There's a reason teenagers can't vote, aren't allowed to drink, have limited driving rights, etc--and can't apparate yet in the WW. I am NOT saying youth absolves Draco or Marietta of their bad decisions or wrong-doings. But their very immaturity does affect how well they are able to make decisions and truly understand the ramifications of those decisions. It's enough for courts to generally give teenagers a break, and for me to cut them *some* slack over their decisions. After all, we've done that for James and Sirius--recognizing that teenagers can change from real berks to decent adult by lieu of maturing. Alla: BUT I wanted to clarify, while I perfectly UNDERSTAND what Hermione did and do not begrudge her trying to protect the illegal group from the traitor , I do not think that she employed the perfect strategy either. She should have talked and explained to them more before making them signt he parchment AND while I stand by that Marietta deserved what she got, I also think that leaving it for that long is cruel. Julie: In other words, you are saying that she was wrong. Not in a large way, but still wrong in not explaining the hex to the signers, and in creating a hex that lasts so long. Alla: But who says that Hermione can remove the hex, maybe it will dissappear when the concequences of Marietta's actions will be healed? Julie: What consequences? That Harry *almost* got expelled? Well, he didn't, so the consequences have already disappeared. As for whether Hermione can reverse the hex or not, I don't know. But if she can't, wouldn't it speak better of her if she'd make some acknowledgment of that fact, and maybe expressed regret that she hexed Marietta with something so long-lasting when she could have easily made her point and humiliated Marietta with a hex that only lasted a limited time rather than one that has stretched into cruelty (as you admit)? Irene: > Oh, of course not. Never, ever. Unless your name is James. ;-)))) > > I don't care to count how many times the argument "We can't define a > man's whole life by his one moment of stupidity when he was 15" came up. > But it is a popular one, I think you would agree. > > And yet people are perfectly happy to define Marietta's life by this one > moment. Alla: I am trying very hard to find where I said that Marietta's LIFE should be defined by this one moment and fail. Help me? Quite the contrary, in the part that you snipped I said that I would not call Marietta a "terrible person" because of this one action, but I refuse to diminish the seriousness of this ACTION just BECAUSE she is fifteen. Julie: But you've said or implied before that you are basically okay with the way it worked out. She is marked permanently (from what we can tell at the moment) as a traitor based on this one action. That is pretty much defining her by one moment, via Hermione. And a lot of posters here, though maybe not you, have pretty much thrown Marietta to the wolves as a character, lumping her in with the other "bad" characters in the books. Rebecca wrote: You take an oath, you perform to the oath. And yes, Julie, I would in this case as Hermoine pass Marietta with her disfigurement and not give a damn - loyalty and trust are that important to me. To me, the whole structure of what JKR has written emphasizes that this is serious business, acts of committment, trust and loyalty are not to be taken lightly. It's also intriguing that instead of going to her mother and telling her, Marietta chose to tell Umbridge directly. Doubly worse, IMO. Curious how Marietta still has the pimples (not pustules) so the jinx must be wearing off in HBP - one would think since Marietta's mother works for the Ministry, she would have taken her to St. Mungos. They cured Katie Bell, so one would think a 15 year old's jinx wouldn't be something they couldn't have handled. Julie: Really I'm not disputing that Marietta was wrong, or even that her betrayal should have been revealed or even punished in some way. But it's not really about Marietta for me, it's about Hermione. And it's not about creating a hex, it's about the type of hex (unbreakable--sorry, but ANY mother would have removed that hex from her daughter's face before a period of *months* had passed, even if the mother thought her daughter was wrong and told her so). And there is the fact that Hermione didn't tell everyone exactly *what* they were signing (it was just a DADA class to begin with) or the extreme consequences for breaking the oath. There was no logical reason to withhold that information. Or maybe it's just me, and I'm too soft. I would have told everyone what they were signing, I might have been fine with Marietta wearing the sneak hex for a short period to humiliate her, but I would have drawn the line at it lasting for months or years or forever. And if I didn't realize how permanent it was when I created it, I *would* have pangs of guilt when passing Marietta in the hallway and seeing her disfigured face many months later. As for what JKR is trying to tell us, certainly loyalty is highly valued in the books, but other attributes are as much or more so. See below. Nikkalmati: Marietta is a clear case of someone suffering the bad consequences of her own actions. HG never intentionally hexed Marietta and did not intend for anyone to be hexed. I am sure she would have been perfectly happy if no one had set off the SNEAK mark. HG set a trap for anyone who violated the contract. Retribution was automatic and not within HG's control. Julie: Certainly Marietta suffered the consequences because of her own actions. I also agree HG didn't intentionally hex *Marietta*, but I find it very ingenuous to suggest the hex was not within HG's control. She set it up in the first place, so of course it was within her control! She could have not done it, she could have told everyone about the hex, she could have used a much more limited hex--that was *all* within her control. She made a choice just as Marietta did. Nikkalmati: As far as the length of time she is marked, I don't think several months is an indication that she will be marked "forever." If she does not know how she got the marks, it may not be possible to remove them. A countercurse logically requires knowledge of the curse. She would not know to go to HG for help and she may be afraid of DD now. Why can't Cho help her? She could ask Harry to find out what the curse was, if she does not want to talk to HG. Nikkalmati (who thinks the marks will fade eventually or go away when LV is gone and the DA is not needed). Julie: What I've basically been saying is that *Hermione* should take the initiative to remove the curse. That would be the right thing to do. That would be the kind, merciful thing to do at this point. Not wait for Marietta to figure out what she can't remember and beg Hermione to remove it. Gerry: To compare Hermione to Umbridge to me is just as ridiculous as comparing Ron's abuse of his prefects powers to Umbridge's abuse of her's. As for manipulation: what about Harry's manipulation of Ron? Ron who was completely prepared to play Quidditch when he thought Harry had spiked his drink with the Felix Felicitas potion, though he perfectly knew that this was illegal, and everything but sporting. I found the last actually very disturbing. Gerry, astonished at the negativity Hermione gets not only in this but in other posts as well. Julie: My feelings about Hermione are more positive than negative. I certainly don't think she's comparable to Umbridge. But that also doesn't mean she's always right. I think she went too far with Marietta. Her actions and especially her lack of mercy or forgiveness (which I interpret from her argument with Cho and her disinterest/inaction after Marietta is oblivated and well into HBP) do give me pause. And I think JKR wrote it that way intentionally, just as she meant us to be uncomfortable with the behavior of James and Sirius in the pensieve incident. JKR has said before that Dumbledore is her epitome of goodness, which I believe is because of his ability to show mercy and forgiveness, to be tolerant of people's differences and their human tendency to make mistakes, and to extend second chances even after the worst mistakes and misjudgments. I imagine that's also where her Christian underpinings will come in. It won't be about vengeance on your enemies even when they richly deserve it. It will be about rising above your enemies morally and ethically, as Dumbledore does. Hey, I know it's not what a lot of people want to happen, but I can't see how JKR can make her own views much clearer than the way she has portrayed her "epitome of goodness" character. All IMO of course, Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From littleleah at handbag.com Mon Jul 3 08:26:39 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:26:39 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154790 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > houyhnhnm: > >> The hex on the parchment was not well thought out either. > As many others here have pointed out, it did not serve as a > deterrent because no one outside of the inner circle knew > about it. It did not give them any advance warning of > betrayal. Its only pupose was revenge and its action, > apparently irreversible facial disfigurement, was overkill. > It parallels Harry's use of sectumsempra and I think we > are meant to see it that way. I, too, think there is > unfinished business between Hermione and Marietta in book 7. >> I don't think cruelty was her motive in putting a curse > on the parchment that would scar someone for life. I don't > think she thought it out at all. And that's the problem. > Leah: Apologies for snipping a great deal of this post- I have nothing to say about the missing parts except to concur. However, I'm not sure that I agree entirely that the only purpose of the parchment jinx was revenge. Hermione seems to have some idea of it functioning as a warning device: '"Someone must have blabbed to her" said Ron angrily....."No, they can't have done, because I put a jinx on that piece of paper we all signed", said Hermione grimly. "Believe me, if anyone's run off and told Umbridge, we'll know exactly who they are and they will really regret it". So there seems to me to be some indication there that Hermione will not only punish, which I agree seems to be her chief aim, but get some indication of betrayal. It's not a very good indicator, because it only works post-betrayal, and I think that is because Hermione has muddled the two functions of warning and punishment. It's possible that Hermione thought she would see the Sneak disfigurement, be able to warn the others and Evanesco the parchment. Marietta may not have displayed Ravenclaw brightness in signing up, but she certainly timed the betrayal to a tee, at at time when a meeting was actually taking place, where everyone would be caught with proof. Again, Hermione didn't think that one through. She and Harry have also failed to really get to grips with the Room of Requirement. Lessons have not been learned from the diary. There still seems to be a feeling that if something helps you, it's on your side, and I think houyhnhnm is right that the Prince's book is another example of this. The parchment was in the ROR because Pansy Parkinson wanted proofs and a proof was provided for her. As to the scarring for life, I'm not certain (and there is no canon, I think one way or the other) that this is what Hermione intended. She has a lot to say about jinxes in DADA: "Mr Slinkhard doesn't like jinxes, does he? But I think they can be very useful when they're used defensively" Umbridge at this point thinks Hermione should get over herself, and much as it sticks in the craw, I tend to agree. (Snape of course has spent a lot of time dealing with Hermione's need to be seen to be right at all times). The parchment jinx does help a bit in initially preventing further revelations by Marietta, but that seems to be mainly luck- Marietta could have looked at Hermione's handiwork and decided to dish the dirt and add a bit more; why be hanged for a lamb when a sheep is available to you? The jinx does not operate to prevent the worst effects of Marietta's betrayal. I wonder, as I've posted before, if Hermione hasn't been too clever for her own good here; perhaps the jinx is now working to its own rules, remaining until the betrayal is fully played out. Another possibility may have been that destruction of the parchment would destroy the promise and the jinx. In which case, Marietta and Hermione have difficulties ahead of them, because the parchment was last seen in Umbridge's pudgy hand. Leah From vinkv002 at planet.nl Mon Jul 3 10:30:56 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:30:56 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione , Marietta etc/ DD trust in Snape LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154791 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Alla: > >> > > > > > Just wanted to briefly comment that I have not noticed that > being > > > fifteen diminishes the seriousness of other characters actions > in > > > Potterverse. > > Irene: > > Oh, of course not. Never, ever. Unless your name is James. ;-)))) > > > > I don't care to count how many times the argument "We can't define > a > > man's whole life by his one moment of stupidity when he was 15" > came up. > > But it is a popular one, I think you would agree. > > > > And yet people are perfectly happy to define Marietta's life by > this one > > moment. > Renee: As Marietta's age has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, I'd like to point out that she's not fifteen. Like Cho, she's in sixth year, which means she's at least sixteen and, depending on her birthday, possibly seventeen - which would make her an adult in the eyes of the wizarding world. Not that this means she deserves to be disfigured for life, but then, we've still got one book to go. Perhaps it will occur to Marietta that asking forgiveness for what she's done might result in the removal of the pustules. Or it might occur to Hermione that Marietta has been punished enough and she'll remove them. Though if Marietta doesn't show any signs of being sorry and having learned her lesson, it would be very magnanimous of her. As for the comparison with James, being a bully at fifteen or being a traitor at sixteen, possibly seventeen, are not really the same things in my book. Yet, seen in the light of JKR's habit of meting out carmic punishment, getting killed is worse than being disfigured the way Marietta is. Renee From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 3 12:52:11 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 12:52:11 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154792 AD: So you agree with Severus and me that the smart thing for Severus to do, the thing that would most allay suspicion in the event of an investigation, would be to cast the countercurse? wynnleaf You have given a great many reasons for how Snape could have cast the counter curse on the broom in order to allay suspicion in the event of an investigation. You know, this would make a certain amount of sense were it not for one Big thing. If Snape had any particular interest in "allaying suspicion" in the event of someone doing something terrible to Harry, it makes little sense for him to focus on allaying suspicion in one small area, yet spending every day acting in a way that convinces the entire school population that he hates Harry. If Snape wanted to allay suspicion, why wouldn't he at least make some attempt to act a bit nicer to Harry? As you said, Snape isn't stupid. Neither Harry, nor his friends, when they eventually find out Snape was the one doing the countercurse, are in any way dissuaded from the notion that Snape would like to see Harry dead. Why? Because he's acted hateful toward Harry. Certainly, many readers aren't dissuaded either. If Snape really had any interest in people not believing him a "likely suspect" in the event of foul play on Harry, he has acted in the height of stupidity to show such open hate toward him. wynnleaf From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 13:23:35 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:23:35 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <488.4600568.31da222e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154793 > Alla: > BUT I wanted to clarify, while I perfectly UNDERSTAND what Hermione > did and do not begrudge her trying to protect the illegal group from > the traitor , I do not think that she employed the perfect strategy > either. > > She should have talked and explained to them more before making them > signt he parchment AND while I stand by that Marietta deserved what > she got, I also think that leaving it for that long is cruel. > > Julie: > In other words, you are saying that she was wrong. Not in a large > way, but still wrong in not explaining the hex to the signers, and in > creating a hex that lasts so long. Alla: NOT wrong in the large sense, no and not even about not explaining to others, THAT is after the fact judgment . I think she could have done that, but I would not even call that SHOULD. IF she deliberately used the hex that lasts for such long period of time, only if that was deliberately, then yes, that part I think was wrong. > Alla: > But who says that Hermione can remove the hex, maybe it will > dissappear when the concequences of Marietta's actions will be > healed? > > Julie: > What consequences? That Harry *almost* got expelled? Well, > he didn't, so the consequences have already disappeared. Alla: And that is certainly not because of Marietta, but because of Dumbledore and Kingsley quick thinking, isn't it? I am sorry, as I was talking to someone yesterday - I do not like traitors in the big sense, especially when stakes are so very high. I certainly don't think that Marietta is lost forever because of that, but I do not begrudge Hermione to trying to protect all of them. As to what consequences.... hmmm if the adults did not interfere, I think it is very possible that all of them could have faced the same hearing Harry faced in the beginning of OOP, no? Umbridge dear certainly has enough influence to do that. IMO. I also want to stress that people keep saying that Marietta was conflicted, etc. Well, maybe, but JKR surely did not show it, didn't she? I want to agree with what Rebecca said in one of the posts in this thread - Marietta could have gone to her MOTHER, that would have made me too to feel a bit better, because that would have shown that the reasons for her betrayal was her loyalty to her family. I would have been easier on Marietta, still did not like what she did, but that would be certainly mitigating circumstance. She did not, she went straight to High Inquisitor, so to me it is possible that loyalty to her family did not even enter into equasion here, she just wanted to be in good graces Umbridge and that I find terrible. So, I think it is very likely that healing will occur in book 7, but I have very little sympathy for Marietta, although yes, I suspect she will have to interact with Trio again one way or another. JMO, Alla. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 3 13:57:02 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:57:02 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154795 > houyhnhnm: > I don't have nearly as much invested in Marietta > as a character as I do in Hermione. Therefore Marietta's > irresponsibility doesn't concern me as much as Hermione's > does. It was badly done. Hermione's skills as an orgainzer > of underground resistance movements is about on a par with > her talent as a gumshoe in "Draco' Detour". Her decision > to meet in a honky tonk like the Hog's Head where they would > stick out like sore thumbs instead of the Three Broomsticks > where no one would notice them was a poor one, as Sirius > pointed out to her. Not recruiting carefully, not sounding > people out before letting them in on secrets poor tactics also. > > The hex on the parchment was not well thought out either. > As many others here have pointed out, it did not serve as a > deterrent because no one outside of the inner circle knew > about it. It did not give them any advance warning of > betrayal. Its only pupose was revenge and its action, > apparently irreversible facial disfigurement, was overkill. wynnleaf I agree with this. There is no way Hermione could say that the facial disfigurement was a deterent, when she gave no warning to the signers of what would happen if they broke the contract. All evidence points toward the fact that Hermione didn't use the hex as a deterent, but as a rather vengeful punishment. Nor did she really consult any of the other leadership of the DA beforehand to see if they thought her form of punishment was right. Her use of an irreversible disfiguring hex as revenge for breaking the contract shows, in my opinion, a large degree of spite. The fact that she made no attempt over the next year to help Marietta get rid of the disfigurement shows a continuing level of spite. houyhnhnm: > It parallels Harry's use of sectumsempra and I think we > are meant to see it that way. While I think Harry's use of sectumsempra a big problem, I don't consider it in the same light as Hermione's hex. Hermione knew the hex she used and its effects. Harry did not know the effects of sectumsempra. Harry's use of the curse was in ignorance (albeit inexcusible to plan to use a spell in ignorance), while Hermione's hex was in full knowledge. houyhnhnm: > I think it also parallels Hermione's S.P.E.W. involvement. > In the case of Hermione's house elf crusade, the author's > judgement is unambiguous. ....... But > in no way are we supposed to conclude that it is wrong to > care about the welfare of enslaved and mistreated peoples. > What is wrong is the rash, egocentric, condescending way > she goes about it. Hermione knows what's best for everybody. wynnleaf Like the hex on the parchment, Hermione doesn't solicit the opinions of others before making these decisions. Hermione, in my opinion, exhibits a classic weakness of some people who are very intelligent -- more or less "I know a great deal more than everyone else, therefore *all* of my opinions are correct, and my decisions are better than those of others." I sometimes refer to it as the "I am right" attitude. It's not conscious, but more a habit. It's an easy habit to form and a reason why it's often unfortunate for a highly intelligent kid to have no real peers around to show them the fallibility of some of their opinions. It reminds me of what JKR said about Dumbledore. Being very intelligent and not having any real intellectual peers has given Dumbledore the weakness of having no real peer to tell him when he might be wrong. In a way, this is also true of Hermione, on a teenage level. Actually, though, I think Hermione does have teenagers around her who could be her peers, but she doesn't recognize them because they don't show the same degree of academic achievement that she does (I'm thinking of Fred and George, who I tend to think are probably just as smart as Hermione and far more creative). houyhnhnm: > I don't think cruelty was her motive in putting a curse > on the parchment that would scar someone for life. I don't > think she thought it out at all. And that's the problem. > wynnleaf Well, she had a year to think about it in HBP and apparently never tried to help Marietta get out of the hex. If cruelty wasn't her motive for starting the hex, why has she done nothing to alleviate it? Someone else (can't remember who) said if she helped Marietta get rid of the hex in Book 7 it would be "magnanimous." The definition for magnanimous is "Courageously noble in mind and heart. Generous in forgiving; eschewing resentment or revenge; unselfish." Wow, I just could never say that about Hermione's treatment of Marietta even if she did help her with the hex later. wynnleaf From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 13:23:40 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 06:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Liking J.K., not liking J.K. (was: ESE! JKR ?/not hardly) In-Reply-To: <573.691c09.31d9e730@aol.com> Message-ID: <20060703132340.73428.qmail@web52707.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154796 octobersChild48 at aol.com wrote: I am not Lupilore, nor do I advocate his opinion of child abuse in the series, but I do believe he has a right to his opinions and to express them. I am responding to this because I, myself, do not like JKR, no way, no how. ...(snipped about a paragraph)...I "waste my time" on JKR and this list because I do love Harry Potter ....(snipped a long sentence)...Once the Harry Potter series is over I am done with JKR, no matter what the outcome is, but I have asked for a place in line to borrow Lupinlore's chipper IF Harry dies. Katie(anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com) responds: I have met quite a few people who say they "don't like" J.K. Rowling, but they love Harry. First of all, I find it strange to not at least admire and respect the person who created a character you love. If you love Harry, how can you claim to dislike the person that created him? Harry is not an independent entity - J.K. created him, made him real to us, and in my opinion, gave me a wonderful gift. I have derived more hours of joy reading those books than I can even count. I have shared the books with my friends and family, and we now have even more to talk about and bond over. Secondly, how can you dislike someone you have never met? I neither dislike J.K. nor like her - I don't know her. What I do have for her is an enormous amount of respect for her early struggles(I myself was raised by a single mother), respect for her writing, which is never condescending or dumbed down, and gratefulness for her creation of Harry and his world. You absolutely ARE entitled to any opinion, and entitled to express it...but I just wonder how you came to feel that way, since you love Harry...it just doesn't compute to me. IMHO, Katie From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 3 14:43:11 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 14:43:11 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154797 AD: > I am not arguing that Snape is ESE!, OFH!, or even Mostly Good But > With A Bug Up His Arse About Anyone Named Potter (MGBWABUHAAANP!), but > I do assume that DDM! Snape will try to save Harry as a matter of > course, so only the other flavors of Snape need be assumed to be > acting to throw off suspicion. > > And none of Snape's 57 varieties will want Dumbledore to even suspect > that he might have tried to kill Harry, or that he failed to act when > hecould have to prevent Harry's death. Pippin: Odd, then, that Quirrell does not reason the same way. He *does* try to kill Harry. He is investigated. He does exactly what I would expect a guilty Snape to do. He keeps his cool (while acting innocently flustered and nervous) and denies everything. He could have done much the same if his plan had succeeded and Harry had died. All the reasons you gave for Snape wanting Harry dead would also be motives for Harry to fake the attack and falsely blame Snape. Harry himself notices this, and that's the reason he doesn't take Hermione's suspicions to anyone but Hagrid. Not to mention that if Snape hadn't interfered in the attack, he wouldn't have been staring fixedly at Harry, and Hermione wouldn't have suspected him (*she* certainly doesn't know about his DE past.) Neither would anyone else -- after all, even with the attack on Harry unsolved, Snape was trusted enough to referee the next match. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jul 3 14:31:34 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:31:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil Hermione/DD trust in Snape References: Message-ID: <005801c69ead$642dece0$1498400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154798 houyhnhnm: > It parallels Harry's use of sectumsempra and I think we > are meant to see it that way. While I think Harry's use of sectumsempra a big problem, I don't consider it in the same light as Hermione's hex. Hermione knew the hex she used and its effects. Harry did not know the effects of sectumsempra. Harry's use of the curse was in ignorance (albeit inexcusible to plan to use a spell in ignorance), while Hermione's hex was in full knowledge. Magpie: Also, despite the fact that Harry didn't know what the spell did he still feels remorse over it, I think at least partially because on some level the spell did do what he intended. That is, he knows he was throwing the spell at someone he hated, so it's probably hard for him not to acknowledge that whatever he thought the spell did, the Prince gave him what he promised, a spell "for enemies." Whatever the reason we know that Harry does feel badly about what he did even after the counterhex is performed. On another note, regarding Marietta's conflict, I do agree that she made one stupid decision after another. She certainly shouldn't have signed the Parchment--she should have walked out of the meeting. But I see no reason to write a different reason for her ultimate decision to go to Umbridge than the one Cho gives us or think that Marietta should have gone to her mother instead. Marietta going to her mother just adds unnecessary complications and characters we don't know for the same result. We already know what her mother's advice would be--obey the Ministry Headmistress and tell her what's going on. It goes right along with the other ideas in OotP. As wrong as Marietta's decision was, I accept that the choices for her were either to continue to keep her mouth shut or tell Umbridge. wynnleaf: Neither Harry, nor his friends, when they eventually find out Snape was the one doing the countercurse, are in any way dissuaded from the notion that Snape would like to see Harry dead. Why? Because he's acted hateful toward Harry. Certainly, many readers aren't dissuaded either. If Snape really had any interest in people not believing him a "likely suspect" in the event of foul play on Harry, he has acted in the height of stupidity to show such open hate toward him. Magpie: Also, I think this explanation for Snape's saving Harry is mushy and a cheat. The whole question about Snape is what you describe here, that he acts like Harry's enemy (if this were a school story he would be the enemy) and yet on the Voldemort level he's his protector. A convuluted explanation after the fact that Snape only acted to protect Harry because maybe somebody might have been suspicious if he hadn't to me is like the author admitting that she came up with fake scenes to create ambiguity when there was none. He's acting not in response to stuff in the book but stuff that wasn't written. The end of the series, imo, has to work at least as well as the end of PS/SS, which takes into account both Snape's mean behavior and his protecting Harry without fudging on either of them. That's the way JKR has worked in the past as well. When Barty Crouch explains why he helped Harry in the TWT he's not doing it just in case someone thought he should be helping Harry, but because he had a real reason to help him. It all fits strongly together. There's nothing that's just there to be confusing. If Snape saved Harry to avoid suspicion there would have to be some sign of that before the fact, or at least signs that that set up was there--signs written in the text, not stuff we can speculate based on the situation as we know it. -m From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Jul 3 15:06:21 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:06:21 -0000 Subject: Back on the Horcrux trail Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154799 JKR borrowed from Fantastic Beasts to reveal the Thestrals. Are there any other clues she will point to let us know where the remaining Horcruxes lie? In "Quidditch Through the Ages" (QTA) there is a 300 mile Annual Broom Race in Sweden that goes through a Dragon Reservation. Given that: - LV would use things that scares himself most (like Dragons) - Dragons may listen to Parseltongues (We are not sure. Harry never tried talking to one) - Drumstang may be near there - An obscure mention in a loosely connected book has been used by JKR before - It would offer a good chance for Charlie Weasley to feature in Book 7 - I want an excuse to see Norbert again Would the trio travel to other countries? If they do, would HRH be exposed to Darker wizarding population that different countries allow and encourage? (culture shock) Living in foreign cultures is a big part of JKR's life experience (Portugal and France) If book 7 isn't too long already, she may enjoy taking readers on such a journey. Another location is where Wormtail found LV. Would LV have tried to stay close to one of his Horcruxes to ensure he stays alive by guarding it himself? aussie (who is trying to get away from other topics making people we like ESE!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 3 15:21:05 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:21:05 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/ In-Reply-To: <02d901c69e26$d12c6010$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154800 Rebecca:> > I'll be flamed by many for saying at this point, but the Weasley Twins, Ron, > Harry are too young in the beginning of OoP to understand these concepts > fully and the dangers involved if one person in the Order violates the > trust. The last time it happened, at the very least Harry's parents died if > not others prior to that as a result of 1 person's betrayal. (It's not > discounting youth, it's just a question of life experience.) Hermoine's > actions, while uncomfortable for some, reveal to me that she has learned > that not everyone can be trusted and tries to avert disclosure at the very > least. I believe this because I think some thought had to be put into the > parchment, jinx, and the approach and begets the question "why?" IMO, see > the aforementioned sentence. > Pippin: Yes, that's it. Marietta is also too inexperienced to understand what she's committing to, and that's the reason she shouldn't have been asked to commit. The Trio have been engaged in clandestine and illegal activities (hiding Norbert, the flying Anglia, helping Sirius to escape etc) since first year. Hermione spent the summer in a Safe House, forbidden to tell even her best friend where she was or what she was doing. *She* understands what it means to keep secrets and be part of a secret organization at war, because she's lived through those things. Marietta hasn't. It was not wrong for Hermione to demand loyalty from those who joined her group, but it was wrong for her to levy a permanent punishment and it was wrong for her not to explain what was involved or at least attempt to do so. If she expected her schoolmates to pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, the least she could have done was say so. Thomas Jefferson did. Of course most teens would still be too young to understand what that meant, which is why the Order doesn't take underage members. I think Hermione realized that it would be hard to make the others truly understand what would be asked of them, just as Harry realized he couldn't teach them what it's really like to confront the Dark Lord. There's no way to anticipate how someone is going to handle that kind of pressure, no way to say whose resolve will crumble and whose won't. Harry would never have expected that Neville and Luna would turn out to be the most committed members of the DA. He certainly never expected that Cho's friend, of all people, would betray him. I'm sorry to say this, but IMO Hermione reacted to this uncertainty the way Voldemort would have, by acting alone and in secret, going to extremes as a way to frighten and intimidate the others. I think we learn all we need to know about the extreme nature of Marietta's punishment when we consider what happened to Draco. By any stretch of the imagination he betrayed his fellow students to a far worse degree than Marietta, but all that happens to him at their hands is a painful and embarrassing but not permanent hexing. Pippin From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Jul 3 15:54:18 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:54:18 -0000 Subject: Who recruited Peter Pettigrew for the Dark Lord? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154801 > "mgrantwich" Magna wrote: > I have been giving some thought to this issue (when I should have > been working but never mind that...) > > I don't think that Pettigrew approached the DE's on his own > initiative. By nature he's a reactor to things and forces; he doesn't > make the first move but rather sits back and observes, watching to > see what response would be best for him to make to maximize the > benefits to himself. I'm sure he was > aware that some viewed him the same way McGonagall did: as a tag- > along. being able to hang with the Marauders, the coolest > guys in school. > > The same sort of personal calculations applied to his initial > involvement with Voldemort. I don't think that anyone threatened > Pettigrew: he would have responded to that by saying whatever he > needed to say to get out of the immediate situation and then have > gone into hiding . No, I think someone approached Peter and > let him know the benefits of switching gangs. > > Who did this or how they did it We can speculate: > > 1. It would have had to be someone that Peter already knew or was > familiar with > > 2. It would have had to be someone that Peter envied > > 3. It would have had to be someone who represented a completely new > stage in life; Peter would have looked for someplace where > he could have found the maximum benefits for the minimum exertion. > > My personal choice for the guy who approached Peter the first time: > Ludo Bagman. International Quidditch star, all-around jock and grown- > up cool dude who knew people in the MoM and could get Peter a job > with no duties. Bagman wasn't interested in high school > gossip, he wanted the real deal, the solid info about the Order. > And Peter got in deeper and deeper until it really was a matter of > facing Voldemort and giving up the info the Dark Lord wanted about > the Potters. By the end of POA, Peter is > already turning into a serious criminal. > > People will ask how he could have betrayed James when he idolized > him. Answer: he didn't idolize James, he worshipped James' image, > his hipness, his coolness, his persona. He didn't give a toss for > James the person, like Lupin and Sirius did. So it wasn't a huge > deal for him to betray James and Lily. > > > > > > > akh replies: > > there is another very basic interest: survival. In OOTP, > Moody talks about what appeared to be a systematic plan of > killing off the Order members. he's getting closer in line > for extermination. He can wait to have his courage challenged (not > a good idea), or he can seek out ways to save his skin. > > He's become convinced that LV and the DE's are the winning side > (read: cool and hip), and he's now in a position to be valuable, a > sensation he hasn't felt with his old crowd. aussie now: This old post came out before the release of HBP. I think it is clearer now that it was Snape that recruited Peter Pettigrew. The fact that Pettigrew was entrusted to Snape in Spinner's End reinforces that. (If that is true, would that change anyone's opinion on Snape?) During the overheard conversation in the 3 Broomsticks (POA Chap 10), McGonagall said "(DD) was sure that somebody close to the Potters had been keeping You-Know-Who informed of their movements" So, Peter joined before the prophesy had been told and had been informing for some time. My opinion of why: Snape's motive: revenge against the Maunderers by turning one of their own. Pettigrew's motive: apart from those spoken about above, Snape may have known Peter was an Animagi Rat and if cornered, Snape could have offered 3 choices - a) AK Peter straight away as a OOTP member; b) if Peter escaped, expose himas an illegal animagi hunted by MOM; c) join DE and be on the strongest team. Snape kept quiet about Peter Pettigrew being a DE to DD. Otherwise, Black would have never gone to Azkaban. He may have even recognised him when he was Scabbers, Ron's pet, and still not spoken out about the DE sleeping in Harry Potter's dormitory. Book 7 may get clearer information from Peter Pettigrew himself about (when / who recruited / why) Wormtail joined the DE. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 16:05:54 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:05:54 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154802 > wynnleaf: > You have given a great many reasons for how Snape could have cast > the counter curse on the broom in order to allay suspicion in the > event of an investigation. You know, this would make a certain > amount of sense were it not for one Big thing. If Snape had any > particular interest in "allaying suspicion" in the event of someone > doing something terrible to Harry, it makes little sense for him > to focus on allaying suspicion in one small area, yet spending > every day acting in a way that convinces the entire school > population that he hates Harry. If Snape wanted to allay > suspicion, why wouldn't he at least make some > attempt to act a bit nicer to Harry? As you said, Snape isn't > stupid. AD: So, you're suggesting that only DDM!Snape can afford to be a bastard to Harry? Interesting idea, you may be on to something. But I think that Snape actually feels that his treatment of Harry is justified. He seems to be incapable of seeing anything good in anyone named Potter. Amiable Dorsai From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 3 16:29:22 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:29:22 -0000 Subject: Who recruited Peter Pettigrew for the Dark Lord? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154803 > aussie now: > This old post came out before the release of HBP. I think it is > clearer now that it was Snape that recruited Peter Pettigrew. The > fact that Pettigrew was entrusted to Snape in Spinner's End > reinforces that. (If that is true, would that change anyone's > opinion on Snape?) Potioncat: What is it about Spinner's End that makes you think Snape recruited Pettigrew? I had two reactions to the relationship in Spinner's End. The first was "Which one is LV punishing?" It doesn't look like either one likes the arrangement. The second was, "Could Pettigrew be a spy for the Order?" If so, this is a real nice set-up and the dislike is an act. (that would make for an ESG!Pettigrew ever-so-good) > Aussie: > During the overheard conversation in the 3 Broomsticks (POA Chap > 10), McGonagall said "(DD) was sure that somebody close to the > Potters had been keeping You-Know-Who informed of their movements" > > So, Peter joined before the prophesy had been told and had been > informing for some time. Potioncat: How did you get that order of events? (Not contesting, just not understanding.) My own take is that Snape never knew about Pettigrew as LV's informant, nor did he know that the Marauders were animagi. At least, I'm pretty certain he didn't know about Black or Pettigrew. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 3 16:09:10 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:09:10 -0000 Subject: Liking J.K., not liking J.K. (was: ESE! JKR ?/not hardly) In-Reply-To: <20060703132340.73428.qmail@web52707.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154804 > Katie wrote : > I have met quite a few people who say they "don't like" J.K. Rowling, but they love Harry. First of all, I find it strange to not at least admire and respect the person who created a character you love. If you love Harry, how can you claim to dislike the person that created him? Ken: I have reservations about JKR too. I'm on Harry's side and I think he has earned the right to have a normal life after LV. I don't know if I like him or not. He is not without flaws. That doesn't matter though. Adolf Hitler was a brilliant public speaker and I have no love for him. Legions of rock musicians have written music that I love but I do not care for them personally or their life styles. Artists are divorced from their creations in my mind. >Katie: > Secondly, how can you dislike someone you have never met? Ken: We have met her through the media. She may not know any of us but all of us know her to an extent. We have also met her through her work. Some of us are delighted by her story telling, yet have reservations about her story. Maybe she will delight us with both when the tale is finished. We will just have to wait and see. Her teasing us with hints that aren't hints in the mean time is not an endearing quality. Ken From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 3 15:53:42 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:53:42 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154805 > Carol responds: > In which case, why was the Statute of Secrecy passed in 1692? This may, or may not be the answer Rowling would give if asked. It is the real reason the WW would pass such a Statute at about that time. In 1687 Isaac Newton published his Principia. That along with the mathematical tool, calculus, that he and Leibnitz indpendently invented loosed the flood of Muggle science and technology. The WW world would have had to have had an unusually perceptive witch or wizard to have realized the implications at such an early date but the Potterverse as written would be impossible without such an individual. All creatures live in the same universe, or Potterverse in this case. A witch may have an innate ability to control and direct whatever force is postulated to account for "magic" just as birds have an innate ability to fly and fish an innate ability to breathe under water. Any natural force that exists is open to exploitation by any natural creature though. If the existance of the WW continued to be common knowledge much beyond 1700 this magical force would have been one of the things that Muggle scientists studied. We know of no natural creatures that can modulate the force of gravity, or the weak or strong nuclear forces, even though we know that all those forces exist. If we had such creatures to study we would be much farther along than we are in mastering them just as we have managed to duplicate the feats of fish and fowl. The mere fact that human wizards can control this magic force indicates that other humans could use it as well by artificial means. If Muggle scientists knew that such humans existed magical technology would soon begin to appear in Muggle society and the WW would lose their monopoly on magic. LV does not know this but if he were to succeed with his plan to rule the WW and wreak havoc on the Muggles he would not need Harry Potter to do him in. He would reveal the magical world to the rest of humankind. Muggle scientists would then take care of him in short order and Muggle society would take its revenge on the WW. Ken From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 17:42:18 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:42:18 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154806 > Pippin: > I'm sorry to say this, but IMO Hermione reacted to this uncertainty the way > Voldemort would have, by acting alone and in secret, going to extremes > as a way to frighten and intimidate the others. > Alla: Oy. I think that Hermione's character is significantly less grey than your argument portrays, but if you think that by acting in secrecy and alone Hermione's action can be compared to what Voldemort does, then you would agree that Dumbledore's many actions can be compared to what Voldemort does too? You know, all that "acting in secrecy and alone", often NOT sharing with other people why he does something, why he trusts people, etc? And PROCEEDING with the plans based on he knows best why. JMO, Alla, thinking that WHY matters A LOT. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 17:48:01 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 17:48:01 -0000 Subject: Who recruited Peter Pettigrew for the Dark Lord? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154807 > aussie now: > This old post came out before the release of HBP. I think it is > clearer now that it was Snape that recruited Peter Pettigrew. The > fact that Pettigrew was entrusted to Snape in Spinner's End > reinforces that. (If that is true, would that change anyone's > opinion on Snape?) zgirnius: If it were true, yes, absolutely. I don't believe it, though. I don't see any way this theory can be consistent with DDM! (my stance on Snape). aussie: > During the overheard conversation in the 3 Broomsticks (POA Chap > 10), McGonagall said "(DD) was sure that somebody close to the > Potters had been keeping You-Know-Who informed of their movements" > > So, Peter joined before the prophesy had been told and had been > informing for some time. zgirnius: The prophecy was made before Harry was born; given the cold and rainy weather, and Trelawney's statements about her tenure at Hogwarts, likely months before. His parents were killed when he was 15 months old. Peter could easily have been recruited after the Prophecy was made, even after Harry was born, and still have been a Voldemort spy for a year or so before the Potters were killed. aussie: > My opinion of why: > Snape's motive: revenge against the Maunderers by turning one of > their own. > Pettigrew's motive: apart from those spoken about above, Snape may > have known Peter was an Animagi Rat and if cornered, Snape could > have offered 3 choices - a) AK Peter straight away as a OOTP member; > b) if Peter escaped, expose himas an illegal animagi hunted by MOM; > c) join DE and be on the strongest team. zgirnius: I agree Snape would have had a motive. Means is more problematic. There is really no reason to suppose he knew the Marauders were Animagi, or that Peter was. For one thing, I can't see how he would have figured such a thing out after they all left school. And while he was IN school, it would seem too good a card not to have played then, to get revenge on them. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 3 18:03:00 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:03:00 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154808 > > AD: > So, you're suggesting that only DDM!Snape can afford to be a bastard > to Harry? Interesting idea, you may be on to something. > > But I think that Snape actually feels that his treatment of Harry is > justified. He seems to be incapable of seeing anything good in anyone > named Potter. wynnleaf I hadn't meant to go quite so far in my previous comment, but actually I do think that his open hatred of Harry only makes sense in a DDM Snape. Note: I didn't say Snape's hatred of Harry, but his *open* hatred. I agree that he thinks his treatment of Harry is justified (there's part of it that even *I* think is justified -- not all of what Harry thinks is unfair is actually unfair). I agree that he seems incapable of seeing anything good in Harry or James. But Snape is *not* a person unable to control his outward emotions. If his actions toward Harry were uncontrollable, then we'd be talking about a character who would never have been able to pull off being a double agent for years. It is just unbelievable that a person could have such control at conveying exactly what he wants to around Voldemort, Dumbledore and whoever else, and be utterly unable to control his outward emotions around Harry. Therefore -- Snape *could* control his actions and *open* hatred of Harry if he wanted to or if he felt there was any need to. The fact that he does *not* bother to control it at all seems completely incongruous with a person working for Voldemort or himself and only trying to *convince* DD that he's on his side. In fact, it may be in part that Snape doesn't bother to try to convince DD of his attitude toward Harry that helps DD believe him. In other words, I think DD sees Snape as "real," not a fake. Of course, I expect to now hear the theories on how an incredibly devious Snape is trying to appear "real" to DD by not trying to hide his hatred of Harry. Or how incredibly deluded DD is so dense that Snape doesn't need to pretend to be a good guy -- DD will believe anything. Thing is, Voldemort never gets to see a first hand look at how Snape acts at Hogwarts. DD does. Voldemort would be much easier to convince about the "reasons" for why Snape does or doesn't act certain ways around Harry, than Dumbledore who sees a lot of it first hand and I'm sure hears reports from other teachers and students. wynnleaf From scarrie5 at verizon.net Mon Jul 3 03:34:15 2006 From: scarrie5 at verizon.net (Carrie) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:34:15 -0000 Subject: Corruption in the MoM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154809 Tonks_op wrote: > > > As you may know I think the Bones murder by LV was because Amelia > suspected the corruption in her own department and higher. > > > > I am wondering if the murders of Vance and Abbott have a > connection to the MoM as well. Carrie: Tonks, the only connection I saw immediately is that Susan Bones and Hannah Abbott are in Hufflepuff. Could the cup be missing from wherever LV thought it was? Vance was a OOP member, there is always a risk there. IMO, Rowling killed off some good characters that we didn't know too well because we wouldn't have been able to handle more major characters dying and then DD's death! From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 3 18:08:34 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:08:34 -0000 Subject: Who recruited Peter Pettigrew for the Dark Lord? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154810 Regarding Snape possibly recruiting Peter Pettigrew... Even with an ESE Snape scenario, this seems completely at odds with Snape's very emotional outburst in the Shrieking Shack where he seems so very disgusted that James had not taken the advice to not use a friend as a secret keeper. His fury seems very bound up in the notion that it was Sirius that was the secret keeper. Sure and ESE Snape would still want Sirius dead, but it doesn't line up with the direction his anger took in the Shrieking Shack. He really seemed to think Sirius was the traitor. wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 3 18:14:16 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:14:16 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154811 > > Pippin: > > > I'm sorry to say this, but IMO Hermione reacted to this > uncertainty the way Voldemort would have, by acting alone and in secret, going to extremes as a way to frighten and intimidate the others. > > > > > Alla: > > Oy. I think that Hermione's character is significantly less grey > than your argument portrays, but if you think that by acting in > secrecy and alone Hermione's action can be compared to what > Voldemort does, then you would agree that Dumbledore's many actions > can be compared to what Voldemort does too? Pippin: Oy :) I am not arguing that Hermione is Voldemort in the making. She might be Crouch Sr in the making, as cruel and ruthless as any DE. I thoroughly expect her to turn from that path, but right now that is where some of her choices are taking her, IMO. Why *did* she act alone in hexing the parchment? Was it that she didn't trust Harry or Ron? Or did she think Ron would object, as he objected to her attempt to trick the House Elves. 'They should at least see what they're picking up.' When has Dumbledore used scare tactics against anyone? He bends over backwards to avoid even the appearance of coercing people. I thought that was one of your objections to him. Pippin From patriciah711 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 06:35:21 2006 From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley) Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 23:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ESE! JKR? Is it war? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060703063521.8887.qmail@web52803.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154812 Ken Hutchinson wrote: I know what JKR and her characters say, but she has not sold me on the notion that this is a war and I know I am not alone in this. The DE are not an army, they hardly number 50 even counting those who have gone missing. They have allies that swell their numbers somewhat yet they are still hardly an army. They are a street gang. Maybe you could consider them terrorists. I'm not as familiar with the body count as many of you are but my impression is that the DE are the only side that is slaughtering their rivals. Aren't the order capturing DE's as often as they can rather than killing them? Police capture thier opponents, soldiers do not capture when they can avoid it. Soldiers would prefer to seriously wound the opposing soldiers if possible, kill them if they have to, and capture them as a last resort. Another defining characteristic of a war is that military equipment is used. What military equipment does the WW world have? The closest thing I have seen so far is time turners and the less said about them the better. Thank goodness they are gone. Like policeman and gangsters this conflict is being waged with civilian equipment. JKR has said these books are about death. Any serious attempt to consider death has to be limited to very few, preferably one, death(s). When death is given to the reader wholesale it loses its meaning. War cheapens death as much as it cheapens life. Neither death nor life means much in a war. The death of Harry's parents was a totally sufficient platform on which to build a story about death. Because of Harry's partial responsibility Sirius' death could have been added to the mix. All this additional killing will just detract from the story, if its point is indeed to consider death. It seems to me that the noise of all the deaths that have happened and apparently will happen in the next book will drown out the message JKR says is central to the story. Patricia: The definition of war: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties The American Heritage??? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright ??? 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. By this defintion JKR's conflicts in the HP series are a war. During LV's previous onslaught it lasted many years, there was open, armed combat. And the new war is beginning, though it may not be considered war as of yet I do believe that she will make it an open, armed conflict in the final book even if you don't consider the attack of a school as falling under the open, armed combat category. As for using military equipment and not civilian weaponry, you should consider any soldier who fought using only a gun or sword as non-military and therefore not part of a war. This would also apply to Native Americans who foolishly fought to save their land with bows and arrows and tomahawks (civilian hunting equipment) in what they thought (but were wrong) was a war. Also I can see the good that a tank would do when you are presented with a man who can control your mind and even possess your body. You're right, it makes much more sense to launch a grenade at where he stands hoping he does not apparate. This is a work of fantasy and being so it is much more interesting to use magic and not missiles. This isn't a Clancy book. I can also see your point about how soldiers only want to maim and not kill their enemies. This is highly evident in out current actions over seas. But perhaps you have missed that the body count is indeed very limited and not a single one of the Order or the DA has killed anyone. It's only the opposing side that is doing the killing. This may seem unlike a real war (what with the way that Al Qaedia was trying just to maim american citizens with the terrorist attacks, suicide bombings, and abducting and murdering foreign reporters.) And saying this book isn't about death seriously cheapens some of the points JKR has struggled to present. She certainly stresses the difference made by and the price of James and Lily's death. She constantly mentions how different Harry's life would have been without it and how it affects him. To say Sirius' death was cheapend is preposterous. It drastically effected Harry and seems to have really messed him up. And it is too early yet to see the effects of DD's death, but I'm sure that it will be a driving force for Harry to end once and for all the evil murdering. Even by seeing the death of Madam Bones when she says that they didn't see Susan again shows the affect of death even in war time. I think if anything, JKR has killed off characters who were known very well by her audience and loved and by doing this she shows that death is not cheapened by the quantity. To the people who know, value, and love the dead each death is as fresh, haunting, and heartwrenching as the one before. And we see that through Harry. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 18:39:18 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:39:18 -0000 Subject: Who recruited Peter Pettigrew for the Dark Lord?/DD trust in Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154813 > aussie: > > My opinion of why: > > Snape's motive: revenge against the Maunderers by turning one of > > their own. > > Pettigrew's motive: apart from those spoken about above, Snape may > > have known Peter was an Animagi Rat and if cornered, Snape could > > have offered 3 choices - a) AK Peter straight away as a OOTP > member; > > b) if Peter escaped, expose himas an illegal animagi hunted by MOM; > > c) join DE and be on the strongest team. > > zgirnius: > I agree Snape would have had a motive. Means is more problematic. > There is really no reason to suppose he knew the Marauders were > Animagi, or that Peter was. For one thing, I can't see how he would > have figured such a thing out after they all left school. And while > he was IN school, it would seem too good a card not to have played > then, to get revenge on them. > Alla: IMO There is a reason to at least suspect that Snape knew that Marauders were Animagi. He seems ( to me anyway) to clearly know the names on the Marauder Map. " "Indeed?" said Snape. His jaw had gone rigid with anger. "You think a joke shop could supply him with such a thing? You don't think it more likely that he got it directly from the manufacturers?" Harry didn't understand what Snape was talking about. Nor, apparently,did Lupin." Of course it is possible that he only knew their nicknames, NOT that they were animagi, but I think that there is nothing in canon to contradict that he may have known ( how I don't know, but he could have figured it out somehow) that Marauders were animagi too and that seems to open an interesting can of worms. Like why exactly didn't he tell Dumbledore if he knew? Of course this is speculation built on another speculation, but to me it is a speculation that makes sense. > wynnleaf > But Snape is *not* a person unable to control his outward emotions. > If his actions toward Harry were uncontrollable, then we'd be talking > about a character who would never have been able to pull off being a > double agent for years. It is just unbelievable that a person could > have such control at conveying exactly what he wants to around > Voldemort, Dumbledore and whoever else, and be utterly unable to > control his outward emotions around Harry. Alla: Snape is able to control his emotions? I would like to modify your statement and then maybe I will agree. :) Snape is able to control his emotions EXCEPT where Marauders and Harry is concerned. IMO of course. I mean, Snape in Shrieking Shack does not look to me as the person who is able to control his emotions and he can be many many times justified, the thing is - he does not control his emotions at all. Snape, who cannot keep James out of his mind even when he is running away from Hogwarts and screams "you and your filfy father" looks as someone who is absolutely unable to control himself when it comes to Potter family. IMO of course. Wynnleaf: > Therefore -- Snape *could* control his actions and *open* hatred of > Harry if he wanted to or if he felt there was any need to. Alla: Well, see above. I completely disagree that he can control his emotions on the issue of Potters. Could it be that Potters are his Achilles heel? I think so. Who knows, maybe he was never forced to think about Potters while around Dark Lord, maybe he was able to OCCLUDE that well, to comparmentalise his hatred, BUT if he is not really faithful to Dumbledore, he does not really need to, he may hate the Potters to his heart content and still cheerfully serve Voldemort. James should be the last thing on Snape mind when he runs away and he STILL cannot let go IMO. "You and your filfy father" completely did it away for me with any notion that Snape hatred for Harry is just a pretense and that he is able to distingush between two Potters , not that I had much doubt about it, but that did the trick totally. I am not specifically replyint to you with this last paragraph, just in general. I understand that you are not arguing that Snape is pretending. > Magpie: A convuluted explanation > after the fact that Snape only acted to protect Harry because maybe somebody > might have been suspicious if he hadn't to me is like the author admitting > that she came up with fake scenes to create ambiguity when there was none. > He's acting not in response to stuff in the book but stuff that wasn't > written. Alla: Why? To me it makes sense that what author had in mind is for us to look back when we discover more and more information about character and reread it in the new light? Sure, maybe those holes will be filled NOT like we expected, but I completely disagree that it would be a cheat. I do not know whether Snape saving Harry was because of completely self serving purposes or not. To me Dumbledore indicated quite clearly that it was - getting rid of Life debt does seem to be a self serving purpose if nothing else to me, BUT especially in light of all things that Snape does later IF one interprets them as SNnape not being a noble tortured soul, but the creature of different variety makes total sense to me. Magpie: > The end of the series, imo, has to work at least as well as the end of > PS/SS, which takes into account both Snape's mean behavior and his > protecting Harry without fudging on either of them. That's the way JKR has > worked in the past as well. Alla: YES, if one believes that Snape does both things sincerely - hates Harry and protects him and he very well may be, but if one believes that those two things are not showings of conflicting qualities in Snape, but one main quality - his self preservation, then we have different picture IMO. JMO, Alla From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 3 19:10:45 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 19:10:45 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154814 Amiable Dorsai: > "Investigated", not convicted, not, necessarily, > even run out of Hogwarts (Though I think that a > possibility. The Ministry is not always overly > scrupulous about guilt or innocence.) > I am not arguing that Snape is ESE!, OFH!, or > even Mostly Good But With A Bug Up His Arse About > Anyone Named Potter (MGBWABUHAAANP!), but I do assume > that DDM! Snape will try to save Harry as a matter of > course, so only the other flavors of Snape need be > assumed to be acting to throw off suspicion. > And none of Snape's 57 varieties will want Dumbledore > to even suspect that he might have tried to kill Harry, > or that he failed to act when he could have to prevent > Harry's death. houyhnhnm: I just don't see how Snape would have come under suspicion. If he had *not* been muttering the counter-curse, he wouldn't even have come to Hermione's attention. Lucius Malfoy was still on the Hogwarts board of govenors at this time, Moody was in retirement and considered a paranoid, Rita skeeter was not present at Karkaroff's hearing. Who would accuse him? Two eleven-year-olds who don't like Snape because he is a hard teacher and who think he is after the philosopher's stone. On the other hand, I agree that arousing DD's suspicion, however impossible to prove, would be a deterrent to letting Harry be killed. But if Snape is ESE or OFH he's surely had to do that plenty of times already and seems to have gotten away with it. In fact, if Snape is ESE or OFH, he has been deceiving Dumbledore successfully for some ten to twelve years at this point, so why would he think he couldn't do it one more time. All he had to do was get up and go to the bathroom as soon as he noticed that the broom was being hexed and come back acting shocked and appalled when it was all over. Although I'm a DDMer myself, I can see a number of other reasons why Snape would have saved Harry's life, from wanting to go back to hating James in peace to feeling he needs to keep Harry alive for his own reasons until the Dark Lord comes back. I just don't think fear of putting himself under suspicion is one of them. I can't see that he was in any danger of doing so. wynnleaf: > If Snape had any particular interest in "allaying suspicion" > in the event of someone doing something terrible to Harry, > it makes little sense for him to focus on allaying suspicion > in one small area, yet spending every day acting in a way > that convinces the entire school population that he hates > Harry. If Snape wanted to allay suspicion, why wouldn't he > at least make some attempt to act a bit nicer to Harry? houyhnhnm: I've been wondering about this ever since my first reading of "Spinner's End". Not so much in respect to his treatment of Harry, but in the way he interacts with people on the good side in general. (Too much is made of his hostility to Harry as a reason for adults to distrust him, I think, by readers who identify with Harry. Adults in the WW are going to like or dislike Snape based on how he treats *them*, not on whether or not he is a harsh teacher.) We see, at Spinner's End, that Snape is not congenitally rude or completely lacking in social skills. So if he is a cold and calculating Secret Agent who is really on Voldemort's side, why doesn't he schmooze? From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 3 19:26:03 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 19:26:03 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154815 wynnleaf: [I agree with everything you wrote that I snipped] > Thing is, Voldemort never gets to see a first hand look > at how Snape acts at Hogwarts. houyhnhnm: Actually he does get a first hand look, during the very year in question. LV would have been privy to the whole conversation Quirrell had with Harry in front of the Mirror. I wonder how Snape got out of that one? Apparently LV didn't share the information with Bellatrix. Surely she would have thrown the broom incident up to Snape had she known about it. Or he would have included a rationalization for that incident in his answers to her charges of disloyalty if he knew she knew about it. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 19:35:13 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 12:35:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who recruited Peter Pettigrew for the Dark Lord? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060703193513.93199.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154816 > aussie now: > This old post came out before the release of HBP. I think it is > clearer now that it was Snape that recruited Peter Pettigrew. The > fact that Pettigrew was entrusted to Snape in Spinner's End > reinforces that. (If that is true, would that change anyone's > opinion on Snape?) I don't believe it because I don't think Pettigrew would have respected Snape enough to be recruited by him. Snape was the loser that James and Sirius smacked around for entertainment; not the kind of guy Pettigrew would look to for advancement opportunities. My assumption that it was Ludo Bagman was based partly on my perception of Pettigrew's personality - he doesn't make an unnecessary move before he has to, he reacts to things, he's personally lazy but fast enough when he has to be - and partly on what I thought would be Peter's priorities upon graduation - finding a job, preferably the most pay for the least exertion. This was Sirius' and James' real blind spot where Pettigrew was concerned. Unlike their own comfortable situations where they didn't need fulltime jobs but could throw themselves into Order work, Pettigrew (like most of humanity, wizard or muggle) had to get a job. We've seen how not getting one regularly has hurt Lupin over the years. And once they were out of school, James' rep as a Quidditch star wasn't going to do anything for Pettigrew's status in the job market. Someone offered Pettigrew an opportunity and he jumped for it. For the reasons I listed in my original post, I still think it was Bagman. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 20:03:22 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:03:22 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154817 > Neri: > > > Also, in the pretty long list of "famous wizards" cards > > and "Wizard of the Months" in JKR's site I can't recall a > > single wizard who was persecuted or hurt by muggles in any way. > > houyhnhnm: > > Not killed but possibly persecuted, and certainly inconvenienced. > > Cornelius Agrippa--imprisoned by Francis I. > > Paracelsus--driven out of Basel and forced to wander Europe as a > pauper. Neri: I couldn't find this information myself, but I suspect that in both cases it's the RL history/folklore regarding Agrippa and Paracelsus, not Potterverse canon. That is, JKR used the names of these two RL personas in her story but their persecution isn't part of her canon. I won't be surprised if Nicholas Flamell too was persecuted in RL (many alchemists were) but my point is that such a story isn't a part of his Potterverse persona. I contrast this with Mc'Tavish (to take just one example) where his baiting a muggle is certainly a part of Potterverse canon. > > > Carol responds: > > I'm not suggesting that the DEs used the Salem witch trials as > justification for Muggle baiting. I'm saying that it may well have > prompted the Statute of Secrecy in the same year. > Neri: It very well may be, but the question I'm interested in (at least I think this is what Potioncat suggested, which started this discussion in the first place) is precisely if witch-hunts were a justification for the way the Slytherin faction treats muggles. My point is that JKR could have easily taken that direction, had she wanted to. The horrible RL history of witch-hunts could certainly be used to justify a lot. In that case the HP series would have come out very much like the X-men series, only with persecuted wizards instead of persecuted mutants. But JKR very decidedly (and IMO very wisely) didn't go there. In her single detailed reference to the witch-hunts throughout the series she has the History of Magic teacher *and* textbook both assure us (and with a rather humoristic tone at that) that true witches and wizards didn't suffer from "witch" burning. Rather pointedly she told us about quite a few cases of muggle baiting and even muggle killing by wizards, but no case of wizard baiting by muggles. IIRC the only exception for that is the treatment that Harry himself gets from the Dursleys, but Harry is the very antithesis of the Slytherin faction. So while I agree that JKR uses the witch-hunts as a plot point to help explain the secrecy of the WW, I think she also says that it cannot be used to justify or understand the Slytherin ideology. Neri From patriciah711 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 18:53:52 2006 From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Liking J.K., not liking J.K. (was: ESE! JKR ?/not hardly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060703185352.84535.qmail@web52815.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154818 > Katie wrote : > I have met quite a few people who say they "don't like" J.K. > Rowling, but they love Harry. Ken: >> I have reservations about JKR too. I'm on Harry's side and I think he has earned the right to have a normal life after LV. I don't know if I like him or not. Artists are divorced from their creations in my mind. << >Katie: > Secondly, how can you dislike someone you have never met? Ken: >> We have met her through the media. She may not know any of us but all of us know her to an extent. We have also met her through her work. Some of us are delighted by her story telling, yet have reservations about her story. << Patricia: I think that no one should be told that in order to like the HP series you have to adore JKR. I personally idolize her writing ability and style. As for JKR the person. You don't know her. You know THE MEDIA PRESENTS JK ROWLING. Now I'm not saying that she has to be a fantastic person in real life. But I don't think anyone really has a right to pass judgement. Criticize her as an artist, critique her work, but leave JKR the person out of your postings. None of has any right to critique her as a person without knowing her. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 3 20:35:34 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:35:34 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154819 Neri: > I couldn't find this information myself, but I suspect that > in both cases it's the RL history/folklore regarding Agrippa > and Paracelsus, houyhnhnm: Right. It's Muggle history. It's what would be found in a Muggle history book in the Potterverse, written with the bias of the Muggle worldview, one which doesn't accept the existance of witchcraft and wizardry. In the same way, wizard history books reflect the bias of the WW, that the power of Muggles is infinitessimal compared to that of wizards and poses no real threat. So it is canon that WW history books *claim* no real witches were ever burnt, but who knows whether or not that is the truth. You can't trust everything you read in books. ;-) From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 3 20:25:45 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:25:45 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154820 > > wynnleaf: > > Thing is, Voldemort never gets to see a first hand look > > at how Snape acts at Hogwarts. > > houyhnhnm: > > Actually he does get a first hand look, during the very > year in question. LV would have been privy to the whole > conversation Quirrell had with Harry in front of the Mirror. wynnleaf Argh!!! How could I have been so *stupid*? Of course, you're right. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jul 3 20:55:04 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 16:55:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who recruited Peter Pettigrew for the Dark Lord?/DD trust in Snape References: Message-ID: <00b201c69ee2$f619a0b0$1498400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154821 >> Magpie: > > A convuluted explanation >> after the fact that Snape only acted to protect Harry because > maybe somebody >> might have been suspicious if he hadn't to me is like the author > admitting >> that she came up with fake scenes to create ambiguity when there > was none. >> He's acting not in response to stuff in the book but stuff that > wasn't >> written. > > Alla: > > Why? To me it makes sense that what author had in mind is for us to > look back when we discover more and more information about character > and reread it in the new light? Sure, maybe those holes will be > filled NOT like we expected, but I completely disagree that it would > be a cheat. Magpie: Yes, definitely re-evaulate with new information, but I think this goes beyond that. If we had scenes showing that Snape was always being watched, that he was under suspicion generally, then I think it would be something we'd be right to consider. Instead we have a scene where Snape looks like he's hurting Harry, and then it turns out he's saving him--great, that's a reversal that we re-evaluate. Snape now has a reason to hate Harry (he hated your father and you remind him of him) and also a reason to save him (he hated you, but he never wanted you dead, he's anti-Voldemort). Only then it reverses again seven books later adding a third thing that replaces a personal motivation (he's anti-Voldemort, he's pro-Dumbledore, he's indebted to James, he's guilty about the Prophecy, whatever) with an impersonal one (he's saving Harry just in case some unknown person mistakes him for the killer). > Alla: > > YES, if one believes that Snape does both things sincerely - hates > Harry and protects him and he very well may be, but if one believes > that those two things are not showings of conflicting qualities in > Snape, but one main quality - his self preservation, then we have > different picture IMO. Magpie: I think they're definitely conflicting things in Snape. The problem with self-preservation, for me, is that this kind of self-preservation hasn't been shown the way the other two have. Snape just isn't shown to be pressured in that particular way. Snape's never under suspicion by anyone except Harry. Not saving Harry in the Quidditch Match isn't even suspicious since nobody else does it. If there's some reason that we learn for Snape saving Harry at the Quidditch match for an evil reason I think it has to be something where we can look back and see it happening in front of us if we re-read. There should be something going on explained only by that. -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 3 21:26:38 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:26:38 -0000 Subject: Liking J.K., not liking J.K. In-Reply-To: <20060703185352.84535.qmail@web52815.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154822 Katie wrote : > I have met quite a few people who say > they "don't like" J.K. Rowling, but > they love Harry. They don't like JKR because she put Harry through such hell. I remember in a interview somebody asked JKR if she had lunch with Harry what they would talk about, she said the first thing she'd do is apologize to Harry. But suppose JKR had made life easy for Harry, would we still love him if he had no opportunity to demonstrate his bravery because nothing bad ever happened to him? I don't think so. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 3 21:09:29 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:09:29 -0000 Subject: Will Harry remain single? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154823 Everyone is debating if Harry will die in the last book but I want to ask a different question, will Harry remain single in the last book? The next time we see Harry (Ron and Hermione too for that matter) he will officially be an adult. Although legal I grant you that under normal conditions it might not be wise to marry at only 17, but these conditions are far from normal. Mrs. Weasley said that the last time Voldemort was powerful lots of people got married very young because they figured they could be dead at any time so it's now or never. I wonder if the wedding chapter in the next book that we all know is coming will turn out to be a double wedding, or maybe even a triple. Most fans would not expect that plot twist so it might appeal to JKR; and if she kills off Harry as I think she will she might want to have Harry Potter Junior waiting in the wings just in case she someday changes her mind and decides to write more about the Potter dynasty. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 3 21:39:42 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:39:42 -0000 Subject: Will Harry remain single? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154824 Everyone is debating if Harry will die in the last book but I want to ask a different question, will Harry remain single in the last book? The next time we see Harry (Ron and Hermione too for that matter) he will officially be an adult. Although legal I grant you that under normal conditions it might not be wise to marry at only 17, but these conditions are far from normal. Mrs. Weasley said that the last time Voldemort was powerful lots of people got married very young because they figured they could be dead at any time so it's now or never. I wonder if the wedding chapter in the next book that we all know is coming will turn out to be a double wedding, or maybe even a triple. Most fans would not expect that plot twist so it might appeal to JKR; and if she kills off Harry as I think she will she might want to have Harry Potter Junior waiting in the wings just in case she someday changes her mind and decides to write more about the Potter dynasty. Eggplant From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 22:18:52 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:18:52 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154825 AD: > I am not arguing that Snape is ESE!, OFH!, or even Mostly > Good But With A Bug Up His Arse About Anyone Named > Potter (MGBWABUHAAANP!), but I do assume that > DDM! Snape will try to save Harry as a matter of > course, so only the other flavors of Snape need be assumed to be > acting to throw off suspicion. > > And none of Snape's 57 varieties will want Dumbledore to even > suspect that he might have tried to kill Harry, or that he failed to > act when he could have to prevent Harry's death. Pippin: > Odd, then, that Quirrell does not reason the same way. He > *does* try to kill Harry. He is investigated. He does exactly > what I would expect a guilty Snape to do. He keeps his cool > (while acting innocently flustered and nervous) and denies > everything. He could have done much the same if his plan had > succeeded and Harry had died. AD: Snape and Voldemort--we need consider only Voldemort's motives, Quirrell's pretty much just the horse he's riding--have entirely different motives. Snape's got a job--probably a much better one than he could get anywhere else, given his history--and Dumbledore's continuing protection, right up until Dumbledore decides he was wrong about Snape, after all. Snape needs to preserve that relationship for as long as he can. Voldemort's going for the big prize. Once he gets the Philosopher's Stone, he's outta there. If he can croak "The one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord", along the way, so much the better. He can weather a bit of suspicion from Dumbledore, and the Aurors have a much better suspect in Snape. Pippin: > All the reasons you gave for Snape wanting Harry dead would > also be motives for Harry to fake the attack and falsely blame > Snape. AD: I'm confused. All along, I've been arguing that Snape needs Harry alive. Pippin: > Harry himself notices this, and that's the reason he doesn't > take Hermione's suspicions to anyone but Hagrid. AD: Interesting. Is this canon, or your inference? Pippin: > Not to mention that if Snape hadn't interfered in the attack, he > wouldn't have been staring fixedly at Harry, and Hermione > wouldn't have suspected him (*she* certainly doesn't know > about his DE past.) Neither would anyone else -- after all, even > with the attack on Harry unsolved, Snape was trusted enough to > referee the next match. AD: I'm sorry, Pippin, but could you elaborate this? I honestly don't see where you're going with it. (BTW, Hermione suspected Snape right away--she shouted "I knew it!" when she spotted him through the binoculars.) Amiable Dorsai From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 3 22:24:27 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:24:27 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154826 wynnleaf: > Argh!!! How could I have been so *stupid*? > Of course, you're right. houyhnhnm: I never thought of it either until today. Voldemort would also have heard the *entire* conversation between Snape and Quirrell in the Forbidden Forest. It's too bad *we* didn't, especially the part that was interrupted by the owl, when Snape was reproaching Quirrell for his "little bit of hocus-pocus". My guess is that Snape was already suspicious of Voldemort's presence at that point and couched his language very carefully with an eye towards future plausible deniability. I can imagine him taking the offensive in his own defense when he had to confront Voldemort again after LV's regeneration. "Master, why didn't you *trust* me, etc., etc." But, I've no doubt Snape was tortured when he returned to Voldemort and I find it hard to believe that Voldemort fully trusted Snape. The interesting thing is that Bellatrix doesn't seem to know anything about it. Surely she would have thrown that up to him, too, if she did. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 23:26:31 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 23:26:31 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154827 > houyhnhnm: > > I just don't see how Snape would have come under > suspicion. If he had *not* been muttering the > counter-curse, he wouldn't even have come to Hermione's > attention. AD: As I've just mentioned to Pippin, Hermione was suspected Snape before she spotted him with the binoculars--she shouted "I knew it!" as soon as she saw him. houyhnhnm: > Lucius Malfoy was still on the Hogwarts > board of govenors at this time, Moody was in retirement > and considered a paranoid, Rita skeeter was not present > at Karkaroff's hearing. Who would accuse him? Two > eleven-year-olds who don't like Snape because he is a > hard teacher and who think he is after the philosopher's stone. AD: If the Boy Who Lived suddenly doesn't, anymore, because one of the finest brooms in the world goes haywire for no apparent reason, there will be an investigation. It will certainly involve Aurors who will certainly know about Snape's past. Unless Carol's Death Eater pep squad was at the game, the only people in attendance who are capable of the "powerful Dark magic" it takes to curse a broom will be members of the Hogwarts staff, perhaps a dozen, on the outside, probably fewer. Of these, Snape is the only one who is openly hostile to Harry. A little asking around will yield the tidbit that Snape hated James Potter and his friends. All of this does not add up to conviction, but it will tend to push Snape's name to the top of the list of suspects. houyhnhnm: > On the other hand, I agree that arousing DD's suspicion, > however impossible to prove, would be a deterrent to > letting Harry be killed. But if Snape is ESE or OFH > he's surely had to do that plenty of times already and > seems to have gotten away with it. In fact, if Snape is > ESE or OFH, he has at this point, so why would > he think he couldn't do it one more time. AD: Probably, he's been deceiving Dumbledore successfully for some ten to twelve years by little gestures like reporting useful information, keeping his nose clean, and preventing the odd murder. I'm astonished that so many people who think so highly of Snape also seem to think that he's so completely bugf*ck that he would rather see Harry dead by another person's hand than reap the benefits of preventing his murder. How did *I* end up being the guy defending Snape's brains and sanity? Amiable Dorsai, JD Devil's Advocacy Department Shyster, Flywheel and Dumbledore Attorneys at Magical Law From richter at ridgenet.net Tue Jul 4 01:12:46 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 01:12:46 -0000 Subject: Snape saves Harry (or does he?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154828 While there have been several references to Snape saving Harry, I am not sure that he actually does. Take the broom incident of SS/PS for example: Snape gives the "counter-curse" to Quirrell's broom hex. Quirrell is indeed trying to kill Harry by getting the broom to "buck" him off. But would a fall off a broom actually have KILLED Harry? We know from SS/PS that Neville can fall from 20 feet and sustain nothing more serious thatn a broken wrist (the first flying session, page 182 of the paperback American edition). And we know later that Neville recounts being dropped as a child from a window -- and bouncing. We know Harry has levitated to the school roof as a child when Dudley and pals were harassing him. We know that at the World cup a flyer can go at high speed into the ground (twice) and while dazed, not require hospitalization (and flying into the ground at speed is a much higher impact problem than simply falling to the ground. While JKR isn't good at "maths" the basic principles of physics and energy don't really require "maths"). Speculating, it's unlikely that Harry would have been the FIRST person to ever fall or be knocked off a broom during a game. And we know the Twins have stated that no one has ever gotten killed at Hogwarts playing the game. Further, Snape isn't the ONLY teacher there. If Harry had actually FALLEN, how likely is it that every teacher present would have simply let him fall and die? We know from the POA, that DD knows a spell to slow a person down -- it may be something new to the students but to ALL the teachers present? In POA, Snape "may" believe he is rescuing Harry from Lupin and Sirius but he certainly didn't go to the Whomping Willow to do so. Snape only discovers Harry is inside the tunnel or the shack by finding the invisibility cloak outside the willow. And whatever Snape may believe about Sirius, by the time Snape arrives, Harry is in absolutely no danger from Sirius. Regarding the danger of Lupin, it is SIRIUS who intervenes to save HHR, not Snape. Snape only recovers after it is too late. Nor does Snape save Harry from the dementors when they attack Harry and Sirius in POA -- it is Harry himself who does that. In GOF, Snape is not there to "save" Harry from his encounter with LV - - and in the encounter with Crouch/fake Moody, it isn't Snape who saves Harry but DD. In the OOP, it's argued that Snape "saves" Harry by sending the Order to the MOM -- I disagree. He had to notify the order that Harry was missing -- if he hadn't, either as DDM OR as ESE, he would have had to explain that serious lapse to Dumbledore. He had no way to know that his information was timely enough to help Harry or not. the same goes for HBP at the end. Leaving Harry for LV to deal with isn't necessarily "saving" Harry. It might (as I believe) actually reflect LV's orders - we know LV has given similar ones in GOF. Failing to kill Harry himself is not the same thing as saving Harry. I don't believe Snape has actually ever actually SAVED Harry and certainly not at the risk of his own life. Which is one reason why LID!Snape makes some sense as an explanation of his actions. PAR From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 4 01:45:18 2006 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (Emily) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 01:45:18 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154829 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > snip > LV does not know this but if he were to succeed with his plan to rule > the WW and wreak havoc on the Muggles he would not need Harry > Potter to do him in. He would reveal the magical world to the rest of > humankind. Muggle scientists would then take care of him in short > order and Muggle society would take its revenge on the WW. > > Ken > imamommy: Ken, I really liked the point you made about science in general, but don't you think that LV would be able to deal with scientists before they stuck him under a microscope? I think he's got enough magical power to avoid or destroy or enslave them just fine. I think Hagrid makes a good point about the WW just not wanting to be bothered with Muggles wanting them to fix everything. Can't you hear President Bush: "Pleeeease make a potion that will mimic crude oil?" imamommy From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jul 4 02:07:39 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 02:07:39 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > > > > houyhnhnm: > > > > I just don't see how Snape would have come under > > suspicion. If he had *not* been muttering the > > counter-curse, he wouldn't even have come to Hermione's > > attention. > > AD: > As I've just mentioned to Pippin, Hermione was suspected Snape before > she spotted him with the binoculars--she shouted "I knew it!" as soon > as she saw him. > > Julie now: I'm not sure why this makes any difference. So Hermione suspected Snape. What would have happened if Snape had just sat there minding his own business and enjoying the show while Ouirrel was trying to knock Harry off his broom? Hermione would still have looked at him through her binoculars (given her suspicion) and would have seen him sitting there minding his business--perhaps even looking appropriately surprised or disturbed at Harry's predicament. If others suspected him after the fact, there would be Hermione, so very conveniently admitting in her honest way that Snape hadn't done anything suspicious at all! Or, as someone else posted, Snape could have just gone to the bathroom and avoided the whole thing. In fact, if he wanted Harry dead but was fearful of suspicion falling on him, why didn't he just *avoid* being in Quirrel's presence like the plague? If I recall, Snape suspected him of being up to no good. So why not keep out of Quirrel's way and let him carry out his nefarious deeds, and be rid of the Potter brat with no one the wiser of his suspicions or barely contained joy? Julie From h2so3f at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 02:06:05 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 02:06:05 -0000 Subject: Liking J.K., not liking J.K. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154831 Katie wrote: "I have met quite a few people who say they "don't like" J.K. Rowling, but they love Harry. First of all, I find it strange to not at least admire and respect the person who created a character you love. If you love Harry, how can you claim to dislike the person that created him? " CH3ed: Hi. I don't know J.K. Rowling, but from all I've heard of her I think she is cool and I definitely like her works. As to the question of how one can love an artist's work without loving (or even liking) the artist, that really isn't self contradictory. I love Wagner's opera (even when they are 4+ hrs long), but wouldn't want to be in the same room with that man (a pro-Nazi anti Jew bigot who was really lacking in the moral department). The work and the man aren't the same thing. That extends even in other area beside the arts. Sir Isaac Newton was not a nice man (which is quite an understatement), but there is no questioning his scientific genius. There are lots of star athletes who are wonderful at what they do in their sport, and a total jerk off the field. I think it is wise to not judge people solely by what they do well. That way we'd be a lot less prone to being disappointed that our 'idols' aren't supermen/superwomen outside of their profession. I'd say that applies to Harry and Co. in the series as well. It does seem that a lot of us hold them to quite an impossible standard (even in real life). Even the most well behaved kids in my high school years weren't perfectly thoughtful and mindful of the consequences of all of their actions (and nobody should expect them to be). CH3ed :O) PS: Happy 4th of July to our American numbers! From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Tue Jul 4 02:44:56 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:44:56 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and Marietta Message-ID: <3bb.4bc3ac9.31db3028@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154832 I am responding to Betsy and Magpie about the Hermione hex on Marietta. I don't have the computer skills or equipment to include the posts I am responding to. As I said in an earlier post I am on this list to hear other people's opinions and takes and that I am open to changing my own. I do understand the opinion that the two of you have about this situation. Although you decribe the DA as a study group I see it as literally being an Army, and as such Marietta was a traitor. I felt very uneasy about them letting Marietta join considering her feelings and reluctance to do so, but it was rather like being between a rock and a hard place. Even if they didn't let her join she knew about the group and would have a direct line to it through Cho so she still had the potential to betray them. I believe that it was because of Marietta that Hermione made the hexed contract (for lack of a better term) to begin with, and her instincts turned out to be right. Having said that, I totally agree with you that her recruiting was handled very badly to begin with. OoP is one of the most unpleasant books I have ever read. I had a very hard time getting through it the first time and had to force myself to read it again before the release of HBP. It is one unpleasant occurence after another, after another, and the one between Hermione and Marietta is one of the lesser unpleasantries to me. Furthermore, although Hermione is my least favorite of the Trio, I admit that I am in awe of her very gifted talent which often blinds me to her deviousness. Also, I am not totally convinced that Marietta is scarred for life. Yes, the marks are still on her face at the beginning of HBP, but then she drops off the radar never to be heard of significantly again (IIRC). The scar on Harry's hand is fading as time goes by so perhaps the same applies for Marietta's face. I think the brief mention of Marietta at the beginning of HBP is just a JKR plot device as a reminder of events that occured in OoP, just as the mention of Serius' will is. Then both situations are just left hanging. We don't see a grieving Harry just as we don't see a remorseful Hermione, or vice versa. Therefore, it is impossible to know if the disfigurement is permanent or not. It is yet another of JKR's not fully developed plots. She was so concerned about the length of HBP that I believe she left out a lot that needed to be included, and I can see her making that same mistake with the next book with nowhere to go from there. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jul 4 03:03:54 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 03:03:54 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154833 > > AD: > > As I've just mentioned to Pippin, Hermione was suspected Snape > before > > she spotted him with the binoculars--she shouted "I knew it!" as > soon > > as she saw him. > > > > Potioncat: This event is the day after Harry learned that Snape had been injured by Fluffy. Harry was convinced Snape was trying to steal the stone, but Hermione wasn't so sure. Now, Harry's broom is bucking, and Hagrid says it must be Dark Magic and it can't be a student causing it. Hermione grabs his binoculars and looks "frantically at the crowd." "I knew it. Snape---look." So, what did she know? When she looked into the crowd was she looking for the signs that someone was working a hex? (as she would say after the game, "I know a hex when I see one.") And when she sees someone who appears to be hexing the broom, it happens to be Snape? Or was she looking for Snape to see if he was the one who was hexing the broom? See the difference? Was she thinking "I knew it was Snape." or was she thinking, "I knew I could spot the hex." In the discussion after the game, the narrator says, "The afternoon's events certainly seemed to have changed her mind about Snape." I don't think she suspected Snape before hand. Just think, if she had seen Quirrell first, she would have thought it was Quirrell hexing the broom. From 4harveys at comcast.net Tue Jul 4 02:59:40 2006 From: 4harveys at comcast.net (Gina) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 02:59:40 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154834 Darbosheadobby: I saw this and decided to chime in - hope you don't mind. Hermione has always taken up for Snape saying that DD trusting him is enough. I never thought she was looking for Snape. She just assumed SOMEONE had to be cursing Harry's broom and looked through the crowd until she spotted someone chanting which just so happened to be Snape. This was just my interpretation. Dobby --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juli17ptf" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" > wrote: > > > > > > > houyhnhnm: > > > > > > I just don't see how Snape would have come under > > > suspicion. If he had *not* been muttering the > > > counter-curse, he wouldn't even have come to Hermione's > > > attention. > > > > AD: > > As I've just mentioned to Pippin, Hermione was suspected Snape > before > > she spotted him with the binoculars--she shouted "I knew it!" as > soon > > as she saw him. > > > > > > Julie now: > I'm not sure why this makes any difference. So Hermione suspected > Snape. What would have happened if Snape had just sat there minding > his own business and enjoying the show while Ouirrel was trying to > knock Harry off his broom? Hermione would still have looked at him > through her binoculars (given her suspicion) and would have seen him > sitting there minding his business--perhaps even looking > appropriately surprised or disturbed at Harry's predicament. If > others suspected him after the fact, there would be Hermione, so very > conveniently admitting in her honest way that Snape hadn't done > anything suspicious at all! > > Or, as someone else posted, Snape could have just gone to the > bathroom and avoided the whole thing. In fact, if he wanted Harry > dead but was fearful of suspicion falling on him, why didn't he just > *avoid* being in Quirrel's presence like the plague? If I recall, > Snape suspected him of being up to no good. So why not keep out of > Quirrel's way and let him carry out his nefarious deeds, and be rid > of the Potter brat with no one the wiser of his suspicions or barely > contained joy? > > Julie > From peppermintpattie4 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 23:20:39 2006 From: peppermintpattie4 at yahoo.com (patricia bindrim) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 16:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will Harry remain single? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060703232039.63319.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154835 --- eggplant107 wrote: > Everyone is debating if Harry will die in the last > book but I want to > ask a different question, will Harry remain single > in the last book? > > In my opinion Harry probably will not get married in book 7. Harry's prime concern should be getting rid of Voldemort. Remember the prophecy that foretold one must die. But on a lighter side is that after all the dust has fallen and Harry is still around, I hope Harry does get married and have a family of his own. But that will years down the road. Patricia From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 03:51:38 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 03:51:38 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154836 > Pippin: > Oy :) > I am not arguing that Hermione is Voldemort in the making. She > might be Crouch Sr in the making, as cruel and ruthless as any > DE. I thoroughly expect her to turn from that path, but right now > that is where some of her choices are taking her, IMO. Alla: But by comparing her action to that of Voldemort that is at least close enough, no? I mean, again, please don't get me wrong, I completely respect everybody's right to compare Hermione to Umrbridge, to Crouch Sr, to Voldemort. I find those comparisons to be very puzzling, but to each their own. Why > *did* she act alone in hexing the parchment? Was it that she > didn't trust Harry or Ron? Or did she think Ron would object, > as he objected to her attempt to trick the House Elves. 'They > should at least see what they're picking up.' Alla: Um, Harry did not show much interest in preparing first meeting, didn't he? I mean, I agreed in another thread that Hermione should have told Harry significantly more than she did about first DA meeting that many people will come, etc, BUT considering the fact that she INDEED turned out to know better and Harry turned out to enjoy teaching very much, I do not begrudge Hermione much. Harry was continuously going on Ron and Hermione in OOP. If you remember from past discussions, I was NOT upset with CAPSLOCK Harry one single bit, I think poor boy was long long overdue for temper tantrum or two or many, BUT Ron and Hermione did not really do anything to deserve it either IMO. I LOVED how they let Harry talk and scream at them during OOP as true friends would and stood by him as true friends would, but really I understand why Hermione acted alone. As to why she did not include Ron, hmmm, maybe she did ask him to do research with her, but Ron just does not like library much? Just speculating here of course. It is interesting that you should mention House Elves. I predict that Hermione will proved right here and House Elves will be free ( not her means - that maybe a lesson for her to learn in House Elves situation, but her ends are the ones JKR IMO totally supports). House Elves ARE coming back in book 7, that's a fact ( see JKR diary entry for May 10 on her website). I don't think they are coming back in order for their situation to remain the same. > When has Dumbledore used scare tactics against anyone? He > bends over backwards to avoid even the appearance of coercing > people. I thought that was one of your objections to him. Alla: Um, I thought that your emphasis on comparing Hermione and Voldemort was on acting alone as in they know better and making decisions alone. If you are comparing scary tactics, then no, of course not. But acting alone and making decisions alone, contrary to other people may think, yes. Leaving Harry with Dursleys despite Mcgonagall objection, NOT sharing his suspicions about Tommy with other teaching staff, who may have paid more attention to Tommy and his gang if only Dumbledore shared his suspicions, NOT sharing why he trusts Snape with other order Members. But just to be clear I do NOT think that DD is same as Voldemort, because of WHY he does things, just as I don't think that Hermione does things the way Voldemort does. JMO, Alla From aceworker at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 04:19:30 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 21:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione , Marietta etc/ DD trust in Snape Message-ID: <20060704041930.94153.qmail@web30206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154837 < Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154838 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > IF she [Hermione] deliberately used the hex > that lasts for such long period of time, > only if that was deliberately, then yes, > that part I think was wrong. I don't think it was wrong, in fact I think Marietta got off very lightly. Marietta was part of a secret underground organization that was trying to oppose a brutal tyrant, and she betrayed them. Imagine if she were part of the resistance in occupied France and fellow members discovered she had betrayed some of her comrades to the Nazis, she'd receive more than acne, she'd get a bullet in the brain. And I would shed no tears for her. I think Hermione showed enormous restraint, more than I have anyway. Eggplant From huntergreen3 at aol.com Tue Jul 4 06:58:30 2006 From: huntergreen3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 06:58:30 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154839 Eggplant wrote: >> I think Marietta got off very lightly. Marietta was part of a secret underground organization that was trying to oppose a brutal tyrant, and she betrayed them. Imagine if she were part of the resistance in occupied France and fellow members discovered she had betrayed some of her comrades to the Nazis, she'd receive more than acne, she'd get a bullet in the brain. And I would shed no tears for her. I think Hermione showed enormous restraint, more than I have anyway. << HunterGreen (jumping in very late on the discussion): Except that it wasn't a "secret" organization when she joined, now was it? Nor was the goal to oppose a tyrant. At the time she joined the group, it was neither against any rules, nor was it stated that its purpose was to upset Umbridge (though it clearly WOULD upset her, that was not the purpose of the group, they didn't sit around thinking of ways to get Umbridge out of the school, after all). She was taken to a pub to talk about a defense club, the purpose of which was to practice spells to pass their OWLs and oppose Voldemort. At the end of the LEGAL meeting, she put her name on the paper that later would cause the jinx. After that, whether or not she ever went to another meeting, if Umbridge found that paper, she was still implicated as a member. Yes, Marietta by signing the paper, did agree not to tell 'Umbridge or anyone else' what they were up to, but she agreed to that when there would be no consequences of Umbridge finding out. Then, next thing she knows, she's a part of an illegal organization that she could be expelled for being a part of. Yes, from Harry's point-of- view (and from the reader's point-of-view) its a very clear-cut situation, that being the the Ministry is being overly-paranoid about Dumbledore and short-sighted about Voldemort, but that doesn't mean that Marietta agrees, or sees it the same way. From her point-of- view, she's breaking school rules every time she goes to one of those meetings, and she DOESN'T have a family who will be able to understand in the least bit why she's doing that (even Ron's mother, who is a memeber of more official anti-Voldemort organization, doesn't want him in the DA). She most likely thought she was doing the right thing. She wasn't trying to be vindictive, or evil, or spiteful, she was trying to do what appeared, to her, to be the 'right' thing to do in an odd situation. And for that, does she deserve to be branded for life? Not really. -HunterGreen/Rebecca (hoping she made sense as she is being attacked by a headache) From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Jul 4 07:13:29 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (Schlobin at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 03:13:29 EDT Subject: Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no children Message-ID: <41b.448e247.31db6f19@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154840 Okay, I know this has been discussed before...perhaps it's because everything is Harry's point of view, but....no wonder Professor Dumbledore has staff problems...there's a celibacy rule! (a mild joke) Okay, not ONLY do none of the professors have partners/spouses/lovers, but it seems NONE of them have children. Lupin may be the only exception (now that JKR has squashed rumors of his and Sirius' past love affair by linking him with Tonks)....but most of them do not have a spouse/partner/offspring that we know of (okay so maybe some of them have families squirreled away). This is very strange. Now, I would be the first to say that maybe they're all lesbian and gay and are closeted, but I doubt that.........(please don't tell me that JKR believes that only heterosexual pairings are normal, she is way too tolerant for that)..... Are most of the professors (AND adults in the series) purebloods? -- and is there a mutation? -- (the Comyn on Darkover spring to mind) that is counter-reproductive? The Weasleys seem to be the only family with a lot of kids... well of course Lily and James didn't have time, but the Malfoys only have one, the Lestranges have none, Barty Crouch only has one, the Diggorys only have one, Crabbe and Goyle seem to only have one.....neither Sirius or Regulus have had any kids that we know of...the Patils and Creevys seem to be the only other siblings..... Susan McGee _http://www.minervainc.org_ (http://www.minervainc.org) Interested in joining Harry Potter for Grownups Over 40? Email me at _SusanGSMcGee at aol.com_ (mailto:SusanGSMcGee at aol.com) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 4 08:30:00 2006 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (Sandra Collins) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:30:00 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154841 I don't know if this has been discussed before but I'll give it a go. Over the last few months I've been through my HP collection again due to a poor performance at a HP quiznight at a friend's house, starting from book one and going right through. I just can't get my head around the layout of the whole HP world. If a non wizard/witch person was driving around, could they stumble across the Weasley's house? Would a burglar be in for a few surprises if they chose Snape's place to break into? I suppose my point is, if the characters have to go through a magical gateway to be on Platform 9 and 3/4 which exists in a 'parallel' world, why don't the magical people reside permanently in that world? I can understand that those children with one parent who is magical and one who isn't magical might need to go through a gateway, but why would the Weasleys (and presumably the Malfoys as well)? I first wondered this in book two, when Ron is flying the car in the non-magical world, and somehow arrives in the magical one, flying above the Hogwarts Express. I think the same is true of Diagon Alley as well. I think that is in a 'parallel' world as well and takes up no space in London otherwise it would have been seen over the years and the shops would be having a hard time with the businees rates! There's a few other questions this raises, but those are for another topic and won't be important if someone can put me straight on things I must have missed. Sandra, back after ages away! From jferer at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 09:13:37 2006 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:13:37 -0000 Subject: Will Harry remain single? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154842 Eggplant: "Everyone is debating if Harry will die in the last book but I want to ask a different question, will Harry remain single in the last book? The next time we see Harry (Ron and Hermione too for that matter) he will officially be an adult. Although legal I grant you that under normal conditions it might not be wise to marry at only 17, but these conditions are far from normal. Mrs. Weasley said that the last time Voldemort was powerful lots of people got married very young because they figured they could be dead at any time so it's now or never. I wonder if the wedding chapter in the next book that we all know is coming will turn out to be a double wedding, or maybe even a triple. Most fans would not expect that plot twist so it might appeal to JKR; and if she kills off Harry as I think she will she might want to have Harry Potter Junior waiting in the wings just in case she someday changes her mind and decides to write more about the Potter dynasty." Harry will have to change his mind between June and the wedding if he's going to marry Ginny. Right now he's sent her away to protect her, to avoid making her a target. Harry's going to be severely damaged goods once this is over; PTSD doesn't even cover it. Ginny will have to be, and she would be, completely patient and understanding with him. I predicted that he would disappear after Voldemort's defeat for a while, maybe even a long while. That's still possible but less likely now. If it's all over he may want to come back to the people he knows love him. I don't think Harry Jr. will be around (He'd be named James anyway), and, if JKR kills Harry off, which I doubt, she's likely to do it so there's no going back (no Reichenbach Falls for Harry). Jim Ferer From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jul 4 13:28:54 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 13:28:54 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione , Marietta etc/ DD trust in Snape In-Reply-To: <20060704041930.94153.qmail@web30206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154843 >DA Jones >It is not likely that either char will appear in book 7, since in >theory though >should have grad, (yes they didn't take their Newts) and Marietta has >been cut >from the OOP film. wynnleaf While of course we have no idea why this occurred, it's rather interesting to wonder why. In the GOF movie, I noticed that the filmmakers decided *not* to show Draco/Ferret being bounced from 10 feet in the air *to the ground* accompanied by his squeals of pain while Harry, Ron, and Hermione and other Gryffindors laugh uproariously about it. Instead, Draco is simply swished around in the air a bit. I always thought that perhaps the filmmakers knew that HRH and friends wouldn't look nearly so cool if they showed the scene the way it occurred in the books. Perhaps the makers of OOTP felt the same way about the Marietta scenes. Remember, we see everything from Harry's point of view in the books (well, mostly). But in the films, while Harry's point of view can get a strong focus, it's not quite the same. We make more of our own decisions about how we view events without a Harry centered narration telling us whether or not it's funny, or whatever. Hermione might not look nearly so justified if we got to see Marietta's punishment for ourselves, without as much Harry-filter. wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 4 13:33:16 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 13:33:16 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154844 > AD: > Snape and Voldemort--we need consider only Voldemort's motives, > Quirrell's pretty much just the horse he's riding--have entirely > different motives. > > Snape's got a job--probably a much better one than he could get > anywhere else, given his history--and Dumbledore's continuing > protection, right up until Dumbledore decides he was wrong about > Snape, after all. Snape needs to preserve that relationship for as > long as he can. Pippin: Wait a minute. Only DDM!Snape needs Dumbledore's continuing protection. All varieties of Snape have been cleared of charges by the tribunal. Snape needs protecting only if he expects Voldemort to return and only if he intends to oppose him. There are plenty of people with DE history and lovely ministry jobs. Snape doesn't need Dumbledore's patronage for that. There is a contingent on this list arguing that Snape Wants Harry Dead But Not Yet. That Snape would certainly act to save Harry's life regardless of his loyalties. But I thought you were saying that even if Snape wanted Harry dead, he would not permit Quirrell to kill Harry in front of him because he, Snape, would then become a suspect. Is that right? That seems bizarre to me. Surely if Snape wants Harry dead, having someone else do the dirty would be a stroke of luck. Even if it could be shown that Snape had reasons to hate Harry and could have done the attack, it would be mighty hard to prove that he'd done it, or even that he let it happen, especially if he managed to point the finger at Quirrell. Anyway, for a common citizen to fail to give aid in an emergency is not a crime, AFAIK. The most Snape might be accused of is dereliction of duty, for which he might be sacked, but more likely he would just be encouraged to resign as Lupin did. The governors would surely be happy to hush things up as usual, rather than have to account for the decision to let Snape be hired in the first place. There'd be nothing much in the way of Snape getting another job. After all, Harry isn't quite as universally popular as everyone pretends, is he? AD: > Voldemort's going for the big prize. Once he gets the Philosopher's > Stone, he's outta there. If he can croak "The one with the power to > defeat the Dark Lord", along the way, so much the better. He can > weather a bit of suspicion from Dumbledore, and the Aurors have a much better suspect in Snape. Pippin: Um, Quirrell was in Diagon Alley the day the attempt to steal the Stone was made. AFAWK, Snape wasn't. That makes Quirrell the prime suspect, I'm thinking. Snape can weather a bit of suspicion, too. After all, Lucius Malfoy made a career of it, and he's hardly the only one. > Pippin: > > All the reasons you gave for Snape wanting Harry dead would > > also be motives for Harry to fake the attack and falsely blame > > Snape. > > AD: > I'm confused. All along, I've been arguing that Snape needs Harry > alive. Pippin: I meant, the reasons you gave that Snape would be suspected of wanting Harry dead. > > Pippin: > > Harry himself notices this, and that's the reason he doesn't > > take Hermione's suspicions to anyone but Hagrid. > > AD: > Interesting. Is this canon, or your inference? Pippin: Canon, mostly. "But we've got no _proof_!" said Harry. "Quirrell's too scared to back us up. Snape's only got to say that he doesn't know how the troll got in at Halloween and that he was no where near the third floor--who do you think they'll believe, him or us? It's not exactly a secret we hate him. Dumbledore'll think we made it up to get him sacked." PS/SS ch 15 They're talking about the troll, but it would apply just as well to the broomstick attack. > > Pippin: > > Not to mention that if Snape hadn't interfered in the attack, he > > wouldn't have been staring fixedly at Harry, and Hermione > > wouldn't have suspected him (*she* certainly doesn't know > > about his DE past.) Neither would anyone else -- after all, even > > with the attack on Harry unsolved, Snape was trusted enough to > > referee the next match. > > AD: > I'm sorry, Pippin, but could you elaborate this? I honestly don't see > where you're going with it. (BTW, Hermione suspected Snape right > away--she shouted "I knew it!" when she spotted him through the > binoculars.) Pippin: Okay. Your argument is that if Harry had fallen from his broom and died, it would have been regarded as a suspicious death and there would have been an investigation which Snape could not afford. Correct? But your evidence for that is that the attack itself was suspicous since Hagrid says only Dark Magic could have made the broom behave like that. In that case the attack itself ought to provoke an investigation, and Snape should be worried, if he has guilty designs on Harry. If he would be the prime suspect in a death, he should be the prime suspect in the attack also. Now, if Snape was suspected as someone who wanted to kill Harry, volunteering as referee would have looked like he wanted another go. That's the way it looked to the Trio. If Dumbledore had shared that suspicion at all, he'd never have let Snape be referee. But apparently there was no such suspicion even among the rest of the staff, who can't have known that Snape saved Harry from the hex, and must have known how Snape felt about Harry (and according to you, may have been aware of Snape's criminal past.) Quirrell says they all thought Snape was trying to keep Gryffindor from winning. Pippin From blink_883 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 4 08:36:24 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 08:36:24 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154845 houyhnhnm: > I can imagine him taking the offensive in his own defense when > he had to confront Voldemort again after LV's regeneration. > "Master, why didn't you *trust* me, etc., etc." But, I've > no doubt Snape was tortured when he returned to Voldemort > and I find it hard to believe that Voldemort fully trusted Snape. > > The interesting thing is that Bellatrix doesn't seem to know > anything about it. Surely she would have thrown that up to > him, too, if she did. > WG*: IMO, defensiveness as theorised above would probably anger LV further. He might think "how dare you question my actions/motives - crucio crucio crucio"...this is my interpretation of his character, it's difficult to see if he would really because we know that in GoF while pretty much scaring everyone - DEs included i think - he doesn't really spend time torturing them, but then there is the small matter of Harry to attend to so that may have been why. Anyway, I feel it is more in character for LV to carry out a quiet investigation under wraps. I think this is why Wormtail is at Spinner's End. What happens to Wormtail once Snape gets to Hogwarts anyway? Could it be Wormtail is taken or hitches a ride with Snape, and Snape suspects? LV now does trust Wormtail to *some* extent, enough to spy on him. Wormtail has arguably given him more information about Weasleys and Harry than Snape has, seeing them all at home (close enough of one, for Harry) and in their 'natural' environment for *longer* than Snape has. In conclusion to the above, I think it would make sense for LV not to tell Bellatrix all of Snape's downfalls. LV could be plotting his own little revenge against Snape, and might hold Snape and his fate (as dictated by LV) as an example. Also, LV wouldn't want his followers' weaknesses highlighted anyway really, especially not to someone like Bella who although she professes to be loyal and trustworthy seems to have as big a mouth as her sister. Oh, and another thing, does Snape know about the horcruxes? If not, then LV might think bringing Snape's attention to events in PS/SS might alert him to this, and we all know LV thinks they are abit of a liability since CoS - doubt he would make the same mistake twice, if he could help it, unless of course it involves underestimating others... LV's mistrust and guardedness against *everybody* ensures that nobody who *thinks* they know everything about him actually *does*. Keeping up appearances. (For those in the UK- don't know if this show was ever aired anywhere else - imagine LV in one of Mrs Bucket's outfits heheh...) WG* - who is also wondering why on earth don't more witches and wizards practice the Protego spell! It's a war, and their weapons are at their side 24/7! From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 13:58:29 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:58:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Hermione References: Message-ID: <018d01c69f71$ee187960$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154846 > HunterGreen (jumping in very late on the discussion): > Except that it wasn't a "secret" organization when she joined, now > was it? Nor was the goal to oppose a tyrant. At the time she joined > the group, it was neither against any rules, nor was it stated that > its purpose was to upset Umbridge (though it clearly WOULD upset her, > that was not the purpose of the group, they didn't sit around > thinking of ways to get Umbridge out of the school, after all). She > was taken to a pub to talk about a defense club, the purpose of which > was to practice spells to pass their OWLs and oppose Voldemort. At > the end of the LEGAL meeting, she put her name on the paper that > later would cause the jinx. After that, whether or not she ever went > to another meeting, if Umbridge found that paper, she was still > implicated as a member. > > Yes, Marietta by signing the paper, did agree not to tell 'Umbridge > or anyone else' what they were up to, but she agreed to that when > there would be no consequences of Umbridge finding out. Then, next > thing she knows, she's a part of an illegal organization that she > could be expelled for being a part of. Yes, from Harry's point-of- > view (and from the reader's point-of-view) its a very clear-cut > situation, that being the the Ministry is being overly-paranoid about > Dumbledore and short-sighted about Voldemort, but that doesn't mean > that Marietta agrees, or sees it the same way. From her point-of- > view, she's breaking school rules every time she goes to one of those > meetings, and she DOESN'T have a family who will be able to > understand in the least bit why she's doing that (even Ron's mother, > who is a memeber of more official anti-Voldemort organization, > doesn't want him in the DA). She most likely thought she was doing > the right thing. She wasn't trying to be vindictive, or evil, or > spiteful, she was trying to do what appeared, to her, to be > the 'right' thing to do in an odd situation. And for that, does she > deserve to be branded for life? Not really. > Rebecca (the other Rebecca, that is): Sorry about your headache, but I'm afraid I'll create another one :) There's canon in this thread which can lead the reader to believe that rather than just "OWL", much of the emphasis was on Voldemort coming back and being able to fight him. Your post actually alludes to this, too: "She was taken to a pub to talk about a defense club, the purpose of which was to practice spells to pass their OWLs and oppose Voldemort." If it's a study group to pass OWLS, there's no need to focus on "fighting" or "opposing" Voldemort, is there? Yet, here it is in canon: "She paused, looked sideways at Harry, and went on, 'And by that I mean learning how to defend ourselves properly, not just in theory but doing the real spells -' 'You want to pass your Defence Against the Dark Arts OWL too, though, I bet?' said Michael Corner, who was watching her closely. 'Of course I do,' said Hermione at once. 'But more than that, I want to be properly trained in defence because. because." she took a great breath and finished, 'because Lord Voldemort is back." And she's not the only one who says this or alludes to Voldemort in this manner WRT the DA. Ron refers to Hermione in conversation about the organization of the DA as her seeing everyone in the DA as "trustworthy and honorable", and she replies with telling Ron that if anyone betrays them, they'll know and that person will "really regret" it. Indeed, all but one of the DA members are trustworthy and honorable, and it only takes one to betray them all. Futhermore, if Marietta were truly conflicted about keeping the group a secret, what's always bothered me is that she went to Umbridge to reveal it rather than go to her mother. She didn't reveal it to her head of house, either - she went directly to Umbridge. Not indicative of someone who was conflicted or thought they "did the right thing," IMO. Her actions, whether she'd signed a piece of jinxed parchment or not, are culpable. Rebecca From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jul 4 14:00:49 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:00:49 -0000 Subject: Snape saves Harry (or does he?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154847 >PAR > While there have been several references to Snape saving Harry, I am > not sure that he actually does. Take the broom incident of SS/PS for > example: Snape gives the "counter-curse" to Quirrell's broom hex. > Quirrell is indeed trying to kill Harry by getting the broom to "buck" > him off. But would a fall off a broom actually have KILLED Harry? wynnleaf Of course, it would depend on just how high up he was when he fell. Sorry, I can't remember exactly when it was, but Harry falls from his broom later (I think POA) and DD slows his fall. The implication is that DD saved his life, although that would be after the fall. Preventing a broom from tossing him off in the first place constitutes the same result. PAR > We know from SS/PS that Neville can fall from 20 feet and sustain > nothing more serious thatn a broken wrist (the first flying session, > page 182 of the paperback American edition). And we know later that > Neville recounts being dropped as a child from a window -- and > bouncing. We know Harry has levitated to the school roof as a child > when Dudley and pals were harassing him. We know that at the World cup > a flyer can go at high speed into the ground (twice) and while dazed, > not require hospitalization (and flying into the ground at speed is a > much higher impact problem than simply falling to the ground. While > JKR isn't good at "maths" the basic principles of physics and energy > don't really require "maths"). wynnleaf The basic principles of physics, etc., tend to mean that people falling from larger heights often are seriously injured or die. Certainly we find examples in the WW of magic helping people live (like Neville bouncing), but no one simply assumes that will happen. Otherwise, Quirrel's attempt to toss Harry off the broom would have been completely pointless. Quirrel was trying to kill Harry. Surely Voldemort of all people would know whether or not throwing someone off a broom would have chance at killing them. PAR > In POA, Snape "may" believe he is rescuing Harry from Lupin and Sirius > but he certainly didn't go to the Whomping Willow to do so. wynnleaf I haven't recently seen the Shrieking Shack event mentioned as an example of Snape saving Harry's life. However, after Harry's patronus chases off the dementors, Harry and friends, and Sirius are all unconscious (Ron, too? - can't recall). At that point, their lives are still in danger from the werewolf and Snape brings them all to safety (purely relative for Sirius, of course). PAR > In GOF, Snape is not there to "save" Harry from his encounter with LV - > - and in the encounter with Crouch/fake Moody, it isn't Snape who > saves Harry but DD. wynnleaf Actually, we aren't told why in particular Snape or McGonagall are there. DD's is the one to use the Stupify. DD seemed to know that Harry was in danger as soon as he was removed from the maze area without DD's approval (having told Harry to stay and it sounds like Moody/Crouch would have heard DD give that order). It may be that DD asked Snape and McGonagall to come with him. Nevertheless, they were all there because it was assumed that Harry's life might still be in danger -- and of course none of them knew exactly what they'd find on the other side of the door. While we don't know exactly what Snape would have done if there had been further danger after the Stupify, he was shown in the foe-glass as an "enemy" of Crouch, Jr. and therefore one must assume he'd have been working to stop whatever he found Crouch doing to Harry at that moment. So no, it is not specifically Snape that saved Harry in that instance, but he was part of the small group that came *in order* to save Harry, even if it was only at DD's request. > PAR > In the OOP, it's argued that Snape "saves" Harry by sending the Order > to the MOM -- I disagree. He had to notify the order that Harry was > missing -- if he hadn't, either as DDM OR as ESE, he would have had to > explain that serious lapse to Dumbledore. wynnleaf He did not simply notify the Order that Harry and friends were missing (which, by the way, he could have done). He told the Order to go to the MOM, *and* he told the Order to alert DD and send him, too. Regardless of his motivations, this did indeed save both Harry's life and the lives of his friends. And as regards the supposed problems with the timing of his alert and whether or not he should have alerted them earlier, DD knew about what Snape did and seemed to have no problems with it. PAR > I don't believe Snape has actually ever actually SAVED Harry and > certainly not at the risk of his own life. Which is one reason why > LID!Snape makes some sense as an explanation of his actions. wynnleaf Interesting how this version of Spinners End persists. Bellatrix had no idea that Snape had saved anyone's life - ever - and never asked him about why he'd saved anyone's life. Snape never explains his actions in saving Harry's or anyone else's life, because he is never asked about it. And he certainly never volunteers that information either. He comments on DD's "weakness" and recent injury, but neglects (surprise, surprise) to mention that he'd just finished saving DD's life. He taunts Bella with the MOM "fiasco" but never tells her that the Order showed up because he sent them. And he talks about why he had never murdered Harry, but never tells her he'd made any attempts to save his life. In terms of listing the lives Snape has saved, or been instrumental in saving, the point isn't necessarily motivation. One might argue motivation for each case, but it doesn't negate the fact that he saved, or help save, Harry and others on numerous occasions. wynnleaf From blink_883 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 4 10:43:26 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:43:26 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no children In-Reply-To: <41b.448e247.31db6f19@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154848 > Susan McGee: > Okay, I know this has been discussed before...perhaps it's because > everything is Harry's point of view, but....no wonder Professor Dumbledore has staff > problems...there's a celibacy rule! (a mild joke) > > Okay, not ONLY do none of the professors have partners/spouses/lovers, but > it seems NONE of them have children. WG*: Taken from an interview found here; http://www.quick-quote- quill.org/articles/2001/0301-bbc-rednose.htm : "Have any of the Hogwarts professors had spouses? JKR: Good question - yes, a few of them, but that information is sort of restricted - you'll find out why.." Question is, WHY is that informaton restricted? Their own safety perhaps? Imagine what a field day DEs would have if they could target the families of the Professors they didn't like! IMPersonalO, the teachers have their own quarters at Hogwarts, and the larger the family - the larger the quarters. Hogwarts is magical after all lol. OR maybe they're all in the RoR! Does anyone think that the RoR can be more than one room at one time, or not? So that's abit far fetched but I can definitely imagine certain members of staff being married, maybe Prof. Sprout, Madam Pomfrey... On the same interview JKR says she's surprised at somebody asking if Snape was ever loved, she says he was, and also says this makes his crimes all the more horrific compared to LV who wasn't loved. Who was Snape loved by? Does this mean that having lost their love (whether through death, murder, or stupidity - who knows) has made him bitter? Was is Lily, explaining his *open* hatred towards Harry, who looks so much like his father? Snape, whatever you may say about him, is *very* bitter - this may just be (one of) the reason(s) why! WG* From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 4 04:27:57 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 04:27:57 -0000 Subject: ESE! JKR? Is it war? In-Reply-To: <20060703063521.8887.qmail@web52803.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154849 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Patricia Hurley wrote: > > Patricia: > As for using military equipment and not civilian weaponry, you > should consider any soldier who fought using only a gun or sword as > non-military and therefore not part of a war. This would also apply > to Native Americans who foolishly fought to save their land with bows > and arrows and tomahawks (civilian hunting equipment) in what they > thought (but were wrong) was a war. Ken: Military equipment often diffuses into civilian uses. Other than personal protection I am not aware of any civilian use of a sword. Guns have application as hunting weapons. But even so military weapons often differ from the civilian weapons or tools that are derived from them. You would not carry a sword heavy enough to cleave a shield or a helmet for personal protection during a night on the town. The Winchester you buy to hunt deer won't have a bayonet attachment socket. I've held a native American stone tomahawk that my father found in a streambed while duck hunting. The cutting edge on this tool was far, far too blunt to fell a tree. Its only possible use was cracking human skulls in a battle. Real war always breeds specialized tools. The only thing I see in the WW that qualifies is the time turner. The MoM keeps a tight reign on them, well other than that time they gave one to a school girl. And then the one time when they could have been used to great effect against a known enemy the MoM fails to use them at all. These guys aren't exactly Robert E. Lee. > Patricia: > But perhaps you have missed that the body count is indeed > very limited and not a single one of the Order or the DA has killed > anyone. It's only the opposing side that is doing the killing. No, I did not miss this point at all. It is the key to my contention that this is a police action not a war. In a war both sides do the same thing to each other to the extent that their relative resources allow. Policemen try to capture their opponents and bring them to justice. One side is acting like gangsters, coup plotters, or terrorists, take your pick. The other side is acting like policemen. I take your point from the dictionary definition (not quoted). I don't know what the dictionary editors had in mind by a party to a war. I don't consider the long lasting conflict between police and organized crime to be a war. Armed conflicts between nations and states are obviously wars but I think you have to be selective about calling armed conflicts between parties a war and to my mind this isn't one. If the defense starts killing indiscriminately then it could at least be argued that it is a war. If one side continues to act like police I don't buy it. > Patricia: > And saying this book isn't about death seriously cheapens some of > the points JKR has struggled to present. Ken: Well, I think it is JKR who will be cheapening her point (if it is death) by killing off too many people. Lord of the Rings is not a story about death yet precisely because there are so few among the main characters the deaths in that story are very powerful. This makes the little page time that is spent reflecting on them more effective than it would have been if many deaths were packed into the same considerable amount of action. As I see it JKR is going to have to cover a lot of ground in a big hurry to conclude this story in a single book that is no larger than OoP. And she says she is going to kill off *at least* two more main characters. I hope you think Harry has reflected enough on the deaths that have occurred to date to make JKR's point because he won't have any time to consider them or the forthcoming deaths in this last book. Tolkien didn't even try to cover so many deaths in a work that is larger than this last book will be. And we don't even know that Harry will be alive to reflect on anything. I fear that the direction JKR is taking has made this story primarily a story about how Harry Potter saves the wizarding world whether that is the story she wanted to tell or not. Harry may reflect on death on those rare occasions when he has time to catch his breath. But if she really wants to consider death and its effects on the survivors she should have disposed of LV and his gang in book six. In order to give the characters adequate time to come to terms with the deaths they have seen so far she would have to finish him off very early in book seven. Given what we've seen so far I bet he isn't finished until late in the next to last chapter. The rest of the book will have to be one long car chase and the deaths that occur in book seven will have to be given short shrift. Ken From sarah at eskimo.com Tue Jul 4 13:17:00 2006 From: sarah at eskimo.com (Sarah Schreffler) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 06:17:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no children In-Reply-To: <41b.448e247.31db6f19@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001c69f6c$28f99f10$6401a8c0@Princess> No: HPFGUIDX 154850 Susan McGee said: >Okay, not ONLY do none of the professors have partners/spouses/lovers, >but it seems NONE of them have children. [...] >The Weasleys seem to be the only family with a lot of kids... >well of course Lily and James didn't have time, but the Malfoys only have >one, the Lestranges have none, Barty Crouch only has one, the Diggorys only >have one, Crabbe and Goyle seem to only have one.....neither Sirius or > Regulus have had any kids that we know of...the Patils and Creevys seem >to be the only other siblings..... Sarah: 1. You do have Sirius and Regulus, and Narcissa, Andromeda, and Bellatrix, then how about Fleur and Gabrielle? And Molly had two brothers 2. to a great extent, this seems to reflect real life in UK (I suspected this because even in the US, the average number of children in a family have dropped) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00AB-A.asp According to this 2001 census, the average household size in UK at that point is 2.42. Out of 67,000 households, 33.6% (22,600) were single people households. So among the rest, you end up with some arrangement of 2 people households and more. But that still, eyeballing it, appears to me to be a high percentage of 3 people families (2 adults, 1 child) Add in to this that in the wizarding world, you've got a war having gone on, where quite a few members of the world (comparatively in such a small population) died young, before they had a chance to have as many children or where, during traditionally childbearing years, they were just struggling to survive. (And maybe no baby boom like the end of WW I and II because the people hadn't left home for there to be the same "Open armed welcome back" of those days?) --Sarah Schreffler From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 14:21:06 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:21:06 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no children In-Reply-To: <41b.448e247.31db6f19@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Schlobin at ... wrote: > > Okay, I know this has been discussed before...perhaps it's because everything is Harry's point of view, but....no wonder Professor Dumbledore has staff problems...there's a celibacy rule! (a mild joke) > > Okay, not ONLY do none of the professors have partners/spouses/lovers, but it seems NONE of them have children. > (Snip)> > The Weasleys seem to be the only family with a lot of kids... > well of course Lily and James didn't have time, but the Malfoys only have one, the Lestranges have none, Barty Crouch only has one, the Diggorys only have one, Crabbe and Goyle seem to only have one.....neither Sirius or Regulus have had any kids that we know of...the Patils and Creevys seem to be the only other siblings..... > Tonks: I noticed the "celibacy" thing long ago, but whenever I suggested that the professors are symbolic monks and nuns I get shot down. Some think that maybe all their families were killed off in the frist war. But with all those long black flowing robes, a Religious Community is the first thing I thought of. It use to be that the early school were run by Relgious Orders. Also in the US version of the first books (before the movies came out) the pictures of the kids looked like they were wearing cassocks, not the robes as they later were depicted. For those who don't know, a cassock is the black garment with buttons down the front and a high collar, a bit like what Snape wore in the beginning too. It is like most Anglican churches use as part of a choir robe or what Benedictines and other Religious wear under the rest of their outfit. As to the number of children the married ones have that also is rather odd. I am an only child myself and even I noticed this as a bit strange. The only thing I came up with here is that Rowling is implanting the idea, as she did in chapter 2 of book 6, of the concept of "my son, my only son" as a hidden reference to Christ. These only children in the books are all sons. I don't see any other way to interpret it. Tonks_op From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 01:51:38 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 18:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Liking J.K., not liking J.K. (was: ESE! JKR ?/not hardly) In-Reply-To: <20060703185352.84535.qmail@web52815.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060704015138.43890.qmail@web52714.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154852 Patricia: I think that no one should be told that in order to like the HP series you have to adore JKR. I personally idolize her writing ability and style. As for JKR the person. You don't know her. You know THE MEDIA PRESENTS JK ROWLING. Now I'm not saying that she has to be a fantastic person in real life. But I don't think anyone really has a right to pass judgement. Criticize her as an artist, critique her work, but leave JKR the person out of your postings. None of has any right to critique her as a person without knowing her. Katie(anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com): I agree, Patricia. That's precisely what I was trying to say - people keep saying they don't like her, but none of us know HER, we only know her books. I'm not saying you HAVE to like her to like HP, but what I am saying, I guess, is, why does it matter? If you like Harry, and you respect JK's writing and her creation, why do we have to decide whether or not we "like" her. I know many people are feeling ticked off about the whole "two deaths" thing, but as I posted previously, I think we all need to just take a deep breath and realize that freaking out over it won't make the book come any quicker. IMHO, Katie From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 4 14:23:39 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:23:39 -0000 Subject: Witch trials In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154853 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" wrote: > > Witch trials had been going on in Europe for 100's years prior to the > Salem witch trial and estimates from 100,000 to one million people were > tortured and murdered in Europe during that time. JKR consistently has > shown a grasp on history that would indicate a knowledge of this early > holocaust. Making it unlikely that a handful of people dying an ocean > away would have bothered anyone in Europe. The actual history of witch > persecution does explain Slytherin's hatred of Muggles. Of course at > the time midwives, non-Christians, women who inherited estates, and > inconvenient wives were the targets. > > katssirius Gerry I totally agree with your conclusion, besides the brunt of the witch trials in Europe was still to come. I think the official act was just putting something into record that already was happening for a couple of centuries. Now off topic: Your information is wrong. Estimates are 50.000 to 100.000 and the targets were none of the ones you describe. These are only the targets in outdated feminist and pagan literature. Targets were ususally the old and impoverisht, people at the wrong place at the wrong time and people who were involved in long standing feuds about a three quarters of the victims were women, one quarter were men, except in some countries like Iceland for example where 90% were male. Read Briggs 'Witches and Neighbours' for a discussion of the witch hunts, its reasons, the kind of acquisations and its prime targets. It is very informative, though utterly horrible reading material because he laces his writing with illustrations of trail records so it is painfully clear that he is talking about real people. >From PoA it is clear that JKR is not very knowledgable about the witch hunts because otherwise she would never have placed them in the Middle Ages, but in the Modern ages. Gerry > From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 4 06:19:39 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:19:39 +0200 Subject: CAPSLOCKHarry was Re: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? References: Message-ID: <000f01c69f31$d4b54060$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 154854 Alla: >>>>Harry was continuously going on Ron and Hermione in OOP. If you remember from past discussions, I was NOT upset with CAPSLOCK Harry one single bit, I think poor boy was long long overdue for temper tantrum or two or many, BUT Ron and Hermione did not really do anything to deserve it either IMO. I LOVED how they let Harry talk and scream at them during OOP as true friends would and stood by him as true friends would, but really I understand why Hermione acted alone.<<<< Marion: I thought CAPSLOCKHarry was a product of his 'mind-link' with Voldemort? I mean, all through the book we're being told that Harry has Voldemort induced dreams and needs to learn Occlumency because he has a direct link through his scar with Voldie. Dumbledore doesn't even dare to look into his eyes all year long because of it. And what is Voldemort's chief emotion? Anger. So I concluded that Harry's outbursts were a direct result of that. That boy was more affected by having Voldemort waltzing through his head than he thought. And not just in OotP. In HBP he might not have anger-outbursts, but he is full of hate and he *still* hasn't learned Occlumency. I draw my conclusions from that... Marion who doesn't trust a single thing Dumbledore and Snape have been telling Harry during the last two books (those two have been playing an elaborate game to fool Voldemort if you ask me) From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 4 04:58:41 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 04:58:41 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154855 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Emily" wrote: > > > > imamommy: > > Ken, I really liked the point you made about science in general, but > don't you think that LV would be able to deal with scientists before > they stuck him under a microscope? I think he's got enough magical > power to avoid or destroy or enslave them just fine. > Ken: Well, of course that is debatable and would be the subject of a good novel if Harry dies and LV wins, however unlikely we are to see that outcome. As I see it a collaboration between Muggle scientists and anti-LV wizards/witches would from a secret "Manhattan Project" in some remote corner of the world and invent a technology to destroy him. LV cannot possibly control the whole world. > imamommy: > > I think Hagrid makes a good point about the WW just not wanting to > be bothered with Muggles wanting them to fix everything. Can't you > hear President Bush: "Pleeeease make a potion that will mimic crude > oil?" > Ken: Remember that scene where Harry and Hagrid douse Hagrid's burning hut with water from their wands, er, umbrellas? The amount of energy that is required to create that water dwarfs the total energy in all our nuclear reactors and bombs. The WW is sitting on a gold mine of cheap energy that could indeed meet all the Muggle's needs without taxing the WW at all. Wizards and witches just don't know enough about physics to realize this. ;-) Ken From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 13:55:56 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 06:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060704135556.35121.qmail@web52705.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154856 Sandra Collins wrote: I just can't get my head around the layout of the whole HP world. I suppose my point is, if the characters have to go through a magical gateway to be on Platform 9 and 3/4 which exists in a 'parallel' world, why don't the magical people reside permanently in that world? Sandra, back after ages away! Katie: Well, my understanding was always that those magical things were NOT in a parallel world, but instead existing right there in front of all the Muggles, but they couldn't see them. Like St. Mungo's looks like a old run down department store, and Muggles just don't see what they don't want to see: "Fred, George, and Ron stepped after them; Harry glanced around at the jostling crowd; not one of them seemed to have a glance to sparefor window displays as ugly as Purge and Dowse Ltd's, nor did any of them seem to notice that six people had just melted into thin air in front of them. " OotP, American Hardback, page 483. Hogwarts is enchanted to look like a ruin, and no Muggle notices that the Leaky Cauldron is there, probably because it's been enchanted, too. As I understand the HP universe, witches and wizards are mostly invisible to a Muggle public that wishes not to see magical things, but for the more important or difficult to hide secrets, an enchantment of some sort is needed. "Seats a hundred thousand," said Mr. Weasley, spotting the awestruck look on Harry's face. "Ministry task force of five hundred have been working on it all year. Muggle Repelling Charms on every inch of it. Every time Muggles have got anywhere near here all year, they've suddenly remembered urgent appointments and had to dash away again...bless them," GoF, American Hardback, page 96. As for the gate at Platform 9 and 3/4, I think it's just a regular kind of door, but magical. Again, enchanted so that Muggles won't see it. Dobby was able to make it malfunction in Chamber of Secrets, so it can't be a portal in a metaphysical sense. Anyway, that's my understanding. Hope it helps!! Katie From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jul 4 14:35:08 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 10:35:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil Hermione References: Message-ID: <005201c69f77$0d79d290$b066400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154857 Eggplant: > I don't think it was wrong, in fact I think Marietta got off very > lightly. Marietta was part of a secret underground organization that > was trying to oppose a brutal tyrant, and she betrayed them. Imagine > if she were part of the resistance in occupied France and fellow > members discovered she had betrayed some of her comrades to the Nazis, > she'd receive more than acne, she'd get a bullet in the brain. Magpie: The operative word here being "imagine" because all this stuff about her being in a secret underground organization opposing a tyrant is just that: imaginary. And cooler than being a bunch of kids in school disobeying the headmistress at school. Eggplant: And I > would shed no tears for her. I think Hermione showed enormous > restraint, more than I have anyway. Magpie: At least in your imagination. Rebecca: Umbridge to reveal it rather than go to her mother. She didn't reveal it to her head of house, either - she went directly to Umbridge. Not indicative of someone who was conflicted or thought they "did the right thing," Magpie: You're not the only person to say that and I don't get it. Isn't it just kind of randomly complicated to bring in Flitwick and minor character's parents? We know what Marietta's mother's position is. Her choice, especially given her mother's job, is either to tell or not--meaning tell the Headmistress. It's pretty straightforward, as JKR tries to keep things, I think. Just as Hermione chooses to either give Harry's Firebolt over for testing or not. However long Marietta waffled and so refrained from telling, her decision was always going to be to either keep quiet or tell Umbridge. Telling her mother, for instance, just gets the same result with less dramatic effect for the author. -m From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 14:39:51 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 10:39:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione References: Message-ID: <019d01c69f77$b5925ab0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154858 > Pippin: > Okay. Your argument is that if Harry had fallen from his broom and > died, it would have been regarded as a suspicious death and > there would have been an investigation which Snape could not afford. > Correct? > > If Dumbledore had shared that suspicion at all, he'd never have > let Snape be referee. But apparently there was no > such suspicion even among the rest of the staff, who can't have known > that Snape saved Harry from the hex, and must have known > how Snape felt about Harry (and according to you, may have > been aware of Snape's criminal past.) Quirrell says > they all thought Snape was trying to keep Gryffindor from > winning. > Rebecca: Pippin brings up an interesting point. Isn't it intriguing for how bad Harry thinks Snape is (and he should, Snape is a bully with students, especially Harry and Neville which is intriguing for obvious reasons) that the one and only time in the books we've ever seen him do Dark Magic is the AK in HBP? Snape's never been in Azkaban for any crimes we know about and up to that point, the one "crime" he did do (which was ethical, rather than criminal in nature) was give Voldemort information about the prophecy that resulted in Voldemort targeting the Potters. That one devastating HBP Unforgivable Curse has vindicated, in Harry's eyes, his view of Snape over 6 books even though Dumbledore is particularly vocal with everybody about his trust in Snape and Snape has never performed any Dark Magic that we or Harry has seen up to that point. I might also mention that Professor McGonagall seems to have respect and even a pleasant liking for Snape, as he does her when welcoming her back to Hogwarts after being in St Mungo's in OoP. That said, all but Harry are shocked when they find Snape killed Dumbledore on the Tower, however none of them appears to know what Snape and Dumbledore have been doing behind the scenes prior, anymore than anyone knows what Dumbledore and Harry were doing (sans Ron and Hermoine) in HBP. Yet afterward, Harry has a reflective moment: "He broke off, looking out of the window. He could not stop himself dwelling upon Dumbledore's inexcusable trust in Snape ... but as Hermione had just inadvertently reminded him, he, Harry, had been taken in just the same ... in spite of the increasing nastiness of those scribbled spells, he had refused to believe ill of the boy who had been so clever, who had helped him so much ..." I might add that even one calling oneself "Half Blood" in a moniker could be telling, since to purebloods who believe as Voldemort, half bloods are just a step away from Muggleborns. Given this if true, then Hermione's statement immediately afterwards is thought-provoking: "I don't think he wanted to associate himself with that book,' said Hermione. 'I don't think Dumbledore would have liked it very much if he'd known. And even if Snape pretended it hadn't been his, Slughorn would have recognised his writing at once. Anyway, the book was left in Snape's old classroom, and I'll bet Dumbledore knew his mother was called "Prince"." Dumbledore might not have liked it, *or JKR (for whom Dumbledore speaks, by her own admission) might not have liked it for plot reasons?* :) Hmmm.... Rebecca From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 15:02:00 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:02:00 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: <005201c69f77$0d79d290$b066400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154859 > Magpie: > The operative word here being "imagine" because all this stuff about her > being in a secret underground organization opposing a tyrant is just that: > imaginary. And cooler than being a bunch of kids in school disobeying the > headmistress at school. Alla: I am sorry, but NO it is not an imagination. Rebecca brought a VERY extensive canon upthread that to me has a very clear implication that the main purpose of the DA is to teach themselves defense to oppose Voldemort (tyrant that is), if you have other interpretation of that canon, that is of course your right to have it, but mine interpretation which is in this instance same as Eggplant is not the product of my imagination. Sorry! > Magpie: > You're not the only person to say that and I don't get it. Isn't it just > kind of randomly complicated to bring in Flitwick and minor character's > parents? We know what Marietta's mother's position is. Her choice, > especially given her mother's job, is either to tell or not-- meaning tell > the Headmistress. It's pretty straightforward, as JKR tries to keep things, > I think. Just as Hermione chooses to either give Harry's Firebolt over for > testing or not. However long Marietta waffled and so refrained from > telling, her decision was always going to be to either keep quiet or tell > Umbridge. Telling her mother, for instance, just gets the same result with > less dramatic effect for the author. Alla: No, to me it would not have complicate matters, just as to me it would not have complicated matters to bring in Cedric parents for no other purpose than to show more grief. If Marietta went to her mother, I would saw conflicted girl, someone who is concerned about her family and who is between rock and the hard place. For all I know now the only reason Marietta went to Umbridge was to get her place on Inquisitorial squad and THAT is disgusting to me. JMO, Alla. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jul 4 14:33:34 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:33:34 -0000 Subject: Snape saves Harry (or does he?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154860 > wynnleaf > In terms of listing the lives Snape has saved, or been instrumental in > saving, the point isn't necessarily motivation. One might argue > motivation for each case, but it doesn't negate the fact that he > saved, or help save, Harry and others on numerous occasions. > wynnleaf Another one I forgot to point out was when Snape stopped the DE from attacking Harry during the "Flight of the Prince" chapter of HBP. Once again, one can argue motivation, but it does count as another time when Snape was saving Harry's neck. And Snape also saves DD's life, Katie Bell's life, and Draco's life in HBP as well as the lives of the other kids at the MOM in OOTP. And he stops Neville (I think it was Neville) from being strangled in OOTP. Not a bad record. In fact, it's more people saved over the course of the series (not including backstory), than anyone else except perhaps Harry. Sure, you can probably come up with an ESE excuse for every one of those saved lives. But after awhile, it starts to sound like just too many to be believable for a true villian. wynnleaf From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 4 15:09:41 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:09:41 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154861 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol, convinced that the date is no coincidence and thinking that JKR > may not be aware of the vast numbers of people who actually died in > the European persecutions > You mean that she would be more aware of something happening in some far away country than something happening in her own country? Or in her own city? Don't you think that rather arrogant? America is not that fascinating to the rest of the world you know. Gerry From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 14:44:15 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:44:15 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154862 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "huntergreen_3" wrote: > > Eggplant wrote: > >> I think Marietta got off very lightly. Marietta was part of a > secret underground organization that was trying to oppose a brutal > tyrant, and she betrayed them. > > HunterGreen (jumping in very late on the discussion): > Except that it wasn't a "secret" organization when she joined, now > was it? Nor was the goal to oppose a tyrant. Lanval: It may not have been stated that way explicitly, but I believe the DA WAS precisely that, at least partly -- opposition to a tyrant, albeit a minor one at this point. The tyrant Umbridge overthrew a study schedule that has hitherto worked well, and declared years of tradition null and void, at the worst possible time. Arguments, questions, were nipped in the bud. Shut up, children. The Ministry knows what's good for you. But Harry & Co aren't little children. Hermione in fact is smart enough to see through Umbridge's blather the first night: The Ministry is trying to interfere at Hogwarts. Not a Good Thing. If the first DA meeting wasn't about a secret organization, then why the Hog's Head? Why the fear that the veiled figure might be Umbridge? Why the alarm, when Ginny imitates Umbridge? Why the parchment? Why the hesitation by some to sign? As Ernie says, what if Umbridge finds out? Marietta may not have been completely aware that she was about to join a secret organization when she set out for Hogsmeade that day, but by the time she got back, there could have been no doubt. > HunterGreen: At the time she joined > the group, it was neither against any rules, nor was it stated that > its purpose was to upset Umbridge (though it clearly WOULD upset her, > that was not the purpose of the group, they didn't sit around > thinking of ways to get Umbridge out of the school, after all). She > was taken to a pub to talk about a defense club, the purpose of which > was to practice spells to pass their OWLs and oppose Voldemort. Lanval: A mere few days later, the DA most certainly was illegal, and therefore more secret than ever. THAT would have been the time for Marietta to decide whether she wanted to continue. > HunterGreen: Yes, from Harry's point-of- > view (and from the reader's point-of-view) its a very clear-cut > situation, that being the the Ministry is being overly-paranoid about > Dumbledore and short-sighted about Voldemort, but that doesn't mean > that Marietta agrees, or sees it the same way. From her point-of- > view, she's breaking school rules every time she goes to one of those > meetings, and she DOESN'T have a family who will be able to > understand in the least bit why she's doing that (even Ron's mother, > who is a memeber of more official anti-Voldemort organization, > doesn't want him in the DA). Lanval: Hermione was quite aware of breaking school rules. They all were. None of the others seemed to have a moral problem with this, right? Rules are only rules, after all, and Umbridge's rules had not even the merit of tradition; foolish, dangerous, and immoral rules not only can, but must be broken at times, when so much is at stake. By the way, was there anything in the book about Marietta's family, beside Cho remarking that M's mother works at the Ministry, and that her parents have forbidden her to do anything that might upset Umbridge? I don't recall. So to say that Marietta MUST have been raised in the firm belief that the ministry can do no wrong, that she really had no free will in this matter, strikes me as nothing but speculation. For all we can guess, her parents may have told her to stay out of trouble from fear. Disobeying one's parents doesn't seem that much of an effort for Cho, who strongly believes in what she's doing, or the Weasley kids. At fifteen, it usually has crossed a person's mind that parents may just occcasionally be wrong, and that the time has come to do one's own thing. > HunterGreen: She most likely thought she was doing > the right thing. She wasn't trying to be vindictive, or evil, or > spiteful, she was trying to do what appeared, to her, to be > the 'right' thing to do in an odd situation. And for that, does she > deserve to be branded for life? Not really. Lanval: As I've said before, no. Not for life. For a while? Absolutely. Not tryin to be vindictive? Read what Umbridge tells us (and I see no reason why she would lie here): "... Miss Edgecombe here came to my office shortly after dinner this evening and told me she had something she wanted to tell me. She said that if I proceeded to a secret room on the seventh floor, sometimes known as the Room of Requirement, I would find out something to my advantage. I questioned her a little further, and she admitted that there was to be some kind of meeting there..." Marietta could have told Hermione she was uncomfortable with the DA, and that she wanted out. She could have confided in her best friend. She could have gone to her Head of House. She could have written to her parents. The hex would still have gone into effect, if she had mentioned details or names, but I would have had a bit more sympathy for Marietta. Yet what *does* she do? Of all the people she COULD have told, she chooses Umbridge! By this time, anyone in the school has a fairly clear idea of what Umbridge is about. Who besides Draco & buddies approves of Umbridge? Not even the other teachers do. Sorry, I don't see how Marietta could not at the very least have come across the idea that Umbridge and her vile behavior might be, you know, misguided? Or plain and simple WRONG? Notice also the manner in which she tells Umbridge. This is not a tear-stained, distraught girl worn down by doubt, ready to confess! This is a calculating, nasty little traitor who rats out other students, including her BEST FRIEND. Nor do I see evidence that she mentioned her own involvement in the DA, at least not a first. Oh no. She sneaks to Umbridge, at precisely the right time (she doesn't want Umbridge to merely know about the DA, she wants them caught in the act!) and tells. Not "I found out about something very troublesome". Not "I think this is wrong, and you should be told." No. Umbridge will "find something to her advantage". Eww. The more I think about it, the more disgusted I get. Does anyone find it a mite strange, btw, that no one in the WW seems to feel even a fraction of the discomfort and indignation expressed on this group, about Mariettas continuing disfigurement? We don't know what Marietta's parents did over the summer, but what with the WW being so small and gossipy, if they had raised an outcry over what happened to their daughter, I'm certain it would have been picked up by the Prophet. Does Cho go to Hermione, pleading or yelling at her to take off the hex? Do any of the other students, who were not in on the whole story, question the fact that someone has "sneak' etched across her face? Every single one of the teachers, several of whom know what went on with the DA, see Marietta every day, and none seem particularly inclined to do something. Not even Healer!Snape (if he can deal with horcrux-related injuries, surely a schoolgirl's hex wouldn't pose much of a problem for him?) has been too busy or willing to find a cure... or if he has, the author has yet to see a reason to mention it. Lanval From richter at ridgenet.net Tue Jul 4 14:43:44 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:43:44 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154863 AD:(snip) Snape's got a job--probably a much better one than he could get anywhere else, given his history--and Dumbledore's continuing protection, right up until Dumbledore decides he was wrong about Snape, after all. Snape needs to preserve that relationship for as long as he can. > > Pippin:> Wait a minute. Only DDM!Snape needs Dumbledore's continuing protection. All varieties of Snape have been cleared of charges by the tribunal. Snape needs protecting only if he expects Voldemort to return and only if he intends to oppose him. There are plenty of people with DE history and lovely ministry jobs. Snape doesn't need Dumbledore's patronage for that. PAR: ESE!Snape who believes LV will be back had better stay where he was told to stay until he can determine just how dangerous LV will be when LV returns. Snape is likely to have that information from DD that this is the case very early on Even Hagrid doesn't think LV is done for as he says this to Harry when he first talks about LV. And just becaue he was "cleared" doesn't mean Snape is going to get a ministry job. Lucius, despite his money and influence, certainly doesn't seem to hold any position other than a Hogwarts governer (and that might be hereditary). Sure, he could get a job like "killer of dangerous animals" -- I can just see Snape giving up Hogwarts for the job of being in a cubicle (like Arthur is) making potions on demand for every trivial thing. There's no evidence that a ministry job is "lovely" or any improvement over the one he HAS at Hogwarts, where he merely needs to keep on DD's good side and otherwise can teach as he pleases and do whatever potions he wants outside of class. This would apply to ESE and OFH varieties of Snape quite well. As for Snape giving the countercurse for the broom jinx -- there's a number of reasons he might do so. He may still be waiting to see what Harry is made of (Tom Riddle, after all, was quite good at pretending to be one thing when he was another and Snape may not be sure Harry isn't the same). He may be truly trying to rid himself of the life-dept (although IMO even if Harry had fallen, it's not likely the fall would have killed Harry). He may want to simply foil Quirrell (who needs someone like QUIRRELL being the new leader of the DEs?) -- just as Snape explained in HBP. He might be DDM recognizing LV in Quirrell (although then one does wonder why Snape didn't slip Quirrell a sleeping potion or something so as to minimize the danger and allow Snape and DD to try to help Quirrell rather than the ineffective and roundabout method of the mirror). He might just be an advocate for "THE RULES" and object to interference in a game. Snape needn't be DDM to do what he did. It's not possible to determine Snape's motives in almost anything he does -- if it were, there would be no debates on if Snape is DDM, ESE, OFH or someother variety of Snape. As for Snape wanting to kill Harry without being a suspect -- throughout the books we have plenty of evidence that Snape is into "subtle" -- "bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses...." (from Snape's speach to the class in Potions in SS/PS). Killing Harry or even allowing Harry to be killed where he would be a suspect is not an elegance Snape would approve. Pippin: Anyway, for a common citizen to fail to give aid in > an emergency is not a crime, AFAIK. ==yes, it is, at least in some countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law - note where it specifically states that there are laws that legally require citizens to assist people in distress. Falling to one's death would be "distressing" to say the least. PAR who wonders why Snape, Draco and other ESE folk get so many "passes" while Harry, Ron and Hermione seem to be condemned for every error they ever make. From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 4 15:31:13 2006 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca Scalf) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060704153113.36820.qmail@web81202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154864 --- Tonks wrote: > As to the number of children the married ones have > that also is > rather odd. I am an only child myself and even I > noticed this as a > bit strange. The only thing I came up with here is > that Rowling is > implanting the idea, as she did in chapter 2 of book > 6, of the > concept of "my son, my only son" as a hidden > reference to Christ. > These only children in the books are all sons. I > don't see any other > way to interpret it. > > Tonks_op Witherwing: I have read another explanation for this - the theory that JKR's wizard world is dying out. So many of the wizard families, Weasleys excepted, have only one child, as you detailed in your post. We have characters like Serius Black, who were the end of the family line. Certainly the "purebloods" are a thing of the past. I think this raises the stakes in the current war, because entire family lines are at risk of disappearing. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 4 15:38:59 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:38:59 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154865 > Alla: > > But by comparing her action to that of Voldemort that is at least > close enough, no? I mean, again, please don't get me wrong, I > completely respect everybody's right to compare Hermione to > Umrbridge, to Crouch Sr, to Voldemort. I find those comparisons to > be very puzzling, but to each their own. Pippin: The text invites them, IMO, by dismissing the argument that there is no good and evil. If there is good and evil, how can any act be morally neutral? Is an evil act less evil because it's being done by a schoolgirl instead of a Dark Lord or a dictator? I am not saying Hermione should be judged solely by this action, but I do not think JKR wants those of us who are capable of critical thinking to accept what her heroes and heroines do uncritically. Furthermore it seems very strange to me that those who don't want Hermione judged on this one action are okay with Marietta being permanently marked by one thing that she did. (I realize you, Alla, are not okay with this part of it.) I am not trying to say that Hermione is pure evil, of course she isn't, but not everything she does is purely good. JKR often says that though Hermione is modelled on her younger self, she hopes she wasn't quite as bad. JKR at least sees Hermione as having room for improvement. Hermione had two purposes in hexing the parchment. One was to discover the informant. That was laudable. The other was to make them sorry. That was an evil purpose, an abuse of power, IMO. You can't make anyone remorseful, any more than you can make them love. All you can do is make your disapproval felt, but certainly the usual student punishments of ostracism and temporary hexing would be sufficient for that. Dumbledore himself, for example, inflicts a beard on Miss Fawcett for crossing the age-line. But she was warned that nobody would be able to do it. Though Dumbledore did not say there was an unusual punishment, he did explain why he was making an unusual rule. And the result, though embarrassing, was curable. Hermione did not tell her friends that she was enchanting the parchment and no one would be able to snitch, nor did she explain why there would be more than the usual need to keep people from snitching. It seems to me that Dumbledore keeps secrets in order to protect people, where Voldemort does it to make things easier for himself. If Hermione's purpose in secrecy was to protect someone, I don't see it. I agree with you that she did it secretly because it would have been hard to explain to everyone why there was more than the usual need to keep people from snitching. But that means Hermione was doing it to make things easier for herself, not to protect others, so her purpose was more comparable to Voldemort's than to Dumbledore's, IMO. Hermione tells people that they need to learn to defend themselves from Voldemort. But she doesn't tell them they're going to be a secret army, in fact she says that's a mad idea. So to expect Marietta to grasp that she's joining a secret underground army to resist either Umbridge or Voldemort and so she should expect to have her tongue cut out if she talks or something is just incomprehensible to me. Pippin From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 4 15:18:43 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:18:43 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... In-Reply-To: <038d01c69e50$e1c9f840$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154866 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rebecca" wrote: > I find it interesting that some wish to hold Hermione, as a 15 year old > girl, to the same standard of ethical perfection as an adult. I wonder why > these "kids" aren't seen by the fandom as just making mistakes or bad > judgement while maturing to adults? IMO, it's all about growing up and > learning, isn't it? > > Rebecca > Gerry I totally agree. Now lets follow that logic: Hermione has disregard for rules and thinks she is right: that makes her to some a budding Umbridge. OK, now take Marietta: She caves in under pressure and follows those with the most power, betraying her friends knowing there will be grave consequences for them: where did we see a character like that before? If Hermione is a budding Umbridge, consequently that makes Marietta a budding Peter Pettigrew. Yet allowances should be made because she is a fifteen/sixteen year old girl, the same age as Hermione is but somehow those allowances are not made for evil!Hermione. If age does matter, that certainly does for Hermione too. If it does not, than evil!Marietta will not get a chance to become as evil as her adult counterpart because people are warned about her. Gerry, who thinks that Marietta never approached Hermione to ask to take the pimples off her. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 16:01:32 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:01:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil Hermione References: <005201c69f77$0d79d290$b066400c@Spot> Message-ID: <01ee01c69f83$2216a780$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 154867 > Rebecca: > Umbridge to reveal it rather than go to her mother. She didn't reveal it > to > her head of house, either - she went directly to Umbridge. Not indicative > of someone who was conflicted or thought they "did the right thing," > > Magpie: > You're not the only person to say that and I don't get it. Isn't it just > kind of randomly complicated to bring in Flitwick and minor character's > parents? We know what Marietta's mother's position is. Her choice, > especially given her mother's job, is either to tell or not--meaning tell > the Headmistress. It's pretty straightforward, as JKR tries to keep > things, > I think. Just as Hermione chooses to either give Harry's Firebolt over > for > testing or not. However long Marietta waffled and so refrained from > telling, her decision was always going to be to either keep quiet or tell > Umbridge. Telling her mother, for instance, just gets the same result > with > less dramatic effect for the author. > Rebecca responds: It's actually a bigger picture than that, I think. Conceptually, would I conform to a law or edict I thought repressed: 1) My freedom of speech (Umbridge/The Ministry outlaws The Quibbler, forbids professors to speak to students about anything but classwork), 2) My right to defend myself (Umbridge/The Ministry outlawing practical lessons enabling me to do so) 3) My right to kibbitz with those like-minded peers I want to (Umbridge/The Ministry outlaws all student groups not approved) 4) My right to remain silent (Umbridge/The Ministry trying to secretly feed Harry Veritaserum) 5) My right to a fair trial and fair treatment as a prisoner ( Prisoner in the loose term here, depicted by Umbridge/The Ministry shaking Marietta, Umbridge/The Ministry nearly performing an Unforgivable Curse on Harry, Umbridge/The Ministry organizing the Inquisitorial Squad) I could list more, but as I do, the whole thing reads like an terrible dictator control experiment and this is in a *school!* Heaven help us what else is happening elsewhere in the WW during OoP. While I can respect what you say, recall that Umbridge is the representative of The Ministry in this book, so her actions speak of the government's paranoia and control freak mentality at the time. She pitted what she calls "trustworthy" students against other students (even if most of the IQ was Slytherin.) So "trust" is a key discussion point to me. It's no secret what Umbridge is about, and her reputation preceeds her. These sentences are what bother me: 'Don't mind her,' Cho muttered. 'She doesn't really want to be here but I made her come with me. Her parents have forbidden her to do anything that might upset Umbridge. You see - her mum works for the Ministry.' 'Don't be scared, dear, don't be frightened,' said Professor Umbridge softly, patting her on the back, 'it's quite all right, now. You have done the right thing. The Minister is very pleased with you. He'll be telling your mother what a good girl you've been." As a daughter who knew one's parents were worried about upsetting Umbridge, wouldn't one warn one's mother than you were going to tell Umbridge rather than let her find out this way, through her job? Marietta could just have chosen not to go to the DA meetings and kept quiet, or if she were concerned for her friends told her mother and/or her head of house. The choice to tell Umbridge was easy - it wasn't right, which is exactly what I believe JKR was trying to depict. The "keeping quiet" was apparently the much harder choice than all of the others, including telling her parents or head of house. To me, that message appears to be lost in the jinxed parchment vs betrayal discussion. Otherwise why have the background about Marietta's parents and, in particular, her mother policing the Floo network as Umbridge describes? The situation is very similiar, IMO, to what occurred with the Nazi regime - informants, some relatives of those working in government, ratting out other parties. Neighbor and friend pitted against neighbor and friend. Trust betrayed, as revealed in the countless accounts written and relayed by Holocaust survivors. Cho's making excuses for her friend later in the book denotes "burying ones' head in the sand" to me about such choices and a recent post by Dan here says it all: JKR is writing about life and death choices, even in the subtle and sublime. Trust, honor, bravery, and loyalty are all values in that equasion. To me, Marietta violated all of them. I don't think she'll be "marked for life", but she perhaps will be marked by Hermione's jinx until she realizes the lesson. Rebecca, who includes Dan's post link in case anyone wants to read it again at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/154734 From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jul 4 16:36:25 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:36:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Hermione/Celibacy References: Message-ID: <009301c69f87$fe4f5090$b066400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154868 > Alla: > > I am sorry, but NO it is not an imagination. Rebecca brought a VERY > extensive canon upthread that to me has a very clear implication > that the main purpose of the DA is to teach themselves defense to > oppose Voldemort (tyrant that is), if you have other interpretation > of that canon, Magpie: I'm not talking about the kids' desire to fight Voldemort, I'm pointing out that the analogy being made is intentionally exaggerated. Marietta is a student in a school telling the headmistress of a secret group. Umbridge=occupier, the DA=French Resistance and Hogwarts=France. If this really were a story of the French Resistance in WWII we wouldn't need to have to imagine it was more like that to explain Hermione's OTT punishment. (The DEs operate more like a real secret movement, imo.) > Alla: > > No, to me it would not have complicate matters, just as to me it > would not have complicated matters to bring in Cedric parents for no > other purpose than to show more grief. > > If Marietta went to her mother, I would saw conflicted girl, someone > who is concerned about her family and who is between rock and the > hard place. Magpie: Cedric's father appears in one scene, as you said, to show grief and make his death more real by showing his family. JKR isn't trying to set up sympathy for Marietta. She just needs her to out the DA. JKR went the most obvious way for a good scene. Alla:> > For all I know now the only reason Marietta went to Umbridge was to > get her place on Inquisitorial squad and THAT is disgusting to me. Magpie: Cho tells us she was conflicted at least partly due to her relationship with her mother and Rowling shows us Marietta being uncomfortable from the very first meeting. That's all we get. I see no reason to not believe this or imagine her angling to be in the IS, which we would have seen. Whether one has sympathy for Marietta's position or not I don't think is important, but given that the story was two books ago I don't see why one would reject the only motivation we ever get for the character, especially in favor of one we never get. I think JKR leaves it open for us to have empathy for Marietta or not--leaning heavy on the "not" since Harry has none. But even Harry doesn't deny Cho's explanation. Lanval: A mere few days later, the DA most certainly was illegal, and therefore more secret than ever. THAT would have been the time for Marietta to decide whether she wanted to continue. Magpie: Which just would have meant she got marked and they got outed a few weeks earlier. I don't see why that would matter in the context it's being spoken about here. The disagreement about whether or not this is a "secret organization against a tyrant" is one, imo, of metaphor. Yes, Umbridge is a tyrant of a Headmistress. So could Snape be described as being a tyrant in Harry's Potion class, I think, but how far does the metaphor go? Hermione's being excited to see herself as fighting against a tyrant doesn't mean that's the way all the kids literally see it, and the problem is that it goes back and forth--even Hermione pulls back when talking to the other kids. Yes, the kids are worried about being found out--but not for the same reasons one would worry about being discovered by occupying Nazis in France, right? They'd worry about school punishments, letters home, suspension, maybe even expulsion. The normal things you'd worry about in dealing with a strict headmistress in school. They're disobeying the new school rules. Lanva: So to say that Marietta MUST have been raised in the firm belief that the ministry can do no wrong, that she really had no free will in this matter, strikes me as nothing but speculation. For all we can guess, her parents may have told her to stay out of trouble from fear. Magpie: She certainly has free will and we definitely have no reason to think she believes the Ministry can do no wrong. We do only know that her mother works for the Ministry and that, according to Cho, this was part of why she had a problem with the DA. I think the indications are that it's not just about her disobeying her mother--she's never comfortable with the DA that I remember. So I think it's implied it's not her mother but also Marietta who doesn't like the DA. Lanva: Marietta could have told Hermione she was uncomfortable with the DA, and that she wanted out. Magpie: Only she didn't want out and she didn't need someone to confide in (she seems to have already been talking to Cho). She wanted the DA outed and to put a stop to it, and that's what she did. How important it is that we have sympathy for her is another question--maybe a very interesting one! Lanva: Does anyone find it a mite strange, btw, that no one in the WW seems to feel even a fraction of the discomfort and indignation expressed on this group, about Mariettas continuing disfigurement? ... or if he has, the author has yet to see a reason to mention. Magpie: Not really strange given the way these things usually go. The author does see a reason to keep bringing up the disfigurement, which I hope is significant. There have been things in the past that seemed like nobody thought badly about until later on when it turned out there were people who did feel strongly about them. > Rebecca: > Umbridge to reveal it rather than go to her mother. She didn't reveal it > to > her head of house, either - she went directly to Umbridge. Not indicative > of someone who was conflicted or thought they "did the right thing," > > Magpie: > You're not the only person to say that and I don't get it. Isn't it just > kind of randomly complicated to bring in Flitwick and minor character's > parents? We know what Marietta's mother's position is. Her choice, > especially given her mother's job, is either to tell or not--meaning tell > the Headmistress. It's pretty straightforward, as JKR tries to keep > things, > I think. Just as Hermione chooses to either give Harry's Firebolt over > for > testing or not. However long Marietta waffled and so refrained from > telling, her decision was always going to be to either keep quiet or tell > Umbridge. Telling her mother, for instance, just gets the same result > with > less dramatic effect for the author. > Rebecca responds: It's actually a bigger picture than that, I think. Conceptually, would I conform to a law or edict I thought repressed: Magpie: I realize that Umbridge's rules are strict and aimed at controlling things I don't think she has any right to control personally. But we're still talking about how the woman runs a school. That's all she's running. I certainly agree with her abuse of power as a government official as well, and that her abuses of power as a person. Sending the Dementors after Harry is murder, for instance. But I don't see that this changes what Marietta's choice is when it comes to telling on the DA. I think her choice is the wrong one, but it still comes down to either turning in the school rule-breakers to the new Headmistress or not. I do see the danger in Umbridge's running a school (how she runs the school is the way she would like the whole world to run) and see good reason to resist it. But at the same time schools are allowed to restrict rights not restricted in society. Rebecca: As a daughter who knew one's parents were worried about upsetting Umbridge, wouldn't one warn one's mother than you were going to tell Umbridge rather than let her find out this way, through her job? Magpie: Not necessarily. What's wrong with doing it this way--I mean, from Marietta's pov? It seems like she's making her own decision here, not just trying to help her mother not upset Umbridge. Rebecca: Marietta could just have chosen not to go to the DA meetings and kept quiet, or if she were concerned for her friends told her mother and/or her head of house. Magpie: What if her concern was that she wanted to put a stop to the DA? She didn't want to keep quiet--she had been doing that, so presumably no longer wanted to do that. Rebecca: The situation is very similiar, IMO, to what occurred with the Nazi regime - informants, some relatives of those working in government, ratting out other parties. Neighbor and friend pitted against neighbor and friend. Trust betrayed, as revealed in the countless accounts written and relayed by Holocaust survivors. Cho's making excuses for her friend later in the book denotes "burying ones' head in the sand" to me about such choices and a recent post by Dan here says it all: JKR is writing about life and death choices, even in the subtle and sublime. Rebecca, who includes Dan's post link in case anyone wants to read it again Magpie: Yes, I think I remember Dan's post (didn't agree with parts of it so I'm not going to refer to it as how things are or should be in the world or in the Potterverse) , but what JKR maybe wants to set up is not necessarily what she did. I'm not ready to just dismiss Cho as burying her head in the sand because she has a different pov to Harry Potter and Hermione Granger, as Marietta's friend. I think what Marietta did was wrong, but I don't think what Hermione does is always right and I am not going to agree to a false binary where it's either one or the other. Everyone in the books tends to make a habit of making excuses and justifications for their friends while condemning others easily. Gerry: If Hermione is a budding Umbridge, consequently that makes Marietta a budding Peter Pettigrew. Magpie: Funny I was just thinking that. Specifically I was wondering why Marietta doesn't seem exactly like Peter. Is it just that she's not a big character? Part of it is that she's not friends with most of these people. She's only friends with Cho. And while Sirius and Remus see Peter as simply being cowardly, Cho seems to see Marietta's actions differently. Perhaps they are somewhat different. It may just be that it was so obvious Marietta was never fully on board the DA I couldn't believe she wasn't sent off immediately. Gerry: Gerry, who thinks that Marietta never approached Hermione to ask to take the pimples off her. Magpie: Yes--and there could be a number of different interesting explanations for this... Tonks: These only children in the books are all sons. I don't see any other way to interpret it. Magpie: No other way? Really? Here's an alternative: only children mean fewer characters for Rowling to juggle. That's how Hermione became an only child. Luna has no siblings that we know of, nor do Pansy or Parvati or Tonks. Sirius seemed to be an "only son" until we learned he had a brother, as did Dumbledore. If a kid's in danger it's more poignant if they're an only child (thus Narcissa crying over her "only son"). Barty Crouch's story would be a bit complicated by extra siblings too--one son makes for an easier sacrifice on Mum and Dad's part, and the end of the family line as well. With most of these kids it seems much easier to see it as just easier to deal with fewer kids. Yeah, maybe it seems convenient that all the DEs we know of have only one son, but then it's equally convenient they're all in the same year at school. -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 4 16:40:41 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 16:40:41 -0000 Subject: CAPSLOCKHarry In-Reply-To: <000f01c69f31$d4b54060$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154869 "Marion Ros" wrote: > I thought CAPSLOCKHarry was a product > of his 'mind-link' with Voldemort? There is no need to invoke a Voldemort mind link to explain cap lock Harry. After being tied to a tombstone and tortured Harry beats the most powerful Dark Wizard in a thousand years at magical arm wrestling and escapes, and for his trouble he is treated like a fool and a criminal and it attacked by hit squad of Dementors sent by the ministry. I think I would be in a bad mood too, wouldn't you? I can understand Harry feeling he had done his part, he's saved the world enough times; let somebody else take a crack at it and see how they like being tortured, I'm through with the world saving business! Eggplant From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 14:43:18 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 07:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060704144318.28530.qmail@web52706.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154870 Tonks wrote: As to the number of children the married ones have that also is rather odd. I am an only child myself and even I noticed this as a bit strange. The only thing I came up with here is that Rowling is implanting the idea, as she did in chapter 2 of book 6, of the concept of "my son, my only son" as a hidden reference to Christ. These only children in the books are all sons. I don't see any other way to interpret it. anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com writes: I think it's possible that it's just a coincidence. And Hermione's an only child, isn't she? I, too, am an only child, and I never thought about the number of children, or lack of number of children, in HP families as strange. As for the celibacy of the staff, I did always sort of feel that they had dedicated themselves to Hogwarts the same way someone would dedicate themselves to a vocation, and had voluntarily given up that kind of family life. But I really think that most people in HP are only children or have only one sibling because, in a plotting and literary way, the story would get really cluttered up and difficult if every family was like the Weasleys. It would just be too many characters! IMHO, Katie --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From blink_883 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 4 10:59:55 2006 From: blink_883 at hotmail.com (whirledgirl) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:59:55 -0000 Subject: Will Harry remain single? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154871 Jim Ferer wrote: > Harry will have to change his mind between June and the wedding if > he's going to marry Ginny. Right now he's sent her away to protect > her, to avoid making her a target. > > Harry's going to be severely damaged goods once this is over; PTSD > doesn't even cover it. Ginny will have to be, and she would be, > completely patient and understanding with him. I predicted that he > would disappear after Voldemort's defeat for a while, maybe even a > long while. That's still possible but less likely now. If it's all > over he may want to come back to the people he knows love him. > WG*: Well, I've been reading through a lot of JKR interviews old and recent today and saw something interesting. Unfortunately I've since seen so many it's impossible to find you the direct extract atm, but JKR did say "Ginny is the perfect woman for Harry ...they have both grown and in book 6 are total equals..." She says they have both been through a lot, and Ginny while being fiery is still able to show understanding, compassion and acceptance of Harry - she also recognises that he is "damaged goods" (her words too, I think). I've thought about this whole situation abit myself - does it seem likely that Ginny would accept it, when her emotions are a bit calmer? The answer I'm inclined to give is NO. Would Ginny, seeing Ron and Hermione (neither of which have been in quite as close quarters with LV as Ginny *has* - and much earlier too), quietly agree to the arrangement? No way. There's far too much of Fred and George (not to mention no small part of Molly's stubborness) in Ginny to take this 'lying down'. I highly doubt, and will be somewhat disappointed with her, if she doesn't make some attempt of changing Harry's mind. If love is the power LV knows not, then they will be stronger together than apart. I hope Harry realises this. WG* - thinking that perhaps there's abit of Molly in her, too... From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 4 17:29:16 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:29:16 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: <01ee01c69f83$2216a780$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154872 Rebecca: . It's no secret what > Umbridge is about, and her reputation preceeds her. These sentences are what > bother me: > > 'Don't mind her,' Cho muttered. 'She doesn't really want to be here but I > made her come with me. Her parents have forbidden her to do anything that > might upset Umbridge. You see - her mum works for the Ministry.' > > > 'Don't be scared, dear, don't be frightened,' said Professor Umbridge > softly, patting her on the back, 'it's quite all right, now. You have done > the right thing. The Minister is very pleased with you. He'll be telling > your mother what a good girl you've been." > > As a daughter who knew one's parents were worried about upsetting Umbridge, wouldn't one warn one's mother than you were going to tell Umbridge rather than let her find out this way, through her job? Pippin: If Marietta was trying to protect her family she did the right thing by not bringing her mother into it. Her mother hadn't done anything wrong, but if she'd been told, she'd have had to decide whether to inform on her daughter or become a collaborator. I know in RL in high security workplaces, you are supposed to report a security violation to a security officer first and they decide who is supposed to be told about it. Marietta may have felt she was protecting Cho from falling deeper into something that was becoming more dangerous and seemed to be shifting away from studying for OWLs and becoming the resistance league that Hermione had said originally would be a mad idea. Harry was teaching them to fight dementors, and at this point the dementors are still Ministry employees. What was Marietta supposed to think? Umbridge is an obvious metaphor from the reader's POV, but from the standpoint of the people in the books, she isn't. She doesn't "stand for" anything in the WW, she's just a bureaucrat trying to keep her boss in power. I would take Umbridge's report that Cho told her everything voluntarily with a grain of salt. We know what Umbridge's interrogations are like. If she was willing to lay hands on Marietta in front of Dumbledore and her own boss, I doubt she was gentle when no one was watching her. I know this list too well to think any argument is going to be definitive, but for those who are still insisting that Hermione was totally justified, think of this. If Harry had confessed, as he was fully intending to do before Dumbledore stopped him, he also would have had "SNEAK" written on his forehead, despite that his only intention was to protect Dumbledore. Hermione was very lucky that her curse did not strike one of her friends. Pippin From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 15:29:22 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:29:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060704152922.13255.qmail@web52715.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154873 justcarol67 wrote: > Carol, convinced that the date is no coincidence and thinking that > JKR may not be aware of the vast numbers of people who actually > died in the European persecutions > Gerry wrote: > You mean that she would be more aware of something happening in > some far away country than something happening in her own country? > Or in her own city? Don't you think that rather arrogant? America > is not that fascinating to the rest of the world you know. Katie writes: Not only is America not that interesting, but also not many people died in American witch trials, compared to the people burned in Europe. Considering JK's general grasp of history (I am a graduate student in medieval European history, so I have some authority in that), I think she probably has a good understanding of how many people died in the witch burning times...and not only witches, but "heretics" during the Inquisition, and particularly during the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth in England. She seems to be a smart cookie...she also seems to not give one whit about America, since it's very rarely mentioned in the books...has it ever been mentioned? Agreeing with Gerry, but meaning no offense, and as always, IMHO, Katie From felix_quinn at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 13:12:34 2006 From: felix_quinn at yahoo.com (felix_quinn) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 13:12:34 -0000 Subject: Look of triumph in Dumbledore's eye Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154874 Possible spoilers ahead, if you haven't read GOF or HBP I'm sure this must have been covered before, but I thought I'd bring it up in hopes of fresh ideas and theories. Is there any popular theory regarding the look of triumph in Dumbledore's eyes at the end of GOF? There are certainly some widely acknowledged theories concerning Dumbledore's death (or the possibility of his living) and how or why Snape may or may not be evil. So is there an equivalent for that moment? I know most readers have noticed it, at the very least, and sometimes it is brought up for discussion, but isn't it possible that it might be absurdly important to the story, and we're overlooking a huge clue? I know that personally, when I read GOF for the first time, this bit was one that struck me, and bothered me for a long time after. I was terrified that somehow this meant that Dumbledore might be batting for the other team, so to speak, but luckily common sense prevailed, and with more revelations in OoTP, it's quite clear this wasn't even an option. So then, what does it mean? I suppose the most natural assumption is that Dumbledore suspected Voldemort might do something like use Harry's blood for resurrection, (or at least try) and might have figured out some way for this to be beneficial to the Order and their cause. Could it be possible that by doing this, Voldemort has opened the doorway to his own demise by way of some method that would not have been applicable if he had NOT used Harry's blood? "felix_quinn" From christopherauk at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 4 17:01:22 2006 From: christopherauk at yahoo.co.uk (christopher) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:01:22 -0000 Subject: Is it possible to cast Fidelus on a horcrux? (spoilers for HBP) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154875 I was re-reading POA and HBP and a thought occured to me, if this has been disscued before sorry, could Voldemort cast the Fidelus charm on his Horcrux and make himself the secret keeper? Wouldn't that make the horcrux impossible to find? Christopher From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 4 17:34:36 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:34:36 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: <009301c69f87$fe4f5090$b066400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154876 "Magpie" wrote: > the analogy being made is intentionally > exaggerated. Marietta is a student in a > school telling the headmistress of a secret group. > Umbridge=occupier, the DA=French Resistance > and Hogwarts=France. Umbridge had taken away the right of assembly and the right of free speech, she has demonstrated that she is willing to torture student, she had already tried to kill one student (Harry) and in a particularly horrible way too, so exactly what part of this analogy is exaggerated? And I might add that the DA wasn't just a anti Umbridge organization it was an anti Voldemort organization too, but if Umbridge had her way they wouldn't even know how to defend themselves from him. Now maybe Marietta didn't realize the seriousness of the situation but Harry did and so did Hermione, this is not a game this is life and death. Marietta betrayed them and all she got was acne, she deserved a dirt nap. > all this stuff about her being in a secret > underground organization opposing a tyrant > is just that: imaginary. And cooler than > being a bunch of kids in school disobeying > the headmistress at school. The leader of this silly little kids organization had faced Voldemort 4 times and defeated him 4 times, and that is cool indeed because nobody else can say that or anything close to it, not even Dumbledore. Other members of this silly little kids group have also shown their courage and faced challenges that few member of the Order Of The Phoenix have. And Marietta betrayed them all. Eggplant From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 4 14:40:38 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:40:38 -0000 Subject: Liking J.K., not liking J.K. (was: ESE! JKR ?/not hardly) In-Reply-To: <20060703185352.84535.qmail@web52815.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154877 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Patricia Hurley wrote: > > Patricia: > I think that no one should be told that in order to like the HP > series you have to adore JKR. I personally idolize her writing > ability and style. As for JKR the person. You don't know her. You > know THE MEDIA PRESENTS JK ROWLING. Now I'm not saying that she has > to be a fantastic person in real life. But I don't think anyone > really has a right to pass judgement. Criticize her as an artist, > critique her work, but leave JKR the person out of your postings. > None of has any right to critique her as a person without knowing > her. > Ken: I don't believe I have criticized her for anything except teasing us with details that she knows and we don't. This is something that she definitely does do, it is not a media distortion of her image. I did say I have reservations about her and I think that she herself has given me enough of a sense of who she is to hold them. When a person says they have reservations about someone it is an admission that they don't have enough information to form a definite opinion after all. You don't need to have the whole picture in view to have reservations. The media is hardly our only source of information about JKR. Her own writing is directly available to us and presumably conveys her opinions accurately. There have been several threads here recently that question what she is trying to say by examining details found in her books. Those have been far more critical of JKR than I would ever be. I have not followed any of the recent fuss about the weight issue. My impression of her is not colored by that. Most of my reservations come from reading the information she posts on her website. Is that a media distortion? I don't think she is a bad person. I don't hate her. I'm just not sure we could be friends, not that the occasion will ever arise. Ken From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jul 4 18:07:38 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:07:38 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: <20060704152922.13255.qmail@web52715.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154878 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > justcarol67 : > > Carol, convinced that the date is no coincidence and thinking that > > JKR may not be aware of the vast numbers of people who actually > > died in the European persecutions > > > Gerry wrote: > > You mean that she would be more aware of something happening in > > some far away country than something happening in her own country? > > Or in her own city? Don't you think that rather arrogant? America > > is not that fascinating to the rest of the world you know. > > Katie writes: > Not only is America not that interesting, but also not many people died in American witch trials, compared to the people burned in Europe. Potioncat: Bringing out the china her grandmother brought over in the last century, smiling and saying, "Tea, anyone?" and with a nod toward all her roots (even the white ones which show along the part) "I have hot tea for the British and iced for the Americans. Sweetened for the Southerners and unsweetened for the rest of the US." Serving all around she says gently: I think this has gotten a bit off topic. The topic has to do with historical witch trials as compared to the Potterverse. It's been pointed out that some of the Potterverse facts don't fit the RW facts. It's been pointed out that the Salem witch trials were actually English, not American. Salem has been mentioned in the books, so JKR is mindful of them. She looks around, smiles at each in turn and says, "As to interesting places--I think they can be found any where you look." From allyevejeff at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 05:18:27 2006 From: allyevejeff at yahoo.com (allyevejeff) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 05:18:27 -0000 Subject: Will Harry remain single? In-Reply-To: <20060703232039.63319.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154879 > --- eggplant107 wrote: > Everyone is debating if Harry will die in the last book but I > want to ask a different question, will Harry remain single in > the last book? "allyevejeff": In my opinion, Potter will get married after he defeats Voldemort. That is, if he defeats him. From richter at ridgenet.net Tue Jul 4 18:59:32 2006 From: richter at ridgenet.net (Peggy Richter) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 18:59:32 -0000 Subject: Snape saves Harry (or does he?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154880 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" it would depend on just how high up he was when he fell. PAR: yes. But Cannon says the broom was rising SLOWLY. The twins are already below Harry to catch him. It can't have been THAT high since the next action is where Harry catches the Snitch on the ground. > wynnleaf> The basic principles of physics, etc., tend to mean that people falling from larger heights often are seriously injured or die. PAR: Actually, there is a set distance beyond which it doesn't matter (terminal velocity). Since we know you can "crash" into the ground (Q World Cup with Lynch) and fall from much greater heights (Neville, both in falling off the broom and bouncing when dropped from the window) AND we know that Harry has had the ability to levitate (when he did so at muggle school) -- all of which makes wizards much more resiliant to falling (or any other accident) than humans. Note Hagrid's disbelief regarding a wizard dying in a car crash. In this case, we are dealing with acceleration = force. If you are accelerating into the ground (as Lynch does during the world cup), you hit harder than if you just "fall" (where you reach what's called a terminal velocity). Thus Lynch hit the ground harder (since he was racing to catch the snitch -- or at least thought he was) than Harry would have from simply falling. It is the principal behind which Automotive crash tests are performed (hitting an object at 20 MPH is not as damaging as hitting one while going 50 MPH). If Harry had just Fallen, he would have only fallen at a set speed based on his mass. That speed is slower than if he'd sped into the ground. JKR has had a basic English education if I am not mistaken. If this principal is one that is a "standard" in high school in the US, I have a hard time believing "maths" or not, that she doesn't understand it. Her writing is very clear that she understands a great deal more science than she lets on. I am therefore convinced that simply falling from his broom would not have killed Harry, even if the twins failed to catch him or McGonagall / Hootch failed to act. In the case of POA, Harry is disabled by dementors necessitating DD taking a more active role. Here, he is likely to have managed to survive even if no one took the action DD did. (note that Dobby thinks Harry can survive being hit with an iron bludger. Not something your average Muggle would live through). winnleaf: Certainly we find examples in the WW of magic helping people live (like Neville bouncing), but no one simply assumes that will happen. Otherwise, Quirrel's attempt to toss Harry off the broom would have been completely pointless. == I think it was. Quirrel might have managed to hurt Harry (Neville after all, has a broken wrist from his fall), but yes, I do think Quirrel throughout the SS/PS was pretty ineffectual. You'd have to be to be beaten by 3 kids aged 11. Winnleaf: Voldemort of all people would know whether or not throwing someone off a broom would have chance at killing them. PAR: there's nothing in cannon saying that LV told Quirrel to get rid of Harry or that LV gave any advice to him regarding the broom. In fact, the evidence is that LV doesn't find Quirrel to be a very good tool -- "I have let him down many times..." as Quirrel himself says. It is on the same level as Draco and the necklace in HBP thinking somehow he will kill DD with it. Winnleaf: However, after Harry's patronus chases off the dementors, Harry and friends, and Sirius are all unconscious PAR: there's no evidence Herimone is unconscious, even assuming after being chased off by Buckbeak that the werewolf would even be in that part of the forest. wynnleaf:(snip) While we don't know exactly what Snape would have done if there had been further danger after the Stupify, he was shown in the foe-glass as an "enemy" of Crouch, Jr (snip) PAR: certainly Snape is an enemy of Crouch Jr. He could be one in a number of his varieties. But that doesn't mean Snape saved Harry - DD did that in this instance. I am just looking for actual cannon evidence that Snape actually HAS saved Harry. There have been a number of posts on this site indicating Harry lacks gratitude to Snape for Snape saving Harry. I would like one unambiguous incident where Snape has done so. wynnleaf: He did not simply notify the Order that Harry and friends were missing > (which, by the way, he could have done). He told the Order to go to > the MOM, *and* he told the Order to alert DD and send him, too. PAR: I believe Cannon says that DD went to Kreature and then to MOM. And if Harry has stated that he believes Sirius is at the MOM and needs rescue, Harry is not in Hogwarts, Not in the forest and not at Grimauld Place, by simple process of elimination he is likely to be at MOM. Further, since Harry has had one case of alerting the OOP to a problem (Arthur and the snake), it would be wise to check out the MOM regardless -- which is, in fact, all Snape really has the order do. HE didn't save Harry. Sending someone else (Sirius) to do it instead would not eliminate the life debt. PAR From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 4 20:02:44 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:02:44 -0000 Subject: CAPSLOCKHarry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154881 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Marion Ros" wrote: > > > I thought CAPSLOCKHarry was a product > > of his 'mind-link' with Voldemort? > > There is no need to invoke a Voldemort mind link to explain cap lock > Harry. After being tied to a tombstone and tortured Harry beats the > most powerful Dark Wizard in a thousand years at magical arm wrestling > and escapes, and for his trouble he is treated like a fool and a > criminal and it attacked by hit squad of Dementors sent by the > ministry. I think I would be in a bad mood too, wouldn't you? I can > understand Harry feeling he had done his part, he's saved the world > enough times; let somebody else take a crack at it and see how they > like being tortured, I'm through with the world saving business! > > Eggplant Geoff: On this topic, I decided it was worth re-posting a message I originally sent as post 118574 in a thread I began entitled "Harry's developing behaviour - average or unique?" back in November 2004. I often wonder whether it reflects the demographic structure of HPFGU but to me it is noticeable that threads regarding Harry's development and the question of boys' behaviour seem largely to be posed and answered by women members of the group. As a result, I sometimes feel that this puts a wrong spin on the matter because looking at the matter from my perspective, I feel that wrong conclusions are drawn as to whether Harry's behaviour is fairly normal or unique to him. What is my perspective? Firstly and obviously I am a male and was a teenager some little time ago, my current age being 21+++. Additionally, I have had a great deal of experience dealing with young people. For over 30 years I taught in South London at the same school. Over the years it moved from being an 11+ to 16 boys' school to a 13+ to 18 mixed and then finally to a 12+ to 16 mixed so I was dealing with teenagers for my entire professional career. I also have three children, now grown up, of whom two are male and, although I took early retirement several years ago, my wife and I still work with teenagers in our church Boys' Club. So, is Harry's journey from 11 to nearly 16 unusual? Is the move from "Too Good" Harry to CapsLock!Harry a reasonable progression? And do we expect him to calm down and become pleasanter after this? I would say yes and want to set out comparisons between Harry's progress and that of a typical real world guy. We meet Harry as a na?ve, uncertain 11 year old in 1991. At that time, many boys of that age would be in the same situation. Up to that age, their thinking had been very much guided by their family; they usually conformed to the structure of the family. Boys of that age still see the world very much in black and white; things are good or bad. I remember, when my school was about to change from 11+ intake to a 13 year old intake, having a conversation with my Headmaster, who was a very wise old bird ? definitely in the Dumbledore mould. I said that I could see potential problems with boys coming in at Third Year level because we usually gained the loyalty and support of the First Years without any hassle but I could anticipate that, being two years older, they would probably be more streetwise and likely to question what was going on. My headmaster's perceptive comment about the First Year boys was something like "True. When they are at the age of 11, they haven't lost their sense of wonderment or magic." In my opinion therefore, Harry was not unusual at this age. He was quiet and reserved, not many close friends. So was I. I was a bit of a swot; I enjoyed finding out about things and wasn't particularly athletic. Harry also wasn't completely angelic. Although he kept his head down, metaphorically and physically, at Privet Drive, he obviously had his views which were sometimes a little "wicked". We see him in PS thinking of Dudley as a pig in a wig and he allowed himself to visualise Dudley resembling one of the gorillas at the Zoo. When he is annoyed or stressed, his wandless reflex magic surfaces from time to time. In COS, he has great fun frightening Dudley with his wand and he certainly produces a couple of sarcastic replies for Aunt Marge in POA. So there is certainly a spark present waiting to be triggered off! What about him in OOTP? I said earlier that at 11, things are black and white. It is as we approach our teens that the grey areas begin to creep in. People we have looked up to as marvellous ? maybe even parents or grandparents ? suddenly have occasions when they let us down, embarrass us and try to continue directing our lives as they did when we were younger. Teens want room to flex their muscles ?physically, behaviourally and socially ? and like to spend time pushing at the barriers and seeing if they can be prised open a little further. And with it can come the tempers and the outbursts. I know about that ? I had red hair (then!). Both my sons went through spells like this in their mid-teens. My elder son was dreadful; we didn't dare take him anywhere. He was angry, moody, sullen and anti- social. Today, he is happily married and working towards a doctorate in Theology as a mature student. My younger son lived on a short fuse for years (as did our nerves). Something would displease him and there would be a minor volcanic eruption. He would address us in capital letters and then stomp off to his room; you could tell by The diminishing sounds of doors being slammed hard where he was. He is now a highly- paid computer consultant used to making measured decisions for companies. OK, so Harry had extra reasons for blowing his top over and above the usual pressures of adolescence but much of what he does and thinks are in part the normal behaviour and development of average teenage males. Will Harry revert to being like he was before his outburst years? No. But he will return to being more civilised. He will not return to the unquestioning and na?ve Harry of 11 but he will be the experienced and worldly-wise Harry of 17 or 18 growing into adulthood. This is How it works out in the real world and I see this as being the same for the Wizarding World. Let's stop trying to label Harry as a freak and consider him as a normal teenager for whom the screw has been turned a notch or so tighter than normal. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 20:05:26 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:05:26 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione Was:Re: Evil Snape In-Reply-To: <488.4600568.31da222e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154882 Julie wrote: > It's a fact that the brain in both an emotional and logical sense is not completely developed at 15, 16 or even 18 or 19. Teenagers do *not* think the same way adults do. (Fact.) A teenager does not understand all the ramifications of their actions in the same way an adult does. A teenager is more likely to make rash decisions based on emotions like anger and fear, to react rather than to think things out. (Fact.) There's a reason teenagers can't vote, aren't allowed to drink, have limited driving rights, etc--and can't apparate yet in the WW. Carol responds: UK teenagers reach majority at 18, I believe. In most U.S. states, to my knowledge, young people can drive at 16, vote (and marry?) at 18, and drink at 21, rather odd sequence of increasing responsibilities based on at least the perception of limited maturity. And certainly, we do see limited maturity in many RL teenagers, whatever the cause. Look, for example, at the driving records of teenage boys. There's a reason their auto insurance premiums are so high, at least in the U.S. I don't know anything about the brain development of teenagers, but I have enough RL experience to know that you're right about teenagers not thinking like adults. Whatever the physiology of their brains, and I'm sure you've done your research and know what you're talking about, they often lack the experience to fully understand, or to fully anticipate, the consequences of their actions. That's not to say that they aren't responsible for their errors in judgment and that they shouldn't take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, whether that involves breaking rules (HRH throughout the books), rushing to the MoM to rescue someone who isn't really in danger or casting an unknown spell marked "for enemies" (Harry), breaking the law and endangering other students (Draco), deliberately bullying another student (James and Sirius), sending another student to face a werewolf (Sirius), inventing a dangerous spell (Severus), or making a wrong choice (Marietta obeying Umbridge and herr mother by turning in her fellow students--I'm still not sure, BTW, that Marietta believed that Voldemort was back or she might have acted differently), or putting a nasty hex on a piece of parchment without telling people what they're signing. All of the students on this list are responsible for their choices and actions, and the consequences of their choices and actions, whether those actions are sins or mistakes or crimes. In theory, at least, all of them should face the natural or logical consequences of those actions. Certainly, they should acknowledge responsibility if the consequences get out of hand--and they should not get off the hook if the consequences are averted. (Sirius, for example, is very lucky that Severus wasn't bitten by a werewolf; Draco is very lucky that Ron and Katie were saved; Harry is very lucky that Draco was saved--directly or indirectly by Snape in all cases, but I won't go there). These kids aren't ten or eleven years old, and even if they were, they'd be old enough to face the consequences. That's what life is all about. But they're not adults, either. They lack the experience and the maturity either to anticipate the consequences or to control their impulses or to overcome the fear of punishment or, in general, to act as a mature adult would act. It's harsh and unrealistic to judge any of them by the standards we'd apply to, say, Peter Pettigrew (setting aside the murder of twelve Muggles and sending a friend to Azkaban for his own crimes and considering only the betrayal of the Potters and his fellow Order members. And, of course, there's the magnitude of the crime as well. Pettigrew knew full well that the information he provided could and would send those people to their deaths.) > Julie: > I am NOT saying youth absolves Draco or Marietta of their bad decisions or wrong-doings. But their very immaturity does affect how well they are able to make decisions and truly understand the ramifications of those decisions. It's enough for courts to generally give teenagers a break, and for me to cut them *some* slack over their decisions. After all, we've done that for James and Sirius-- recognizing that teenagers can change from real berks to decent adult by lieu of maturing. Carol responds: Exactly. If age is an extenuating circumstance for James and Sirius and Harry and Hermione, it's an extenuating circumstance for Marietta and Draco and teen!Severus. They are all fifteen- or sixteen-year-old kids. Not one of them has the experience to judge from an adult perspective. Even adults make mistakes, some of us rather frequently. If we're mature, we try to recognize our mistakes and learn from there. We acknowledge our mistakes and our misdemeanors; we admit responsibility when we do the wrong thing; and we make reparations when we can if reparations are called for. Or at least we should do so and know that we should. The kids in the HP book are still finding their way to adulthood; still making the inevitable mistakes of young people with little or no moral guidance; still, sometimes, choosing the wrong path. I think that JKR wants them to learn from their mistakes. It's disturbing, however, that one of the group (Marietta) seems to be punished permanently while the others are given at least a second chance. If Draco should be shown mercy, so, surely, should Marietta. I hope for Marietts' sake and JKR's sake and the sake of JKR's many child readers that the SNEAK hex, which has long since outlasted its purpose, is not permanent. And I hope for Hermione's sake that she realizes that the punishment exceeds the crime, that she has exceeded her own authority as judge and jury of her fellow teenagers, and that she makes reparations by unhexing Marietta. I see no other way for JKR to show that even her main characters, her kid heroes, must take responsibility for the actions and the consequences of those actions to the extent that those consequences are their own fault. (I don't mean, for example, that Harry is responsible for Pettigrew's actions when he saves Pettigrew's life.) Carol, noting that the arbitrary decision of the WW to make seventeen the age of majority should not, IMO, make a difference in the way we judge these characters but still wondering whether Draco was sixteen or seventeen when he faced Dumbledore on the tower From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jul 4 20:10:51 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:10:51 -0000 Subject: Snape saves Harry (or does he?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154883 PAR: > there's no evidence Herimone is unconscious, even assuming > after being chased off by Buckbeak that the werewolf would > even be in that part of the forest. Only in the movie. In the book Hermione is with Harry when the dementors attack. "At the same moment, Harry felt Hermione collapse next to him. He was alone...completely alone" Buckbeak never chases off the werewolf. Sirius transforms into dog form and he and the werewolf fight briefly. Then the werewolf goes "galloping into the forest". Lupin himself says, "And after last night, I see their point. I could have bitten any of you." From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jul 4 20:25:08 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:25:08 -0000 Subject: Snape saves Harry (or does he?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154884 PAR > I am therefore convinced that simply falling from his broom would > not have killed Harry, even if the twins failed to catch him or > McGonagall / Hootch failed to act. wynnleaf If all your arguments are correct, LV was a fool for thinking he might be able to kill Harry in this manner. Ron and Hermione were just being basically ignorant to be worried. Fred and George were mostly unnecessary. And Snape -- ESE, DDM, or whoever -- was simply silly for thinking his efforts were in any way needed. Basically -- they are all woefully ignorant -- Harry would have been fine. Odd that JKR never tells us that anywhere. Even DD seemed deluded. What else did he mean by Snape's efforts to protect Harry? A bunch of quite ignorant and deluded people and JKR never even lets on how silly they all are. > PAR: there's nothing in cannon saying that LV told Quirrel to get > rid of Harry or that LV gave any advice to him regarding the broom. wynnleaf Perhaps LV was in the back of his head yelling, "stop, you idiot. People don't die from falls!" :D > Winnleaf: However, after Harry's patronus chases off the dementors, > Harry and friends, and Sirius are all unconscious > > PAR: there's no evidence Herimone is unconscious, even assuming > after being chased off by Buckbeak that the werewolf would even be > in that part of the forest. wynnleaf Movie contamination is at work. In the book, Hermione collapsed next to Harry while he was trying to conjure a patronus. Buckbeak did not chase off the werewolf. No one knew where the werewolf had gone. PAR I would like one unambiguous incident > where Snape has done so. wynnleaf If you don't consider the broom incident unambiguous, practically nothing will be. One can always say, "oh, he wouldn't have died from that...." > PAR: I believe Cannon says that DD went to Kreature and then to MOM. > And if Harry has stated that he believes Sirius is at the MOM and > needs rescue, Harry is not in Hogwarts, Not in the forest and not at > Grimauld Place, by simple process of elimination he is likely to be > at MOM. wynnleaf No one in the Order knew anything about Harry going anywhere (forest, MOM or otherwise), without Snape telling them so. DD interrogated Kreacture because he'd been alerted by the Order of Harry's absence and probably trip to the MOM, just as Snape had requested the Order to do. PAR Further, since Harry has had one case of alerting the OOP > to a problem (Arthur and the snake), it would be wise to check out > the MOM regardless -- which is, in fact, all Snape really has the > order do. HE didn't save Harry. Sending someone else (Sirius) to > do it instead would not eliminate the life debt. wynnleaf Did I ever say anything about the life debt? Hm, I didn't know we were discussing whether or not these efforts paid that debt. In any case, without Snape notifying the Order and telling them to go to the MOM, as well as telling them to alert DD, Harry would have died at the MOM. No, Snape was not the one to actually fight of DE's at the MOM. But no Order members would have been there if not for him. You can come up with all sorts of excuses for why he had to, or should have, notified the Order. The fact is, his alert ultimately saved Harry. Without it, Harry would have died -- as well as 4 other students. It seems clear that you only consider "saving someone's life" to be actively standing in between them and *certain* death. That is not the way many in the books interpret it. For instance, in the example you mention of Harry having the vision/dream of Arthur being attacked by Nagini -- Harry gets credited by Molly for being instrumental in saving Arthur's life. Yet, according to you, Snape gets no credit at all for contacting the Order to send them to save the students at the MOM. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 22:23:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:23:42 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154885 Alla wrote: > > Oy. I think that Hermione's character is significantly less grey > than your argument portrays, but if you think that by acting in > secrecy and alone Hermione's action can be compared to what > Voldemort does, then you would agree that Dumbledore's many actions > can be compared to what Voldemort does too? > > You know, all that "acting in secrecy and alone", often NOT sharing > with other people why he does something, why he trusts people, etc? > And PROCEEDING with the plans based on he knows best why. > > JMO, > Alla, > > thinking that WHY matters A LOT. Carol responds: I certainly agree that acting alone and in secret is not in itself evil (or foolish or wrong). OTOH, Dumbledore has had sufficient time in 150-plus years to acquire considerably more wisdom than Hermione in her sixteen years (as of OoP). I think we have sufficient grounds (the apparently permanent SNEAK hex, the resentment of the Centaurs, the whole business of the elf hats) to show that Hermione, however much she thinks she knows, is not always right or wise. Even Dumbledore makes mistakes (though we don't yet know the consequences of his decisions in HBP, or his long-term trust in Snape, and I think it's best to reserve judgment until we do). I agree that *why* matters a lot, not only with regard to Hermione, but, more important, with regard to Snape. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Jul 4 22:23:31 2006 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:23:31 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no children In-Reply-To: <000001c69f6c$28f99f10$6401a8c0@Princess> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154886 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sarah Schreffler" wrote: > > Susan McGee said: > >Okay, not ONLY do none of the professors have partners/spouses/lovers, > >but it seems NONE of them have children. > > [...] > > >The Weasleys seem to be the only family with a lot of kids... > >well of course Lily and James didn't have time, but the Malfoys > >only have one, the Lestranges have none, Barty Crouch only has > >one, the Diggorys only have one, Crabbe and Goyle seem to only > > have one.....neither Sirius or Regulus have had any kids that > >we know of...the Patils and Creevys seem to be the only other siblings..... > > Sarah: > 1. You do have Sirius and Regulus, and Narcissa, Andromeda, and > Bellatrix, then how about Fleur and Gabrielle? And Molly had two > brothers > > 2. to a great extent, this seems to reflect real life in UK (I > suspected this because even in the US, the average number of > children in a family have dropped) Pip!Squeak Agreed. It's definitely real life in the UK to have families with one or at most two kids. Three is not common (though not too uncommon). Four or more is highly unusual. And this has gone on for a longish time. I was one of two kids, my mother was one of two kids, and my father was an only child. You'd have to go back to my grandparents generation to find large families. Don't forget that the entire United Kingdom is slightly smaller than the State of Oregon - and we have nearly 60 million people to fit into it. If we all started having three or four kids it'd very quickly be either standing room only, or forced mass emigration. {g} The British Wizarding World will be in the same problem, very likely, made worse by the need for secrecy. Sarah: > Add in to this that in the wizarding world, you've got a war > having gone on, where quite a few members of the world > (comparatively in such a small population) died young, before they > had a chance to have as many children or where, during > traditionally childbearing years, they were just struggling to > survive. (And maybe no baby boom like the end of WW I > and II because the people hadn't left home for there to be the same > "Open armed welcome back" of those days?) Pip!Squeak: James and Lily seem to have married very young; which might be part of the other 'wartime' effect - the desire to have a child in case one of the partnership dies. If that's the case, you'd expect the 'wartime generation' to produce a fair number of single orphans - and that's what we have. In Harry's Gryffindor class we have Harry, Neville (effectively orphaned) and Dean (who lost his wizard father). The other effect you have to consider is the 'dramatic' one {g}. Hermione being an only child is very likely one of the things that makes her 'lock on' to Harry and Ron - they're substitute siblings. It also means she has no younger brother/sister to divert her emotional attention from the boys. Draco being an only child was obviously planned for dramatic reasons - it's Narcissa's motivating passion - though I wonder whether she had no other children because she *couldn't*, or simply because she couldn't stand Lucius. All three of the Black sisters have some plot point (Andromeda to marry a muggle and produce Tonks). Gabrielle also has a 'plot' reason to exist. I'm not sure that the small number of kids is supposed to represent the WW dying out - I think the pure-blood obsession is shown slightly differently. It's not that the married pure-bloods have *less* children (half-bloods also seem to produce a fair number of only children) - it's that the continual marrying of cousins results in something being *wrong* with the children. Consider Sirius's instability, versus Bellatrix's instability. Barty Crouch Jr - and, indeed, Barty Crouch Sr. In the House of Gaunt chapter in HBP, Dumbledore talks about 'a vein of instability and violence that flourished ... due to their habit of marrying their own cousins'. We found out in OOP that the pure-blood families basically only marry their cousins. Instability and violence ... it seems to run through quite a few of the 'old' families. And a tendency to be unstable and violent isn't exactly an advantage in the marriage stakes. Pip!Squeak From vinkv002 at planet.nl Tue Jul 4 22:35:25 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:35:25 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154887 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lanval1015" wrote: > Lanval: > to say that Marietta MUST have been raised in the firm belief > that the ministry can do no wrong, that she really had no free will > in this matter, strikes me as nothing but speculation. Renee: Sorry to snip so much of this post; I agree with about everything you said there and just wanted to add a few things. One of the messages of the HP books is that it's our choices that show what we are, alternatively, define what we are (JKR has said both, by mouth of Dumbledore and in interviews). To suggest that some people have no choice because of the way they're raised - brought up as mitigating circumstances for Marietta and much more often, Draco - runs counter to this message. We've got plenty of examples to the contrary, but I'll only mention Sirius. To say Marietta had no free will isn't just speculation. IMO, it's an idea that doesn't belong in the Harry Potter series. Secondly, has it occurred to anyone else that the whole Marietta vs. the DA episode may be meant to mirror Wormtail vs. the first Order of the Phoenix, with Umbridge in the role of Voldemort? Marietta is afraid that Umbridge will prevail, with (relatively) dire consequences for all members of the DA including herself - just like Wormtail was afraid Voldemort was going to win with dire consequences to all Order members including himself. Both operate according to the rule: if you can't beat them, join them. If I consider Marietta's treason the lesser of the two, it's because in her case no lives were at stake, or not directly - just futures. Renee From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 22:47:55 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 22:47:55 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154888 > Renee: > One of the messages of the HP books is that it's our choices that show > what we are, alternatively, define what we are (JKR has said both, by > mouth of Dumbledore and in interviews). To suggest that some people > have no choice because of the way they're raised - brought up as > mitigating circumstances for Marietta and much more often, Draco - > runs counter to this message. We've got plenty of examples to the > contrary, but I'll only mention Sirius. To say Marietta had no free > will isn't just speculation. IMO, it's an idea that doesn't belong in > the Harry Potter series. Alla: Yes, most definitely agreed, but I can predict the counterargument ( not that I buy it, just read it several times) - Sirius is just rebel by nature, so him leaving his dark arts loving parents does not matter, he would have rebelled against any parents. Just to be clear - I do NOT buy it, I think it is a great example of somebody making a choice. Renee: > Secondly, has it occurred to anyone else that the whole Marietta vs. > the DA episode may be meant to mirror Wormtail vs. the first Order of > the Phoenix, with Umbridge in the role of Voldemort? Marietta is > afraid that Umbridge will prevail, with (relatively) dire consequences > for all members of the DA including herself - just like Wormtail was > afraid Voldemort was going to win with dire consequences to all Order > members including himself. Both operate according to the rule: if you > can't beat them, join them. Alla: Wasn't it said that Pettigrew finger was delivered to his mother? So, yes, one can speculate IMO that Pettigrew had his mother in mind when he betrayed his friends to Voldemort. That does not make his actions any easier to swallow to me, just as it does not make Marietta's actions any easier to swallow to me, where I don't even see her concern for her mother Renee: If I consider Marietta's treason the > lesser of the two, it's because in her case no lives were at stake, or > not directly - just futures. Alla: If only not directly, but consider that all those kids were put in front of Wizengamot, as a result of Marietta betrayal. Can anyone be sure that none of them would have ended up in Azkaban? I cannot personally. Shudders. Teenagers in Azkaban, I wonder how long they would have lasted sane and alive. Alla, who hopes that she added something to Renee's points. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 23:30:39 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:30:39 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154889 wynnleaf wrote: > > > Thing is, Voldemort never gets to see a first hand look at how Snape acts at Hogwarts. > houyhnhnm responded: > > Actually he does get a first hand look, during the very year in question. LV would have been privy to the whole conversation Quirrell had with Harry in front of the Mirror. > > I wonder how Snape got out of that one? Apparently LV didn't share the information with Bellatrix. Surely she would have thrown the broom incident up to Snape had she known about it. Or he would have included a rationalization for that incident in his answers to her charges of disloyalty if he knew she knew about it. > Carol adds: Voldemort would also have been privy to Snape's various conversations and confrontations with Quirrell, including the remark about "where your loyalties lie." I think Snape "got out of that one"--or actually out of both the broom incident and thwarting Quirrell throughout SS/PS--by telling Voldemort exactly what he told Bellatrix--that he couldn't allow Harry to be killed in front of him because he would lose Dumbledore's trust and that he didn't want "unworthy Quirrell" to steal the Philosopher's Stone and did everything he could to thwart him, ostensibly unaware that Quirrell was acting on LV's orders. (On a side note, I think that Snape knew perfectly well whose agent Quirrell was and even had his suspicions about that turban, which Quirrell had not worn in his previous stint as DADA teacher. Snape and Dumbledore both anticipated LV's return and DD must have had Hagrid take the Stone from the vault because he anticipated that it would be stolen. How he knew, I don't know, but he clearly did.) To return to the topic, I agree that Bellatrix didn't know about the broom incident. Notice that Snape doesn't mention actually saving Harry's life, nor does she accuse him of doing so as she would if she knew about it. His assertion that he couldn't murder Harry or allow him to be killed in front of him seems like a blanket statement covering Quirrell, Crouch!Moody and any other potential Harry killer Bellatrix might have heard about. Or it might have been a slip on his part, like "sixteen" years of watching Dumbledore when he had only been teaching for fifteen (and working with DD spying on the DEs for an additional year). At least Snape is careful not to specify the nature of Dumbledore's recent injury or his role in limiting the damage to DD's hand rather than his life! Carol, wondering why Quirrell was foolish enough to try to kill Harry before he obtained the Sorceror's Stone given the risk of being caught From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jul 4 23:46:50 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 19:46:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Hermione References: Message-ID: <018101c69fc4$1f9e9210$b066400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154891 Eggplant: > Umbridge had taken away the right of assembly and the right of free > speech, Magpie: At school. Not in their country. I don't agree with it, but I don't think it's illegal for someone to make that rule at a school. The school already restricts their freedom more than they are on the outside. Eggplant: she has demonstrated that she is willing to torture student,> she had already tried to kill one student (Harry) and in a> particularly horrible way too, so exactly what part of this analogy is> exaggerated? Magpie: >From the pov of students in the school. It's a school, not a country, her trying to kill Harry isn't known by anyone until the end, nor does she torture Harry publically. She only whips out Crucio at the end. Marietta can, imo, believably think that she's still at school and this is a Headmistress from the Ministry. That's not an occupying government it's the actual government, the same one that Dumbledore has worked with and many of the kids' parents work for. I see the analogy working in a limited way, of course, since to us Dumbledore=Hogwarts just as the true King=the country, and I think the students are right to be disturbed by Umbridge's rules on principle. It's not like I'm trying to defend what Umbridge does. But I don't think everyone in the school would be able to see it the same way immediately--especially not the only way it's really on that level in canon, which is to punish anyone who tells about the DA through disfigurement. The DA kids actually don't suffer any of the imagined punishments that are being used to justify Marietta's suffering (not that it's her suffering that keeps them from these punishments). Eggplant: > And I might add that the DA wasn't just a anti Umbridge organization > it was an anti Voldemort organization too, but if Umbridge had her way > they wouldn't even know how to defend themselves from him. Magpie: Yes, it was kind of grey exactly what it was, and I realize where Umbridge's line of thinking went, but this isn't a discussion about whether we think the DA was a good idea or not. It was a good idea for the kids to teach themselves DADA and I can sympathize with them on being ratted on, even if they didn't take good precautions against it. Eggplant: Now maybe > Marietta didn't realize the seriousness of the situation but Harry did > and so did Hermione, this is not a game this is life and death. Magpie: If Marietta didn't realize the seriousness of it that would be a problem with the whole set up. Had she understood the group the way the others did, or maybe even understood the world situation the way they did, she might never have told on them. Seeing as nobody dies as a result of this isolated thread in the story, it's a life or death game in a very abstract way. Harry may have realized the seriousness, but he had nothing to do with the hex and didn't demand one. Eggplant: > The leader of this silly little kids organization had faced Voldemort > 4 times and defeated him 4 times, and that is cool indeed because > nobody else can say that or anything close to it, not even Dumbledore. Magpie: I've read the books, I know what Harry's done. But this has nothing to do with Marietta's pov or experience. Harry's pov kind of naturally gives him a different perspective, right? I think that brings him frustration in HBP as well. That's life or death, but people aren't listening. Eggplant: > Other members of this silly little kids group have also shown their > courage and faced challenges that few member of the Order Of The > Phoenix have.And Marietta betrayed them all. Magpie: I'm suspicious of the emotional appeal. That doesn't seem directly relevent to me. If Harry and his friends were less fabulous would that change her betrayal? Renee: Secondly, has it occurred to anyone else that the whole Marietta vs.the DA episode may be meant to mirror Wormtail vs. the first Order of the Phoenix, with Umbridge in the role of Voldemort? Magpie: Not really, no, not to me. Peter was an adult who knowingly sentenced his long time best friends to death and did it to save himself. Marietta rats people out, but that's about the only parallel I can see. We don't know that Marietta's acting because she thinks Umbridge "will prevail." I don't even know what that would mean. There's also a lot of cues that she's never been trying to beat Umbridge to begin with. If I were going to compare her to someone I'd probably to with Percy even more than Peter, despite the fact that Percy is choosing against his family. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 00:10:25 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:10:25 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: <018101c69fc4$1f9e9210$b066400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154892 > Magpie: Seeing as nobody dies as a result of this isolated > thread in the story, it's a life or death game in a very abstract way. > Harry may have realized the seriousness, but he had nothing to do with the > hex and didn't demand one. Alla: Maybe nobody dies precisely because younger generation did things better than the older one, no? We seem to agree that Umbridge IS capable of murder, one can only guess what else besides Cruciatus she could throw at the kids or as I said what would have happened if kids were put on the hearing in front of Wizengamot. > Magpie: > Not really, no, not to me. Peter was an adult who knowingly sentenced his > long time best friends to death and did it to save himself. Marietta rats > people out, but that's about the only parallel I can see. Alla: I already mentioned that I totally see the parallel, but I want to add - Peter was at MOST two or three years older than Marietta IMO, so adult/child does not really work for me here. Alla. From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jul 5 00:11:31 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:11:31 EDT Subject: Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no children Message-ID: <419.45eb218.31dc5db3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154893 As to the number of children the married ones have that also is rather odd. I am an only child myself and even I noticed this as a bit strange. The only thing I came up with here is that Rowling is implanting the idea, as she did in chapter 2 of book 6, of the concept of "my son, my only son" as a hidden reference to Christ. These only children in the books are all sons. I don't see any other way to interpret it. Tonks_op Julie: Erm, Hermione is an only child. So is Luna, I believe. So the "my son, my only son" doesn't really hold water. I think it's more likely JKR held back on siblings because she has so many characters to deal with now that she doesn't need more. She's also mentioned that Hermione had a sister in an early draft, but she changed that later on. Again, I'm sure because if she left that in Hermione (or anyone else) would have to at least mention the sister periodically, and she'd likely show up at Hogwarts at some point--oh, dear, MORE characters! It's probably the same reason no one seems to have grandparents, except Neville. It's not likely all of them died of old age, not even Harry's grandparents (on both sides!), as James and Lily only reached their very early 20s. (Even if James was born late in his parents' lives, say in their 40s or even 50s, that still would make his parents in their 70s at most when they died, which isn't that old Muggle standards let alone Wizard standards!). I know one excuse is that so many of that era died in Voldemort's first war (even grandparents of DE children like Draco, apparently), but in reality I think the lack of extended families is plot-driven (in Harry's case) and/or necessity-driven because JKR already has as many irons in the fire in the HP books as she can possibly handle! Julie, sorry we can't get to know Snape's parents, Lucius's parents, Arthur's and Molly's parents, etc. (Though some may yet show up!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 00:22:11 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:22:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? Message-ID: <20060705002211.86082.qmail@web30206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154894 wrote: < I just can't get my head around the layout of the whole HP world.> <I suppose my point is, if the characters have to go through a> <'parallel' world, why don't the magical people reside permanently> Katie: Katie DA Jones I found this intriguing to answer, perhaps I went off the deep end, but you hit my imagination button. So I pondered this, so below is my goofy opinion. Remember the tent at the World Cup in GOF. One of the prime abilities of witches and wizards seems to be the ability to create ''wizard space'. This is sort of like being able to cut a hole in reality with a scalpel and inserting a balloon, which you blow up and then fill with whatever furniture you want. The balloon holds it's shape and creates an extra-dimensional space. But the 'portal' is in normal space and can be entered by determined or imaginative muggles unless disguised by charms and such. However, witches and wizards sometimes travel through 'normal space' to move from one 'wizard space' to another. The Hogwarts express appears to travel from one 'wizard space' Platform 9 3/4 to another Hogsmead station. Whether Hogsmead station, Hogmead and Hogwarts are three separate wizard space, one wizard space or several interconnected 'nested' wizard spaces, is debatable. St. Mungos portal is disguised so that muggles don't accidentally stumble in. It must be possible, because there is even 'security' --the manikin. Also the ministry of magic is a 'wizard space' accessed from the telephone both. The Floo network seems to be a way to connect wizard space's. When it connects to the homes of the muggle-born, the fireplace itself must be the wizard space/portal. Apparation also seems to work mostly from wizard space to wizard space. Maybe intent creates 'apparition points' in which a wizard space is created with a portal to that point. However, at least the outside of most wizard structures would look perfectly normal to muggles, it is the inside that is expanded, or if there are differences from the outside, muggles would prob ignore it, or they are covered with charms or secret passwords or 'bricks' as with diagon alley. I think a muggle could find the burrow, and would think it was just an old rickety house, if he went inside he might think diff, because to some extent the inside of the burrow has prob made use of wizard space principles. Maybe all magic works in the HP universe by first using intent to imagine a magical field around the object to be magiced. This magic field; call it the 'JKR field' changes the laws of physics around the object allowing the magican to change it in ways he imagines. The wand movements are important in that the define the size and shape of the field, which may affect what can be imagined. In other words all magic works by first creating a 'wizard space' through intent around what the wizard wants to change. In other words all magic in the HP universe works through imagination. DA Jones --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jul 5 00:58:44 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:58:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Hermione References: Message-ID: <01b801c69fce$2b04ebe0$b066400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 154895 > Alla: > Maybe nobody dies precisely because younger generation did things > better than the older one, no? > > We seem to agree that Umbridge IS capable of murder, one can only > guess what else besides Cruciatus she could throw at the kids or as > I said what would have happened if kids were put on the hearing in > front of Wizengamot. Magpie: I don't get what the meaning of that is. These things don't happen...what's the relevence of asking what if they did? > Alla: > > I already mentioned that I totally see the parallel, but I want to > add - Peter was at MOST two or three years older than Marietta IMO, > so adult/child does not really work for me here. Magpie: The adult/child was probably the least of my problems with the parallel. In fact, I think Peter could have been more of an anti-Marietta at his age in significant ways. The Potters might have ultimately been a lot safer if Marietta had been the fourth Marauder. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 01:20:02 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 01:20:02 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154896 AD: > Snape's got a job--probably a much better one than he could get > anywhere else, given his history--and Dumbledore's continuing > protection, right up until Dumbledore decides he was wrong about > Snape, after all. Snape needs to preserve that relationship for as > long as he can. Carol responds: While I agree with you that all varieties of snape want to preserve Dumbledore's trust, I'm not sure why you think that Snape's history is known to the entire WW. As Pippin pointed out, there's no indication that anyone at Hogwarts (except HRH) suspects Snape of evil motives (wanting to kill Harry) when he referees the Quidditch match. No parents are refusing to send their children to Hogwarts because an ex-Death Eater is teaching there. There's no indication that Rita Skeeter is present at Karkaroff's plea bargaining session, which does not seem to be a public event like Ludo Bagman's trial (or what passes for a trial). I doubt that there was any publicity surrounding his release or his testimony, and the Wizengamot would have known that they were endangering Snape, who had already risked his life spying for Dumbledore, by revealing what Dumbledore told them--not to mention that Dumbledore was Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot and they were unlikely to reveal what he wanted hidden. Unlike the DEs who pleaded Imperius and were found not guilty, Snape was cleared of all charges. There was no public record nor, despite what he suggests to Bellatrix, any chance that he'd be sent to Azkaban. You can't be arrested, much less tried, for a crime you've been cleared of. Nor, as I've said before, did his name appear in the paper along with those of Malfoy, Avery et al--the DEs who pleaded Imperius--an entirely different matter from being cleared by Crouch himself under Dumbledore's protection. If the Daily Prophet knew about it, they'd have mentioned it in their article attacking Dumbledore's hiring policies. Sorry to repeat, but this is important. There simply is no evidence that knowledge of Snape's background was known beyond a very small circle. Dumbledore himself knew it only because Snape had told him. Sirius Black didn't know it, which means that at the time of the Potters' death, the Order didn't know it. (I don't think that Snape was an Order member. I think he was reporting to Dumbledore directly, as secretly as possible.) Karkaroff knew because he was himself an ex-DE (though not all DEs knew each other's identity). Umbridge seems to know as of OoP because Fudge told her. Fudge knows because Snape bravely showed him his Dark Mark to prove that Voldemort was returning. McGonagall know as of HBP, but when did she find out? She was present when Snape revealed his Dark Mark to Fudge. Maybe that's the first she knew of Snape's Death Eater days. There's no indication of her treating him as anything other than a colleague and fellow HoH (an Quidditch rival) before that time (despite the marked difference in their ages). Possibly her doubts stem from the knowledge, which she must have had by OoP, that he had returned to Voldemort to spy on the Death Eaters for the Order. At any rate, whether McGonagall knows about Snape's background before the Order reforms at the end of GoF or not, it's clearly not common knowledge. If parents will withdraw their children because he's hired a werewolf, or at least protest to Dumbledore and demand the werewolf's resignation, the non-Slytherin parents would have much the same reaction to an ex-DE, no doubt believing as Sirius Black does, "Once a Death Eater, always a Death Eater." At any rate, it never occurred to anyone except Hermione that Snape would hex Harry Potter's broom. Hagrid, who mentioned the possibility of Dark Magic, dismisses the idea that Snape would hurt Harry or try to steal the Sorceror's Stone: "Nonsense. He's a Hogwarts teacher." (It's not clear whether Hagrid knows that snape was a Death Eater. If so, he's doing an uncharacteristically good job of keeping the secret.) Even Quirrell--speaking as Voldemort's loyal servant but not his puppet or mouthpiece--doesn't suggest that Snape's background would make him a likely suspect if Harry had died despite Snape's disliking Harry. He merely says that he, Quirrell, wanted Harry dead and that Snape "does seem the type" to go after the Sorceror's Stone, "always swooping around like an overgrown bat." Carol, noting that *Quirrell* knows where Snape's loyalties lie, and Snape is very lucky that Voldemort believed the "unworthy Quirrell" story From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jul 5 01:20:17 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 01:20:17 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154897 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > I already mentioned that I totally see the parallel, but I want to > add - Peter was at MOST two or three years older than Marietta IMO, > so adult/child does not really work for me here. > colebiancardi: well, just to jump in with two feet, Peter had some additional instructions from Voldy, as he was the other spy. Marietta, bless her simple soul, was just a teen looking to brownnose the establishment. Maybe she is the next Percy in training.... cole (who dislikes brownnosers, but don't really think they are evil with a capital E - just distasteful) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 02:24:55 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 02:24:55 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154901 > > Alla: > > Maybe nobody dies precisely because younger generation did things > > better than the older one, no? > > > > We seem to agree that Umbridge IS capable of murder, one can only > > guess what else besides Cruciatus she could throw at the kids or as > > I said what would have happened if kids were put on the hearing in > > front of Wizengamot. > > Magpie: > I don't get what the meaning of that is. These things don't happen...what's > the relevence of asking what if they did? Alla: Edited again, because I can. :) Let me try to give you some examples. Because of Trio's interference Voldemort was not able to get the stone for himself, is it relevant to ask what might have happened? Yep, IMO very much. Voldemort was unable to get the Prophecy because of kids and Order courageous fight and Harry's heart that saved him. Is it relevant to ask what *could* have happened? Yes, because those things did not happen **not** because the threats were not serious enough, but because somebody **prevented** them from happening. Just as in case with Marietta, I disagree strongly that nothing serious occurred **because** her actions were not serious enough, but **only** because Hermione's ginx and Dumbledore and Kingsley quick wit helped to neutralise Marietta fast and still Dumbledore was forced to leave and leave Hogwarts in the hands of abusive sadist, IMO. **That** is the relevance to me - that Marietta's actions could have led to horrible consequences and did not do so **not** thanks to anything Marietta did, quite the contrary, IMO. It is the same with Draco's actions in HBP, I don't buy the argument that since nobody died, Draco is somehow less responsible for what happened. Nobody died **not** because of Draco and I look at what might have happened and did not only because of Draco's luck and JKR's will. :) Edited to clarify - I just want to stress that intent does matter to me a lot, but as I mentioned earlier the problem is that I don't see the signs of Marietta being conflicted, etc. Without those signs ( IMO of course, others may see it, I don't), I have no choice but to look at her actions only and those actions do not smell good to me. > > Alla: > > > > I already mentioned that I totally see the parallel, but I want to > > add - Peter was at MOST two or three years older than Marietta IMO, > > so adult/child does not really work for me here. > > Magpie: > The adult/child was probably the least of my problems with the parallel. In > fact, I think Peter could have been more of an anti-Marietta at his age in > significant ways. The Potters might have ultimately been a lot safer if > Marietta had been the fourth Marauder. Alla: Do you mind clarifying how Potters could have been safer? Is your meaning that Marietta would not have betrayed them? Alla. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 03:32:06 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 03:32:06 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154902 Peggy Richter's already made some excellent points on this topic, I'll chime in anyway, because I spent too much time thinking about it this evening, in between dancing, drinking beer, ignoring my diet, and waiting for the fireworks. > AD: > Snape and Voldemort--we need consider only Voldemort's > motives, Quirrell's pretty much just the horse he's riding--have > entirely different motives. > > Snape's got a job--probably a much better one than he could get > anywhere else, given his history--and Dumbledore's continuing > protection, right up until Dumbledore decides he was wrong > about Snape, after all. Snape needs to preserve that relationship > for as long as he can. Pippin: Wait a minute. Only DDM!Snape needs Dumbledore's continuing protection. AD: I suppose a better word would have been "patronage", but I mean "protection" as well. Not from Azkaban, not directly, but Dumbledore's continuing assurance that Snape is a good guy, once you scrape off the grease and the snark, keeps him employed, and gives him (one presumes--we've seen little of his social life) entr?e into circles other than Lucius Malfoy's The Wizarding world is small and tightly connected--what we've seen of it reminds me of nothing so much as Chicago's city government, especially as it existed under the first Mayor Daley. (Perhaps because I grew up here, and have seen some of the workings up close, through relative's and friends of relatives who were involved, one way or another with the city. It's possible that this POV colors my perceptions, but bear with me.) Jobs and social position seem to depend on family and personal connection as much as anything else. Witness the Slug Club. Snape has a big black mark against him--he was, in fact, a Death Eater, and some largish slice of the WW is aware of that, even if Carol's contention that it is not general knowledge is true. McGonagall certainly knew: "Snape," repeated McGonagall faintly, falling into the chair. "We all wondered . . . but he trusted . . . always . . . Snape... I can't believe it. ..." "Snape was a highly accomplished Occlumens," said Lupin, his voice uncharacteristically harsh. "We always knew that." "But Dumbledore swore he was on our side!" whispered Tonks. "I always thought Dumbledore must know something about Snape that we didn't. ..." . "He always hinted that he had an ironclad reason for trusting Snape," muttered Professor McGonagall, now dabbing at the corners of her leaking eyes with a tartan-edged handkerchief. "I mean . . . with Snape's history ... of course people were bound to wonder. . . but Dumbledore told me explicitly that Snape's repentance was absolutely genuine Wouldn't hear a word against him!" HBP So McGonagall, at least, knew he was a Death Eater, and trusted, or tolerated, him on Dumbledore's word. Presumably, others do as well. Suppose I'm right, and Snape's background is an open secret. Should he lose Dumbledore's support, his world and his options immediately contract to whatever his Death Eater cronies can give him. Probably, his best option is to become Lucius Malfoy's sycophant. I'm not sure I'd wish that even on Snape. Carol questions this point: > While I agree with you that all varieties of Snape want to > preserve Dumbledore's trust, I'm not sure why you think that > Snape's history is known to the entire WW. As Pippin pointed > out, there's no indication that anyone at Hogwarts (except HRH) > suspects Snape of evil motives (wanting to kill Harry) when he > referees the Quidditch match. No parents are refusing to send > their children to Hogwarts because an ex-Death Eater is teaching > there. AD: Well, as I pointed out to Pippin, McGonagall certainly knows something discreditable about the Half-Groomed Prince. Unless she really holds a grudge from when Severus was a student, I assume it's his record as a Death Eater. She takes Dumbledore's word for it that he's reformed. Perhaps Dumbledore's word is also good enough for Light families (like the Weasleys) who might otherwise object. I admit, this last point seems thin, even to me. Let's suppose you're right, then, and Snape's past is known to relatively few people. In that case, even an investigation that satisfies Dumbledore could be a disaster for Snape. If rumors of his past get out as a result of the investigation, then you may see families refusing to allow their children to be taught by a Death Eater. Even Dumbledore's patronage may not be enough to protect Snape's job, in that case. Carol: All varieties of Snape have been cleared of charges by the tribunal. Snape needs protecting only if he expects Voldemort to return and only if he intends to oppose him. There are plenty of people with DE history and lovely ministry jobs. Snape doesn't need Dumbledore's patronage for that. AD: Plenty of people who were cleared of willingly being Death Eaters by pleading Imperius. Snape is unique, so far as we know, in being a willing Death Eater who was forgiven his sins as a result of Dumbledore's testimony that he had made up for them. I don't know if British wizarding law allows double jeopardy, but let's assume it does not. If so Snape is safe from retrial, but if he is seen to have lost Dumbledore's confidence, again, his world and his opportunities dwindle alarmingly. Carol: There is a contingent on this list arguing that Snape Wants Harry Dead But Not Yet. That Snape would certainly act to save Harry's life regardless of his loyalties. But I thought you were saying that even if Snape wanted Harry dead, he would not permit Quirrell to kill Harry in front of him because he, Snape, would then become a suspect. Is that right? That seems bizarre to me. Surely if Snape wants Harry dead, having someone else do the dirty would be a stroke of luck. Even if it could be shown that Snape had reasons to hate Harry and could have done the attack, it would be mighty hard to prove that he'd done it, or even that he let it happen, especially if he managed to point the finger at Quirrell. AD: Carol, Pippin, other Snape fans--again, I ask: Am I, one of Snape's biggest critics, the *only* one who doesn't believe him so devoid of sense, so insane, so utterly batsh*t crazy, that he would rather see Harry dead than cement his position with Dumbledore by saving him, or so shortsightedly reckless as to take an entirely unnecessary risk of losing his position and what reputation he has? Amiable Dorsai From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 04:40:10 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 04:40:10 -0000 Subject: Snape saves Harry (or does he?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154903 Peggy Richter wrote: > > While there have been several references to Snape saving Harry, I am not sure that he actually does. Take the broom incident of SS/PS for example: Snape gives the "counter-curse" to Quirrell's broom hex. Quirrell is indeed trying to kill Harry by getting the broom to "buck" > him off. But would a fall off a broom actually have KILLED Harry? > Carol responds: Since Quirrell himself says that he was trying to kill Harry and Snape performed the countercurse that saved Harry from a bad fall intended to cause his death, surely it's intent that matters here? For the purposes of SS/PS, Snape is, as Dumbledore says, trying all year long to save Harry's life--and not only because of the life debt to James but for reasons that Dumbledore is not yet ready to mention, including a certain Prophecy. Peggy: > In POA, Snape "may" believe he is rescuing Harry from Lupin and Sirius but he certainly didn't go to the Whomping Willow to do so. Snape only discovers Harry is inside the tunnel or the shack by finding the invisibility cloak outside the willow. Carol responds: I agree. He went to the Shrieking Shack intending to capture a werewolf that he knew was about to transform and the escaped prisoner he believed that the werewolf was helping to get into the castle. But finding the Invisibility Cloak meant that Harry was there, too. At that point, the intention changed to saving Harry's life (and those of any friends who were there), as well as capturing the werewolf and the murderer. Peggy: Regarding the danger of Lupin, it is SIRIUS who intervenes to save HHR, not Snape. Snape only recovers after it is too late. Carol: It's only necessary for Black to transform to fight off the werewolf because Lupin ran off without the potion that Snape brought and Black untied the ropes that Snape cast around Lupin (PoA Am. ed. 361-62) after HRH knocked Snape out. Peggy: Nor does Snape save Harry from the dementors when they > attack Harry and Sirius in POA -- it is Harry himself who does that. Carol: To my knowledge, no one has ever credited Snape with that feat. However, Snape does conjure stretchers for four unconscious people (Black and HRH), two of them injured. Had he left them on the grounds, either the Dementors or the werewolf might have returned, and they'd have had to drag themselves to the hospital wing in any case. Not saving their lives, precisely, but certainly performing a deed that would have been labeled "humanitarian" if anyone else had performed it. But since it's Snape, the deed is either ignored or its motive is questioned. Carol, wondering what would have happened to HRH if Snape hadn't been there to conjure the stretchers for the very kids who had just knocked him out From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Jul 5 04:43:54 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 00:43:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Liking J.K., not liking J.K. (was: ESE! JKR ?/not hard... Message-ID: <32b.73ee9ca.31dc9d8a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154904 > Katie(anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com) responds: > I have met quite a few people who say they "don't like" J.K. Rowling, but > they love Harry. First of all, I find it strange to not at least admire and > respect the person who created a character you love. If you love Harry, how can > you claim to dislike the person that created him? Sandy: Why am I required to like JKR simply because she created a fictional character I love? There are things about JKR that I *appreciate* but this does not equate to *liking* her. Katie: > Harry is not an independent entity - J.K. created him, made him real to us < > snip> Sandy: And your point is?? Katie: > Secondly, how can you dislike someone you have never met? I neither dislike > J.K. nor like her - I don't know her. What I do have for her is an enormous > amount of respect for her early struggles(I myself was raised by a single > mother), respect for her writing, which is never condescending or dumbed down, > and gratefulness for her creation of Harry and his world. Sandy: You have never disliked someone you haven't personally met? You have never seen or heard someone speak that you have formed a dislike for just because of what they have said? I have never met George W. Bush, but the sight of him makes me nauseous and when he opens his mouth I want to hurl. I may not have met JKR but I know the side of her that she makes public and I don't like it, therefore I don't like her. Her early struggles as a single mother does not earn her sainthood in my book. I raised my oldest three children as a single mother, but that by no means makes me special or better than anyone else. As far as her writing goes -- the first four books were nothing short of spectacular, and she whipped them out in no time flat. The last two books, which took her forever to write, fell way short of the first four, and of what she is capable of. We are once again in an interminable wait for the last book and I just don't see how she can possibly sew up all the loose ends that need to be sewn. I believe she was at her best when she was a struggling starving artist, so to speak, but that her success has brought about a kind of sloppiness, for lack of a better term. Katie: > You absolutely ARE entitled to any opinion, and entitled to express > it...but I just wonder how you came to feel that way, since you love Harry...it just > doesn't compute to me. IMHO, Katie > Sandy: As I said, I have learned my lesson about stating my feelings and opinions about JKR by having done so on other lists and then being flamed and attacked by those who think she walks on water. I will never make that mistake again. I don't like JKR -- I have my reasons -- nuff said. BTW, I love my grandchildren but can't stand their father who did create them. It is very possible to love something, or someone, without liking or respecting the creator. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jul 5 05:06:27 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 01:06:27 EDT Subject: Evil Hermione Message-ID: <52d.29d11c4.31dca2d3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154905 Alla: I already mentioned that I totally see the parallel, but I want to add - Peter was at MOST two or three years older than Marietta IMO, so adult/child does not really work for me here. Julie: No he wasn't. Marietta is most likely 16 like Cho, perhaps just turned 17, though there's no reason to assume that. James and Lily were 22 when they died, so that was also Peter's age. Thus he was 5 or 6 years older than Marietta. Additionally, Marietta ratted on students who could to her knowledge get expelled at most. (She had no knowledge of Umbridge's attempted murder with the Dementors or her torturing of Harry.) Peter betrayed his best friends to Voldemort, knowing doing so meant their certain deaths. Huge difference, and substantially so. Marietta was getting kids in trouble at school, Peter was getting his friends murdered. Alla: **That** is the relevance to me - that Marietta's actions could have led to horrible consequences and did not do so **not** thanks to anything Marietta did, quite the contrary, IMO. Julie: What horrible consequences? As Hermione said, they might have been expelled. I don't see that as "horrible." Magpie: > The adult/child was probably the least of my problems with the parallel. In > fact, I think Peter could have been more of an anti-Marietta at his age in > significant ways. The Potters might have ultimately been a lot safer if > Marietta had been the fourth Marauder. Alla: Do you mind clarifying how Potters could have been safer? Is your meaning that Marietta would not have betrayed them? Julie: I can't say for sure that's what Magpie meant, but I think they would have had a much better chance at living. Again, Marietta betrayed students to an official authority figure who might have had them expelled. Peter betrayed his closest friends to a known murderer who made his intent murder those friends clear. While I can't say for sure Marietta wouldn't also betray a close friend to be brutally murdered to save herself, I can say *Peter* certainly would and did. Hence, I'd take Marietta as my secret keeper any day over Peter. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jul 5 05:33:28 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 05:33:28 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154906 > > AD: > Carol, Pippin, other Snape fans--again, I ask: Am I, one of Snape's > biggest critics, the *only* one who doesn't believe him so devoid of > sense, so insane, so utterly batsh*t crazy, that he would rather see > Harry dead than cement his position with Dumbledore by saving him, or > so shortsightedly reckless as to take an entirely unnecessary risk of > losing his position and what reputation he has? > > Amiable Dorsai > Julie: I'm not sure I really understand your question. As a DDM!Snape believer (which isn't exactly the same thing as a *fan* though I do find the character fascinating), I don't think Snape wants to see Harry dead, despite the fact that he may hate the boy for several reasons. But as a DDM!Snaper I also don't believe that he wants or needs to cement his position with Dumbledore, since it is already secure (as he is genuinely on Dumbledore's side). So there's no real conflict. He saves Harry because it is his intent then and throughout Harry's years at Hogwarts to keep the boy from physical harm. I think he made a promise to either Dumbledore or Lily to do so, but I also think his own conscience wouldn't let him allow Harry (or any other child) to die when he could prevent it. As for the unnecessary risk of losing his position, again DDM!Snape doesn't want Harry dead so it is moot. But even if I believed in some version of OFH!Snape or ESE!Snape, I don't think not acting would necessarily risk his position. And since he suspected Quirrel was after Harry, an OFH! or ESE!Snape could have just kept away from Quirrel, making sure he wasn't present when the happy event occurred and thus couldn't be accused of any part in Harry's demise. In other words, that Snape had workable options if he really wanted Harry dead, yet Canon!Snape didn't take advantage of those options. Instead he put himself deliberately in a position to protect Harry. Julie From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 5 06:40:05 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 06:40:05 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: <20060705002211.86082.qmail@web30206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154908 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, career advisor wrote: DA Jones: > However, at least the outside of most wizard structures would look perfectly normal to muggles, it is the inside that is expanded, or if there are differences from the outside, muggles would prob gnore it, or they are covered with charms or secret passwords or 'bricks' as with diagon alley. I think a muggle could find the burrow, and would think it was just an old rickety house, if he went inside he might think diff, because to some extent the inside of the burrow has prob made use of wizard space principles. > Geoff: Possibly slightly OT but this plot idea has been exploited before.... Externally, Dr.Who's TARDIS is an old London police telephone box but is always larger within than without. I think its name is possibly a bit of a giveaway - Time And Relative Dimensions In Space. From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Jul 5 08:15:38 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (Schlobin at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 04:15:38 EDT Subject: some thoughts on Dumbledore/Snape Message-ID: <513.2e34cdd.31dccf2a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154909 1. What about the priori incantantem spell -- what would happen if it were applied to Snape's wand by Harry in a duel with Voldemort......wouldn't an appearance of Albus Dumbledore come from the wand? Could he do more than Lily and James do in the Goblet of Fire? 2. It is possible that Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him AND Snape is evil....I strongly believe that Dumbledore was already dying, and his plan was to have Sirius kill him, get in good with the DEs, and then help Harry to kill Lord Voldemort..It's very hard to get into the mind of a double agent... 3. Has Snape discharged his debt to James by helping Harry in the Philosopher's Stone? (Dumbledore stated that when a wizard saved another's life, a bond was created). 4. What will Peter Pettigrew's role be? - he owes a debt to Harry...how will he pay it? Susan McGee (Interested in joining Harry Potter for Grownups Over 40? Not affiliated with this list. Email me at _SusanGSMcGee at aol.com_ (mailto:SusanGSMcGee at aol.com) if you are interested). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 5 08:26:54 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 08:26:54 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154910 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > Secondly, has it occurred to anyone else that the whole Marietta vs. > the DA episode may be meant to mirror Wormtail vs. the first Order of > the Phoenix, with Umbridge in the role of Voldemort? Marietta is > afraid that Umbridge will prevail, with (relatively) dire consequences > for all members of the DA including herself - just like Wormtail was > afraid Voldemort was going to win with dire consequences to all Order > members including himself. Both operate according to the rule: if you > can't beat them, join them. If I consider Marietta's treason the > lesser of the two, it's because in her case no lives were at stake, or > not directly - just futures. > > Renee > That did occur to me. I always thought the reason for the hexing of the parchment was that Hermione wanted to be sure that what happened to Harry's parents, trusting the wrong person would not happen to the DA and that she deviced the hex with that in mind: the right traitor would be visisible and people could take action. It woul have worked if things had been timed differently. Hermione did not think it through completely, but I'd say it was a good first effort. I also agree that Marietta has been punished enough. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 5 08:59:57 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 08:59:57 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154911 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > colebiancardi: > > well, just to jump in with two feet, Peter had some additional > instructions from Voldy, as he was the other spy. Marietta, bless her > simple soul, was just a teen looking to brownnose the establishment. > Maybe she is the next Percy in training.... > > cole > (who dislikes brownnosers, but don't really think they are evil with a > capital E - just distasteful) > When did Percy betray anybody? He disagreed with his father, had a violent row and moved out of the house refusing to have anything to do with his family again. He did not betray any Order secrets, and chances are, for example that he knew about Sirius. Marietta on the other hand did betray her fellow schoolmates and her best friend knowingly causing huge problems for them: Educational Degree Twenty-four states that any student belonging to an organisation that is not approved by Umbridge will be expelled. And expelled means that your wand is snapped in two and your may never perform magic again. As far as the WW is concerned that is the end of your future. And Marietta made sure by the means of her betrayal that Umbridge would miss nobody. If that is not evil, than what is? Gerry, who thinks it is a gross insult to Percy to compare the likes of Marietta to him, though she does not like the bootlicking toad at all. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 09:47:56 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 09:47:56 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154912 Carol has privately pointed to me that I mixed up some attributions between her and Pippin in my last message on this topic. My apologies to her, Pippin, and the list. And to the list elves, if this is too off topic, but having offended publicly, I thought I should apologize the same way. Amiable Dorsai From vinkv002 at planet.nl Wed Jul 5 10:45:10 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:45:10 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: <018101c69fc4$1f9e9210$b066400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > > Renee: > has it occurred to anyone else that the whole Marietta vs.the DA > episode may be meant to mirror Wormtail vs. the first Order of the Phoenix, > with Umbridge in the role of Voldemort? > > Magpie: > Not really, no, not to me. Peter was an adult who knowingly sentenced his > long time best friends to death and did it to save himself. Marietta rats > people out, but that's about the only parallel I can see. We don't know that > Marietta's acting because she thinks Umbridge "will prevail." I don't even > know what that would mean. There's also a lot of cues that she's never been > trying to beat Umbridge to begin with. If I were going to compare her to > someone I'd probably to with Percy even more than Peter, despite the fact > that Percy is choosing against his family. > > -m Renee: We don't know Peters motivation to join the Order either. He may still have been fawning on James Potter, the way he did back at school. And then, realising the danger he was in when things got nasty, he had a wake-up call and allied himself with the bigger bully, showing what his "friendship" was worth. Likewise, Marietta's friendship with Cho apparently wasn't worth that much either (though maybe she deserves the benefit of the doubt here, if she thought she could somehow protect Cho; Marietta's no Wormtail *yet*). I don't think she can be compared to Percy. Percy doesn't go behind people's backs. He goes against his family, but he does not rat on them, which I consider a fundamental difference. What I don't understand is why people defend Marietta because the punishment seems somewhat disproportional (if it turns out she's disfigured for life, I'll cut the "somewhat"). It makes Marietta herself more pitiable, but does that make her betrayal one ounce less serious? Does it become less serious if you think Hermione ought to have mentioned the hex? Renee From vinkv002 at planet.nl Wed Jul 5 10:48:58 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:48:58 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: <01b801c69fce$2b04ebe0$b066400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > > Alla: > > Maybe nobody dies precisely because younger generation did things > > better than the older one, no? > > > > We seem to agree that Umbridge IS capable of murder, one can only > > guess what else besides Cruciatus she could throw at the kids or as > > I said what would have happened if kids were put on the hearing in > > front of Wizengamot. > > Magpie: > I don't get what the meaning of that is. These things don't happen...what's > the relevence of asking what if they did? > Renee: And I don't understand this comment. "These things don't happen" - you mean, kids aren't interrogated before the Wizengamot? Harry was. Which shows what the Ministery is capable of. From vinkv002 at planet.nl Wed Jul 5 11:01:18 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:01:18 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: <52d.29d11c4.31dca2d3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154915 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > > > Julie: Marietta ratted on students who could to her knowledge > get expelled at most. (She had no knowledge of Umbridge's attempted > murder with the Dementors or her torturing of Harry.) Peter betrayed > his best friends to Voldemort, knowing doing so meant their certain > deaths. Huge difference, and substantially so. Marietta was getting > kids in trouble at school, Peter was getting his friends murdered. > > Alla: > **That** is the relevance to me - that Marietta's actions could have > led > to horrible consequences and did not do so **not** thanks to anything > Marietta did, quite the contrary, IMO. > > Julie: > What horrible consequences? As Hermione said, they might have > been expelled. I don't see that as "horrible." > > Magpie: > > The adult/child was probably the least of my problems with the > parallel. In > > fact, I think Peter could have been more of an anti-Marietta at > his age in > > significant ways. The Potters might have ultimately been a lot > safer if > > Marietta had been the fourth Marauder. > > > Alla: > Do you mind clarifying how Potters could have been safer? > > Is your meaning that Marietta would not have betrayed them? > > > Julie: > I can't say for sure that's what Magpie meant, but I think they would > have had a much better chance at living. Again, Marietta betrayed > students to an official authority figure who might have had them > expelled. Peter betrayed his closest friends to a known murderer who > made his intent murder those friends clear. While I can't say for sure > Marietta wouldn't also betray a close friend to be brutally murdered > to save herself, I can say *Peter* certainly would and did. Hence, I'd > take Marietta as my secret keeper any day over Peter. > Renee: In that case, I wish you good luck. That the *actual* consequences of Marietta's betrayal are much less serious than Wormtail's is not because Marietta is safer, but because there's a lot less at stake (and because Hermione was actually more ruthless and effective than Dumbledore). If Marietta'd had reason to fear for her life, as Wormtail did, she might have done exactly the same. The difference is quantitative, not qualitative. Marietta does not have what it takes to make a good secret-keeper. Renee From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 11:44:04 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:44:04 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: <52d.29d11c4.31dca2d3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154916 > Alla: > I already mentioned that I totally see the parallel, but I want to > add - Peter was at MOST two or three years older than Marietta IMO, > so adult/child does not really work for me here. > > > > Julie: > No he wasn't. Marietta is most likely 16 like Cho, perhaps just turned 17, > though there's no reason to assume that. James and Lily were 22 when > they died, so that was also Peter's age. Thus he was 5 or 6 years older > than Marietta. Alla: I meant when Peter **started** pasing information to Voldemort. Sirius accuses him of doing it for a year before Potters died. That is what Sirius **knows**, who is to say that he did not start earlier? And I think it is a possibility that Marietta is seventeen - we know that Hermione turns seventeen early, why not Marietta, so at the most IMO we have four year difference, not five-six years difference and I think it could have been less. > Julie: > What horrible consequences? As Hermione said, they might have > been expelled. I don't see that as "horrible." > Alla: See Hagrid's situation for horrible consequences of being expelled in WW, that is only if the kids would not have ended up in front of Wizengamot and In Azkaban, then expulsion would have been the least of their worries, but expulsion alone would have been enough to ruin **all** their futures thanks to dear Marietta. Oh, and I meant to reply yesterday and lost who said it. I will do it here, sorry Julie. :) Was it Pippin? Why shouldn't we trust Umbridge words that Marietta did come to her on her own? Because **we** think that Marietta is not that bad? Well, dear Dolores said she did come voluntarily, I am going to believe her. :) Otherwise some other statements of hers also need to be taken with big gran of salt, no? JMO From iowagirl681 at mchsi.com Wed Jul 5 02:19:10 2006 From: iowagirl681 at mchsi.com (girl_loves_her_coffee) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 02:19:10 -0000 Subject: Look of triumph in Dumbledore's eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154917 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "felix_quinn" wrote: > > I'm sure this must have been covered before, but I thought I'd bring > it up in hopes of fresh ideas and theories. > Is there any popular theory regarding the look of triumph in > Dumbledore's eyes at the end of GOF? > So then, what does it mean? I suppose the most natural > assumption is that Dumbledore suspected Voldemort might do something > like use Harry's blood for resurrection, (or at least try) and might > have figured out some way for this to be beneficial to the Order and > their cause. Could it be possible that by doing this, Voldemort has > opened the doorway to his own demise by way of some method that would > not have been applicable if he had NOT used Harry's blood? > > I think I read some discussion of this many many moons ago, but I don't think I've seen much recently. As for "popular" theories, I don't know, but I personally think like you do, that Dumbledore realized that in using Harry's blood, Voldemort had done SOMETHING to aid in his own downfall. I have some brief ideas on that: #1 - Is there an established "magical" principle that governs the use of Harry's blood? Snape told Harry during the first Occlumency lesson that "Time and space matter in magic, Potter."(p531 OotP US ed.); I took that to mean that it's sort of a "law of physics" to the magical world. The fact that Harry's "mental" connection to Voldemort strengthened considerably after the events in the graveyard makes me wonder if Harry's blood being in Voldemort is what strengthened that connection - or if the connection just naturally became stronger because Harry and Voldemort seem to strengthen in tandem. (Voldemort is obviously stronger now, as he's got a body.) Is the blood now making what was a mental connection between them a physical connection - breaching the element of space? #2 - Is the use of Harry's blood going to be something new and unheard of? Snape followed-up with what he told Harry during the first Occlumency lesson that "The usual rules do not seem to apply with you, Potter."(p531 OotP US ed.) Dumbledore's explanation of the Prophecy(pp509-512 HBP US ed.) seems to indicate that it's only true because Voldemort chooses to believe it. Throughout the entire series, every move Voldemort makes with regard to Harry is something like treating the symptoms without treating the cause of the illness. Every time Voldemort tries to do Harry in, the result is unexpected, unheard of, even ground-breaking with regard to what we know of the rules of magic, and he always makes it worse on himself. #3 - Is it a combination of both theories? My comment that Harry and Voldemort seem to get stronger in tandem is sort of my third theory. That Voldemort gave Harry some of his powers when the AK backfired, is discussed both on p.333 SS US ed. and touched on again during the conversation between Harry and Dumbledore on pp. 509-512 HBP US. ed. That whole concept makes me believe that the blood is the same sort of thing. In trying to kill Harry - Voldemort put something of himself in Harry and in taking something from Harry, he will end up killing himself. Along those lines, I mentioned early on that I see Harry and Voldemort as strengthening in tandem. (JKR's words in her interview on tele last week seem to support that.) Is that a naturally occuring process (Harry strengthens as he grows up ("trains-up a bit" as Hagrid put it) and Voldemort has slowly been regaining his old strength. OR is the fact that Voldemort took Harry's blood going to have the reverse effect that Voldemort thought? Causing Harry to strenthen even more than usual as Voldemort get stronger? Voldemort thought he was taking into himself, some magical property from Harry (and it worked to some extent because "I can touch you now") but has he also granted Harry some access to his own powers that will enable Harry to defeat/destroy him? (I don't like to think of Harry actually "killing") Okay - so that's all rather FAR from brief, and in a nutshell - I don't think why the "gleam of triumph" is important - but I think it means the blood is important and I have no idea why. iowagirl From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Jul 5 13:33:59 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:33:59 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_I=92m_Proud_to_Be_a_Werewolf?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154918 I'm Proud to Be a Werewolf To the tune of I Want to Make the World Laugh, from Jerry Herman's Mack and Mabel Dedicated to CV A brief excerpt can be heard here: http://tinyurl.com/pdec9 THE SCENE: FENRIR GREYBACK gives a pep-talk to his wolfish minons. GREYBACK: I totally like all Effects of the cycle When I'm made to be a werewolf That place where Buzz Aldrin once planted a flag Gives me two more legs and a tail to wag Just let me explain, be- Tween me and Lon Chaney There's really not much of a gulf When wizards see the full moon rising, they cringe They know they gotta meet us, the lunatic fringe It's better than average To monthly get savage When... I'm made to be a werewolf! It's truly a great gift When we get to shape-shift When we're made to be a werewolf When a lycanthrope through the countryside runs They melt their best silver to put in their guns They might call you timid A bit of a dim kid Or maybe they say you're a goof Thanks to a gibbous trend in the lunar orbit Those who look down on you may well be soon sore bit We revel in moonshine As it turns us canine `Cause ... we're proud to be a werewolf! GREYBACK AND CHORUS OF WEREWOLVES How can we keep scowling When we're out there howling Once ? we transform into werewolves The people we hunt down, and pounce on and hurt Just 30 days later are life-long converts The anti-wolf hype all Against my/your disciples Does not really matter a poof GREYBACK Let Umbridge bring it on with her hemmingest frown: We're gonna huff and puff and then blow her house down GREYBACK AND CHORUS OF WEREWOLVES We sing this grand carol When we're growing feral `Cause... we're proud to be a werewolf! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 5 13:56:15 2006 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (Sandra Collins) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:56:15 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: <20060705002211.86082.qmail@web30206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154919 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, career advisor wrote: > > wrote: > < I just can't get my head around the layout of the whole HP world. I suppose my point is, if the characters have to go through a magical gateway to be on Platform 9 and 3/4 which exists in a 'parallel' world, why don't the magical people reside permanently in that world? Sandra, back after ages away!> > > Katie: > > DA Jones > Sandra replies- Thanks for that reply - I hadn't considered so much! I can appreciate the 'masking' effect, but in order for that to work and mask an entire town (eg where Diagon Alley is), the magical world would be hiding itself away on an enormous scale - and someone at the Ministry would have to ask themselves the question "Why are we bothering?" After all, people with magical powers have easy control over muggles as demonstrated when Harry gets cross in book three and makes his aunt swell up like a balloon. And we all know the power of Voldermort, as well. So why hide their world away from an obviously inferior 'race'? This kind of leads on to my headache - if the worlds do co-exist because one is 'masked', say you have a marriage between a magical person and a muggle - how would they balance their lives if they live in the muggle world? Would the wizard (for example) have a tricky time hiding his true identity from all the muggle friends and live a complete lie, or would he be permanently masked from everyone else? And in a co-existing world, how would that person make any money to pay their way and help keep the family supported? Even if he does whatever it is wizards do in the magical world to make a living, the currency couldn't be changed into English money, or electronically transferred into a bank account (unless a drafting spell exists! LOL). And suppose they lived in the masked magical world, what could the muggle do? They're not capable of anything magical, they'd know nothing of the strange ways of the people, and run the risk of having social-misfit muggle offspring in a world where magic is a must. Also, if the worlds are seperated only by being masked, what's to stop any magical person from remaining 'masked' when leaving their front door, wandering along Oxford Street, quite invisible to everyone else, and helping himself/herself to whatever takes their fancy? Like if Ron was tired of being poverty stricken all the time, why not head off to a big store and fill the car boot up? If the spell exists, why not use it? The only rules about using magic in the muggle world seem to be strictly applied to Hogwarts students up to a certain age, only when they're not in Hogwarts - but if everyone lives in the muggle world anyway, once they're old enough. where is the line drawn between using magic in the 'wrong' place and 'right' place? Although I can see that the points raised about masking are perfectly valid and do get mentioned in the books, I can't really see how the two worlds fit together. I think JKR should have had the magical world exist as a separate entity in a parallel dimension, one which muggles or half bloods have to cross into - and magical types reside there all the time. What we have is a kind of mishmosh of the two with as far as I can tell, no clear rules or boundaries between them laid out. That''s what I think at the moment, so maybve it'll all be explained in book seven (the one where Harry gets a chat show, Ron plays for Chelsea and Hermione ditches her books to become a footballer's wife). Sandra, now scratching her head even more. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 5 14:47:52 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:47:52 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154920 > Pippin: > Wait a minute. Only DDM!Snape needs Dumbledore's continuing > protection. > > AD: > I suppose a better word would have been "patronage", but I mean > "protection" as well. > > Not from Azkaban, not directly, but Dumbledore's continuing assurance > that Snape is a good guy, once you scrape off the grease and the > snark, keeps him employed, and gives him (one presumes--we've seen > little of his social life) entr?e into circles other than Lucius Malfoy's > > The Wizarding world is small and tightly connected--what we've seen of > it reminds me of nothing so much as Chicago's city government, > especially as it existed under the first Mayor Daley. (Perhaps because > I grew up here, and have seen some of the workings up close, through > relative's and friends of relatives who were involved, one way or > another with the city. It's possible that this POV colors my > perceptions, but bear with me.) Jobs and social position seem to > depend on family and personal connection as much as anything else. > Witness the Slug Club. Pippin: LOL! Me too! Now there's a thought, Rita Skeeter hanging out at Billy Goat's.:) Then there's the U of C as Hogwarts: Gothic architecture, powerhouse brains and dangerously liberal attitudes. DE's could be The Mob, plotting to regain its former power. But Fudge hardly qualifies as Hizzoner. If Daley had run the WW (perish the thought) he wouldn't have lectured the Muggle PM, he'd have *chosen* him. Yes, if Snape is a mobster turned stoolie, he had better cling to Dumbledore for dear life. But if he's a mobster who's been clever enough to beat the rap, then he can take Dumbledore or leave him. After all, the mere rumour of mob connections wouldn't cost you a job in old Chicago -- well, it would with some people, but there were plenty of less scrupulous citizens to pick up the slack. The neighborhood I lived in, everybody had a cousin or a friend of a friend who was in The Mob anyway. It looks like it was that way in the WW as well. Then too, Snape has another string to his bow. He's a potions genius. He could well be the WW's Werner Von Braun, so valuable for his expertise that his history is ignored. Third, blackmail's a weapon Snape can use as well as any other. He's in a position to collect dirt on plenty of people besides Remus Lupin. You don't want him for your enemy, right? > AD: > Plenty of people who were cleared of willingly being Death Eaters by > pleading Imperius. Snape is unique, so far as we know, in being a > willing Death Eater who was forgiven his sins as a result of > Dumbledore's testimony that he had made up for them. > > I don't know if British wizarding law allows double jeopardy, but > let's assume it does not. If so Snape is safe from retrial, but if he > is seen to have lost Dumbledore's confidence, again, his world and his > opportunities dwindle alarmingly. > Pippin: What about Karkaroff? He's known to have been a DE who cut a deal to go free, and he not only had a prestigious job, he was working with children. He landed in in deep trouble when ol' red eyes came back, but if we're imagining a Snape who doesn't believe Voldie's coming back (that is, after all, what he claimed at Spinner's End) then why should he worry about that? > AD: > Carol, Pippin, other Snape fans--again, I ask: Am I, one of Snape's > biggest critics, the *only* one who doesn't believe him so devoid of > sense, so insane, so utterly batsh*t crazy, that he would rather see > Harry dead than cement his position with Dumbledore by saving him, or > so shortsightedly reckless as to take an entirely unnecessary risk of > losing his position and what reputation he has? > > Pippin: Risk is relative. What it's worth depends on the reward. Snape might want Harry dead for revenge, or because he wanted to blackmail Quirrell to steal the Stone for him, or because he saw Harry as an obstacle to his own plan to steal the Stone and become the next Dark Lord. Even if you're right and Snape is merely another Pettigrew seeking the patronage of the biggest fish in the pond, Dumbledore was an old, old man -- he wasn't going to be Snape's patron for much longer. Snape was going to need another meal ticket soon, and knowing Snape, he'd already planned what it was going to be. If a reputation for protecting Harry Potter wasn't necessary to that plan, then why should he bother doing it? Pippin Feeling weird to think up motives for evil Snape From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 5 14:55:36 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:55:36 -0000 Subject: Percy betraying? (Was Re: Evil Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154922 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: Gerry: > When did Percy betray anybody? Geoff: I think that this may depend on which definition of "betray" you may feel is relevant. The Readers' Digest Word Power dictionary which is one I use frequently defines it thus: verb 1. act treacherously towards (a person, country, etc.) by revealing information to or otherwise aiding the enemy. 2. Be disloyal or unfaithful to. 3. Unintentionally reveal, be evidence of. The Concise Oxford: v.t. Give up treacherously (person or thing to enemy); be disloyal to; lead astray; reveal treacherously; reveal involuntarily; be evidence or symptom of. I believe that Percy has certainly betrayed Harry in the context of (2) above ? he has been disloyal or unfaithful to him. When we first meet Percy, he is clearly the rather self-important and officious person we know later when he is speaking to the family about his prefect duties. However, his attitude both towards Harry and Dumbledore is supportive and affable. `He was so relieved to have been chosen and not put in Slytherin, he hardly noticed that he was getting the loudest cheer yet. Percy the Prefect got up and shook his hand vigorously, while the Weasley twins yelled "We got Potter! We got Potter!"' (PS "The Sorting Hat" p.91 UK edition) `"Welcome!" he (Dumbledore) said. "Welcome to a new year at Hogwarts! Before we begin, I would like to say a few words. And here they are: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak! Thank you!" He sat back down. Everybody clapped and cheered. Harry didn't know whether to laugh or not. "Is he ? a bit mad?" he asked Percy uncertainly. "Mad?" said Percy airily. "He's a genius! Best wizard in the world! But he is a bit mad, yes. Potatoes, Harry?"' (ibid. pp.91-92) We know that there is a measure of ill-feeling between Percy and the twins at the beginning of POA and there is a glimpse of mild animosity towards Harry in GOF. `The box filled gradually around them over the next half hour. Mr. Weasley kept shaking hands with people who were obviously very important wizards. Percy jumped to his feet so often that he looked as though he was trying to sit on a hedgehog. When Cornelius Fudge, the Minister for Magic himself, arrived, Percy bowed so low that his glasses fell off and shattered. Highly embarrassed, he repaired them with his wand and thereafter remained in his seat, throwing jealous looks at Harry, whom Cornelius Fudge had greeted like an old friend.' (GOF "The Quidditch World Cup" p.91 UK edition) But it is in OOTP that we see the way in which Percy is attempting to ingratiate himself with Fudge by his sycophantic behaviour which also, in my opinion, demonstrates disloyalty to Harry. This ranged from little matters top much more revealing examples: `"It's not a question of how impressive the magic was," said Fudge in a testy voice, "in fact, the more impressive the worse it is, I would have thought, given that the boy did it in plain view of a Muggle!" Those who had been frowning now murmured in agreement but it was the sight of Percy's sanctimonious little nod that goaded Harry into speech.' (OOTP "The Hearing" p.130 UK edition) `"Oho!" said Fudge, bouncing up and down on the balls of his feet again. "Yes, do let's hear the latest cock-and-bull story designed to pull Potter out of trouble! Go on, then,. Dumbledore, go on ? Willy Widdershins was lying was he? Or was it Potter's identical twin in the Hog's Head that day? Or is there the usual simple explanation involving a reversal of time, a dead man coming back to life and a couple of invisible Dementors?" Percy Weasley let out a hearty laugh. "Oh, very good Minister, very good!" Harry could have kicked him.' (OOTP "The Centaur and the Sneak" pp.541-542 UK edition) Percy may be of the view that the accusations against Harry are true but the public demonstrations of support to the "party line" just adds to the implication that Percy is prepared to do anything to thwart his family ? and by extension, Harry ? to further the feud which has erupted. And, to me, the most damning evidence of Percy's betrayal of Harry is in the letter which he sends to Ron: ` From something the Minister let slip when telling me you are now a prefect, I gather that you are still seeing a lot of Harry Potter. I must tell you, Ron, that nothing could put you in danger of losing your badge more than continued fraternisation with that boy As you must be aware, given that our father escorted him to court, Potter had a disciplinary hearing this summer in front of the whole Wizengamot and he did not come out of it looking too good. He got off on a mere technicality, if you ask me, and many of the people I've spoken to remain convinced of his guilt. It may be that you are afraid to sever ties with Potter ? I know that he can be unbalanced and, for all I know, violent Please think over what I have said carefully, particularly the bit about Harry Potter ' (OOTP "Percy and Padfoot" pp.267-268 UK edition) This in fact is tantamount to "acting treacherously towards a person" in definition (1) above. No, no. In my book, Percy has betrayed Harry big time. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 5 15:18:36 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:18:36 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154923 > > Julie: > > What horrible consequences? As Hermione said, they might have > > been expelled. I don't see that as "horrible." > > > Alla: > > See Hagrid's situation for horrible consequences of being expelled > in WW, that is only if the kids would not have ended up in front of > Wizengamot and In Azkaban, then expulsion would have been the least > of their worries, but expulsion alone would have been enough to ruin > **all** their futures thanks to dear Marietta. Pippin: Umbridge would hardly have expelled twenty students. That would have made her look bad. She might have expelled Harry, but if Harry is insanely plotting against the Ministry and endangering other students, then he should be in treatment, shouldn't he? It all rests on Dumbledore's reputation why anyone would believe Harry and not think that his stories are as wild as Luna Lovegood's. But as you yourself are fond of pointing out, Dumbledore has made some huge mistakes. You've often said how foolish it would be to blindly follow Dumbledore. Looks like Marietta took your advice :) Alla: > Why shouldn't we trust Umbridge words that Marietta did come to > her on her own? Because **we** think that Marietta is not that bad? > > Well, dear Dolores said she did come voluntarily, I am going to > believe her. :) > > Otherwise some other statements of hers also need to be taken with > big gran of salt, no? Pippin: Umbridge would tell the truth to Harry about siccing the dementors on him because there is no one who is going to believe him if he accuses her. Confessing in front of Fudge that she brutalized a student is another matter. I do believe that Marietta went to Umbridge voluntarily, but really, if she did it because she wanted to be in Umbridge's good graces, and didn't care what happened to her friends, why didn't she keep talking once the hex went into effect? The damage was done. The only information Marietta volunteered, according to Umbridge, was that it would be to Umbridge's advantage to check out the Room of Requirement. Mention of a meeting was only obtained after Umbridge "questioned her a little further." I doubt that was accomplished with cookies and tea, but at that point the jinx went into effect and Marietta clammed up. Every thing else Umbridge found out, including the purpose of the meetings and who was there, she learned through Hermione's carelessness, not Marietta's treachery. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 15:28:30 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:28:30 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154924 Carol earlier: > > Carol, convinced that the date is no coincidence and thinking that she may not be aware of the vast numbers of people who actually died in> the European persecutions > > Gerry responded: > You mean that she would be more aware of something happening in some far away country than something happening in her own country? Or in her own city? Don't you think that rather arrogant? America is not that fascinating to the rest of the world you know. > Carol responds: There's no need to get personal here. As it happens, I have a PhD in British literature because I share your preference for British literature and history over American history, but even if I preferred American history and literature, or dared to state that a certain "far away country" has had some influence on world history, that would not make me arrogant any more than it would make an Englishperson who spoke of England's influence an Imperialist. I would hardly be proud, by the way, of the history of witch persecution in either country, any more than Spain should be proud of its Inquisition (and, yes, I know that there were other inquisitions). I do sometimes wonder if JKR is a tad xenophobic, considering that she wants only British actors in the HP films and confines the WW that we actually see to England and Scotland, but that's home to her and what she's comfortable with. I have no objection whatever, in part because I hapen to be an Anglophile. At any rate, while I reserve the right to consider America fascinating if I so desire, it has nothing to do with the matter at hand (except that I confess to a personal interest in the Salem Witch Trials because one of my ancestors was hanged as a witch). I'm quite sure that in RL my ancestor, Martha Carrier, was innocent of killing people's cows by giving them the Evil Eye as she was hanged for doing, but in the Potterverse, I'd be quite surprised if she wasn't a real witch, unfairly maligned, persecuted, and murdered, along with many others, by magicphobic Muggles of the Cotton Mather variety. I don't think that all witches and wizards in the WW escaped persecution or there would have been no need for the Statute of Secrecy. *Something* happened in 1692 to prompt the Statute of Secrecy. In RL, a famous event involving persecution of witches and a few warlocks happened in Salem in that year. JKR, however limited her knowledge of history may be (and I'm guessing it's a bit shaky given Sir Nickolas's Elizabethan ruff), is clearly familiar with the Salem Witch Trials or she would not have had a contingent from the Salem Institute at the QWC. And no doubt she also know that in 1692, Massachusetts was not "a far away country" but a British colony. Or so I would hope. Carol, who again asks anyone who opposes her suggestion to present a plausible alternative rather than implying that the idea of presenting a bit of shared British and American history in a post is somehow "arrogant" From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 5 14:21:09 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:21:09 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154925 > > DA Jones: > > > > > However, at least the outside of most wizard structures would > look perfectly normal to muggles, it is the inside that is expanded, > or if there are differences from the outside, muggles would prob > gnore it, or they are covered with charms or secret passwords or > 'bricks' as with diagon alley. I think a muggle could find the burrow, > and would think it was just an old rickety house, if he went inside > he might think diff, because to some extent the inside of the > burrow has prob made use of wizard space principles. > > > > > Geoff: > Possibly slightly OT but this plot idea has been exploited before.... > > Externally, Dr.Who's TARDIS is an old London police telephone > box but is always larger within than without. > > I think its name is possibly a bit of a giveaway - > Time And Relative Dimensions > In Space. > I think of Dr. Who's TARDIS every time I read of a wizard's car/tent/house/trunk that is larger inside than outside. Who knows if JKR knows about this but there is a theory in modern physics that potentially could make this possible. There are several similar theories, in fact, that are based on the notion that the space/time continuum of our universe has more than the normal four (3 spatial + time) dimensions that we percieve. Some attempts to "unify" the force of gravity with the other three known forces require that space/time be up to 11 dimensional. The reason we don't perceive these extra dimensions is that the other 7 are very limited in size, smaller that the size of an atom. So it is possible that magic could be used to expand one or more of these other dimensions locally in a way that leaves the outside of a three dimensional object the same size in the "normal four" while expanding the inside in one of the extra dimensions. It is plausible enough to serve as the departure point for a fantasy or science fiction work anyway. Curiously enough Moody's magic trunk had 7 different interiors didn't it? If space/time really is 11 dimensional this might be entirely possible and counting the the normal space/time interior up to 8 different interiors could be contained in the same object. So now I'm curious: did JKR read about these theories somewhere and incorporate them into her story, or did she just get lucky? Does anyone else here remember Monty Python's 3 sided LP?? Ken From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 16:14:19 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:14:19 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154926 Amiable Dorsai: > > Carol, Pippin, other Snape fans--again, I ask: Am I, one of Snape's biggest critics, the *only* one who doesn't believe him so devoid of sense, so insane, so utterly batsh*t crazy, that he would rather see Harry dead than cement his position with Dumbledore by saving him, or so shortsightedly reckless as to take an entirely unnecessary risk of losing his position and what reputation he has? > > Julie: > I'm not sure I really understand your question. As a DDM!Snape > believer (which isn't exactly the same thing as a *fan* though I do > find the character fascinating), I don't think Snape wants to see > Harry dead, despite the fact that he may hate the boy for several > reasons. But as a DDM!Snaper I also don't believe that he wants or > needs to cement his position with Dumbledore, since it is already > secure (as he is genuinely on Dumbledore's side). So there's no real > conflict. He saves Harry because it is his intent then and throughout > Harry's years at Hogwarts to keep the boy from physical harm. I think > he made a promise to either Dumbledore or Lily to do so, but I also > think his own conscience wouldn't let him allow Harry (or any other > child) to die when he could prevent it. > > As for the unnecessary risk of losing his position, again DDM!Snape > doesn't want Harry dead so it is moot. But even if I believed in some > version of OFH!Snape or ESE!Snape, I don't think not acting would > necessarily risk his position. And since he suspected Quirrel was > after Harry, an OFH! or ESE!Snape could have just kept away from > Quirrel, making sure he wasn't present when the happy event occurred > and thus couldn't be accused of any part in Harry's demise. In other > words, that Snape had workable options if he really wanted Harry > dead, yet Canon!Snape didn't take advantage of those options. Instead > he put himself deliberately in a position to protect Harry. > > Julie > Carol responds: Just to add to Julie's point, it's unclear to me why Snape's position would be in danger if he didn't protect Harry. He goes out of his way throughout the books to protect Harry, but I don't think he'd be fired if he didn't. As a DDM!Snaper, I think it's part of an arrangement he and Dumbledore have made, but it isn't part of his job as Potions master in Books 1 through 5. Certainly, none of the other teachers lose their positions, or would have done so, for not using a countercharm. Why would Snape be any different? ESE! or OFH!Snape might have been concerned for what Dumbledore would think, but even Dumbledore would not have fired him if, as someone suggested, he got up to use the restroom and returned just as poor Harry had hit the ground. Instead we have one instance of many in which Snape alone acts to protect Harry and Dumbledore's trust in him proves to be justified. If anyone would be expected to protect a student from Dark Magic as part of his teaching postion, it would be Quirrell, the DADA teacher. Snape makes the potions as needed, whether it's mandrake solution, wolfsbane potion, or veritaserum, while he's Potions Master. In HBP, as DADA teacher, he removes curses from necklaces and saves three people from deadly curses. (Yes, I know that he wasn't yet officially the DADA teacher when he saved Dumbledore, but DD knew that Snape was the only qualified person for the post and IMO fully intended to give it to him. And certainly, Snape was the only person qualified to save DD's life.) As DADA teacher, it was Lockhart's job to save the school from the monster in the Chamber of Secrets, or at least to discover what it was. Obviously, he failed abysmally. It was Lupin's job to save Harry from Dementors. Crouch!Moody considered it his job to help Harry through the TWT (though he had ulterior motives, of course). It would have been Quirrell's job, not Snape's, to protect a child from Dark Magic--at least if we go by the job description and not by the personal relationship between Snape and Dumbledore, which is clearly different than that betwwn DD and any other teacher. As for "what reputation he has," look at the way the other teachers, including McGonagall, listen to him in CoS and follow his lead. He seems to be perfectly respected for both his position and his abiliities. He was evidently made HoH at a very young age. He is not, as I've said and you've conceded, widely known as a former DE. The whole arrangement, whatever it's nature, is between Snape and Dumbledore. No one else except Quirrell, the real guilty party, knew Snape's motives for refereeing the next game. They put it down to Quidditch rivalry, and he (temporarily) *became* unpopular. That this situation is indeed temporary is shown by the close working relationship of McGonagall and Snape in CoS, mentioned above. I've suggested, and haven't yet read all the posts to see whether I've been answered, that McGonagall may have found out about Snape's Dark Mark when Fudge did. In OoP, we see them together only once, when McGonagall returns from St. Mungo's. He seems genuinely glad to see her, and shows the first signs of cordiality he's ever demonstrated, but they address each other as "Professor" and there's a slight formality to the exchange. Earlier, she addresses him at least once as "Severus" and speaks of their Quidditch rivalry in terms of an ongoing, friendly competition. Has he changed, in her mind, from a former student and trusted colleague to a former Death Eater whom she trusts only because of Dumbledore? Carol, who thinks that Snape could have been a researcher for St. Mungo's had he so chosen and would have fit right in with the Unspeakables, Croaker and Bode From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 5 16:45:56 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:45:56 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: <018101c69fc4$1f9e9210$b066400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154927 Magpie" wrote: > From the pov of students in the school. > It's a school, not a country I disagree. I think countries are largely a Muggle invention, for most they are students of Hogwarts first and citizens of Briton second. > nor does she [Umbridge] torture Harry publically. > She only whips out Crucio at the end. She tries to publicly flog Fred and George with whips and tortures Harry with that bloody quill. > If Marietta didn't realize the seriousness of > it that would be a problem with the whole set up. If Marietta was so morally tone deaf that she didn't know that Umbridge was a very evil woman then I have no sympathy for her; if she didn't understand how serious things were she damn well should have. > Seeing as nobody dies as a result of this > isolated thread in the story[ ] That's just not true. Because of Marietta's betrayal Dumbledore was forced to go into hiding and Hogwarts lost its strongest protector, she may not have known exactly what would come from that but she must have known it wouldn't be anything good. And because of that Serious Black is dead. Harry would never have been tricked into going to the ministry if Dumbledore were still around. > If Harry and his friends were less fabulous > would that change her betrayal? It might yes. If the DA were really just a bunch of kids playing around trying to look cool like you said in your previous message then when Marietta single handedly destroyed it things wouldn't have been so disastrous, instead those that organization consisted of people who have had more experience and success in dealing with Voldemort than anyone else on planet Earth. Marietta got off very lightly indeed considering the magnitude of her treachery. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 17:05:25 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:05:25 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_FILK:_I=92m_Proud_to_Be_a_Werewolf?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154928 Caius Marcius wrote: > > I'm Proud to Be a Werewolf > GREYBACK > Let Umbridge bring it on with her hemmingest frown: > We're gonna huff and puff and then blow her house down > Carol responds: Oho! Talk about Karmic retribution. Anyone thing that Greyback, erm, CMC, is onto something here? Greyback believes in revenge, and JKR has hinted that something terrible will happen to Umbridge. If she thought the Centaurs were scary. . . . Carol, picturing Umbridge turning into a short, fat werewolf with a little black bow in its fur and not sure whether I should laugh or flee in terror From distaiyi at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 17:10:46 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:10:46 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no children In-Reply-To: <419.45eb218.31dc5db3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154929 [ Snip of some really interesting stuff ] Wow, take a few days off and... >From JKR's interview I think it's quite obvious the staff have been married and may have had children. However, why we don't see them should be interesting. However, we do see Hagrid romantically involved with the headmistress of another school. Seems to me this may be a hint that the "priesthood" of teaching isn't a celibate one. Along the same line of thought... wonder how many children the school loses to teenage pregnancy. Afterall you have what 20 adults watching over several hundreds of students? The thought of the wizarding gene dying out seems a bit odd since there are plenty of mudbloods or halfbloods around. Seems the gene is fairly common! Given how crowded classrooms seem to be and no mention of class sizes shrinking in the books (think that'd be mentioned too) I think the wizarding "gene" is safe and sound. Distaiyi. From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jul 5 17:20:03 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:20:03 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154930 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > > colebiancardi: > > > > well, just to jump in with two feet, Peter had some additional > > instructions from Voldy, as he was the other spy. Marietta, bless her > > simple soul, was just a teen looking to brownnose the establishment. > > Maybe she is the next Percy in training.... > > > > cole > > (who dislikes brownnosers, but don't really think they are evil with a > > capital E - just distasteful) > > > When did Percy betray anybody? He disagreed with his father, had a > violent row and moved out of the house refusing to have anything to do > with his family again. He did not betray any Order secrets, and > chances are, for example that he knew about Sirius. > > Marietta on the other hand did betray her fellow schoolmates and her > best friend knowingly causing huge problems for them: > > Educational Degree Twenty-four states that any student belonging to an > organisation that is not approved by Umbridge will be expelled. And > expelled means that your wand is snapped in two and your may never > perform magic again. As far as the WW is concerned that is the end of > your future. And Marietta made sure by the means of her betrayal that > Umbridge would miss nobody. If that is not evil, than what is? > > Gerry, who thinks it is a gross insult to Percy to compare the likes > of Marietta to him, though she does not like the bootlicking toad at all. > colebiancardi: well, the point that I was trying to make is that Percy values authority. He has broken off ties with his family because of that value. And he encourged Ron to break off any ties with Harry and to talk to Umbridge. In a way, he WAS asking Ron to betray Harry and their friendship. Marietta seems to be the same way. She may not have thought of it as betrayal - perhaps she was taught to respect the authority figure without questioning them. There are people like that out there. And perhaps she felt that these students were harmful to the rest of the school don't get me wrong - I don't care for snitches and I always question authority. However, that was the comparison I was trying to make with Marietta and Percy - they respect the authority figure, which Harry is not one. cole From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Jul 5 17:19:22 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:19:22 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154931 Alla: > > I already mentioned that I totally see the parallel, but I want to add - Peter was at MOST two or three years older than Marietta IMO, so adult/child does not really work for me here. Julie: > > No he wasn't. Marietta is most likely 16 like Cho, perhaps just turned 17, though there's no reason to assume that. James and Lily were 22 when they died, so that was also Peter's age. Thus he was 5 or 6 years older than Marietta. Alla: > I meant when Peter **started** pasing information to Voldemort. Sirius accuses him of doing it for a year before Potters died. That is what Sirius **knows**, who is to say that he did not start earlier? And I think it is a possibility that Marietta is seventeen - we know that Hermione turns seventeen early, why not Marietta... Ceridwen: As long as it's speculation, then, how's this? The MoM is the official government of the WW. They're *supposed* to be watching out for the people of the WW. They're *supposed* to be the official Side of Light & Goodness and All Wonderful Legal WW Things. That they actually come off as ineffective and bogged down in redundant bureaucracy doesn't matter, we're talking about a teen whose mother works for this hulking mass of government. She has been raised to respect the MoM and its laws. Umbridge is the Face of the MoM at Hogwarts. Blindly trusting, sure, but where do we see classes about the WW's Constitution, or in Britain, the WW's own Magna Carta, balance of power, government? The most we see is history. Which one of us as adults would trust a neighborhood vigilante group above the local government if we believe we're in ordinary circumstances? Marietta believes the MoM's line that LV isn't back, apparently. So, she sees a group that she was iffy about from the beginning when it was merely a study group to get around the ineffectual DADA lessons of that year - and that in itself was going around Umbridge's ideas for the subject, so no wonder she was reluctant to join - a group that was insisting that LV was back when the Ministry was denying it, suddenly turning against Ministry-approved sources of protection (Dementors), and runs screaming to Umbridge as the nearest authority figure with the closest ties to the MoM. This is not the same thing as running to LV. Unless stated otherwise, she can tell the difference between a supposedly friendly government and a murderous outlaw. I can see Magpie's assertion that she would rather trust Marrietta as SK than PP, since Marietta went to what was supposed to be the overall protector of the WW, not to LV. *We* know what Umbridge is, because of Harry's POV. Marietta didn't read the book. She probably mistrusts Harry's word because *some* people, as they do in RL, will have been running around saying that he 'got off on some technicality and what the heck were they thinking to allow a *Squib* to testify, anyway?' We're all products of our environments and upbringing and so is Marietta. And it doesn't seem that the WW actively encourages thinking for oneself where the MoM is concerned. If it's in the Prophet, believe it because the MoM wouldn't allow them to print lies, now, would they? And believe the Ministry, they're only there to help. *roll eyes* Ceridwen. From littleleah at handbag.com Wed Jul 5 17:35:14 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:35:14 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154933 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > > It might yes. If the DA were really just a bunch of kids playing > around trying to look cool like you said in your previous message then > when Marietta single handedly destroyed it things wouldn't have been > so disastrous, instead those that organization consisted of people who > have had more experience and success in dealing with Voldemort than > anyone else on planet Earth. Marietta got off very lightly indeed > considering the magnitude of her treachery. > > Eggplant There was just one person in the organisation- I think it's rather more a group, actually- who had experience and success in dealing with Voldemort, as Harry himself points out earlier in the book. Of course, if Harry had been expelled, one might assume that DD would in some way have continued to protect him, as he continued to protect Hagrid after his expulsion, and to teach him, as in fact he did anyway in HBP. In fact, if we are tracing consequences into the future, removing Harry from Hogwarts and placing him, say, in 12 GP might have prevented the death of Sirius . Breaking Harry's wand might well have been serious, but how on earth is Marietta to know that? However, the question has to be not how culpable was Marietta, but who died and made Hermione judge and jury, (if indeed she intended the full consequences of the hex) Leah From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Jul 5 17:46:24 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:46:24 -0000 Subject: Witches and the Statutes of Secrecy was Re: a lot of Names, interrupted... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154934 Carol: > Carol, who again asks anyone who opposes her suggestion to present a > plausible alternative rather than implying that the idea of presenting > a bit of shared British and American history in a post is somehow > "arrogant" Ceridwen: Not really opposing, but offering an alternative. Since the Salem Witch Trials were near the end of the persecution, could the date have been selected to convey the reason for the waning Muggle interest in persecuting, rather than the other way around? Remove the victims, and there is no more need to persecute. The WW closed in on itself completely and divorced itself from the rest of human company, removing the 'need' to find and kill witches. Interesting, as I think Red Hen pointed out, that Enlightenment and Industrialization followed this removal. Someone mentioned the idea of Muggles coming to the WW to solve Muggle problems. Enlightenment seems to be the complete antithisis (sp?) of this. It is relying on Man's mind rather than any extra intervention, Divine or otherwise, Industrialization provides more 'magical' things (as in our technology today which can be compared favorably to some of the magical things in the WW). The seperation of the WW from the Muggle world encouraged Muggles to do for themselves and to create different forms of government and encourage greater interest in learning. The Statutes of Secrecy may also have been instrumental in the reduction of persecutions, rather than an odd reaction to the dwindling of persecution. Ceridwen. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jul 5 17:46:34 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 17:46:34 -0000 Subject: DD trust in Snape again. WAS: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154935 AD: > I suppose a better word would have been "patronage", but > I mean "protection" as well. > Not from Azkaban, not directly, but Dumbledore's continuing > assurance that Snape is a good guy, once you scrape off the > grease and the snark, keeps him employed, and gives him > (one presumes--we've seen little of his social life) entr?e > into circles other than Lucius Malfoy's houyhnhnm: Only DDM!Snape would have any reason to scoff at Lucius Malfoy's patronage. Malfoy's *known* status as a former Death Eater doesn't seem to have impaired his standing in the WW at all. He appears to have been able to buy his way in anywhere. At the time of PS/SS, he was still on the Hogwarts board of governors. His influence at the MoM (as per Fudge and Umbridge) appears to have been considerable right up to the time he was caught in the Department of Mysteries. AD: > Well, as I pointed out to Pippin, McGonagall certainly > knows something discreditable about the Half-Groomed > Prince. Unless she really holds a grudge from when Severus > was a student, I assume it's his record as a Death Eater. houyhnhnm: As of the end of HBP, she did. We just don't know for how long she was aware that Snape had been a Death Eater. It is possible that Dumbldedore discussed Snape's past with the Hogwarts faculty when Snape was hired, but there is no evidence to that effect. We see no sign from McGonagall that she is supicious of Snape, pre-HBP, for anything other than using Slytherinesque tactics to secure the house cup for his house. As far as we know, she knew nothing of Snape's former involvement with LV until he revealed his Dark Mark to Fudge in GoF. AD: > Let's suppose you're right, then, and Snape's past is > known to relatively few people. In that case, even an > investigation that satisfies Dumbledore could be a disaster > for Snape. If rumors of his past get out as a result of the > investigation, then you may see families refusing to allow > their children to be taught by a Death Eater. Even > Dumbledore's patronage may not be enough to protect Snape's > job, in that case houyhnhnm: And I still haven't see any convincing argument as to why Snape would have come under anyone's suspicion if Harry had been bucked off his broom. Had Snape not been muttering a countercurse, whatever Hermione's suspicion at that point whether of Snape or merely that *someone* was hexing the broom, she would have swept on past Snape with her binoculars and come to Quirrell. And she would have seen that he was making intense eye-contact even if his spell was non-verbal if she really knows a hex when she sees one. AD: > I don't know if British wizarding law allows double jeopardy, > but let's assume it does not. If so Snape is safe from retrial, > but if he is seen to have lost Dumbledore's confidence, again, > his world and his opportunities dwindle alarmingly. houyhnhn: I see no evidence that Snape was ever tried once. Although I am no expert on the law, Britsh or American and certainly not wizard law, in the Pensieve it seems we see the Wizengamot functioning in three different ways. In the case of Karkaroff, it seems to be functioning as an investigatory body. Ludo Bagman appears to be the defendant in a jury trial. In the case of the Lestanges and Barty, Jr., it seems we are witnessing a sentencing hearing. From what Dumbledore said at Karkaroff's hearing, it sounds to me as though Snape may have appeared before the WW equivalent of a grand jury, but due to DD's evidence was never indicted and, therefore, never tried. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jul 5 18:00:18 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:00:18 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154936 > Renee: > And I don't understand this comment. "These things don't happen" - you > mean, kids aren't interrogated before the Wizengamot? Harry was. Which > shows what the Ministery is capable of. Magpie: No, it means you're not talking about the book if you're talking about what might have happened even though it's not brought up on the page. There's lots of "what ifs" we can imagine in the books, but they're not canon as potential consequences. Eggplant: If Marietta was so morally tone deaf that she didn't know that Umbridge was a very evil woman then I have no sympathy for her; if she didn't understand how serious things were she damn well should have. Magpie: Yes, you've made it clear you have no sympathy for her and so she deserves to be disfigured, period. > Alla: > > Just as in case with Marietta, I disagree strongly that nothing > serious occurred **because** her actions were not serious enough, but > **only** because Hermione's ginx and Dumbledore and Kingsley quick > wit > helped to neutralise Marietta fast and still Dumbledore was forced > to leave and leave Hogwarts in the hands of abusive sadist, IMO. > > **That** is the relevance to me - that Marietta's actions could have > led > to horrible consequences and did not do so **not** thanks to anything > Marietta did, quite the contrary, IMO. Magpie: I didn't say nothing serious happened, I said the things you brought up hadn't happened. In the other examples you gave they were all things that were brought up as possible consequences in the text. The text itself makes it a threat that someone could get the stone or the prophecy. (Even though, ironically, doesn't Harry put the stone in danger by going after it? And isn't his going to the MoM actually part of Voldemort's plan?) Likewise Draco's actions are presented as putting people in danger of being murdered. With Marietta I'm looking at the consequences that are in the book. The book never brings up any danger of the kids going to Azkaban or before a court of law. Not that it changes the fact that Marietta ratted on them, obviously, and I'd consider the consequences serious. They're not anything we can imagine as happening. This is what happened due to the actions of a lot of people, including Marietta. She's responsible for her part. > > Magpie: > > The adult/child was probably the least of my problems with the > parallel. In > > fact, I think Peter could have been more of an anti-Marietta at > his age in > > significant ways. The Potters might have ultimately been a lot > safer if > > Marietta had been the fourth Marauder. > > Alla: > > Do you mind clarifying how Potters could have been safer? > > Is your meaning that Marietta would not have betrayed them? Magpie: What I meant was that we're looking at the DA as being a mini-Order, which makes Marietta Peter and Harry and Hermione James and Lily etc. But although both Marietta and Peter both give up other peoples' secrets to the people they don't want to have them, they are actually very different in some ways. Marietta, I think, is the tattletale at school--I think that's what she sees herself as doing. She's disapproving of the DA and ultimately goes to the official adult authority and tells on the group, making her a school snitch. That's something Peter himself is not. Peter kept lots of secrets at school. Nobody knew he and his friends were illegal animagi, that Remus was a werewolf, that they were running around with the full moon. Had James started the DA at school I have no doubt that Peter would have kept the secret. There would be no danger from him the way there was with Marietta. He earned James' trust for years doing stuff like that. He wasn't a snitch who ran to the teacher or the principal or the headmistress. Going to Voldemort was a different thing. Snitching is really not what he's doing. We do have consistent, if vague, explanations of the motivations of the two, and they are different, even if they both lead to secret-telling. What I meant in saying the Potters would have been safer was that if Marietta had told on them in school, which is what I think the direct parallel would be, she would have been telling Dumbledore or a teacher about their transformations and running with the werewolf. They would have gotten in trouble, but in a much safer way than what happened with Peter. Ceridwen: If it's in the Prophet, believe it because the MoM wouldn't allow them to print lies, now, would they? And believe the Ministry, they're only there to help. *roll eyes* Magpie: The press is a complicated thing in the books. We're always hearing how stupid people are for believing things written there that aren't true, but we're also usually in the pov of people who know the truth. The Prophet gives us news, but prints that Harry is lying and people should know that. The Quibbler is rubbish, but everyone should believe Harry's interview in it. We know false information is being leaked about Sirius as well. You have to hope you have the right gut instinct. -m From AllieS426 at aol.com Wed Jul 5 19:19:03 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:19:03 -0000 Subject: Dr Neil shuddered for ONE of them (Was: Who dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154937 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: >>>>> Aussie: R: Well, yes, let's be honest: that would be stupid. But you did tell him which ones were up for the chop. Apparently he shuddered and said, "Oh no, not that one." JK: He did on one of them, yeah." That bit of the interview seems that if Dr Neil reacted strongly to one of the two that die, they are not a pair like Fred and George (or why would he hear "Fred and George" -and recact like "NO!, not George, anyone but George - Fred is ok, but Not George!") They could be separate killings and non-connected. Who does Dr Neil like in the characters? I am reluctant to say it, but I think Ron's death would have the greatest effect at bringing others together to fight.>>>>>>> Allie: I think maybe Dr. Neil would shudder if any of the kids died. Thus far, the only student we lost was Cedric, and we barely knew him. I think any of Harry's friends would cause a shudder. I *cannot* believe she would kill off Ron, although I agree it would unite everyone. That would be THE WORST death of the series, I think, even worse than if she killed Harry. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 5 19:32:24 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:32:24 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: <52d.29d11c4.31dca2d3@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154939 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > > than Marietta. > > Additionally, Marietta ratted on students who could to her knowledge > get expelled at most. You seem to make awfully light of being expelled. Can you explain why you look at it thay way? I think what she tried to do to the others was criminal, and maybe, I think now, that is the reason none of the teachers wanted to remove that hex. Every time she looks in the mirror she is reminded of the lives she tried to destroy. Gerry From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 14:57:15 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:57:15 -0000 Subject: Look of triumph in Dumbledore's eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154940 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "felix_quinn" wrote: > > Possible spoilers ahead, if you haven't read GOF or HBP > > I'm sure this must have been covered before, but I thought I'd bring > it up in hopes of fresh ideas and theories. > Is there any popular theory regarding the look of triumph in > Dumbledore's eyes at the end of GOF? There are certainly some widely > acknowledged theories concerning Dumbledore's death (or the > possibility of his living) and how or why Snape may or may not be > evil. So is there an equivalent for that moment? I know most readers > have noticed it, at the very least, and sometimes it is brought up > for discussion, but isn't it possible that it might be absurdly > important to the story, and we're overlooking a huge clue? bridge13219: This bothered me for a while too. My current theory involves Dumbledore's later explanation to Harry, about why Harry survived LV' s AK curse and is still alive. While Lily's sacrifice saved Harry immediately, the charm Dumbledore cast that night (by leaving him in the house where Lily's blood lives) has kept him safe all these years. I think the "look of triumph" was because the charm Dumbledore cast was/is working, and Voldemort is only aware of the protection caused by Lily's sacrifice. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 20:03:44 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 20:03:44 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: <009301c69f87$fe4f5090$b066400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154941 > > Alla: > > > > No, to me it would not have complicate matters, just as to me it > > would not have complicated matters to bring in Cedric parents for no > > other purpose than to show more grief. > > If Marietta went to her mother, I would saw conflicted girl, someone > > who is concerned about her family and who is between rock and the > > hard place. > > Magpie: JKR isn't trying to set up > sympathy for Marietta. She just needs her to out the DA. JKR went the > most obvious way for a good scene. Lanval: Hey, some on this list would call this kind of argument a cop-out. :) But I do agree with you that we probably give Marietta's character more thought than the author ever did. I've always had a sneaking suspicion that JKR's writing, intentions and utterances are at times much more straightforward and simple than Fandom would like. > > Lanval: > A mere few days later, the DA most certainly was illegal, and therefore more > secret than ever. > THAT would have been the time for Marietta to decide whether she wanted to > continue. > > Magpie: > Which just would have meant she got marked and they got outed a few weeks > earlier. I don't see why that would matter in the context it's being spoken > about here. > Lanval: Note that I didn't write: "that would have been the time for Marietta to rat out her friends". It would have been the perfect time for her to decide whether she wanted to stay involved with the DA. Telling and, as a result, getting marked, is in no way the single logical result of that decision. All options are still open to her. > Magpie: > The disagreement about whether or not this is a "secret organization against > a tyrant" is one, imo, of metaphor. Yes, Umbridge is a tyrant of a > Headmistress. So could Snape be described as being a tyrant in Harry's > Potion class, I think, but how far does the metaphor go? Lanval: Just because other scenarios in HP might also fit the metaphor does in no way diminish this particular one. Oh, and Umbridge is not Headmistress at any time the DA is in existence. > Magpie: Hermione's being > excited to see herself as fighting against a tyrant doesn't mean that's the > way all the kids literally see it, and the problem is that it goes back and > forth--even Hermione pulls back when talking to the other kids. Yes, the > kids are worried about being found out--but not for the same reasons one > would worry about being discovered by occupying Nazis in France, right? > They'd worry about school punishments, letters home, suspension, maybe even > expulsion. The normal things you'd worry about in dealing with a strict > headmistress in school. They're disobeying the new school rules. Lanval: It seems to me that expulsion is a far more serious punishment in the WW than in RL. And the kids are old enough, and have seen and heard enough, to realize that these moronic new rules not only endanger their grades and thus their future, but might actually endanger their very lives. No, I DO think they're seeing the big picture here. This isn't about a group of silly kids being miffed at bothersome new rules imposed by a strict teacher. > > Magpie: > She certainly has free will and we definitely have no reason to think she > believes the Ministry can do no wrong. We do only know that her mother > works for the Ministry and that, according to Cho, this was part of why she > had a problem with the DA. I think the indications are that it's not just > about her disobeying her mother--she's never comfortable with the DA that I > remember. So I think it's implied it's not her mother but also Marietta who > doesn't like the DA. Lanval: Again, then why doesn't she just stop attending? Is there no middle ground between disapproving of something, and getting everyone involved into serious trouble? Does she value Umbridge and the ministry so much more than her best friend's trust, friendship, and future? > Magpie: > Only she didn't want out and she didn't need someone to confide in (she > seems to have already been talking to Cho). She wanted the DA outed and to > put a stop to it, and that's what she did. Lanval: Which does not reflect very well on her, does it? > Magpie: How important it is that we have > sympathy for her is another question--maybe a very interesting one! Lanval: Interesting indeed. Brings up all sorts of questions about ethical values... Let me clarify something here: whether I have sympathy for Marietta does NOT depend on whether I think Hermione's hex was right, wrong, deserved, evil or stupid. Neither have Rowling's intentions, her preferences, or which characters she wants us to like/dislike anything to do with my feelings about Marietta. We've already established that the hex turned out to be ultimately useless, because it did nothing to alert the DA (though it of course would have been effective in the case of a spy). The Hex does not change the plot one bit. So there are two entirely separate questions here: how do we judge Hermione's hex, and its effect on Marietta, and how do we judge Marietta's betrayal. IF Marietta had shown herself to be deeply morally conflicted, and had asked for the support of her mother, her Head of House, or her best friend, she would get some sympathy from me. (Btw, I think it's complete speculation to say that her mother would have automatically pressured her to tell Umbridge, or gone to Umbridge herself! We know nothing of mom, except that she works at the ministry and does not want her daughter to cross Umbridge). IF she had shown that her primary interest was not getting the others in trouble, then I'd be able to work up some sympathy. Again: Hermione -- tried her best, may have overreached, was pretty sneaky and perhaps overly vengeful with the hex. Do I have sympathy for her? Yes. Marietta: betrayed her best friend and schoolmates. To Umbridge, of all people. Hex or no hex -- it doesn't take away from her actions and her motives. Sympathy for her? No. Not for the way she handled it. There's logically a third question: do I feel sympathy for Marietta still being disfigured in HPB? I do. She's after all still very young, and will have (one hopes) learned her lesson. Hope this clears it up. Lanval From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jul 5 21:03:37 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 21:03:37 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154943 > Lanval: > Hey, some on this list would call this kind of argument a cop- out. :) > But I do agree with you that we probably give Marietta's character > more thought than the author ever did. I've always had a sneaking > suspicion that JKR's writing, intentions and utterances are at times > much more straightforward and simple than Fandom would like. Magpie: Could be a cop out, true.:-) But my point was just that I think we're given consistent reasons for Marietta's actions with her loyalty to the Ministry. Whether or not one feels sympathy for her doesn't seem as important. When I said JKR wasn't trying to drum up sympathy I didn't mean that poor Marietta only lacks sympathy because her author didn't give her any, I was just more saying that the lack of scenes where Marietta is conflicted and going to her mother did not give me any reason to doubt her basic situation as it's told to us. There seemed to be the suggestion that since we don't see it, maybe there was some other reason. I think that since this is a minor character there's little reason not to go with what we've got, even if it's told and not shown. If that's later proved wrong I'll change my mind on it. > > Magpie: > > Which just would have meant she got marked and they got outed a few > weeks > > earlier. I don't see why that would matter in the context it's > being spoken > > about here. > > > > Lanval: > Note that I didn't write: "that would have been the time for Marietta > to rat out her friends". > > It would have been the perfect time for her to decide whether she > wanted to stay involved with the DA. Telling and, as a result, > getting marked, is in no way the single logical result of that > decision. All options are still open to her. Magpie: Yes, she definitely could have just stopped going. She seemed to feel she should. Or she wanted to tell, or whatever. It was certainly her choice to tell on the DA. I would never say that she had no other options or that her mother's job even predicted she would do that. > Lanval: > Just because other scenarios in HP might also fit the metaphor does > in no way diminish this particular one. Oh, and Umbridge is not > Headmistress at any time the DA is in existence. Magpie: Sorry, you're right, she's not. My bad. But still I think the word "tyrant" is being used as a metaphor. There's new rules at school coming from the Ministry and Marietta alerts Umbridge to rule- breakers. > Lanval: > It seems to me that expulsion is a far more serious punishment in the > WW than in RL. And the kids are old enough, and have seen and heard > enough, to realize that these moronic new rules not only endanger > their grades and thus their future, but might actually endanger their > very lives. > > No, I DO think they're seeing the big picture here. This isn't about > a group of silly kids being miffed at bothersome new rules imposed by > a strict teacher. Magpie: I never meant to imply that was what it was. I agree with the view that the rules endanger their grades and are harmful to their future. What I am saying is that the fact that Hermione sees the big picture does not mean that everyone who shows up at the Hog's Head sees it that way. They all eventually decide to do something that risks their expulsion in joining the DA. Some of them might have truly thought that through and some might not have. I feel like I'm coming across as arguing against the DA, which I'm not. I don't think Marietta was right to turn them in. > Lanval: > Again, then why doesn't she just stop attending? Is there no middle > ground between disapproving of something, and getting everyone > involved into serious trouble? Does she value Umbridge and the > ministry so much more than her best friend's trust, friendship, and > future? Magpie: I can see a great deal of middle ground between the two things and I think she had lots of other options open to her. What she did was to tell. In saying what I think her situation was I don't mean she had no control over what she did. I'm not defending Marietta's decisions as right or saying she had no choice. I think from what we see Marietta is shown to always be uncomfortable with the DA, and eventually she tells on them. I'm just looking at what we know about why she acted the way she did given plenty of other options. > > Magpie: > > Only she didn't want out and she didn't need someone to confide in > (she > > seems to have already been talking to Cho). She wanted the DA > outed and to > > put a stop to it, and that's what she did. > > Lanval: > > Which does not reflect very well on her, does it? Magpie: No, it doesn't. I didn't mean it to reflect well on her. > Lanval: > So there are two entirely separate questions here: how do we judge > Hermione's hex, and its effect on Marietta, and how do we judge > Marietta's betrayal. Magpie: I agree. And whether we feel sympathy for Marietta or Hermione is yet another issue, I think. If Marietta had shown herself to be deeply morally conflicted, as you said, she might have been more sympathetic. But she still would have done the same thing. Had Hermione been shown to feel horrible that the hex lasted as long as it did perhaps she would seem more sympathetic than she does now to some, but that wouldn't really change what she did. Seeing Marietta repentent would give some satisfaction, though I think that too would be independent of Hermione's hex. With the hex it would probably be a forced repentence--she's not sorry she ratted out the group, she's sorry she got a face full of acne. This seems to be the kind of thing Dumbledore tries to avoid. I don't feel overly sympathetic to Marietta in canon. Her story basically left me pretty cold because it seemed so obvious from the first meeting she was going to betray the group. My biggest emotional reaction was just a knee-jerk feeling that I'd be pissed off if anybody tricked me into signing a hexed parchment, even while I didn't think I would have done what Marietta did. (And a year or so later I am kind of amazed Hermione can live with seeing her like that!) The main reason I've continued to think about the hex is that I think it might come up later and that's why JKR has kept it around. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 22:55:30 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 22:55:30 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil (was:Re: Harry's arrogance (was Evil ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154944 > >>Rebecca: > > I find it interesting that some wish to hold Hermione, as a 15 > > year old girl, to the same standard of ethical perfection as an > > adult. > > > > IMO, it's all about growing up and learning, isn't it? > >>Gerry > I totally agree. > > Yet allowances should be made because she [Marietta] is a > fifteen/sixteen year old girl, the same age as Hermione is but > somehow those allowances are not made for evil!Hermione. If age > does matter, that certainly does for Hermione too. If it does not, > than evil!Marietta will not get a chance to become as evil as her > adult counterpart because people are warned about her. Betsy Hp: Actually, my entire point has been that Hermione needs to learn (and I imagine *will* learn) that she cannot disregard basic good behavior because she's decided that her side is right. Rather than expect adult behavior of Hermione, I feel like she's behaved *exactly* like a child (with all the cruel ruthlessness a child can bring to bare) and needs to develop more wisdom. So I am giving Hermione allowance. I haven't written her off completely. I *do* expect she will learn to take a better path when working to support Harry. But in order for Hermione to learn she needs to recognize where she's made mistakes. It was a mistake for Hermione to secretly cast a hex on that parchment. It was a mistake for her to lie about the purpose of the DA club, and it was a major mistake for her to leave a fellow student disfigured for such a long period of time, no matter how badly that other student behaved. The *problem* I have with Hermione at the moment, is that while she's *very* quick to point out other peoples' mistakes, she is unable to recognize her own. When Hermione believes she is in the right, it's damn the torpedoes and any other view point, full speed ahead. This is not an example of either cleverness or wisdom. And it explains, I think, why so many of Hermione's projects end in such failure. (eg. Draco, not helping the Heir; House elves, not free; DA, disbanded; Ron, not jealous over Christmas party date) So it does Hermione no favors, I think, to whitewash her behavior. A child learns from their mistakes only when they realize they've made mistakes. I'm not as worried about Marietta's progress as I am about Hermione's. So I hold Hermione to a higher standard. I critique, because I care. Betsy Hp (reaching back to this post because I think Marietta is a red herring) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 22:15:59 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 22:15:59 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154945 > >>Sandra: > > I can appreciate the 'masking' effect, but in order for that to > work and mask an entire town (eg where Diagon Alley is), the > magical world would be hiding itself away on an enormous scale - > and someone at the Ministry would have to ask themselves the > question "Why are we bothering?" > After all, people with magical powers have easy control over > muggles as demonstrated when Harry gets cross in book three and > makes his aunt swell up like a balloon. And we all know the power > of Voldermort, as well. So why hide their world away from an > obviously inferior 'race'? > Betsy Hp: Because Muggles ain't that inferior. Seriously, it seems fairly obvious to me that there was a conflict between Muggles and Wizards and the Wizards lost. They lost so badly they not only went into deep, deep, *deep* hiding (erasing everything but the barest whisper of their existence) they took their *animals* with them!! I mean, it's fairly easy to imagine hiding away from a superior enemy (logistical nightmare, but possible), but to drag your dogs and cats and cows and crocodiles and elephants and *knats* into hiding as well? (Forget dragons, whose job was it to squirrel away the fairies? Or the pixies?) This is not a task entered into lightly. And it's not a task undertaken by winners. Nope, I'm fairly confident that when it comes down to it, the Muggles have it all over the Wizards. Maybe not in one on one battles, but as a group? I'll take science over magic any day of the week. Muggles just do it better. Proof: Pants and cars, my friends, pants and cars. Seriously, trousers have it all over robes. And try and arrange a family journey without a car. Look at the problems the Weasleys run into trying to get everyone to the train station. And they're not dealing with toddlers. Sure, the wizards talk a good game, all condescension and mild threatenings. But when it come down to it, who has to sneak out to their favorite sporting event, and who has an entire government formed around keeping their existance a secret? Oh yeah, one of these groups is superior, and it ain't the parasitical wizards. Not when they have to keep their *insects* a secret. Betsy Hp (muggle and proud of it! ) From huntergreen3 at aol.com Thu Jul 6 00:53:35 2006 From: huntergreen3 at aol.com (huntergreen_3) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:53:35 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154946 Eggplant wrote: > >> I think Marietta got off very lightly. Marietta was part of a > secret underground organization that was trying to oppose a brutal > tyrant, and she betrayed them. HunterGreen previously: > Except that it wasn't a "secret" organization when she joined, now > was it? Nor was the goal to oppose a tyrant. Lanval: >>It may not have been stated that way explicitly, but I believe the DA WAS precisely that, at least partly -- opposition to a tyrant, albeit a minor one at this point. << HunterGreen: That was certainly the way Harry and others in the DA saw it, but that doesn't mean that *Marietta* saw it that way. We don't know what Cho told her to get her to that first meeting, and at the meeting the purpose was discussed as learning DADA spells from Harry to resist *Voldemort*. Lanval continued: >>If the first DA meeting wasn't about a secret organization, then why the Hog's Head? Why the fear that the veiled figure might be Umbridge? Why the alarm, when Ginny imitates Umbridge? Why the parchment? Why the hesitation by some to sign? As Ernie says, what if Umbridge finds out?<< HunterGreen: Hermione says it herself, there is NOTHING in the rules against study groups, she just thought it would be a good idea not to *parade* what they were doing. But it wasn't against ANY rules at that time, and it certainly wasn't anything that would get anyone expelled. Why the parchment then is a good question. Imagine if Marietta (or anyone else in the group for that matter) told on the group before it was even against the rules. Would that warrant having "sneak" written on their face for *years*? Lanval: >>Marietta may not have been completely aware that she was about to join a secret organization when she set out for Hogsmeade that day, but by the time she got back, there could have been no doubt.<< HunterGreen: Secret, maybe, but not illegal or something she'd get expelled for. At that time, when she put her name on the parchment, there was nothing Umbridge could do to them for joining the group (and that's proved by the fact that although she did know that the meeting happened and who exactly was there, nothing happened to any of them, since there was nothing she COULD do at the time). Lanval: >>A mere few days later, the DA most certainly was illegal, and therefore more secret than ever. THAT would have been the time for Marietta to decide whether she wanted to continue.<< HunterGreen: But even if she didn't continue, her name was still on the paper, now wasn't it? And she knew the meetings were still going on, she still was still involved whether she went to the meetings or not. Lanval: >>By the way, was there anything in the book about Marietta's family, beside Cho remarking that M's mother works at the Ministry, and that her parents have forbidden her to do anything that might upset Umbridge? I don't recall.<< HunterGreen: Marietta's mother was also helping police the fires. If someone in her family wasn't for the ministry, that would be a rather odd pairing with her mother. Lanval: >>So to say that Marietta MUST have been raised in the firm belief that the ministry can do no wrong, that she really had no free will in this matter, strikes me as nothing but speculation. For all we can guess, her parents may have told her to stay out of trouble from fear. Disobeying one's parents doesn't seem that much of an effort for Cho, who strongly believes in what she's doing, or the Weasley kids. At fifteen, it usually has crossed a person's mind that parents may just occcasionally be wrong, and that the time has come to do one's own thing.<< HunterGreen: Yes, she was certainly old enough to see things differently than her parents, but that doesn't mean she DID. Of course she had a choice in the matter, and apparently she chose to believe her parents and the ministry. Why else would she go to Umbridge? Just to be vindictive? Cho, by the way, has a personal reason to defy the ministry (Cedric's death, of course) and the Weasleys have their parents on the side of Dumbledore, so 'disobeying', in their case, is much different. (a better example is Percy. He may have been wrong, but he did stand behing what he believed, even against his family). Lanval: >>Marietta could have told Hermione she was uncomfortable with the DA, and that she wanted out. She could have confided in her best friend. She could have gone to her Head of House. She could have written to her parents.<< HunterGreen: I doubt that Marietta trusted Hermione (Cho certainly has a bad opinion of her). And confiding in Cho? The girl who is an emotional wreck and got her into that situation in the first place? Yes, she could have gone to Flitwick, I can see that, and she could have written to her parents, but perhaps she was trying to deal with the situation on her own. Lanval: >>Notice also the manner in which she tells Umbridge. This is not a tear-stained, distraught girl worn down by doubt, ready to confess! This is a calculating, nasty little traitor who rats out other students, including her BEST FRIEND. Nor do I see evidence that she mentioned her own involvement in the DA, at least not a first.<< HunterGreen: I don't see it that way. Umbridge even said she had to 'question her further'. Marietta didn't know there was a hex on the parchment, so there was no reason for her to omit details unless she felt guilty or conflicted about what she was doing. Personally, I see it as something she had to brace herself to do. Again, I am not trying to say that was she did was right in any way, but that she herself was not trying to be evil. She wasn't bribed by Umbridge, she didn't skip up to her and say immediately that there was a secret organization in the school. Marietta doesn't seem to pleased with herself after the fact either, and I have trouble believing that she was THAT distressed over the hex appearing on her face (though, perhaps that was just what it was), and Umbridge is treating her rather badly, so it doesn't appear that Marietta is getting any sort of reward for what she did. Oh, and as to the assertion in other posts that Marietta's actions are similar to Peter's, that a REALLY extreme way of putting it, don't you think? After all, no one was going to be MURDERED by Umbridge, and there's no doubt in my mind that Peter knew what he was doing was completely wrong. Whereas, I think Marietta thought she was doing the right thing. Also, as an aside, I have always thought that a mass-expelling of everyone in the DA would not work as neatly as Fudge and Umbridge think it would have. By that point, I think, they were losing some of their credibility in the WW, and if it came out that twenty-eight students were expelled for practising DADA spells (including Amelia Bones' neice, and famous aurors Frank and Alice Longbottom's son). They were building Harry up all year as a liar, and some of the others (like the Weasleys and the muggle-borns) would be tossed off, but the others, well, I doubt the idea would be immediately embraced that it was justified to expel 10% of the school (going with the assumption that there are 280 students). From coverton at netscape.com Thu Jul 6 00:46:30 2006 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:46:30 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154947 Hey guys hows it going? Now about Hermione?s hex. She could have given Marietta a much worse hex let?s not forget what she did to Ron. Have we all forgoten the bird attack! As far as her betraying the group she didn't really give them any information. Just because Umbridge found out about the group didn't mean she could do any thing about it. And let?s also not forget that the DA still went on and no one got in trouble. Corey. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 23:32:16 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 16:32:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Liking J.K., not liking J.K. (was: ESE! JKR ?/not hard... In-Reply-To: <32b.73ee9ca.31dc9d8a@aol.com> Message-ID: <20060705233216.65731.qmail@web52713.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154948 > Katie: > Harry is not an independent entity - J.K. created him, made him > real to us < > snip> > Sandy: > And your point is?? Katie (anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com) responds: Look, I am not looking to get into an argument with you or anyone else who feels that they don't like J.K. Rowling for whatever reasons. As I always say, everything is "In my humble opinion" and I try never to antagonize people on lists. I thought I was being pretty reasonable, and there's no reason to get snippy. I wasn't explaining why YOU had to like J.K. ----- I was explaining why I respect and admire her. As I see it, whatever her personality is like has no bearing on the gift that she'd given to me, to my friends, and to my future children by creating this character and his world. And I don't think the last two books were sloppy. I thought they were complicated, difficult, and dark...as adolescence often is. I feel the books have only grown and gotten better...HBP is easily my favorite book. However ----- I am in no way saying that is how YOU should feel. I am simply expressing my oh-so-humble opinion, and I am certainly not looking to get into a bickering match. So, let's let bygones be bygones, and declare peace amongst the pro and anti J.K. factions. In my humble opinion, Katie From minerva_523 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 5 06:58:42 2006 From: minerva_523 at yahoo.com (minerva_523) Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 06:58:42 -0000 Subject: Liking J.K., not liking J.K. "weight issue" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154949 > > Patricia: > > I think that no one should be told that in order to like the > > HP series you have to adore JKR. > > None of has any right to critique her as a person without > > knowing her. > Ken: > I have not followed any of the recent fuss about the > weight issue. My impression of her is not colored by that. > Most of my reservations come from reading the information > she posts on her website. Is that a media distortion? > > I don't think she is a bad person. I don't hate her. I'm just > not sure we could be friends, not that the occasion will ever > arise. Cacaia: Wow...I don't quite understand why the recent threads attacking Rowling personally. Someone mentioned the 'weight issue'. Did that fire things up? Indeed, the 'weight issue' is a problem in our society-a prominent problem...I actually thought her 'venting' was accurate, as I myself share that view...BUT...by admitting that, will people attack ME for detesting anorexia and the nastiness of the media??? How can one dislike a person who seems to advocate human rights amongst other things????? I just don't get it- This is just IMO, anyway.... cacaia From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Jul 6 03:52:14 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 23:52:14 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE! JKR? Is it war? Message-ID: <38c.63bae2f.31dde2ee@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154951 Ken: > As I see it JKR is going to have to cover a lot of ground in a big hurry > to conclude this story in a single book that is no larger than OoP. Sandy: The problem is - she doesn't want the book to be as long as OoP. She made a very big deal about book 6 not being that long. She apparently received some criticism about the length of OoP and now worries about that. I find that a bit hypocritical - she doesn't care if no one likes the content of her books but it bothers her if they don't like the length. I had no problem with the length of OoP, I had a problem with the content. If book 7 has to be 1000 pages long to cover everything that needs to be covered I'm all for it. I think her concern about length is going to lead to a very disappointing book 7. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Jul 6 03:56:49 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 23:56:49 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no ch... Message-ID: <238.d119dd3.31dde401@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154952 In a message dated 7/4/06 10:32:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tonks_op at yahoo.com writes: > These only children in the books are all sons. I don't see any other > way to interpret it. > > Sandy: Although Hermione is Muggle born she is a witch and she is an only child. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Jul 6 03:42:12 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 23:42:12 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE! JKR? Is it war? Message-ID: <52a.2bb8368.31dde094@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154953 Ken: > But if she really wants to consider death and its effects on > the survivors she should have disposed of LV and his gang in book > six. Sandy: I actually expected to see LV defeated in book 6, or at least wishfully hoped for it. I really did think LV would be gone at the end of book 6 and then we would see a normal -- post LV -- year 7 at Hogwarts in book 7. I was both pissed off and disappointed that it didn't happen that way. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Jul 6 04:21:13 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:21:13 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Marietta In-Reply-To: <3bb.4bc3ac9.31db3028@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154954 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: > Also, I am not totally convinced that Marietta is scarred > for life. Yes, the marks are still on her face at the beginning of HBP, but > then she drops off the radar never to be heard of significantly again (IIRC). > The scar on Harry's hand is fading as time goes by so perhaps the same applies > for Marietta's face. Allie: Am I the ONLY one who thinks that all Marietta has to do is *apologize* and Hermione will lift the hex/curse? Cho defended her, and Marietta never actually apologized for almost getting them all kicked out of school (it's also her fault Dumbledore was forced to leave!). She learned it the hard way - there's nothing worse in school than a tattletale. I can see her apologizing to Hermione and Hermione telling her "waspishly" that the one she should apologize to is Harry. From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jul 6 04:32:44 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:32:44 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154955 Eggplant: Because of Marietta's betrayal Dumbledore was > forced to go into hiding and Hogwarts lost its strongest protector, > she may not have known exactly what would come from that but she must > have known it wouldn't be anything good. And because of that Serious > Black is dead. Harry would never have been tricked into going to the > ministry if Dumbledore were still around. > Julie: Oh, yea! It isn't Snape's fault Sirius got killed, it's Marietta's! What a load off my mind! Thank you for pointing out the obvious perpetrator, I can't think why I didn't see it before! I'm feeling pretty sure now she must have had something to do with James and Lily's deaths too, though I haven't quite figured out how yet. Er, no matter, I'll work on it...but yea! again, I say! Oh, and can someone tell Harry? Julie, thinking this debate is moving into the ridiculous so she might as well too ;-) From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jul 6 04:47:44 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:47:44 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154956 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17@ wrote: > > > > > than Marietta. > > > > Additionally, Marietta ratted on students who could to her knowledge > > get expelled at most. Gerry replied: > You seem to make awfully light of being expelled. Can you explain why > you look at it thay way? I think what she tried to do to the others > was criminal, and maybe, I think now, that is the reason none of the > teachers wanted to remove that hex. Every time she looks in the mirror > she is reminded of the lives she tried to destroy. > Julie now: I'm not making light of it, just pointing out the consequences Marietta could have foreseen. Of course getting expelled is not a good thing. But I also don't think it's *destroying* a life. Surely any students expelled could go to another school, or continue their education at home. (And the only one really likely to be expelled was Harry). It's a far, far cry from the kind of betrayal that Peter was guilty of, that which leads to torture and death. I also don't understand at all how it could be criminal. She's telling an aknowledged authority figure about an illegal club at the school. Can you explain what you mean by criminal? I don't think anyone has denied that Marietta was wrong to betray the DA, or that she deserved some kind of punishment. I just think Hermione went too far. It would have been sufficient to mark Marietta for a set period of time. And, yes, it would have been *much* wiser of Hermione to let everyone know what would happen to them if they betrayed the DA before they signed the document. Giving out that information would have strongly discouraged anyone from such betrayal, and would likely have kept out the uncommitted, like Marietta. The DA then would have been much more secure, which should have been the real goal. Hermione's logic definitely suffered here. Julie From scarah at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 04:51:06 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:51:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE! JKR? Is it war? In-Reply-To: <52a.2bb8368.31dde094@aol.com> References: <52a.2bb8368.31dde094@aol.com> Message-ID: <3202590607052151t203a7a50g244709784cf92061@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154957 > Sandy: > > I actually expected to see LV defeated in book 6, or at least wishfully hoped > for it. I really did think LV would be gone at the end of book 6 and then we > would see a normal -- post LV -- year 7 at Hogwarts in book 7. I was both > pissed off and disappointed that it didn't happen that way. Sarah: But what would the book be about? Harry Potter and the Eating, Playing Quidditch and SHIPs? I really enjoy the darkening. GoF used to be my favorite book because a guy chopped off his own hand to use as a potion ingredient, but now it's HBP since Snape killed Dumbledore. I hope book 7 has lots of blood, fire and explosions. And zombies, definitely more zombies. :) Sarah From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 04:41:39 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:41:39 -0000 Subject: Dr Neil shuddered for ONE of them (Was: Who dies?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154958 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > > I think maybe Dr. Neil would shudder if any of the kids died. Thus > far, the only student we lost was Cedric, and we barely knew him. I > think any of Harry's friends would cause a shudder. I *cannot* > believe she would kill off Ron, although I agree it would unite > everyone. That would be THE WORST death of the series, I think, > even worse than if she killed Harry. > Tonks: All of this talk of murder. Instead of having a trial for Snape, maybe we should have one for JKR. She is the real murderer after all. A serial killer!! Brutal, heartless.. move over LV... she is going to do you for afters. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 05:08:11 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 05:08:11 -0000 Subject: Understanding Marietta (long) (Was: Evil Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154959 colebiancardi wrote: > > well, the point that I was trying to make is that Percy values authority. He has broken off ties with his family because of that value. And he encourged Ron to break off any ties with Harry and to talk to Umbridge. In a way, he WAS asking Ron to betray Harry and their friendship. > > Marietta seems to be the same way. She may not have thought of it as betrayal - perhaps she was taught to respect the authority figure without questioning them. There are people like that out there. And perhaps she felt that these students were harmful to the rest of the school > > don't get me wrong - I don't care for snitches and I always question authority. However, that was the comparison I was trying to make with Marietta and Percy - they respect the authority figure, which Harry is not one. Carol responds: I think you're on the right track with your Percy/Marietta comparison. granted, Percy actually knows Harry and he's opposing his family rather than going along with them, but both of them seem to consider Umbridge a legitimate authority figure (and unlike Pettigrew, neither is knowingly turning friends and Order members over to a murderous Dark wizard). Percy calls Umbridge "a delightful woman" and he goes along with Fudge's official line that Dumbledore is losing his grip. He even believes, with much less excuse than Marietta, that Harry is lying about Voldemort's return. I think we should consider what Marietta knows and doesn't know regarding both Voldemort (the primary reason for starting the D.A.) and Umbridge (the secondary reason). Certainly she knows that Umbridge is teaching theory (or a particularly useless variety) instead of practical DADA skills. FWIW, if Marietta is a sixth year like Cho, she's not concerned with her OWLs, and if she's not planning to take a DADA NEWT, Umbridge's "teaching" may not be a major concern to her as it is to fifth-years like Ernie Macmillan and Michael Corner (or Hermione herself). Granted, that's a rather selfish perspective, but it's also a natural one. Certainly, she expresses no interest in learning DADA from Harry. She's there because Cho wants her to be, and Cho is there because she likes and admires Harry, and because whe wants to find out what happened to Cedric. Whether Marietta thinks she needs DADA for NEWTs or not, and it appears that she doesn't, it seems to me that she would have changed her mind if Harry or Hermione had convinced her that Voldemort is really back. But her mother's boss, Fudge, and her mother's colleague, Umbridge, believe that he isn't, as does her mother, who is working with Umbridge to police the Floo Network at Hogwarts. And the Daily Prophet is reinforcing the message that Dumbledore is a delusional old fool. Even Percy, who only recently left Hogwarts after seven years with DD as headmaster, believes it. Why shouldn't Marietta? And the Daily Prophet depicts Harry as, in Percy's words, "unstable and possibly violent." Percy should know better, but why would Marietta? She's in a different year and a different House and has never had a class with him, never so much as sat at the same table for a meal. And Harry is yelling at the people who showed up for the meeting, telling them that he's not going to tell them what happened to Cedric. If he won't explain how he knows that Voldemort is back, why should Marietta (or Zacharias Smith, for that matter) believe him? It's quite likely that Marietta knows that Umbridge is giving Harry multiple detentions for spreading "lies," but she doesn't know what Umbridge does to Harry in those detentions. No one knows except Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Not even Dumbledore knows. Nor can she know that Umbridge sent Dementors to Little Whinging to attack Harry. Not even Harry knows at this point. And the attempted Crucio, of course, hasn't happened yet. What, then, does Marietta "know" about Umbridge? She was presumably present for the start-of-term feast, so she may have heard the first few words of Umbridge's speech before Cho starts "chatting animatedly with her friends" (OoP Am. ed. 213), but it's unlikely that she understood any more from "progress for progress's sake must be discouraged" and similar sentiments than any other student (except Hermione) in the whispering, giggling, restless audience. What she probably did notice is the pink cardigan and the little black bow and the little-girl voice that doesn't match the toadlike face and build. The reader knows that Umbridge is anything but harmless. Hermione deduces that "the Ministry is interfering at Hogwarts," as do the teachers, but the other students don't appear to notice the "important stuff hidden in the waffle" (214). Perhaps Marietta already knows that Umbridge is Fudge's Senior Undersecretary and it doesn't concern her. After all, her mother works for the Ministry, and as far as Marietts knows, the Ministry is looking out for the best interests of the students. A bit annoying to be addressed as if you're five years old and a bit amusing, judging from Parvati's reaction, to be told by a seemingly harmless old toad in a pink cardigan that she's "sure they'll be very good friends" (212), but nothing sinister, nothing to worry about. DADA class, if she's even taking it, may be a bit boring ("the order 'wands away' had never yet been followed by a class they found interesting," 239), but there's no Hermione in Marietta's class to question Umbridge's course aims and no Harry to argue that they need practical DADA because they're "going to be attacked" (245). While the fifth-year Gryffindors witness this little scene, the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs do not. Even the fifth-year Gryffindors, Harry's classmates, are primarily concerned about passing their OWLs without practicing any spells until Harry speaks. And Harry says only that he fought Voldemort, who wasn't dead but has returned, that Voldemort was sticking out the back of Quirrell's head in their first year, and that Voldemort murdered Cedric Diggory (in itself a condensation of the truth). Seamus, who also partly doubts Harry's story, looks "half-scared, half-fascinated" (245), but Harry, who is both angry and insubordinate, has said nothing to resolve Seamus's doubts, as is clear from the fact that Seamus stays away from the DA until the last meeting. Perhaps Umbridge tells Marietta's class what she tells Harry's: ""The Ministry of Magic guarantees that you are in no danger from any Dark wizard. If you are still worried, by all means come and see me outside class hours. If someone is alarming you with fibs about reborn Dark wizards. I would like to hear about it. I am here to help. I am your friend" (245). It appears that Marietta has heard some such message, since it's Umbridge, the Defense against the Dark Arts teacher (and by that time High Inquisitor, a Ministry position) that she goes to for help, rather than to her Head of House. No Gryffindor, not even Seamus, would act on these words because they know Harry and don't know Umbridge, but Marietta, a sixth-year Ravenclaw, doesn't know Harry and trusts the Ministry. To this point, Umbridge would seem to the Mariettas of Hogwarts, the several hundred students to whom Harry is nothing but the Boy with the Scar, a boring but benign teacher, a living Professor Binns whose subject could be interesting if taught by a better teacher. Even when Umbridge becomes High Inquisitor, the daughter of a Fudge loyalist would feel no cause for alarm. As the Daily Prophet informs the students and the WW, the Ministry is "seek[ing] reform" (306). Percy's view can stand in for Marietta's mother's here, and perhaps for Marietta's own: "[Umbridge] has been an immediate success [as DADA teacher], totally revolutionizing the teaching of Defense Against the Dark Arts and providing the Minister with on-the-grounds feedback about what's happening at Hogwarts" (307). Nothing wrong here; just the Ministry looking out for the students's best interests, right, Perce (and Marietta)? And the power of the High Inquisitor to inspect her fellow teachers is no skin off Marietta's (or Percy's) nose, however much the teachers might resent it. Nor would Marietta care that one of the parents speaking in favor of the move is Lucius Malfoy, that rich and respected citizen and friend of Fudge, who sees it as a first step toward "ensuring that Hogwarts has a headmaster in whom we can all repose confidence" (308). Who is Marietta to question Fudge's view that Dumbledore is no longer up to the task of running Hogwarts? Fudge is the Minister for Magic and her father's boss, and Dumbledore believes Harry Potter's "lies" (not to mention that his idea of a few suitable words, is "nitwit, oddment, blubber [and] tweak"). So when Cho drags Marietta to the meeting, Marietta not only has no interest in the meeting but sees it as potentially subversive toward the Ministry and not at all necessary in terms of self-defense. Hermione mentions her view of Umbridge's class as "utter rubbish" and is seconded by Anthony Goldstein, but Anthony and his fellow non-Gryffindor fifth-years seem primarily concerned with their OWLs. When Hermione gets around to her real purpose, defending themselves against Voldemort, she's immediately challenged by that anomaly, the agressive Hufflepuff Zacharias Smith, who demands to know why Dumbledore believes "*him*" (Harry) (340). Hermione's response is the unhelpful "That's not really what this meeting was supposed to be about" ("What? We're here to learn how to fight Voldemort with no proof that he's back?") and Harry's response is to realize that many if not most of the students aren't there to learn DADA at all; they want to hear his story. Rather than telling them what they want to know, Harry confronts Zacharias with "I fought him!" and, in essence, if you don't believe Dumbledore (who told them only the condensed version of Cedric's murder), you don't believe me, followed by an angry, "If you've come here to find out exactly what it looks like when Voldemort kills someone I can't help you. I don't want to talk about Cedric Diggory, all right? So if that's what you're here for, you might as well clear out" (341). Yes, very convincing, Harry. Very helpful in assuring Zacharias, Marietta et al. that you're not an attention-seeking liar with an unstable, possibly violent streak. What follows--Harry's ability to cast a corporeal Patronus, that he killed a Basilisk, saved the Sorceror's Stone (from "unworthy Quirrell," as far as the non-Gryffindors know) and faced monsters in the TWT convinces most of them that it's worth their time to learn a few good defensive spells from them, but in no way provides evidence that they need those spells against a resurrected Voldemort and the Death Eaters. The DADA lessons are not important enough even to Gryffindor Angelina to interfere with Quidditch practice. Granted, Ernie speaks up about the importance of learning to defend themselves "at this critical period," but he has already publicly declared that he believes Harry (after Luna does the same thing rather less effectively). When Ernie wonders aloud why the Ministry has "foisted such a useless teacher on us," Hermione says that Umbridge "has some mad idea that Dumbledore could use the students . . . as a kind of private army [that he would] mobilize against the Ministry" (344). Here at last is a reason for the meeting that would make sense to Marietta, and one that she would adamantly oppose. To be sure, she keeps her mouth shut and reluctantly signs the parchment, but she doesn't know that it's jinxed, and she probably feels like a traitor to her mother and Fudge by doing so. Certainly she should not have attended any more meetings (had she not done so, she wouldn't have known where the meetings were). Could she have gone to her HOH, Flitwick, to express her doubts? Probably not, since Flitwick is loyal to Dumbledore? Should she have sent word to her mother (before Umbridge started searching the owls? Possibly, but her mother would undoubtedly have told her to do exactly as she did. and either way, the SNEAK jinx would have hit her. As Hermione says, without telling them that they're signing a binding magical contract, "You're agreeing not to tell Umbridge--or anybody else--what we're up to" (346). So even if she had gone to a trusted adult for help or advice, she'd have been "horribly disfigured" by a seemingly irreversible jinx. I didn't mean to make this post so long, but my point is that Marietta would see what they're doing as wrong because as far as she can see, they're opposing the Ministry and Umbridge (whose sadistic tendencies she would be aware of), not the returned Voldemort, a figment of their imaginations as far as she's concerned. I don't think that Marietta was right to go to Umbridge, but I think she made the only decision that seemed right to her at the time. If she'd been given proof, or even tangible evidence that Voldemort was back, it would have been a different matter. But she saw and heard nothing to convince her that Harry's assertions were true. (Nor did Zacharias, but he had his OWLs to think of and wanted to learn the spells, as did the other Ravenclaw fifth years, who may or may not have believed Harry as the Gryffindors and Ernie did. For the rest, perhaps even Susan Bones and poor Hannah Abbott, who botched her Transfiguration OWL so badly, it was probably all about the OWLs.) Carol, who thinks that if Hermione had been open with Harry about how many people might come and why, and if Harry had calmly provided enough information to confirm that he was not inventing Voldemort's resurrection, Marietta would not have betrayed them and the jinx would never have been activated From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 6 06:37:32 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 06:37:32 -0000 Subject: ESE! JKR? Is it war? In-Reply-To: <52a.2bb8368.31dde094@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: > Ken: > > But if she really wants to consider death and its effects on > > the survivors she should have disposed of LV and his gang in book > > six. > Sandy: > I actually expected to see LV defeated in book 6, or at least wishfully hoped > for it. I really did think LV would be gone at the end of book 6 and then we > would see a normal -- post LV -- year 7 at Hogwarts in book 7. I was both > pissed off and disappointed that it didn't happen that way. Geoff: I'm sorry that you were "upset" and disappointed by Book 6. I agree with Sarah that I fail to see how JKR could have filled a complete book with gripping and interest-grabbing events following the defeat of Voldemort when Harry's life - and our glimpse into it - has been dominated by the need to remove him for the last X years. We do know that Jo Rowling has said that the last chapter of Book 7 is going to be an epilogue and that, surely, should be enough to wrap up what happens in the post-war Wizarding World. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Jul 6 08:10:40 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:10:40 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no ch... In-Reply-To: <238.d119dd3.31dde401@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154961 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: > > In a message dated 7/4/06 10:32:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > tonks_op at ... writes: > > > > These only children in the books are all sons. I don't see any other > > way to interpret it. > > > > > > Sandy: > > Although Hermione is Muggle born she is a witch and she is an only child. > Hickengruendler: Luna is, as far as we know, an only child as well. As is Tonks. At least neither of them mentioned any silblings, and Luna talked quite a bit about her family. From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jul 6 08:15:07 2006 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (Sandra Collins) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:15:07 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154962 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > Seriously, it seems fairly obvious to me that there was a conflict between Muggles and Wizards and the Wizards lost. They lost so badly they not only went into deep, deep, *deep* hiding (erasing everything but the barest whisper of their existence) they took their *animals* with them!! Oh yeah, one of these groups is superior, and it ain't the parasitical wizards. Not when they have to keep their *insects* a secret. > > Betsy Hp (muggle and proud of it! ) > Sandra replies - That's a good point which I hadn't thought of - the amazing animals of the HP world. Why do they have to be secret, and who would decide what muggles are allowed to be aware of? Dragons are understandably kept out of the muggle world. But surely one way of building bridges between worlds would be through those aspects which play no part in political issues or social problems. But taking another angle, as we've read, there is a top-level link between muggle politicians and the Ministry for Magic, so wouldn't the services of the magical world have been used by various dodgy governments (or big businesses) to benefit their own ends? Financial pressures, illicit dealings with the less pleasant wizardy people, combined forces to dominate both worlds - it's all there to be exploited. Maybe that's part of Voldermort's grand plan, to cross over the divide and rule both worlds? This just strengthens my feelings that JKR might have been better off by making the two worlds in parallel dimensions, rather than a bit of each here and there. Sandra (with a strong coffee) From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 6 08:14:46 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:14:46 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154963 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juli17ptf" wrote: > > Julie now: > I'm not making light of it, just pointing out the consequences Marietta > could have foreseen. Of course getting expelled is not a good thing. > But I also don't think it's *destroying* a life. Surely any students > expelled could go to another school, or continue their education at > home. (And the only one really likely to be expelled was Harry). Gerry In several posts it is already pointed out that expulsion is nothing like that: "The severity of this breach of the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery has resulted in your expulsion from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. ministry representatives will be calling at your place of residence shortly to destroy your wand." OoP p. 30 Bloomsbury Hardcover edition >From Hagrid we know that destroying the wand of the expelled person is standard procedure. Somebody expelled from Hogwarts may not do magic, is doomed to live as a squib. Yes I'd call that destroying of a person's future. And Marietta knew this, because she knew decree 24. This decree counted for all the DA students, including her best friend. I'd call that very serieus and criminal behaviour indeed. Julie > far, far cry from the kind of betrayal that Peter was guilty of, that > which leads to torture and death. Gerry How would you classify having magic and not being able to perform it? Torturous would be a good word for it. > Julie > I also don't understand at all how it could be criminal. She's telling > an aknowledged authority figure about an illegal club at the school. > Can you explain what you mean by criminal? Gerry Destroying people's future. She knew that even the teachers despised Umbridge and her authority. She knew about the outbreak of Azkaban and Harry's interview. She knew there was a lot more going on than Umbridge wanted them to know. She had to have been deaf, blind and stupid not to recognize that what was happening in school was not in their best interests at all. Yet she choose to ignore all that to get into Umbridge's good book. > Gerry > I don't think anyone has denied that Marietta was wrong to betray the > DA, or that she deserved some kind of punishment. I just think Hermione > went too far. It would have been sufficient to mark Marietta for a set > period of time. Gerry I agree with that. I year would have been enough. But I also like that other suggestion, I don't know from who, that what was needed for this kind of hex was acknowleging how wrong she was and apologizing for it. Gerry From vinkv002 at planet.nl Thu Jul 6 08:12:40 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:12:40 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154964 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > > Renee: > > And I don't understand this comment. "These things don't happen" - > you > > mean, kids aren't interrogated before the Wizengamot? Harry was. > Which > > shows what the Ministery is capable of. > > Magpie: > No, it means you're not talking about the book if you're talking > about what might have happened even though it's not brought up on > the page. There's lots of "what ifs" we can imagine in the books, > but they're not canon as potential consequences. > Renee: That works two ways. If I can't say they happen, you can't say that they won't. (sorry for the very short post) From vinkv002 at planet.nl Thu Jul 6 08:22:23 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 08:22:23 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154965 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48@ wrote: > > Also, I am not totally convinced that Marietta is scarred > > for life. Yes, the marks are still on her face at the beginning of > HBP, but > > then she drops off the radar never to be heard of significantly > again (IIRC). > > The scar on Harry's hand is fading as time goes by so perhaps the > same applies > > for Marietta's face. > > Allie: > > Am I the ONLY one who thinks that all Marietta has to do is > *apologize* and Hermione will lift the hex/curse? Cho defended her, > and Marietta never actually apologized for almost getting them all > kicked out of school (it's also her fault Dumbledore was forced to > leave!). She learned it the hard way - there's nothing worse in > school than a tattletale. I can see her apologizing to Hermione and > Hermione telling her "waspishly" that the one she should apologize > to is Harry. > Renee: No, you're not the only one. I mentioned it in a previous post on the subject, and I distinctly remember one or two others saying the same. Perhaps Hemione is just waiting for Marietta to acknowledge her fault. That's why I see no reason to condemn Hermione (yet) for not removing it. Renee From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 6 09:38:21 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:38:21 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154966 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > There's no need to get personal here. As it happens, I have a PhD in > British literature because I share your preference for British > literature and history over American history, but even if I preferred > American history and literature, or dared to state that a certain "far > away country" has had some influence on world history, that would not > make me arrogant any more than it would make an Englishperson who > spoke of England's influence an Imperialist. I would hardly be proud, > by the way, of the history of witch persecution in either country, any > more than Spain should be proud of its Inquisition (and, yes, I know > that there were other inquisitions). Gerry I'm sorry, but the Salem witch trials did not have that much influence on world history. They are a minor note in a horrible period. There have been awful examples stated already, like Matthew Hopkins who was active in that time and he made many more vicitms. In those days in Scotland, there died more people. I'm sure JKR knew about the Salem trials, Salem is rather famous, but to assume she knew exactly when that happened and that she choose the date of that minor case of persecution when there were places before when many more were killed for the WW to go into hiding is rather far fetched. Carol > *Something* happened in 1692 to prompt the Statute of Secrecy. In RL, > a famous event involving persecution of witches and a few warlocks > happened in Salem in that year. Gerry Actually I think the Statue went the same way as all these kind of things. Years and years in the making, in debatting about it, international cooperation, different factions, different ideas, and finally they had something and it became active. I do think that Muggles fear of magic had something to do with the idea of needing a statue, but I think we are talking about at least 50 years in the making. What happened in Salem was exactly the same as what happened in countries everywhere. Muggles were accusing Muggles and killing Muggles. If real witches and warlocks were indeed at risk from hanging or other means of death as opposed to burning from which they were clearly not, Harry's essay title would have been something like: compare different methods Muggles used to kill witches and why all but burning were effective. I think JKR was very unaware of witch hunts, not only did she place them in the wrong historical period, but I'm quite sure she did not know that in some places witches were not burned but hanged. The point of Harry's essay and what he has to study is to prove how utterly ineffective the persecutions were for real Witches and Wizards. If there were effective methods for persecuting the real ones, his education is very lacking, to say the least. To presume that this would be different because of a different killing method is to me not believable because in complete contrast from what we get from canon. A very plausible theory about why the WW went into hiding is one that I read in a fanfiction story: Muggles outnumber Wizards and Witches rather spectacularly. The WW is not big enough to create a Magical dictatorship, besides quite a lot of people would not agree. Living among Muggles openly would have all kinds of drawbacks, especially when Muggles were afraid of magic. So quiet separation was the normal course. JKR, however limited her knowledge of > history may be (and I'm guessing it's a bit shaky given Sir Nickolas's > Elizabethan ruff), is clearly familiar with the Salem Witch Trials or > she would not have had a contingent from the Salem Institute at the > QWC. Gerry I would not say she is familiar with them. Having heard of them, yes, but familiar is quite a bit more. Gerry > Carol, who again asks anyone who opposes her suggestion to present a > plausible alternative rather than implying that the idea of presenting > a bit of shared British and American history in a post is somehow > "arrogant" > What I find arrogant is presuming that nineteen people killed in Massachusetts would warrant an International statue of Secrecy, whereas the over 200 witches Hopkins hanged before that would not. Gerry From felix_quinn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 10:33:00 2006 From: felix_quinn at yahoo.com (felix_quinn) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:33:00 -0000 Subject: triumph in Dumbledore's eye(Now also: Would Harry kill?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154967 >snip< iowagirl: >Voldemort > thought he was taking into himself, some magical property from Harry > (and it worked to some extent because "I can touch you now") but has > he also granted Harry some access to his own powers that will enable > Harry to defeat/destroy him? (I don't like to think of Harry > actually "killing") I had also been thinking about the whole "Harry killing" idea being quite upsetting. That got me thinking- we have to, to a certain extent, assume that Voldemort has somehow done himself in by using Harry's blood- that detail, combined with the gleam of triumph just seems too random and disconnected to be irrelevant. I (and anyone who believes the same) might be completely wrong on this point, but I do honestly believe that it indicates an unforseen glitch in Voldie's plans. The question obviously then becomes how? I like the ideas you presented, and they tie in pretty well with what I thought. >snip< iowagirl: > The fact that Harry's "mental" connection to Voldemort strengthened > considerably after the events in the graveyard makes me wonder if > Harry's blood being in Voldemort is what strengthened that > connection - or if the connection just naturally became stronger > because Harry and Voldemort seem to strengthen in tandem. I hadn't thought of the idea that they might be strengthening "in tendem" although I really like that idea. But what made me think was the comment on "Harry killing". I don't think it is by any means outside the realm of possibility that JK might have Harry kill either LV, one (or more) of his followers, or any combination- but wouldn't it be interesting and unexpected if the blood connection is the thing that kills LV, and not Harry himself- or even a person? What if, when that final moment comes, somehow Harry's blood coursing through his vains causes some kind of magical 'short' (I'm not even going to begin to try to theorize on what kind of 'short', so I'll generalize) and THAT causes you-know-who to expire? That's just basically building on what you said, but I honestly think this is an avenue worth exploring. The other theory (however unpleasant) is that JK might Kill Harry off in the last book somehow. Personally, I don't see it happening, but there is the possibility. What if, as LV tries to kill Harry again, he does- but because of the blood bond, it somehow kills him, too? I know the prophecy says that neither can live while the other survives (paraphrasing) but it doesn't say that one HAS to live, and one HAS to die. They could both die. And if the blood bond somehow links their fates, it could mean that we might see an echo of Voldemort's first attempt on Harry's life, and it might end up backfiring on him again, only with much more effecacy this time. In fact, it doesn't mean Harry even has to die- it could just mean that as LV tries to kill Harry, the bond prevents it and ends up killing him, instead. I'm sure this is by no means a new theory, it's just new to me;-) I'm just thinking that somehow by having Harry's blood in him, killing Harry might be like trying to kill himself- or rather, trying to kill his life source. Could it be that because Harry's blood played a key part in bringing him to life, that that life is now dependant on the survival of the source of that blood? Just a thought, and thanks for a well thought out response. Felix From felix_quinn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 10:26:09 2006 From: felix_quinn at yahoo.com (felix_quinn) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:26:09 -0000 Subject: Speculation on Tom Riddle's origins In-Reply-To: <3EBA165C.1DFC4345@colfax.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154968 >small snip I believe Harry Potter and Ginny Weasley may be Tom Riddle's biological > parents. Phew. It's taken me a while to get through the thread, (the the newer related one) But my main question is whether this original theory was concieved before/after HBP? If it was before, have you revisted the theory, and how was it affected by the extra info on LV's parentage? And the growing relationship between Harry/Ginny? >snipI believe Ginny Weasley was also given a symbolic name by Rowling. I > assume Ginny is short for Virginia and I suspect this is a nod to the > Virgin Mary, mother of the Christian lord. I believe Ginny is short for Genevra, although that alone does little to poo-poo the theory ;-) I do find it one of the more interesting theories, although I personally disagree. One part of your theory (You might've mentioned it in the "far fetched analysis of the prohpecy thread") that I find rather plausible, is the idea that by using Harry's blood for his resurrection, LV has crippled himself in some way. I always thought that using Harry's blood somehow created a vulnerability because of the connection that now exists, but I love the idea that somehow, Harry's blood was MISTAKENLY used, and because of the improper usage there is now a flaw in the result of the spell. But that's just by-line. As to the idea of a more extensive use of time-travel in the last book, it's a definite possibility, although somehow I doubt it will be to such a large extent. Although JKR's plots and by-plots have been quite intricate up to now, it's always fit together in such a way that although it requires some thought, always seems to make sense in a 'simple' way once all the facts have been revealed to us. It's kind of like a Sherlock Holmes mystery, in that Sherlock was always hesitant to reveal his exact process of deduction, because when everyone knows how he did it they suddenly feel it was simple, although it was actually rather difficult. But the idea of such a brain-breaking paradoxical time-line would be more fitting of a Dianna Wynne Jones novel, not really a Harry Potter one. Not to say it's not interesting! One more thing that seems to me to suggest otherwise, is also the idea of Ginny getting pregnant so young. Although we all know that by no means is Harry Potter an exclusively children's book, a very large chunk of HP's readership is juvenile. While JKR has never written in such a way as to explicitly AVOID going into slighty more *cough* grey areas, the story has never really lent itself to anything pertaining to the sexual. This is the same problem I have with theories involving a love affair between Lily and Remus- it's just too out of context. For all of this theory to pan out, quite a lot of sexual encounters have to occur, (and Ginny would have to be pregnant in Harry's last year, because we assume the last book will span his 7th year, with only an epilogue that will prove an excpetion) So she would really have to be quite young. Even if JK decided that plot-lines of a sexual nature could be included, I somehow doubt Harry's going to have time to get lucky in between Voldemort-smiting.;-) But major kudos for such a well-thought out theory, anyway. Greatly entertaining. Felix From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 11:56:50 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:56:50 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154969 > > > Renee: > > > And I don't understand this comment. "These things don't happen" - > > you > > > mean, kids aren't interrogated before the Wizengamot? Harry was. > > Which > > > shows what the Ministery is capable of. > > > > Magpie: > > No, it means you're not talking about the book if you're talking > > about what might have happened even though it's not brought up on > > the page. There's lots of "what ifs" we can imagine in the books, > > but they're not canon as potential consequences. > > > Renee: > That works two ways. If I can't say they happen, you can't say that > they won't. Alla: I thought I will take a break from this topic for a while, but I think I need more clarification. Why am I not talking about the book, when I am speculating about potential consequences Umbridge could have forced upon DA members? Now ** of course** this is speculation, but this is **canon-based** speculation, no? We ** know** about what Umbridge does to people who resist her. Granted, mainly on the example of Harry, but not only because her Decrees are written towards all students. So, when I am saying that based on the **fact** that Harry was put in front of Wizengamot and based on the **fact** that Umbridge was about to put Cruciatus on Harry, do a bodily damage on Fred and George, she **could** have put all DA members in front of Wizengamot and/or physically hurt them, is it ** so** far fetched to think that Umbridge could have done that? Not to me. Why? Because Umbridge **already** did those things to people who resist her and what do DA members did? Resisted her, right? So, to me I am talking about stuff that definitely could have happened. I am **speculating** but based on similar circumstances that happened in canon already. JMO, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 13:50:58 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:50:58 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Professors/HP universe - no partners; no ch... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154970 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48@ wrote: > > > > In a message dated 7/4/06 10:32:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > tonks_op@ writes: > These only children in the books are all sons. I don't see any > other way to interpret it. > > > > > Sandy: > > > > Although Hermione is Muggle born she is a witch and she is an only child. > > > > Hickengruendler: > > Luna is, as far as we know, an only child as well. As is Tonks. At > least neither of them mentioned any silblings, and Luna talked quite a bit about her family. > Tonks: OK guys. I got it. I was wrong. Can't even remember myself. lol. Tonks_op From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 15:43:39 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:43:39 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154971 > Magpie: > Could be a cop out, true.:-) Lanval: I think a LOT of scenes and sub-plots in HP can be explained precisely with such a 'cop out': "oh, JKR had to write it that way, in order for x to happen, or y not to happen... :) > Magpie: There seemed to be the suggestion that since we > don't see it, maybe there was some other reason. I think that since > this is a minor character there's little reason not to go with what > we've got, even if it's told and not shown. If that's later proved > wrong I'll change my mind on it. Lanval: You think there's more to come, then? That we're not done with Marietta, and may find out more about her situation? Interesting thought! See, I thought that the concept of betrayal is a huge one in the book, and it seems to be important in a personal sense to the author. Marietta as a character was not of exceptional importance; the concept of betrayal was. Of course this opens up so many other questions, some of which have already been brought up. What about Peter's betrayal? What about Snape betraying LV (or DD?), what about R.A.B.? > Magpie: > I never meant to imply that was what it was. I agree with the view > that the rules endanger their grades and are harmful to their > future. What I am saying is that the fact that Hermione sees the big > picture does not mean that everyone who shows up at the Hog's Head > sees it that way. They all eventually decide to do something that > risks their expulsion in joining the DA. Some of them might have > truly thought that through and some might not have. > > I feel like I'm coming across as arguing against the DA, which I'm > not. I don't think Marietta was right to turn them in. Lanval: Oh, I didn't think you were. I just thought that you might have been downplaying the importance of the DA a bit. Let me try and explain. There are two arguments floating around the discussion thread: 1. The DA is just about kids going against new rules they don't like. Marietta disapproved. She turned them in; big deal. So she thought they'd get detention, maybe get expelled. Oh well. 2. Marietta felt the DA to be a distinct threat against her personal beliefs, against her family, against the ministry -- after all, they were *gasp* trying to learn how to defend themselves against dementors, the executive powers of the ministry. I think it was even suggested that this amounts to training to fight the police in RL. Well, it can't be both, can it? Either Marietta is very deeply concerned that the DA is a threat, or else she sees it as kids doing things behind an unpopular teacher's back. Neither scenario excuses her, but they are so far apart that they can't, IMO, be combined into one argument by those defending her possible intentions and motives (mind, I don't think anyone here is defending her treachery per se). > > > Lanval: > > So there are two entirely separate questions here: how do we judge > > Hermione's hex, and its effect on Marietta, and how do we judge > > Marietta's betrayal. > > Magpie: > I agree. And whether we feel sympathy for Marietta or Hermione is > yet another issue, I think. If Marietta had shown herself to be > deeply morally conflicted, as you said, she might have been more > sympathetic. But she still would have done the same thing. Lanval: See, I doubt that. It's possible, but I think of Marietta as neither bright enough to see the Big Picture, nor all that morally conflicted. She strikes me as both indecisive and petulant, and a bit shallow. (Hard to say; she gets so little page time. But if a character is not majorly important, then perhaps the author chooses to show only the relevant bits? We'll see; perhaps you're right, and we will find out more.) But my personal impression is that she ratted out of spite, out of jealousy that Harry was still occupying so much of Cho's mind, and out of a desire to get on Umbridge's good side. > Magpie: Had > Hermione been shown to feel horrible that the hex lasted as long as > it did perhaps she would seem more sympathetic than she does now to > some, but that wouldn't really change what she did. > Lanval: Yes, exactly. And I do agree with those who think that Hermione knows how to lift the hex. Likely it's connected whith the parchment itself, though. What happened to it, anybody remember? > HunterGreen: > Hermione says it herself, there is NOTHING in the rules against study > groups, she just thought it would be a good idea not to *parade* what > they were doing. But it wasn't against ANY rules at that time, and it > certainly wasn't anything that would get anyone expelled. Why the > parchment then is a good question. Imagine if Marietta (or anyone > else in the group for that matter) told on the group before it was > even against the rules. Would that warrant having "sneak" written on > their face for *years*? Lanval: As I've said several times, no. Not that we know it will last for *years*. Somehow I got the feeling that the pustules had begun to fade in HBP; the balaclava being replaced by a layer of make-up seems to suggest as much. About the rules: they all seemed very well aware that the only reason this meeting (and the purpose of it) was not illegal was because it had not crossed Umbridge's mind YET to actively forbid it. From what went on in the DADA class, it's crystal clear that Umbridge was greatly opposed to the kids learning practical spells -- no matter *who* taught them, or under what circumstances. Everyone realized that. Hence the nervousness. > > HunterGreen: > Secret, maybe, but not illegal or something she'd get expelled for. > At that time, when she put her name on the parchment, there was > nothing Umbridge could do to them for joining the group (and that's > proved by the fact that although she did know that the meeting > happened and who exactly was there, nothing happened to any of them, > since there was nothing she COULD do at the time). > Lanval: Only because I think Umbridge had insufficient intelligence. She didn't know much beside the fact that several kids had met in the Hog's Head, and discussed forming a club, and she knew about the purpose it would serve. But Willy Widdershins wouldn't have known the student's names, right? Perhaps he just *said* to Umbridge he heard every word, and missed certain things. So she fired a broadside, and outlawed ALL clubs and organizations, unless specifically cleared by herself. > HunterGreen: > But even if she didn't continue, her name was still on the paper, now > wasn't it? And she knew the meetings were still going on, she still > was still involved whether she went to the meetings or not. > Lanval: Surely she could have spoken to Hermione? But that's an interesting point. If Marietta wanted out, she certainly would have wanted her name off the list. But Hermione was stuck too, wasn't she? Marietta already knew too much. Wonder if there was a way Hermione could have taken Marietta's name off without releasing her from the promise. > HunterGreen: > Marietta's mother was also helping police the fires. If someone in > her family wasn't for the ministry, that would be a rather odd > pairing with her mother. > Lanval: Thanks, I'd forgotten about the fires. However, this isn't solid proof of their conviction. Arthur works for the ministry as well, and Kingsley Shacklebolt gives a decent show of searching for Sirius, knowing he's at Grimmauld Place. > HunterGreen: > Yes, she was certainly old enough to see things differently than her > parents, but that doesn't mean she DID. Of course she had a choice in > the matter, and apparently she chose to believe her parents and the > ministry. Why else would she go to Umbridge? Just to be vindictive? > Cho, by the way, has a personal reason to defy the ministry (Cedric's > death, of course) and the Weasleys have their parents on the side of > Dumbledore, so 'disobeying', in their case, is much different. (a > better example is Percy. He may have been wrong, but he did stand > behing what he believed, even against his family). > Lanval: Perhaps this is where the readers are supposed to see the difference between, say, Sirius, who grew to realize that all he'd ever been taught as a child was wrong, and Draco, despite the fact that his family does much worse than the Blacks, still appears to be stuck in his ugly bigot mindset? Marietta blindly follows authority; Percy chooses new authority over the old (his parents), and embraces it with uncommon fervor. Luna, much as I love her, doesn't do much in the department of Think-for Yourself either; she buys into her dad's paranoid reasons to distrust the ministry with far too much ease. > HunterGreen: > I don't see it that way. Umbridge even said she had to 'question her > further'. Marietta didn't know there was a hex on the parchment, so > there was no reason for her to omit details unless she felt guilty or > conflicted about what she was doing. Personally, I see it as > something she had to brace herself to do. Lanval: Well, your guess is of course as good as mine. We don't know exactly how Marietta felt as she was making her way to Umbridge's office. > HunterGreen: Again, I am not trying to > say that was she did was right in any way, but that she herself was > not trying to be evil. She wasn't bribed by Umbridge, she didn't skip > up to her and say immediately that there was a secret organization in > the school. Marietta doesn't seem to pleased with herself after the > fact either, and I have trouble believing that she was THAT > distressed over the hex appearing on her face (though, perhaps that > was just what it was), Lanval: Really? I believe she was extremely distressed. I also see no evidence that Marietta is not 'pleased with herself', as in 'sorry for what she did'. No, she's in shock because everything went so spectacularly wrong! IMO, she likely thought it would be a piece of cake -- go see Umbridge, tell, get a pat on the head and a cookie, and go back to her common room. What she planned to tell Cho afterwards.... who knows. Instead she ends up in DD's office, with several teachers and ministry officials, Umbridge, Harry... as the unhappy center of attention. And with an ugly sneak mark (which btw does clearly not cause her physical distress; Umbridge remarks that Marietta had to SEE it in the mirror first to notice.)all across her face. Which is I think the reason she refuses to talk to Fudge: she may well be scared to bits that further disfigurement would happen. Umbridge supports this later, when she tells Marietta to nod or shake her head, should she fear the spots getting worse. As to the impression some have that Umbridge tortured her, or was unkind to her before the scene in DD's office: Umbridge admits to trying out counterjinxes on Marietta, which tells me that she showed some concern for her, and perhaps felt quite grateful to the girl. Only when Marietta stubbornly refuses to be Umbridge's star witness does Umbridge go into Rage Mode. > Oh, and as to the assertion in other posts that Marietta's actions > are similar to Peter's, that a REALLY extreme way of putting it, > don't you think? After all, no one was going to be MURDERED by > Umbridge, and there's no doubt in my mind that Peter knew what he was > doing was completely wrong. Whereas, I think Marietta thought she was > doing the right thing. Lanval: That remains debatable. Of course Peter's actions had worse consequences, but that's not the point the author is trying make, IMO. > > Also, as an aside, I have always thought that a mass-expelling of > everyone in the DA would not work as neatly as Fudge and Umbridge > think it would have. By that point, I think, they were losing some of > their credibility in the WW, and if it came out that twenty-eight > students were expelled for practising DADA spells (including Amelia > Bones' neice, and famous aurors Frank and Alice Longbottom's son). > They were building Harry up all year as a liar, and some of the > others (like the Weasleys and the muggle-borns) would be tossed off, > but the others, well, I doubt the idea would be immediately embraced > that it was justified to expel 10% of the school (going with the > assumption that there are 280 students). > Lanval: :) You know, every time I read something in the news about yet another scandal concerning our current administration, I think: this is it, they can't POSSIBLY get away with this... and every time they do. Fudge & his minions control the media, the school, the judicial system. No doubt many do not believe everything they read in the DP, but it's enough that some do, some have doubts, and many are afraid. I think Fudge would have pushed for the expulsion, excpet perhaps of those kids whose parents were in good standing with him, or might pose a danger to him. Lanval From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 6 16:06:55 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:06:55 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154972 > > Allie: > > > > Am I the ONLY one who thinks that all Marietta has to do is > > *apologize* and Hermione will lift the hex/curse? Cho defended her, > > and Marietta never actually apologized for almost getting them all > > kicked out of school (it's also her fault Dumbledore was forced to > > leave!). She learned it the hard way - there's nothing worse in > > school than a tattletale. I can see her apologizing to Hermione and > > Hermione telling her "waspishly" that the one she should apologize > > to is Harry. > > > Renee: > No, you're not the only one. I mentioned it in a previous post on the > subject, and I distinctly remember one or two others saying the same. > Perhaps Hemione is just waiting for Marietta to acknowledge her fault. > That's why I see no reason to condemn Hermione (yet) for not removing it. Pippin: The canon for Marietta being memory charmed: "Unfortunately, I had to hex Kingsley too, or it would have looked very suspicious," said Dumbledore in a low voice. "He was remarkably quick on the uptake, modifying Miss Edgecombe's memory like that while everyone was looking the other way--thank him for me, won't you, Minerva?" ch 27 OOP I am amazed that Hermione's defenders think her self-esteem is so low that it needs to be bolstered by an apology from a person who can't remember what she did. I would think far better of Hermione for committing the typical teenage blunder of not considering the long range consequences than I would if, after all she has accomplished, she still feels so poorly about herself that such a hollow reward would seem valuable to her. She would be clinging to her identity as a wounded person instead of using her courage to grow beyond it. Besides that, what if Hermione gets herself killed before the jinx is lifted. Too bad for Marietta, I suppose? If I seem to be harder on Hermione than I am on Marietta, it's because Marietta's moral development is not central to the story -- it would be nice if Marietta learns a lesson about the value of loyalty (though she's far more likely to gain it from Cho sticking by her than she is from Hermione's punishment) but I don't care whether she does or not. I think it's *very* important that Hermione learn to consult with others before she inflicts permanent damage on another Being. Sticking to canon, not movies, she is the only one of the Trio to have done so (even Harry's unbodiment of Voldemort has been reversed) and I can't believe it is of no consequence. Even Draco Malfoy hasn't permanently harmed anyone. As for all the horrible consequences Marietta is supposed to have known she would bring about, it seems that Jo herself can't predict the future of her characters with 100% accuracy, so we can hardly hold Marietta responsible for the future course of the story. I think Marietta's story may presage something about the betrayal of James and Lily. Cho says that she "made" Marietta come with her to the meetings. Cho doesn't say how she bullied her friend, but I suppose she said that Marietta couldn't be her friend anymore otherwise. It could be Marietta thought if the meetings just stopped, then she could go on being friends with Cho without having to betray her family, and that's what she was trying to accomplish by going to Umbridge. Something similar might have happened in the Order. Maybe the traitor wanted to leave the Order but was afraid it would cost him his friendship with the other Marauders if he did, so he tried to get it shut down instead. It wouldn't fit Pettigrew's personality, but it might fit Lupin's. I can definitely see Lupin feeling bad that the werewolves were beginning to trust him when he knew that they wouldn't if they'd known he was in the Order. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 16:21:26 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:21:26 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154973 Renee: > No, you're not the only one. I mentioned it in a previous post on the > subject, and I distinctly remember one or two others saying the same. > Perhaps Hemione is just waiting for Marietta to acknowledge her fault. > That's why I see no reason to condemn Hermione (yet) for not removing it. Carol responds: How is Marietta supposed to apologize for a "crime" she doesn't remember, and which, to her knowledge, had no consequences other than the temporary and voluntary removal of the headmaster? And doesn't Hermione know that Marietta was Obliviated? If she's waiting for an apology, she's going to wait a long time. And we have no indication whatever that she regrets having hexed the parchment. IMO, neither Hermione nor Marietta thought ahead. Neither realized the potential consequences of her actions. But Hermione can now see the consequences of her action and Marietta can't because there are none and she doesn't know what she did. All she knows is that she's (apparently) scarred for life, and only one friend is loyal enough to stand by her, right or wrong, scarred or unscarred. My guess is that Hermione not only feels no remorse but never thought to figure out a counterjinx, which in any case would probably just undo the jinx on the parchment. Carol, who hopes that some of the posters on this list would feel more compassion for a real-life teenager who makes a big mistake than they apparently do for the imaginary teenagers in the HP books. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 15:11:29 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:11:29 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154974 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > Gerry: > What I find arrogant is presuming that nineteen people killed in > Massachusetts would warrant an International statue of Secrecy, > whereas the over 200 witches Hopkins hanged before that would not. > bridge13219: In the spirit of progressing the discussion beyond Salem-bashing, how about the Massacre of Glencoe? 1692, right in JKR's neighborhood. It didn't have anything to do with witchcraft as much as further attempts at "taming" the highlanders of Scotland. However, since Hogwarts sounds like it is in northern Scotland, maybe it was a little to close to school for the WW? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 16:37:23 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:37:23 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154975 Gerry: > > > What I find arrogant is presuming that nineteen people killed in > Massachusetts would warrant an International statue of Secrecy, > whereas the over 200 witches Hopkins hanged before that would not. Carol: So are you presuming that JKR is arrogant or that I am? I certainly made no such presumption. What I was presuming, based on the date 1692 (which is rather well-known) and her contingent of witches from Salem at the QWT, is that the date was not coincidental. As for Matthew Hopkins, what is the evidence that JKR ever heard of him? Thank you, BTW, for presenting your own views this time around rather than attacking mine--or worse, my character. I still don't agree with you, as I think JKR is, so to speak, grasping at dates rather than viewing history with a critical eye. (You're right that she seems unaware of persecutions other than the "medieval witch burnings" and the Salem Witch Trials.) You have not, however, presented a believable case for that particular date, which is almost as well known as 1066, 1216, 1492 and (to include an American one) 1776. Carol, who would appreciate not being called arrogant or having presumptions she never made attributed to her From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jul 6 16:45:43 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:45:43 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154976 Gerry: > Destroying people's future. She knew that even the teachers > despised Umbridge and her authority. She knew about the > outbreak of Azkaban and Harry's interview. She knew there > was a lot more going on than Umbridge wanted them to know. > She had to have been deaf, blind and stupid not to recognize > that what was happening in school was not in their best > interests at all. Yet she choose to ignore all that to > get into Umbridge's good book. houyhnhnm: I agree that getting expelled from Hogwarts is not just nothing. Not quite on a par with getting killed, perhaps, but close to it in the WW. I don't agree with the rest of what you have written. Yes, Marrietta would have known about the breakdown of order within Hogwarts. She would have known about the DEs breaking out of Hogwarts. She probably read _The Quibbler_ article since it seems most of the school did. But she would have *interpreted* all that knowledge through the filter of her own preceptions. She would not have had to be deaf, blind, and stupid not to see the world exactly as Our Heroes see it. As for the claim that she betrayed DA to get into Umbridge's good book, there is no support for that in canon Julie: > I don't think anyone has denied that Marietta was wrong > to betray the DA, or that she deserved some kind of > punishment. I just think Hermione went too far. houyhnhnm: Exactly. No one is trying to argue that Marietta did the right thing, only to imagine how the situation may have looked from her point of view. Seeing another's pov is not the same as taking it. If Hermione had been able to empathize with Marrietta, or with any other student who might have had reservations about DA, she might have been able to take *effective* steps to forestall a betrayal. But then, if anyone in the Potterverse were capable of empathizing with another's point of view, they might stop producing one Dark Lord after another. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 6 16:35:43 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:35:43 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154977 > Lanval: > Oh, I didn't think you were. I just thought that you might have been > downplaying the importance of the DA a bit. Let me try and explain. > There are two arguments floating around the discussion thread: > > 1. The DA is just about kids going against new rules they don't > like. Marietta disapproved. She turned them in; big deal. So she > thought they'd get detention, maybe get expelled. Oh well. > > 2. Marietta felt the DA to be a distinct threat against her personal > beliefs, against her family, against the ministry -- after all, they > were *gasp* trying to learn how to defend themselves against > dementors, the executive powers of the ministry. I think it was even > suggested that this amounts to training to fight the police in RL. > > Well, it can't be both, can it? Either Marietta is very deeply > concerned that the DA is a threat, or else she sees it as kids doing > things behind an unpopular teacher's back. Neither scenario excuses > her, but they are so far apart that they can't, IMO, be combined > into one argument by those defending her possible intentions and > motives (mind, I don't think anyone here is defending her treachery > per se). > Pippin: Of course they can! Marietta can rationalize her involvement in the group and her agreement not to tell anyone with reason number one, until they start learning how to fight dementors. Then her rationalization no longer works. Learning to fight dementors is not part of the OWL exam by any stretch of the imagination. Nor, from Marietta's point of view, can it be part of an anti-Voldemort effort, since the dementors are supposed to be anti-Voldemort themselves. At that point Marietta would have to choose between her own beliefs and Cho's friendship. She tried, IMO, to get out of the choice by going to Umbridge. That was weak and cowardly, she should have stood up to Cho the way Neville stood up to the Trio in PS/SS, but I don't see where Marietta ever had that much courage. > Lanval: > Only because I think Umbridge had insufficient intelligence. She > didn't know much beside the fact that several kids had met in the > Hog's Head, and discussed forming a club, and she knew about the > purpose it would serve. But Willy Widdershins wouldn't have known > the student's names, right? Perhaps he just *said* to Umbridge he > heard every word, and missed certain things. > > So she fired a broadside, and outlawed ALL clubs and organizations, > unless specifically cleared by herself. > Pippin: You don't think Willie Widdershins could recognize Harry Potter? There was no rule against forming a study group at the time. This was gone over quite clearly in Dumbledore's office. Umbridge had to wait until she had some evidence against Harry which she got, mostly through Hermione's carelessness. That Marietta gave away where the meeting was to be held instead of who was involved shows that she was conflicted, I think. Umbridge wouldn't have been able to expel anybody with that information alone. But she would have been able to stop the meetings. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 16:42:34 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:42:34 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154978 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Allie: > > > > > > Am I the ONLY one who thinks that all Marietta has to > > > do is *apologize* and Hermione will lift the hex/curse? > > > ... > > > > > Renee: > > No, you're not the only one. ... Perhaps Hemione is just > > waiting for Marietta to acknowledge her fault. That's why > > I see no reason to condemn Hermione (yet) for not removing > > it. > > Pippin: > The canon for Marietta being memory charmed: > "Unfortunately, I had to hex Kingsley too, or it would > have looked very suspicious," said Dumbledore in a low > voice. "He was remarkably quick on the uptake, modifying > Miss Edgecombe's memory like that while everyone was > looking the other way--thank him for me, won't you, > Minerva?" ch 27 OOP > > I am amazed that Hermione's defenders think her self-esteem > is so low that it needs to be bolstered by an apology from > a person who can't remember what she did. I would think far > better of Hermione for committing the typical teenage > blunder of not considering the long range consequences > ...big edit... > > Pippin > bboyminn: We can make fair speculations on who, what, when, where, and why things are happening, but let's not get carried away. We don't know the exact details or Marietta' memory charm. Yes, her memory was sufficienlty modified that she couldn't or wouldn't give testimony to Umbridge and Fudge, but, because of the Spots, she was already reluctant to give testimony, so we don't know how much more memory modification it took to solidifiy her resolve NOT to testify. So, yes, she was memory charmed but we don't know to what extent nor do we know the exact nature of the charm. We don't know the nature of the 'Spots' Hermione's charm caused. They may eventually fade away on their own. Notice in the latest books, Marietta is no longer hiding her face, she is now covering the Spots with make-up. That could imply that the spots are getting better. While I have no proof one way or the other, we can't say with absolute certainty that the spots won't go away on their own. We also can't say one way or the other that once Madam Pomfrey or St. Mungo's knows how the spots were created, the removal will be easy. Further, the story isn't over yet. Hermione could very well decide that her point was made, and that given current circumstances, petty slights like being a snitch aren't that important. Feeling that it is far more important to have all hands on deck and every available person on their side, Hermione might just remove the Spots. Finally, let us not go overboard. Hermione did not take Marietta's legs off, nor blind her, nor remove her arms, or anything of the sort; she gave her acne. Marietta's not scarred for life, she is not disfigured, she is not crippled; she simply has a few zits. Let's not let this get out of perspective. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Jul 6 17:00:37 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:00:37 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154979 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > The canon for Marietta being memory charmed: > "Unfortunately, I had to hex Kingsley too, or it would have looked very > suspicious," said Dumbledore in a low voice. "He was remarkably > quick on the uptake, modifying Miss Edgecombe's memory like > that while everyone was looking the other way--thank him for > me, won't you, Minerva?" ch 27 OOP Allie: I think Cho would have told Marietta what happened and why she has "sneak" written across her forehead. So even if she doesn't remember, she knows what she did. > > I am amazed that Hermione's defenders think her self-esteem is > so low that it needs to be bolstered by an apology from a person who > can't remember what she did. Allie: I think she would want the apology for Harry and the rest of them, not just herself. It has nothing to do with her self-esteem. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 17:16:52 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:16:52 -0000 Subject: Understanding Marietta (long) (Was: Evil Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154980 > > Carol responds: > > Rather than telling > them what they want to know, Harry confronts Zacharias with "I fought > him!" and, in essence, if you don't believe Dumbledore (who told them > only the condensed version of Cedric's murder), you don't believe me, > followed by an angry, "If you've come here to find out exactly what it > looks like when Voldemort kills someone I can't help you. I don't want > to talk about Cedric Diggory, all right? So if that's what you're here > for, you might as well clear out" (341). Yes, very convincing, Harry. > Very helpful in assuring Zacharias, Marietta et al. that you're not an > attention-seeking liar with an unstable, possibly violent streak. > Neri: Er... what? Are you actually saying that Zacharias, Marietta et al. *shouldn't* have trusted Dumbledore's word completely? Just because he didn't supply them with a few clarifying details? Or, wait ,wait, are you saying that Zacharias, Marietta et al. thought that Dumbledore was generally a good person, but that he was duped to think that Voldemort was back just because he chose to believe a suspicious story told him by a person appearing to be an attention-seeking liar with an unstable, possibly violent streak? So are you actually claiming that the argument "Dumbledore believes person X, therefore if you don't believe person X you don't believe Dumbledore" is *not* a viable argument??? Carol, I'm shocked. Neri From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 17:05:09 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:05:09 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154981 > Carol responds: > How is Marietta supposed to apologize for a "crime" she doesn't > remember, and which, to her knowledge, had no consequences other than > the temporary and voluntary removal of the headmaster? And doesn't > Hermione know that Marietta was Obliviated? If she's waiting for an > apology, she's going to wait a long time. And we have no indication > whatever that she regrets having hexed the parchment. IMO, neither > Hermione nor Marietta thought ahead. Neither realized the potential > consequences of her actions. But Hermione can now see the consequences > of her action and Marietta can't because there are none and she > doesn't know what she did. All she knows is that she's (apparently) > scarred for life, and only one friend is loyal enough to stand by her, > right or wrong, scarred or unscarred. Lanval: And that loyal friend might well have told her what went on that day, in the weeks before, and in the aftermath. Marietta's memory may have been Obliviated, that doesn't mean she can't take in new information concerning the event. Even considering Cho doesn't know all the details, she knows enough: Marietta snitched, the DA meeting was disrupted, and DD had to flee the school. Besides, don't you think that Marietta would feverishly ask questions of everyone? She spent time in the Hospital wing; do you really think she took it all in silence, never wondering why her friend was perhaps angry with her, why there was a huge SNEAK mark across her face? It would of course be interesting to know exactly how this memory modification worked. Did Kingley remove only Marietta's memory of attending the DA? Or did he remove her entire memory of the previous months? In the first case, that would be quite a feat. It appears to be very difficult even for skilled wizards to pick out specific thoughts and memories, let alone modify them. In the second case? that would be harsh, and more than a little morally questionable. Can Obliviate wear off? can it be cast in a way to wear off after a while? is there a countercurse? > > My guess is that Hermione not only feels no remorse but never thought > to figure out a counterjinx, which in any case would probably just > undo the jinx on the parchment. > > Carol, who hopes that some of the posters on this list would feel more > compassion for a real-life teenager who makes a big mistake than they > apparently do for the imaginary teenagers in the HP books. Let him who > is without sin cast the first stone. > Lanval: Certainly, but then we should show just as much understanding for another teenager, who is at times self-righteous, too smart for her own good, and annoyingly arrogant, but has hardly shown evidence of being the budding monster some see in her, a cold-hearted, malicious Future Umbridge who'll walk over dead bodies to get her way. From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jul 6 17:10:28 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:10:28 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154982 Sandra: > But taking another angle, as we've read, there is a > top-level link between muggle politicians and the Ministry > for Magic, so wouldn't the services of the magical world > have been used by various dodgy governments (or big > businesses) to benefit their own ends? Financial > pressures, illicit dealings with the less pleasant > wizardy people, combined forces to dominate both > worlds - it's all there to be exploited. houyhnhnm: Maybe this has somethihg to do with Rowling's decision to exclude Americans from the Potterverse (except for the group from the Salem Witches Institute at the Quidditch World Cup). I wish I had so much as a nanogram of creative writing talent. A million cynical ideas for fan fiction come to mind. Sandra: > This just strengthens my feelings that JKR might have > been better off by making the two worlds in parallel > dimensions, rather than a bit of each here and there. houyhnhnm: But then the Harry Potter saga would not be such an excellent koan for exploring the boundary between fantasy and reality. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 6 17:28:14 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:28:14 -0000 Subject: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154983 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Thank you, BTW, for presenting your own views this time around rather > than attacking mine--or worse, my character. I still don't agree with > you, as I think JKR is, so to speak, grasping at dates rather than > viewing history with a critical eye. (You're right that she seems > unaware of persecutions other than the "medieval witch burnings" and > the Salem Witch Trials.) You have not, however, presented a believable > case for that particular date, which is almost as well known as 1066, > 1216, 1492 and (to include an American one) 1776. > > Carol, who would appreciate not being called arrogant or having > presumptions she never made attributed to her > I'm sorry, it was not meant to insult you or attack your character. But I simply don't agree that that particular date is well known and I would like some solid evidence that it is, especially in the UK. Matthew Hopkins is a very well known historical figure so I do think it rather odd you would think she would not be familiar with him while she would be so familiar with what happened in Salem, that she would know more than that there were witches there, but even would know the date when these things happened. That is very illogical. There may very well be a good reason for that date, but the one you mention? Sorry, I don't buy that. Gerry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 16:58:21 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:58:21 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154984 Alla wrote: > Why am I not talking about the book, when I am speculating about > potential consequences Umbridge could have forced upon DA members? > > Now ** of course** this is speculation, but this is **canon-based** > speculation, no? > > We ** know** about what Umbridge does to people who resist her. > Granted, mainly on the example of Harry, but not only because her > Decrees are written towards all students. > > So, when I am saying that based on the **fact** that Harry was put > in front of Wizengamot and based on the **fact** that Umbridge was > about to put Cruciatus on Harry, do a bodily damage on Fred and > George, she **could** have put all DA members in front of Wizengamot > and/or physically hurt them, is it ** so** far fetched to think that > Umbridge could have done that? > > Not to me. Why? Because Umbridge **already** did those things to > people who resist her and what do DA members did? Resisted her, > right? > > So, to me I am talking about stuff that definitely could have > happened. I am **speculating** but based on similar circumstances > that happened in canon already. Carol responds: Canonically, Umbridge seems satisfied with merely expelling Harry (and delighted when Dumbledore takes the responsibility for the "Army" on himself). Umbridge makes no effort to punish the students after that. Had dumbledore not stepped in, she might well have expelled Harry and broken his wand, but I don't think she'd have done anything to the other members--who, BTW, included Marietta. Possibly, she'd have given each of them a detention involving writing "I will not join illegal organizations" with her cruel quill, but she didn't do it, and Marietta could not have anticipated such a punishment in any case. (I'm *not* defending Umbridge, whom I loathe.) While we know enough about Umbridge to speculate about what she might have done, Marietta has no such knowledge. She probably knows that Harry has received multiple detentions for "spreading lies," but she can have no idea what Umbridge did to him. Nor would she have known about Harry's trial, which was not publicized. Carol, for whom Marietta is a tattletale, not a criminal From jamess at climaxgroup.com Thu Jul 6 17:09:52 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:09:52 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Look of triumph in Dumbledore's eye Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B07@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 154985 Previous to the graveyard resurrection, Voldemort could not touch Harry without being harmed / killed himself. Voldemort knew that Harry's protection came from his mothers love and sought to acquire the protection using Harrys blood in the ritual. This appears to have worked, Voldemort was able to touch Harry without pain or the loss of his body. Voldemorts protection was working (as was Harrys). But Harry must return to the Dursleys every year for the protection to continue working. Unless I'm mistaken Voldemort does not live at the Dursleys and so his derived form of the projection would have expired shortly afterwards. I believe the gleam of triumph was Dumbledors realization that the dark lord believing himself protected is now more vulnerable. Information is power. Voldemort would never have allowed Harry near him before the ritual, but now believes he is safe. Once all of the Horcri are dealt with, Harry merely needs a touch to finish it once and for all. For those who are squeamish about the idea of our young protagonist committing murder, remember it was an accident in the philosophers stone and could just as well be an accident the second time round, after all Harry believes Voldemort is protected as well. --- In HPforGrownups@ yahoogroups.com, "felix_quinn" wrote: > > Possible spoilers ahead, if you haven't read GOF or HBP > > I'm sure this must have been covered before, but I thought I'd bring > it up in hopes of fresh ideas and theories. > Is there any popular theory regarding the look of triumph in > Dumbledore's eyes at the end of GOF? There are certainly some widely > acknowledged theories concerning Dumbledore's death (or the > possibility of his living) and how or why Snape may or may not be > evil. So is there an equivalent for that moment? I know most readers > have noticed it, at the very least, and sometimes it is brought up > for discussion, but isn't it possible that it might be absurdly > important to the story, and we're overlooking a huge clue? bridge13219: This bothered me for a while too. My current theory involves Dumbledore's later explanation to Harry, about why Harry survived LV' s AK curse and is still alive. While Lily's sacrifice saved Harry immediately, the charm Dumbledore cast that night (by leaving him in the house where Lily's blood lives) has kept him safe all these years. I think the "look of triumph" was because the charm Dumbledore cast was/is working, and Voldemort is only aware of the protection caused by Lily's sacrifice. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 17:40:40 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:40:40 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154986 > Lanval: > See, I doubt that. It's possible, but I think of Marietta as neither > bright enough to see the Big Picture, nor all that morally > conflicted. She strikes me as both indecisive and petulant, and a > bit shallow. (Hard to say; she gets so little page time. But if a > character is not majorly important, then perhaps the author chooses > to show only the relevant bits? We'll see; perhaps you're right, and > we will find out more.) > > But my personal impression is that she ratted out of spite, out of > jealousy that Harry was still occupying so much of Cho's mind, and > out of a desire to get on Umbridge's good side. Carol responds: Well, yes, but as you say, this is your personal impression. I think you could convincingly show that she's "indecisive and petulant," but can you provide canon to show that she's jealous or that she wants to get on Umbridge's good side? I think that if the latter were the case, she's have "ratted" much earlier. (I wonder if fear had more to do with it--the increasing tyranny of Umbridge's regime?) > Lanval: > Yes, exactly. And I do agree with those who think that Hermione > knows how to lift the hex. Likely it's connected whith the parchment > itself, though. What happened to it, anybody remember? Carol: IIRC, the last we saw of it was in Umbridge's hand in DD's office. As I said in another post, I'm afraid that the jinx would simply be lifted from the parchment, because it's the parchment that was jinxed, not Marietta herself. Its *effects* wouldn't be undone, any more than Snape's removing the curse from the opal necklace (as he presumably did) cured Katie Bell. (He still had to slow the effects of the already activated curse so she could be sent to St. Mungo's.) I doubt that Hermione can undo her own handiwork. Probably not even Snape could do it, not that he'll have the opportunity! > > Lanval: > Perhaps this is where the readers are supposed to see the difference > between, say, Sirius, who grew to realize that all he'd ever been > taught as a child was wrong, and Draco, despite the fact that his > family does much worse than the Blacks, still appears to be stuck in > his ugly bigot mindset? Carol responds: Not that I'm defending Draco's mindset, but there's a difference here. Draco lives in a "Wiltshire mansion," elsewhere referred to as a "manor"; Sirius lived in a London tenement, surrounded by loud Muggle neighbors and overflowing rubbish bins, with house-elf heads on the walls and a generally dark (and Dark) atmosphere (possibly not quite so bad when his parents were alive, but still unpleasant and depressing). His parents were eccentric, and if his mother's portrait is any indication, she, at least, was prematurely mad and old. (She died at sixty, and was probably slightly younger when the portrait was painted. That's not ancient even by Muggle standards, and certainly not by WW standards. McGonagall is "a sprightly seventy as of GoF.) Draco, in contrast, has younger parents, who whatever their views and loyalties, are at least sane. His mother is beautiful; his father is rich and influential. Until his father's arrest at the end of OoP shows the potential danger of being a Voldemort loyalist, his father seems to him a perfect role model--be like Father and you'll have gold and politicians sharing your pockets, and a trophy wife to boot. The wonder to me is not that Sirius wanted to get away from his family rather than emulate his father, but that Regulus didn't join him in his rebellion from age eleven onward. Carol, who can't believe she's still contributing to this thread > From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 6 17:46:26 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:46:26 -0000 Subject: Evil Marietta (was: Evil Hermione) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154987 "juli17ptf" wrote: > I'm not making light of it, just pointing > out the consequences Marietta could have foreseen. Marietta could not have known the exact consequences of her betrayal but she must or certainly should have known that aligning herself with a very evil woman and against a very good man would lead to something bad, in this case it was the death Serious Black. > Of course getting expelled is not a good thing. > But I also don't think it's *destroying* a life. When Harry was caught breaking not the law but just a school rule he was not threatened with expulsion but with a Unforgivable Curse, when Fred and George broke school rules they were threatened with chains and flogging with whips; and this threatening was done by someone why tried to murder a boy in a exceptionally horrible way. > the only one really likely to be expelled was Harry "It looks like Hogwarts will soon be a Weasley free environment." > She's telling an aknowledged authority > figure about an illegal club The Nazis were acknowledged authority figures and the Resistance in France was illegal. Far more evil has been caused by obeying authority figures than disobeying them. > it would have been *much* wiser of Hermione > to let everyone know what would happen to > them if they betrayed the DA before they > signed the document. So you think it's wise not to set a trap for a spy; you'd last about 2 minutes in the French Resistance. > Giving out that information would have > strongly discouraged anyone from such betrayal Marietta already knew too much, she could have just refused to sign and then gone straight to Umbridge and nobody would know who the traitor was. Besides the curse only covered telling someone what they were doing and there are other means of betrayal. "littleleahstill" wrote: > There was just one person in the organisation [..] who had experience and success in dealing with Voldemort, as Harry himself points out earlier in the book. It's true that Harry is the only one who faced Voldemort 4 times (or even once) and lived to tell the tale, but Ron Hermione Ginny Neville and Luna have all shown exceptional bravery; I would certainly rather have one of them watching my back than most adults, even most members of the Order of the Phoenix, Hagrid, Lupin, Mad Eye, and maybe Tonks are the only ones I really trust. Eggplant From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 6 17:51:43 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:51:43 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154988 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Of course they can! Marietta can rationalize her involvement in the group > and her agreement not to tell anyone with reason number one, until > they start learning how to fight dementors. > > Then her rationalization no longer works. Learning to fight dementors > is not part of the OWL exam by any stretch of the imagination. Nor, > from Marietta's point of view, can it be part of an anti-Voldemort > effort, since the dementors are supposed to be anti-Voldemort themselves. Gerry Could you give me the canon for that please? The Patronus charm is not part of the OWLS examination, but logically it is part of the NEWT. We don't have any evidence that all dementors are in the employement of the MoM. They are definitely dark creatures so I don't see any reason that this would be an issue for Marietta. Pippin > > At that point Marietta would have to choose between her own beliefs > and Cho's friendship. She tried, IMO, to get out of the choice by > going to Umbridge. Gerry I'm not sure what you mean by this. By going to Umbridge she made a choice, the choice to get her best friend into big trouble. > Pippin > That Marietta gave away where the meeting was to be held instead > of who was involved shows that she was conflicted, I think. > Umbridge wouldn't have been able to expel > anybody with that information alone. But she would have been able > to stop the meetings. Gerry Giving away where and when the meeting would be held is the same as giving away who was there. If Dobby had not come, Umbridge and co would have bursted in on everybody except Marietta, caught them all red handed and that would be it. No, I don't see any conflict there. Gerry From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jul 6 17:46:40 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:46:40 -0400 Subject: Evil Hermione In-Reply-To: <1152179834.1011.59450.m19@yahoogroups.com> References: <1152179834.1011.59450.m19@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C86F3B454602ED-1B6C-1C81@FWM-M28.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154989 > > Julie: > I'm not making light of it, just pointing out the consequences Marietta > could have foreseen. Of course getting expelled is not a good thing. > But I also don't think it's *destroying* a life. Surely any students > expelled could go to another school, or continue their education at > home. (And the only one really likely to be expelled was Harry). Gerry In several posts it is already pointed out that expulsion is nothing like that: "The severity of this breach of the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery has resulted in your expulsion from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. ministry representatives will be calling at your place of residence shortly to destroy your wand." OoP p. 30 Bloomsbury Hardcover edition >From Hagrid we know that destroying the wand of the expelled person is standard procedure. Somebody expelled from Hogwarts may not do magic, is doomed to live as a squib. Yes I'd call that destroying of a person's future. And Marietta knew this, because she knew decree 24. This decree counted for all the DA students, including her best friend. I'd call that very serieus and criminal behaviour indeed. Julie: That decree is about doing underage magic, so we don't know if every kind of expulsion results in your wand being broken. But if that is always the consequence, and Marietta knew it, then I agree that would make her act more serious. Not as serious as deliberately getting someone murdered--I still hold murder as a crime well above most others, including the emotional pain of having to live without doing magic (you are still alive after all, and living as a Muggle is far from the worst thing that can happen to a person, I think ;-). Still, like much of this debate, it's rather a moot point, because we don't know the exact rules ?nvolved in expulsion from school. Hagrid supposedly tried to kill other students after all, so his explusion could have required additional punitive measures not always required when a student is expelled. Additionally, I can't believe Marietta wanted Cho expelled, whatever the full meaning of that condition. It seems more likely she didn't expect it to really happen, or didn't think it out clearly (sort of like Sirius sending Snape into the Shrieking Shack). Again, I'm not disagreeing that Marietta's action was wrong, just that she had truly evil intent in telling on the DA (unlike Peter betraying James and Lily to certain death for instance). Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 18:22:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:22:42 -0000 Subject: Understanding Marietta (long) (Was: Evil Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154991 Carol earlier: > > > > Rather than telling them what they want to know, Harry confronts Zacharias with "I fought him!" and, in essence, if you don't believe Dumbledore (who told them only the condensed version of Cedric's murder), you don't believe me, followed by an angry, "If you've come here to find out exactly what it looks like when Voldemort kills someone I can't help you. I don't want to talk about Cedric Diggory, all right? So if that's what you're here for, you might as well clear out" (341). Yes, very convincing, Harry. Very helpful in assuring Zacharias, Marietta et al. that you're not an attention-seeking liar with an unstable, possibly violent streak. > > > > > Neri: > Er... what? Are you actually saying that Zacharias, Marietta et al. > *shouldn't* have trusted Dumbledore's word completely? Just because > he didn't supply them with a few clarifying details? > > Or, wait ,wait, are you saying that Zacharias, Marietta et al. > thought that Dumbledore was generally a good person, but that he was > duped to think that Voldemort was back just because he chose to > believe a suspicious story told him by a person appearing to be an > attention-seeking liar with an unstable, possibly violent streak? > > So are you actually claiming that the argument "Dumbledore believes > person X, therefore if you don't believe person X you don't believe > Dumbledore" is *not* a viable argument??? > > Carol, I'm shocked. > > > > Neri > Carol responds: What I'm saying is that they did have a right to know the details and Harry was behaving exactly like the person the Daily Prophet said he was, an unbalanced liar. As Zacharias says, "Dumbledore believes *him*" (Harry)--he isn't speaking from his own knowledge. And they've had several months worth of Daily Prophet articles to reinforce that impression. Zacharias wants to know what happened. If he's given credible details, he'll believe it. He also wants to learn what Harry can teach him once he learns that Harry has those skills (that he killed a Basilisk and helped thwart Quirrell would not prove to Zacharias, much less to Marietta, that Voldemort was back). Even Seamus, who knows Harry and isn't at the meeting, doesn't know what to think because of the way CAPSLOCK Harry reacts to him. Marietta, IMO, doesn't think she needs those skills because 1) she's not in her OWL year, 2) she doesn't believe that Voldemort is coming back, and 3) she thinks it's wrong to oppose the Ministry, which, in her view (AFAICT), is acting to protect the students. Neither Zacharias nor Marietta knows Dumbledore personally, and even Harry doesn't always believe what Dumbledore says. Neither Dumbledore, whose source of information is Harry, nor Harry himself (who is being angry and uncooperative as he often is in OoP, wholly unsympathetic to anyone else's point of view) has presented any supporting evidence that Voldemort is back. Hermione herself says earlier, "The thing is, Harry, I don't think they believed Dumbledore" (or something to that effect), referring to the end-of-year speech, and she presents the reasons why a large portion of the student body still believes the Daily Prophet's version of events, including their depictions of Dumbledore as a deluded old fool and Harry as an unstable attention seeker prone to collapsing and having hallucinations. Harry's words and behavior do nothing to convince them otherwise and everything to confirm their views. As Hermione says when Luna talks about Fudge having an army of heliopaths, "Excuse me, but what's the evidence for that?" And yet Zacharias et al. are supposed to believe without evidence that the Dark wizard who vanished and has been believed dead for fourteen years has returned, resurrected, restored to a body, and murdering people? If Harry had calmed down and explained to them exactly what happened in the graveyard, even Zacharias would have been impressed. Instead, he merely confirms the impression that he's unstable. Zacharias doesn't "snitch" because he wants to learn the spells, but he doesn't like or trust Harry. Marietta, IMO, sees him as dangerous and deluded, exactly as the Daily Prophet depicts him. Carol, who is trying to see from a perspective other than Harry's and is not at all surprised that Zacharias et al. didn't believe Dumbledore considering both the source of DD's information and the total absence of supporting evidence that he presents From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 18:17:02 2006 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Brutus Scrimgeour - man of mystery? Message-ID: <20060706181702.38439.qmail@web55102.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154992 Yes, I mean Brutus Scrimgeour. I was rereading Quidditch Through the Ages, and he is mentioned in the book, along with providing a review excerpt. I checked the old messages, and found this delightful reference (made in 2004, BTW) by Carolyn White: Message #94119 [snip an inspired Radio TBay] TT [Ted Tonks]: Oh...we have just received an urgent owl from someone called Agatha Chubb(18), who is some kind of Quidditch history expert.. she's very interested in what you can remember of Hamish MacFarlan, as all her efforts to uncover what happened at the ministry have been blocked. She wants to know if MacFarlan or your mother ever mentioned, or introduced you to someone called Scrimgeour? KMcC: Yeah, Brutus Scrimgeour often came to my mother's parties ? she really liked him, and actually she's named after one of his clan(19); well, you know what Scots are like ? blood thicker than water. He's the Editor of the Beater's Bible.(20) I think either he or his son works at the Ministry.(21) I remember an awful dinner where he went on and on about the first rule in his book `take out the seeker'.(22) He sounded as though he really had it in for anyone who played that position; sad really, why don't these people get a life? He and Ludo Bagman were pretty close. TT: Agatha seems to think that there is a secret international terror organisation linking high ranking government figures and top Quidditch players and officials across the world. Have you heard anything about that? KMcC: Only rumours, like everyone else, but I'm right out of my depth here.. this is exactly why I play in a band, not chase a snitch. [more snippage, followed by a truncated set of footnotes:] (18)QA, p.22. An expert in ancient Wizarding artefacts, especially bludgers. (19) Catriona Scrimgeour is one of the editors of the Scottish clan Scrimgeour website (www.scrimgeour-edin.freeserve.co.uk ). (20)QA, quotes on reverse of title page. (21)OOP, p.113. (22)QA, p.27 My questions are legion, but the ones I have time to posit while skirting work are: 1) The two Scrimgeours are likely to be related; are they brothers/cousins/ father/son? Is this another "Mark Evans?" (That's not as likely with a name like Scrimgeour, but then again, why waste an opportunity to use such a juicy name?) 2) Brutus was introduced to us before we knew about Rufus, but now that we've met both of them, what is the significance of "take out the seeker?" 3) I like Carolyn's international terrorist theory, and it fits nicely with some of the theorists who speculate about Scrimgeour as DE to the stars... I mean DE to the MoM. Are we going to learn anything more about Brutus? While he doesn't figure into the novel canon, he has been introduced in Quidditch, more than once. Hey, Fred and George are beaters; maybe they're all over our Buddy Brutus! Or not... Any and all ideas about this man of mystery are welcome! akh, who's about to journey to the wilds of Missouri, and so won't have access to the Internet for about ten days. Talk about timing! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 18:32:30 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:32:30 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154993 > > Well, it can't be both, can it? Either Marietta is very deeply > > concerned that the DA is a threat, or else she sees it as kids doing > > things behind an unpopular teacher's back. Neither scenario excuses > > her, but they are so far apart that they can't, IMO, be combined > > into one argument by those defending her possible intentions and > > motives (mind, I don't think anyone here is defending her treachery > > per se). > > > Pippin: > Of course they can! Marietta can rationalize her involvement in the group > and her agreement not to tell anyone with reason number one, until > they start learning how to fight dementors. Lanval: I'll give you this much: the two arguments can be combined in a linear fashion, first one, then the other. However, they cannot be used side by side. If one wants to defend Marietta's motive, A can change to B, but by the time the betrayal takes place, it has to be either one. .Pippin: > Then her rationalization no longer works. Learning to fight dementors > is not part of the OWL exam by any stretch of the imagination. Nor, > from Marietta's point of view, can it be part of an anti-Voldemort > effort, since the dementors are supposed to be anti-Voldemort themselves. > Lanval: Not part of the OWL exam? Only because it's too advanced. Professor Tofty has no problem asking Harry to produce a Patronus for extra points. Meaning it's part of DADA. The HP lexicon qualifies Dementors as Dark Creatures, along with Banshees, Boggarts, Grindylows, Kappas, Werewolves and Vampires. Please show me canon proof that dementors, and protection against them, has never been part of the study schedule. Read Lupin's little speech about the Dementors in PoA. "Dementors are among the foulest creatures that walk this earth". I know you think he lies whenever he opens his mouth :), but try and believe him for once. Marietta isn't deaf, blind or a complete moron. She would have to be all three to not be aware of what Dementors are, and do. Even Fudge, who's supposed to be in charge of them, isn't all that comfortable around them, is he? Marietta heard DD's welcome speech in PoA; she has been told that, if she's unlucky enough to come across a dementor, telling him she's a good girl, and that her mom works for Fudge, isn't going to do her any good. She likely saw what happened to Harry on the Quidditch field. She may have experienced the Dementor's presence on the train. How can anyone, knowing this, and having experienced this, NOT think it might be a good idea to at least know what to do, in case one comes face to face with a creature so notoriously unreliable? Loathing of Dementors seems to be the common sentiment in the WW. Many see them as necessary evils for guarding Azkaban; some may have approved of using them to catch Sirius Black. But for the most part, there seems to be fear, loathing, discomfort. Show me proof where it says that Marietta, or her parents, don't feel that way. Also, where in the book does it state that Harry is calling for an out-and-out battle against the Dementors? How exactly is a Dementor hurt by a Patronus? What aggressive action, as in *fighting them*, is involved here? All Harry does is teach the kids a spell to protect themselves, a spell that will perhaps save their lives. By your definition, a Patronus would be an illegal spell. Wanna bet Fudge knows how to produce one, and has worked long and hard on it? :) Pippin: > At that point Marietta would have to choose between her own beliefs > and Cho's friendship. She tried, IMO, to get out of the choice by > going to Umbridge. Lanval: How on earth is this getting out of the choice? She delivered her friend into Umbridge's hands by her actions! It would be quite a different scenario, had she somehow talked Cho, or tricked her, into staying away from the DA meeting the day she planned to tell Umbridge. >Pippin: > That was weak and cowardly, she should have stood up to Cho the way > Neville stood up to the Trio in PS/SS, but I don't see where Marietta > ever had that much courage. Lanval: I agree completely. > . > > > > Pippin: > You don't think Willie Widdershins could recognize Harry Potter? > There was no rule against forming a study group at the time. This > was gone over quite clearly in Dumbledore's office. Umbridge had > to wait until she had some evidence against Harry which she got, > mostly through Hermione's carelessness. Lanval: Yes, he recognized Potter, but not necessarily the others. If Umbridge wanted to get them all, she would have had to catch them in the act. Or perhaps she thought that, after her decree, the meetings had ceased. And how is it Hermione's fault? Last I checked, Marietta snitched. Are you saying Hermione wasn't ruthless enough with her hex? > > That Marietta gave away where the meeting was to be held instead > of who was involved shows that she was conflicted, I think. > Umbridge wouldn't have been able to expel > anybody with that information alone. But she would have been able > to stop the meetings. Lanval: Note that the hex didn't go into effect until she gives Umbridge more info. Perhaps simply mentioning the RoR was not enough to bring it out? But again, I don't see proof that Umbridge did anything besides questioning her a bit more, and Marietta willingly told. No proof for me there that she was conflicted. Besides, did it not occur to Marietta that Umbridge would go and find out immediatly what went on, or send her squad? Why else did she tell her at precisely the time of the meeting? She could have told Umbridge at any other time that strange meetings were taking place in the RoR. > From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 18:42:24 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:42:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: a lot of Names, interrupted with a lot of Traitors, Lily's Crush, McG/Hooch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607061142u5e3ffe39i4c072d7756b6b565@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154994 > Carol wrote: > > Thank you, BTW, for presenting your own views this time around rather > > than attacking mine--or worse, my character. I still don't agree with > > you, as I think JKR is, so to speak, grasping at dates rather than > > viewing history with a critical eye. (You're right that she seems > > unaware of persecutions other than the "medieval witch burnings" and > > the Salem Witch Trials.) You have not, however, presented a believable > > case for that particular date, which is almost as well known as 1066, > > 1216, 1492 and (to include an American one) 1776. > > > > Carol, who would appreciate not being called arrogant or having > > presumptions she never made attributed to her > > > > I'm sorry, it was not meant to insult you or attack your character. > But I simply don't agree that that particular date is well known and I > would like some solid evidence that it is, especially in the UK. > > Matthew Hopkins is a very well known historical figure so I do think > it rather odd you would think she would not be familiar with him while > she would be so familiar with what happened in Salem, that she would > know more than that there were witches there, but even would know the > date when these things happened. That is very illogical. > > There may very well be a good reason for that date, but the one you > mention? Sorry, I don't buy that. > > Gerry > Kemper jumping into the row: What if you are both right? I don't doubt that JKR knows about the Witchfinder General. I also don't doubt that she knows of William Stoughton (sp?). Even though the Salem witch trials had no RW historical relevance (and, really, what witch trial ever was?), it is famous. But in the WW, it may have seemed relevant because just a few years earlier, the Witchfinder General (the son of a Puritan) was hanging Muggle woman, having accused them of chit-chatting with devil (apparently there were no interesting men to talk to in that part of England). When the WW saw that another Puritan, witch hating community, sprang up in the English Colony of Massachusetts, the MoM (or whatever the historical equivalent was then) thought it might be a good idea to pass and implement the Statute of Secrecy passed in 1692. Much like the US quickly passed the ironically named USA PATRIOT Act in 2001. Kemper, drinking some of Pippin's iced-tea, though with a little something extra to make it a Long Island [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 18:59:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:59:22 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154995 Pippin wrote: > > Learning to fight dementors is not part of the OWL exam by any stretch of the imagination. Nor, from Marietta's point of view, can it be part of an anti-Voldemort effort, since the dementors are supposed to be anti-Voldemort themselves. Lanval responded: > > Not part of the OWL exam? Only because it's too advanced. Professor > Tofty has no problem asking Harry to produce a Patronus for extra > points. Meaning it's part of DADA. > > The HP lexicon qualifies Dementors as Dark Creatures, along with > Banshees, Boggarts, Grindylows, Kappas, Werewolves and Vampires. > Please show me canon proof that dementors, and protection against > them, has never been part of the study schedule. Carol responds: I'm not Pippin and I really want to get untangled from this thread, but even if learning to cast a Patronus is part of NEWT DADA, the students would not learn how to cast one against a real Dementor. Dumbledore is adamantly opposed to bringing Dementors into the school (see PoA) even when they're ostensibly on the Ministry's side. It's just too dangerous. And knowing how to cast a Patronus against a classmate is not at all the same as casting one against a Dementor, who's trying to suck out the very happiness required to cast a Patronus in the first place. Snape tells *his* NEWT DADA class about an alternative method of fighting Dementors that could very well work for anyone who isn't Harry. Too bad we're not told what it is. Carol, agreeing with Pippin on this one From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jul 6 19:18:28 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:18:28 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154996 > Allie: I can see her apologizing to Hermione and Hermione telling her "waspishly" that the one she should apologize to is Harry. Magpie: Not really an apology, since Hermione has forced her into it through hexing her until she says the words. Sounds very anti-Dumbledore to me. If Marietta's just refusing to apologize she pretty tough about her convictions. > Julie > I also don't understand at all how it could be criminal. She's telling > an aknowledged authority figure about an illegal club at the school. > Can you explain what you mean by criminal? Gerry Destroying people's future. Magpie: Err...that's not criminal. I'm not denying the seriousness of it, but turning someone in for doing something against the rules, no matter how bad the rules are, can't really be criminal can it? Turning someone in for drug use could destroy his/her future, but it's not against the law. The DA is doing something it knows is against the rules and might lead to expulsion if they're caught. I hesitate in saying it because I fear it will be turned into my saying that the DA deserved to be caught, but Marietta didn't lie about what they were doing. It was their own activities that were the grounds for expulsion if any, even if their activities were good and Umbridge wrong for wanting to expel them. (Hogwarts kids have risked expulsion for less. Ironically, the two pre-NEWT students who leave school that year are the most successful we've seen. As Julie pointed out, Hagrid was supposed to have killed somebody.) It just seems like Marietta isn't the only one who thinks she can have it both ways with the group. > Magpie: > No, it means you're not talking about the book if you're talking > about what might have happened even though it's not brought up on > the page. There's lots of "what ifs" we can imagine in the books, > but they're not canon as potential consequences. Renee: That works two ways. If I can't say they happen, you can't say that they won't. (sorry for the very short post) Magpie: No, it doesn't work both ways. It does not work either way (which is why I never said anything "won't" happen). It's not like any nightmare "what if" scenario one can imagine must be proved impossible or else it's relevent. Lanval: You think there's more to come, then? That we're not done with Marietta, and may find out more about her situation? Interesting thought! See, I thought that the concept of betrayal is a huge one in the book, and it seems to be important in a personal sense to the author. Marietta as a character was not of exceptional importance; the concept of betrayal was. Magpie: In a way, that's probably why I think it will be come up again, because as a betrayal, it's pretty lame. It has bad consequences, but there's no personal betrayal because nobody knows Marietta. The only person Marietta is personally connected to is angrier at Hermione than Marietta. Hermione gave out trust very freely with the group. Leaving aside the hex, it's interesting we haven't heard much about what Hermione learned. Her hex was brutal, but very ineffective for the group, and she did very little in the way of screening or getting an honest, informed consent about her group beforehand. Especially in Book V she can get carried away with the way she thinks people should think instead of how they actually do. Lanval: Well, it can't be both, can it? Either Marietta is very deeply concerned that the DA is a threat, or else she sees it as kids doing things behind an unpopular teacher's back. Magpie: I didn't get the impression she thought they were a literal threat like she was scared of some impending doom or anything. Marietta seemed to dislike the DA more and more as it went on. I remembering also getting the impression that she was getting personally more angry--spite might have played a part. I do think one of the differences we're supposed to see is that Marietta is just a teenager as opposed to the teenagers who understand the bigger picture. Even as a normal teenager she can think going against the Ministry is wrong. She wouldn't have to think it through that much. If we had seen the angle of Marietta being angry at Cho we still might have found Marietta more sympathetic. Look at how sympathetic people can be to Snape, for instance, when he's acting out against Harry or Neville! Lanval: See, I doubt that. It's possible, but I think of Marietta as neither bright enough to see the Big Picture, nor all that morally conflicted. Magpie: Sorry, I see I was speaking about "doing the same thing" a different way. I was assuming we were talking about the same sequence of events just with a more sympathetic portrayal. You could be right that if this character had more depth she wouldn't have made the decision she did. I do think a deeper Marietta could have still turned them in--she just might have been more committed like Percy is, telling everyone that she was right. There's a couple of ways to go with the few facts we're given, but I think if JKR thought getting in good with Umbridge was part of it we'd see it. Steve: Marietta's not scarred for life, she is not disfigured, she is not crippled; she simply has a few zits. Let's not let this get out of perspective. Magpie: She's been disfigured then. Her appearance has been marred. She's got at least cystic acne, which is very different from a few zits (it's also scarring). Or any zits, actually. There's a reason Eloise Midgen would try something as risky as hexing pimples off. Carol: Draco, in contrast, has younger parents, who whatever their views and loyalties, are at least sane. His mother is beautiful; his father is rich and influential. Until his father's arrest at the end of OoP shows the potential danger of being a Voldemort loyalist, his father seems to him a perfect role model--be like Father and you'll have gold and politicians sharing your pockets, and a trophy wife to boot. Magpie: Not to mention Draco has a different personality and apparently a completely different personal relationship with his family that might go beyond sharing their views. He doesn't have a "good" brother either. Now, before anyone thinks I'm not giving Sirius credit, yes, he still made the choice that he did. I don't think the fact that Draco isn't a natural rebel (that's the central idea behind Sirius' whole character it seems) means that he couldn't see the truth and make the right choice, nor do I think that Sirius would have rebelled against his family no matter what their views. But you can't completely divorce characters from their character either. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 6 20:04:45 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 20:04:45 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 154997 > > Pippin: > > Of course they can! Marietta can rationalize her involvement in the > group and her agreement not to tell anyone with reason number one, until they start learning how to fight dementors. > > > > Then her rationalization no longer works. Learning to fight dementors > > is not part of the OWL exam by any stretch of the imagination. Nor, > > from Marietta's point of view, can it be part of an anti-Voldemort > > effort, since the dementors are supposed to be anti-Voldemort > themselves. > > Gerry > Could you give me the canon for that please? The Patronus charm is not > part of the OWLS examination, but logically it is part of the NEWT. We > don't have any evidence that all dementors are in the employment of > the MoM. They are definitely dark creatures so I don't see any reason > that this would be an issue for Marietta. Pippin: "The spell I am going to try and teach you is highly advanced magic, Harry --well beyond Ordinary Wizarding Level. It is called the Patronus Charm." --PoA ch 12. "Half of us only feel safe in our beds at night because we know the dementors are standing guard at Azkaban!" -- GoF ch 36 "The dementors remain in place in Azkaban and are doing everything we ask them to do." -- OOP ch 8 Somewhere in HBP, it's mentioned that Harry disagrees with Snape's method of fighting dementors, so apparently the Patronus isn't part of the usual NEWT curriculum either. The Ministry's line is that there are no rogue dementors and no pro-Voldemort dementors, and that the dementors, however dark they are, are doing the ministry's bidding. Logically, if Marietta believes that, she can only see fighting dementors as an anti-Ministry measure. > Pippin > > > > At that point Marietta would have to choose between her own beliefs > > and Cho's friendship. She tried, IMO, to get out of the choice by > > going to Umbridge. > > Gerry > I'm not sure what you mean by this. By going to Umbridge she made a > choice, the choice to get her best friend into big trouble. Pippin: That's the way it turned out, but only because Umbridge already had information about the purpose of the group and who was in it. I doubt that Umbridge called out the Minister of Magic and two Aurors to witness her busting Fawcett, Chang and Boot, to pick some names at random, for an illegal gobstones club. She knew who she was going to find, and what they were up to. All Umbridge could have done, on the basis of what Marietta told her, was to stake out the RoR. She would have had no evidence of what was being done inside, or, prior to the students' leaving, who was doing it. Even if she caught them coming out, there would have been no evidence that it was a "regular meeting." Charges must be fully proven, says Dumbledore at the hearing, before a student can be expelled. Without Hermione's carelessness, even Harry would have got off. In the French resistance, failing to destroy that parchment when she knew the group had been compromised would have got Hermione shot. :) It was possible for Marietta to hope that, knowing their meeting place had been compromised, the DA would be disbanded, Cho would come to no harm, and Marietta would escape from having to choose between her best friend and her family. > Gerry > Giving away where and when the meeting would be held is the same as > giving away who was there. If Dobby had not come, Umbridge and co > would have bursted in on everybody except Marietta, caught them all > red handed and that would be it. No, I don't see any conflict there. > Pippin: It's not so easy to burst into the RoR, as we learned in HBP. It was a bit simpleminded of Harry not to post a lookout, but Umbridge couldn't have known that he wouldn't, so she'd have planned to ambush them coming out in any case. They *were* caught red-handed leaving. Draco was already in place to ambush Harry -- he must have been there all along and let the others go past. Dobby's warning came too late. AFAWK, Marietta did not initially intend to volunteer the information that there was a meeting. It was delivered under further questioning, which probably explains what happened to the rest of Snape's fake veritaserum. (It also helps to establish that it *was* fake, or Marietta would have told Umbridge everything.) Pippin From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 17:26:58 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 10:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: THE DARKENING...was:ESE! JKR? Is it war? In-Reply-To: <3202590607052151t203a7a50g244709784cf92061@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060706172658.89721.qmail@web52714.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 154998 Sandy: > > I actually expected to see LV defeated in book 6, or at least wishfully hoped > for it. I really did think LV would be gone at the end of book 6 and then we > would see a normal -- post LV -- year 7 at Hogwarts in book 7. I was both > pissed off and disappointed that it didn't happen that way. Sarah: I really enjoy the darkening. GoF used to be my favorite book because a guy chopped off his own hand to use as a potion ingredient, but now it's HBP since Snape killed Dumbledore. I hope book 7 has lots of blood, fire and explosions. And zombies, definitely more zombies. :) Katie(anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com) writes: HBP is definately my favorite, too, because of how complex and wicked it became. I used to think PoA was my favorite, and it still ranks second...but these last two books have been soooo dark and frightening. ILOVE IT! I love how the story grows, deepens, and grows more frightening as the kids grow up. That's how life is...and I always see JK's story as an allegory for the growing up process, which can be really treacherous. The darkening is what makes this series have resonance and meaning, and worth. If it never got really bad and scary, what's the point of the first four books? I know a lot of people feel that OotP and HBP were weak or rambling...I think they were perfect. They captured perfectly how it is to be 15, 16 years old...not to mention being Harry at 15, 16 years old. Life is complex and dark, scary and exhilarating. And that's how the last two books are to me. I love them, and I hope 7 is darker, freakier, and wicked to the core. ('Course, I also hope Harry, Hermione, and Ron are all still standing at the end...I really, really hope that...can you hear me, J.K.??) Katie From penhaligon at gmail.com Thu Jul 6 21:59:58 2006 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:59:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006401c6a147$87aa6940$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> No: HPFGUIDX 154999 > bboyminn: > > We can make fair speculations on who, what, when, where, and > why things are happening, but let's not get carried away. Oh, I think that horse left the barn about a week or so ago. Panhandle From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Jul 6 22:04:25 2006 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 14:04:25 -0800 Subject: Dumbledore's Age In-Reply-To: <006401c6a147$87aa6940$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> References: <006401c6a147$87aa6940$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155000 In the very first book, on Dumbledore's chocolate frog card, it says: Professor Dumbledore is particularly famous for ... ...for the discovery of the twelve uses of dragon's blood and his work on alchemy with his partner, Nicolas Flamel. Dumbledore is usually considered to be around 180 years old during these stories. But if Nicolas Flamel is 600 some years, he must have discovered the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone when he was around 150 years old - or else he would have already been dead by the time Dumbledore was born. So, Flamel couldn't have been working with Dumbledore on the Stone. We have two choices: either Dumbledore is as old as Flamel or they worked on something else together. If DD and Flamel worked on something different, what might it have been? It must have been something important, as Flamel had most likely been retired by the time DD was born, let alone by the time he would have been old enough to be a worthy partner. It couldn't have been dragon's blood, or that would have been written up a bit differently on the card. It must have had something to do with alchemy. Anybody know more about alchemy's goals other than changing base metals to gold? The thing that makes it unlikely that DD is as old as Flamel is that, when we see the younger DD in the pensieve, he has auburn hair. If he were as old as Flamel, he would have already had white or gray hair by then and wouldn't have looked noticeably younger. Sorry if this has been resolved already. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Jul 6 22:10:13 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:10:13 EDT Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:=20[HPforGrownups]=20Re:=20FILK:=20I=E2=80=99m=20Pr?= =?UTF-8?Q?oud=20to=20Be=20a=20Werewolf?= Message-ID: <552.1daaf93.31dee445@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155001 In a message dated 7/5/06 1:18:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: > Carol, picturing Umbridge turning into a short, fat werewolf with a > little black bow in its fur and not sure whether I should laugh or > flee in terror > > Sandy: Well, it made me laugh -- out loud. But don't you think, with all that meat on her bones, she would make a better meal? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mros at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 6 17:48:40 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 19:48:40 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and Marietta References: Message-ID: <000701c6a124$6acd4590$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155002 I posted this as a reply on SisterMagpie's LJ, but I'll post it here as well. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you" (Friedrich Nietzsche) This is where my objection to the whole Marietta thing comes from. I don't care if Marietta *deserved* to be punished. I don't care what the consequenses would be or if she was aware of them. I care about the fact that civilized people should not act as uncivilized people. If you are civilized, you do not torture, rape or disfigure people. If you want to be a Hero, on the side of Light, One of the Good Guys, you do not hex *anybody* with a permanent disfiguring hex for *any* reason. Civilized society might make rules and laws to protect society, and anyone within that society who would break those laws might be punished, but that is where the law comes in, and justice. If you go and lynch somebody because they've made you upset or broke an unwritten rule of conduct you are no longer entitled to the epithet 'civilised person'. I saw a documentary not long ago about awful things which happen in (American) prisons (not that these things are *only* happening in American prisons; it was an American documentary). I saw (security camera tape) prison guards strap an inmate in a chair and beating him around the head with batons. I saw inmates that didn't move quickly enough to the taste of the guards being cattle-prodded down and kicked by three or four guards. I saw pictures of inmates who were so sprayed with pepperspray that up to a third of their bodies were covered with second and third degree burns. Did these inmates *deserve* to be beaten, sprayed, kicked and cattle-prodded? We're talking about thieves, rapists and murderers here. But that is not really the question. The question should be, what separates the inmates from the guards if the guards are allowed to behave as beastly, as cruelly, as immoral as the inmates? What separates civilized justice from barbaric revenge or even sadistic pleasure from domination? What separates the Side of the Light from the Forces of Dark if the posterchildren of the Light are allowed to dole out disfigurement with impunity? Marion PS Betsy, JustCarol and SisterMagpie, when I read your posts my heart lifted from depression: there is hope for humanity yet :-) Wish I could be as eloquent and as dead-on *right* as you three. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Jul 6 23:58:35 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 19:58:35 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Liking J.K., not liking J.K. "weight issue" Message-ID: <559.1c7984c.31defdab@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155003 > Cacaia: > Wow...I don't quite understand why the recent threads attacking > Rowling personally. Sandy: I am not aware of anyone attacking Rowling personally. I made the statement that I don't like her, which is NOT an attack, it is merely stating my personal opinion of her. Although I have flat-out refused to state my reasons for my feelings it has instigated a flaming anyway. She is a public personna, not everyone is going to like her, nor does everyone have to like her. The fact that she has created Harry Potter does not mean she walks on water. Not every word that comes out of her mouth is a profound revelation. I admire her work - or at least most of it -- I just don't necessarily admire her. This is not a personal attack, it is a personal preference. And one that I am totally entitled to have and to say I have without being berated for. I don't do that to her legions of worshippers. I don't even remember how the subject came up but I should have known better than to say I don't like her. It's not like I haven't been through this before. I am one of the biggest HP fanatics there is but because I don't personally like JKR I should be burned at the stake. Geeze. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 7 00:01:01 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:01:01 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155004 > Read Lupin's little speech about the Dementors in PoA. "Dementors are > among the foulest creatures that walk this earth". I know you think > he lies whenever he opens his mouth :), but try and believe him for > once. > > Marietta isn't deaf, blind or a complete moron. She would > have to be all three to not be aware of what Dementors are, and do. Pippin: Then I guess Molly Weasley is a complete moron also. Arthur: We had to ask [Dumbledore] if he minds the Azkaban guards stationing themselves around the entrances to the school grounds. He wasn't happy about it, but he agreed. Molly:Not happy? Why shouldn't he be happy if they're there to catch Black? BTW, I don't think Lupin lies whenever he opens his mouth. Au contraire, I think he tells the truth whenever he opens his mouth. He was, IMO, telling the truth when he said that Snape was right to say he couldn't be trusted, that he had betrayed Dumbledore, that he forgave Sirius "not at all", that he has been able to forget his guilty feelings, and that those who had been denied their rights and freedoms for centuries would be tempted by Voldemort's offers regardless of what they knew about him. Oh, and he's not good enough for Tonks. Lupin doesn't need to lie. His fans lie for him. They say that the animagi business was all his friends' idea, that he had nothing to do with the prank, it was just that Snape *hates* him, that he had nothing to do with the spy, it was just that he's a werewolf, that he thought Sirius was innocent and that's why he didn't tell Dumbledore that Sirius was an animagus, that he innocently forgot to take his potion, forgot that he would transform, and and was so distraught he couldn't remember even after he was reminded, and that he tried to kill Peter only because he was overcome with rage. It's all plausible enough if you don't look too deeply, I suppose. But not a word of it is in the books. Pippin From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 00:25:36 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:25:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and Marietta References: <000701c6a124$6acd4590$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <009701c6a15b$de625540$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 155005 "Marion Ros" said: >"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a >monster. And if you gaze for long into >an abyss, the abyss gazes also into >you" (Friedrich Nietzsche) > > This is where my objection to the whole Marietta thing comes from. I don't > care if Marietta *deserved* to be punished. I don't care what the > consequenses would be or if she was aware of them. I care about the fact > that civilized people should not act as uncivilized people. If you are > civilized, you do not torture, rape or disfigure people. If you want to be > a Hero, on the side of Light, One of the Good Guys, you do not hex > *anybody* with a permanent disfiguring hex for *any* reason. Civilized > society might make rules and laws to protect society, and anyone within > that society who would break those laws might be punished, but that is > where the law comes in, and justice. If you go and lynch somebody because > they've made you upset or broke an unwritten rule of conduct you are no > longer entitled to the epithet 'civilised person'. > > The question should be, what separates the inmates from the guards if the > guards are allowed to behave as beastly, as cruelly, as immoral as the > inmates? > What separates civilized justice from barbaric revenge or even sadistic > pleasure from domination? > What separates the Side of the Light from the Forces of Dark if the > posterchildren of the Light are allowed to dole out disfigurement with > impunity? > Rebecca: WRT to your sig line - actually Marion, you were just as eloquent as they are. While I can accept, understand, and respect your point of view, I'm not sure I'd use this particular Nietzsche quote to make my point not because it wasn't good, but because Nietzsche believed in master/slave morality, and that quote can go either way, on either side on the good vs bad equasion. He was focused on the individual, and his social theories almost mirror those defined as Social Darwinism. He didn't believe in causes, sympathy or pity - and maintained a strong dislike for the state (society.) Personally, I don't feel that Hermoine "looked into the abyss", I just think like all teenagers, even James Potter and his ego at 15 (which is canon), Hermione's actions reflect some flawed judgement. A better quote, in my mind, might have been from the same piece the quote above was taken, Beyond Good and Evil: "The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'; it knows itself to be that which first accords honor to things; it is value-creating." Noble man, to Nietzche, is on the "good" side of his master morality theory. IMO, that's what I would equate with what everyone who has a problem with what Hermoine did is really saying and it follows what his philosophical theories were at the time. But again, that's just the way I see it. Also, Nietzsche's most famous quote, "what does not destroy me, makes me stronger" (which is better known as "what does not kill me, makes me stronger") could have been applied to your post WRT Marietta herself. Overcoming what Hermione did, for good or for bad, might be a plot point in the next book if she isn't the red herring that some think she is. Please, please...I have looked all over, but I have been unable to find where I'd interpret that it's canon that Hermoine's hex on Marietta is permanent. Does anyone have current canon to share that will help? And you folks have my permission to iron my hands if it proves to be so in canon or Book 7.... Regards, Rebecca From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 00:38:17 2006 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:38:17 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155006 Pippin: Hermione had two purposes in hexing the parchment. One was to discover the informant. That was laudable. The other was to make them sorry. That was an evil purpose, an abuse of power, IMO. CV: I have a problem with both of those purposes. What good is it to find out who was the informant? Why wouldn't she put some kind of hex that would identify who was ABOUT to inform so they could be stopped? Or, to announce the hex which would then serve as a deterrent the the snitching? To me, detection and punishment are both off the mark for their purposes. ~ Constance Vigilance, looking forward to the return of Quirrell in Book 7. From kellymolinari at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 00:07:11 2006 From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:07:11 -0000 Subject: Look of triumph in Dumbledore's eye In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B07@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155007 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, James Sharman wrote: >large snip< > But Harry must return to > the Dursleys every year for the protection to continue working. Unless I'm > mistaken Voldemort does not live at the Dursleys and so his derived form of > the projection would have expired shortly afterwards. I believe the gleam of > triumph was Dumbledors realization that the dark lord believing himself > protected is now more vulnerable. Information is power. Voldemort would > never have allowed Harry near him before the ritual, but now believes he is > safe. Kelly responds: It might be just as simple as that. Dumbledore knew how Voldemort underestimates the ancient magic he so despises. What better way for Voldemort to become undone, once again, than by his own bad judgement. Kelly, who really loves it when things backfire on the villian. From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 22:24:00 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 22:24:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155008 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > Dumbledore is usually considered to be around 180 > years old during these stories. bridge13219: I think it's on JKR's website that Dumbledore is 150 years old. Either that or I found it on the HPLexicon where they had it from an interview of hers. From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 01:31:49 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 01:31:49 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155009 > > Pippin: > Then I guess Molly Weasley is a complete moron also. > > Arthur: We had to ask [Dumbledore] if he minds the Azkaban > guards stationing themselves around the entrances to the > school grounds. He wasn't happy about it, but he agreed. > > Molly:Not happy? Why shouldn't he be happy if they're there > to catch Black? > Lanval: Unlike Marietta in OotP, Molly Weasley at the time of PoA has neither met with Dementors, nor seen them in action. > BTW, I don't think Lupin lies whenever he opens his mouth. > Au contraire, I think he tells the truth whenever he opens his > mouth. He was, IMO, telling the truth when he said that Snape > was right to say he couldn't be trusted, that he had betrayed > Dumbledore, that he forgave Sirius "not at all", that he has > been able to forget his guilty feelings, and that those > who had been denied their rights and freedoms for centuries > would be tempted by Voldemort's offers regardless of what > they knew about him. Oh, and he's not good enough for Tonks. > > Lupin doesn't need to lie. His fans lie for him. They say that > the animagi business was all his friends' idea, that he had nothing > to do with the prank, it was just that Snape *hates* him, that he > had nothing to do with the spy, it was just that he's a werewolf, > that he thought Sirius was innocent and that's why he didn't tell > Dumbledore that Sirius was an animagus, that he innocently > forgot to take his potion, forgot that he would transform, and > and was so distraught he couldn't remember even after he was > reminded, and that he tried to kill Peter only because > he was overcome with rage. It's all plausible enough if you don't > look too deeply, I suppose. But not a word of it is in the books. > Wow. Just wow. Lanval *wanders off to print herself a 'Liar' t-shirt* From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 01:59:35 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 01:59:35 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155010 Heeee, it seems like we did not talk about Harry horcrux recently :) I in the past found myself quite open to Harry horcrux idea, or at least that Harry will **believe** that he is a Horcrux and ready to sacrifice himself, when it would not be needed. But I just saw a cool essay on Lexicon which argues that Harry is not and some of the arguments ( especially about possession), I really liked. Of course somebody who is smarter than me already pocked some holes in it, so please feel free. :) ttp://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-harry-and-the-horcruxes.html Alla From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 7 02:23:02 2006 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (Emily) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 02:23:02 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155011 > > Carol responds: snip IMO, neither > > Hermione nor Marietta thought ahead. Neither realized the potential > > consequences of her actions. snip. > > > > Carol, who hopes that some of the posters on this list would feel > more > > compassion for a real-life teenager who makes a big mistake than > they > > apparently do for the imaginary teenagers in the HP books. Let him > who > > is without sin cast the first stone. > > > Lanval: > Certainly, but then we should show just as much understanding for > another teenager, who is at times self-righteous, too smart for her > own good, and annoyingly arrogant, but has hardly shown evidence of > being the budding monster some see in her, a cold-hearted, malicious > Future Umbridge who'll walk over dead bodies to get her way. imamommy: I submit this quote from canon: Sirius:"Look...A lot of people are idiots at the age of fifteen." And he's very right. Was Marietta or Hermione correct in their actions? That depends on your point of view, as we've seen. But if their were flaws in either of their conduct, let's remember that they are 15-year-olds. I think a lot has been said in defense of both of these ladies, and a lot has been said to attack each of them. Both sides have made ample points, but please let's not judge either of them too harshly. imamommy From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jul 7 02:20:42 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 22:20:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and Marietta References: <000701c6a124$6acd4590$63fe54d5@Marion> <009701c6a15b$de625540$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <005601c6a16b$f314b130$716c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155012 Rebecca: > Please, please...I have looked all over, but I have been unable to find > where I'd interpret that it's canon that Hermoine's hex on Marietta is > permanent. Does anyone have current canon to share that will help? And > you folks have my permission to iron my hands if it proves to be so in > canon or Book 7.... Magpie: It is never stated anywhere that it is permenant. But I can see why people to talk about it in those terms. It's the longest-acting hex we've ever seen in canon from what I can remember (except the botched memory charm of Lockharts, and his memory spells are presumably permanent). As I said elsewhere, I assumed it would just be dropped in HBP and we'd all assume it went away. But once it turns out that didn't happen it seems the default becomes that it's still there unless we hear otherwise. Permenant? Who knows. But it's quite the Energizer bunny hex. -m From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 7 02:58:49 2006 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (Emily) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 02:58:49 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155013 Alla: > Heeee, it seems like we did not talk about Harry horcrux recently :) snip imamommy: Thanks for bringing it up! I've been trying to wrestle with this one lately. I still bank on Harry being a horcrux; I read the essay you referenced, and I'm not convinced Ms. Bostelmann is interpreting the info correctly. I also found this on Mugglenet: http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt44.shtml It contributes some other ideas to the discussion, including the thought of an accidental horcrux. It seems to me that forming a horcrux would need to be pretty intentional; it's highly advanced dark magic. I still hold the H!H theory because of the mind link. Also (about to beat dead thestral) I still think Harry may survive a dementors kiss by somehow releasing that piece of Voldemort's soul instead of his own. What I've really been struggling with is why LV would want a human horcrux, and why he would try to kill Harry if he made him one. Could he have perhaps hoped to somehow have an Inferius!Horcrux!Baby Harry? (EWWWWWW!) LV was definitely pushing the limits, but what exactly did he hope to accomplish? imamommy who needs to go back and poke through the archives From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 02:39:00 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 02:39:00 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155014 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Sandra: > > > This just strengthens my feelings that JKR might have > > been better off by making the two worlds in parallel > > dimensions, rather than a bit of each here and there. > > houyhnhnm: > > But then the Harry Potter saga would not be such an excellent > koan for exploring the boundary between fantasy and reality. > Tonks: Ah, but which is reality and which is fantasy? I think the WW is real and the Muggle world is the illusion. The WW is the ground of reality. Tonks_op From enlil65 at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 05:56:27 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 00:56:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Look of triumph in Dumbledore's eye In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360607062256x505925e7k359a6a0589d472a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155015 On 7/4/06, felix_quinn wrote: felix_quinn: > Is there any popular theory regarding the look of triumph in > Dumbledore's eyes at the end of GOF? > I know most readers > have noticed it, at the very least, and sometimes it is brought up > for discussion, but isn't it possible that it might be absurdly > important to the story, and we're overlooking a huge clue? I know > that personally, when I read GOF for the first time, this bit was one > that struck me, and bothered me for a long time after. I was > terrified that somehow this meant that Dumbledore might be batting > for the other team, so to speak, but luckily common sense prevailed, > and with more revelations in OoTP, it's quite clear this wasn't even > an option. So then, what does it mean? Peggy W: I have an interpretation that is boring but reasonable (so probably not popular :) ... I think that when Dumbledore found out that Voldemort had used Harry's blood in recreating his body--expecting this to allow him to touch Harry--and (more importantly) that it had succeeded, it was a sign to him of two important things: -- That the experiment succeeded means that Voldemort correctly understood what happened between himself and Harry at Godric's Hollow. -- It confirmed Dumbledore's own ideas of what happened. I think that the "happening" that it confirmed is that the failed curse that never completed got "caught" between Harry and Voldemort. This failed curse is energy that connects the two of them, making them into a kind of two-point network. When they touch, the circuit is completed and this energy flows from Harry to Voldemort, destroying Voldemort's body (as it originally did a Godric's Hollow, and as it did when Harry touched Quirrellmort in PS/SS). This energy is still there; it is still active. Voldemort was able to stop it from destroying his body at Harry's touch by incorporating Harry's own blood into his body (perhaps his body is now "recognized" as being related to Harry's). However, the energy itself remains, and they are still connected. Will there be a way to make it flow again, after Voldemort is again mortal? If so, the rebounded curse may eventually complete its job. Also, that Voldemort could touch Harry could mean that the prophecy is closer to being fulfilled. The prophecy says "one must die at the hand of the other" and if that is read literally, then Harry and Voldemort must engage one another physically. (We already know they can't engage one another with their current wands due to the Priori Incantatem effect.) If Voldemort can't touch Harry, as was the case pre-GOF, then he would both avoid and immediately flee Harry's touch. Now that he can touch Harry, he and Harry can have prolonged physical contact, thus making possible one dying "at the hand" of the other--however that is accomplished. So to me, Dumbledore's triumphant gleam was about having his theories confirmed, and realizing the way to a final confrontation is clear. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 7 06:05:52 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 06:05:52 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155016 > Lanval: > Unlike Marietta in OotP, Molly Weasley at the time of PoA has neither > met with Dementors, nor seen them in action. Pippin: Hundreds of dementors invaded the Quidditch pitch, but only Harry passed out and fell off his broom. Marietta probably went past the dementors to get to Hogsmeade without any particular problem. Certainly she never saw anyone attacked by them or saw them try to perform the kiss on an innocent person. She may not even know what it is. Considering the uneven quality of DADA instruction over the last few years, she may not even have passed her OWL. Pippin who apologizes profusely and did not mean to imply that fan speculations which excuse Lupin are in any way *intentionally* false. :irons hands and slams ears in oven door also:: From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 7 06:29:50 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 06:29:50 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155017 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Alla: > But I just saw a cool essay on Lexicon which argues that Harry is > not and some of the arguments ( especially about possession), I > really liked. > > Of course somebody who is smarter than me already pocked some holes > in it, so please feel free. :) > > > ttp://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-harry-and-the-horcruxes.html > Geoff: Just on a point of information; if you follow the above link, you will need to change ttp:// to http:// - the "h" got lost in translation. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 7 06:48:33 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 06:48:33 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155018 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Emily" wrote: > > Alla: > > Heeee, it seems like we did not talk about Harry horcrux recently :) > snip > > imamommy: > Thanks for bringing it up! I've been trying to wrestle with this one > lately. I still bank on Harry being a horcrux; I read the essay you > referenced, and I'm not convinced Ms. Bostelmann is interpreting the > info correctly. I also found this on Mugglenet: > http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt44.shtml > > It contributes some other ideas to the discussion, including the > thought of an accidental horcrux. It seems to me that forming a > horcrux would need to be pretty intentional; it's highly advanced dark > magic. > > I still hold the H!H theory because of the mind link. Also (about to > beat dead thestral) I still think Harry may survive a dementors kiss > by somehow releasing that piece of Voldemort's soul instead of his own. > > What I've really been struggling with is why LV would want a human > horcrux, and why he would try to kill Harry if he made him one. Could > he have perhaps hoped to somehow have an Inferius!Horcrux!Baby Harry? > (EWWWWWW!) LV was definitely pushing the limits, but what exactly did > he hope to accomplish? Geoff: I am tempted to emerge cautiously from my trench under my tin hat to re-enter the discussion on whether Harry is a Horcrux or not, coming down on the side of the argument that he is not. I have said in the past that I believe that, to create a Horcrux, the victim and the spell caster need to be close together. That is just my theory; I can't recall any canon to support it but I am using it as a launch pad. We are told that a Horcrux is created, "by an act of evil ? the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: he would encase the torn portion-" [1] Now, considering Harry as a possible Horcrux, it has been suggested that it could have happened at Godric's Hollow. Passing beyond this for a moment. I think on the other occasions when Voldemort and Harry were close together, the conditions for creating a Horcrux did not obtain. At the end of Philosopher's Stone, the question has been raised as to whether Quirrell died because of Harry's attack or Voldemort's withdrawal from his possession. Whatever the cause, Voldemort was in disembodied form and was not able to wield a wand. One the next occasion when they met directly at the end of Goblet of Fire, it was Peter Pettigrew who actually murdered Cedric; at that point in time, Voldemort was again in no state to use a wand. Later in the face off, he was more intent on killing Harry than doing anything else to him. And in the last encounter at the Ministry of Magic, Voldemort did not murder anyone, although he tried to hit Harry with an Avada Kedavra. Dumbledore comments on Voldemort's progress in HBP: "However, if my calculations are correct, Voldemort was still at least one Horcrux short of his goal of six when he entered your parents' house with the intention of killing you. He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths. You would certainly have been that. He believed that in killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death." [2] So, if there had been a chance to make Harry into a Horcrux, it would have had to be at Godric's Hollow. But it would seem that Voldemort was obsessed in destroying the person he saw as his most dangerous opponent. I agree that on this occasion he did commit murder twice but I believe that his intentions were then directed to killing Harry and that he did not give any thought to making him a Horcux. As this point, those he had created were all encased in "objects" and the thought that he could create a living fragment case may not have occurred to him. I cannot subscribe to the idea that a Horcrux could be created accidentally. This is not mixing the wrong ingredients for a potion and creating something new and unexpected. The spells for a Horcrux must be very specific and powerful. I do not think that in the sudden turmoil of the backfire and personal disembodiment which would have been disorientating, to say the least, that Voldemort would have been able to do anything further in the way of casting spells and I see Lily's protection ? whatever form it did take ? saving his life and nothing else. [1] HBP "Horcruxes" p..465 UK edition [2] ibid. p.473 From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Jul 7 08:03:56 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:03:56 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155019 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Heeee, it seems like we did not talk about Harry horcrux recently :) > > I in the past found myself quite open to Harry horcrux idea, or at > least that Harry will **believe** that he is a Horcrux and ready to > sacrifice himself, when it would not be needed. > > But I just saw a cool essay on Lexicon which argues that Harry is > not and some of the arguments ( especially about possession), I > really liked. > > Of course somebody who is smarter than me already pocked some holes > in it, so please feel free. :) > > > ttp://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-harry-and-the-horcruxes.html > > > Alla > I just thought I would add a bit about the Horcrux timelines. First of all, I believe DD when he says that LV was going to use Harry's death to make his final Horcrux. Therefore, when LV entered Godric's Hollow he must have been in possession of 5 Horcruxes. The first four must be the diary (created whilst he was at Hogwarts), the ring (created probably with the death of his father), the locket & the cup (created before GH). As to the fifth Horcrux - it has to be Nagini. LV's snakelike appearance is surely evidence of this. And if we follow the timeline - when LV talks to DD in the chapter 'Lord Voldemort's request' in HBP he is not yet snakelike. When he appears on the back of Quirrel's head, he is snakelike! He clearly would not be able to make a Horcrux as the ethereal being he has been since GH, therefore the Nagini horcrux was made before GH. As to the sixth Horcrux - possibilities?? He hasn't made it yet? Maybe he had intended to use Harry's death to create a Horcrux out of the prophecy. Would certainly explain why LV was so casual in his attempt to kill Harry after he found out the prophecy was smashed. It also makes some sense of the 'Weapon' thread running through OOTP. A horcrux that only LV and Harry (dead) could touch without suffering madness! Or maybe LV did try to make Harry a horcrux but Lily's protection prevented the spell being completed and ejected it from Harry. This caused the mass carnage witnessed at GH and the scar is actually the Horcrux, present on Harry without actually having touched his soul! At this point I have to put my hand up and say I don't believe in Harry Horcrux, but if he is, I don't see why there can't be some form of magic that can remove the Horcrux from Harry without damaging Harry. I have to admit, along with Snape's allegiance, discovering the final Horcrux are the reasons I am most excited about book 7! Brothergib From josturgess at eircom.net Fri Jul 7 10:12:28 2006 From: josturgess at eircom.net (mooseming) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:12:28 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155020 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Heeee, it seems like we did not talk about Harry horcrux recently :) snip > > Alla > When I first read HBP I have to admit I was not a great fan of the whole Horcrux plot line (not least hating the word itself) and I thought Nagini was a red herring. However although I haven't warmed to HRXs I have become excited by the potential convolutions they might offer. First off I now believe Nagini *is* a HRX (does anyone else feel sorry for her, innocent reptile that she is?) because in this way DD and ultimately JKR can plant the idea that a living thing can be a suitable vessel. A small leap then to the thought that a person, especially a vulnerable babe in arms would do very nicely thank you. Consider Voldy's knowledge of the prophecy, as far as we have been led to believe his report consists of: "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches . born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies " He doesn't know about the "equal" bit or the "power he knows not" bit, this, therefore, is the extent of his information. Now consider how your average power obsessed evil overlord *might* respond to this. Firstly the prophecy doesn't state that "the one" *will* vanquish him, only that he will have the power to do so. Voldy could simply choose to destroy that power but then again mightn't he want to control it? How then to gain the power but negate the risk? There is a perfect catch 22 solution, if "the one" becomes a HRX for Voldy. To kill Voldy "the one" would first have to kill himself (to destroy the HRX) and then, of course "the one" couldn't kill Voldy being dead himself and all. Similarly "the one" can never kill Voldy whilst the HRX is inside him. The only hope then would be mutual and simultaneous annihilation something Voldy would never contemplate. Plus if making a living being into a HRX gives you more than average control over the vessel (as implied by DD's analysis of Nagini) then Voldy would have control over a living weapon of great power. Too good to resist? All this leads to the conclusion that Voldy's intention might well have been to create HRX!Harry. Still it all went awry did it not? It's possible that Harry has been infected by the failed/rebounded/incomplete spell cast at GH, perhaps, as some suggest, his scar contains the power of that event. The fun doesn't stop there though. There are two boys who fit the prophecy profile, how sweet it would be surely to use the death of one to create the HRX other? But which is which? Harry to be sure has an interesting link with Voldy but Neville's memory is notoriously bad, a sign perhaps of early meddling. Did Voldy go to Godric's Hollow to kill Harry whilst sending his loyal Bella to abduct Neville? Could Voldy still be intending to complete the job? There's enough in that to write several twisty turny plot lines don't you think. Surely there can't be more? How about Draco. Born in June to be sure but children come early sometimes. A previous thread referenced Heracles, who was Zeus' son and his preferred candidate to inherit the Mycenae kingdom, Hera's preferred candidate was Eurystheus. Zeus proclaimed the next born descendant of Perseus (the mortal who saved Andromoda btw) should get the kingdom shortly before his son Heracles was born, Hera thwarted his ambitions by having her candidate born prematurely. Could Draco be a reverse of this? Could Voldy have engineered a marriage between Narcissa and Malfoy Snr in order to produce the prophecy boy, could someone have helped Narcissa to have the baby early to avoid that fate? I have no idea. I believe that JK has hinted that a living being can be a HRX precisely so we, but more importantly Harry, will either come to the conclusion or be deliberately misled to believe that someone Harry/Neville even Draco might be a HRX. Then again I used to think that Harry was possessed by a part of Salazar Slytherin so what do I know? Regards Jo PS To make a HRX you require a vessel, Dragon's Blood to seal in the soul fragment(one of the 12 uses thereof) and a cooperative/coerced Dementor to first remove said fragment. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 04:21:13 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 04:21:13 -0000 Subject: Look of triumph in Dumbledore's eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155021 wrote: > While Lily's sacrifice saved Harry > immediately, the charm Dumbledore cast that night (by leaving him in > the house where Lily's blood lives) has kept him safe all these > years. I think the "look of triumph" was because the charm >Dumbledore cast was/is working, and Voldemort is only aware of the >protection caused by Lily's sacrifice. > Mike here: I think Voldy is aware that DD added some protection. He says in the graveyard, "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations' care. Not even I can touch him there ..." (GoF p.637 US). So Voldy knows Harry has additional protection beyond Lily's sacrifice, but I don't think he knows the exact form that protection takes. DD tells us in OotP that it's built upon Lily's sacrifice with her blood, Petunia's blood, Harry's blood, and now *Voldemort's blood?* Could this be the reason for the gleam? I don't know, but Harry's protection from this "ancient magic" expires on his 17th birthday so I don't see how Voldy having the same blood can help Harry after that. And yet JKR hinted in her July 05 interview with Melissa/Emerson that the "gleam" is/was very important and still in play. ??? So how it plays out, still a mystery to me. If we keep throwing ideas at it, maybe it clicks for someone. Mike, wondering how an expiring charm is still in play. From ellecain at yahoo.com.au Fri Jul 7 12:09:25 2006 From: ellecain at yahoo.com.au (ellecain) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 12:09:25 -0000 Subject: Witches and the Statutes of Secrecy was Re: a lot of Names, interrupted... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155022 > Ceridwen: > Not really opposing, but offering an alternative. Since the Salem > Witch Trials were near the end of the persecution, could the date have > been selected to convey the reason for the waning Muggle interest in > persecuting, rather than the other way around? Remove the victims, and > there is no more need to persecute. The WW closed in on itself > completely and divorced itself from the rest of human company, removing > the 'need' to find and kill witches. Elyse: Although I like the idea, I still imagine that this would cause an increase in the persecution! After all, now that all the magical population has united, they would have strength in numbers. A unity, perhaps, that they may have lacked before. And a Muggle who was already in the persecution mindset would have more cause to become paranoid. Of course this is just me imagining things.... > Ceridwen: > Interesting, as I think Red Hen pointed out, that Enlightenment and > Industrialization followed this removal. Someone mentioned the idea of > Muggles coming to the WW to solve Muggle problems. The seperation of the WW from the Muggle world encouraged > Muggles to do for themselves and to create different forms of > government and encourage greater interest in learning. Elyse: Thats quite amusing to consider! Throughout the books we get these wizarding impressions that Muggles are to be treated like children or as people who cannot do anything for themselves. Even Arthur's astounded statements of how its amazing that Muggles can get by without magic are very funny when viewed in this light. If this were true, I would think it hilarious that divorcing themselves from the muggle world empowered the Muggles instead! Just my two knuts... Elyse From vinkv002 at planet.nl Fri Jul 7 11:57:53 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:57:53 -0000 Subject: Liking J.K., not liking J.K. "weight issue" In-Reply-To: <559.1c7984c.31defdab@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155023 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: > > > > > > Cacaia: > > Wow...I don't quite understand why the recent threads attacking > > Rowling personally. > > Sandy: > > I am not aware of anyone attacking Rowling personally. I made the statement > that I don't like her, which is NOT an attack, it is merely stating my personal > opinion of her. Although I have flat-out refused to state my reasons for my > feelings it has instigated a flaming anyway. She is a public personna, not > everyone is going to like her, nor does everyone have to like her. The fact that > she has created Harry Potter does not mean she walks on water. Not every word > that comes out of her mouth is a profound revelation. I admire her work - or at > least most of it -- I just don't necessarily admire her. This is not a > personal attack, it is a personal preference. And one that I am totally entitled to > have and to say I have without being berated for. I don't do that to her > legions of worshippers. I don't even remember how the subject came up but I should > have known better than to say I don't like her. It's not like I haven't been > through this before. I am one of the biggest HP fanatics there is but because I > don't personally like JKR I should be burned at the stake. Geeze. > > Sandy > > Renee: For what it's worth, here's a bit of half-hearted support. I won't say I don't like JKR, because I never say that about people I've never met in person. What I can say, though, is that I definitely don't like the way she comes across in public. It started with the interview on the extended version of the PoA DVD, and the Anelli/Spartz interview sealed it for me. IMO nobody should be attacked for saying they don't like a particular author, though they do like their books. Saying you don't like someone is not the same as character assassination. Renee From vinkv002 at planet.nl Fri Jul 7 12:21:57 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 12:21:57 -0000 Subject: Witches and the Statutes of Secrecy was Re: a lot of Names, interrupted... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155024 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > >> > Ceridwen: > Since the Salem > Witch Trials were near the end of the persecution, could the date have > been selected to convey the reason for the waning Muggle interest in > persecuting, rather than the other way around? Remove the victims, and > there is no more need to persecute. The WW closed in on itself > completely and divorced itself from the rest of human company, removing > the 'need' to find and kill witches. > > Interesting, as I think Red Hen pointed out, that Enlightenment and > Industrialization followed this removal. Someone mentioned the idea of > Muggles coming to the WW to solve Muggle problems. Enlightenment seems > to be the complete antithisis (sp?) of this. It is relying on Man's > mind rather than any extra intervention, Divine or otherwise, > Industrialization provides more 'magical' things (as in our technology > today which can be compared favorably to some of the magical things in > the WW). The seperation of the WW from the Muggle world encouraged > Muggles to do for themselves and to create different forms of > government and encourage greater interest in learning. > > The Statutes of Secrecy may also have been instrumental in the > reduction of persecutions, rather than an odd reaction to the dwindling > of persecution. > > Ceridwen. > Renee: The 17 century is definitely the period when more and more people started questioning the witch craze and the existence of witches. But the Statute of Secrecy is too late to have caused this. The earliest books against the prosecution of witches date from the 16th and early 17th century (Johannes Wier, Reginald Scot, Friedrich von Spee), and if you look at the overal picture in Europe, the number of executions drops rather sharply after 1675. In fact, the Wizarding World made its decision about a century too late for it to have any effect on the persecutions. Also, the decline of the magical worldview prevalent in the Middle Ages, and the rise of rationalism, are usually considered to have set in with the spreading of Protestantism in the 16th century, also well before the Statute of Secrecy. Maybe the decline of belief in magic was actually one of the factors that led to it? Or, alternatively, as has been suggested by others on this list, JKR didn't study the history of witchcraft too closely? Renee From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 13:16:39 2006 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:16:39 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155027 > > Lanval: > > Unlike Marietta in OotP, Molly Weasley at the time of PoA has neither > > met with Dementors, nor seen them in action. > > Pippin: > > Hundreds of dementors invaded the Quidditch pitch, but only > Harry passed out and fell off his broom. Marietta probably went > past the dementors to get to Hogsmeade without any particular > problem. Certainly she never saw anyone attacked by them or > saw them try to perform the kiss on an innocent person. She > may not even know what it is. Considering the uneven quality > of DADA instruction over the last few years, she may not even > have passed her OWL. > True, only Harry passed out, like on the train (though others felt the Dementors keenly. Chances are Marietta did). But I thought the sudden "eerie silence" that Harry noticed on the field was caused by the Dementors. A hundred of them must have had quite an effect on the spectators as well, not just on Harry. The Dementors were outside Hogwarts to catch Sirius Black, and catch Sirius Black only. And here they are, a hundred of them, invading the field, attacking students. They're not going for a Kiss, but they're 'feeding' nonetheless. Lupin makes that clear: "Dumbledore won't let them into the school, so their supply of human prey has dried up.... I don't think they could resist the large crowd around the Quidditch field..." PoA, p.188 Scholastic) So while the average student might not know these things, it would still be clear to them that these Dementors were NOT doing the ministry's bidding at that point. And there was DD's anger, openly visible to everyone. Blasting the foul creatures with "silver stuff". In short: The students witnessed rogue Dementors, and what could be done against them. And DD did not get in trouble with the ministry (which would surely have been mentioned in the Daily Prophet). What I'm trying to say is that while Marietta might not have known about the Kiss (but with her mother at the ministry, and Sirius Black all over the news, I find that unlikely), and certainly never witnessed it, she had a pretty good idea of how unreliable Dementors can be (DD's warning comes to mind as well), and that the spell to repell them is harmless, painless, and perfectly legal. Don't see why practising how to conjure a Patronus would cause her such deep unease as to do what she did. > Pippin > who apologizes profusely and did not mean to imply that fan > speculations which excuse Lupin are in any way *intentionally* > false. :irons hands and slams ears in oven door also:: > Lanval: Eh, no problem at all. And I promise to eat a fat, tasty crow if Lupin turns out to be ESE in book 7. :) From enlil65 at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 14:37:55 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 09:37:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360607070737i4fd8ec12ibf8fd462d0a59bf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155028 On 7/7/06, esmith222002 wrote: Brothergib: > I just thought I would add a bit about the Horcrux timelines. First > of all, I believe DD when he says that LV was going to use Harry's > death to make his final Horcrux. Therefore, when LV entered Godric's > Hollow he must have been in possession of 5 Horcruxes. Peggy W: Dumbledore himself makes two (slightly) contradictory statements about this in the HBP "Horcruxes" chapter. He says: <> "...if my calculations are correct, Voldemort was still at least one Horcrux short of his goal of six when he entered your parents' house with the intention of killing you. "He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths. You would certainly have been that. He believed that in killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death." <> So he first says Voldemort was "at least one Horcrux short" which expresses some uncertainty about whether he already had 4 or 5 Horcruxes as he entered the Potter house; then he says "I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death" which seems to indicate certainty that there were already 5 Horcruxes... My dear Dumbledore, which is it? One way out of this, I suppose, is to presume that if he only had 4, he then immediately used James' death to make Horcrux number 5. I don't see when he could have had time to do this (perhaps after Lily's murder, but before the attempt on Harry?), but it's possible. In that case Harry's death could certainly have been used to make the sixth and final Horcrux. If that happened, then we have to ask where is Horcrux #5: it would probably have been abandoned at Godric's Hollow. Interesting possibility, although I will add that I am not confident that this scenario was at all likely. > The first four > must be the diary (created whilst he was at Hogwarts), the ring > (created probably with the death of his father), the locket & the cup > (created before GH). As to the fifth Horcrux - it has to be Nagini. > LV's snakelike appearance is surely evidence of this. I think this does not follow. Dumbledore states that he believes Voldemort's altered appearance was due to his having damaged his soul so severely: he went beyond "ordinary evil" in murdering so many times and making his multiple Horcruxes, and his altered (severely damaged) soul was reflected in an altered physical appearance. About the possibility of making Nagini into one of his Horcruxes, Dumbledore says: "As we know, he failed [to kill you at Godric's Hollow]. After an interval of some years, however, he used Nagini to kill an old Muggle man, and it might then have occurred to him to turn her into his last Horcrux." (p.506 again) So it is Dumbledore's belief that if Nagini is a Horcrux, she was made into one "some years" after Godric's Hollow. Actually if he is talking about Frank Bryce's death, it would have been some 13 years later. (I will add that I've also been confused by Dumbledore's statement that Voldemort "used" Nagini to kill this Muggle, because we know that Voldemort used his own wand to AK Frank Bryce--so how was Nagini "used" to kill him?) > And if we > follow the timeline - when LV talks to DD in the chapter 'Lord > Voldemort's request' in HBP he is not yet snakelike. When he appears > on the back of Quirrel's head, he is snakelike! He clearly would not > be able to make a Horcrux as the ethereal being he has been since GH, > therefore the Nagini horcrux was made before GH. I don't believe this conclusion is correct for the reason given above: Voldemort's appearance is explained without requiring him to have Nagini as a Horcrux. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 7 14:58:48 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:58:48 -0000 Subject: Evil Hermione, and Traitor Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155029 Lanval: > True, only Harry passed out, like on the train (though others felt > the Dementors keenly. Chances are Marietta did). But I thought the > sudden "eerie silence" that Harry noticed on the field was caused by > the Dementors. A hundred of them must have had quite an effect on > the spectators as well, not just on Harry. > > The Dementors were outside Hogwarts to catch Sirius Black, and catch > Sirius Black only. And here they are, a hundred of them, invading > the field, attacking students. Pippin: Actually, Sirius was there. Harry saw Padfoot at the top of the stands just before they arrived. It's hard to tell which dementor effects are felt by everybody and which only affect Harry's sensorium. Lupin has to put the lamps back on when Harry's attacked by the boggart dementor, but OTOH, surely everybody in Little Whinging didn't see the stars go out. We don't know whether anybody but Harry heard an eerie silence. Diggory was able to go on and catch the snitch, at least. Anyway the dementors go back to their places and don't attack again (as far as Marietta knows) so why should she think she's in danger from them two years later? Harry of course, doesn't bother to repeat Lupin's explanations about why dementors are so dreadful, nor does he explain to anyone outside the Trio what they do to him, nor does he tell the DA that Dumbledore suspects they are going to defect en masse to Voldemort. Dumbledore begged the students not to give the dementors a reason to harm them, so Marietta knows he doesn't think they'd harm students without a reason. As far as we know, he didn't change that warning after they showed up at the Quidditch pitch, nor did he insist that they be removed. At Harry's hearing, he doesn't seem to find rogue dementors credible either. In fact no one does, which would indicate that they're quite rare. I am not defending the dementors nor the ministry's use of them, only pointing out that Marietta hasn't been given the reasons that Harry or the reader have to mistrust them. As far as Marietta knows, they are loyal to the ministry, they are guarding criminals in Azkaban, so what would be Harry's motive for teaching a spell to drive them away? Up to then, Marietta could tell herself that they hadn't learned anything in the DA that was anti-Ministry, whatever Harry told the Quibbler. But with the class learning that spell, it would be very hard for Marietta to pretend to herself that she was just studying DADA and wasn't taking sides in the Harry vs Ministry conflict. Pippin From jamess at climaxgroup.com Fri Jul 7 14:54:29 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:54:29 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Witches and the Statutes of Secrecy was Re: a lot of Names, interrupted... Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B09@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 155030 Maybe the majority of the magical folk started to withdraw along time before the statute for the all the reasons discussed. The wizzarding world seeing the way that normal people were starting to disbelieve and they way this made their life easier enshrined the statute of secrecy in law to formalize what most of them had been doing for a century. After all we know there were hold outs (such as Marvolo and co.) who were never going to restrain themselves unless there was legal force behind the secrecy. -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Renee Sent: 07 July 2006 13:22 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Witches and the Statutes of Secrecy was Re: a lot of Names, interrupted... Renee: The 17 century is definitely the period when more and more people started questioning the witch craze and the existence of witches. But the Statute of Secrecy is too late to have caused this. The earliest books against the prosecution of witches date from the 16th and early 17th century (Johannes Wier, Reginald Scot, Friedrich von Spee), and if you look at the overal picture in Europe, the number of executions drops rather sharply after 1675. In fact, the Wizarding World made its decision about a century too late for it to have any effect on the persecutions. Also, the decline of the magical worldview prevalent in the Middle Ages, and the rise of rationalism, are usually considered to have set in with the spreading of Protestantism in the 16th century, also well before the Statute of Secrecy. Maybe the decline of belief in magic was actually one of the factors that led to it? Or, alternatively, as has been suggested by others on this list, JKR didn't study the history of witchcraft too closely? Renee [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 7 14:05:58 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:05:58 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155031 > Alla wrote: > Heeee, it seems like we did not talk about Harry horcrux recently :) > > I in the past found myself quite open to Harry horcrux idea, or at > least that Harry will **believe** that he is a Horcrux and ready to > sacrifice himself, when it would not be needed. > Ken: There is certainly something odd about Harry's scar and I have a hunch it goes beyond anything we have been told so far. I think we will hear a new revelation about it in the final book. It is tempting to think it is a horcrux. The Red Hen seems to believe that the horcrux spell is a special spell that both kills the victim and creates the horcrux in one fell swoop. I don't know of any canon to support, or deny, that. It is just a shrewd speculation. We are all pretty sure that LV *intended* to create a horcrux by means of Harry's death. I'd say that it is possible that he created one accidently when he tried to kill Harry at GH. He is arrogant enough to be thinking about step 2 while in the midst of performing step 1 after all. Furthermore when such a powerful wizard murders a defenseless infant he probably does not need to concentrate much on casting the killing spell. The mind could wander. Unintended and unexpected consequences could ensue. How does one safely destroy a horcrux when they may all have been cursed? The diary was either not cursed or the curses are ineffective on Harry for some reason. Someone has suggested that if the scar is a horcrux too then it may act as a friend or foe ID mark that disarms the curses when Harry destroys a horcrux like the diary because the scar-horcrux fools the curses into believing that Harry is LV. Another intriguing notion I have heard is that perhaps once he finds the horcruxes Harry could just pitch them one by one to a dementor who would gladly gobble them up. The dementors seem positively obsessed with Harry, don't they? This is possibly an indication that Harry possesses two souls. What an attraction *that* would hold for a dementor. It also raises the possibility that Harry might have to trust a dementor at some point to "kiss away" LV's soul fragment in the scar while leaving his intact. What a delicious scene that would be!! It could be that this is what the dementors have been trying to do with Harry all along. These are some odd bits and pieces that could indicate that Harry is a horcrux. Anything is possible in the Potterverse because, IMHO, it is not entirely logical in its construction. There are gaps and overlaps here and there that could be used to justify almost anything. This makes second guessing the author frightfully difficult and I think that is just how she intends it to be. Ken From oppen at mycns.net Fri Jul 7 16:38:47 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:38:47 -0000 Subject: Protecting the DA Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155032 I think, even as a teenager, I'd have been smart, and paranoid, enough to have a few backup plans in place to protect the DA, had I been part of such a group. Like, forex, detailing someone to keep an eye on the Marauder's Map, and see where Umbridge was every second of a meeting. "Harry! Marietta Edgecombe's not here---she's in Umbridge's office!" Or posting a guard or two. Or having a plan in place so that even if the DA was about to be busted, they'd have something better to do than just run like rabbits. "Okay, everybody---Umbridge's on the way here! Initiate 'Operation Snogfest!'" Every girl grabs a guy, and when Umbridge comes roaring in, it's Smooch Central. Harry's got Cho, Ron's got Hermione, Justin Finch-Fletchley's got Luna, and so on. If nothing else, this would disarm Umbridge's suspicions---after all, _of course_ a necking party's going to not be announced to the school! If things went really well, she'd have a heart attack from pure-quill shock. "How can you DO such awful things?" Of course, this could backfire---"This looks like a group I'd like to join!" she announces, as she grabs Snape, who starts looking around frantically for escape...*evil snickering* From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jul 7 16:53:23 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:53:23 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155033 Tonks: > Ah, but which is reality and which is fantasy? I > think the WW is real and the Muggle world is the > illusion. The WW is the ground of reality. houyhnhnm: To reply in the spirit of your post: I've been to Hogwarts. A couple of hours (which passed by like minutes) staring at some mouldering old stone walls. Coming away with a feeling of "deamy unconcern". I was obliviated alright. But they failed to remove the memory of how I got there (heh, heh) so I know where it is (but I'm not telling):-P What I meant, though, was that arguing about the way real world events like the Salem witch trials impacted the WW, wondering how Cornelius Agrippa *really* escaped from his French jailers, worrying about how the WW, its magical beings and beasts, will be affected by global warming and habitat destruction (I do), wondering if the WW is concerned about nuclear proliferation (I have) and whether their magic can really protect them or if they are simply in denial about the amount of power Muggles have-these are all explorations of the boundary between fantasy and reality. Imagination is real. But imagination allows us to create the unreal. The genius of the Harry Potter books, IMO, lies in the way they make us confront that paradox by blurring the boundary between the magical world and the Muggle world. They would not do so nearly as effectively if the two worlds were clearly separate. It has been the business of human beings for 30-40 thousand years (maybe longer) to *real*ize dreams. But is a realized dream truly the dream made real, or is it only a simulacrum of the dream. I guess that's what you were saying. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jul 7 17:26:31 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:26:31 EDT Subject: DD trust in Snape) Message-ID: <32f.677f4bc.31dff347@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155034 AD: > I am not arguing that Snape is ESE!, OFH!, or even Mostly Good But > With A Bug Up His Arse About Anyone Named Potter (MGBWABUHAAANP! With > I do assume that DDM! Snape will try to save Harry as a matter of > course, so only the other flavors of Snape need be assumed to be > acting to throw off suspicion. > > And none of Snape's 57 varieties will want Dumbledore to even suspect > that he might have tried to kill Harry, or that he failed to act when > hecould have to prevent Harry's death. Pippin: Odd, then, that Quirrell does not reason the same way. He *does* try to kill Harry. He is investigated. He does exactly what I would expect a guilty Snape to do. He keeps his cool (while acting innocently flustered and nervous) and denies everything. He could have done much the same if his plan had succeeded and Harry had died. Nikkalmati: I cannot imagine that any flavor of Snape, except for DDMSnape, would pass up the chance to get rid of Harry on the off chance someone would suspect him. After all, he is actually innocent and can prove it through any means brought against him (Legilimancy, Veritaserum). He also is used to being under suspicion and getting out of tight spots. The slight risk is very much worth the reward. After all, if Harry is gone, Snape becomes even more important to DD as a weapon against LV. Nikkalmati . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au Fri Jul 7 01:08:01 2006 From: katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au (katrinalisa2002) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 01:08:01 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155035 > Pippin: > > Hermione had two purposes in hexing the parchment. One was to discover > the informant. That was laudable. The other was to make them sorry. > That was an evil purpose, an abuse of power, IMO. > > CV: > > I have a problem with both of those purposes. What good is it to find > out who was the informant? Why wouldn't she put some kind of hex that > would identify who was ABOUT to inform so they could be stopped? Or, > to announce the hex which would then serve as a deterrent the the > snitching? To me, detection and punishment are both off the mark for > their purposes. I have to agree with you, CV, was Hermione's purpose really to find out the informant? Surely something that actually alerted her immediately would have been more useful, Hermione could have jinxed those coins she gave them. That said, I think, taking into account the wizarding world morality, putting the SNEAK curse on the parchment was not evil. Think of Unbreakable Vows, Marietta is a witch, she should understand that in the WW you don't just break promises like that. katrinalisa. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 18:25:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:25:22 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155036 Brothergib wrote: > I just thought I would add a bit about the Horcrux timelines. First of all, I believe DD when he says that LV was going to use Harry's death to make his final Horcrux. Therefore, when LV entered Godric's Hollow he must have been in possession of 5 Horcruxes. The first four must be the diary (created whilst he was at Hogwarts), the ring (created probably with the death of his father), the locket & the cup (created before GH). As to the fifth Horcrux - it has to be Nagini. LV's snakelike appearance is surely evidence of this. And if we follow the timeline - when LV talks to DD in the chapter 'Lord Voldemort's request' in HBP he is not yet snakelike. When he appears on the back of Quirrel's head, he is snakelike! He clearly would not be able to make a Horcrux as the ethereal being he has been since GH, therefore the Nagini horcrux was made before GH. Carol responds: I agree with everything you say here except that I don't think Tom Riddle created any Horcruxes while he was still at Hogwarts. He wouldn't have had the knowledge, and Dumbledore (though he wasn't yet the headmaster) was adamant that Horcruxes not be taught and would, IMO, have policed the restricted section to be sure that information was not available. I think that the diary at this point was already a Dark object intended to seduce the reader into opening the Chamber of Secrets and releasing the Basilisk to kill "Mudbloods," but it was not a Horcrux because he didn't yet have the knowledge. He *may* have acquired it at Borgin and Burke's, or on a visit to Grindelwald before Dumbledore defeated him (by, IMO, destroying his Horcrux). At any rate, Harry notes that Tom looks thinner, and, IIRC, his voice is a bit higher when he visits Hepzibah than when he talks with Slughorn about Horcruxes. However, it's possible that even then he didn't have the knowledge to create a Horcrux and acquired it after he disappeared to circulate "among the worst of our kind" (quoted from memory. Certainly, he had created (at least) four Horcruxes when he visits Dumbledore to apply for the DADA position, as the blurred features and other signs indicate. And, as you say, he's not yet snakelike, but does appear snakelike when Harry sees him sticking out the back of Quirrell's head, which I agree indicates that he had already made Nagini into a Horcrux. (Note that there's no sign of dismay or horror on the part of the DEs in the graveyard scene. Voldemort apparently looks exactly as he did when they last saw him, some time before Godric's Hollow.) Another point that I've made before but don't recall any responses to is that Wormtail uses Nagini's venom (along with unicorn blood) to create the potion that creates Voldemort's fetal form, and "milks" her to provide more venom to sustain the monstrous fetus/infant. Nagini, IOW, is a surrogate mother to Baby!mort, a horrible parody of the mother/child bond depicted elsewhere in the books. (Will she die in a futile attempt to defend her monstrous "child"?) Dumbledore points out the strength of the bond between Nagini and Voldemort, which he thinks can only be explained if she's a Horcrux, and I agree. I think that he'd be certain that she's a Horcrux if he knew about the uses to which her venom has been put. (How could her venom help to create a rudimentary body for him, and how could even Voldemort not only survive drinking it but require it for sustenance if she didn't share a bit of his soul?) Carol, agreeing that the snakelike features are an important clue but thinking that we shouldn't overlook those additional clues From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 17:55:38 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:55:38 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155037 Geoff wrote: > I am tempted to emerge cautiously from my trench under my tin hat to re-enter the discussion on whether Harry is a Horcrux or not, coming down on the side of the argument that he is not. > > I have said in the past that I believe that, to create a Horcrux, the victim and the spell caster need to be close together. That is just my theory; I can't recall any canon to support it but I am using it as a launch pad. < big snip> Carol responds: I agree with you that Harry is not a Horcrux and that a Horcrux can't be created accidentally. Apparently, a Horcrux requires an elaborate spell (advanced Dark magic) that must be performed deliberately to encase the soul in an object (ideally, a powerful magical object made of gold or some other indestructible substance). Voldemort would not have made someone he wanted to kill (in order to thwart the Prophecy) into a Horcrux. It's clear from Godric's Hollow, from the graveyard, and from the battle in the MoM that he wants Harry dead. If Harry were a Horcrux, the last thing he'd want to do is to destroy him. Basically, you murder the person, which tears your soul, then you detach that bit of soul and encase it in an object, which obviously can't be the person you just killed, who at best could be made into an Inferius. However, I see nothing in canon to suggest that the Horcrux needs to be made at the site of the murder, with the dead person still present, which is what you seem to be suggesting (please correct me if I'm wrong), or that it needs to be made within a particular timeframe. I admit that the details are extremely fuzzy--it's unclear how a multiple murderer could choose a particularly soul bit from among the many or how it could constitute exactly one-seventh of his soul either before or after he had committed six murders. (Ever try to divide anything into sevenths? Now if he wanted *eighths* and the soul is sufficiently tangible to be divided into halves, then quarters--nope. That won't work, either, because the second murder should divide the soul into thirds (the original plus two fragments) and you can't get to thirds from halves. Oh, maths! Okay, I'll take it on faith that the Horcruxes contain equal parts of an infinite and only partly tangible soul and that he can choose the appropriate soul bit--This one's for my father! This one's for Grandpa Riddle! This one's for Grandma! and so on. My head is spinning trying to figure it out. I rather think it's like the idea that Charlie Weasley, who's three years older than Percy, would have left school seven years before Percy's fifth year. (It doesn't work that way, JKR!) Okay, taking all that on faith, we know that Tom was commiting murder while he was still in school, even if we don't count attacking a girl with a Basilisk as murder (and I do). We also know that he didn't know how to create a Horcrux at that point. (He was wearing Marvolo Gaunt's ring when he asked about the Horcruxes, meaning that he had already killed the Riddles, and he had killed Myrtle the previous June.) He had (probably) already placed the memory of his sixteen-year-old self into the diary, making it a powerful magical object intended to "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work," but neither it nor the ring was yet a Horcrux. I think he made them into Horcruxes while he was at Borgin and Burke's, using Myrtle's murder (his first) for the diary and his father's murder (his most significant so far) for the ring. When he killed Hepzibah and stole the cup and locket, he resigned before creating the Horcruxes (which would have significantly altered his appearance) and then created two new Horcruxes, only one of which could have used Hepzibah's murder. (As an Heir of Hufflepuff and the possessor of two significant pieces of Hogwarts history, her murder would probably have seemed important. If not, there were two more Riddles, killed a few years previously, still available.) At any rate, I see no reason for the object to be present at the murder, or for the Horcrux to be created immediately. The important point is that a Horcrux is almost certainly a deliberate creation, and you don't make a Horcrux out of a person you're trying to kill even if you're unwise enough to use a living creature like Nagini that can think for itself (and is subject to death, a point that neither Dumbledore nor Voldemort seems to have considered). Geoff: > I cannot subscribe to the idea that a Horcrux could be created accidentally. This is not mixing the wrong ingredients for a potion and creating something new and unexpected. The spells for a Horcrux must be very specific and powerful. I do not think that in the sudden turmoil of the backfire and personal disembodiment which would have been disorientating, to say the least, that Voldemort would have been able to do anything further in the way of casting spells Carol responds: This part I agree with. Vapor!mort was unable to do anything except possess animals until Quirrell arrived and somehow transported him to England. (That's another fuzzy spot in Voldemort's history, BTW. He manipulated and terrorized Quirrell but didn't possess him until after the botched burglary at Gringott's. Oh, well.) I think that Voldemort planned to kill Harry, and perhaps Neville for good measure, and if DD is right that he was one Horcrux short (I'm not sure that I agree--Nagini may already have been a Horcrux) search for a suitable object at his leisure, preferably a Ravenclaw or Gryffindor artifact. After all, he'd be to all intents and purposes immortal already. He'd have all eternity (or at least till the end of the world) to pursue his search if I'm right that there's no time limit for the creation of a Horcrux, and I see no indication that a fragmented soul melds back together within a specified time after a murder. How, then, does Harry see into Voldemort's mind and speak Parseltongue if he's not a Horcrux? Simple. We accept Dumbledore's explanation given early on that some of LV's *powers* were transferred to Harry at GH and that the scar creates a conduit between them, perhaps because Harry acquired a particular form of Legilimency ("the usual rules don't seem to apply to you, Potter") along with the Parseltongue. I would not be at all surprised, in fact, I'm expecting to learn that he acquired the power of possession as well. (If Voldemort can't bear to be inside Harry's body and mind, imagine his agony if Harry possesses *him*.) And of course, there's that other power that Voldemort "knows not," the power that will ultimately defeat him: Love. So, as I see it, there's no plot reason for Harry (or his scar) to be a Horcrux, and no need for the complications that would arise when he tried to figure out how to destroy himself (the last Horcrux) and still kill Voldemort, or how to kill Voldemort without leaving one last Horcrux (himself) to be destroyed. I imagine (and hope!) that JKR will find a way for Harry to destroy Voldemort that involves neither murder nor suicide. I think, as I said or implied, that it will involve possession. Carol, coming down firmly on the Harry-is-not-a-Horcrux side of the argument From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 17:45:06 2006 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:45:06 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155038 Brothergib asked: As to the sixth Horcrux - possibilities?? CV's guess: I think a good candidate is the house at Godric's Hollow. Here's why it would appeal to Voldy: 1 - it's an artifact of a founder. 2 - it's hidden in plain sight. 4 - it can't be stolen and taken away 5 - it is impervious to destruction (oops) Here's what I think the plan was: 1 Do whatever magical preparation is required to make a horcrux 2 Consecrate the horcrux with a murder 3 Murder Harry to ensure that "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord" is out of the way 4 Laugh evilly into the night Step one was completed. Step two was completed with the murder of James. Killing of Harry wasn't required to create the horcrux, but sews up loose threads from the annoying prophecy. Lily gets in the way. Another death isn't required for his purposes so he tells her to get out of the way. Lily charms Harry. Voldy kills Lily which seals the life-charm on Harry. The horcrux is now overloaded with an extra murder. Notice that this is the first time that a completed horcrux has a death *inside* it. If a horcrux is designed to defeat death, how would it handle becoming a container for death? The space-time continuum is becoming wobbly. Voldy attempts to kill Harry. Two problems here. First, the horcrux is already overloaded. We know that murders are powerful magic in themselves and cause a splitting of the soul and who knows what else. In addition, Lily's protection spell causes the attempted murder to reverb back on its maker, who is also impervious to death because of his horcruxes. Death magic reverb! Is it any wonder the house collapsed? Anyway, I think the house itself is a very good candidate for a horcrux and how convenient that it is already destroyed. ~ CV From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 18:22:14 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:22:14 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang School & Hogwarts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Durmstrang School > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > hagrid: > > > Where do you think Drumstrang is? > > bboyminn: > > > > After carefull analysis, here is where I think Durmstrang is > > ... > > > > "Where in the World is Durmstrang?" > > http://bluemoonmarket.homestead.com/files/murmansk/pg1.htm > > > > It is on the Murmansk/Kola Peninsula of North Western Russia, > > north of St. Petersburg in an area just east of Finland. > > ... it is more likely in a large unpopulated area south west > > of Murmansk in a mountainous region near the Finland boarder > > - see maps. > > Geoff: > Steve, this is not the first time you have raised this question. > > Back in message 84004, which was in a long thread about the location > of Hogwarts, you slipped in the following comment:: > > "bboy_mn: > > > > Durmstang- > Surely the Russian Murmansk peninsula just east of Northern > Finland. > > > > Can I prove that? No! But all three locations fit the books > very closely. > > Just a thought. > > bboy_mn" > Geoff continues: > In the Hogwarts discussion, I tried to present specific > evidence which pointed to such places as Rannoch Moor or > the Knoydart peninsula. > > Can you expand on why you particularly favour the Murmansk > area against other places in that sort of location, such > as parts of Finland or further east in Russia? > > I'm not questioning your choice, because I don't know the > area, but am interested to know the clues which led you to > that conclusion. > bboyminn: Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I find if very difficult to keep track of threads under the new Yahoo format. First regarding Hogwarts - Where in the World is Hogwarts? http://www.homestead.com/BlueMoonMarket/Files/Hogwarts/hogwarts1.htm I've picked areas that are Inland, are vast open areas with limited populations, but still moderately close to rail lines. I've chosen inland areas because we get no references or inference in the books to the sea being even remotely close by. If you look at my maps you will see Yellow Dots that represent towns and villages, white lines for rail, and red lines for roads. I've pick vast expanses that do not have villages in them. The ones I like best are in the Highlands (1a and 1b), though the Grampian Mountains (3) areas appeal to me on various occassion depending on my mood. So, vast expanses of inland areas with mountains and lakes, near but not right on a rail line, and generally far from roads. Also, keep in mind that I've made my judgements without direct knowledge of Scotland; I've done it strictly with maps, so certainly my logic could be flawed. I reject the two areas that you suggest because they are too coastal, and they appear to be popular tourist areas. Rannoch Moor- http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/rannoch/rannochmoor/index.html See map; upper right. Knoydart Peninsula- http://www.wildernessscotland.com/trip-29 Scroll down a bit; map on left. Though I admit from the photos I've found both areas you suggest look very rugged. Note that both locations can be Googled to see more photos. As far as Durmstrang, it seems to have an Eastern European/Russian feel to it, that in my mind eliminates Scandinavia (Finland, Sweden, Norway). Many people have suggested Russia, but apparently the only place in Russia they know of is Siberia which is completely wrong in my mind. So, the Kola Peninsula is very close to Scandinavia, it is Russian, it has forests, mountain (of sorts), and lakes, is very far north, and is a very remote desolate area, an area where a magic school could easily be hidden. I've also stayed away from coastal towns in the Kola Peninsula because most of those are Russian Military Ports. It could be in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, or Belorussia but those are all very small countries that seem to lack the geographic fretures we are looking for, and they don't seem far enough north. Also, when the books speak of the three major schools of magic in Europe, I don't think Scandinavia is included in that expression of 'Europe'. Scandinavia seems, from the various reference books, to have it's own tradition of magic, and would most likely have it's own schools of magic. So again, in my mind, that eliminates Scandinavia as the location for Durmstrang. For the record, I am also making a website "Where in the World are Giants?", and given Hagrid's description and geographic references, they are most likely to be found in the Ural Mountains of Russia. Sadly, it is very difficult to come up with good pictures of the Ural Mountains because the Russians have some secret military bases there and don't like people taking pictures. None the less, the geographic references are drawing a line straight toward the Ural Mountains. One last and final point, I also located Grimmauld Square in London, as was wondering if anyone was familiar with this area. I posted my speculation in the Off-Topic Group- "Found! Grimmauld Square, London" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/30244 Photo-1 http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/photos/view/8d26?b=1 Photo-2 http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/photos/view/8d26?b=2 Photo-3 (650Kb) http://www.homestead.com/BlueMoonMarket/Files/Hogwarts/12grim.jpg Top right side of this photo between Islington and Barnsbury, and just left of Liverpool Road. Of course, I know the place doesn't actually exist, but you must admit, the place I found comes pretty close. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jul 7 17:59:34 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:59:34 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Horcrux redux :) Message-ID: <56d.1064b39.31dffb06@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155040 >Geoff >Now, considering Harry as a possible Horcrux, it has been suggested that it could have happened at Godric's Hollow. Dumbledore comments on Voldemort's progress in HBP: "However, if my calculations are correct, Voldemort was still at least one Horcrux short of his goal of six when he entered your parents' house with the intention of killing you. He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths. You would certainly have been that. He believed that in killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death." [2] So, if there had been a chance to make Harry into a Horcrux, it would have had to be at Godric's Hollow. But it would seem that Voldemort was obsessed in destroying the person he saw as his most dangerous opponent. I agree that on this occasion he did commit murder twice but I believe that his intentions were then directed to killing Harry and that he did not give any thought to making him a Horcux. As this point, those he had created were all encased in "objects" and the thought that he could create a living fragment case may not have occurred to him. Nikkalmati: I tend to agree that LV did not intend to make Harry a Horcrux. I reserve judgment on whether it could occur accidentally, if LV had already committed a murder (Lily) and was primed to make a Horcrux; but in that case what do you suppose he had originally intended for the receptacle from Harry's murder? He had to have an object in mind. Was it located at Godric's Hollow? Is it still at Godric's Hollow and will Harry find it or could it be Godric's sword which is in DD's office? When Fawkes brought Harry the sword in COS did it come from Gordic's Hollow at that time? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jul 7 19:07:15 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:07:15 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155041 katrinalisa: > Think of Unbreakable Vows, Marietta is a > witch, she should understand that in the WW you > don't just break promises like that. houyhnhnm: If every signature on a parchment constitutes a magically binding contract, why would Crouch!Moody have needed to point out that Harry was magically bound to compete in the TWT? Why would any argument have arisen over Harry's withdrawal from the tournament? Karkaroff and Madame Maxine would have known it was a magical contract if in their world there is no other kind. I can think of only one other example of someone signing a parchment (other than a letter)--permission forms for third-years)--but one can imagine occasions on which witches or wizards would have to sign their names-- transferring property, entering into apprenticeships, making wills (We know they make wills). Are all of these signatures magically binding? It's possible, but where's the canon support? What *about* all the letters that go back and forth between characters in the Potterverse? If there is something inherently magical about putting one's name on parchment, wouldn't it come into play even with a letter? And if there isn't, why should Marietta be particularly wary of putting her name on Hermione's parchment for any reason other than the obvious one that it will incriminate her if it falls into the wrong hands? Marietta does not know Hermione, has never had a class with her, never saw her brewing polyjuice potion at the age of 13. Hermione had not yet come up with the protean charm on the galleons at the time of the Hog's head meeting. Marietta cannot reasonably be expected to be aware that Hermione is capable of NEWT level magic. From mrcbolt at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 11:30:20 2006 From: mrcbolt at yahoo.com (mrcbolt) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:30:20 -0000 Subject: One year from Today Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155042 Chad Wrote: Here is a prediction about book seven. I believe it will be out one year from today. What would be better than to release the book than on 7-7-07. Just my thoughts, tell me what you think. Chad From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 7 17:00:09 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:00:09 -0000 Subject: How old is Dumbledore??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155043 This subject is brushed on many times but I think it is very important. I think DD is actually less of an old man and more of a relic. Small things jump to mind that the withered Prof Marchbanks examined DD, making it seem that he can be at the most in his 70's / 80's, however this assumes that he examined DD at school, who is to say that he did not take some other kind of examination? There are many possible reasons for one, to become Headmaster? To join the Wizengamot? To become Supreme Mugwump? The possibilities are limitless so I have to disregard this process of putting an age to him. The fact that his hair was auburn in Riddle's memory doesn't tell us much either. But one snippet of info I can think of could tell all. The all-important chocolate frog card. You may think the frog card isn't of much relevance after 'Stone' when they discover about Flammel, but Rowling draws our attention back once again in 'Order' when DD says he doesn't mind as long as they don't take him off frog cards? Two theories. 1 because DD could communicate through the cards as portraits do in 'Prince', or because there is an important clue. Well the clue I think is there is obv. related to his age. The wording of the card is v. important to this. The card says that DD is known for his 'work on Alchemy with his PARTNER Nicholas Flamel who was an incredible 665(ish). Well, presuming a wizards life span is fairly akin to that of a muggle NF must've taken the elixir of life long before being 150. This leaves 515-ish years from creating the elixir to present day. If NF had already discovered/invented the stone then why would he need a "partner" in alchemy???? If therefore Dumbledore was a party to creating the stone, then he must be in the region of 500 years old! I have thought this through very carefully and unless NF discovered how to produce the Elixir but not the alchemy side without DD's help I have to conclude Dumbledore is older than we suspect! spookedook From katbofaye at aol.com Fri Jul 7 18:42:40 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:42:40 -0000 Subject: RE protecting the DA with a little bit of evil Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155044 I think this is where we run into Harry et al's greatest flaw, "Teenage Arrogance". The trio believe they are smarter than all the adults and the first to consider every possibility. Hermione goes even farther and believes she has the right to deliver justice and punishment. Keeping the DA list posted at all was ego. Look at us, we are brave enough to flaunt Umbridge and the MoM. Surely they did not need it to remember who was allowed in or to take attendance. Permanent disfiguration is not an appropriate punishment for anything, anywhere and certainly not in the hands of a teenager. Umbridge is one of the good guys. We may not like her but when teams are drawn up pro and con Voldy then Umbridge is on the correct side. Sirius points this out as one of his few moments of great wisdom. It is not about pro and con Harry. He is our hero, not the wizarding world's hero. In the fifth book he made a lot of terrible mistakes including one that cost Sirius his life. Just as Dumbledore chose not to take full credit for his death neither should Harry. But if Marietta gets to be permanently disfigured for almost having Harry expelled then what should happen to Harry for actually luring Sirius to his death? Both of these were kids trying to do the right thing. katssirius From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 19:53:23 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:53:23 -0000 Subject: Witches and the Statutes of Secrecy was Re: a lot of Names, interrupted... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155045 Renee wrote: > The 17 century is definitely the period when more and more people started questioning the witch craze and the existence of witches. But the Statute of Secrecy is too late to have caused this. In fact, the Wizarding World made its decision about a century too late for it to have any effect on the persecutions. > Carol responds: Interesting post. I agree that the Statute of Secrecy had no effect on Rationalism, which was already spreading throughout Europe (and even through colonies not run by the Puritans). I still think that JKR chose the date of a fairly well known incident of witch persecution for the Statute of Secrecy, not anticipating that her readers would analyze the event so closely (or know more than she does about RL persecutions). I think it would take more than Hagrid's view of the matter--Muggles would always be bothering witches and wizards to help them solve their problems--to explain the hiding of the entire WW from Muggles, and the wish of a small minority capable of hiding itself to escape persecution makes sense to me whereas any other motive doesn't. It doesn't really matter that witch persecution was on its way out at that point; I don't see how the WW's leaders could have known that, not being prescient. Maybe that particular incident was the straw that broke the camel's back. At any rate, it's clear to me from this discussion and from certain details in the books that JKR is not a historian. (Her geography isn't much better, since she has Neville's Uncle Algie visiting Assyria.) I think she wanted a reason for the WW to be essentially invisible to the Muggle world, so that her readers (who presumably have never met a real witch or wizard, as they're depicted in her books) could believe in a world they've never seen. Diagon Alley is hidden. St. Mungo's is hidden. Hogwarts is hidden. The TWT involved all sorts of secrecy measures. Muggles who see giants are killed and eaten, and their deaths explained as mountaineering accidents. Muggles who see dragons have their memories modified. And on and on. So, as I see it, the Statute of Secrecy is primarily a plot device to explain how Muggles can live in the same world as witches and wizards without knowing of their existence (a question Harry asks in Book 1). That and "Muggles? They don't see nothink, do they?" pretty much answers that question. (And Snape would have had less reason to yell at Ron and Harry for the flying Ford Anglia incident if it hadn't violated WW law.) I doubt very much that JKR gave the matter as much thought as we're giving it here. (She certainly didn't consult a history book when she gave a ghost who died in 1492 an Elizabethan ruff, so I doubt that she did extensive research on "witch burning," either.) Carol, humbly asserting her right and that of all other posters to be "wrong" and hoping that any canon-supported argument will be treated with respect by those who choose to answer it, however violently they may disagree with the views expressed From random832 at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 19:57:43 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:57:43 -0400 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607071257v6f8fa5e1n84ebc018c9262ac2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155046 On 7/7/06, houyhnhnm102 wrote: > If every signature on a parchment constitutes a magically > binding contract, why would Crouch!Moody have needed to > point out that Harry was magically bound to compete in the > TWT? Why would any argument have arisen over Harry's > withdrawal from the tournament? Karkaroff and Madame > Maxine would have known it was a magical contract if > in their world there is no other kind. It might not have been clear that it constituted any kind of contract at all. The problem with his withdrawal was that he _couldn't_, and apparently because it's magic the fact that he couldn't didn't depend on any objection. The statement that it was a magical contract may have been due to the fact that the nature of the goblet as a contract at all might not have been universally known (it's not exactly a sheet of parchment with a dotted line that gets signed), or, more cynically, it was for the benefit of us readers (otherwise, "Why didn't he just not compete, if he didn't want to" could well have shown up on the flint list) > I can think of only one other example of someone signing > a parchment (other than a letter)--permission forms for > third-years)--but one can imagine occasions on which > witches or wizards would have to sign their names-- > transferring property, entering into apprenticeships, > making wills (We know they make wills). Are all of these > signatures magically binding? It's possible, but where's > the canon support? > > What *about* all the letters that go back and forth > between characters in the Potterverse? If there is > something inherently magical about putting one's name > on parchment, wouldn't it come into play even with a letter? I think the point was that the goblet was spelled to act as an instrument entering someone into a magical contract, not that the slips of paper would ordinarily have acted as contracts. It could well be that it is a widely known custom that anything of the form "sheet of parchment with the dotted line at the bottom to sign" is also going to be a magical contract, and it might be less known that putting your name on a slip of paper/parchment that you then put in a flaming goblet would also be, thus the need for explanation. Or it was for the benefit of the readers. random832 From monicaboukhalfa at tmail.com Fri Jul 7 19:38:36 2006 From: monicaboukhalfa at tmail.com (Monica Boukhalfa) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:38:36 -0600 Subject: One year from Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1152301126.2D9CB77B@bc12.dngr.org> No: HPFGUIDX 155047 > Chad Wrote: > Here is a prediction about book seven. I believe it will be out one > year from today. What would be better than to release the book than > on 7-7-07. Just my thoughts, tell me what you think. Monica: I personally think it will be released on Harry's birthday, 7/31/07. Cheers! --Monica M. Boukhalfa From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 20:46:02 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:46:02 -0000 Subject: How old is Dumbledore??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155048 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spookedook" wrote: > >> I have thought this through very carefully and unless NF discovered > how to produce the Elixir but not the alchemy side without DD's help > I have to conclude Dumbledore is older than we suspect! > > Tonks: Well, of course, this plays in to one of my many theories about DD. Let's see which one should I pull up? Well there is the "DD is eternal, like a Phoenix theory", so unlike NF he does not need to drink the elixor. There is my "DD has all of those names because he is in an endless cycle of reincarnations" theory. My controversial "DD is Christ and will come back in book 7" theory. Take your pick. Tonks_op From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 7 16:36:18 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:36:18 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: <1789c2360607070737i4fd8ec12ibf8fd462d0a59bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155049 > Brothergib: > > I just thought I would add a bit about the Horcrux timelines. > > First of all, I believe DD when he says that LV was going to > > use Harry's death to make his final Horcrux. Therefore, when > > LV entered Godric's Hollow he must have been in possession of > > 5 Horcruxes. spookedook: It is interesting that the Potters' house is called Godric's Hollow when Dumbledore mentions that LV wanted something from each founding father as a Horcrux. I know DD says that the only remaining item of GG's was the sword but I seem to recall the sorting hat proclaiming to the entire school that it was whipped off GG's head, therefore surely belonging to him. If he can overlook the SH then surely he may have overlooked some relic at Godric's Hollow. Possibly even Harry being a descendent of GG(?) > Peggy: > About the possibility of making Nagini into one of his > Horcruxes, Dumbledore says: "As we know, he failed [to kill you at > Godric's Hollow]. After an interval of some years, however, he used > Nagini to kill an old Muggle man, and it might then have occurred > to him to turn her into his last Horcrux." (p.506 again) > > So it is Dumbledore's belief that if Nagini is a Horcrux, she was > made into one "some years" after Godric's Hollow. Actually if he > is talking about Frank Bryce's death, it would have been some 13 > years later. spookedook: Dumbledore says that LV dropped heavily into the dark arts and reemerged unrecognisable known as LV instead of TR, this suggests to me that his snakelike appearance was in effect at the beginning of his reign of terror. Also there is nothing to suggest that Nagini was not made a Horcrux before entering Godric's Hollow. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 7 20:10:40 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:10:40 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155050 > Carol wrote: > > At any rate, I see no reason for the object to be present at the > murder, or for the Horcrux to be created immediately. The important > point is that a Horcrux is almost certainly a deliberate creation, and > you don't make a Horcrux out of a person you're trying to kill even if > you're unwise enough to use a living creature like Nagini that can > think for itself (and is subject to death, a point that neither > Dumbledore nor Voldemort seems to have considered). > > > So, as I see it, there's no plot reason for Harry (or his scar) to be > a Horcrux, and no need for the complications that would arise when he > tried to figure out how to destroy himself (the last Horcrux) and > still kill Voldemort, or how to kill Voldemort without leaving one > last Horcrux (himself) to be destroyed. I imagine (and hope!) that JKR > will find a way for Harry to destroy Voldemort that involves neither > murder nor suicide. I think, as I said or implied, that it will > involve possession. > Ken: I'm not firmly on either side. There are hints both ways and since this author delights in giving out red herrings as well as hints it is quite difficult to pierce the veil and see beyond HBP. However, I think that you and a lot of other people are making an assumption about living horcruxes that may not be true at all. You do not necessarily destroy the soul fragment by killing the host. You do not necessarily kill the host if you remove/destroy the soul fragment. Assume for a moment that Nagini is a horcrux. What if the soul fragment is actually embeded in her skull? You can kill the snake without damaging the skull. Why would killing the snake destroy the soul fragment? Is there any canon to support this notion? Likewise if Harry's scar, a superficial skin condition, is surgically removed (by Muggle nutters?) and the soul fragment embedded in it then destroyed why on earth would that kill Harry? Riddle's diary survives intact physically (except for the Basilisk fang hole that Harry punched in it), only the living bit of Riddle inside it is poisoned and killed. The ring survives almost intact. Only the stone is cracked and that implies that the soul fragment was embedded in the stone, not the entire ring. A cracked skull would give Harry a terrible headache, it would not necessarily kill him. If the scar is indeed a horcrux its removal would not be much of an issue except that I expect that if it is a horcrux its removal will occur in a dramaticaly painful or frightening experience of some sort. A very long shot would tie this scar/horcrux notion to the stated fact that the Last Word is currently scar and has been for some time. If the horcrux/scar is removed and destroyed the last sentance could read something like this: "In all his long life although he missed his parents, Sirius, Dumbledore, , and painfully, the one thing Harry never, ever missed was that horrid, lightning bolt shaped scar." If Harry's scar is a horcrux that was created by the confused and unexpected consequences of LV's and Lilly's spells that night at GH it is possible that neither LV nor DD knows that Harry is a horcrux. At this point in time Harry does not seem to suspect that he is, or could be, a horcrux. If this is the case LV's determination to kill Harry would be easily explained, he simply does not suspect the full significance of Harry's scar. Another simple explanation is that while 7 is the most powerful number of soul fragments to *have*, it may not be the limit on the number of times a soul can be fragmented. LV is already down one fragment, what's the problem with losing another if it also kills the Chosen One? This guy is probably willing to make more if he needs to. He may already have replaced his diary for all we know. There's a possible twist for book 7. If killing the host does not automatically affect the soul fragment then LV would have no problem at all with killing Harry even if he does realize that Harry is a horcrux. What better place to hide a horcrux than in Harry's dead bones, lying in his grave? LV could have used James' or Lily's death to make Harry's skull a horcrux *before* he attempted to kill him way back in GH for that matter. I can see him going to GH, intent on killing Harry to make a horcrux and then things get a little out of control. After killing Lily he pauses and then has a sudden insight: I will not only kill the one with the power to defeat me, I will first make his very bones the repository of a soul fragment that will make sure that I am never defeated! I don't think LV's murderous intent towards Harry is a *certain* indicator of his status as a possible horcrux. It doesn't seem to me that we know nearly enough about horcruxes to be sure of that. I think the story allows Harry to be a horcrux and to survive the experience. I do not think the story requires either Harry or Nagini to be a horcrux. I am all but certain that in order to pull this conclusion off in a single volume Rowling is going to have to give Harry some kind of shortcut to finding at least some of the horcruxes. Maybe he can use a dementor as a "soul niffler", maybe Pettigrew is involved somehow. I am certain that Harry will not murder LV. Even if Harry kills him directly it will be a case of justifiable homicide if ever there was one. I have a growing suspicion that Harry will use his power to love to turn some of LV's allies against him and a dementor seems a powerful friend to have, hard as that is to imagine. Ken From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 21:00:55 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:00:55 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155051 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > It has been the business of human beings for 30-40 thousand > years (maybe longer) to *real*ize dreams. But is a realized > dream truly the dream made real, or is it only a simulacrum > of the dream. I guess that's what you were saying. > Tonks: I am speaking in a metaphysical way. I see the WW as a deeper reality, a truth that Muggles do not want to know, see, or bother about. I see the WW as the world of the mystic. I see the WW as the matrix that upholds the MW. People like Uncle Vernor fear it, want to lock it under the stairs, try to make it go away. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jul 7 21:02:24 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:02:24 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607071257v6f8fa5e1n84ebc018c9262ac2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155052 random832: > It could well be that it is a widely known custom that > anything of the form "sheet of parchment with the dotted > line at the bottom to sign" is also going to be a magical > contract, and it might be less known that putting your > name on a slip of paper/parchment that you then put in > a flaming goblet would also be, thus the need for explanation. houyhnhnm: That's possible. Perhaps the Goblet of Fire was not a good example to use. I am intrigued by the idea that any signature in the WW has magical consequences. Maybe that's why we don't see any divorces. "'Til death do us part" is not only literally interpreted, it is magically enforced. Cheat on your mate and you end up the recipient of a nasty hex. Abandon your spouse and you die. (Makes me wonder, if Madam Zabini is guilty as charged by rumour, how she pulled it off.) But, as appealing as that possibility is, I see no evidence for it in canon, hence no reason to expect Marietta to have known what she was setting herself up for. That was my point. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 21:22:23 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:22:23 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155053 > Carol responds: > > > How, then, does Harry see into Voldemort's mind and speak Parseltongue > if he's not a Horcrux? Simple. We accept Dumbledore's explanation > given early on that some of LV's *powers* were transferred to Harry at > GH Neri: This isn't an explanation, it's a description. It boils down to "Voldemort's powers were transferred to Harry because Voldemort's powers were transferred to Harry". > Carol: > and that the scar creates a conduit between them, perhaps because > Harry acquired a particular form of Legilimency ("the usual rules > don't seem to apply to you, Potter") along with the Parseltongue. Neri: The problem is that no such particular form of Legilimency was ever described in the series. So if this will be the explanation it's going to be a very ad-hoc explanation (and IMO also a bit of an anticlimax). > Carol: > I would not be at all surprised, in fact, I'm expecting to learn that he > acquired the power of possession as well. Neri: That may very well be, but it still doesn't explain how the powers were transferred. OTOH we have a ripped soul part released into the air in GH (once Voldemort had lost his body). This is a soul part of a wizard who can possess people, and we already have canon for another of his soul parts possessing a little girl, who acquired Parseltongue as a result. And this one is his *seventh* soul part, when no previous wizard in history had ever divided his soul more than once, so practically no one in the WW really knows what a seventh soul part can or cannot do. Even if I were Dumbledore himself and had all his knowledge, I'd still be presuming to conclude that such a soul part cannot accidentally turn into a living Horcrux. > Carol: > So, as I see it, there's no plot reason for Harry (or his scar) to be > a Horcrux, Neri: There's an obvious plot reason for Harry to be a Horcrux, and especially the *last* Horcrux: It would mean that he has Voldemort's memories up to the point when this Horcrux was created. IOW the identities and locations of all the previous Horcruxes are stored in Harry's head. He only has to come to terms with what he is and reach deep enough into his own mind. Neri From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jul 7 21:32:22 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:32:22 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155054 Carol: > Another point that I've made before but don't recall > any responses to is that Wormtail uses Nagini's venom > (along with unicorn blood) to create the potion that > creates Voldemort's fetal form, and "milks" her to provide > more venom to sustain the monstrous fetus/infant. Nagini, > IOW, is a surrogate mother to Baby!mort, a horrible parody > of the mother/child bond depicted elsewhere in the books. > (Will she die in a futile attempt to defend her monstrous > "child"?) Dumbledore points out the strength of the bond > between Nagini and Voldemort, which he thinks can only be > explained if she's a Horcrux, houyhnhnm: I didn't catch the significance of the snake being *milked* since that is the verb commonly used for harvesting venom from a snake, and I guess I didn't read the post where you pointed it out previously. I think you're right about Baby!Mort/Nagini as a horrible parody of the mother/child relationships depicted elsewhere in the books, but does she have to be Horcrux for that to work? Could Nagini be LV's surrogate mother literally? Could she have birthed him? Someone awhile back suggested that Wormtail might have used Bertha Jorkins' womb to bring Baby!Mort into the world. I like it, but I think it's way too gruesome for the Harry Potter books (the editors at Time Warner would never allow, I'm sure, even if that is what was in Rowling's mind). What if the snake was used instead? From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Jul 7 21:28:28 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:28:28 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: <1789c2360607070737i4fd8ec12ibf8fd462d0a59bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155055 Brothergib; As to the fifth Horcrux - it has to be Nagini. LV's snakelike appearance is surely evidence of this. Peggy Wilkins wrote; I think this does not follow. Dumbledore states that he believes > Voldemort's altered appearance was due to his having damaged his soul > so severely: he went beyond "ordinary evil" in murdering so many times > and making his multiple Horcruxes, and his altered (severely damaged) > soul was reflected in an altered physical appearance. About the > possibility of making Nagini into one of his Horcruxes, Dumbledore > says: "As we know, he failed [to kill you at Godric's Hollow]. After > an interval of some years, however, he used Nagini to kill an old > Muggle man, and it might then have occurred to him to turn her into > his last Horcrux." (p.506 again) > > So it is Dumbledore's belief that if Nagini is a Horcrux, she was made > into one "some years" after Godric's Hollow. Brothergib; And if we follow the timeline - when LV talks to DD in the chapter 'Lord Voldemort's request' in HBP he is not yet snakelike. When he appears on the back of Quirrel's head, he is snakelike! He clearly would not be able to make a Horcrux as the ethereal being he has been since GH, therefore the Nagini horcrux was made before GH. > Peggy Wilkins wrote; > I don't believe this conclusion is correct for the reason given above: > Voldemort's appearance is explained without requiring him to have > Nagini as a Horcrux. > I think you need to give a bit more explanation for the last comment. As I said there was evidence of LV creating Horcruxes when he appears at Hogwarts to ask DD for a job. DD's explanation of LV's altered appearance could refer to his appearance at this point. When he then reappears in the cemetry he is snakelike. So something has happened to make him snakelike - the most obvious reason being sharing a soul piece with a snake. Brothergib From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Jul 7 21:38:12 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:38:12 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155056 > Carol responds: > I agree with everything you say here except that I don't think Tom > Riddle created any Horcruxes while he was still at Hogwarts. He > wouldn't have had the knowledge, and Dumbledore (though he wasn't yet > the headmaster) was adamant that Horcruxes not be taught and would, > IMO, have policed the restricted section to be sure that information > was not available. I think that the diary at this point was already a Dark object intended to seduce the reader into opening the Chamber of Secrets and releasing the Basilisk to kill "Mudbloods," but it was not Horcrux because he didn't yet have the knowledge. Brothergib writes; Yes that makes sense. I think it often a mistake that I (and others) often make not to seperate the object and what it does from the fact that the object is a Horcrux. Also if he did it at Hogwarts, then it surely would have had some effect on his appearance, and maybe DD would have picked up on that. Carol writes; > Another point that I've made before but don't recall any responses to > is that Wormtail uses Nagini's venom (along with unicorn blood) to > create the potion that creates Voldemort's fetal form, and "milks" her > to provide more venom to sustain the monstrous fetus/infant. Nagini, > IOW, is a surrogate mother to Baby!mort, a horrible parody of the > mother/child bond depicted elsewhere in the books. (Will she die in a > futile attempt to defend her monstrous "child"?) Dumbledore points out > the strength of the bond between Nagini and Voldemort, which he thinks > can only be explained if she's a Horcrux, and I agree. I think that > he'd be certain that she's a Horcrux if he knew about the uses to > which her venom has been put. (How could her venom help to create a > rudimentary body for him, and how could even Voldemort not only > survive drinking it but require it for sustenance if she didn't share > a bit of his soul?) Brothergib writes; Another excellent point and more evidence for Nagini Horcrux. Playing Devil's advocate - what did Nagini do for all the years that Voldemort was Vapormort? And why did he suddenley reappear? And why didn't Voldemort possess Nagini to contact death eaters or to give himeself a body (sort of). And finally, is it simply a case of killing Nagini to destroy the Horcrux? From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jul 7 21:46:34 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:46:34 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155057 Neri: > There's an obvious plot reason for Harry to be a Horcrux, > and especially the *last* Horcrux: It would mean that he > has Voldemort's memories up to the point when this Horcrux > was created. IOW the identities and locations of all the > previous Horcruxes are stored in Harry's head. He only has > to come to terms with what he is and reach deep enough into > his own mind. houyhnhnm: "And while Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had half- forgotten." From enlil65 at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 22:13:20 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:13:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: References: <1789c2360607070737i4fd8ec12ibf8fd462d0a59bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1789c2360607071513r282a6dfbm9b30586c245fbe56@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155058 On 7/7/06, spookedook wrote: > spookedook: > Also there is nothing to suggest that Nagini was > not made a Horcrux before entering Godric's Hollow. Peggy W: I have to disagree. We don't even know that Nagini existed before GOF, do we? I don't recall ever seeing her (him? I'm assuming her) mentioned before the opening chapter of GOF, in the Riddle House. We have no accounting of how Voldemort came across Nagini; she is introduced to us there in the house. Is she long-lived enough that she existed for the entire 13 years between the Godric's Hollow events and the start of GOF? Maybe; maybe not. We have no way of knowing. I see no reason to go against what Dumbledore guesses: that if she was made a Horcrux, it happened after Voldemort was back in his re-created body. We have no reason to disbelieve it. Just to restate exactly what Dumbledore said in the HBP "Horcruxes" chapter: > > About the possibility of making Nagini into one of his > > Horcruxes, Dumbledore says: "As we know, he failed [to kill you at > > Godric's Hollow]. After an interval of some years, however, he used > > Nagini to kill an old Muggle man, and it might then have occurred > > to him to turn her into his last Horcrux." (p.506 again) So we are being told she is a recent Horcrux, not an old one. It may be a guess and not documented truth, but my tendency is to trust what Dumbledore says. It makes sense to me. On 7/7/06, esmith222002 wrote: > Brothergib: > And if we follow the timeline - when LV talks to DD in the > chapter 'Lord Voldemort's request' in HBP he is not yet snakelike. > When he appears on the back of Quirrel's head, he is snakelike! He > clearly would not be able to make a Horcrux as the ethereal being he > has been since GH, therefore the Nagini horcrux was made before GH. > > > Peggy Wilkins wrote; > > I don't believe this conclusion is correct for the reason given above: > > Voldemort's appearance is explained without requiring him to have > > Nagini as a Horcrux. > > > I think you need to give a bit more explanation for the last comment. > As I said there was evidence of LV creating Horcruxes when he appears > at Hogwarts to ask DD for a job. DD's explanation of LV's altered > appearance could refer to his appearance at this point. Peggy W: Yes, this makes sense. > When he then > reappears in the cemetry he is snakelike. So something has happened > to make him snakelike - the most obvious reason being sharing a soul > piece with a snake. But--it seems to me that simply continuing along the path of making more Horcruxes, continuing to alter his soul, could explain the further alteration of his appearance. I don't see that it is a correct, logical conclusion that putting part of one's soul into a snake, as opposed to into some inanimate object, would make one appear like a snake. If it was strong evidence, why didn't Dumbledore mention it? Dumbledore sees as evidence the following things: - Voldemort's closeness to Nagini: he always keeps her nearby - Voldemort's unusual degree of control over her, even for a Parselmouth In this "Horcruxes" chapter where he is discussing the issue with Harry, why didn't he also say, because he looks snakelike? If this is such strong, convincing evidence then it seems to me he would have mentioned it. Given that we don't even know that Nagini existed at the time of Godric's Hollow, it seems to me an unsupportable conclusion that Voldemort made Nagini a Horcrux prior to Godric's Hollow. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 7 22:26:06 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:26:06 -0000 Subject: One year from Today In-Reply-To: <1152301126.2D9CB77B@bc12.dngr.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155059 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Monica Boukhalfa wrote: > > > Chad Wrote: > > Here is a prediction about book seven. I believe it will be out one > > year from today. What would be better than to release the book than > > on 7-7-07. Just my thoughts, tell me what you think. > Monica: > > I personally think it will be released on Harry's birthday, 7/31/07. > > Cheers! Geoff: The suggestion of 07/07/07 has been batted around several times in the past..... It has also been announced that the date of the new OOTP film release in the UK and US is 13/07/07 and some folk have suggested this also as a possible date; 31/07/07 might be a bit late with all the ballyhoo which will accompany the film. As far as I'm concerned - ASAP please. From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 23:05:14 2006 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 23:05:14 -0000 Subject: Durmstrang School & Hogwarts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155060 Regarding the location of Durmstrang, Steve/bboyminn wrote: > As far as Durmstrang, it seems to have an Eastern European/Russian > feel to it, that in my mind eliminates Scandinavia (Finland, Sweden, > Norway). Many people have suggested Russia, but apparently the only > place in Russia they know of is Siberia which is completely wrong in > my mind. So, the Kola Peninsula is very close to Scandinavia, it is > Russian, it has forests, mountain (of sorts), and lakes, is very far > north, and is a very remote desolate area, an area where a magic > school could easily be hidden. > CV: I've always been certain that Durmstrang is in Norway or Northern Sweden. This is because I came to that conclusion independently by following a trail that begins with Quirrell and Norwegian dragon eggs, trolls and Muggle history and birthed a theory "Lars Is Bright Tonight" which starts her e and continues her e. (Messages 87645 and 87646 respectively) After I had already placed it in Norway (over the objections of many on this list), I found confirmation from Herself that I was correct. That was in post #6495, transcribed by listee Pam Scruton. This particular interview has not made it into the general canon collection, I'm assuming because there is only a summary and not a word-for-word transcription of the dialog there. So, how does one justify the German name and Eastern European surnamed students and instructors there? So simple. We all know that Durmstrang is a magnet school for European students who wish to study the Dark Arts. Draco tells us that he wanted to go to Durmstrang until his mummy put her foot down. There is no reason why such a school might have students and teachers with any variety of surnames. How did a German sounding school name end up in Norway? Easy peasy. We also know that JKR does allow the Wizard and Muggle world to overlap, especially in times of national stress. Like a world war, perhaps? You KNOW that the wizards of the combating countries would have come to their respective country's defense. Again, I was delighted to have JKR confirm my assumptions quite literally (from Part 3 of the Emerson/Melissa interview on July 16, 2005): JKR: I'm going to tell you as much as I told someone earlier who asked me (about Grindelvald). You know Owen who won the competition to interview me? He asked about Grindelvald. He said, "Is it concidence that he died in 1945," and I said no. It amused me to make allusions to things that were happening in the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on. (CV now): So, what was happening in Norway in 1945? It was occupied by Germany. JKR tells us there is a wizard war going on, so we can assume there were Nazi wizards. I think that the Nazi wizards took over an existing magic school (since we know that the Tri-wizard tournament has been going on for centures), gave it a German name and started the curriculum of teaching the Dark Arts, which it still does today. Steve/bboyminn: > Also, when the books speak of the three major schools of magic in > Europe, I don't think Scandinavia is included in that expression of > 'Europe'. Scandinavia seems, from the various reference books, to have > it's own tradition of magic, and would most likely have it's own > schools of magic. So again, in my mind, that eliminates Scandinavia as > the location for Durmstrang. CV: I don't. I think I have addressed your argument about the apparent lack of a Scandinavian school of magic. There was one. It was taken over by Evil Wizards and renamed. Furthermore, Quirrell has a skill with trolls (Scandinavian folklore) and chooses to get a Norwegian dragon egg when he needs just any old dragon egg. Quirrell is the Dark Arts teacher. Where did he learn it? I think he was a student of Durmstrang and learned about Norwegian dragons and trolls there. I think the name "Quirrell" is JKR's nod to "Quisling" which puts him, once again, in a relation to Scandinavia. If one can make the leap that Quirrell is related to Durmstrang, then that helps put Durmstrang in Scandinavia. I had already made all those connections before I even learned that JKR had said Durmstrang is in Scandinavia. However, I'll be pleased to discuss this some more if you'd like. Tell me why it is not possible for Durmstrang to be in Scandinavia? ~CV, with whom nobody agrees in her belief that Quirrell is alive and going to be heroically vindicated in the final book. From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 23:25:06 2006 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 23:25:06 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155061 > Carol wrote in response to Brothergib: > I agree with everything you say here except that I don't think Tom > Riddle created any Horcruxes while he was still at Hogwarts. He > wouldn't have had the knowledge, and Dumbledore (though he wasn't yet > the headmaster) was adamant that Horcruxes not be taught and would, > IMO, have policed the restricted section to be sure that information > was not available. I think that the diary at this point was already a > Dark object intended to seduce the reader into opening the Chamber of > Secrets and releasing the Basilisk to kill "Mudbloods," but it was not > a Horcrux because he didn't yet have the knowledge. He *may* have > acquired it at Borgin and Burke's, or on a visit to Grindelwald before > Dumbledore defeated him (by, IMO, destroying his Horcrux). > CV: But (unless it's movie contamination), Diary!Tom knows that Voldy did something to ensure his immortality. Diary!Tom's knowledge seems to be stuck at age 16 because he knows nothing about the defeat of his elder self, Harry's existance or Hagrid's continuation at Hogwarts or much of anything. It's as if Tom worked on the diary up until he was 16, then completely abandoned it thereafter. Diary! Tom does know about Myrtle because that's what he used to frame Hagrid. We have a magical object that ended up as a horcrux that knows that its owner has done something already to ensure his immortality and that a death has occured conveniently at that time. I have to believe that young Tom was resourceful enough to figure it out by the time he was 16. ~ CV From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 7 22:06:25 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:06:25 -0000 Subject: How old is Dumbledore??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155063 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spookedook" wrote: > > This subject is brushed on many times but I think it is very > important. I think DD is actually less of an old man and more of a > relic. > bridge13219: >From the HP Lexicon: http://www.hp- lexicon.org/timelines/main/timeline_pre1900.html#dumbledore_born We know Dumbledore is about 150 years old because JK told us, and since it's her creation, we'll have to take her word on it. From random832 at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 22:41:55 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:41:55 -0400 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50607071257v6f8fa5e1n84ebc018c9262ac2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607071541o70886eaao32c08e92e69fba80@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155064 On 7/7/06, houyhnhnm102 wrote: > But, as appealing as that possibility is, I see no evidence > for it in canon, hence no reason to expect Marietta to have > known what she was setting herself up for. That was my point. Is the full text shown? (Not only "is the contract shown", but is it explicitly stated that what's shown is the *full* text) - maybe everything's explained in the fine print - that's how it works here, anyway. random832 From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 7 21:39:02 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:39:02 -0000 Subject: One year from Today In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155065 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mrcbolt" wrote: > > Chad Wrote: > > Here is a prediction about book seven. I believe it will be out one > year from today. What would be better than to release the book than on > 7-7-07. Just my thoughts, tell me what you think. > > Chad > Joe: I don't think JKR will do that. 7-7-07 will be the 2 year anniversary of the London terror bombing including an attack at Kings Cross train station. I think Jo will want to distance book 7 from that. At least that's my 2 knuts on the matter. From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 7 21:41:47 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:41:47 -0000 Subject: One year from Today In-Reply-To: <1152301126.2D9CB77B@bc12.dngr.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155066 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Monica Boukhalfa wrote: > > > Chad Wrote: > > Here is a prediction about book seven. I believe it will be out one > > year from today. What would be better than to release the book than > > on 7-7-07. > > Monica: > > I personally think it will be released on Harry's birthday, 7/31/07. > Joe: That makes sense to me although I suspect JKR would say that it's 31/7/07. ;-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 01:39:01 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:39:01 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155067 Carol earlier: > > > > > > How, then, does Harry see into Voldemort's mind and speak Parseltongue if he's not a Horcrux? Simple. We accept Dumbledore's explanation given early on that some of LV's *powers* were transferred to Harry at GH > > Neri: > This isn't an explanation, it's a description. It boils down > to "Voldemort's powers were transferred to Harry because Voldemort's > powers were transferred to Harry". > Carol again: Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. The explanation doesn't seem to explain, as Frodo would put it. It doesn't provide a *mechanism* for the transfer of powers. But you know those white-bearded old wizards. It's all the explanation we're likely to get. Seriously, until HBP, everyone accepted the transfer of powers as sufficient to explain why Harry can speak Parseltongue. I think it's quite likely that he has other powers as well that aren't native to him (using Tolkien's phrase again), not counting the power of Love acquired via his mother's sacrifice. I think it's very likely that he acquired the power of possession as well, and we know that he acquired a form of Legilimency peculiar to him--more on that later. Granted, we don't know the mechanism, but it may be unimportant, at least in JKR's view. Consider her "explanation" of how Patronuses work. Bottom line: We *know* that some of Voldemort's powers (or carbon copies of them) were transferred to Baby!Harry. We *don't* know that they were transferred via a soul bit. One is canon; the other is speculation. I could provide you with my own speculations, but they won't convince you, and I'm not sure of them myself. But I *am* sure that an accidental Horcrux is not the only possible explanation, and there's no canon whatever to support the idea that a Horcrux can be created accidentally. Slughorn tells us that encasing the soul bit requires a spell (most likely a complex bit of Dark magic considering the heinousness and rarity of Horcruxes), and no such spell was or could have been performed at Godric's Hollow. > > Carol: > > and that the scar creates a conduit between them, perhaps because Harry acquired a particular form of Legilimency ("the usual rules don't seem to apply to you, Potter") along with the Parseltongue. > > Neri: > The problem is that no such particular form of Legilimency was ever > described in the series. So if this will be the explanation it's > going to be a very ad-hoc explanation (and IMO also a bit of an > anticlimax). > Carol again: On the contrary, the whole of OoP involves exactly that form of atypical Legilimency. Snape tells Harry that time and space matter in magic, and that eye contact is usually necessary in performing Legilimency, and then he tells Harry that the usual rules don't seem to apply in his case. Throughout OoP, and to a lesser extent in the earlier books, Harry is sensing first Voldemort's presence and then his moods, which he begins to read very precisely. At first it's only anger, but then he senses that Voldemort is "really happy about something." He begins to share Voldemort's dreams and to enter his mind, seeing Voldemort's hands as his own, speaking in his voice, thinking his thoughts (and the snake's) as Voldemort is possessing Nagini. For that reason, Dumbledore and Snape are trying to get Harry to close his mind to Voldemort, both to prevent Voldemort from reading Harry's mind (forgive the phrase, Severus) and to prevent Harry from reading Voldemort's. I'd say that's a form of Legilimency peculiar to Harry, which he clearly acquired along with the scar itself and the other unspecified powers at Godric's Hollow. The scar as a conduit between Harry and Voldemort is canon, as is the ability to see into Voldemort's mind without the eye contact usually required for Legilimency. No Horcrux required, just the acquisition of powers that would otherwise be peculiar to Voldemort. Neri: > OTOH we have a ripped soul part released into the air in GH (once Voldemort had lost his body). Carol: Do we? I thought the wizard had to detach the ripped soul part from the main soul and encase it in an object using a spell. There's nothing to indicate any part of Voldy's soul floating around Godric's Hollow except the main soul expelled from his body. In any case, Voldemort killed two people, not one, before trying to kill Harry, and there's no indication that he intended to use either of those soul bits to create a Horcrux. And what about all the other murders that he personally committed (Marlene McKinnon is one of them, IIRC) but were not used for Horcruxes because they weren't important enough? Those torn bits must still be part of the damaged main soul because they were never ripped off and encased in Horcruxes. (I think of his soul as having a large number of perforations, like a sheet of postage stamps.) All those unused soul bits have to be somewhere, and I doubt that they're all floating around loose in the WW. (IMO, the soul bits released from the diary and the ring are behind the Veil.) Carol earlier: > > So, as I see it, there's no plot reason for Harry (or his scar) to be a Horcrux, > > Neri: > There's an obvious plot reason for Harry to be a Horcrux, and > especially the *last* Horcrux: It would mean that he has Voldemort's > memories up to the point when this Horcrux was created. IOW the > identities and locations of all the previous Horcruxes are stored in > Harry's head. He only has to come to terms with what he is and reach > deep enough into his own mind. Carol: Obvious to you, perhaps. To me, it's obvious that the last Horcrux should be Nagini. Harry will have to kill her anyway. Why not kill two birds (or plot elements) with one stone? And where is your evidence that a soul bit contains memories? The diary contained a specific memory of an incident that occurred on June 13 fifty years before CoS. It may have contained other memories of that year as well--the ones that Tom recorded in the diary and wanted the person who opened it to read. There's no evidence that it included all of his memories up to that time--it was a one-year diary, and he may not have recorded memories for every day of the school year--only those that would help him carry on Salazar Slytherin's "noble work." When diary!Tom stepped out of its pages, *he* retained the memories of his earlier life, but would that hold true for a Horcrux in which only a soul bit, not a memory, would be encased? The other Horcruxes are intended to protect the soul bit, not to be interactive. I think you're assuming more than we really know. You like the resolution that you think Horcrux!Harry would provide. I see your version as only one possible version of the Horcrux!Harry theory, and Horcrux!Harry as only one possible solution to the destruction of Voldemort. There's nothing obvious or necessary about it. Nor can you state as fact that Riddle's memories would be stored in Harry's head if he's a Horcrux. If that's the case, why hasn't Hary had access to them, especially in OoP, when he was so closely attuned to Voldemort? All he's seen (and felt and heard) so far has been occurring at the present moment, and even that channel is now blocked because Voldemort is using Occlumency to block Harry's peculiar brand of Legilimency. Carol, wishing she'd never heard of Horcruxes and seeing no way out of the problems that destroying the last Horcrux would present if it turns out to be Harry From patriciah711 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 01:23:22 2006 From: patriciah711 at yahoo.com (Patricia Hurley) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: One year from Today In-Reply-To: <1152301126.2D9CB77B@bc12.dngr.org> Message-ID: <20060708012323.55355.qmail@web52809.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155068 >>Chad Wrote: >>Here is a prediction about book seven. I believe it will be out one >>year from today. What would be better than to release the book than >>on 7-7-07. Just my thoughts, tell me what you think. >Monica: >I personally think it will be released on Harry's birthday, 7/31/07. Patricia: I used to think that the book might come out on 7/7/07 but with the 7th being the anniversary of the tragedy in London (and only the second anniversary at that) JKR may want to avoid that date for fear of stepping on toes. I think the 31st is a great guess, too! From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 01:42:45 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:42:45 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155069 >Ken wrote: >There is certainly something odd about Harry's scar and I have a hunch it >goes beyond anything we have been told so far. I think we will hear a new >revelation about it in the final book. It is tempting to think it is a >horcrux. The Red Hen seems to believe that the horcrux spell is a special >spell that both kills the victim and creates the horcruxin one fell swoop. >I don't know of any canon to support, or deny,that. It is just a shrewd >speculation. We are all pretty sure that *intended* to create a horcrux by >means of Harry's death. I'd say that it is possible that he created one >accidently when he tried to kill Harry at GH. Mike here: I'm sorry to have to do this but I have to throw this wrench/spanner into the works. I first proposed this in correspondence with the aforementioned Red Hen. First off, the only explanation about Horcrux creation comes in two short paragraphs from old Sluggy and IMO we won't get any more. So we should examine his words very carefully. Sluggy says,"the wizard *intent* upon creating a Horcrux ..." IMO this notion of *intent* is very important. My thought on the subject is that the wizard has to cast the "Horcrux Encasing Spell" before committing the murder which splits the soul. (And here I disagree with Red Hen. I see Horcrux creation as a 2- step process. Go back and reread the 2nd paragraph and you see it is a response to TR's question on how you encase it that Sluggy says "there is a spell")Casting the HES first means you must also *mark* the object to receive the soul fragment. IMO if you don't cast the HES first then the soul my rip but the piece doesn't seperate and eventually reforms to the core soul. Where does this theory get us? Well, if Voldy casts the HES first at GH then attempts to kill Harry his soul fragment is primed to seperate and go searching for the marked object to become the soul repository, a Horcrux. When the AK aimed at Harry rebounded it still managed to mark Harry somehow, didn't it? So even though its Voldy's body that gets murdered, his AK killed and his soul split and a piece went searching for the *marked* object. And finds the *marked* Harry. That is my version of how one accidently creates a Horcrux. Any takers? >Brothergib wrote: >And if we follow the timeline - when LV talks to DD in the >chapter 'Lord Voldemort's request' in HBP he is not yet snakelike. Mike again: Actually Harry notices that LV is not *as* snakelike as when he came out of the cauldron. But this implys that his is somewhat snakelike. >Ken wrote: >However, I think that you and a lot of other people are making an >assumption about living horcruxes that may not be true at all. You do >not necessarily destroy the soul fragment by killing the host. You do >not necessarily kill the host if you remove/destroy the soul >fragment. >Assume for a moment that Nagini is a horcrux. What if the soul >fragment is actually embeded in her skull? You can kill the snake >without damaging the skull. Why would killing the snake destroy the >soul fragment? Is there any canon to support this notion? Likewise if >Harry's scar, a superficial skin condition, is surgically removed (by >Muggle nutters?) and the soul fragment embedded in it then destroyed >why on earth would that kill Harry? Mike, once more: I'm in full agreement with Ken on this point. I also think we should consider that the soul is not a physical object, and therefore doesn't repond like it is, say, one's heart. It exist on the spirit plane and would only respond to magical stimuli. (and yes, a Basilisk's fang is magical:-) Therefore a piece of soul is an ethereal, magical entity that is not bound by the rules of physics or anything Isaac Newton postulated. My final thought on why Harry!Horcrux. DD says Harry is the only known person to receive a *mark* from an AK. Maybe it wasn't just the AK but also a soul piece. Then there is DD's answer to Minerva back in Ch. 1, Book 1 when she asks DD if he couldn't do something about Harry's cut on his forehead, DD answers,"I wouldn't *even if I could*." Excuse me but *EVEN IF I COULD* Surely DD can heal a simple cut, just like Snape did for Draco. But maybe he can't heal a Horcrux created cut without doing damage to a child that might not be able to survive the cure. And doesn't he also say that scars can be useful things? Maybe scars that have a bit of soul from your soon- to-be mortal enemy are useful when attempting to destroy other pieces of that enemy's soul! From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 03:53:55 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 03:53:55 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155070 There seem to be two main varieties of the Harrycrux theory: the intentional and accidental. Intentional Harrycrux assumes that it was Voldy's intent to make Harry his Horcrux in GH, which would imply that Voldy *knows* that Harry is a Horcrux. Personally it doesn't seem logical to me that Voldemort would try to kill a baby that he had just made his Horcrux (although one might think of scenarios that would allow for that too) and this is why I tend more to the Accidental Harrycrux variety. This one basically assumes that, as Dumbledore says, Voldy was intending to make his last Horcrux with Harry's murder, but he splitted his soul over murdering Lily, and when he lost his body because of the rebounding AK the other released soul part entered baby Harry. This Variety assumes that Voldy does *not* know that Harry is his Horcrux. Or doesn't he? What if Voldemort indeed did not intend to make Harry a Horcrux in the first place, but he *had* realized that later, or at least he has come to suspect that Harry is now his Horcrux? What if all his major plans and actions in the last books have actually been shaped by that knowledge/suspicion? Assume for a minute that sometime after GH (say, after SS/PS too, to make things simpler) Vapor!Mort realizes or suspects that Harry became his Horcrux in GH. What would he do about it? If he simply kills Harry he'd lose this sixth Horcrux and remain with only five. Of course, he can try creating another Horcrux later, as Dumbledore suggests he had done with Nagini. But that would mean splitting his soul again, so the total number of pieces would be eight, not seven, one of them lost forever. I don't think this option would appeal to Voldemort at all. What he'd really want to do would be to rescue his seven soul parts project. The preferred option from his point of view would be to somehow retrieve his seventh soul part that is now embedded in Harry, and encase it in another Horcrux of his choice, most probably Nagini. Is it possible for him to manage such a thing? And how? CLUE THE FIRST In GoF it is stressed several times in different places that Voldy had meant to feed Harry's body to Nagini after he kills him in the graveyard. This is first suggested in Harry's "dream": ******************************************************* GoF, Ch. 29, p. 576 (Scholastic): "Nagini," said the cold voice, "you are out of luck. I will not be feeding Wormtail to you, after all... but never mind, never mind there is still Harry Potter..." The snake hissed. Harry could see its tongue fluttering. ******************************************************* Harry thinks about it later: ******************************************************* GoF, Ch. 29, p. 578: ...He had heard Voldemort accusing Wormtail of making a blunder but the owl had brought good news, the blunder had been repaired, somebody was dead... so Wormtail was not going to be fed to the snake... he, Harry, was going to be fed to it instead... ******************************************************* Harry tells it to Dumbledore: ******************************************************* GoF, Ch. 30, p. 599: "Voldemort got a letter from an owl. He said something like, Wormtail's blunder had been repaired. He said someone was dead. Then he said, Wormtail wouldn't be fed to the snake - there was a snake beside his chair. He said - he said he'd be feeding me to it, instead." ******************************************************* In the graveyard scene itself Nagini is mentioned several times, impatiently circling Harry as if waiting for her treat. Here is just one example: ******************************************************* GoF, Ch. 32, p. 639: He could hear noises at his feet. He looked down and saw a gigantic snake slithering through the grass, circling the headstone where he was tied. ******************************************************* And then when Voldemort is going to duel with Harry he promises Nagini: ******************************************************* GoF, Ch. 32, p. 639: "Just a little longer, Nagini," he whispered, and the snake glided away through the grass to where the Death Eaters stood watching. ******************************************************* So I'd say it's not only established but also stressed that Harry was to be fed to Nagini after being killed. But fed in what manner? CLUE THE SECOND Nagini's venom has a very interesting property ? it prevents blood from clotting. During her attack on Arthur in OotP it is repeatedly stressed how much blood Arthur has lost: ******************************************************* OotP, Ch. 22 ? 23, several places: he reared high from the floor and struck once, twice, three times, plunging his fangs deeply into the mans flesh, feeling his ribs splinter beneath his jaws, feeling the warm gush of blood . . . The man was yelling in pain . . . then he fell silent . . . he slumped backwards against the wall . . . blood was splattering on to the floor . . . "Your dad! He's been bitten, it's serious, there was blood everywhere . . ." "Mr Weasley was asleep on the floor and he was attacked by a gigantic snake, there was a load of blood, he collapsed, someone's got to find out where he is . . ." "Anyway, they carried him up a few minutes later. He doesn't look good, he's covered in blood, I ran along to Elfrida Cragg's portrait to get a good view as they left ? " ******************************************************* The first time we see Arthur in the hospital we are told: ******************************************************* OotP, Ch. 22, p. 488: "I feel absolutely fine," said Mr Weasley brightly, holding out his good arm to give Ginny a hug. "If they could only take the bandages off, I'd be fit to go home." "Why can't they take them off, Dad?' asked Fred." "Well, I start bleeding like mad every time they try," said Mr Weasley cheerfully, reaching across for his wand, which lay on his bedside cabinet, and waving it so that six extra chairs appeared at his bedside to seat them all. "It seems there was some rather unusual kind of poison in that snakes fangs that keeps wounds open. They're sure they'll find an antidote, though; they say they've had much worse cases than mine, and in the meantime I just have to keep taking a Blood-Replenishing Potion every hour." ******************************************************* And later, when a trainee healer tries muggle stitches on these wounds: ******************************************************* OotP, Ch. 23, p. 507: "Well, you know, they do work well on non-magical wounds,' said Hermione fairly. "I suppose something in that snake's venom dissolves them or something." ******************************************************* Is this interesting and highlighted property of Nagini's venom important to the plot? It might be just my biology background showing again, but venom/saliva with anticoagulant properties is typical to bloodsuckers, such as vampire bats (BTW, vampire bats actually don't suck the victim's blood, they lap it, but the principle is the same. The anticoagulant agent preventing clotting in their saliva is a glycoprotein named, naturally, draculin). If Nagini is indeed a bloodsucker, then Voldy had intended her to suck the blood out of Harry's body after he kills him in the graveyard. Of course, that wouldn't be the first time that Voldemort was making use of the special properties of her venom. He also used it when he was Baby!mort, mixed with... ah yes, unicorn blood. Do I notice a theme here? CLUE THE THIRD In PoA and OotP we were told repeatedly that dementors can suck souls out of their victims, so we know that this is in principle possible in the Potterverse. Admittedly dementors don't do it by sucking the victim's blood, but our case is different. Voldemort isn't interested in Harry's soul, like any dementor out there. He is interested in his own soul part that became encased in Harry's body. Is it possible to retrieve such a soul part by sucking the victim's blood? CLUE THE FORTH In HBP Voldemort warns his minions not to kill Harry even if they get the chance. Voldy must kill Harry himself. Why? Is it just Voldemort's pride on the line here? Or maybe it is also crucial that Nagini would get the chance to suck the blood out of Harry's body immediately after his death, before it can clot? CLUE THE FIFTH But wait a minute (I hear some of you saying), Dumbledore said that Voldemort had made Nagini his last Horcrux, didn't he? No, he didn't. In JKR's best sneaky style, Dumbledore actually never says explicitly that Nagini is already a Horcrux *now*. He doesn't even hypothesize it, exactly. What he does say is: ******************************************************* HBP, Ch. 23, p. 506: After an interval of some years, however, he used Nagini to kill an old Muggle man, and it might then have occurred to him to turn her into his last Horcrux. ******************************************************* That does not necessarily mean that Voldemort had already turned her into his last Horcrux, only that the idea had *occurred* to him. Note that Dumbledore also seems to imply here that Frank was the murder used to make Nagini a Horcrux, but again, very sneakily, he does not say it *explicitly*. JKR only lets us assume that this is what he means. Moreover, Frank being the death that made Nagini a Horcrux wouldn't sit well with another thing that Dumbledore says only one paragraph before: ******************************************************* He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths. ******************************************************* Frank, and old muggle retainer, would hardly be a particularly significant death for Voldemort. The idea that Frank was the death that made Nagini a Horcrux is also problematic from the timing aspect. Did Voldy create this Horcrux before the graveyard, when he was Baby!mort? If so then that would be his sixth and last Horcrux, so why does he say later in the graveyard that he decided to settle on his mortal body before courting immortality again? He had already completed his immortality project, hadn't he? If, OTOH, you think that Voldemort had intended to make Nagini a Horcrux *after* the graveyard, then wouldn't he plan to use Harry's death for that, rather than Frank's? So as a whole, Nagini already being a Horcrux using Frank's death sounds more and more like a red herring to me. A very useful red herring, as it hints to several other possibilities that might be true, but still a red herring in itself. So what if Nagini isn't a Horcrux *yet*? She is slated to *become* one, when she can retrieve the seventh soul piece out of Harry. That would definitely work well with Dumbledore's words. CLUE THE SIXTH Well, not really a clue, more of a hunch, but what's with all these blood hints, anyway? Does this have any connection with Voldemort using a bit of Harry's blood for his resurrection? Does it have anything to do with the gleam in Dumbledore's eyes? Neri From kjones at telus.net Sat Jul 8 05:04:47 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 22:04:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44AF3CEF.1030304@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155071 Neri wrote: snip > Personally it doesn't seem logical to me that Voldemort would try to > kill a baby that he had just made his Horcrux (although one might > think of scenarios that would allow for that too) and this is why I > tend more to the Accidental Harrycrux variety. This one basically > assumes that, as Dumbledore says, Voldy was intending to make his last > Horcrux with Harry's murder, but he splitted his soul over murdering > Lily, and when he lost his body because of the rebounding AK the other > released soul part entered baby Harry. This Variety assumes that Voldy > does *not* know that Harry is his Horcrux. KJ: I have to agree with you on the sheer basis of logic. If horcruxes and soul pieces were not key to the plot, they would never have been included in the books. Harry has a scar on his head for a reason, he has some of V's powers, he can speak Parseltongue, he has an unusual mental connection to V. no matter if he is in his own body or a snake's body. Time and distance don't make a difference to this connection, as was brought up in the occlumency lessons. We are told in JKR's interviews that the events at GH had never occurred in the history of the WW. We also know that the backlash of the AK was violent enough to destroy the house and vaporize Voldy. Obviously, V. simply meant to murder Harry, but something went wrong, something that "marked Harry as his equal". Neri > What if Voldemort indeed did not intend to make Harry a Horcrux in the > first place, but he *had* realized that later, or at least he has come > to suspect that Harry is now his Horcrux? What if all his major plans > and actions in the last books have actually been shaped by that > knowledge/suspicion? > Assume for a minute that sometime after GH (say, after SS/PS too, to > make things simpler) Vapor!Mort realizes or suspects that Harry became > his Horcrux in GH. What would he do about it? KJ This is very interesting and the first new thing to come up in the Harry/horcrux discussions. It is a very good point and would explain the difference between "kill him" in GoF, and "leave him for me" in HBP. Something happened after the battle of the MoM to clue V. as to how dangerous Harry could be to him. He does realize that there is a connection, a scar on Harry's head, and that Harry can speak Parseltongue. As well, when he attempted to possess Harry at the MoM, he may have been able to sense the soul piece. Neri > If he simply kills Harry he'd lose this sixth Horcrux and remain with > only five. Of course, he can try creating another Horcrux later, as > Dumbledore suggests he had done with Nagini. But that would mean > splitting his soul again, so the total number of pieces would be > eight, not seven, one of them lost forever. I don't think this option > would appeal to Voldemort at all. What he'd really want to do would be > to rescue his seven soul parts project. The preferred option from his > point of view would be to somehow retrieve his seventh soul part that > is now embedded in Harry, and encase it in another Horcrux of his > choice, most probably Nagini. Is it possible for him to manage such a > thing? And how? KJ: This is where we part ways. I think that Nagini is a plot device to enable to steer us into believing that it is possible to have a soul piece encased in a living creature. Nothing more. Voldemort has possessed Nagini so often that this may be the only reason that she is particularly obedient to him. DD just casually made mention of his thoughts on the matter and it has nearly become canon that Nagini is a horcrux. snip Neri > In the graveyard scene itself Nagini is mentioned several times, > impatiently circling Harry as if waiting for her treat. Here is just > one example: > GoF, Ch. 32, p. 639: > He could hear noises at his feet. He looked down and saw a gigantic > snake slithering through the grass, circling the headstone where he > was tied. KJ: I am thinking that Nagini may either turn to Harry as a result of the confusion of the piece of soul in Harry that she senses, or she may become confused at a crucial moment because of it. Part of her circling Harry may just be a hint in this direction. Neri > Is this interesting and highlighted property of Nagini's venom > important to the plot? It might be just my biology background showing > again, but venom/saliva with anticoagulant properties is typical to > bloodsuckers, such as vampire bats (BTW, vampire bats actually don't > suck the victim's blood, they lap it, but the principle is the same. > The anticoagulant agent preventing clotting in their saliva is a > glycoprotein named, naturally, draculin). If Nagini is indeed a > bloodsucker, then Voldy had intended her to suck the blood out of > Harry's body after he kills him in the graveyard. Of course, that > wouldn't be the first time that Voldemort was making use of the > special properties of her venom. He also used it when he was > Baby!mort, mixed with... ah yes, unicorn blood. Do I notice a theme here? KJ: This could be one more thing wrong with V's potion, in that we know killing a unicorn and drinking its blood conveys a curse upon that person. Add to this a bone of his father who repudiated him utterly, Harry's blood containing protections based on love, which apparently caused him considerable pain when he tried to possess Harry, as well as Pettigrew's hand. Pettigrew owes his life to Harry Potter. It seems like a recipe for disaster. Neri > In PoA and OotP we were told repeatedly that dementors can suck souls > out of their victims, so we know that this is in principle possible in > the Potterverse. Admittedly dementors don't do it by sucking the > victim's blood, but our case is different. Voldemort isn't interested > in Harry's soul, like any dementor out there. He is interested in his > own soul part that became encased in Harry's body. Is it possible to > retrieve such a soul part by sucking the victim's blood? KJ: While you could be right about this, I find it more likely that one of the horcruxes will be tossed to a dementer, who will obligingly suck the soul out of it without risking the lives of the Trio. Dementors can be useful too. Neri > Well, not really a clue, more of a hunch, but what's with all these > blood hints, anyway? Does this have any connection with Voldemort > using a bit of Harry's blood for his resurrection? Does it have > anything to do with the gleam in Dumbledore's eyes? KJ: It is certainly there for a purpose. There is a great deal to do with blood in the books including inheritance of blood, purity of blood, loss of blood, taking of blood, dragon's blood, unicorn blood, wards using blood, blood protections, and DD's little trickle of blood. Even the relationship between Harry and Snape could be characterized as "bad blood". It will be interesting to see where all of these references take us. KJ From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sat Jul 8 05:54:11 2006 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 21:54:11 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's Age In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155072 >--- In >HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, >Laura Lynn Walsh >wrote: >> >> Dumbledore is usually considered to be around 180 >> years old during these stories. > >bridge13219: >I think it's on JKR's website that Dumbledore is 150 years old. >Either that or I found it on the HPLexicon where they had it from an >interview of hers. OK. So he's 150. That still doesn't answer my questions. At 14:04 -0800 06/07/06, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: >But if Nicolas Flamel >is 600 some years, he must have discovered the >Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone when he was around >150 years old - or else he would have already been >dead by the time Dumbledore was born. So, Flamel >couldn't have been working with Dumbledore on >the Stone. We have two choices: either Dumbledore >is as old as Flamel Which you have said, he is not. >or they worked on something else >together. > >If DD and Flamel worked on something different, >what might it have been? It must have been something >important, as Flamel had most likely been retired by >the time DD was born, let alone by the time he would >have been old enough to be a worthy partner. It couldn't >have been dragon's blood, or that would have been >written up a bit differently on the card. It must have >had something to do with alchemy. Anybody know >more about alchemy's goals other than changing base >metals to gold? > >The thing that makes it unlikely that DD is as old as >Flamel is that, when we see the younger DD in the >pensieve, he has auburn hair. If he were as old as >Flamel, he would have already had white or gray >hair by then and wouldn't have looked noticeably >younger. > >Sorry if this has been resolved already. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jul 8 08:18:24 2006 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (Sandra Collins) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 08:18:24 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155073 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" > wrote: > > > > It has been the business of human beings for 30-40 thousand > > years (maybe longer) to *real*ize dreams. But is a realized > > dream truly the dream made real, or is it only a simulacrum > > of the dream. I guess that's what you were saying. > > > > Tonks: > I am speaking in a metaphysical way. I see the WW as a deeper reality, > a truth that Muggles do not want to know, see, or bother about. I see > the WW as the world of the mystic. I see the WW as the matrix that > upholds the MW. People like Uncle Vernor fear it, want to lock it > under the stairs, try to make it go away. > Sandra replies - Well whatever it is, I've learned two new words from this discussion. Simalucrum, and koan. I have no idea what either mean but I'm determined to drop them into a conversation sometime soon. Maybe next time I'm going round the shops. Look out Woolies. As for the wizworld and muggle world, I'll settle for being bewildered and hope JKR paints over a few grey areas and ties up quite a few loose ends, dots the i's and crosses all t's in the next book. Maybe. Sandra (none the wiser, but enjoying the discussions!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 8 15:34:34 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:34:34 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: <56d.1064b39.31dffb06@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155074 Nikkalmati: > > Dumbledore comments on Voldemort's progress in HBP: > "However, if my calculations are correct, Voldemort was still at least one > Horcrux short of his goal of six when he entered your parents' house with > the intention of killing you. He seems to have reserved the process of > making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths. You would certainly > have been that. He believed that in killing you, he was destroying the > danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself > invincible. I am sure he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your > death." [2] > > So, if there had been a chance to make Harry into a Horcrux, it would have > had to be at Godric's Hollow. Pippin: "Calculations"? Sixth book? It's a logic problem! If Dumbledore is calculating by Voldemort's appearance, then it must have changed between the time Dumbledore last saw him and his appearance at the MoM. But if there was no change between the time the Death Eaters last saw him and his re-embodiment, then the last change in Voldemort's appearance must have taken place *before* Godric's Hollow. In that case, neither Nagini nor Harry is the sixth horcrux. I agree that it is likely to be a living being. Now, who do we know who is being kept alive and under guard by Voldemort despite having outlived any obvious usefulness? Peter Pettigrew! Something of Gryffindor's indeed. It would explain the odd discrepancies in Peter's character. It would explain how Peter acts at times with "a presence of mind" we could never expect from him. It would also offer some economical plotting, since if Peter sacrifices himself he will pay back his debt and destroy a horcrux at the same time. It also allows Voldemort to have horcruxes from all four Houses, which would be more in character for him than achieving three and then setting that goal aside for a less compelling one. Pippin From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 15:10:18 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 08:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Understanding Marietta (long) (Was: Evil Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060708151018.43488.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155075 --- justcarol67 wrote: > What I'm saying is that they did have a right to know the details > and Harry was behaving exactly like the person the Daily Prophet > said he was, an unbalanced liar. As Zacharias says, "Dumbledore > believes *him*" (Harry)--he isn't speaking from his own knowledge. > And they've had several months worth of Daily Prophet articles to > reinforce that impression. > > Zacharias wants to know what happened. If he's given credible > details, he'll believe it. >Magpie: >I didn't get the impression she thought they were a literal threat >like she was scared of some impending doom or anything. >Marietta seemed to dislike the DA more and more as it went on. I >remembering also getting the impression that she was getting >personally more angry--spite might have played a part. Exactly! I think we would do well to remember the context in which the first DA meeting took place, and the assumptions of the Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws in attendence. A few months earlier Harry had emerged from a maze clutching Cedric's dead body and looking awful. Dumbledore announced - not explained, announced - at the year end feast that Cedric had been murdered by Voldemort. Then everyone broke for the summer. Cedric Diggory was the golden boy of Hufflepuff, head boy, local star. Ernie and Zacharias would have known him - not as friends but certainly as fellow House-mates. Considering that his own best mate thought Harry had someone bucked the rules to get his name into the goblet, it wouldn't be far fetched to assume that there'd been some intense discussions in Hufflepuff about whether Cedric had been inadvertantly offed by Harry during the competition and that Dumbledore wasn't covering up for him in some way or repeating a wild story that Harry had told him. I can see Ernie announcing that the fair thing to do would be to go to the meeting and see for themselves, give Harry a chance to explain, etc. As for Marietta, she's a close friend of Cho's. Cho's connection to Cedric needs no explanation here; she might have just the same take on things as the Huffs do. Cho starts to get interested in Harry; it's not unreasonable to think that Marietta went along to protect Cho from herself and that she really never cared about DADA much either way except that she wanted to pass her OWLS. And then they get to the meeting and Harry acts defensive and snooty as if it's just vulgar curiousity that's motivating them to show up. It was very likely to reinforce previous impressions rather than negate them. This was one of the two places in the book that I really got annoyed at Harry - he really needed someone to get him a clue in a bag fast. Magda (the other place in the book where I got annoyed was when he was in the hospital wing at the end, and there were all his old and new friends who'd got hurt for his sake and he never reflects on this fact, being instead caught up in grief and guilt for a godfather he barely knew. An acknowledgement of what he's got in front of him might have helped him deal with the end of an escape-from-the-Dursleys dream.) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 8 15:42:17 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:42:17 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155076 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sandra Collins" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" > wrote: Tonks: > > I am speaking in a metaphysical way. I see the WW as a > deeper reality, > > a truth that Muggles do not want to know, see, or bother about. > I see > > the WW as the world of the mystic. I see the WW as the matrix > that > > upholds the MW. People like Uncle Vernor fear it, want to lock it > > under the stairs, try to make it go away. > > > > > Sandra: > > Well whatever it is, I've learned two new words from this > discussion. Simalucrum, and koan. I have no idea what either > mean but I'm determined to drop them into a conversation > sometime soon. Maybe next time I'm going round the shops. > Look out Woolies. > As for the wizworld and muggle world, I'll settle for being > bewildered and hope JKR paints over a few grey areas and ties > up quite a few loose ends, dots the i's and crosses all t's in the > next book. Maybe. Geoff: I first came across the word "simulacrum" when reading Asimov's 'Foundation' books years ago. It means 'an image or representation of a person or thing". Today, we might use the word 'hologram' or something similar. A "koan" is 'a paradoxical anecdote or riddle used in Zen Buddhism to show the inadequacy of logical reasoning and provoke enlightenment'. Hmm. Yes. I think I'll take half a dozen of those please... From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 15:51:39 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:51:39 -0000 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155077 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Seriously, it seems fairly obvious to me that there was a > > conflict between Muggles and Wizards and the Wizards lost. > > They lost so badly they not only went into deep, deep, *deep* > > hiding (erasing everything but the barest whisper of their > > existence) they took their *animals* with them!! > > Oh yeah, one of these groups is superior, and it ain't the > > parasitical wizards. Not when they have to keep their *insects* > > a secret. > >>Sandra: > > That's a good point which I hadn't thought of - the amazing > animals of the HP world. Why do they have to be secret, and who > would decide what muggles are allowed to be aware of? > Betsy Hp: IIRC, that text book JKR put out on the magical animals of the WW (I'm away from my books, sorry) talks a lot about this. Basically (again, IIRC) the wizards decided that anything that suggested the possibility of magic existing needed to be hidden. That way their own existance would remain a secret. So they formed a committee and got to it. > >>Sandra: > But taking another angle, as we've read, there is a top-level link > between muggle politicians and the Ministry for Magic, so > wouldn't the services of the magical world have been used by > various dodgy governments (or big businesses) to benefit their > own ends? Financial pressures, illicit dealings with the less > pleasant wizardy people, combined forces to dominate both > worlds - it's all there to be exploited. Maybe that's part of > Voldermort's grand plan, to cross over the divide and rule both > worlds? Betsy Hp: Hmm, but any hint of Muggle knowledge is strictly controlled by the MoM. That's the basis of the WW's government, keeping the Big Secret. It wouldn't surprise me if there were wizards interacting with Muggles for their own (and probably even WW's) benefit, but to not fully control the few Muggles in the know? *Far* too risky. Either a life time away in Azkaban or a full obliviate and future monitering. > >>Sandra: > This just strengthens my feelings that JKR might have been > better off by making the two worlds in parallel dimensions, rather > than a bit of each here and there. Betsy Hp: It'd be simpler, I think, but far less interesting. Personally, I love the pressures and problems inherit in the WW *because* they're forced to co-exist with Muggles. Plus, I like the suggestion that those eccentrics you run into from time to time are actually wizards. Those spots where reasturants or stores *always* fail are actually wizard hotspots. It's kind of fun, IMO. > >>Tonks: > > I see the WW as a deeper reality, a truth that Muggles do not want > to know, see, or bother about. I see the WW as the world of the > mystic. I see the WW as the matrix that upholds the MW. People > like Uncle Vernor fear it, want to lock it under the stairs, try > to make it go away. Betsy Hp: Too bad it's so ugly. I'm rather uncomfortable with the WW. I used to think it was where creativity and imagination lived, but now it seems to be the place where pettiness, fear, and mob-think get their strength. Though, that might be the Voldemort influence Harry is there to purge? Betsy Hp From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Jul 8 15:41:38 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:41:38 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: <1789c2360607071513r282a6dfbm9b30586c245fbe56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155078 > > spookedook: > > Also there is nothing to suggest that Nagini was > > not made a Horcrux before entering Godric's Hollow. > > Peggy W: > I have to disagree. We don't even know that Nagini existed before > GOF, do we? I don't recall ever seeing her (him? I'm assuming her) > mentioned before the opening chapter of GOF, in the Riddle House. Oh my, could Nagini be the snake Harry released from the zoo in the first book?? I know it is the wrong kind of snake, constrictors are not poisonous as far as I know, but that is the kind of detail that Rowling would overlook and that I as a reader could forgive an author for fudging anyway. It certainly would give Nagini a debt of love to Harry that could be useful in the end. Ken From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jul 8 16:35:08 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:35:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? References: Message-ID: <007301c6a2ac$7ab0ce80$e17e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155080 > Betsy Hp: > Too bad it's so ugly. I'm rather uncomfortable with the WW. I used > to think it was where creativity and imagination lived, but now it > seems to be the place where pettiness, fear, and mob-think get their > strength. Though, that might be the Voldemort influence Harry is > there to purge? Magpie: The books sometimes seem conflicted on this as well. In the beginning it seems like it's being set up as the defintinition between imagination or not, with the Dursleys hating anything not "normal." But ultimately the WW isn't like that at all. That seems like kind of a throwaway (a lot of the stuff the Dursley chapters mock turn up polished in a glow of nostalgia in the Wizarding sections.) Sure it's got stuff that to us is fantastical, but to them it's not. There's nothing inherently more exciting about flying brooms than flying airplanes, it's just we know one of them. As people they're not more imaginative or open-minded than Muggles all around. The Twins are creative, Luna's into believing things without proof, but otherwise they're no strangers to groupthink or kneejerk prejudice or closed-mindedness. The Twins' make practical jokes and Luna believes in the Wizarding equivalent of the US' Weekly World News and conspiracy stuff. Also magic itself is never presented as anything wondrous--not that this is a bad thing, but AJByatt was correct in pointing out that the books aren't really concerned with the numinous. Magic is like electricity in their world. Harry is sometimes bowled over by some new, amazing thing he's never seen, but it's usually just something practical. So yeah, I can't really see that the WW is the place of creativity. As a metaphor that's just not what it is, it seems to me. -m From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 14:45:35 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 07:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060708144535.8656.qmail@web53115.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155081 --- houyhnhnm102 wrote: > And if there isn't, why should Marietta be particularly > wary of putting her name on Hermione's parchment for any > reason other than the obvious one that it will incriminate > her if it falls into the wrong hands? Hermione's problem is the same one she has with SPEW: she knows best, and because her motives are pure, then everything she does (as long as it's In Pursuit Of A Higher Goal) is praiseworthy. Anyone who's spent their career in the non-profit sector, like I have, will have run into dozens of Hermoine's over the years. If you're lucky, they're just volunteers, if you're not lucky, they're major donors and if you're REALLY screwed, they're members of the board of directors or even your boss. Hermoine would never show off in the Gryffindor common room ("Hey everyone look what I taught myself today!") but she has no compunctions about pushing the boundaries when it's in Harry's interest or when she's combatting a real wrong (house elf servitude). A side effect of this is that she never anticipates payback - she's taking a real risk that Rita Skeeter isn't going to take a piece out of her hide in Book 7 after being held captive in a bottle and losing a year's income. Actions have consequences, and Hermione's been lucky - so far. Magda (who's had a couple of Hermione bosses in her still-young lifetime) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 17:43:33 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 17:43:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155082 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > If DD and Flamel worked on something different, > what might it have been? It must have been something > important, as Flamel had most likely been retired by > the time DD was born, let alone by the time he would > have been old enough to be a worthy partner. It couldn't > have been dragon's blood, or that would have been > written up a bit differently on the card. It must have > had something to do with alchemy. Anybody know > more about alchemy's goals other than changing base > metals to gold? Tonks: Alchemy is not the literal changing of base metals to gold. It is a spiritual process. There were many monks and other religious persons that were alchemist. There were those for whom alchemy was a precursor to chemistry, but for many it was a spiritual process of changing our base nature to that of Christ. (Or if you like a more psychological way, the process evolving to our highest self.) I think that this can be one of the many themes in the HP books and it would fit with DD being a partner of Flamel. I am not well versed in alchemy so I have been reading on the subject in my detective work to decipher the HP series. I am current reading something called "Aurora Consurgens" which was thought to have been written by Thomas Aquinas, but was probably not. It was thought that he, like many other Religious of the time, was an alchemist. The first thing I noticed about this was the title. Auror plus an a. hum This is a very obscure work and I am sure that JKR has never seen it, but still.. makes you wonder how she came up with the Auror title for the police force of the WW. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 18:21:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:21:49 -0000 Subject: Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155083 Ken wrote: > Oh my, could Nagini be the snake Harry released from the zoo in the first book?? I know it is the wrong kind of snake, constrictors are not poisonous as far as I know, but that is the kind of detail that Rowling would overlook and that I as a reader could forgive an author for fudging anyway. It certainly would give Nagini a debt of love to Harry that could be useful in the end. > Carol responds: That question has been asked before and I'm pretty sure that the answer is "no." Setting aside all the arguments that I've made for Nagini being made a Horcrux, the boa constirctor is, as you say, the wrong kind of snake, it seems to be male while Nagini is definitely female, the boa constrictor was born in captivity (presumably a Muggle zoo) and is somehow planning to return to Brazil, whereas Nagini is clearly magical and was probably encountered by Voldemort on his travels (which probably did not include Brazil). My guess is that she's a king cobra given her size and the lethal nature of her venom (for everyone except LV)--a bite from a king cobra in RL can kill an elephant within an hour. There's a distinct difference in personality, too. The boa constrictor is friendly and grateful to Harry; Nagini is the loyal servant of her evil master even when he isn't possessing her, circling the graveyard waiting for Harry's body to be tossed to her. BTW, it will be interesting to hear Harry conversing in Parseltongue with Nagini as they confront each other in battle! I think the fact that Nagini didn't die after Voldemort possessed her in OoP is another indication that she's a Horcrux. In fact, I'm wondering whether Quirrell brought Nagini and Voldemort back to England together (Voldemort at that time possessing Nagini) when he returned from Albania. Of course, there's the question of what a king cobra (or similar huge snake) would be doing in Albania, and why Vapormort didn't return to her instead of possessing smaller snakes and rats in Albania (again) when Wormtail found him. Or maybe he *was* possessing Nagini again when Wormtail found him, which is how Wormtail recognized his master? Okay, I still think that Nagini is an entirely different snake from the boa constrictor, which is IMO just a plot device to show that Harry can talk to snakes, and that Nagini is a Horcrux (and has been one for a long time, as indicated by the effects of her venom on LV), but I'm more confused than ever about her whereabouts when he was vaporized, how he found her again (or vice versa), and how Quirrell got Vapormort to England *before* Vapormort was in his head (notice that when Harry shakes hands with Quirrell in the Leaky Cauldron, Quirrell isn't wearing a turban, and the very fact that he can shake hands with Harry indicates that he hasn't yet become dangerous to Harry). Help me out, someone, please. (No doubt Geoff or someone who keeps track of the threads can link you to an older discussion of the boa constrictor and why it probably isn't Nagini. Carol, imagining a sequel called "Voldemort: The Lost Years" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 18:49:34 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:49:34 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155084 Neri wrote: > There seem to be two main varieties of the Harrycrux theory: the intentional and accidental. Intentional Harrycrux assumes that it was Voldy's intent to make Harry his Horcrux in GH, which would imply that Voldy *knows* that Harry is a Horcrux. > > Personally it doesn't seem logical to me that Voldemort would try to kill a baby that he had just made his Horcrux Carol responds: At least we agree on this much. The whole point of going to Godric's Hollow was to thwart the Prophecy by killing Harry. Voldemort *may* have intended to make a last Horcrux *using* Harry's murder (that's speculation on DD's part), but it's most unlikely that he intended to make Harry himself--or his corpse--into a Horcrux. We know that he prefers solid objects, preferably made of gold so they'll last forever (the ring, the locket, and the cup are all made of gold; the diary had a different purpose) and with powerful magic of their own (even the diary was powerfully magical in its own right before it was made into a Horcrux). He does not make Horcruxes out of the rotting corpses of his victims or even their skulls. It's canon that he tried to kill Harry and that he wanted (and wants) him dead. Deliberately making him a Horcrux is antithetical to this established intention. Neri: and this is why I tend more to the Accidental Harrycrux variety. This one basically assumes that, as Dumbledore says, Voldy was intending to make his last Horcrux with Harry's murder, but he splitted his soul over murdering Lily, and when he lost his body because of the rebounding AK the other released soul part entered baby Harry. Carol responds: As I said before, there's no evidence whatever that Horcruxes can be created accidentally. Slughorn says that the wizard who intends to create a Horcrux splits his soul through the act of murder and encases the soul bit in an object using a spell. Obviously the encasing has to occur *after* the murder that splits the soul. There is no preparatory spell, or at least no evidence for one. So once Voldemort had hit Harry with the AK and the AK burst out of him, causing the lightning-shaped cut that later healed into a scar, and rebounded onto Voldemort, separating his soul from his body without killing him because of the five or six extant Horcruxes, he could not possibly perform the spell to create a Horcrux, and there's no way that a spell can be performed accidentally. The wand required to cast the spell was lying useless on the ground. Voldemort was vaporized and helpless, with only one power left to him, that of possession, by his own account. Meanwhile, some of his powers somehow entered Harry through the cut. Admittedly we don't know the mechanism. But the spell that would actually remove one of the soul bits that had been split off by the murders of James and Lily (and how many others?) and encase it in an object (surely not Harry) had not been performed. Believe it if you want to, but there's no logic to it and no evidence for it that I can see. All we know is that Voldemort was vaporized and Harry (who wasn't killed because of Lily's sacrifice) somehow acquired some of Voldemort's powers. We also know that the spell to create a Horcrux from Harry's murder was not performed because Harry wasn't dead and Voldemort was wandless and vaporized, separated from his body by the deflected AK. And that's *all* we know. Everything else, including all varieties of Horcrux!Harry, is speculation. Neri: This Variety assumes that Voldy does *not* know that Harry is his Horcrux. > > Or doesn't he? > > What if Voldemort indeed did not intend to make Harry a Horcrux in the first place, but he *had* realized that later, or at least he has come to suspect that Harry is now his Horcrux? What if all his major plans and actions in the last books have actually been shaped by that knowledge/suspicion? Carol: First, you're taking the accidental Horcrux for granted here (though I understand that you need to do so to extend the speculation). And second, you're overlooking Voldemort's very real motives for killing Harry, neither of which requires Harry to be a Horcrux: Harry is the Prophecy Boy destined (in LV's view) to kill Voldemort or be killed by him (obviously LV prefers the latter), and Harry has thwarted or escaped from Voldemort four times. Voldemort wants him dead by his own hand so that he can prove that he's the most powerful wizard in the land. IOW, he has the same motive he had when he went to Godric's Hollow in the first place as well as a second motive multiplied by four. Neri: > Assume for a minute that sometime after GH (say, after SS/PS too, to make things simpler) Vapor!Mort realizes or suspects that Harry became his Horcrux in GH. What would he do about it? > > If he simply kills Harry he'd lose this sixth Horcrux and remain with only five. Carol: Exactly. And from a plot standpoint, Voldemort would be invincible with Harry dead if he still had even one other Horcrux. Or, if the other Horcruxes were destroyed, LV would at least be the clear winner, and IMO that's not going to happen. And we have the opposite problem--if Harry is a Horcrux and he kills or destroys Voldemort, all we have is a standoff. Voldemort will be vaporized, but he'll return. Stand by for the sequel, or the next seven sequels, in which Adult!Harry again faces Voldemort and finally sacrifices himself. Not going to happen. JKR herself says that Book 7 will be the last book, and the war will end before the epilogue. One way or another, the Prophecy will be fulfilled. Neri: Of course, he can try creating another Horcrux later, as Dumbledore suggests he had done with Nagini. But that would mean splitting his soul again, so the total number of pieces would be eight, not seven, one of them lost forever. I don't think this option would appeal to Voldemort at all. Carol responds: Nor do I. Voldemort already knows that the diary has been destroyed, but he's unlikely to replace it because that would mean creating a seventh Horcrux. One of the soul bits *is* lost forever and he knows it. (Actually two of them are, but he doesn't know that.) But I agree that the number of bits of soul actually separated from the main soul (as opposed to being split off by the act of murder since he's committed more than six murders) will remain the same. Otherwise, the Horcruxes become a Hydra-headed monster that Harry can never defeat. Neri: What he'd really want to do would be > to rescue his seven soul parts project. The preferred option from his point of view would be to somehow retrieve his seventh soul part that is now embedded in Harry, and encase it in another Horcrux of his choice, most probably Nagini. Carol responds: But he's already lost one soul bit that he knows about, the one in the diary. He can't "rescue his seven-part project" because the diary soul bit is irretrievably lost. So even if there were a soul bit in Harry (which he's treated rather cavalierly, considering all his attempts to kill him), there would be no point in retrieving it. He'd have at best a "six-part project" (actually five, but he doesn't know about the ring). Neri: Is it possible for him to manage such a thing? And how? > In GoF it is stressed several times in different places that Voldy had meant to feed Harry's body to Nagini after he kills him in the graveyard. This is first suggested in Harry's "dream": Carol: Yes, but as the snipped quotes indicate, LV intends to feed Harry to Nagini in place of Wormtail, who would have been killed and fed to Nagini as punishment for his blunder. Voldemort is consoling his pet, telling her that she can eat the boy instead when Voldemort is through with him, one body in place of another. Or are you suggesting that Wormtail might be a Horcrux, too? (Pippin thinks so, but she's working from an ESE!Lupin perspective that most of us don't share.) Neri: > So I'd say it's not only established but also stressed that Harry was to be fed to Nagini after being killed. Carol: Your quotes certainly show that LV intends to feed Harry to Nagini (all the more reason for Harry to fight her, whether or not she's a Horcrux). They add nothing to your argument that Harry is a Horcrux. (BTW, since Dumbledore says that LV used Nagini to kill or hlep kill Frank Bryce, maybe Nagini ate the old man after LV killed him?) Neri: > But fed in what manner? > Nagini's venom has a very interesting property ? it prevents blood > from clotting. During her attack on Arthur in OotP it is repeatedly > stressed how much blood Arthur has lost: > he reared high from the floor and struck once, twice, three times, > plunging his fangs deeply into the mans flesh, feeling his ribs > splinter beneath his jaws, feeling the warm gush of blood . . . Carol: These quotes establish that Nagini bites her victims and that her venom has magical properties that prevent the wounds from healing (very odd, then, that somehow it has restorative properties for Voldemort himself--unless, of course, *she's* his Horcrux). They do not establish that "feeding" equals blood-sucking. All snakes swallow their prey whole. The simpler reading is that Nagini, like the Basilisk, would have had Harry for dinner when Voldemort (or Diary!Tom) was finished with him. (BTW, someone was questioning Nagini's lifespan being thirteen years or longer. It's clear from Neri's quotes that she's a magical snake. If a Basilisk can live for a thousand years, Nagini can certainly live for at least as long as a man. In RL, a boa constrictor, which I realize is nonpoisonous, can live for 25 to 30 years, and a cobra for 20 years. Nagini, being powerfully magical, would probably live much longer.) > Neri: Is it possible to > retrieve such a soul part by sucking the victim's blood? > Carol: Since you haven't established that Nagini sucks her victims' blood, the question seems irrelevant, or at least, youre wandering farther and farther into the realm of speculation. Neri: > In HBP Voldemort warns his minions not to kill Harry even if they get the chance. Voldy must kill Harry himself. Carol: Or so Snape says. Snape may be using Voldemort's orders to save Harry's life, or he may be presenting a reason for sparing Harry that the DEs will believe. We never actually hear LV say so, though I agree that he probably did. Neri: Why? Is it just Voldemort's pride on the line here? Carol: *Just* Voldemort's pride? Harry is the Prophecy boy, and Voldmort has tried to kill him numerous times, usually bragging along the lines of "We'll see who's the most powerful wizard now." I'd say he has every reason to want to kill Harry personally, especially since Snape has killed DD, the other wizard with a great reputation. Would he want to appear weaker than, or dependent on, Snape, much less a DE of the Amycus/Alecto variety? He wants to establish once and for all that he's the most powerful wizard in the WW so he can rule through fear. Neri: Or maybe it is also crucial that Nagini would get the chance to suck the blood out of Harry's body immediately after his death, before it can clot? > Carol: See above. This is an ingenious idea, Neri, and certainly an original one, but it doesn't stand up to examination. Neri: > But wait a minute (I hear some of you saying), Dumbledore said that > Voldemort had made Nagini his last Horcrux, didn't he? > > No, he didn't. > > In JKR's best sneaky style, Dumbledore actually never says explicitly that Nagini is already a Horcrux *now*. He doesn't even hypothesize it, exactly. > That does not necessarily mean that Voldemort had already turned her into his last Horcrux, only that the idea had *occurred* to him. Note that Dumbledore also seems to imply here that Frank was the murder used to make Nagini a Horcrux, but again, very sneakily, he does not say it *explicitly*. JKR only lets us assume that this is what he means. Moreover, Frank being the death that made Nagini a Horcrux wouldn't sit well with another thing that Dumbledore says only one paragraph before: > > ******************************************************* > He seems to have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for > particularly significant deaths. > ******************************************************* > > Frank, and old muggle retainer, would hardly be a particularly > significant death for Voldemort. Carol: We agree here. Frank Bryce is not a significant death, and JKR is being sneaky. I think, however, that Nagini was *already* a Horcrux, which would account not only for Voldemort's snakelike features, which apparently predate Godric's Hollow, but for the life-sustaining properties of her otherwise deadly venom for Voldemort alone. (Cf. the potion used to create Baby!mort and the use of her venom as its "food.") Neri: > Well, not really a clue, more of a hunch, but what's with all these > blood hints, anyway? Does this have any connection with Voldemort > using a bit of Harry's blood for his resurrection? Does it have > anything to do with the gleam in Dumbledore's eyes? Carol: I think you're right that the properties of Nagini's venom are important, but I don't think they have anything to do with the twinkle. We've already seen Harry rescued from death after a wound from the fang of a deadly poisonous magical snake. Maybe we'll see a reprise of Fawkes's tears and the Sword of Gryffindor in the battle against Horcrux!Nagini. Carol, who thinks that Nagini may well be a magical variant of a king cobra and that JKR would have established her vampirelike properties by now if she had any From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 18:54:57 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:54:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155085 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh > wrote: > > > > If DD and Flamel worked on something different, > > what might it have been? ... Anybody know > > more about alchemy's goals other than changing base > > metals to gold? > > Tonks: > Alchemy is not the literal changing of base metals to gold. It is a > spiritual process. There were many monks and other religious persons > that were alchemist. ...edited... > > Tonks_op > bboyminn: Tonks is on to the key element here in determining Dumbledore's relationship with Flamel. Alchemy, being a spritual process, means that Flamel is not likely to give away the deepest secrets of Alchemy to anyone who came along. Flamel has probably kept the secret of Alchemy of over 500 years, and would not give up that secret easily. So, Dumbledore studied Alchemy under Flamel, but there are may stages both chemical and spirtual that must be mastered before you actually attempt to study and create the Stone. One does not learn the secret of the Stone until one is sufficiently spirtually enlightened to use it wisely. Consider, if knowledge of the Stone was known and unguarded, everyone would live forever, and everyone would be infinitely rich. As Dumbledore points out, infinite life and infinite wealth are precisely the very things that humans do not need. So, my point is that while Dumbledore and Flamel studied Alchemy, we don't know that they ever got around to specifically studying the Stone itself. Further note that since there is only one known Philosopher's Stone in existance, that which belongs to Flamel, it is crystal clear that Flamel has NOT share that particular secret with anyone, and certainy did not go around willy-nilly handing that information out. So, Alchemy is a long complex process made up of many stages and steps. The Philosopher's Stone is the last step in a long physical, chemical, and spiritual journey, and only a very rare few are ever allowed to go that far in the process. You need to separate the study of Alchemy from the Philosopher's Stone itself. Many many alchemist studied and experimented with Alchemy their entire lives and never achieved The Stone; Isaac Newton among them (allegedly dead at age 85). There is allegedly a secret society in the real world made up of an extremely few rare individuals who are deemed worthy enough to hold the knowledge of The Stone. It is rumored that more than 100 years after Flamel's offical death, a writer met with him and had a long discussion. Having achieved The Stone and a very long life, Flamel moved out of normal society by faking his death, and now lives within this secret society. I suspect that if someone UNworthy was getting close to achieving the Stone, this secret society would intervene to sabotoge his experiements or would arrange for this unworthy person to meet an untimely death. That is the degree to which the knowledge of the Stone is protected. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From enlil65 at gmail.com Sat Jul 8 19:14:23 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 14:14:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360607081214s34a53b42s7a8727ef6c8d35a3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155086 On 7/8/06, justcarol67 wrote: Carol: > Okay, I still think that Nagini is an entirely different snake from > the boa constrictor, which is IMO just a plot device to show that > Harry can talk to snakes, and that Nagini is a Horcrux (and has been > one for a long time, as indicated by the effects of her venom on LV) Peggy W: I think it's a pretty big leap of an assumption that Nagini must be one of Voldemort's Horcruxes *because* of how Voldemort used her venom. Actually, we don't even know that he took her venom directly: it may have been used to make some magical potion that sustained him, in which case its poisonous nature would have been altered. The unlucky task of "milking" her fell to Wormtail, which must mean that Voldemort could not directly partake of it. If he were capable of doing that himself, I think he would have done so. I think that Wormtail must be doing something that Voldemort cannot do at this point (we know he prefers to work alone when he can), and to me that suggests that Voldemort is not drinking snake venom directly. Therefore, it seems more likely that he is consuming a potion made out of it by Wormtail. This neither supports nor refutes that Nagini may be a Horcrux. > but I'm more confused than ever about her whereabouts when he was > vaporized, how he found her again (or vice versa)... Again, I think the assumption that Voldemort and Nagini were acquainted before Godric's Hollow is a large leap that is unfounded. I think that someone somewhere made the assumption that they knew each other before GOF, and that assumption has carried on as if it were fact, but there is no evidence in the books that Nagini and Voldemort were acquainted before GOF. Maybe they were, maybe not; we don't know either way. Perhaps this is why you are confused about it. I'm sorry to lean on this point yet again, but to me this whole line of questioning is based on assumptions that have a poor foundation. That means the line of questions and any conclusions reached from it are suspect. I just wanted to register my objections. I'll keep out of further parts of this thread since I don't want to become too tiresome about this. I'm just saying I think the whole line of questioning doesn't make sense to me because the assumptions behind it are unfounded. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to read it; it's possible I've forgotten some detail. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 19:21:26 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:21:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155087 Tonks wrote: > I am not well versed in alchemy so I have been reading on the > subject in my detective work to decipher the HP series. I am > current reading something called "Aurora Consurgens" which was > thought to have been written by Thomas Aquinas, but was probably > not. It was thought that he, like many other Religious of the time, > was an alchemist. > > The first thing I noticed about this was the title. Auror plus an > a. hum This is a very obscure work and I am sure that JKR has > never seen it, but still.. makes you wonder how she came up with > the Auror title for the police force of the WW. Carol responds: I'm sure that Geoff will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the title translates to something like "rising dawn" or "Break of dawn." At any rate, "aurora" means dawn and Aurora was the Roman goddess of the dawn, analogous to the Greek Eos. "Consurgens" is a form of "Consurgo, consurgere," meaning "to rise up" (sometimes to stand as a mark of respect to someone, but that doesn't seem relevant here). There's an etymological connection between "aurora" (dawn) and "aureus" (gold). (The sign for gold on the periodic table is AU, FWIW.) Since "auror" is defined in canon as "Dark wizard catcher," I think the connection with dawn (the rising sun, light, etc.) is probably deliberate. The connection with gold is also possible but more iffy. "Auror" could be a shortened form of "aurorus," the male form of "aurora" (possibly never used by actual Romans or medieval writers who used Latin, as the alchemists would have done). But the implication of the noun "Auror," as I read it, is that the Aurors are on the side of Light. (Fits in nicely with Albus, meaning "white.") Interesting question. Maybe Geoff can further enlighten us? Carol, who couldn't resist that last feeble pun From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jul 8 19:14:46 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:14:46 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155088 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: Ken: > Oh my, could Nagini be the snake Harry released from the zoo in the > first book?? I know it is the wrong kind of snake, constrictors are not > poisonous as far as I know, but that is the kind of detail that Rowling > would overlook and that I as a reader could forgive an author for > fudging anyway. It certainly would give Nagini a debt of love to Harry > that could be useful in the end. Geoff: We have discussed this on more than one occasion in the past and the consensus seems to be that since the two snakes are different types, the answer is no. The most recent thread was "Nagini?", begining at post 146164. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jul 8 19:25:41 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:25:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607081225k2ef7fc2bod21b7118ad8ceae1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155089 > Ken wrote: > > Oh my, could Nagini be the snake Harry released from the zoo in the > first book?? ...snip... > > > > Carol responds: > That question has been asked before and I'm pretty sure that the > answer is "no." ...huge snip... > > Help me out, someone, please. (No doubt Geoff or someone who keeps > track of the threads can link you to an older discussion of the boa > constrictor and why it probably isn't Nagini. > > Kemper now: The thread with most respondents (including Carol and Geoff) is entitled 'Nagini?' started by DB on January 8th. Carol later responds to Deb from the same thread but with the subject changed to 'Nagini as Horcrux" on January 11th. I would check on yahoo for thread numbers, but really, that's just a pain in the @$$. It's ridiculously easier to find every post ever sent to my gmail account (whose search engine is Google) ... I heart it so much! Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 20:09:47 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 20:09:47 -0000 Subject: Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155090 Carol wrote: > Help me out, someone, please. (No doubt Geoff or someone who keeps > track of the threads can link you to an older discussion of the boa > constrictor and why it probably isn't Nagini. > > Carol, imagining a sequel called "Voldemort: The Lost Years" > Annemehr: There was a thread some time ago discussing what kind of RL snake Nagini might be in lots of detail. A nice, representative post in the thread is here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124052 From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jul 8 09:58:01 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 09:58:01 -0000 Subject: How old is Dumbledore??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155091 > Tonks: > Well, of course, this plays in to one of my many theories about DD. > Let's see which one should I pull up? Well there is the "DD is > eternal, like a Phoenix theory", so unlike NF he does not need to > drink the elixor. There is my "DD has all of those names because he is > in an endless cycle of reincarnations" theory. My controversial "DD is > Christ and will come back in book 7" theory. Take your pick. > > Funnily enough since the first book I've been wondering very much about the significance of Jesus. I am sure that Rowling will not put this in the books because it's pretty much political suicide, but ever since I saw that Ollivanders were trading BC I wondered whether Jesus was in fact a wizard before the statute of secrecy that us muggles didn't recognise for what this is. (Just so people aren't angry with what I am saying I need to clarify that I am a devouted christian but can see the line between belief and fiction as well as fact and fiction. We all know that this is a story and therefore have no reason to be offended by a theory!) spookedok From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 21:20:34 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:20:34 -0000 Subject: Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: <1789c2360607081214s34a53b42s7a8727ef6c8d35a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155092 Carol earlier: > > Okay, I still think that Nagini is an entirely different snake from the boa constrictor, which is IMO just a plot device to show that Harry can talk to snakes, and that Nagini is a Horcrux (and has been one for a long time, as indicated by the effects of her venom on LV) > > Peggy W: > I think it's a pretty big leap of an assumption that Nagini must be > one of Voldemort's Horcruxes *because* of how Voldemort used her > venom. Carol responds: Please note "I still think" in the quoted partial sentence, which you've taken out of context. I was repeating a hypothesis that I've attempted to support with canon in various posts (the only assumption being that fellow list members had read the venom argument and that I didn't need to repeat it in this post). Far from taking my hypothesis for granted, I was raising possible objections to my own idea, problems that I haven't resolved in my own mind. I'm saying that *if* Nagini was a Horcrux before Godric's Hollow, or even if Voldemort and Nagini were, erm, acquaintances before Godric's Hollow, I'm confused about how they got back together. In fact, it's unclear when and how they got together at all, or what a "dirty great snake" that would be more at home in India or Africa was doing in Albania when Wormtail found Voldemort there. Speculations from anyone would be welcome. I was also suggesting, not assuming, that perhaps Voldemort was possessing Nagini when Quirrell brought Voldemort back to England. He was not yet possessing Quirrell, and it would be hard to bring him back in Vapor form, so, IMO, he must have been possessing some creature. Why not Nagini, which would explain how she got to England? (Maybe Quirrell, the soon-to-be DADA instructor, had special permission from the MoM to import her? Or he sneaked her in using the same (illegal?) means he used to smuggle in the dragon's egg? Just raising a question that I haven't seen satisfactorily answered and proposing a possible solution that fits in with my Nagini speculations. However, that bit of speculation is not critical to the Nagini!Horcrux idea, so you may not be interested in answering it. I'd be interested from hearing from others about it though. (CV? Here's your chance to talk about Quirrell to a ready listener.) Perhaps you (Peggy) can provide your own hypothesis as to how Voldemort and Nagini got together, which must have been before Wormtail used her venom (together with unicorn blood) to create a rudimentary body for Voldemort. You might also explain Voldemort's apparent immunity to, or even dependence on, Nagini's "milk" if she's something other than a Horcrux. (I've answered your idea that it's "just some magical potion" below.) As Dumbledore says, the relationship between them seems to go beyond the usual power of a Parseltongue over snakes (which we see in Morfin and in young Tom Riddle, who says that snakes "come to him"). Peggy W: > Actually, we don't even know that he took her venom directly: it may have been used to make some magical potion that sustained him, in which case its poisonous nature would have been altered. The > unlucky task of "milking" her fell to Wormtail, which must mean that > Voldemort could not directly partake of it. If he were capable of > doing that himself, I think he would have done so. I think that > Wormtail must be doing something that Voldemort cannot do at this > point (we know he prefers to work alone when he can), and to me that > suggests that Voldemort is not drinking snake venom directly. > Therefore, it seems more likely that he is consuming a potion made out of it by Wormtail. Carol responds: Wormtail "milked" her because Baby!mort was too weak and helpless to do obtain the venom himself, not because Voldemort couldn't "directly partake of it," which I take to mean "couldn't drink the undiluted venom." Your assumption that he's drinking "some magical potion" rather than the undiluted venom is not supported by canon (all potions in the HP books are magical, BTW). Wormtail's demonstrated ability to brew potions does not mean that he's doing so here, and even if he is, Voldemort is still dependent on Nagini's venom as a vital component of the supposed potion. Your argument that the venom may be a potion ingredient and therefore Voldemort isn't dependent on it is like saying that Lupin isn't dependent on wolfsbane, only on wolfsbane potion, to keep his mind during his transformations. I think Snape might have had some difficulty concocting wolfsbane potion without that key ingredient. Let's look at the canon: "'You will milk her before we retire, Wormtail,' said the second voice. 'I will need feeding in the night. the journey has tired me greatly" (GoF Am. ed. 7). No suggestion that Wormtail needs to brew a potion, only that Voldemort, in his present fetal form, has to be cared for like some hideous baby, *fed* with Nagini's "milk" by his servant, Wormtail. "'Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body that I would be able to inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth . . . a spell or two of my own invention . . . a little help from my dear Nagini,' Voldemort's red eyes fell upon the continually circling snake, 'a potion concocted of unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided . . . I was soon returned to an almost human form, and strong enough to travel'" (656, ellipses in original). Voldemort's dependence on his "dear Nagini" is clear--without her venom, he would not have had even the "rudimentary, weak body" that we see in "The Riddle House" and "Flesh, Blood, and Bone." His gratitude and affection for her are clear, and contrast markedly with his treatment of his Death Eaters. Any idea how this dependence on venom that would be lethal to any other wizard came about if she's not a Horcrux? His having other Horcruxes explains why the venom doesn't kill him, but not how it can be used (along with unicorn blood) to create a fetal form for him to "inhabit" or to sustain that fetal form. I've provided both the canon evidence of this dependence and my interpretation of that evidence and pointed out that even if Nagini's venom is merely a potion ingredient, as it does not seem to be, Voldemort is still dependent on it. Hardly an unfounded assumption, but perhaps I'm giving it too much weight. How do you account for the dependence and the emotional attachment of Voldemort to Nagini, the only living being for whom he has shown any affection? Peggy W: > I'm sorry to lean on this point yet again, but to me this whole line > of questioning is based on assumptions that have a poor foundation. > That means the line of questions and any conclusions reached from it > are suspect. I just wanted to register my objections. Carol responds: Thank you for registering your objections, but I'm afraid that doing so doesn't disprove my hypothesis. I think that you might find it more useful to examine the more detailed arguments in the main thread rather than this little post you're quoting from here, which was merely intended to answer the boa constrictor = Nagini idea. I would welcome alternative interpretations of the canon I've presented as opposed to the repeated assertion that my hypothesis is based on "poorly founded assumptions." I understand that you think my conclusions are suspect, but you haven't convinced me that you're correct. Have you found any counterevidence that I haven't cited? Dumbledore himself thinks that Nagini is a Horcrux. I agree, but I believe that he's mistaken as to the time when she became one. I've supported that contention with evidence that he's either unaware of or has apparently overlooked. (Not all of my arguments appear in this post.) The charge that my conclusions are based on faulty assumptions can't be supported. They have a firm canonical foundation. It's up to you to provide a plausible counterinterpretation (and up to JKR to prove one or both of us wrong when Book 7 comes out). Carol, wishing she had a spell for conjuring the needed quotes without the bother of looking them up and typing them out From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Sat Jul 8 22:07:25 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:07:25 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: <1789c2360607071513r282a6dfbm9b30586c245fbe56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155093 Peggy Wilkins wrote; > But--it seems to me that simply continuing along the path of making > more Horcruxes, continuing to alter his soul, could explain the > further alteration of his appearance. I don't see that it is a > correct, logical conclusion that putting part of one's soul into a > snake, as opposed to into some inanimate object, would make one appear > like a snake. If it was strong evidence, why didn't Dumbledore > mention it? Why would Voldemort not look snakelike after four Horcruxes, but look snakelike after 5-6? Also, nobody has ever made this many Horcruxes, so it is possible that whilst DD may believe LV's appearance is due to Nagini, the stronger evidence to present to Harry is LV's control of Nagini. I think it was Carol who also made the point that all the Death Eater's appeared to recognise LV in the cemetry i.e. he must have looked this way before his defeat to Harry! Brothergib From bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jul 8 21:30:51 2006 From: bbernard1945 at sbcglobal.net (fuzztail2001) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 21:30:51 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155094 Bill here: I've been following this discussion for some time and I think we have been told, way back in book 2, that Harry is actually a Horcrux, although created accidentally. Review the scene when Harry has returned from the Chamber of Secrets and he an Professor Dumbledore are sitting in Professor McGonagall's office. This is on pages 332-3 of the U.S. edition. Harry has remarked the Tom Riddle (from the diary) has said that they show certain similarities. Harry begins to question this, but then, remembering that he was almost sorted into Slytherin House, pauses. Professor Dumbledore replies: "...Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..." "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so." Note that Harry did not repeat back what DD said, but said something different. DD does not correct him, but affirms his interpretation. Lest we get the idea that "powers" can exist on their own, we need only to refer to PoA, page 247 U.S. edition. Here Professor Lupin is explaining to Harry about the Dememtor's Kiss. "It's what dementors do to those they wish to destrou utterly. I supposet there must be some kind of mouth under there because thy clamp thier jaws upon the mouth of the victim and - and suck out his soul." "What - they kill -?" (said Harry) "Oh no," said Lupin. "Much worse than that. You can exist without your soul, you know, as long as your brain and heart are still working. But you'll have no sense of self anymore, no memory, no... anything. There's no change at all of recovery. You'll just - exist. As an empty shell. And your soul is gone forever...lost." Here we see that the soul seems to be the source of all higher powers: thinking, speaking, doing magic, etc. Without a soul it seems the one would exist in what might be called a "permanent vegetative state". This is why I think that Harry is the final Horcrux and that some of LV's soul was transferred to him. What JKR will do with this I haven't a clue. The "friendly Dememtor" idea suggested previously (by I forgot who, sorry) was interesting. Okay, let's hear the rebuttal. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 8 23:14:44 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:14:44 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155095 [massive snipping] > Carol: > Yes, but as the snipped quotes indicate, LV intends to feed Harry to > Nagini in place of Wormtail, who would have been killed and fed to > Nagini as punishment for his blunder. Voldemort is consoling his pet, > telling her that she can eat the boy instead when Voldemort is through > with him, one body in place of another. Or are you suggesting that > Wormtail might be a Horcrux, too? (Pippin thinks so, but she's working > from an ESE!Lupin perspective that most of us don't share.) > Pippin: Actually, I wasn't thinking about ESE!Lupin at all, and I haven't tried to figure out whether the two theories are compatible. Wormtail simply popped into mind when I had asked myself what happens if you eliminate both Harry and Nagini as horcrux candidates. The convenient thing about it is that if neither Harry nor Nagini are horcruxes, then the same mechanism could have been used in both cases: Voldemort accidentally transferred some of his powers to Harry, and then, when he found out from Wormtail that Harry is a parselmouth, he realized what had happened and managed to intentionally transfer some of his powers to Nagini. That would certainly have been useful when he was Fetal!mort I think the canon Carol quoted that the venom and the unicorn blood are being used in a potion shows pretty clearly that Voldemort wasn't drinking the venom straight. As far as I can gather, snake venom is not toxic when ingested, only when it comes in contact with underlying tissue. I would assume that Nagini is a magical snake and her venom has magical properties aside from its toxicity just as Aragog's did. Presumably Slughorn was not intending to poison anyone when he collected Aragog's venom! One of the nagging frustrations of an otherwise contented life is that I can't remember where I read, sometime before GoF came out and I joined the fandom, an interview with JKR in which she was asked if there was anything she would change if she were to do it all over. She said that she hadn't known when she wrote PS/SS that Boa Constrictors weren't poisonous. Perhaps Harry's released boa and Nagini were once the same character, and Nagini's part was rewritten when JKR realized they couldn't be. Pippin From graverobber23 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 15:41:07 2006 From: graverobber23 at yahoo.com (graverobber23) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:41:07 -0000 Subject: One year from Today In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155096 > > Chad Wrote: > > What would be better than to release the book than > > on 7-7-07. > > Joe: > I don't think JKR will do that. 7-7-07 will be the 2 year > anniversary of the London terror bombing including an attack > at Kings Cross train station. I think Jo will want to distance > book 7 from that. I think 7-7-07 would be a great day to release it. I understand about the bombings and its importance to remember it. What better way to remember it by bringing out something positive and historic in lieu of the tragedy? Of course pay tribute to the people who lost their lives that day. But 777 is considered God's number. Miracles and magic can happen... especially on that day... According to the Harry Potter books, 7 is the most magical number there is. I personally think it would be very fitting to release it on that date. 7th and final book on the 7th day of the 7th month of the 7th year. Just sounds too proper to me. graverobber23 From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jul 8 23:37:12 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 23:37:12 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155097 > Carol again: > Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. The explanation doesn't > seem to explain, as Frodo would put it. It doesn't provide a > *mechanism* for the transfer of powers. But you know those > white-bearded old wizards. It's all the explanation we're likely to get. > Neri: It's possible, of course, but I hope not. Leaving it unexplained would be very poor writing, especially as we are talking about one of the most central events in the plot. > Carol: > Seriously, until HBP, everyone accepted the transfer of powers as > sufficient to explain why Harry can speak Parseltongue. Neri: I can't speak for everyone, but *I* certainly never accepted it as a sufficient explanation. I even constructed a rather complicated pre-HBP theory (search for Mind-Linked!Snape, aka VASSAL) that explained it as part of Voldemort's immortality project. BTW, I too suspect that Harry has more of Voldy's powers, possibly all of them. But that would make the transfer of powers even more important and dramatic, so a lack of explanation would look even worse. > Carol: > Granted, we don't know the mechanism, but it may be unimportant, at > least in JKR's view. Consider her "explanation" of how Patronuses work. Neri: First ? we did get an explanation of the basic logic, if not the mechanism, behind the Patronus. "The Patronus is a kind of positive force, a projection of the very things that the Dementor feeds upon ? hope, happiness, the desire to survive ? but it cannot feel despair, as real humans can, so the Dementors can't hurt it." The Patronus spell uses the memory of a happy moment to battle despair. In the framework of the Potterverse that makes sense. But the transfer of magical powers as a result of a rebounded AK ? that doesn't even make sense. It sounds completely arbitrary. Secondly, the Patronus spell isn't so unique and central to the heart of the plot as the transfer of powers. It's a standard spell, used by many wizards. Its existence is part of the basic assumptions of the Potterverse. In contrast the transfer of powers seems to be an extremely rare and unusual occurrence even in the Potterverse. We don't have any other example of such a thing in the whole series ? unless you count Ginny using Parseltongue as a result of being possessed by one of Voldemort's soul parts. > Carol: > Bottom line: We *know* that some of Voldemort's powers (or carbon > copies of them) were transferred to Baby!Harry. We *don't* know that > they were transferred via a soul bit. One is canon; the other is > speculation. I could provide you with my own speculations, but they > won't convince you, and I'm not sure of them myself. Neri: Of course it's a speculation and of course it's not the only one. But it *is* the only one that is based on a mechanism already described in canon. > Carol: > there's no canon whatever to support the idea that a Horcrux can be > created accidentally. Slughorn tells us that encasing the soul bit > requires a spell (most likely a complex bit of Dark magic considering > the heinousness and rarity of Horcruxes), and no such spell was or > could have been performed at Godric's Hollow. > Neri: I really don't see why you consider Slughorn such an expert on Horcruxes. He tells us himself that he's no expert. The only sentence in which he mentions a spell is: "there is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" Hardly sounds to me like a reliable source for concluding anything. Certainly not that it couldn't have happened in GH. Dumbledore, OTOH, who probably knows about Horcruxes more than Slughorn, never mentions a spell and never tells us that it can't happen by accident. Anyway JKR had already demonstrated to us quite dramatically that spells can happen by accident in some unique situations (Priori Incantatum). And what happened in GH certainly qualifies as a unique situation. But the fact is, we have already seen one of Voldemort's soul parts possessing a girl *without* any additional "spell" by Voldemort himself. Suppose for a minute that you've never read CoS and you don't know what happened with Diary!Riddle. Wouldn't you conclude from Slughorn's explanation in HBP that what happened in CoS is impossible as well? > Carol again: > On the contrary, the whole of OoP involves exactly that form of > atypical Legilimency. Neri: Again, you explain something by the thing itself. The phenomena we've seen in OotP regarding the connection between Harry and Voldemort are exactly what we need an explanation for. Had we seen *another* case in which Legilimency produced similar phenomena, then we'd have a basis to conclude that it could be Legilimency. Snape tells us that it *is* Legilimency, but he also tells us that Legilimency requires proximity, usually an eye contact, and cannot generally be used through Hogwarts' protections. His conclusion is that this is Legilimency through a special connection forged between Harry and Voldemort. But the very *existence* of that connection is what requires the explanation, and we've never seen or told about another example of such a connection formed by Legilimency. If this was just a special form of Legilimency that Harry acquired from Voldemort, why isn't Harry generally good at Legilimency? Why does this Legilimency work only with Voldemort? > Carol: The scar as a conduit > between Harry and Voldemort is canon, as is the ability to see into > Voldemort's mind without the eye contact usually required for > Legilimency. No Horcrux required, just the acquisition of powers that > would otherwise be peculiar to Voldemort. > Neri: Except that you don't explain "the acquisition of powers that would otherwise be peculiar to Voldemort" in the first place, and you don't explain why the scar is a conduit, so the whole thing remains completely unexplained. > Neri: > > OTOH we have a ripped soul part released into the air in GH (once > Voldemort had lost his body). > > Carol: > Do we? I thought the wizard had to detach the ripped soul part from > the main soul and encase it in an object using a spell. There's > nothing to indicate any part of Voldy's soul floating around Godric's > Hollow except the main soul expelled from his body. Neri: I never heard about detaching the ripped soul. Are you saying that if a person who had just committed a murder is killed, then only one of his soul parts leaves his body, while the ripped part remains there? Doesn't sound logical to me. And what if the body is destroyed, as Voldemort's body seemrd to in GH? What happens to the ripped soul part then? > Carol: In any case, > Voldemort killed two people, not one, before trying to kill Harry, and > there's no indication that he intended to use either of those soul > bits to create a Horcrux. And what about all the other murders that he > personally committed (Marlene McKinnon is one of them, IIRC) but were > not used for Horcruxes because they weren't important enough? Those > torn bits must still be part of the damaged main soul because they > were never ripped off and encased in Horcruxes. (I think of his soul > as having a large number of perforations, like a sheet of postage > stamps.) All those unused soul bits have to be somewhere, and I > doubt that they're all floating around loose in the WW. Neri: Hmm. The words "split", "rip apart" and "the torn portion", used by both Slughorn and Dumbledore several times, convey to me something a bit more serious than stamp perforations. The word "detach" IIRC is never mentioned by any of them. I tend to assume that a usual murder rips the soul apart, but normally both pieces remain together within the body of the murderer, so with time they might rejoin, although probably not in a seamless way. But if immediately after a fresh murder the body of the murderer is destroyed, I'd say the most reasonable consequence would be that at least two parts of his soul would be released. So we have a plan to create a Horcrux in GH, we have more than one murder, and we have a torn soul part of a Dark wizard who's an expert in possession released into the same room with a baby whose forehead has just been punctured by a Dark curse. Your honor, I'd say we have the means, the motive and the opportunity. > > Neri: > > There's an obvious plot reason for Harry to be a Horcrux, and > > especially the *last* Horcrux: It would mean that he has Voldemort's > > memories up to the point when this Horcrux was created. IOW the > > identities and locations of all the previous Horcruxes are stored in > > Harry's head. He only has to come to terms with what he is and reach > > deep enough into his own mind. > > Carol: > Obvious to you, perhaps. To me, it's obvious that the last Horcrux > should be Nagini. Harry will have to kill her anyway. Why not kill two > birds (or plot elements) with one stone? > Neri: Even if Nagini is a Horcrux, Harry already thinks she is and he can find her. But finding the Hufflepuff Cup, or the Ravenclaw Horcrux that Harry doesn't even know what it is, this would certainly be easier if Harry was a Horcrux that was created after they were. And it would also fit nicely with Dumbledore's words that Voldemort, by attacking Harry, had created his worse enemy and gave him the tools for the job. > Carol: > And where is your evidence that a soul bit contains memories? The > diary contained a specific memory of an incident that occurred on June > 13 fifty years before CoS. It may have contained other memories of > that year as well--the ones that Tom recorded in the diary and wanted > the person who opened it to read. There's no evidence that it included > all of his memories up to that time--it was a one-year diary, and he > may not have recorded memories for every day of the school year--only > those that would help him carry on Salazar Slytherin's "noble work." Neri: Diary!Riddle recognized a Phoenix and remembered that Phoenix tears have healing power. I guess you could say he remembered it because it was written in the diary. He could use the powers of possession and Parselmouth. I guess you could say that directions for using these powers were written in the diary. Of course, his agenda included things that could not have been written in the diary, such as killing Harry Potter. In short, this Horcrux seemed to have a personality, and this personality didn't sound like it had total amnesia about 15 out of its 16 years history. > Carol: > When diary!Tom stepped out of its pages, *he* retained the memories of > his earlier life, but would that hold true for a Horcrux in which only > a soul bit, not a memory, would be encased? The other Horcruxes are > intended to protect the soul bit, not to be interactive. I think > you're assuming more than we really know. > Neri: Well, the process of theorizing sometime involves assuming more than we really know . Still, there are theories that are more likely and theories that are less likely. The fact is that Horcruxes *do* exist in the Potterverse and *can* have powers, memories (at least in the form of written words and probably in other forms as well) and agendas. That's much more than we know about any alternative mechanism of what happened in GH. And also ask yourself ? what was the GH Horcrux intended to be? Maybe Voldy meant it in the first place to be a living Horcrux (Lily according to my theory, maybe Nagini, anyway we don't know of any *object* that he had in mind). If that soul part was originally intended to control a living Horcrux, then we shouldn't be surprised if it had special capabilities, just like the Diary Horcrux. > Carol: > You like the resolution that you think Horcrux!Harry would provide. I > see your version as only one possible version of the Horcrux!Harry > theory, and Horcrux!Harry as only one possible solution to the > destruction of Voldemort. There's nothing obvious or necessary about > it. Neri: I'd say that out of the ones I heard it's the solution that explains the largest number of mysteries with the least number of assumptions. > Carol: Nor can you state as fact that Riddle's memories would be stored > in Harry's head if he's a Horcrux. If that's the case, why hasn't Hary > had access to them, especially in OoP, when he was so closely attuned > to Voldemort? Neri: You are conveniently ignoring the fact that the name T.M. Riddle sounded familiar to Harry in CoS, as if it was a childhood memory, and that he knew instinctively how to destroy Diary!Riddle although he never planned it or thought about it. How do you explain these mysteries if Harry isn't a Horcrux? > Carol, wishing she'd never heard of Horcruxes Neri: I think we've finally reached the bottom of it. You simply don't like Horcruxes. The truth is that I don't like them much either. But it seems that JKR does, and this is what counts. Neri From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jul 9 00:33:15 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 00:33:15 -0000 Subject: Killing/Persecution/Pettigrew/Marriage-Professors,Contract/HogwartsSexSnog/17 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155098 Glykonix wrote in : << (although I always questioned how did he plan to kill Sirius, I don't believe he knew any useful spells) >> Remember in PS/SS, Ron knocked a troll unconscious with its own club, using the Levitation (Wingardium Leviosa) spell. I believe that a blow which would knock a troll unconscious would kill a human, so Harry could have killed Sirius by Levitating ny large piece of furniture and hitting him with it. Perhaps he could have set Sirius on fire like Hermione set the Devil's Snare on fire in PS/SS. The amount of emotion he would put into it ought to create a fire too large to be beaten out by hand. My own favorite idea is to Transfigure his aorta into tissue paper, which would instantly moisten and tear and the victim would die of *massive* internal hemorrhage. Neri wrote in : << From her point of view we have Newt Scamander, Bathilda Bagshot and Prof. Binns all agreeing that persecutions by muggles weren't a danger for true wizards. >> Not Professor Binns. CoS has him saying: "You all know, of course, that Hogwarts was founded over a thousand years ago - the precise date is uncertain - by the four greatest witches and wizards of the age. The four school Houses are named after them: Godric Gryffindor, Helga Hufflepuff, Rowena Ravenclaw, and Salazar Slytherin. They built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution." (I emphasize that last phrase "witches and wizards suffered much persecution." The wizarding folk aren't as safe from Muggles as they tell their children they are.) "Slytherin wished to be more selective about the students admitted to Hogwarts. He believed that magical learning should be kept within all-magic families. He disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, believing them to be untrustworthy." (I emphasize that last word, "untrustworthy".) << Also, in the pretty long list of "famous wizards" cards and "Wizard of the Months" in JKR's site I can't recall a single wizard who was persecuted or hurt by muggles in any way. >> Hengist of Woodcroft was on a Famous Wizard card in PS/SS. The Lexicon says he was: "Founder of Hogsmeade. Driven away from his home by Muggle persecutors, Hengist is supposed to have settled in Scotland where he founded the village of Hogsmeade. Some say the Three Broomsticks used to be his home (fw11, CS/g)." Betsy Hp wrote in : << Seriously, it seems fairly obvious to me that there was a conflict between Muggles and Wizards and the Wizards lost. They lost so badly they not only went into deep, deep, *deep* hiding (erasing everything but the barest whisper of their existence) they took their *animals* with them!! >> This is a forbidden 'I agree' post, except that I'm not sure a flying carpet -- an Axminster that seats 12 -- isn't better than a car. It can go off-road without tearing up the environment or its suspension. It can swerve up or down, not just left or right, to avoid a broke-down vehicle in lanes. No need for traffic to stop on one street for traffic to be able to go on the cross-street: just have travellers on the cross-street go over (or under) the other street. And I'm sure there are more anti-cold, anti-wind, anti-rain charms than Impervious to keep travellers more comfortable than in an open car, exposed to the weather. Magda wrote in : << This was Sirius' and James' real blind spot where Pettigrew was concerned. Unlike their own comfortable situations where they didn't need fulltime jobs but could throw themselves into Order work, Pettigrew (like most of humanity, wizard or muggle) had to get a job. >> You're probably right, but do you have canon for Pettigrew not being rich, too? Someone pointed out that Peter Pettigrew's given name and family name both mean 'to become smaller', as in 'to peter out' and 'to grow petty', but the sound of 'pettigrew' reminds my ears a little of 'pedigree', so I like to think to think he's another Pureblood. << for the reasons I listed in my original post, I still think it was Bagman. >> I can't decide at all whether Bagman is as big an idiot as he seems and really was tricked by Augustus Rookwood, or if he is a deliberate Death Eater. I think it would be difficult to pretend to be an idiot 24/7 for years. Whirledgirl wrote in : << I can definitely imagine certain members of staff being married, maybe Prof. Sprout, Madam Pomfrey... >> My opinion, with no canon to cite, is that Professor Sprout is married and a great-grandmother. I used to think her first name was Beatrix, nickname Beatty, but JKR said it's Pomona. JKR has not yet prevented me from saying her husband is named Basil, their son Ben, their daughters Jacaranda and Acacia. Basil Sprout is also a respected herbologist and spends the school year travelling the world searching for new magical plants. And Madam Pomfrey is a widowed grandmother; her hypothetical husband Herb was killed in the First Voldemort War. I think most of the Hogwarts staff are old enough that their children (if any) are grown-up. houyhnhnm wrote in : << I am intrigued by the idea that any signature in the WW has magical consequences. Maybe that's why we don't see any divorces. "'Til death do us part" is not only literally interpreted, it is magically enforced. Cheat on your mate and you end up the recipient of a nasty hex. Abandon your spouse and you die. >> I like that idea, but can't twiddle it to cope with Janus Thickey, who pretended to have been consumed by a Lethifold but really ran off to live with the landlady of the Green Dragon. We haven't discussed Lethifolds recently. People used to speculate that they were the larval form of Dementors. << (Makes me wonder, if Madam Zabini is guilty as charged by rumour, how she pulled it off.) >> She killed them, not deserted them. Distayi wrote in : << how many children [Hogwarts] loses to teenage pregnancy. After all you have what 20 adults watching over several hundreds of students? >> Very very very few. Me, I am convinced that the wizarding folk have all kinds of simple, easy, and effective contraceptive spells and fertility spells, because those are high among the major thing that Muggles have sought from witches and wizards since before history, so the wizarding folk have had *lots* of time and motivation to develop them and improve. In the past, other listies argued with me, asserting that Hogwarts students aren't into sex. A kiss is a big, big deal to them. It might be cultural Victorianism, but I think Muggle-born students would introduce different cultural ideas. It might be something about the magic gene -- wizards live longer than Muggles (JKR said so, specifying that Dumbledore was 150, in two different interviews connected with GoF publicity campaign, altho' one would never guess it from the birth and death dates on her Famous Wizard cards or family trees) because of the magic gene, and after some point they age slower than Muggles, so maybe it also causes their sexual urges to develop slower than their adolescent bodies. Or, considering the lack of sex scandals among the staff, perhaps there is an anti-sex spell on all of Hogwarts Castle. Eric Oppen wrote in : << Of course, this could backfire---"This looks like a group I'd like to join!" she announces, as she grabs Snape, who starts looking around frantically for escape...*evil snickering* >> This is an even more forbidden "LOL" post. Carol wrote in : << the arbitrary decision of the WW to make seventeen the age of majority >> I suppose it has something to do with their love of prime numbers, like seventeen Sickles are one Galleon, 29 Knuds are one Sickle. Still, it would have been equally prime to have 13 Sickles to the Galleon and come of age at 19. If 17 shares some of the powerful magic of 7, then base 10 is less arbitrary than I think. From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jul 9 00:44:17 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 00:44:17 -0000 Subject: Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155099 Carol responds: > Nagini is clearly magical and was probably encountered by > Voldemort on his travels (which probably did not include > Brazil). My guess is that she's a king cobra given her > size and the lethal nature of her venom houyhnhnm: King cobras have wide necks and chevron type markings. Nagini is described as diamond patterned with a triangular head. She sounds like a viper to me. A little larger than the common European adder, but no doubt she belongs to a magical species of viper. Vipers give birth to live young, btw :-D From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 01:45:42 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 01:45:42 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155102 > KJ: > > This is where we part ways. I think that Nagini is a plot device to > enable to steer us into believing that it is possible to have a soul > piece encased in a living creature. Nothing more. Neri: I agree that Nagini probably has this function, but nothing more? This would be something of a waste IMO, especially considering all the possibilities and clues about her. > KJ: > > I am thinking that Nagini may either turn to Harry as a result of > the confusion of the piece of soul in Harry that she senses, or she may > become confused at a crucial moment because of it. Part of her circling > Harry may just be a hint in this direction. > Neri: What I'm pretty sure of is that Nagini serves some important plot point in the graveyard, because she is repeatedly mentioned there. > > KJ: > > It is certainly there for a purpose. There is a great deal to do > with blood in the books including inheritance of blood, purity of blood, > loss of blood, taking of blood, dragon's blood, unicorn blood, wards > using blood, blood protections, and DD's little trickle of blood. Even > the relationship between Harry and Snape could be characterized as "bad > blood". It will be interesting to see where all of these references take us. > Neri: Yes. I personally won't be surprised if the final solution that explains everything will turn out to be some sentence, maybe the directions for some spell or something like the prophecy, in which the word "blood" appears and can be read with several different meanings. This sounds to me like JKR's style. > Carol responds: > As I said before, there's no evidence whatever that Horcruxes > can be created accidentally. Slughorn says that the wizard who intends > to create a Horcrux splits his soul through the act of murder and > encases the soul bit in an object using a spell. Obviously the > encasing has to occur *after* the murder that splits the soul. There > is no preparatory spell, or at least no evidence for one. So once > Voldemort had hit Harry with the AK and the AK burst out of him, > causing the lightning-shaped cut that later healed into a scar, and > rebounded onto Voldemort, separating his soul from his body without > killing him because of the five or six extant Horcruxes, he could not > possibly perform the spell to create a Horcrux, and there's no way > that a spell can be performed accidentally. Neri: You assume here that the "spell" (of which we know only from a single very confused sentence by Slughorn) *must* be performed after the murder. But we don't have any evidence that this really must be so. We in fact know next to nothing about the Horcrux "spell". > Carol: > Exactly. And from a plot standpoint, Voldemort would be invincible > with Harry dead if he still had even one other Horcrux. Neri: We have Dumbledore's opinion that Voldemort, *after* hearing the first part of the prophecy, still wanted to make his last Horcrux with Harry's murder, although he already had five Horcruxes at that point. I agree with Dumbledore that Voldemort's objective here wouldn't be just to get rid of the prophecy child with at least one Horcrux intact. He'd also want to complete his six Horcruxes project, regardless of what the prophecy says. Besides, he still doesn't know what the *second* half of the prophecy says. > Carol responds: > Nor do I. Voldemort already knows that the diary has been destroyed, > but he's unlikely to replace it because that would mean creating a > seventh Horcrux. One of the soul bits *is* lost forever and he knows > it. Neri: No, he doesn't. You are mixing times here. I'm talking about Voldemort *before* the graveyard and we have Dumbledore's word that Voldemort only learned about the loss of the Diary Horcrux from Lucius *after* the graveyard. > Carol: > Yes, but as the snipped quotes indicate, LV intends to feed Harry to > Nagini in place of Wormtail, who would have been killed and fed to > Nagini as punishment for his blunder. Neri: In the quotes you snipped Voldemort says to Nagini "you are out of luck. I will not be feeding Wormtail to you, after all but never mind, never mind there is still Harry Potter. ". This "still" sounds to me like Harry Potter was a previous promise to Nagini, not just compensation in place of Wormtail. > > Carol: > These quotes establish that Nagini bites her victims and that her > venom has magical properties that prevent the wounds from healing > (very odd, then, that somehow it has restorative properties for > Voldemort himself--unless, of course, *she's* his Horcrux). Neri: I don't think it has restorative properties for Voldemort. The *unicorn blood* has restorative properties and we know this for a fact. We also know for a fact that Nagini's venom has anticoagulant properties (not very magical, although certainly unusual in snakes). The most straightforward conclusion from combining these two facts would be that the unicorn blood was the active ingredient in that potion, while Nagini's venom only served the purpose of keeping the unicorn blood fluid. This sounds like the difference between GoF, where Voldy took the unicorn blood as a potion, and SS/PS, where he took it fresh from the animal. This theory accounts for all the facts in a simple manner. The alternative theory regarding the "restorative properties" of Nagini's venom fails to explain what is the plot significance of Arthur continuing to bleed for several days after Nagini had bitten him, something that JKR mentions several times in OotP. > Carol: > Or so Snape says. Snape may be using Voldemort's orders to save > Harry's life, or he may be presenting a reason for sparing Harry that > the DEs will believe. We never actually hear LV say so, though I agree > that he probably did. Neri: Snape says, in the presence of three other DEs, "have you forgotten our orders? Harry Potter belongs to the Dark Lord". This question sounds to me like the other DEs also received these orders. > > Carol: > We agree here. Frank Bryce is not a significant death, and JKR is > being sneaky. I think, however, that Nagini was *already* a Horcrux, Neri: What's the purpose of JKR being sneaky then? Harry thinks Nagini is a Horcrux, and according to your theory she really is a Horcrux. Harry's only mistaken about the time of her becoming a Horcrux, and I don't see how this affects his plans in any way. Looks like a big waste of sneaky clues to me. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 01:55:51 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 01:55:51 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155103 Neri wrote: > I really don't see why you consider Slughorn such an expert on > Horcruxes. He tells us himself that he's no expert. The only sentence in which he mentions a spell is: "there is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" Hardly sounds to me like a reliable source for concluding anything. Carol responds: Unfortunately, his testimony and Dumbledore's are all we have to go on. And neither of them provides the slightest hint that a Horcrux can be created accidentally. Also, Slughorn as DADA teacher may know more than he's telling. Otherwise, why would he be so terrified of the very idea? Neri: > Dumbledore, OTOH, who probably knows about Horcruxes more than > Slughorn, never mentions a spell and never tells us that it can't > happen by accident. Carol: Dumbledore doesn't need to tell Harry that a Horcrux is created by a spell. Slughorn has already done that (twice, since they visit that memory twice). Harry is unlikely to forget that important piece of information. And never telling us that something can't happen by accident does not constitute evidence that it can. Neri: > I never heard about detaching the ripped soul. Are you saying that if a person who had just committed a murder is killed, then only one of his soul parts leaves his body, while the ripped part remains there? Doesn't sound logical to me. Carol: What? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the soul of a murderer may be torn, but it normally stays with the main soul, damaged but not encased in a Horcrux. Only rarely does the murderer actually detach the soul bit (remove it from the main soul housed inside himself) and encase it in a container using the spell that Slughorn denied knowing. So the parts of Voldemort's soul that were damaged by the murders Voldemort committed--not only the murders of James and Lily but all the murders he committed but didn't use for Horcruxes--must have stayed with the main soul that became Vapormort when the AK backfired. Alternatively, all those many soul bits could have gone off beyond the Veil or whatever happens to soul bits when their Horcruxes are destroyed, in which case Voldemort now has considerably less than one seventh of a soul. Neri: I tend to assume that a usual murder > rips the soul apart, but normally both pieces remain together within > the body of the murderer, so with time they might rejoin, although > probably not in a seamless way. But if immediately after a fresh > murder the body of the murderer is destroyed, I'd say the most > reasonable consequence would be that at least two parts of his soul > would be released. Carol: So you're saying that soul bits can just float around loose and possibly possess people? If that's the case, the loose bits of Voldie's soul could still be floating around the WW, or they could have possessed Hagrid, the first person to show up at Godric's Hollow after the murders. And what's the point of destroying Horcruxes if the soul bit isn't, so to speak, deactivated, not merely released from the Horcrux but rendered harmless? If the soul bits from Voldemort's various murders were released from the main soul at Godric's Hollow, it seems logical to me that they went where the soul normally goes when a person dies, the same place the Horcrux bits must go when the Horcrux is destroyed. (Since the soul is immortal, they wouldn't be destroyed themselves. Destroying a Horcrux is not an act of murder or partial murder, especially in the case of a wizard who has already been struck by his own deflected AK and is rightly dead.) If the soul bits weren't released, OTOH, they must still with the main soul. Also, I disagree that a Horcrux must be created using a "fresh" murder. Certainly Tom Riddle didn't know how to make a Horcrux when he returned to school wearing Marvolo Gaunt's ring. He would have had to do some research either in the summer of 1945 (death year of Grindelvald, not coincidentally the year that Tom finished school) or at Borgin and Burke's before he created the ring Horcrux (which almost certainly used his father's murder, the most significant to that point) and converted the diary to a Horcrux, perhaps using Moaning Myrtle's murder (or another Riddle if you prefer, though that seems less apt). None of those murders would have been "fresh." I see no reason to believe that the damaged soul had healed itself. I think that the soul bits were still detachable, still available for placement in a Horcrux. Neri: So we have a plan to create a Horcrux in GH, we > have more than one murder, and we have a torn soul part of a Dark > wizard who's an expert in possession released into the same room with > a baby whose forehead has just been punctured by a Dark curse. Your > honor, I'd say we have the means, the motive and the opportunity. Carol: We have the motive to create a Horcrux from Harry's murder, not to make Harry into a Horcrux, which would be self-defeating. But we have neither the means nor the opportunity because Voldemort is vaporized: powerless, wandless, and capable only of possessing animals. He doesn't even possess Harry, who is miraculously still alive. He simply goes off in terrible pain to who knows where. > Neri: > Even if Nagini is a Horcrux, Harry already thinks she is and he can > find her. But finding the Hufflepuff Cup, or the Ravenclaw Horcrux > that Harry doesn't even know what it is, this would certainly be > easier if Harry was a Horcrux that was created after they were. And it would also fit nicely with Dumbledore's words that Voldemort, by > attacking Harry, had created his worse enemy and gave him the tools > for the job. Carol: But we don't need Harry to be a Horcrux for Voldemort to have handed him the tools for the job. All we need is those powers--Parseltongue, which wil come in handy with Nagini, the special form of Legilimency which enables him to read Voldemort's mind (though that power may be lost to him now), and possession, which IMO would be the perfect means of creating intolerable pain for Voldemort--the power of Love inside him. How it will work out is of course for JKR to determine. and as for the other Horcruxes, one is Nagini, and he will, I predict, hav help from Bill the Curse Breaker (why else is he in the books?) and the resident HP expert on Dark magic, Severus Snape. As for the Ravenclaw Horcrux, I'm betting that Harry will find it in the RoR. Much as you would like to have Harry have access to all of Voldemort's memories (a heavy burden if there ever was one) there's no evidence that Horcruxes in general contain memories. The diary contained the memory of sixteen-year-old Tom Riddle, but it was a special instrument whose original purpose was to release the basilisk to kill "Mudbloods," as Voldemort evidently told Lucius Malfoy when he placed it in his care. Most Horcruxes are not interactive. Their sole purpose is to protect the soul bit from destruction. So even if Harry's special powers result from being possessed by a soul bit (despite evidence that he isn't possessed), there's no evidence that such accidental possession would result in memories that weren't his. As I said before, all he's seen so far is what's happening in the present. As for that deceptive feeling that Tom Riddle was an old friend, it could either be part of the seductive magic of the diary itself (Ginny, too, trusted Tom as a friend she could confide in) or it could be part of the bond between Harry and Voldemort created by the scar connection. No soul bit required in either case. > Carol, sure that she's not the only opponent of the Harry!Horcrux theory and asking for reinforcements as she ends her fifth post of the day From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jul 9 02:12:08 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 02:12:08 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155104 > Neri: > I don't think it has restorative properties for Voldemort. The > *unicorn blood* has restorative properties and we know this for a > fact. We also know for a fact that Nagini's venom has anticoagulant > properties (not very magical, although certainly unusual in snakes). Pippin: Googling produces the information that snake venom is used medicinally for its anticoagulation effects, or did you mean to say that it is not unusual in snakes? Pippin From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 03:40:09 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 23:40:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Horcrux redux References: Message-ID: <011801c6a309$61225170$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 155105 >> Neri: >> I never heard about detaching the ripped soul. Are you saying that > if a person who had just committed a murder is killed, then only one > of his soul parts leaves his body, while the ripped part remains > there? Doesn't sound logical to me. > > Carol: > What? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the soul > of a murderer may be torn, but it normally stays with the main soul, > damaged but not encased in a Horcrux. Only rarely does the murderer > actually detach the soul bit (remove it from the main soul housed > inside himself) and encase it in a container using the spell that > Slughorn denied knowing. Rebecca: I have read this thread with considerable interest - and I have something nagging in my mind that needs to come out. (Pardon the pun. :)) Bear with me, hm? To me, the AK and the creation of the Horcrux (encasing the torn part of the soul inside an object) are seperate acts, e,g. spells. Both Slughorn and Dumbledore allude to this in canon: "There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" said Slughoin shaking his head like an old elephant bothered by mosquitoes. IMO, Dumbledore almost exclusively discusses the encasing of the soul - and as we have seen and if Dumbledore is right, an AK itself isn't necessary: Hepzibah Smith was poisoned. In other words, if Voldemort did create a Horcrux with her death, the spell couldn't be predicated on an AK due to the poisoning. This leads me to the conclusion that the creation of the Horcrux is predicated on any murdering means, but not exclusively linked or combined at the same time as an AK because it takes a unique spell to encase torn part after killing has been accomplished. For these reasons, I am not convinced that Harry is a Horcrux, even an accidental one, just because an AK bounced about in GH. I do believe Dumbledore's statement in CoS that Voldemort accidently gave Harry some his powers the night the scar was created - if we go by the diary as an example, Harry should have been possessed as Ginny was by part of Voldemort's soul if Harry was a Horcrux. I also wonder about this from OoP: "The Death Eater had pulled his head out of the bell jar. His appearance was utterly bizarre, his tiny baby's head bawling loudly while his thick arms flailed dangerously in all directions, narrowly missing Harry, who had ducked. Harry raised his wand but to his amazement Hermione seized his arm. 'You can't hurt a baby!'" Ok, so wonder what happens if you *do* try to hurt a baby? Maybe that's how some of Voldemort's powers ended up in Harry..... Rebecca From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 03:59:06 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 03:59:06 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155106 > > Pippin: > Googling produces the information that snake venom is used medicinally > for its anticoagulation effects, or did you mean to say that it is not > unusual in snakes? Neri: No, I didn't know that. So JKR taught me something new about biology . In the snake species I'm familiar with (common vipers mainly) the venom has exactly the opposite effect: it's *highly* coagulant and the clotting in the arteries is basically what kills the victim. I wrote "unusual" because I had the hunch that certain other species might be different (generally snake venom from different species has all kinds of interesting agents in it, many of them still unknown). I did a quick search now and you're right: Ancrod, snake venom from the Malayan pit viper, is medically used as a rapid anticoagulant (alternative treatment to aspirin in old people with a risk of stroke). Here, however, we have a slightly different situation: the potion itself contains blood, and this blood (unicorn blood) is known to be a magically powerful restorative. So the simplest explanation would be that Nagini's venom was needed to keep the unicorn blood from clotting. Neri From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 04:53:54 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:53:54 -0000 Subject: The Redemption of LV? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155107 What would happen if LV (who now has Love in his blood) woke up one day and had a vision of hell and his life played before him and he saw how miserable he really was and repented of all of the evil that he had done? Would JKR do that? Sometime it seems to me that DD cares for Tom Riddle. In spite of what Tom has done with his life I think that DD cares for him. (Page 445-446 HBP, US edition) LV is speaking: "Then we have nothing more to say to each other." "No, nothing, said Dumbledore, and a great sadness filled his face. "The time is long gone when I could frighten you with a burning wardrobe and force you to make repayment for your crimes. But I wish I could, Tom I wish I could " Now this is years before the death of the Potters, and while it is possible that DD is thinking about the people that LV has hurt, it is also possible that DD is thinking about Tom, himself. I think that maybe DD looks upon Tom as the person who, born under tragic circumstances and making bad choices along the way, could have been helped if only he had been loved. Maybe DD partly blames himself, for what Tom has become. Harry at least had been loved, but poor Tom was never loved. It doesn't seem right to condemn a child who has never known love for his crimes as an adult when part of him does not fully understand the impact of his crimes. What would happen if LV was somehow redeemed? How would that play out? Could it, in light of the prophecy? Wouldn't the greatest act of Love be to bring about the redemption of not Snape, but LV? On a side note: What does it do when you have the blood of the person that you killed within you? There must be something in this that LV is overlooking. Again one of those "ancient magic" things that flies under his radar. Will we see something about Lily's forgiveness having an affect on LV? So many questions and a whole year to wait. Tonks_op From enlil65 at gmail.com Sun Jul 9 05:06:14 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 00:06:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: References: <1789c2360607081214s34a53b42s7a8727ef6c8d35a3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1789c2360607082206w2bc6a999x2f6ec5d26c90900c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155108 On 7/8/06, justcarol67 wrote: > Carol earlier: > > > Okay, I still think that Nagini is an entirely different snake > from the boa constrictor, which is IMO just a plot device to show that > Harry can talk to snakes, and that Nagini is a Horcrux (and has been > one for a long time, as indicated by the effects of her venom on LV) > > > > Peggy W: > > I think it's a pretty big leap of an assumption that Nagini must be > > one of Voldemort's Horcruxes *because* of how Voldemort used her > > venom. > > Carol responds: > Please note "I still think" in the quoted partial sentence, which > you've taken out of context. I was repeating a hypothesis that I've > attempted to support with canon in various posts (the only assumption > being that fellow list members had read the venom argument and that I > didn't need to repeat it in this post). Far from taking my hypothesis > for granted, I was raising possible objections to my own idea, > problems that I haven't resolved in my own mind. I'm saying that *if* > Nagini was a Horcrux before Godric's Hollow, or even if Voldemort and > Nagini were, erm, acquaintances before Godric's Hollow, I'm confused > about how they got back together. In fact, it's unclear when and how > they got together at all, or what a "dirty great snake" that would be > more at home in India or Africa was doing in Albania when Wormtail > found Voldemort there. Speculations from anyone would be welcome. Peggy W: OK, open mouth, insert foot; I have really made an error here. I apologize. I don't read all the posts here just because there are so many of them that it isn't practical for me to do so. I pick and choose topics that interest me. However, apparently I completely missed the larger context as you point out here and subsequently. So in the interest of clarity, I hope you won't mind if I step back and clarify what I thought I was saying. The reason I posted at all was to be picky about this point: that Voldemort's snakelike appearance was direct, strong evidence that Nagini is one of his Horcruxes, and that she must have been made one before Godric's Hollow because of that. I have no problem going along with Dumbledore's suggestion of Nagini as a Horcrux, but I brought up the word "leap" (in my other reply as well as the one you respond to above) because Dumbledore never made any allusion to a relationship between Voldemort's appearance and Nagini being a Horcrux. I then extended that leap to include any idea that Nagini and Voldemort were acquainted before GOF because there are no references to Nagini prior to the opening of GOF (although this lack of reference doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't acquainted). This is a picky point on my part, but now that I read your explanation of how that conversation was occurring as part of a larger context, I see that my objection was out of place. I can only say that what I wrote should generally be ignored, because I wasn't responding to the larger context. Your citation of canon for Voldemort using Nagini's venom is right on target; I should have checked that before making any statement about what was going on with that. I can only hope that you all will not take this mistake on my part (not my first) as a reflection on everything else I say. I like to suffer under the illusion that I occasionally have some interesting or useful insights. I should take this as a lesson (if that's possible, we humans being so averse to learning lessons!) to not jump in with undue consideration and insufficient research, just because it is easy to do so. Funny thing is, this just shows me once again why I admire Dumbledore so much: he has learned his lessons well. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 9 06:51:27 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 06:51:27 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155109 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fuzztail2001" wrote: Bill: > I've been following this discussion for some time and I think we have > been told, way back in book 2, that Harry is actually a Horcrux, > although created accidentally. > > Review the scene when Harry has returned from the Chamber of Secrets > and he an Professor Dumbledore are sitting in Professor McGonagall's > office. This is on pages 332-3 of the U.S. edition. > > Harry has remarked the Tom Riddle (from the diary) has said that they > show certain similarities. Harry begins to question this, but then, > remembering that he was almost sorted into Slytherin House, pauses. > Professor Dumbledore replies: "...Unless I'm much mistaken, he > transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that > scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..." > > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thunderstruck. > > "It certainly seems so." > > Note that Harry did not repeat back what DD said, but said something > different. DD does not correct him, but affirms his interpretation. Geoff: I still believe that this transfer could happen without a Horcrux being involved. >From the point of the story, I still stand with the "Harry is not a Horcrux" view. I apologise for reperating previous posts but to save time, I am quoting parts two previous mesages I wrote on this topic: In post 139937 dated 10/09/05, I wrote: But what of Harry? Why do I not believe that he is a Horcrux? Because I believe that it flies in the face of Dumbledore's now famous comment: "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) It has been observed by many contributors to the group that JKR makes much of choice. Dumbledore again makes the matter clear: "Remember, if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was good and kind and brave because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort" (GOF "The Beginning" p.628 UK edition). If Harry is indeed a Horcrux than we know that he will have to die in order for Voldemort to be destroyed once and for all. He could make the choice of running away and hiding; the alternative is to face Voldemort knowing that he will go down with him. And that places him on a hiding to nothing. He has got no real choice in that eventuality. OK, in the real world, that situation occurs. As the anniversary of 11th September is almost on us, I remember that some of our US friends were faced with that choice when they opted to tackle the terrorists on the fourth plane and brought it down. But I do believe that the way in which Jo Rowling has constructed her story has encouraged folk of all ages and for Harry not to emerge relatively unscathed from a final encounter would undo the integrity of the themes in the eyes of many people. What I have written are obviously subjective, personal views and not everyone will agree with me but I shall be deeply disappointed if Harry failed to reach the end of Book 7. And again, in message 140343 on 17/09/05: I believe that if Harry is a Horcrux with a soul fragment inside him, this would be a plot device which would create problems and possible paradoxes within the Potterverse which Jo Rowling has crafted. One of the points which has often been made about the Harry Potter world is that choice is paramount to the action. The pivotal statement is probably the oft-quoted one made by Dumbledore in Book 2: "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) Harry has made choices ? sometimes consciously, sometimes not ? which have guided him towards the side of light, of compassion and acceptance of the need to be prepared to tackle Voldemort. Tom Riddle, on the other hand, has set his mind to becoming powerful and has chosen evil and selfish ways of doing it. Others, such as Snape and more recently Draco, are making choices which are rather ambivalent leaving us still uncertain about where their final loyalties will lie. I feel that this possibly reflects Jo Rowling's views on Christianity. The Christian faith is a faith of choices. No one is a Christian by birth or privilege but by choice. But, if Harry is a Horcrux, this ability to choose is being seriously eroded and there then seems to be an argument for those who take the Calvinistic view of predestination. Let us therefore consider the various scenarios which might emerge if Harry is indeed "encasing" a piece of You-Know-Who's soul. If he is, then it would seem that, in order to kill Voldemort, he will have to sacrifice himself to do it. If he chooses to walk away from the situation and decides to ignore the prophecy, then he is condemning the Wizarding World to a likely takeover by the Death Eaters. Even then, his security would not be guaranteed because Voldemort would still feel unsafe as long as Harry was around so our hero would spend his time in hiding, looking over his shoulder all the time and knowing that he had left his friends to the tender mercy of the Dark side. But we do know from Book 6 that he is deciding to face up to Voldemort. Ginny says "I knew this would happen in the end. I knew you wouldn't be happy unless you were hunting Voldemort." And for Harry himself, `Moving felt much more bearable than sitting still: just as setting out as soon as possible to track down the Horcruxes and kill Voldemort would feel better than waiting to do it.' (HBP "The White Tomb" p.603 UK edition) However, this is where our paradoxes begin to raise their heads. Harry arrives for a stand-off with the Dark Lord having dealt with all the other Horcruxes. I can see three scenarios here, all of which present problems if Harry is a Horcrux. Number one. Harry apparently kills Voldemort. The last remnant of soul in him is destroyed but ? there is still a piece of soul in Harry. What happens? Does Voldemort become disembodied again? What happens if you have a piece of soul but it is not within you? Does he become an empty shell like a soul-sucked Dementor victim? Or would he be able in some disembodied way to seize on the piece in Harry? I am reminded of the Lord of the Rings here when Gandalf says that, if the Ring is thrown into Mount Doom, Sauron would not die but fall so far that the possibility of him arising again could not even be imagined. Would that happen here and Voldemort become almost a ghost figure? Presumably, as per the words of the prophecy, Harry would have vanquished him, but what of the future? Number two. Voldemort kills Harry. this is the worst case scenario because it would leave Voldemort as the victor in possession of the tattered remnants of his soul and with no viable opposition to him. A new Dark age would descend upon the Wizarding world. Number three. This I consider to have a low probability. They fire spells at each other and kill other simultaneously and both soul fragments are destroyed. The last time they did something like this, we saw the Priori Incantatem effect. If, as I imagine, they are still using the "brother wands", Dumbledore says that "they will not work properly against each other.." (GOF "The Parting of the Ways" p.605 UK edition). So, unless the spells do not "collide" there is a very low likelihood of them killing each other. My feeling is, that for the purposes of the plot, scenario two seems to be unlikely. I cannot see Jo Rowling, having brought us so far along the way, allowing Voldemort to win by a flick of the wand. Scenario one provides an unsatisfying resolution to the problem of really vanquishing him and scenario three hints at a rerun of the GOF event which would leave the fulfilment of the prophecy unresolved. So, for better or for worse, I'm sticking with the Harry-is-not-a-Horcrux camp as I feel that, within our fictional universe, JKR needs to show that the choices, the efforts, the sacrifices of those whose have stood alongside Harry, and those who have taught him to use his gifts have not worked in vain. This is not the real world, it is fantasy and we need a satisfying closure. From kjones at telus.net Sun Jul 9 07:48:40 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 00:48:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44B0B4D8.90803@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155110 Geoff Bannister wrote: > But what of Harry? Why do I not believe that he is a Horcrux? Because > I believe that it flies in the face of Dumbledore's now famous comment: > "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our > abilities." (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) > > It has been observed by many contributors to the group that JKR makes > much of choice. Dumbledore again makes the matter clear: "Remember, > if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what > is right and what is easy, remember what happened to a boy who was > good and kind and brave because he strayed across the path of Lord > Voldemort" (GOF "The Beginning" p.628 UK edition). KJ writes: I think that this argument points even more to the fact that Harry's choice is key to the destruction of Voldemorte. If he is indeed packing around a piece of V's soul, he will make the choice of walking away and living, knowing that Voldemorte will return some day, or making the choice to end the last remains of Voldemorte along with himself to protect the WW. DD points out that the right choice makes him "good, and kind, and brave". The wrong choice is apparently the easy choice. snip Geoff: > However, this is where our paradoxes begin to raise their heads. Harry > arrives for a stand-off with the Dark Lord having dealt with all the other > Horcruxes. I can see three scenarios here, all of which present problems > if Harry is a Horcrux. > > Number one. Harry apparently kills Voldemort. The last remnant of soul > in him is destroyed but there is still a piece of soul in Harry. What happens? > Does Voldemort become disembodied again? What happens if you have a > piece of soul but it is not within you? Does he become an empty shell like > a soul-sucked Dementor victim? Or would he be able in some disembodied > way to seize on the piece in Harry? I am reminded of the Lord of the Rings > here when Gandalf says that, if the Ring is thrown into Mount Doom, Sauron > would not die but fall so far that the possibility of him arising again could > not even be imagined. Would that happen here and Voldemort become > almost a ghost figure? Presumably, as per the words of the prophecy, > Harry would have vanquished him, but what of the future? KJ writes: I think that your are right here. I can't see JKR forcing Harry to kill Voldemorte. She has shown us that Harry can not kill Sirius even when that was his intention, she has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that his wand will not work against Voldemorte's wand, and that he can not be possessed, which leaves Harry's mind clear for whatever choice he makes. If he walks away, Voldemorte will still exist in some form and may well return. > > Number two. Voldemort kills Harry. this is the worst case scenario because > it would leave Voldemort as the victor in possession of the tattered remnants > of his soul and with no viable opposition to him. A new Dark age would > descend upon the Wizarding world. KJ: We know that this isn't going to happen because evil must lose in the end and somehow Voldemorte must be defeated. Harry is the only one with the power to make it so. > > Number three. This I consider to have a low probability. They fire spells at > each other and kill other simultaneously and both soul fragments are > destroyed. The last time they did something like this, we saw the Priori > Incantatem effect. If, as I imagine, they are still using the "brother wands", > Dumbledore says that "they will not work properly against each other.." > (GOF "The Parting of the Ways" p.605 UK edition). So, unless the spells do > not "collide" there is a very low likelihood of them killing each other. KJ writes: You are forgetting about the third person who JKR has put into place right beside Voldemorte in a position of trust. I suspect that Snape will perform the coup de grace on Voldemorte which may allow time for Harry to finally understand what Snape's true purpose was. Snape may or may not be in a position to assist Harry with his choice. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 10:52:35 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 03:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:Killing/Persecution/Pettigrew/Marriage-Professors,Contract/HogwartsSexSnog/17 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060709105235.63091.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155111 --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Magda wrote in > : > > << This was Sirius' and James' real blind spot where Pettigrew was > concerned. Unlike their own comfortable situations where they > didn't need fulltime jobs but could throw themselves into Order > work, Pettigrew (like most of humanity, wizard or muggle) had to > get a job. >> > > You're probably right, but do you have canon for Pettigrew not > being rich, too? Is there canon that he is? In any society, personal wealth is unique enough for there to be only a small percentage of the population that enjoys it, and therefore unless its deliberately mentioned I think we can be safe in assuming that Pettigrew came from a middle/lower-middle-class family. Not pureblood either, IMO; more like half-blood or even muggleborn. Pettigrew's sucking up to first James and then Harry strikes me as part of his initial coping strategy in an unfamiliar new world. > I can't decide at all whether Bagman is as big an idiot as he seems > and really was tricked by Augustus Rookwood, or if he is a > deliberate Death Eater. I think it would be difficult to pretend > to be an idiot 24/7 for years. Bagman is the kind of person for whom the phrase "stupid like a fox" was invented. Consider: he's a star athlete with no other skill than an ability to play quidditch and then he's suddenly too old or beaten up to play well. What's he supposed to do for the next 120 years of his life? Just like there were wizards on the wizengamot who couldn't get past his sports celebrity, just so he'd be on the lookout for wizards who'd give him jobs or provide money to him for the same reasons. I can see him doing favours for Rookwood - without asking any questions because he doesn't want to know - because then Rookwood would owe him one and you never know when you're going to need a favour down the road. Bagman is smart enough to make sure he's got an out and that he never knew too much information at any time that would become inconvenient later on. Recruiting Pettigrew would have been a favour he did for someone, an introduction, a door-opening, made easier because of his sports celebrity. Like Aunt Petunia, Bagman is opposed to asking questions. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From josturgess at eircom.net Sun Jul 9 11:24:48 2006 From: josturgess at eircom.net (mooseming) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 11:24:48 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155112 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > snip > If Harry is indeed a Horcrux than we know that he will have to die in > order for Voldemort to be destroyed once and for all. > No we don't! JK has left us a get-out-of-jail-free card on this: "The snake?" said Harry, startled. "You can use animals as Horcruxes?" "Well, it is inadvisable to do so," said Dumbledore, "because to confide a part of your soul to something that can think and move for itself is obviously a very risky business." HBP p473 UK Hardback. Ah if only it was `obvious'! Even if Harry is a HRX we don't necessarily have to assume he must fall on his sword. How he might go about jettisoning an unwanted tenant who can tell? Regards Jo From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jul 9 12:01:04 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 12:01:04 -0000 Subject: Killing/Persecution/Pettigrew/Marriage-Professors,Contract/HogwartsSexSnog/17 In-Reply-To: <20060709105235.63091.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155113 Magda: > Recruiting Pettigrew would have been a favour he did for someone, an > introduction, a door-opening, made easier because of his sports > celebrity. Like Aunt Petunia, Bagman is opposed to asking questions. > Pippin: Trouble is, there's no hint of any connection between Pettigrew and Bagman. I think Bagman's trial does throw some light on how Pettigrew might have been recruited, but only indirectly. It shows us how hard it would have been for someone who was just as innocent but didn't have Bagman's popularity to escape a guilty verdict. One of the most common ways to recruit spies in the real world is to get them to pass along information innocently, then reveal to them that they've been working with the enemy and blackmail them into providing more. But I agree that Peter never moves till he's pushed, and so he is very unlikely to have been Voldemort's master spy. The master spy should be a much more ambitious person. AFAWK, Bagman only wanted a job that would keep him connected to the Quidditch world. He wouldn't have had to join Voldemort to get that. His gambling debts might have made him vulnerable of course, but in that case he'd have been in trouble as soon as Voldemort got vaporized and couldn't cover his debts any longer, not fourteen years later. In any case, if Bagman was a real Death Eater, then he has gone back to Voldemort or he is dead. I think he was a one shot character and has no further role to play. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jul 9 13:47:11 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:47:11 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155114 > Neri: > Here, however, we have a slightly different situation: the potion > itself contains blood, and this blood (unicorn blood) is known to be a > magically powerful restorative. So the simplest explanation would be > that Nagini's venom was needed to keep the unicorn blood from clotting. > Pippin: So blood coagulation is important? Really? Are you sure you want to go there? Careful, Neri. If blood coagulation is important, and we should pay attention to it, then Snape did not AK Dumbledore. Not if he was bleeding half an hour after he supposedly died. Here's the canon, in case you've forgotten. Or are we supposed to think that Dumbledore was on blood-thinning medication? "Harry walked alongside him, feeling the aches and pains in his face and his legs where the various hexes of the last half hour had hit him, though in an oddly detached way, as though somebody near him was suffering them. Harry reached out, straightened the half-moon spectacles upon the crooked nose, and wiped a trickle of blood from the mouth with his sleeve." HBP ch28 Odd, too, if he fell hard enough to break his bones and yet didn't break his glasses. Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jul 9 15:30:08 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:30:08 EDT Subject: Traitors, friends, loyalty and betrayal (was Evil Hermione) long Message-ID: <3be.56756cf.31e27b00@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155115 Lanval: See, I thought that the concept of betrayal is a huge one in the book, and it seems to be important in a personal sense to the author. Marietta as a character was not of exceptional importance; the concept of betrayal was. Of course this opens up so many other questions, some of which have already been brought up. What about Peter's betrayal? What about Snape betraying LV (or DD?), what about R.A.B.? Nikkalmati: Lanval touched on the central question regarding Marietta and Hermione. Two virtues appear to be paramount in Potterverse: courage and loyalty. The Marietta incident is just one example of betrayal found throughout the books and I think it has to be seen in conjunction with all the other incidents. The books begin with a huge act of betrayal by Pettigrew for the base motive of saving his own skin, thus, an act against both courage and loyalty. Sirius is the opposite character in this scenario, displaying both courage and loyalty ( he advised Pettigrew he would have died rather than betray the Potters and he broke out of Azkaban when he realized Harry was in danger, for example). In the WW one's word or the signing of a contract is a significant act often with serious and unforeseen consequences. Characters are bound, sometimes unwittingly, but they are expected to be faithful, nevertheless. Think of the Unbreakable Vow, the DADA curse, the life debt, for example. Commitment to LV is shown by a permanent mark. The characters are tied together by various binds of honor and tradition. There is family loyalty, broken by Percy and dishonored by Petunia (both of whom IMHO will return to the fold eventually and honor their commitments). There is also Draco's family loyalty and the Weasleys strong ties. There is loyalty to the school and more narrowly to one's House. (In the end the students and faculty will have to come together as per the Sorting Hat to defeat LV.) The house elves are loyal to the family they are bound to (Winkey); Dobby has to punish himself for every act of disloyalty to the Malfoys and displays strong loyalty to Harry, even after he is free. There is Snape in the middle - either deeply loyal or completely without any commitment, except to himself. Oh yes, all Snapes appear to be loyal to the Malfoys. DD would trust Hagrid with his life. There is Harry's loyalty to DD, acknowledged by Fawks in COS and by Harry himself to Scrimegore in HBP. Someone said (and I tried to find who, I think I know but I don't want to be wrong) that it would be better for Harry to be his own man, to say I am loyal to DD, but I am my own man. I think that statement would be contrary to the themes we see in the books. The aim of the good person is not independence, but honoring one's connections, working with others, and remaining faithful. I also believe that it is made obvious which is the good side and that it truly matters which side one is on. Thus, when Dobby betrays the Malfoys it matters that he wants to help Harry (it is not to promote elf rights). When Kreatcher betrays Harry, to whom he is bound, it matters that he is on the wrong side. Firenze betrays the customs of his people, when he insists on helping Harry and teaching at the school. (Showing that sometimes it is just as wrong to sit on the sidelines). Some acts are inherently evil and cannot be done in the pursuit of good. However, treachery has to be evaluated in its context. That said, in the Potterverse, treachery of any kind appears to be punished, sometimes severely, regardless how the commitment was formed. Youth, ignorance of the consequences or trickery do not seem to matter. RAB was punished. Snape may yet be punished, not so much for being a surly SOB, but for making a commitment to LV, which he broke or through breaking the UV (after all a situation could arise in which he is forced to kill Draco himself) ? Marietta is a traitor. Canon does not give us any good reason for her betrayal and no one on the list has stated any reason why she did the right thing, only that she "must have thought she was doing right." Since when is that a good excuse? In Potterverse she should have known she was bound (even if she did not know the exact consequences); she should have known that the result of her act would be very serious for a group of students she knew (even if she did not know the exact consequences); she did not take any intermediate steps to solve her problem (if she had one). I do not think we are intended to have any sympathy for her. The marks on her face are an example of karmic justice. In other words, she did it to herself. I doubt Hermione feels any responsibility. I also doubt the marks are permanent and they may go away when Marietta shows she has learned her lesson. (Yes, I think Cho must have told her what happened). Nikkalmati (Please, understand these comments are meant for the context of the books and do not necessarily represent my RL position). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Jul 9 15:31:05 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:31:05 -0000 Subject: The Redemption of LV? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155116 "Tonks" wrote: > What would happen if LV was somehow redeemed? We readers would get diabetes from all the sweetness. > Wouldn't the greatest act of Love be to > bring about the redemption of not Snape, but LV? Yes, but I don't want JKR to cram as much love as she can into book 7, I want Harry to get medieval on Voldemort's ass. > So many questions and a whole year to wait. We can only hope it's just a year, it could easily be 2 or even 3. It takes longer to write a book than to read one, I wish it didn't. Eggplant From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jul 9 16:19:51 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 12:19:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Traitors, friends, loyalty and betrayal (was Evil Hermione) long References: <3be.56756cf.31e27b00@aol.com> Message-ID: <004801c6a373$82888770$9f8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155117 > Nikkalmati: > Lanval touched on the central question regarding Marietta and Hermione. > Two > virtues appear to be paramount in Potterverse: courage and loyalty. The > Marietta incident is just one example of betrayal found throughout the > books and > I think it has to be seen in conjunction with all the other incidents. > The books begin with a huge act of betrayal by Pettigrew for the base > motive > of saving his own skin, thus, an act against both courage and loyalty. > Sirius is the opposite character in this scenario, displaying both > courage and > loyalty Magpie: But that as usual gets into the inherent problem with "loyalty" as a virtue. It always assumes loyalty to "us" instead of "them." Sirius is blasted off his family tapestry and considered completely disloyal--he seems to have disowned them far more than Percy has the Weasleys. Snape is potentially disloyal to Voldemort. Draco would be smart to be disloyal to Voldemort. Petunia may very well see Lily as the disloyal one. Marietta, from someone else's pov, might have flirted with disloyalty when she was with the DA, and then done the right thing by staying loyal. Nikki: Someone said (and I tried to find who, I think I know but I don't want > to be wrong) that it would be better for Harry to be his own man, to say > I > am loyal to DD, but I am my own man. I think that statement would be > contrary > to the themes we see in the books. The aim of the good person is not > independence, but honoring one's connections, working with others, and > remaining > faithful. Magpie: I don't know who said it, but I definitely agree with it. One can honor one's connections and still be independent. Harry himself might say he's Dumbledore's man but quite understandably has trouble trusting Snape just on Dumbledore's loyalty alone. Nikki:> > I also believe that it is made obvious which is the good side and that it > truly matters which side one is on. Thus, when Dobby betrays the Malfoys > it > matters that he wants to help Harry (it is not to promote elf rights). > When > Kreatcher betrays Harry, to whom he is bound, it matters that he is on the > wrong side. Magpie: Yes, which imo calls into question the importance of loyalty. It just seems clear that these people are being judged on whether or not they're smart enough to choose Harry rather than their loyalty. Snape still seems reviled by the good side, but is it because he's shown disloyalty to Voldemort or because they will never really see him as one of them? Nikki: > That said, in the Potterverse, treachery of any kind appears to be > punished, sometimes severely, regardless how the commitment was formed. Magpie: That I would agree with, but I don't know if that's a punishment coming from "on high" or just the natural course of events. It's damned difficult to leave your family in the Potterverse because you need to have protectors if you get into trouble. And so far blood is the strongest bond of protection. I don't think Sirius is *punished* for rejecting his family, but it does lead to his destruction. Nikki: > Marietta is a traitor. Canon does not give us any good reason for her > betrayal and no one on the list has stated any reason why she did the > right thing, > only that she "must have thought she was doing right." Since when is > that a > good excuse? Magpie: I don't think it's an excuse, but I don't think it's beside the point. Dumbledore has indicated that he thinks it's important to know why people do things and what drives them. Marietta does suffer serious consequences for her act of betrayal, of course, as does Hermione suffer for her perceived betrayal in PoA. People get angry when they feel betrayed. Nikki: The marks on her face are an example of > karmic justice. In other words, she did it to herself. I doubt Hermione > feels > any responsibility. Magpie: But if that were the case, wouldn't Hermione be nuts? Can she be any kind of moral person if she doesn't take responsibility for her actions? The universe had nothing to do with this particular thing (as it often does in the Potterverse), it was just a spell by Hermione. If she stands by her actions that's one thing, but thinking she has no responsibility? That's a lot more troubling. I think JKR knows very well how to write karmic justice and didn't do it with Marietta. That was something else she's shown before-Hermione justice. To go back to the independence vs. honoring one's connections thing, how do we then understand the references to Mauvais Foi (or Malfoy) for Draco? Isn't the danger of Bad Faith living a role, defining onesself as "one of them" and so not having a choice? -m From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 17:48:41 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 17:48:41 -0000 Subject: Cats Eyes for Protection and other links Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155118 I have mentioned Eqyptian mythology before which causes much gnashing of teeth and renting of clothing among some readers. Just remember... the Brits were influenced by the Romans who invaded their lands. The Romans took their myths from the Greeks. The Greeks were greatly influenced by the myths of the Eqyptians. We have a connection from European to Eqyptian myths. The stories change and the myths evolve over time. The Eqyptians changed their myths over time as the political powers changed. Enough ranting from the soap box. After searching the internet for clues related to eyes, souls, and protection, I have found another interesting story from Eqyptian mythology. Ra, the Sun God dies at sunset and travels to the underworld and he is in danger from the great evil serpent that wishes to devour him! The lions (and cats) that look into the sunset at dusk are able to capture the light from the sun in their eyes. This belief was fostered by the reflection of light in the cat's eyes at night. Given this magical fire that burns in their eyes, the lions are able to kill the evil serpents that roam the night. This is the reason that the Sphinx is a lion with a Pharoah's head. The lion protects the people from evil. (Just like Gryffindor) Cats were also believed to protect the people from evil. There are also several female goddesses who have the form of a cat or the head of a cat or lion ( Sekhmet, Mau, Tefnut, Mafdet). Mafdet is a goddess of protection who stares down the evil serpents and chants an ancient Eqyptian spell which repels snakes. My opinion is the ancient magic that Lily used to protect Harry at Godric's Hollow gives the fire in young Harry's eyes to repel the evil snake, Voldemort. Harry has Lily's eyes. Yes, she sacrificed herself for him, and that is the magical power of love and leads to other stories. However, why constantly remind us that Harry has Lily's eyes? The Eqyptian magical eye of Horus (the son of Osiris) is used on amulets to protect the mummies in the ancient tombs. Osiris is said to live in Orion, the star constellation of the Hunter who was killed by Scorpio. The constant companion of Orion is Sirius, the dog star! The wife of Osiris took her son Horus into hiding to protect him from the evil Set who killed his father. The Orion constellation was originally known as a stag. Cat statues are also abundant in the tombs of the pharoahs. One of the first magical images in the books noticed by Vernon Dursley is the strange cat (Professor McGonagall) waiting outside his house. Harry's magical baby sitter is Arabella Figg who has surrounded herself with cats! What better way to protect the chosen one until he is ready! So the magic related to cat's eyes in Ancient Eqypt leads us to the cats that are the familiars used by witches. The Greek gods were linked to the star constellations. The Greeks borrowed from the myths of the Eqyptians. Various characters in Harry Potter have names associated with stars and star constellations (such as Draco) who is at constant battle with the Hero (Hercules). Harry has his mother's eyes and her protection from evil serpents (ie. Voldemort) Harry is a Gryffindor with the Heroic personality symbolized by Lions (which originates with ancient Eqyptian myth of Lions who capture the power of the sun to kill the evil serpents of the night). Like Capricorn, the goat constellation, could Aberforth be the one who was (or will be) sacrificed? Was it really Dumbledore or Aberforth who died? Randy who enjoys seeing the connections in his searches for answers From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 18:25:27 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 18:25:27 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155119 > Pippin : > Careful, Neri. If blood coagulation is important, and we should pay > attention to it, then Snape did not AK Dumbledore. Not if he was > bleeding half an hour after he supposedly died. Here's the canon, > in case you've forgotten. Or are we supposed to think that > Dumbledore was on blood-thinning medication? > Neri: Almost correct. Since Voldy uses Nagini's anticoagulant venom in potions, the simplest explanation for Dumbledore's postmortem bleeding is that her venom was also an ingredient of the green potion from the cave. Seems completely straightforward to me. In fact I should have probably included Dumbledore's bleeding as a clue in my theory. I'm not sure what is your alternative explanation for Dumbledore's bleeding, but I somehow suspect that it will take considerably more than two lines to describe and involve considerably more than a single reasonable assumption . > Pippin : > Odd, too, if he fell hard enough to break his bones and yet didn't > break his glasses. Neri: Not if he fell on his back, which is how the position of the body is described in canon. And falling on the back suggests he wasn't conscious during the fall. Neri From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 9 04:28:14 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:28:14 -0000 Subject: Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155120 > Ken wrote: > > Oh my, could Nagini be the snake Harry released from the zoo > > in the first book?? > > > Carol responds: > That question has been asked before and I'm pretty sure that the > answer is "no." Ken: And yet I wonder.... I looked over the thread from last January and I see a lot of discussion of what actual snake Nagini could be. Is there any known snake that fits? My impression is that Nagini is quite large, in part from the fact that LV threatens to feed Harry and Pettigrew to Nagini. I believe the constrictors eat larger prey than any poisonous snakes and none of them could eat an adult human, to my knowledge. So Nagini would have to be some magical species or ... ... could LV, with Peter's help, have magically modified the snake from PS/SS? It might have been transfigured to be larger, poisonous, and be under something like an Imperious curse. I can't imagine that a big snake would have much luck hitching a ride to Brazil. I doubt it could survive an English winter either but that is small potatoes to a fiction writer. Harry's snake could be still be stuck wandering about the English Potterverse for LV to use. The problem I am trying to guess a solution to is that our young hero is clearly unable to take on Snape in a duel and yet somehow he is expected to defeat LV less than a year later. Plus DD keeps telling him about his vague advantage in that he has the power to love. To me, that means he will probably be able to call in some debts during the final confrontation. We know that Pettigrew "owes him". Who else? It is not obvious that Snape feels a debt to him, he has a strange way of showing it if he does, and they may both be on the same side already. A snake that struggles to throw off an imperious and recognizes Harry as a friend could be a nasty surprise for LV at a bad moment and a delightful plot twist for author and reader alike. Ken From jpbear2 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 13:26:39 2006 From: jpbear2 at yahoo.com (Jake cohn) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 13:26:39 -0000 Subject: One year from Today In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155121 > Chad Wrote: > > Here is a prediction about book seven. I believe it will be > > out one year from today. What would be better than to release > > the book than on 7-7-07. > > Monica: > I personally think it will be released on Harry's birthday, > 7/31/07. Jake: Hey folks, the Order of The Phoenix comes out on 7-13-07, a movie and a book??? Kill the golden money goose. I don't think so. I would rather have the book than another disappointing movie. I think all we get next year is a disappointing movie. Hope I'm wrong. Jake From katbofaye at aol.com Sun Jul 9 04:37:46 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:37:46 -0000 Subject: RE Harrycrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155122 As far as we know an AK curse was not used on Harry in Godric's Hollow. None of the witnesses have given us a statement of the events. Imposter Moody tells us that Harry is the only one to survive the AK curse but why would we believe him. He was not there and he is insane. JKR emphasizes the AK curse is unblockable period. This leads me to believe it was the horcrux curse/spell that Voldemort used and which was partially blocked making Harry the horcrux instead of making another horcrux for Voldy's soul fragment. katssirius From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 15:54:46 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 08:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Redemption of LV? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060709155446.32307.qmail@web52709.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155123 Tonks wrote: >> What would happen if LV (who now has Love in his blood) woke up one day and had a vision of hell and his life played before him and he saw how miserable he really was and repented of all of the evil that he had done? Would JKR do that? << Katie says: Good god, I hope not. I want to see LV die a slow, painful, unremorseful death and I want to laugh about it. Tonks: >> Maybe DD partly blames himself, for what Tom has become. Harry at least had been loved, but poor Tom was never loved. It doesn't seem right to condemn a child who has never known love for his crimes as an adult when part of him does not fully understand the impact of his crimes. << Katie says: Eww, no way. LV is evil, evil, through and through. I can't see him ever being redeemed...every mass murderer was a child once - that doesn't make me feel sorry for them. Actually, I agree with you that DD blames himself for LV, partially, but I still think he would want Harry to kick LV's snakey bum. Hating LV and hoping that book 7 comes asap, Kate . ._,___ From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 9 16:16:50 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:16:50 -0000 Subject: Harry Horcrux redux :) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155124 > > Geoff: > > If Harry is indeed a Horcrux than we know that he will have > > to die in order for Voldemort to be destroyed once and for all. > > Jo: > No we don't! JK has left us a get-out-of-jail-free card on this: > > "The snake?" said Harry, startled. "You can use animals as > Horcruxes?" > > "Well, it is inadvisable to do so," said Dumbledore, "because to > confide a part of your soul to something that can think and move for > itself is obviously a very risky business." > > HBP p473 UK Hardback. > > Ah if only it was `obvious'! > > Even if Harry is a HRX we don't necessarily have to assume he must > fall on his sword. How he might go about jettisoning an unwanted > tenant who can tell? > Ken: The quotation from HBP is found on page 506 of the US hardback edition and I have to agree, it does not clearly say that killing the living horcrux will destroy the soul piece encased in it. It does not say *at all* that killing the soul piece will kill the living host. It says that a living horcrux is inadvisable because it can act on its own. Since Harry can speak Parseltongue this opens the door to a host of possibilities with respect to a possible horcrux/Nagini. JKR loves complex resolutions, for example instead of letting Harry and Hermione go near the end of OotP she has the centaurs debate the matter so that Hermione can stick her foot in her mouth so that Grawp can show up so that the centaurs can wound him so that Harry and Hermione get splattered with blood so that the thestrals they need to get to London will be attracted to the scent of the blood. Whew! When Harry considers becoming an Auror in his career consuling meeting he makes a mental note to himself to meet some other experienced Aurors to find out if they all end up looking like Mad-Eye. I could see this fear coming to pass in the process of removing a soul fragment from Harry. Given Fleur's example I can see Ginny not caring about how Harry looks too. I hope the series ends on that note anyway, no matter how it is accomplished. Here's another snippet that relates to replacement horcruxes, not to Harry/horcrux: "But I thought he meant Lucius Malfoy to smuggle it into Hogwarts?" "Yes, he did, years ago, when he was sure he would be able to create more Horcruxes, but still Lucius was supposed to wait for Voldemort's say-so, and he never received it, for Voldemort vanished shortly after giving him the diary." This comes from page 508 of the US edition of HBP. At the time they are discussing DD believes that LV already had 5 horcruxes and we know that his vanishing came about when he tried to use Harry's death to create the 6th. It seems that DD believes that part of the reason for LV's casual treatment of the diary/horcrux is that he was prepared to make a replacement since he uses the plural to describe LV's intentions at a time when he needed only one more. Nagini/horcrux co-opted by Harry speaking Parseltongue, a replacement horcrux that Harry didn't count on, Harry/horcrux that neither he nor LV accounted for, these could all be part of a standard JKR complex conclusion. Or not. There are so many other possibilities. Canon is an uncertain guide to the future. Whatever else it is, book 7 will be new canon after all. The only thing about book 7 that I forsee as certain is that LV's threat to the WW will be eliminated. In spite of the prophecy I am not even certain that one of the LV/Harry pair will die. I suppose it is possible that LV could be "destroyed" by redeeming him back into a sadder and wiser Tom Riddle. I think the prophecy even allows that if you read it carefully. Ken From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 9 16:04:24 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 16:04:24 -0000 Subject: Bagman (was Re: Killing/Persecution/Pettigrew/Marriage-Professors,Contract/HogwartsSexSnog/17) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155125 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > It [Bagman's acquittal] shows us how hard > it would have been for someone who was just as innocent but didn't > have Bagman's popularity to escape a guilty verdict. > Joe: It might also show how the accused's celebrity status might insulate a guilty party from conviction. Given JKR's work with Amnesty International she might have Bagman show up as a DE in book 7 just to highlight that point. Bagman did all he could to help HP win the TWT in GoF presumably because he had bet money on him winning, but Barty Crouch Jr. was also working to get HP to win, maybe Bagman had a second motive that will come out in the last book exposing how famous people with connections can escape convictions that poorer less connected cannot. From monicaboukhalfa at tmail.com Sun Jul 9 18:58:05 2006 From: monicaboukhalfa at tmail.com (Monica Boukhalfa) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 12:58:05 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: One year from Today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1152471491.256B1DA2@ba12.dngr.org> No: HPFGUIDX 155126 > Jake: > Hey folks, the Order of The Phoenix comes out on 7-13-07, a movie > and a book??? Kill the golden money goose. I don't think so. I > would rather have the book than another disappointing movie. I think > all we get next year is a disappointing movie. Hope I'm wrong. Jake, Jake, Jake... You are wrong. We are getting a book next year.. And in July too I believe... But if JKR amd her publishing company decides to release it early, I won't be mad... :-) Monica --Monica M. Boukhalfa From random832 at gmail.com Sat Jul 8 16:44:28 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: Integrated worlds, separate, or co-existing? - Fantastic Beasts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607080944w498ae69axf356d466323259ab@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155127 > Betsy Hp: > IIRC, that text book JKR put out on the magical animals of the WW > (I'm away from my books, sorry) talks a lot about this. Basically > (again, IIRC) the wizards decided that anything that suggested the > possibility of magic existing needed to be hidden. Jordan: And what's magic about flobberworms? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 18:30:44 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 18:30:44 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155128 > > Neri: > > and this is why I tend more to the Accidental Harrycrux variety. > > This one basically assumes that, as Dumbledore says, Voldy was > > intending to make his last Horcrux with Harry's murder > Carol responds: > As I said before, there's no evidence whatever that Horcruxes > can be created accidentally. Slughorn says that the wizard who intends > to create a Horcrux splits his soul through the act of murder and > encases the soul bit in an object using a spell. Obviously the > encasing has to occur *after* the murder that splits the soul. There > is no preparatory spell, or at least no evidence for one. So once > Voldemort had hit Harry with the AK and the AK burst out of him, > causing the lightning-shaped cut that later healed into a scar, and > rebounded onto Voldemort, separating his soul from his body without > killing him because of the five or six extant Horcruxes, he could not > possibly perform the spell to create a Horcrux Mike here: I don't think you are being fair, Carol. You deny the accidental horcrux theory because we have no proof in canon. But you use the AK busting back out of Harry to create a scar, which is also not in canon, and IMO is a less likely scenario. I have posted a theory in a previous thread on accidental horcrux creation which calls for the horcrux encasing spell to be performed prior to killing, not after. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155069 In there I added a canon hint from PS/SS that I think supports Harry!Horcrux. There is another canon hint pointed out by fuzztail2001 in his/her post from CoS. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155094 Admittedly, neither of these *prove* anything, but they are strong canon hints, especially when you consider that JKR was originally itroduced us to horcruxes in CoS, tho we didn't know it then. > Carol: > Meanwhile, some of his powers somehow entered Harry through the > cut. Admittedly we don't know the mechanism. Mike again: Well, if we believe the Harry!Horcrux theory we do know the mechanism. The soul piece imparts the powers to Harry and makes a psychic connection between Harry and LV. We know Ginny speaks parseltongue when the diary soul piece is possessing her. But Harry isn't possessed by the soul piece like Ginny or Quirrell, he is the repository, the Horcrux. He retains his free will. In fact it may be proof that Harry is inately a more powerful wizard than LV, which we were also shown proof of in the graveyard. Something else to consider. Would a simple scar, even an interesting shaped scar, be enough to satisfy the prophesy? My question goes to the "mark him as his equal" portion. IMO, the mark would have to be more significant than a lightening bolt shaped scar. A horcrux, OTOH, would be a significant way to "mark him as his equal", wouldn't it? It would also explain the transfer of powers. >> Neri: > > This Variety assumes that Voldy does *not* know that Harry is > > his Horcrux. > > > > Or doesn't he? > > > > What if Voldemort indeed did not intend to make Harry a Horcrux > > in the first place, but he *had* realized that later, or at least > > he has come to suspect that Harry is now his Horcrux? What if all > > his major plans and actions in the last books have actually been > > shaped by that knowledge/suspicion? > > Carol: > First, you're taking the accidental Horcrux for granted here > (though I understand that you need to do so to extend the > speculation). And second, you're overlooking Voldemort's very > real motives for killing Harry, neither of which requires Harry > to be a Horcrux: Harry is the Prophecy Boy destined (in LV's > view) to kill Voldemort or be killed by him (obviously LV prefers > the latter), and Harry has thwarted or escaped from Voldemort > four times. Voldemort wants him dead by his own hand so that he > can prove that he's the most powerful wizard in the land. IOW, he > has the same motive he had when he went to Godric's Hollow in the > first place as well as a second motive multiplied by four. Mike again: Obviously I like Neri's theory here. But once again Carol is not being fair. Neri is postulating that LV has recently realized that Harry is a horcrux (from the MoM possession attempt in OotP?), and that has caused LV to change his strategy. Carol responds with the non sequetor that Harry is the Prophesy Boy, and there is no requirement for Harry to be a horcrux? Yes Carol, we know Voldemort wants to kill Harry because of the prophesy, but couldn't Neri be right, Voldemort changes his strategy to achieve that end *because* he has realized Harry is one of his Horcruxes? > Neri: > > Well, not really a clue, more of a hunch, but what's with all these > > blood hints, anyway? Does this have any connection with Voldemort > > using a bit of Harry's blood for his resurrection? Does it have > > anything to do with the gleam in Dumbledore's eyes? > > Carol: > I think you're right that the properties of Nagini's venom are > important, but I don't think they have anything to do with the > twinkle. Mike, lastly: I think Neri is on to something regarding blood (not venom), there does seem to be an inordinant amount of references to blood in this series. One more that you didn't mention; DD's discovery of the ten uses of dragon's blood, on his chocolate frog card. Regarding the "gleam": I read someone's opinion (can't remember who for attribution, my apologies) that LV now has the same blood in him that DD used to provide for Harry's safety i.e. Petunia/Lily's blood. Therefore, ironically, Harry is protected from LV by LV's simulcrum blood, because it is the same blood used to seal the charm on Harry. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 9 19:18:54 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:18:54 -0000 Subject: The Redemption of LV? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155129 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Tonks" wrote: > > > What would happen if LV was somehow redeemed? > > We readers would get diabetes from all the sweetness. > > > Wouldn't the greatest act of Love be to > > bring about the redemption of not Snape, but LV? > > Yes, but I don't want JKR to cram as much love as she can into book 7, > I want Harry to get medieval on Voldemort's ass. > > > So many questions and a whole year to wait. Eggplant: > We can only hope it's just a year, it could easily be 2 or even 3. It > takes longer to write a book than to read one, I wish it didn't. Geoff: Mugglenet is currently reporting that both Bloomsbury and Reuters are predicting that HP7 will appear in 2007. From sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 19:16:13 2006 From: sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com (Sarah Barthell) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: One year from Today In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060709191613.66988.qmail@web30104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155130 > Chad Wrote: > > Here is a prediction about book seven. What > > would be better than to release the book than on > > 7-7-07. > > Monica: > I personally think it will be released on Harry's > birthday, 7/31/07. Sarah: Doesn't JK say that seven is the most powerful magical number in book 6? I think it is a well hidden clue about the release date. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 18:35:38 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 18:35:38 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155131 > > Carol, wishing she'd never heard of Horcruxes > > Neri: > I think we've finally reached the bottom of it. You simply don't > like Horcruxes. The truth is that I don't like them much either. > But it seems that JKR does, and this is what counts. Count me in on the "don't like the whole horcrux angle" crowd. First of all, for those of us that have a D&D background the whole thing is wearily familiar. In fact, when I first read it my thought was, "Okay, so Voldy's a lich with six phylacteries, check. I wonder what used comic book shop she found the D&D module in." (For non-D&D people, a lich is a very powerful and evil wizard who insures immortality by storing his soul, or a part thereof, in an object called a phylactery. He thus becomes a very dangerous kind of undead and essentially unkillable unless you can get your hands on the object he's stored his soul in. But you have to be careful, because those pesky evil wizard souls have a way of invading people's minds and taking up residence. Sound familiar? :-)) Not that I literally think she did base it on a D&D module. Certain tropes just keep coming back around. Vampires drink blood and hide from the sun. Werewolves hate the full moon. Heroes have prophecies about them shortly before they are born. Evil wizards tend to store their souls in foreign objects. But after all the build up the horcruxes, like the prophecy, were ... well, rather ordinary and anticlimactic -- although I'll grant that they weren't as blatantly OBVIOUS as the prophecy. The ordinariness of it is what I think has lots of people annoyed. We had strong hints and speculations of strange and original themes with strong spiritual overtones. Instead, it seems most of defeating Voldemort will be purely mechanical - find the Maguffin and destroy it, basically a video game in written form. And the thing that I think has REALLY annoyed people is that she waited until the eleventh hour to get all this started. We went into the sixth book with an enormous number of loose ends and a promise that we would start getting answers. Well, we got a lot of wheel spinning, very few answers, and even more loose ends. And to top it all off instead of dealing with those loose ends it seems most of book seven will be taken up with said video game. Percy? House Elves? Corruption in the Ministry? Hermione's arrogance or lack thereof? House Unity? The Founders and their world? New regimes at Hogwarts? Etcetera, etcetera? Nope, no time. Got to go get me a Maguffin! Thus, I think a lot of people, people who otherwise come at the Potterverse from VERY different angles, all end up standing shoulder to shoulder, looking at the horcrux plotline, and as one scratch their heads and say "Okay, that's nice, but really JKR, nobody cares. Maybe if you had started all this oh, two books ago at least. But right now, there are more interesting and important things for Harry to do than chasing around all over God's Good Greenness looking for Ravenclaw Cups, big snakes, and Lord only knows what else." Then again, maybe Book seven will be 1200 pages long. We haven't had one of those since James Clavell's heyday. Lupinlore From harryp at stararcher.com Sun Jul 9 19:22:40 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:22:40 -0000 Subject: The Redemption of LV? In-Reply-To: <20060709155446.32307.qmail@web52709.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155132 > Tonks wrote: > >> What would happen if LV (who now has Love in his blood) woke > up one day and had a vision of hell and his life played before > him and he saw how miserable he really was and repented of all > of the evil that he had done? Would JKR do that? << > > Katie says: Good god, I hope not. I want to > see LV die a slow, painful, unremorseful death and I want to > laugh about it. > > Katie says: [...]LV is evil, evil, through and through. I > can't see him ever being redeemed...every mass murderer was a > child once - that doesn't make me feel sorry for them. Eddie: Interesting question. I suppose it depends on whether JKR (and me and you and whoever) believes in ultimate redemption. Katie, you seem to vote "nope, no redemption." Me, I'd vote "yes". JKR votes....??? Either way, it seems certain to me that the locked room at the Ministry of Magic (the room of Love) will play a key part in the finale of the series. Can even LV be redeemed by the power in that room? Is it so powerful that it destroys what is left of LV? Can/Will Harry lure LV into the room of Love using himself as bait? Will Harry lock himself in there with LV permanently? Will Harry lock LV in there alone, permanently, as an act of mercy? Oooooo the possibilities! From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Jul 9 20:40:17 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 13:40:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607091340u190020f5hf9bb3ec1db442176@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155133 On 7/9/06, lupinlore wrote: > > > > Carol, wishing she'd never heard of Horcruxes > > > > Neri: > > I think we've finally reached the bottom of it. You simply don't > > like Horcruxes. The truth is that I don't like them much either. > > But it seems that JKR does, and this is what counts. > > Count me in on the "don't like the whole horcrux angle" crowd. First > of all, for those of us that have a D&D background the whole thing is > wearily familiar. In fact, when I first read it my thought > was, "Okay, so Voldy's a lich with six phylacteries, check. I wonder > what used comic book shop she found the D&D module in." > > (For non-D&D people, a lich is a very powerful and evil wizard who > insures immortality by storing his soul, or a part thereof, in an > object called a phylactery. He thus becomes a very dangerous kind of > undead and essentially unkillable unless you can get your hands on the > object he's stored his soul in. But you have to be careful, because > those pesky evil wizard souls have a way of invading people's minds > and taking up residence. Sound familiar? :-)) > > ... snip ... > > The ordinariness of it is what I think has lots of people annoyed. We > had strong hints and speculations of strange and original themes with > strong spiritual overtones. Instead, it seems most of defeating > Voldemort will be purely mechanical - find the Maguffin and destroy > it, basically a video game in written form. > > ... snip ... > Thus, I think a lot of people, people who otherwise come at the > Potterverse from VERY different angles, all end up standing shoulder > to shoulder, looking at the horcrux plotline, and as one scratch their > heads and say "Okay, that's nice, but really JKR, nobody cares. Maybe > if you had started all this oh, two books ago at least. But right > now, there are more interesting and important things for Harry to do > than chasing around all over God's Good Greenness looking for > Ravenclaw Cups, big snakes, and Lord only knows what else." > > Kemper now: Are you saying that JKR steals? Because the idea of hiding the soul has been around well before the D&D geekdom. There's a Russian fairy tale that depicts a magician (evil, obviously) who separated his soul from his body and hid it in an object; his nickname was The Deathless. Maybe Alla can expound further. My brother guessed that Voldie was doing the same prior to HBP, but what made his read more refreshing was that JKR had Voldie split his soul, separated those pieces, and hid them in various objects. If that sounds uncreative, then I want to be as uncreative as JKR. Neil Gaiman, another of my favorite authors has used the soul-in-an-object device. Similarly, he put his style on it as JKR does to hers, both to great effect. It's not stealing an idea, it's enhancing on an idea. Also... SPoiler alert for Pirates of Carribean: Dead Man's Chest" . . . . I think Pirates use the same device, though a bit differently Kemper, who rather join the HINAHS (Harry is not a Horcrux Society). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sun Jul 9 21:11:51 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:11:51 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155134 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > SNIP SNIP SNIP > > > Neri: > > > Well, not really a clue, more of a hunch, but what's with all these > > > blood hints, anyway? Does this have any connection with Voldemort > > > using a bit of Harry's blood for his resurrection? Does it have > > > anything to do with the gleam in Dumbledore's eyes? > > > > Carol: > > I think you're right that the properties of Nagini's venom are > > important, but I don't think they have anything to do with the > > twinkle. > > Mike, lastly: > > I think Neri is on to something regarding blood (not venom), there does > seem to be an inordinant amount of references to blood in this series. > One more that you didn't mention; DD's discovery of the ten uses of > dragon's blood, on his chocolate frog card. > > Regarding the "gleam": I read someone's opinion (can't remember who for > attribution, my apologies) that LV now has the same blood in him that DD > used to provide for Harry's safety i.e. Petunia/Lily's blood. Therefore, > ironically, Harry is protected from LV by LV's simulcrum blood, because > it is the same blood used to seal the charm on Harry. > Another reference to ancient magic.... People once believed that Cats had magical protective powers and they actually had a ritual to protect their children from evil. A cut was made on the child's arm and cat's blood was poured into it. This consecrated the child to Bastet the Beautiful who was the cat god of the ancient Egyptians. Cats protected the kids from evil serpents. If I was Voldemort, the last thing that I would want inside me is magical blood from Harry Potter. Randy From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jul 9 22:02:36 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:02:36 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Understanding Marietta (long) (Was: Evil Hermione) Message-ID: <306.7f08c64.31e2d6fc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155135 >Carol Neither Zacharias nor Marietta knows Dumbledore personally, and even Harry doesn't always believe what Dumbledore says. Neither Dumbledore, whose source of information is Harry, nor Harry himself (who is being angry and uncooperative as he often is in OoP, wholly unsympathetic to anyone else's point of view) has presented any supporting evidence that Voldemort is back. Nikkalmati: Isn't the death of Cedric proof that LV is back/ Or do the students believe Harry killed him? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jul 9 22:18:42 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:18:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) Message-ID: <37e.742235f.31e2dac2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155136 >Peggy W Any idea how this dependence on venom that would be lethal to any other wizard came about if she's not a Horcrux? Nikkalmati: Drinking snake venom would not be lethal to anyone, even a Muggle. It is only if venom is injected into the bloodstream that it kills. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jul 9 21:58:22 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:58:22 -0000 Subject: Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155137 Ken: > I looked over the thread from last January and I see a > lot of discussion of what actual snake Nagini could be. > Is there any known snake that fits? houyhnhnm: Well, as I pointed out in message 155099, the triangular head suggests a viper. But as Neri pointed out in message 155106 (and as I should have remembered from clinical hematology), viper venom exhibits coagulant, not anti-coagulant properties. But real snakes do not have language. So I think Nagini is a magical snake and she has whatever characteristics Rowling chooses to give her. Attempting to determine what kind of RL snake she is in order to deduce clues is probably not a fruitful line of inquiry. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jul 9 22:32:12 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 22:32:12 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155138 Carol, wishing she'd never heard of Horcruxes Neri: > > I think we've finally reached the bottom of it. You simply don't > > like Horcruxes. The truth is that I don't like them much either. > > But it seems that JKR does, and this is what counts. Lupinlore: > Count me in on the "don't like the whole horcrux angle" crowd. * (snip)* > Thus, I think a lot of people, people who otherwise come at the > Potterverse from VERY different angles, all end up standing shoulder > to shoulder, looking at the horcrux plotline, and as one scratch their > heads... *(snip)* Ceridwen: Count me in the society. I wish they had turned up a couple of books sooner, I wish they had never been added, and so on. I can see Neri's point about the possibility of an accidental Horcrux - after all, there had to be one accident at least for someone to realize this was even possible, but I can also understand Carol's dislike of the Harry Horcrux, for one example, idea. Never played D&D, so can't quite see it the way Lupinlore does, but as he said, we all come at it from different angles but still end up scratching our heads. However, fellow members, we are stuck with these unnatural objects. What wiggle room, if any, do we have from canon? Did LV really make six Horcruxes? Do we have to suffer through the destruction of four of them in book 7? What sort of problems would a living Horcrux pose? What does free will have to do with it? Death and deterioration? Changing loyalties? The mislabeled boa from SS/PS? Or, heck, Mark Evans? Dumbledore tried to show Harry how to know Tom Riddle and therefore LV. How does this play into things? Do we see a pattern? We were with Harry the whole way, and with Dumbledore out of the picture, Harry isn't getting a leg up on us during the hiatus while JKR finishes book 7. We are as up to speed as Harry is, a plus for us, I think. How can we get around these unholy devices, or at least make short work of them no matter who or what they're housed in? And, what sort of spells might be protecting these things? Neri and others have brought up the blood factor being so prevalent in the books, including LV's wards on the cave, and the bloodlike gushing of ink from the Diary!Horcrux. Blood is the life force and LV is afraid of dying. How does this all tie together? We're stuck with these things if we want to follow the series to its end. As the loyal opposition, what is our position on Horcruxes? Ceridwen. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jul 9 23:38:52 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:38:52 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Traitors, friends, loyalty and betrayal (was Evil Hermion... Message-ID: <414.5272a6a.31e2ed8c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155139 > Nikkalmati: > Lanval touched on the central question regarding Marietta and Hermione. > Two > virtues appear to be paramount in Potterverse: courage and loyalty. The > Marietta incident is just one example of betrayal found throughout the > books and > I think it has to be seen in conjunction with all the other incidents. > The books begin with a huge act of betrayal by Pettigrew for the base > motive > of saving his own skin, thus, an act against both courage and loyalty. > Sirius is the opposite character in this scenario, displaying both > courage and > loyalty >Magpie: >But that as usual gets into the inherent problem with "loyalty" as a virtue. It always assumes loyalty to "us" instead of "them." Sirius is blasted off his family tapestry and considered completely disloyal--he seems to have disowned them far more than Percy has the Weasleys. Snape is potentially disloyal to Voldemort. Draco would be smart to be disloyal to Voldemort. Petunia may very well see Lily as the disloyal one. Marietta, from someone else's pov, might have flirted with disloyalty when she was with the DA, and then done the right thing by staying loyal. Nikkalmati: I think JKR has made it abundantly clear who is us and who is them. I really don't think she cares about the bad guys POV. Nikki: Someone said (and I tried to find who, I think I know but I don't want > to be wrong) that it would be better for Harry to be his own man, to say > I > am loyal to DD, but I am my own man. I think that statement would be > contrary > to the themes we see in the books. The aim of the good person is not > independence, but honoring one's connections, working with others, and > remaining > faithful. >Magpie: >I don't know who said it, but I definitely agree with it. One can honor one's connections and still be independent. Harry himself might say he's Dumbledore's man but quite understandably has trouble trusting Snape just on Dumbledore's loyalty alone. Nikkalmati: Not in these books, maybe in RL! I didn't mention SS, because Harry is shown as DD's man; that he thinks DD is deluded here does not affect his loyalty to DD. Nikki:> > I also believe that it is made obvious which is the good side and that it > truly matters which side one is on. Thus, when Dobby betrays the Malfoys > it > matters that he wants to help Harry (it is not to promote elf rights). > When > Kreatcher betrays Harry, to whom he is bound, it matters that he is on the > wrong side. >Magpie: >Yes, which imo calls into question the importance of loyalty. It just seems clear that these people are being judged on whether or not they're smart enough to choose Harry rather than their loyalty. Snape still seems reviled by the good side, but is it because he's shown disloyalty to Voldemort or because they will never really see him as one of them? Nikkalmati: No one likes a spy. Once he is revealed, both sides see him as untrustworthy, except perhaps his handler. Nikki: > That said, in the Potterverse, treachery of any kind appears to be > punished, sometimes severely, regardless how the commitment was formed. Magpie: That I would agree with, but I don't know if that's a punishment coming from "on high" or just the natural course of events. It's damned difficult to leave your family in the Potterverse because you need to have protectors if you get into trouble. And so far blood is the strongest bond of protection. I don't think Sirius is *punished* for rejecting his family, but it does lead to his destruction. Nikki: > Marietta is a traitor. Canon does not give us any good reason for her > betrayal and no one on the list has stated any reason why she did the > right thing, > only that she "must have thought she was doing right." Since when is > that a > good excuse? >Magpie: >I don't think it's an excuse, but I don't think it's beside the point. Dumbledore has indicated that he thinks it's important to know why people do things and what drives them. Marietta does suffer serious consequences for her act of betrayal, of course, as does Hermione suffer for her perceived betrayal in PoA. People get angry when they feel betrayed. Nikkalmati: I don't recall that quote from DD. Nikki: The marks on her face are an example of > karmic justice. In other words, she did it to herself. I doubt Hermione > feels > any responsibility. >Magpie: >But if that were the case, wouldn't Hermione be nuts? Can she be any kind of moral person if she doesn't take responsibility for her actions? The universe had nothing to do with this particular thing (as it often does in the Potterverse)the Potterverse), it was just a spell by Hermione. actions that's one thing, but thinking she has no responsibility? That's a lot more troubling. I think JKR knows very well how to write karmic justice and didn't do it with Marietta. That was something else she's shown before-Hermione justice. Nikkalmati: No, not nuts. She set a spell that would do no harm to those who meant well. If Marietta set it off, it was because she did wrong. Her choice, her responsibility. Nikkalmati >Magpie >To go back to the independence vs. honoring one's connections thing, how do we then understand the references to Mauvais Foi (or Malfoy) for Draco? Isn't the danger of Bad Faith living a role, defining onesself as "one of them" and so not having a choice? Nikkalmati: Well, I recall some remarks on list that Sartre defined bad faith as not living one's own life or some such. I don't think Harry is living in an existential universe (or that any of us are ). Bad faith can refer to just not being reliable, not being what one pretends, not keeping faith. Fits Lucius. We will see about Draco. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 10 00:02:18 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:02:18 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155140 > Neri: > I'm not sure what is your alternative explanation for Dumbledore's > bleeding, but I somehow suspect that it will take considerably more > than two lines to describe and involve considerably more than a single > reasonable assumption . > Pippin: My alternative explanation, in one line: Dumbledore died of the poison shortly before Harry found him. The only assumption required is that Snape didn't kill him. Whether that's reasonable or not depends on your point of view. It is not an assumption that an AK can be ineffective or that wizards can survive falls from a considerable height, as we have canon for both those instances. There is no hypothesis about the operation of the UV that does not require assumptions, so I set that aside. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 00:45:56 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:45:56 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155141 Lupinlore: > The ordinariness of it is what I think has lots of people annoyed. We > had strong hints and speculations of strange and original themes with > strong spiritual overtones. Instead, it seems most of defeating > Voldemort will be purely mechanical - find the Maguffin and destroy > it, basically a video game in written form. Alla: Oh, goodness. Yes, yes, you nailed it, I think. I don't **hate** Horcruxes per se, but it is most certainly "that's it?" moment for me. The story was well crafted, I thought, but I certainly expected something more dramatic at the heart of the saga. > Kemper now: > Are you saying that JKR steals? Because the idea of hiding the soul has > been around well before the D&D geekdom. There's a Russian fairy tale that > depicts a magician (evil, obviously) who separated his soul from his body > and hid it in an object; his nickname was The Deathless. Maybe Alla can > expound further. Alla: Hey, Kemper. Sounds like we do share similar tastes in fairy tales, if not in HP characters, hehe. :) Yes, sure, this idea of hiding one's soul in the object had been around forever and this magician "Katchey( tried to spell as close as I could) Deathless or Immortal" is a **very popular** evil of Russian fairy tales. Usually he steals a maiden and hero comes to save her and first had to do a little quest to hunt the soul of the Evil one. Usually his soul ( whole one) hidden in one object, but that object is hidden in several other ones ( russian matryoshka effect, I call it ;)). Often for example Katchey's soul is hidden in the needle, needle in the egg, egg in the fish, fish in the bunny , etc( may have screwed up the order, remember well "needle in the egg") But to go back to JKR, yes, I find it too trivial. I cannot exactly figure out why. Probably because I grew up with Katchey doing this trick in so many fairy tales I read and I guess I expected something more out of the ordinary, you know? Something more spiritual, something not so little kids stuff? Although on the other hand, I guess it goes to support the argument that Potterverse is oriented to the younger audience first and foremost. I don't know, as I said below, am sitting on the fence. But I certainly don't think that JKR steals, everybody borrows from mythology and fairytales. Kemper: > Neil Gaiman, another of my favorite authors has used the soul-in- an-object > device. Alla: Which book? Love Gaiman, don't remember reading this one. Do want to read it. :) Ceridwen: < HUGE SNIP> > We're stuck with these things if we want to follow the series to its > end. As the loyal opposition, what is our position on Horcruxes? Alla: Zis true. :) We are stuck with those thingies. Hehe. I am **so** sitting on the fence especially after reading latest Horcrux redux. I am in love with Neri's arguments for the Harry as accidental horcrux, especially because I think that on metathinking level it makes whole lot of sense for JKR to go with Horcruxes as the reason for Harry to be prepared to sacrifice himself, if he is a Horcrux. No, I don't think it means he is dead, dead, dead. There were several possibilities suggested for Harrycrux to get out of it alive and I think some of them are very possible. Nevertheless, Rebecca made the strongest argument that made me jump back on the fence again and that is of course DD words that Harry's soul is "untarnished and whole". Hmmm, sounds as pretty strong indication that no piece of Voldie soul tarnished Harry's, to me anyways. JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jul 10 00:38:20 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:38:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Traitors, friends, loyalty and betrayal (was Evil Hermion... References: <414.5272a6a.31e2ed8c@aol.com> Message-ID: <011701c6a3b9$253ade10$9f8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155142 > Nikkalmati: > I think JKR has made it abundantly clear who is us and who is them. I > really don't think she cares about the bad guys POV. Magpie: I don't think that's always true-some bad guys' pov does seem to matter. But regardless, you can't talk about loyalty as a virtue and only apply it to the good guys. HBP especially seemed to have a lot of stuff in it showing that the good guys don't live in a vacuum and you can't just not be interested in the other pov, because whatever you do can be turned against you. > Nikkalmati: > Not in these books, maybe in RL! I didn't mention SS, because Harry is > shown as DD's man; that he thinks DD is deluded here does not affect his > loyalty > to DD. Magpie: So what does it mean to be loyal to someone? Why is Percy disloyal to his family for being angry at them? How can Harry make his own decisions on whether or not DD is deluded without being his own man? > Nikkalmati: > No one likes a spy. Once he is revealed, both sides see him as > untrustworthy, except perhaps his handler. Magpie: The HP universe seems like e a "nobody likes a spy" universe, but that's not universal in the real world. Many people find spies to be a valuable resource that keeps people alive. It's hard to believe that Snape and Lupin's contributions to the good side, which may ultimately be far more valuable and risky than anything James or Sirius did including getting heroically killed. Are really supposed to be seen as less worthy because nobody likes a spy? Being a spy doesn't mean you can't be loyal. . > Nikkalmati: > I don't recall that quote from DD. Magpie: You mean a quote from DD saying it's important to know why people do what they do? I wasn't referring to a quote saying that but DD's attitude about everything. Like where he'll say where things went wrong because he didn't understand what the other person really felt or tries to explain the other person's pov to Harry. Had he known those things he would have planned better. I thought HBP intentionally ended with Harry getting an idea about what was really going on with an enemy that would come in handy. > Nikkalmati: > No, not nuts. She set a spell that would do no harm to those who meant > well. If Marietta set it off, it was because she did wrong. Her choice, > her > responsibility. Magpie: Then she's not nuts she's just dishonest? Because you just described a spell that Hermione was totally responsible for. If it's Marietta's choice/responsibility that she set it off, it's equally Hermione's choice/responsibility to have researched, created and cast the spell in the first place. I'm not so sure the real Hermione wouldn't take credit for it. > Nikkalmati: > Well, I recall some remarks on list that Sartre defined bad faith as not > living one's own life or some such. I don't think Harry is living in an > existential universe (or that any of us are ). Bad faith can refer to > just not > being reliable, not being what one pretends, not keeping faith. Fits > Lucius. > We will see about Draco. Magpie: Except that Draco's story in HBP went a long way towards dramatizing Sartre's meaning of the phrase so I'm not ready to just wave it away as unimportant. We will see about Draco, but what does that say about loyalty? Draco could stay loyal to his family (good for loyalty) or betray them (bad for loyalty). Or he could choose the right side (good for choosing the right side, bad for loyalty). Is it just meaningless because JKR doesn't care about the bad guys even though Dumbledore seemed to care and it seemed to be a real focus in HBP? It makes it seem like JKR was trying to say something about loyalty as a virtue but couldn't, so she just settled for a short-sighted tribal roar. But I think she's very interested in the bad guys' pov. Not all of them are important, detailed characters, but the chosen few are very important--more important than plenty of good characters to the story. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 10 01:18:48 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 01:18:48 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155143 Ceridwen: > Dumbledore tried to show Harry how to know Tom Riddle and therefore > LV. How does this play into things? Do we see a pattern? We were > with Harry the whole way, and with Dumbledore out of the picture, Harry > isn't getting a leg up on us during the hiatus while JKR finishes book > 7. We are as up to speed as Harry is, a plus for us, I think. How can > we get around these unholy devices, or at least make short work of them > no matter who or what they're housed in? Pippin: As a general rule, things that are important to LV aren't *really* important, while he overlooks the things that JKR says are important: courage, loyalty and the power of love, which, unlike horcruxes or the prophecy, we have been hearing about from Book One. When Harry concentrates on what LV thinks is important, he goes astray. My guess is that the horcruxes, like the prophecy, really aren't as important as Harry thinks they are. The phony horcrux presages this. Subversive literature must pretend to conform to its genre while subtly revealing its inadequacies. The prophecy and the horcruxes are perfect vehicles for that. I sincerely doubt JKR means to show us that evil can be defeated by a series of what Neri called plot coupons. I suspect the horcruxes are unimportant except insofar as they force Harry to make choices which will reveal something about himself. Wether he is one or not, IMO it is almost certain that he will have to make the choice between saving himself and saving the WW, if only because otherwise he would not know if he is capable of doing what Lily did. But it is quite within JKR's power to have Harry miraculously survive his decision to sacrifice himself. He's already escaped a supposedly inescapable doom. Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 10 02:16:47 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:16:47 EDT Subject: Dumbledore's age Message-ID: <320.6e9a3a5.31e3128f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155144 >Laura >But if Nicolas Flamel >is 600 some years, he must have discovered the >Sorcerer's/Sorcerer's/Sorcerer's/Philosopher' >150 years old - or else he would have already been >dead by the time Dumbledore was born. So, Flamel >couldn't have been working with Dumbledore on >the Stone. We have two choices: either Dumbledore >is as old as Flamel >or they worked on something else >together. >The thing that makes it unlikely that DD is as old as >Flamel is that, when we see the younger DD in the >pensieve, he has auburn hair. If he were as old as >Flamel, he would have already had white or gray >hair by then and wouldn't have looked noticeably >younger. Nikkalmati: You have raised an intriguing issue that I had never thought of. If NF and DD were working together during DD's lifetime, it must have been within the last 120 years or so. Yet he seems to be close enough to NF to convince him to give up the stone and die. Perhaps they had known each other for a longer time and had worked on the stone and other projects together. If DD rejuvenates at regular intervals, he could be as old as NF, or older. He would have no need of the stone, because his transformation comes from another source. Call it Phoenix power. At the time we see him in the Pensieve he is only 100 years old in his current avatar. It does not reflect his true total age. Of course, this would be another clue that DD is not dead and avoids the problems presented IMHO by murder or assisted suicide. Nikkalmati (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJlYmNjN3U0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNzYxNjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAyNTQ0MTA4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE1MjMzODA2Mg--; _ylg=1/SIG=11l9623oi/**http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/post) (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJtaGZ0cTk1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzIEZ3JwSWQDMjE3NjE2NgRncnBzcElkAzE2MDI1NDQxMDgEc2VjA25jbW9kBHNsawNmZGJjawRzdGltZQMxMTUyM zM4MDYy;_ylg=1/SIG=11im36rmb/**http://surveylink.yahoo.com/wix/p1412899.aspx) . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jul 10 02:21:25 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 02:21:25 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155145 Pippin: > As a general rule, things that are important to LV aren't *really* > important, while he overlooks the things that JKR says are important: > courage, loyalty and the power of love, which, unlike horcruxes > or the prophecy, we have been hearing about from Book One. When > Harry concentrates on what LV thinks is important, he goes astray. > My guess is that the horcruxes, like the prophecy, really aren't as > important as Harry thinks they are. The phony horcrux presages this. Ceridwen: When I sit down and really think about Horcruxes, I do get the idea that they'll be done away with quickly so we can get down to the real action. Maybe the untarnishable cup, the mysterious Ravenclaw or Gryffindor object, the locket, and whatever's left, will have decayed with the presence of LV's soul for such a long time (sixteen years or so, I guess)? He's already set it up that a living thing which he possesses dies an unnaturally fast death. They did seem like the least important thing, even though DD was adamant about Harry getting that memory. Maybe the real key is just knowing LV? Ceridwen. From mros at xs4all.nl Sun Jul 9 22:18:24 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 00:18:24 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Understanding Marietta (long) (Was: Evil Hermione) References: <306.7f08c64.31e2d6fc@aol.com> Message-ID: <000701c6a3a5$98728090$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155146 Nikkalmati: >>>Isn't the death of Cedric proof that LV is back/ Or do the students believe Harry killed him?<<< Marion: The TriWizard competition is dangerous. "Death or eternal glory". One of the competitors died, but that could have been from the rigours of the competition. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 10 02:57:24 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 02:57:24 -0000 Subject: Traitors, friends, loyalty and betrayal (was Evil Hermion... In-Reply-To: <414.5272a6a.31e2ed8c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155147 Nikki: > > That said, in the Potterverse, treachery of any kind > > appears to be punished, sometimes severely, regardless how > > the commitment was formed. Magpie: > That I would agree with, but I don't know if that's a > punishment coming from "on high" or just the natural course > of events. It's damned difficult to leave your family in the > Potterverse because you need to have protectors if you get > into trouble. And so far blood is the strongest bond of > protection. I don't think Sirius is *punished* for rejecting > his family, but it does lead to his destruction. houyhnhnm: Marietta's first loyalty was to her parents. I mean first in time. She betrayed them when she joined an organization whose aim was something they had expressly forbidden her to do. So was her disfigurement the punishment for *that* betrayal? From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Mon Jul 10 03:36:21 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:36:21 -0000 Subject: FILK: Both Sides Now Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155148 Both Sides Now (HBP, Chap. 1) To the tune of Judi Collins' Both Sides Now MIDI here: http://www.jacquedee63.com/bothsides.html Dedicated to Geoff Bannister THE SCENE: 10 Downing Street. "Major" problems loom as the "Petty" Muggle PM "Blairs" his dissatisfaction, Fudge hits the "Pitt", and Scrimgeour declares that he is the "Law", by "George"! (Who says Americans don't know their British history?) The Prime Minister gazed hopelessly at the pair of them for a moment, then the words he had fought to suppress all evening burst from him at last. "But for heaven's sake--you're wizards! You can do magic! Surely you can sort out--well--anything!" Scrimgeour turned slowly on the spot and exchanged an incredulous look with Fudge, who really did manage a smile this time as he said kindly, "The trouble is, the other side can do magic too, Prime Minister." THE P.M. When I first in this office sat a man in a green bowler hat Came out of thin air just like that, I thought it due to stress And with that man I oft confer, with him, the Other Minister So, ev'ry year some disaster he comes here to confess FUDGE You're getting news from both sides now The Muggle PM we allow To stay informed in small degrees But only in emergencies THE P.M. I'm dealing now with hurricanes, bridges collapsing in the rain, A savage murder down the lane, amidst depressing mist. But now you tell me this ado is all the work of You-Know-Who If magic is the thing you do, then stop him, I insist! FUDGE But magic's done by both sides now We'll stop him but I don't how The Dark Lord has us in a squeeze As he designs emergencies THE P.M. It seems that I am not unique in having had an awful week For your winning electoral streak has reached a sudden end You have been forced out in disgrace, and Rufus is to take your place A man with a leonine face, on him we must depend SCRIMGEOUR The Ministry's on my side now I won't submit and say "meow" And though Shunpike may be displeased We're dealing with emergencies . - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated today with 22 new filks!) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 02:45:01 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 02:45:01 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155149 > Ceridwen: > When I sit down and really think about Horcruxes, I do get the idea > that they'll be done away with quickly so we can get down to the real > action. Maybe the untarnishable cup, the mysterious Ravenclaw or > Gryffindor object, the locket, and whatever's left, will have decayed > with the presence of LV's soul for such a long time (sixteen years or > so, I guess)? He's already set it up that a living thing which he > possesses dies an unnaturally fast death. They did seem like the > least important thing, even though DD was adamant about Harry getting > that memory. Maybe the real key is just knowing LV? Alla: Heeee. Don't get me wrong, I really want you to be right on this one, but for some reason I am **not** so sure that Horcruxes will be done away with so quickly. Just think about how much time Dumbledore spent on them, just think that at least two people Dumbledore and Regulus died while hunting them. I mean, I am guessing that final choice **will be** about self- sacrifice for Harry, but that is will be IMO the consequence of the existance of the Horcruxes ( whether Harry is the one, just believes to be the one, or none of the above), **not** just appearing out of nowhere. Just think about JKR hinting that last book will have a lot of quest features ( two sided mirror showing up for example) and I am not so sure that Horcruxes will be done with fast, but more like featuring very prominently during book 7, IMO. Alla. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 05:43:39 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 05:43:39 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes - Houses - Power to Rule them all Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155150 Here is another thought about Horcruxes. We know that JKR said the 4 houses represent the 4 elements. Gryffindor= Fire, Ravenclaw= Air, Hufflepuff= Earth and Slytherin= Water. I have been reading a history of Wicca and came across this interesting tidbit of information. In the English tradition the colors for the 4 elements are different than they are in other places. They are the same as what JKR has for the 4 houses. That is: Fire is red, Air is blue, Earth is brown/yellow and Water is green. So there we have the basics for the elements. According to my reading the ancient Greeks said 5 elements are the basis for all life. The 5th element that holds the other 4 together was Love or Spirit. With all of this in mind: According to DD, we know that LV did not get an item from Gryffindor to make a horcrux. I wonder if this is more significant than we think. If all 4 elements must work together (remember the Sorting Hat's song) and the 5th element that binds them is Love and when all four houses are working as one, this is a positive thing. .. What I am wondering is this: If LV were to get something from all 4 houses what would the synergist effect be? I think that there may be something very important about his having a part of his soul in an object from each of the houses. Remember each of the objects so far also have a special powerful magic of their own, associated with the founder of that house. What would happen if each of these powerful magical objects also had the soul of LV in them? Now I am not a Lord of the Rings fan. Saw the movies and that is all. But wasn't there something there about a number of rings and the "one ring to bind them all" or something? Maybe a LOR fans can help here. Anyway what I am getting at is that maybe what we have is something like this. If LV can get the Gryffindor item and make a horcrux of it, *something* will happen. Maybe DD was wrong, maybe Nagini is not a horcrux and LV is still trying to get that last one, so he can finally do the spell that unites all of the elements of the world and place them under his rule. This might be a spell that can not be broken. It would certainly explain the high stakes that are involved in defeating LV. He is not just another bad wizard. He is trying to be the Darkest Wizard of them all. The one to rule the world forever. >From this perspective it looks very, very dark indeed. Tonks_op From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 10 06:36:54 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 06:36:54 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: <700201d40607091340u190020f5hf9bb3ec1db442176@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155151 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: Kemper: > Are you saying that JKR steals? Because the idea of hiding the soul has > been around well before the D&D geekdom. There's a Russian fairy tale that > depicts a magician (evil, obviously) who separated his soul from his body > and hid it in an object; his nickname was The Deathless. Maybe Alla can > expound further. Geoff: This triggered a memory with me. Igor Stravinsky's ballet suite "The Firebird" is based on this fable. The evil King Kastchei keeps his soul in a casket and Ivan, the hero, has to destroy this with the help of the Fire Bird - does that produce echoes of a Phoenix? From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Jul 10 07:47:13 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 03:47:13 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Redemption of LV? Message-ID: <573.1465d3f.31e36001@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155152 In a message dated 7/9/06 11:32:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, eggplant107 at hotmail.com writes: > We can only hope it's just a year, it could easily be 2 or even 3. It > takes longer to write a book than to read one, I wish it didn't. > > Sandy: And it takes even longer to write a book when you're not actually writing it but instead are busy attending social functions and globe-trotting. Oh, and doing interviews that miserably tease and taunt those who are so eagerly waiting. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From penhaligon at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 08:09:50 2006 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 01:09:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Redemption of LV? In-Reply-To: <573.1465d3f.31e36001@aol.com> Message-ID: <004f01c6a3f8$3961de90$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> No: HPFGUIDX 155153 > > Sandy: > > And it takes even longer to write a book when you're not > actually writing it > but instead are busy attending social functions and > globe-trotting. Oh, and > doing interviews that miserably tease and taunt those who are > so eagerly > waiting. Are you going to begrudge her having a child next? A husband? Have you ever written a novel? Do you have any idea how hard it is? How much it takes out of you? Believe it or not, writers need to take vacations and time away, just like anyone else. Or else nothing else will ever get written. Panhandle From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Jul 10 08:41:28 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:41:28 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155154 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Ceridwen: > > When I sit down and really think about Horcruxes, I do get the > idea > > that they'll be done away with quickly so we can get down to the > real > > action. Maybe the untarnishable cup, the mysterious Ravenclaw or > > Gryffindor object, the locket, and whatever's left, will have > decayed > > with the presence of LV's soul for such a long time (sixteen years > or > > so, I guess)? He's already set it up that a living thing which he > > possesses dies an unnaturally fast death. They did seem like the > > least important thing, even though DD was adamant about Harry > getting > > that memory. Maybe the real key is just knowing LV? > > > Alla: > > Heeee. Don't get me wrong, I really want you to be right on this > one, but for some reason I am **not** so sure that Horcruxes will be > done away with so quickly. > > Just think about how much time Dumbledore spent on them, just think > that at least two people Dumbledore and Regulus died while hunting > them. > > I mean, I am guessing that final choice **will be** about self- > sacrifice for Harry, but that is will be IMO the consequence of the > existance of the Horcruxes ( whether Harry is the one, just believes > to be the one, or none of the above), **not** just appearing out of > nowhere. > > Just think about JKR hinting that last book will have a lot of quest > features ( two sided mirror showing up for example) and I am not so > sure that Horcruxes will be done with fast, but more like featuring > very prominently during book 7, IMO. > > Alla. > Brothergib; I agree with Alla! Horcruxes are not things that are easily disposed of. As I have posted before, there is also nowhere near enough time for Harry to deal all the remaining Horcruxes. He doesn't even know what they all are!! Snape will be chief Horcrux destroyer. IMO, he will go to LV, claim that DD knew about Horcruxes and where they all were. He will promise to protect the Horcruxes, and LV now implicitly trusts Snape, so tells him where and what they are. Snape will then destroy the Horcruxes. Obviously that still leaves the locket for Harry to destroy and maybe Nagini. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jul 10 10:13:46 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:13:46 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155155 Brothergib; > I agree with Alla! Horcruxes are not things that are easily disposed > of. As I have posted before, there is also nowhere near enough time > for Harry to deal all the remaining Horcruxes. He doesn't even know > what they all are!! Snape will be chief Horcrux destroyer. IMO, he > will go to LV, claim that DD knew about Horcruxes and where they all > were. He will promise to protect the Horcruxes, and LV now implicitly > trusts Snape, so tells him where and what they are. Snape will then > destroy the Horcruxes. Obviously that still leaves the locket for > Harry to destroy and maybe Nagini. Ceridwen: But, to the story, that would be getting rid of them easily. It won't take Our Hero an entire third or half of a book to do it, at some point, he'll just find out that the locket he and his friends destroyed was the only one left besides Nagini or possibly Harry himself. Other adventures will happen as the tension mounts because they've only gotten to the one, the locket. So, what will seem like a major obstacle at first will actually be no problem *to the story* at all. The Nagini Horcrux will be taken care of during the final confrontation. Ceridwen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 11:42:56 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:42:56 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155156 > > Alla: > > > > Heeee. Don't get me wrong, I really want you to be right on this > > one, but for some reason I am **not** so sure that Horcruxes will > be > > done away with so quickly. >> Brothergib; > I agree with Alla! Horcruxes are not things that are easily disposed > of. As I have posted before, there is also nowhere near enough time > for Harry to deal all the remaining Horcruxes. He doesn't even know > what they all are!! Snape will be chief Horcrux destroyer. IMO, he > will go to LV, claim that DD knew about Horcruxes and where they all > were. He will promise to protect the Horcruxes, and LV now implicitly > trusts Snape, so tells him where and what they are. Snape will then > destroy the Horcruxes. Obviously that still leaves the locket for > Harry to destroy and maybe Nagini. > Alla: Oh, I am sorry, Brothergib. You won't be angry at me for disagreeing with you after you agreed with me , I hope. :) It is Harry's quest, not Snape. :) I don't think Snape will be chief Horcruxes destroyer, sorry. What I was trying to say that Horcruxes will be important for the plot, not that it will be impossible for Harry to deal with them. Okay, I will grant you that if Snape is a DD!M ( big **if** for me as you know)) he will help destroying one, everything else, I am inclined to believe Harry will get help from someone else. I am guessing Harry's friends will help take care of them, maybe even different person for different horcrux? Speculating here of course, Alla. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 12:09:03 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 05:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cats Eyes for Protection and other links In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060710120903.80004.qmail@web52705.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155157 Randy Estes wrote: Just remember... the Brits were influenced by the Romans who invaded their lands. The Romans took their myths from the Greeks. The Greeks were greatly influenced by the myths of the Eqyptians. We have a connection from European to Eqyptian myths. The stories change and the myths evolve over time. The Eqyptians changed their myths over time as the political powers changed. Katie responds: Not to quibble...but the Roman influence on British culture was pretty miniscule in the long term. The Roman hold on England was brief and weak to begin with, and once the Roman Empire really began to crumble, the far northern Roman settlements were almost totally abandoned by the struggling Empire. By A.D. 700, the Norse were coming, and of course, when the Normans arrived, everything before them culturally was pretty squashed. In terms of holdovers, the Norse and German had a much more lasting influence in England than did the Romans. Sorry to be picky, but I thought it was important to the conversation about why the mythology in HP. I think a lot of it just comes from JK herself, and her own personal interests, not from a general English heritage. Just in my humble opinion, Katie From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Jul 10 14:28:12 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:28:12 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155158 > > > > Alla: > > Oh, I am sorry, Brothergib. > > You won't be angry at me for disagreeing with you after you agreed > with me , I hope. :) Don't worry Alla - I am used to us not being in agreement!! > > It is Harry's quest, not Snape. :) I don't think Snape will be chief Horcruxes destroyer, sorry. > > What I was trying to say that Horcruxes will be important for the > plot, not that it will be impossible for Harry to deal with them. > Okay, lets consider this; Diary Horcrux - Destroyed Ring Horcrux - Destroyed Locket Horcrux - we think we know where it is, so isn't a major obstacle Nagini Horcrux - as said before, will probably be dealt with in the final confrontation Hufflepuff Horcrux - no idea where it is or how well protected Final Horcrux - No idea where it is, what it is or how well protected. It is clear that DD could not find or even be sure of the final two Horcruxes. DD also struggled to deal with the ring Horcrux and even get near the locket Horcrux. So are we supposed to believe that Harry has the ability to a) locate and b) destroy these Horcruxes. No he does not. What Harry possesses is the ability to destroy Voldemort once the Horcruxes are destroyed!!It is Snape (who knows more about the Dark Arts than anyone) who is ideally placed to destroy the two unknown Horcruxes. As I've said before, Harry will face LV thinking that certain Horcruxes are still in place - leading to immense over confidence on the part of LV. As always, just my opinion. Brothergib From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 15:24:51 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:24:51 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155159 > > Pippin: > My alternative explanation, in one line: > Dumbledore died of the poison shortly before Harry found him. > Neri: So you mean that instead of AKing Dumbledore on the spot, Snape just blasted him alive of a high tower and left him to die a long and painful death at the bottom? I'm not sure Snape is any better off in your version. Dumbledore certainly isn't. > Pippin: > The only assumption required is that Snape didn't kill him. Whether > that's reasonable or not depends on your point of view. > Neri: We're not talking here "reasonable" in the sense of Snape's morality, but in the sense of the magical mechanics involved. Are you saying that Snape used an AK that was just strong enough to produce a jet of green light, blast Dumbledore several meters in the air, but still not kill him and not even knock him out? Sounds like a one big assumption to me, and I'm not familiar with any canon that AK can do such a thing. > Pippin: > It is not an assumption that an AK can be ineffective or that > wizards can survive falls from a considerable height, as we have > canon for both those instances. Neri: You do here awful lots of deducing from some very vague canon to a very specific case. "Ineffective" does not equal blasting people in the air with a green jet of light. And you still need to assume that Dumbledore, in a pretty bad condition at that time, had managed to arrest his fall without his wand. If he was able to do that, then one wonders why he wasn't able to, say, body-bind Draco on the tower. In addition, Harry was released from Dumbledore's body-bind charm, suggesting Dumbledore was knocked out at the very least. Harry thought, or actually "knew", that it must mean that Dumbledore had died. We don't have any canon regarding the magical mechanics of this specific issue, but Harry has the advantage on us of six years of Hogwarts education, including an Outstanding OWL in DADA. So your theory at the very least requires the further assumption that Harry got it wrong. > Pippin: > There is no hypothesis about the operation of the UV that does > not require assumptions, so I set that aside. > Neri: Convenient, but not all assumptions were created equal. The most straightforward assumption in the case of the UV is that Snape would die if he doesn't keep his Vow to carry out Dumbledore's assassination instead of Draco. I call it the most straightforward in the sense that if JKR takes this route, she won't have to supply any further explanations of this issue in Book 7. Any more complicated assumptions require further elaboration of the UV mechanism, by both the theorist and JKR herself. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 10 17:26:52 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:26:52 -0000 Subject: Traitors, friends, loyalty and betrayal (was Evil Hermione) long In-Reply-To: <3be.56756cf.31e27b00@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155160 > Nikkalmati: > Lanval touched on the central question regarding Marietta and Hermione. Two > virtues appear to be paramount in Potterverse: courage and loyalty. The > Marietta incident is just one example of betrayal found throughout the books and > I think it has to be seen in conjunction with all the other incidents. > The books begin with a huge act of betrayal by Pettigrew for the base motive > of saving his own skin, thus, an act against both courage and loyalty. > Sirius is the opposite character in this scenario, displaying both courage and > loyalty ( he advised Pettigrew he would have died rather than betray the > Potters and he broke out of Azkaban when he realized Harry was in danger, for > example). Pippin: Loyalty is important, yes, but loyalty to what? To a person or a group? Or to a set of values? I think it's the values, people. JKR makes that clear when Neville is rewarded for turning against the Trio. It is difficult for me to judge Marietta's actions, because I don't know what values she was choosing when she went to Umbridge. Was she choosing to enrich herself as Alla seems to think, or was she choosing between her mother and an unstable, erratic boy who leaves her best friend in tears half the time? But I know what Hermione's values are supposed to be, and that bothers me, because the parchment hex does not exemplify choice. First and foremost, it doesn't allow for the choice of mercy. Regardless of whether mercy would have been appropriate in this case, the parchment leaves no option for it. Some have said that Hermione would show mercy if she was asked to, but Hermione's friends have received mercy unasked. The Flying Car incident was in its way a betrayal of the whole WW, but Hermione would be very lonely at school if Harry and Ron had been expelled. Secondly, although everyone else's future was just as much at stake as Hermione's, she didn't give any one else a choice about how that future was going to be protected. That's elitist, IMO. I know Hermione doesn't want to be elitist, so I think this was a case where she, as was often the case with Sirius, didn't live up to her personal philosophy. She took it for granted that her choices would reflect what she believes in, but her judgement was whipsawed by her "faults and fears." Pippin From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 10 14:09:39 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:09:39 -0000 Subject: How long does it take to write book 7 WAS: Re: The Redemption of LV? In-Reply-To: <573.1465d3f.31e36001@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155161 > >Eggplant wrote: > > We can only hope it's just a year, it could easily be 2 or even 3. It > > takes longer to write a book than to read one, I wish it didn't. > > > > > > Sandy replied: > > And it takes even longer to write a book when you're not actually writing it > but instead are busy attending social functions and globe-trotting. Oh, and > doing interviews that miserably tease and taunt those who are so eagerly > waiting. > > Ken: I understand your frustration, Sandy. Certainly we all feel it and wish she would stop talking about it and get on with it. Writers have to do things their own way. Some turn out decent to great copy at blinding speed. Others have to stop often and smell the roses a lot to get the inspiration they need. I suspect we would all rather have it be good than now, though none of us would mind having both! I'm also reading Harry Turtledove's alternate history of 19th and 20th century North America and volume 10 of the saga, "The Grapple", is due out in a few days so I will have something new to distract me from HP for a brief while. He's been spinning out a new episode at the rate of over one a year. And he writes several other ongoing series and one-off books at the same time. The man is amazing. I don't think his writing is as good as JKR's but it isn't bad, not bad at all. I have to wonder what his so called TL-191 "history" of NA would have been like if he took more time or concentrated on it exclusively. I guess the thing is that like any writer his mind works the way it does and he couldn't do it at all if he couldn't do it his way. His polar opposite would be someone like Susanna Clarke the author of "Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell". I believe she took around 10 years to write that single, hefty novel. It has been called HP for adults because it is also about English magicians and it depicts adults, not school children. Anyone here who has not read it ought to give it a try. It is a delightful book and it will give you a much different view of English magic as well as provide something to read while waiting for HP7. In a way it is an alternate history too. Its plot also turns on a prophecy, one I found to be much better done that Trelawney's, sorry to say. It begs for a sequel and no telling how long that might be in coming. JKR is somewhere between those two extremes. I doubt that the distractions you mention are really delaying the progress of the last novel. She undoubtedly needs them to let ideas percolate in her unconscious creative mind. This electical engineer finds that his best ideas often come not while reading technical journals or while trying alternatives on a computerized circuit simulator but while taking a morning shower. Creativity springs on most of us unawares. Let's just pray that she doesn't hit a block and take multiple years to write the last one. Ken From littleleah at handbag.com Mon Jul 10 07:55:14 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:55:14 -0000 Subject: Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155162 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Ken: > > > I looked over the thread from last January and I see a > > lot of discussion of what actual snake Nagini could be. > > Is there any known snake that fits? > > houyhnhnm: > > Well, as I pointed out in message 155099, the triangular head suggests > a viper. But as Neri pointed out in message 155106 (and as I should > have remembered from clinical hematology), viper venom exhibits > coagulant, not anti-coagulant properties. But real snakes do not have > language. So I think Nagini is a magical snake and she has whatever > characteristics Rowling chooses to give her. Attempting to determine > what kind of RL snake she is in order to deduce clues is probably not > a fruitful line of inquiry. Leah: I remember a discussion on this subject on one of the mugglenet forums, and the nearest match for Nagini in the real world seemed to be the bushmaster. Information on bushmasters can be found at:http://www.zoo.org/educate/fact_sheets/bushmaster/b_master.htm It is a South American viper, also known as the copperhead and pit viper (someone must have obtained an acromantula egg from South America (FB says they live in Brazil)and given it to Hagrid; perhaps LV has a source there). The bushmaster has the viper head and arrow markings, and reaches about 12 feet in length, Nagini's markings and length as seen by Frank Bryce. Its venom is not particularly strong, but is extremely copious (good for milking?)and has the interesting property of causing internal bleeding;while this is not quite what happened to Arthur, it does suggest some anti-coagulent properties. The bushmaster has extremely sensitive heat dectectors and uses infra-red to hunt prey- pehaps the vibrant colours seen by Harry in the MOM. The species name for the bushmaster is lachesis muta or silent fate; Lachesis was one of the three Fates, the one who measured out the spun thread. I dont' think we are meant to assume that Nagini has human language. In GOF, LV speaks to her in parseltongue. In PS/SS Harry speaks with the apparently unmagical boa constrictor in the same way. Having said all that, I tend to agree with Neri. JKR adapts mythological creatures and there is no reason why she should not adapt real ones. She may well mix magic and real characteristics. Nagini's name seems to have links with Hindu mythology, nagas being a group of semi-divine beings with both human and snake properties; their totem was the cobra. Vasuki was a naga used by the gods to churn immortality from the ocean of milk. Nagini was also one of the cobras in Rudyard Kipling's story of Rikki-tikki-tavi, where she is killed by the mongoose. Although not related to weasels, mongooses are weasel -like in behaviur and appearance- does this mean anything? Pippin wrote: >One of the nagging frustrations of an otherwise contented life >is that I can't remember where I read, sometime before GoF came >out and I joined the fandom, an interview with JKR in which she >was asked if there was anything she would change if she were >to do it all over. She said that she hadn't known when she wrote >PS/SS that Boa Constrictors weren't poisonous. Perhaps >Harry's released boa and Nagini were once the same character, >and Nagini's part was rewritten when JKR realized they >couldn't be. Leah: Relief- I thought I was imagining this, having also searched quotes and interviews unsuccessfully for this snippet. If Nagini was originally intended to be the boa and therefore indebted to Harry, was she then replaced in the plot line by Wormtail(who is frequenntly connected with her)?. I liked Neri's idea of obtaining Harry's blood via Nagini, but can't quite see a final connection between indebtedness, Nagini and Wormtail. Leah From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 19:06:08 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:06:08 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman (Was: Killing/Persecution/Pettigrew/Marriage-Professors,Contract/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155163 Pippin wrote: I think he [Ludo Bagman] was a one shot character and > has no further role to play. Carol responds: I agree that Bagman isn't a Death Eater, but I don't think that JKR will leave us hanging regarding his fate. I think we'll hear about him via the Daily Prophet, just as we heard that Karkaroff was murdered by Death Eaters. Also, we know that Ludo is in trouble with the goblins, and I expect to hear more about the goblins in Book 7--after all, Bill Weasley was acting as a liaison to the goblins in OoP, and we've already had encounters with the other two nonwizard "races" represented in the fountain of magical brotherhood (or whatever its name is) in the MoM. JKR had Bill throw the name Ragnok into a conversation at 12 GP, IIRC in relation to Bagman. Since the name Scrimgeour was thrown into a similar conversation (by Tonks) and Scrimgeour showed up in HBP, I think that Ragnok will show up in Book 7, possibly as the leader of an anti-wizard faction. (Remember all the goblin wars in Binns's class?) Maybe Ragnok will kill Bagman or hold him for ransom to get back the money Bagman owes him by fair means or foul. And speaking of minor characters who seem to have disappeared from the books, what's up with Sturgis Podmore, the Order member who was arrested for trying to break through the door to the DoM, who's been out of Azkaban for some time now? Carol, envisioning an article in the Quibbler headlined "Goblins Bake Bagman in a Pie" From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 10 18:34:58 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:34:58 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155164 > Pippin: > > My alternative explanation, in one line: > > Dumbledore died of the poison shortly before Harry found him. > > > > Neri: > So you mean that instead of AKing Dumbledore on the spot, Snape just > blasted him alive of a high tower and left him to die a long and > painful death at the bottom? I'm not sure Snape is any better off in > your version. Dumbledore certainly isn't. > Pippin: So you assume that Dumbledore's instruction to 'leave me and save yourself' if so ordered has no narrative purpose? We don't know why Dumbledore thought he would be better off if such an order were obeyed, we don't know if he ever gave such an order to Snape, but we do know that he was capable of giving the order, and that he anticipated a need. Snape is better off if his soul is not torn with murder, surely. > > > Pippin: > > The only assumption required is that Snape didn't kill him. Whether > > that's reasonable or not depends on your point of view. > > > > Neri: > We're not talking here "reasonable" in the sense of Snape's morality, > but in the sense of the magical mechanics involved. Are you saying > that Snape used an AK that was just strong enough to produce a jet of > green light, blast Dumbledore several meters in the air, but still not > kill him and not even knock him out? Sounds like a one big assumption > to me, and I'm not familiar with any canon that AK can do such a thing. > Pippin: It is not an assumption that a blast of green light can be produced by other spells than AK, or that uttering the words Avada Kedavra won't produce a killing curse without a great deal of magical power behind it. Nothing vague there. It's also not an assumption that a nonverbal spell can move people. I believe there are several instances of this in the graveyard, though I haven't got my book with me to check. You either have to assume that the AK knocked Dumbledore up and backwards, for which we have no other examples in canon, or that something else did it, for which examples are numerous. Neri: > In addition, Harry was released from Dumbledore's body-bind charm, > suggesting Dumbledore was knocked out at the very least. Pippin: Harry first thinks that he needed to get Dumbledore and Snape together and later that Dumbledore died when the spell was released, so he got it wrong one way or another. The only question is which time. Canon for Dumbledore's being conscious: after the fall, the locket has apparently been dislodged from DD's pocket, yet DD's glasses are only askew. Weird, if both are the results of the fall. > > Pippin: > > There is no hypothesis about the operation of the UV that does > > not require assumptions, so I set that aside. > > > > Neri: > Convenient, but not all assumptions were created equal. The most > straightforward assumption in the case of the UV is that Snape would > die if he doesn't keep his Vow to carry out Dumbledore's assassination > instead of Draco. I call it the most straightforward in the sense that > if JKR takes this route, she won't have to supply any further > explanations of this issue in Book 7. Any more complicated assumptions > require further elaboration of the UV mechanism, by both the theorist > and JKR herself. Pippin: She has to explain why Draco's failures with the necklace and the mead didn't trigger the UV. Any attempt by us to anticipate the explanation calls for an assumption about how it works. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 10 19:28:23 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:28:23 -0000 Subject: Who or what is Nagini? (Was: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155165 Leah: > I dont' think we are meant to assume that Nagini has > human language. In GOF, LV speaks to her in parseltongue. > In PS/SS Harry speaks with the apparently unmagical boa > constrictor in the same way. houyhnhnm: I meant "language" in the general sense of using sounds symbolically to represent meaning. Nagini is apparently able to convey thoughts as complex as "there is an old Muggle standing right outside this room, listening to everything we say." The Gaunts use Parseltongue to communicate among themselves. So even though it sounds like hisses, it must be a real language. Real snakes don't have much in the way of cerebral development. They don't think. The anthropomorphism in the HP books bugs me. Like bat boogey hexes, Polyjuice Potion, and turning teapots into tortoises aren't just as silly. I don't know why I feel that way. It's irrational. From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jul 10 16:13:08 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:13:08 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155167 Pippin: > > My alternative explanation, in one line: > > Dumbledore died of the poison shortly before Harry found him. > > The only assumption required is that Snape didn't kill him. > > Whether that's reasonable or not depends on your point of view. Neri: > We're not talking here "reasonable" in the sense of Snape's > morality, but in the sense of the magical mechanics involved. Are > you saying that Snape used an AK that was just strong enough to > produce a jet of green light, blast Dumbledore several meters in > the air, but still not kill him and not even knock him out? Sounds > like a one big assumption to me, and I'm not familiar with any > canon that AK can do such a thing. Pippin: > > It is not an assumption that an AK can be ineffective or that > > wizards can survive falls from a considerable height, as we have > > canon for both those instances. Neri: > You do here awful lots of deducing from some very vague canon to a > very specific case. Sorry to butt in but I just noticed something that may add to your debate. There IS reason to think that the unforgivable curse could have failed or have been of low power (low enough to be survived). 1st, impostor Moody said to the DADA class that they could all get their wands out and perform the curse and he doubted he'd even get a nose bleed. 2nd, when Harry tried to perform the Cruciatus curse on Bellatrix in OoP after Sirius died, she told him that you have to mean it. Is it possible Snape did not mean to kill Dumbledore so the curse did not work, however was enough to fulfil his vow???? spookedook From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 10 19:59:58 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:59:58 -0000 Subject: FILK: Both Sides Now In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Caius Marcius" wrote: > > Both Sides Now (HBP, Chap. 1) > > To the tune of Judi Collins' Both Sides Now > > MIDI here: > > http://www.jacquedee63.com/bothsides.html > > Dedicated to Geoff Bannister > Geoff: I nearly missed this. I usually ignore any title with FILK in it and just saw my name out of the corner of my eye. I feel deeply, deeply honoured; I've never even had a chocolate bar dedicated to me before - although Mars is bright tonight and the Topic might be the choice of names from the Milky Way for Black family names... :-) But, why me? I've been a school exams secretary, a church secretary, a pain in the backside but never the British Prime Minister. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 19:59:14 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:59:14 -0000 Subject: Traitors, friends, loyalty and betrayal (was Evil Hermione) long In-Reply-To: <3be.56756cf.31e27b00@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155169 Nikkalmati wrote: > Two > virtues appear to be paramount in Potterverse: courage and loyalty. > The books begin with a huge act of betrayal by Pettigrew for the base motive of saving his own skin, thus, an act against both courage and loyalty. Sirius is the opposite character in this scenario, displaying both courage and loyalty ( he advised Pettigrew he would have died rather than betray the Potters and he broke out of Azkaban when he realized Harry was in danger, for example). Carol responds: I agree with you about the importance of both loyalty and courage in the Potterverse, but Sirius Black strikes me as having a rash sort of courage that doesn't consider consequences to himself or anyone else, and a fierce but highly restrictive loyalty to a very small group of intimate friends, combined with indifference or intense dislike of anyone outside that group. there's no question that he would have died rather than betray James, but are you sure that he broke out of Azkaban because Harry was in danger? Surely he knew Peter to be both lazy and cowardly, never taking action unless he had to, and Harry had not been harmed by him for the two years he and Scabbers had both been at Hogwarts. I was under the impression that Black escaped from Azkaban "to commit the murder [he] was imprisoneed for"--IOW, to avenge James's murder with a murder of his own. At any rate, I don't think he's held up by JKR as the epitome of loyalty and courage, a role model for Harry to emulate whether or not he's the polar opposite of Pettigrew. Nikkalmati: Someone said that it would be better for Harry to be his own man, to say I am loyal to DD, but I am my own man. I think that statement would be contrary to the themes we see in the books. The aim of the good person is not independence, but honoring one's connections, working with others, and remaining faithful. > I also believe that it is made obvious which is the good side and that it truly matters which side one is on. Carol: I agree with you here. We're supposed to admire Harry when he says that he's "Dumbledore's man through and through" and our understanding of snape depends almost wholly on "where [his] loyalties lie." But loyalty to the wrong side (Bellatrix, Barty Jr.) ceases to be admirable, and "treachery" to the Dark side--abandoning a loyalty that is wrong in itself--is not evil, even a necessary evil, but good. IOW, Voldemort is evil; therefore it is not evil but good to betray him, whether you're Snape or Regulus Black (or Draco Malfoy?). Nikkalmati: Some acts are inherently evil and cannot be done in the pursuit of good. However, treachery has to be evaluated in its context. Carol: Possibly "treachery," which IMO has entirely negative connotations, is the wrong word here. I would go with "betrayal," I think. But even that seems like the wrong word for what Dobby or Snape or Regulus Black does, since their actions (assuming DDM!Snape) involve seeing the light and serving the side of good "at great personal risk." If you're on the other side, their actions are treacherous, but if you're on Harry's side (and fully understand their actions, as Harry doesn't yet, even in Dobby's case), their actions are heroic. If I may be forgiven for using an American example, to the colonists, Nathan Hale was a hero and Benedict Arnold a traitor. The British no doubt held the opposite view. BTW, I had a bit of trouble spotting the attribution for the quotes in this post, and I hope that Nikkalmati won't mind my suggesting that she leave a space between her post and the one she's responding to. Carol, wondering if the Nazis regarded Quisling as a hero From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 20:12:40 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:12:40 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155170 Pippin : > > Careful, Neri. If blood coagulation is important, and we should pay > > attention to it, then Snape did not AK Dumbledore. Not if he was > > bleeding half an hour after he supposedly died. Here's the canon, > > in case you've forgotten. Or are we supposed to think that > > Dumbledore was on blood-thinning medication? > > > > Neri: > Almost correct. Since Voldy uses Nagini's anticoagulant venom in potions, the simplest explanation for Dumbledore's postmortem bleeding is that her venom was also an ingredient of the green potion from the > cave. Carol notes: In which case, Nagini has been Voldemort's familiar since before Godric's Hollow (if RAB is Regulus, he died before the Potters were killed) and is quite likely to be a Horcrux. Carol, wondering if the trickle of blood indicates that Dumbledore died from the potion rather than from Snape's supposed AK From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 21:38:34 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:38:34 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155171 Mike wrote: > > I don't think you are being fair, Carol. You deny the accidental horcrux theory because we have no proof in canon. But you use the AK busting back out of Harry to create a scar, which is also not in canon, and IMO is a less likely scenario. Carol responds: Sorry about that. I knew that the cut being caused by the spell bursting out of Harry's forehead was an assumption and I should have worded the statement more carefully. But how else can you account for a cut (which is still unhealed when Hagrid places Baby!Harry on the Dursleys' front porch) from a spell that ordinarily leaves no mark, and for the force of the explosion (IMO the deflected curse) that separates Voldemort from his body (and apparently also explodes the house?) I was being a bit too concise here, trying to get to the main point. My apologies. It *is* canon, however, that the scar is not created immediately: "Under a tuft of jet-black hair over his forehead they could see a curiously shaped cut, like a bolt of lightning" ((SS Am. ed. 15). So unless Voldemort's powers entered Harry through the AK (and we know it was an AK from the blinding green flash in Harry's oldest memory, SS 29, and from JKR's interviews), they must have entered Harry's head through the open wound. Dumbledore says "He'll have that scar forever," but at the moment it isn't yet a scar. It's a cut that heals into a scar. Mike: > > Well, if we believe the Harry!Horcrux theory we do know the mechanism. Carol: No. If you believe the Horcrux theory, you postulate a mechanism. That's not the same thing as knowing it. Mike: > Something else to consider. Would a simple scar, even an interesting > shaped scar, be enough to satisfy the prophesy? My question goes to > the "mark him as his equal" portion. IMO, the mark would have to be > more significant than a lightening bolt shaped scar. A horcrux, OTOH, would be a significant way to "mark him as his equal", wouldn't it? It would also explain the transfer of powers. Carol: I agree that "marking him as his equal" means more than giving him a scar, and I've never argued that "a simple scar is enough to satisfy the prophecy." I don't know of anyone who has made that assertion, frankly. I agree that "mark him as his equal" means transferring his own powers to Harry and at the same time marking him with the scar that links them to each other. The only thing I disagree with here is that this transfer requires a soul bit. Whether a Horcrux would be "a significant way" to mark him as his equal or not is irrelevant without evidence that he has indeed done so. We have evidence that the powers were transferred, but we have no evidence (other than a few scattered hints like Harry's feeling that Tom was an old friend, surely shared by Ginny when she confided in the diary) that Harry is a Horcrux and none whatever that a Horcrux can be created accidentally. Mike: Carol responds with the non sequetor that Harry is the Prophesy Boy, and there is no requirement for Harry to be a horcrux? Yes Carol, we know Voldemort wants to kill Harry because of the prophesy, but couldn't Neri be right, Voldemort changes his strategy to achieve that end *because* he has realized Harry is one of his Horcruxes? Carol reponds: It's possible that Neri is right, but you'll need more than a rhetorical question to convince me that he is. My apologies if my argument was unclear and appeared to you to be a non sequitur (note spelling). Possibly I left out a step in the logical sequence. Let me try again. That Voldemort tried to kill Harry *because he was the Prophecy Boy*, not merely because he wanted another Horcrux (if indeed he did), is canon. It's also canon that Voldemort has tried to kill Harry on several later occasions. Clearly, *if* Harry is a Horcrux, Voldemort didn't intend for him to be one or he wouldn't have tried repeatedly to kill him, nor did he know of his accidental Horcrux (if that's what Harry is) as late as the attempted possession in the MoM or he wouldn't have tried to tempt Dumbledore to kill Harry. And it was not a bit of Voldemort's own soul that drove him out of Harry's body and mind during the attempted possession; it was the love Harry was feeling for Sirius Black, which Voldemort could not endure. I may not have made the logical connection clear, but it does exist. So while Neri could be right that Harry is an accidental Horcrux and Voldemort has just realized that fact, I think we'd have had a clearer hint from Dumbledore, who says that he's telling Harry everything he needs to know to defeat Voldemort and who certainly would have reached the conclusion before Voldemort did given his superior powers of deduction. If Dumbledore, who figured out that the diary was a Horcrux and that there were six Horcruxes in all, didn't figure out that Harry is or could be a Horcrux, how could Voldemort do so, and how is Harry supposed to figure it out? And what signs do we have that Voldemort has changed his strategy regarding Harry since the end of OoP, when he tried first to kill Harry and then to possess Harry and have Dumbledore kill him? Would he sacrifice a Horcrux so readily? I think not. The only thing that changed in HBP, IMO, is that he switched his focus from the Prophecy to Dumbldeore and that he's using Occlumency against Harry. And I stand by my assertion that there is no evidence for accidental Horcruxes in canon. You're welcome to prove me wrong by quoting some. References to non sequiturs will prompt me to clarify my arguments, but they won't make your side any stronger. BTW, it occurred to me that one way to get around the more cumbersome aspects of the Harry!Horcrux hypothesis (as opposed to the unwholesome and sinister aspects, which are perhaps subjective since advocates of the hypothesis seem undisturbed by them) would be to have Voldemort AK Harry right on the scar, bursting it open and releasing the soul bit, but that would only work if it caused the second AK to rebound like the first, killing Voldemort but sparing Harry (still protected by his mother's love). Doesn't seem likely, though, nor does it fit with "either must die at the hand of the other" since it would require Voldemort to die by his own hand. Otherwise I see no way out of the problem of having Harry destroy Voldemort while he is himself still a Horcrux or having Harry die before he can destroy Voldemort. That problem is probably the crux of the whole Harry!Horcrux problem. Carol, still preferring her possession hypothesis but acknowledging that anything, even Harry!Horcrux, is possible From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 11 00:01:55 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:01:55 -0000 Subject: Traitors, friends, loyalty and betrayal (was Evil Hermione) long In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155172 Nikkalmati: > > Some acts are inherently evil and cannot be done in the pursuit > > of good. However, treachery has to be evaluated in its context. Carol: > Possibly "treachery," which IMO has entirely negative > connotations, is the wrong word here. I would go with "betrayal," > I think. But even that seems like the wrong word for what Dobby or > Snape or Regulus Black does, since their actions (assuming DDM! > Snape) involve seeing the light and serving the side of good "at > great personal risk." SSSusan: Might I suggest the word "disloyal"? Would that avoid some of the negativity that seems to be packed into the words "treachery" and "betrayal"? Dobby was certainly disloyal to the Malfoys, but he was helping the side of good, as you note. Same thing with Snape (I believe) & Regulus. It strikes me as more of a mere descriptor word, with less strong connotation. (Or is that just me?) Siriusly Snapey Susan From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 10 02:11:37 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 02:11:37 -0000 Subject: Cats Eyes for Protection and other links In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155173 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote: > The lions (and cats) that look into the sunset at dusk are able to > capture the light from the sun in their eyes. This belief was > fostered by the reflection of light in the cat's eyes at night. > Given this magical fire that burns in their eyes, the lions are > able to kill the evil serpents that roam the night. This is the > reason that the Sphinx is a lion with a Pharoah's head. The lion > protects the people from evil. (Just like Gryffindor) Cats were > also believed to protect the people from evil. > > There are also several female goddesses who have the form of a cat > or the head of a cat or lion ( Sekhmet, Mau, Tefnut, Mafdet). bridge13219: Nicely done! Now I want to look up more Egyption mythology. Speaking of cats, there are many references made to cats in relation to Ginny in OotP (the book where she is more part of the "group" which I don't have on hand to give actual canon). I know she'll have something to do with helping/saving Harry in the end. It's a very poorly developed theory, just a gut feeling. I'm just waiting for the last book! From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Jul 11 01:11:11 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:11:11 EDT Subject: Traitors etc. Message-ID: <308.8356291.31e454af@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155174 > Nikkalmati: > Lanval touched on the central question regarding Marietta and Hermione. Two > virtues appear to be paramount in Potterverse: courage and loyalty. The > Marietta incident is just one example of betrayal found throughout the books and > I think it has to be seen in conjunction with all the other incidents. > The books begin with a huge act of betrayal by Pettigrew for the base motive > of saving his own skin, thus, an act against both courage and loyalty. > Sirius is the opposite character in this scenario, displaying both courage and > loyalty ( he advised Pettigrew he would have died rather than betray the > Potters and he broke out of Azkaban when he realized Harry was in danger, for > example). >Pippin: >Loyalty is important, yes, but loyalty to what? To a person or a group? Or to a set of values? I think it's the values, people. JKR makes that clear when Neville is rewarded for turning against the Trio. Nikkalmati: Neville was displaying courage; as an example of loyalty he was displaying loyalty to Griffendor; he was concerned that they Trio would lose points. I don't see any loyalty to values. Nikkalmati >Pippin >It is difficult for me to judge Marietta's actions, because I don't know what values she was choosing when she went to Umbridge. Was she choosing to enrich herself as Alla seems to think, or was she choosing between her mother and an unstable, erratic boy who leaves her best friend in tears half the time? Nikkalmati: In any case, she was a traitor. I don't think her reasons are particularly relevant. Nikkalmati >Pippin >But I know what Hermione's values are supposed to be, and that bothers me, because the parchment hex does not exemplify choice. First and foremost, it doesn't allow for the choice of mercy. Regardless of whether mercy would have been appropriate in this case, the parchment leaves no option for it. Some have said that Hermione would show mercy if she was asked to, but Hermione's friends have received mercy unasked. The Flying Car incident was in its way a betrayal of the whole WW, but Hermione would be very lonely at school if Harry and Ron had been expelled. Nikkalmati: The WW does not recognize mercy IMHO. (With the exception of DD). I do not believe this case is appropriate for mercy. If Marietta recognizes her error in some way, forgiveness will be automatic, IMHO. It is not in Hermione's hands. Her friends were granted a big huge exception, because Harry is too important to expell. Nikkalmati Secondly, although everyone else's future was just as much at stake as Hermione's, she didn't give any one else a choice about how that future was going to be protected. That's elitist, IMO. I know Hermione doesn't want to be elitist, so I think this was a case where she, as was often the case with Sirius, didn't live up to her personal philosophy. She took it for granted that her choices would reflect what she believes in, but her judgement was whipsawed by her "faults and fears." Nikkalmati: I guess Hermione's thinking she knows best is a bit elitist, but why would Hermione not want to be elitist? After all, she is the cleverest witch of her age. I do agree that she could have done a better job of protecting the DA and I bet she will do a better job next time.. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 01:21:23 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:21:23 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman (Was: Killing/Persecution/Pettigrew/Marriage-Professors,Contract/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155175 > Carol wrote: > I agree that Bagman isn't a Death Eater, but I don't think that JKR > will leave us hanging regarding his fate. Goddlefrood: Some months ago I wrote a piece regarding the identity of the BBDE, speculating that Ludovic Bagman was he. I have retooled that piece quite significantly and present the same hereunder to persuade (perhaps) that Bagman remains a loyal Death Eater. I do agree that we have not heard the last of Ludo and while he may have only a minor part to play he will certainly be one of the loose ends that is neatly tied up. The Death Eaters in general need to be neutralised and it somewhat surprises me that most lists overlook this aspect of the continuing saga. LV's demise would not necessarily eliminate the others hungry to jump in. Well here is the long piece: My conclusion is that the BBDE is none other than Ludovic Bagman and what follows sets out supporting material for this view and also the opinion that Bagman was and is a Death Eater whether reluctantly or otherwise. The relevant known facts first: - (i) Ludovic Bagman was accused of activities relating to the Death Eaters, which are unspecified, in the aftermath of Voldwar 1. He is found guilty of passing information to Rookwood and basically let off due to his popularity as a Quidditch player. Harry believes Bagman to be a Death Eater and this is not contradicted by Dumbledore. I, therefore, conclude that Bagman was and is a Death Eater. Further evidence is set out below. (ii) He played Beater for Wimbourne Wasps and England. This is suggestive of his size as Beaters are consistently described as large. (iii) He disappeared after the third task in GOF and has not been heard from again. The starting point for this discussion is the descriptions of the BBDE by various parties in Chapters 28 and 29 of HBP. I have concluded that the perspective of each character in describing the BBDE is important to establishing exactly how large he is, so now for your enlightenment, he is described thus: (a) Through Harry's filter when first meeting the BBDE he is said to be enormous ("Harry saw Tonks fighting an enormous blond wizard" [Chapter Twenty Eight ? The Flight of the Prince, page 558] and "I know, I'm on it!" said Harry, aiming a hex from the floor at the enormous blond Death Eater [page 559]) (b) Again from Harry's POV "he could just make out three figures racing across the lawn, heading for the gates beyond which they could Disapparate ? by the looks of them, the huge blond Death Eater " (page 560) (c) Also from Harry's POV, but with Hagrid to compare against "the blond Death Eater was aiming curse after curse at the gamekeeper" (page 561). (d) Twice again described as huge and once again as enormous from Harry's POV (pages 562 and 563). (e) Ginny tells us in Chapter Twenty Nine ? The Phoenix Lament on page 571 "And a Death Eater's dead, he got hit by a Killing Curse the huge blond one was firing off everywhere-". She also says huge in her description on page 578. (f) Ron on page 578 says "and that massive Death Eater was still firing off jinxes all over the place" (g) Lastly Lupin on page 579 says: "Well, the big Death Eater had just fired off a hex that caused half the ceiling to fall in". There are, therefore, no less than five perspectives on the BBDE, two from Harry and one each from Ginny, Ron and Remus. Remus, who is the only fully-grown wizard, says the BBDE is big, while the three students say he is variously enormous, huge or massive. It is interesting that when seen against Hagrid he is described only as the blond Death Eater, in my view because in comparison to Hagrid, who we know to be gargantuan, he is of relatively normal looking size, or to put it another way of manageable proportions. The only people in canon with Death Eater associations who have been described as big or large or tall are Ludovic Bagman and Goyle Snr. (apart from Crabbe Snr., who is currently in Azkaban probably with a baby head unless he has been cured or miraculously evaded capture somehow). Despite speculation on whether brothers are similar (and I know that myself and my brother bear no resemblance to each other whatever other than our height) there is no support in canon to suggest that Otto Bagman is a big man like his brother. In fact canon would oppose that viewpoint in light of the Weasley boys (except for hair colour), the Creeveys and the Dumbledores (while conceding that both Dumbledores have been described as tall). Ludovic Bagman (hereinafter LB) I am starting from LB as the youngest we have met him, that is during his trial, until his appearance, in my view, as the BBDE. My main reasoning for concluding that LB is the BBDE is the descriptive material we were handed about him in GOF. Based on description alone LB is the only viable suspect to fit all descriptive details that we are given about the BBDE in HBP. A younger LB is accused of "charges relating to the activities of the Death Eaters". (GOF Chapter Thirty ? The Pensieve page 514). Note the plurality here suggesting that there was more than one count on LB's case, although he is pronounced guilty only of giving information to Rookwood, who he explains is a friend of his father's. The description of LB at his trial is that "he was tall and lean and muscly" (GOF Chapter Thirty ? The Pensieve page 514), in other words a typical Beater. This description lends weight to my view that Bagman is the BBDE in Half-Blood Prince. Another thought is that during the period from Bagman's disappearance to his re-emergence in Half-Blood Prince is a lapse of close to two years. He would have been living on the run and had plenty of time to lose the excess weight he had picked up and regain his muscularity and stature. If he were really either the coward or oathbreaker then surely he would have been located and killed and his demise commented upon somewhere in the wizarding world. It never is, which reinforces me in my belief that Bagman is a loyal Death Eater through and through. > Valky in a much earlier post (trawl the archives if you will) has stated, and I concur: > I would say, that the rattling chains indicate Bagman is certainly *partially* guilty of the crime he is on trial for, if indeed that is what they do (and I tend to agree with Carol, that is what they do). > In which case other misdeeds such as cheating on his bets, which we *don't know* was happening during VWI, might not have anything to do with the guilt that is implied in the Pensieve. Bagman is on trial for aiding Death Eaters, and the chains rattle ominously as though they *want* to lock him up for something, but he's up on the wrong charge, so they can't. The charge he should be up on, in that case *could* be that he was a Death Eater but one that doesn't necessarily always *aid them*. All befitting of an ex-beater who 'accidentally' knocks out / kills his so called cohorts in battle. We first actually meet the head of the Department of Magical Games and Sports in the books at the Quidditch World Cup in Goblet of Fire. He is mentioned during the discussion regarding Bertha Jorkins's disappearance in Chapter 5 (Weasley's Wizard Wheezes) by Percy who says "Oh, Bagman's likeable enough, of course." (page 58, Bloomsbury hardback edition). Bagman is put across as unconcerend about Bertha's disappearance, however in light of this article I contend that Bagman knew all about the plot to kidnap and kill Harry throughout the fourth book and the references to his problems with the Goblins, while undoubtedly genuine, are misdirection on Ms. Rowling's part to cast suspicion away from Bagman's other activities. The relevant quotation at this point is: "Mr. Crouch has taken a personal interest ? she worked in our department at one time, you know, and I think Mr. Crouch was quite fond of her ? but Bagman just keeps laughing and saying she probably misread the map and ended up in Australia instead of Albania." This is said by Percy in Chapter 5 on page 58 of the Bloomsbury hardback edition. Now of course Bagman would try to delay anybody's attempts to locate Bertha, or at least her remains, until after the plot was carried out. Bagman does eventually send a search party, but reluctantly, and no doubt he would be able to send the searchers to the wrong location anyway. The first descriptive material that is to hand regarding Bagman comes in Chapter 7 (Bagman and Crouch). In full it is: "He had the look of a powerfully built man gone to seed; the robes were stretched tightly across a large belly he surely had not had in the days when he played Quidditch for England. His nose was squashed (probably broken by a stray bludger, Harry thought), but is round blue eyes, short blond hair and rosy complexion made him look like a very overgrown schoolboy." (Page 80, Bloomsbury hardback edition) This bears some close inspection in light of the description of the BBDE in Half-Blood Prince. Bagman is powerfully built and he has blond hair. When I had originally devised the theory my time line was off, in that at the point where I contended that LB had met Barty Jnr. in the woods Barty Jnr. was not yet aware of the plot against Harry, I still maintain that LB is a Death Eater even if he may be a little reluctant. Further support for this contention has come to light during my reread and I present it here in chronological order as in Goblet of Fire. In Chapter Nine - The Dark Mark Bagman is encountered emerging from the trees close to where the Dark Mark is conjured and again we are supposed to believe that he is hiding from the Goblins. The relevant passage is: 'The words were hardly out of his mouth, when Ludo Bagman emerged from behind a tree right ahead of them. Even by the feeble light of the two wands, Harry could see that a great change had come over Bagman. He no longer looked buoyant and rosy-faced; there was no more spring in his step. He looked very white and strained. "Who's that?" he said, blinking down at them, trying to make out their faces. "What are you doing in here, all alone?" They looked at each other, surprised. "Well ? there's a sort of riot going on," said Ron. Bagman stared at him. "What?" "On the campsite some people have got hold of a family of Muggles " Bagman swore loudly. "Damn them!" he said, looking quite distracted, and without another word, he Disapparated with a small pop. "Not exactly on top of things, Mr. Bagman, is he?" said Hermione, frowning. "He was a great beater, though," said Ron, leading the way off the path into a small clearing, and sitting down on a patch of dry grass at the foot of a tree. "The Wimbourne Wasps won the league three times in a row while he was with them."' (Page 114, Bloomsbury hardback edition) Shortly after this the Dark Mark appears and as we later find out Barty Crouch Jnr. had conjured it. When Bagman says "Damn them!" he is referring to his fellow muggle- baiting Death Eaters. It is likely that he is upset because he does not wish attention to be drawn to his Dark Lord's return until the time is right knowing about the events that have been set in motion already for Voldemort's return as I contend he does. Bagman arrives where the Ministry wizards have just stunned Winky and Barty Jnr. and we are told `Comprehension dawned suddenly on Bagman's round, shiny face; he looked up at the skull, down at Winky and then at Mr. Crouch. "No!" he said. "Winky? Conjure the Dark Mark? She wouldn't know how! She'd need a wand for a start!"' (GOF Chapter Nine ? The Dark Mark, page 119) >From this I take it that LB knows how to conjure the Dark Mark and it is suggestive of his knowing the ways of the Death Eaters and probably that he is one. Mr. Weasley, a few pages later (page 128) then helpfully tells us: "But I'll tell you this it was only the Death Eaters who ever knew how to conjure it." Further indicating that a person who, as LB clearly seemed to, knew how to conjure the Dark Mark is a Death Eater. The next relevant matter regarding Bagman is when he is present during the choosing of the Triwizard Tournament champions, which actually turns into a Quatriwizard Tournament. He is described as having a boyish face (page 243, Bloomsbury hardback edition, Chapter 14 - The Four Champions) and as looking rather excited when Harry is chosen as the fourth champion. Now obviously we are supposed to think that this is because Bagman foresees getting good odds on Harry so he could pay off the Goblins, and this may be partly true, however it also fits that he would be excited because the plam is now beginning to work and he knows that if he is able to guide Harry through the taskk successfully he would not only please Voldemort but also be able to clear his gambling debts. In fact it makes perfect sense that Bagman would be happy for Harry to win the Tornament and help him with the tasks, as he subsequently attempts to do, in order that he fulfil his duty to the Dark Lord. If the plan is known to Bagman, as I believe it was, then he would consider that the bet could not lose as he would know that Harry must win for the plan to succeed and Bagman is obviously confident that it will. In Chapter Seventeen ? The Four Champions, after fake Moody has been talking about how Harry got into the Quatriwizard Tournament with his thoughts that someone is out to kill Harry on page 245 it says: `Ludo Bagman, who was looking very anxious indeed "Moody, old man what a thing to say!"' In my view LB is here trying to deflect suspicion away from what fake Moody outlined as the circumstances behind Harry's entry into the Tournament and the reasons for it. It seems to me that Bagman and fake Moody are deliberately attempting to direct us to look for alternative suspects (and of course at this point Karkaroff and Snape are still not cleared). This may appear contradictory of an earlier statement (and I'm not about to tell you which), but for a thoughtful respondent it would not destroy the argument. Further support that I gleaned from a further read through of GOF. This is in respect of the description of LB amongst the Champions and with particular reference to Chapter Eighteen ? The Weighing of the Wands. We have been told that a wizard's or witch's wand is a good indicator of his or her size. The three champions' wands (I leave Harry out because he is not fully physically developed in GOF) are described with their lengths on pages 270 and 271. Cedric has a 12 ? inch wand, Krum a 10 ? inch wand and Fleur a 9 ? inch wand. This suggests that Cedric is rather tall, perhaps just a little shorter than Dumbledore, and that the other two are of fairly average size. LB is described as a "slightly overblown cartoon character, standing amid all the pale-faced champions" on page 305 (Chapter Twenty ? The First Task). Despite disagreement with Carol I maintain that LB should be interpreted to be rather larger than all the champions, and if this supposition were correct then LB would certainly be a huge, nay perhaps enormous, man. Further description of Bagman follows in Chapter 20 (The First Task) where the text states that: "Bagman looked somehow like a slightly overblown cartoon figure, standing amid all the pale-faced champions." This is indicative of his being substantially larger than the Champiosn, all of whom, apart from Harry, are adults in the wizarding world and have to be assumed to be fully grown as I myself was at that age. This lends further support to Bagman as the BBDE in Half-Blood Prince. At this point I state that for those of you who seem doubtful of the foregoing consider that when the BBDE is come across in Half-Blood Prince Harry does not see his face at all. He (BBDE) is certainly not, as The Harry Potter Lexicon speculates, the brutal-faced Death Eater (who I believe to be Yaxley). Barty Crouch Snr.'s opinion of people must also be considered and further supports this article. In Chapter 21 (The House-Elf Liberation Front) Winky says: "Mr. Bagman is a bad wizard! My master isn't liking him, oh no, not at all!" Crouch Snr.'s suspicions seem to be correct as he is correct about his own son. As the head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement during Voldwar I he is in a prime position to know the culpability of the Death Eaters. From this statement of Winky's it is taken that Crouch Snr. is far from believing Bagman was a dupe, which is confirmed by his reaction during Bagman's trial in the Pensieve. There is more significance in Winky's statement than may first appear. I contend that Bagman in some way was closely linked to Crouch Jnr., hence Crouch Snr's intense dislike of Bagman. This also links back to Bagman in the woods at the Quidditch World Cup. If I am right, and I believe I am, at least about Bagman being involved in the plot in book 4, then it would make sense that Crouch Jnr. and Bagman were closely associated and meeting prior to Bagman emerging from the woods at almost exactly the same spot Crouch Jnr. conjured the dark Mark. Throughout the Triwizard Tournament Bagman tries to assist Harry so noticeably that Harry wonders why he is not trying to assist the other champions. Bagman would do this because he wants Harry to win and go to Voldemort. He also disappears before the Death eaters congregate, as George tells us in Chapter 37 (The Beginning)on page 635 of the Bloomsbury hardback edition: "So Bagman had to run for it. Right after the third task." This would give him time to get outside the Hogwarts grounds and Apparate to the Little Hangleton graveyard with the other Death Eaters. Misdirection is given in that George speculates that Bagman ran because of the Goblins, whereas it is more plausible that he did not want to miss his master's return. We are also handed information about LB by Rita Skeeter in Chapter Twenty Four ? Rita Skeeter's Scoop. Rita was at LB's trial and would know of the circumstances leading up to it. She comments on page 391 "he was always a bad liar." This certainly could lead one to the conclusion that Rita disbelieved LB about his excuse at his trial, if not for other possible lies. I conclude from this that Rita supports me in my contention hat LB is and was a Death Eater. Rita also says on page 392 "I know things about Ludo Bagman that would make your hair curl ". Surely this could not only be referring to his being a dupe in passing information to Rookwood. There must be far more to it than that and it adds further support to the conclusion that LB is a Death Eater. Moving to Chapter Thirty - The Pensieve when Harry is questioning Dumbledore about all he has seen on page 524 we find this exchange: "Er," he said, "Mr. Bagman " " has never been accused of any Dark activity since," said Dumbledore calmly. It transpires that this is exactly what Dumbledore says regarding Severus Snape as well. With what we now know of Severus we could not possibly say that he (Severus) was not a Death Eater. Whether Severus has renounced his position or not is obviously the subject of continued heated debate here and elsewhere. To me this quotation is further support for LB being a Death Eater and yes I know it would apply equally to all Death Eaters from Voldemort's fall until his return, as they have been very careful not to be locked away like so many of their fellows. Why should Bagman be any different? Voldemort in the graveyard when speaking to Lucius Malfoy says something quite unusual, it is on page 564 of Chapter Thirty Three ? The Death Eaters: "And yet you ran from my Mark, when a faithful Death Eater sent it into the sky last summer?" "Yes, I know all about that, Lucius you have disappointed me I expect more faithful service in future." How did Voldemort know that Lucius ran from the Dark Mark? I suggest that LB informed him at some point because LB himself joined the muggle-baiting Death Eaters. He only rejoined the Ministry wizards quite some time after they had arrived at the scene of the crime of conjuring the Mark. He would know that the Death Eaters dispersed when the Mark was seen in that circumstance. The objections that have been raised regarding Veritaserum and Barty Jnr. not mentioning LB while under its influence are easily answered. Barty Jnr. only answers direct questions under Veritaserum. No one questioning him suspects LB and he is, therefore, not asked any questions regarding LB. This would explain why LB is not mentioned by Barty Jnr. Also LB could quite easily have gone to the graveyard as he is not present when Harry returns, thus confirming my earlier suggestion that LB disappeared as soon as Harry and Cedric did, while pausing only long enough to ascertain what the goblins' decision on the winner was. Finally on LB it has been stated that Harry and at least Tonks saw his face. Tonks because she was battling him and Harry because he sent a hex at the BBDE's face. In response to this I say that Bagman has changed in two years, two years in which he has been dodging goblins, and has most probably changed somewhat in appearance, that is regained some of his former athleticism. Additionally Tonks may only have seen Bagman in passing previously, being a junior Auror compared to LB being a Head of Department during GOF. Harry's glimpse of the BBDE is fleeting and would be insufficient for him to conclude who the BBDE was. Also the Death Eaters are in the habit of wearing hoods and these would conceal their identities further. After all the hair, which is really the only description other than the size we have to work on, if long may show outside the hood. One final piece of fun evidence regarding Bagman as the BBDE is contained in Quidditch Through the Ages by Kennilworthy Wisp (page 52, Bloomsbury hardback edition) where the Bludger Backbeat is described thus: "A move by which the Beater strikes the Bludger with a backhanded club swing, sending it behind him or her rather than in front. Difficult to bring off with precision but excellent for confusing opponents." This fits in well with the BBDE's actions during the fight at Hogwarts where he is firing off spells all over the place, and including I contend behind him so that his aim is not necessarily perfect. For completeness sake the first reference to the BBDE is on page 558 of the Bloomsbury hardback edition of Half-Blood Prince in Chapter 28 (Flight of the Prince) LB is my favourite for the title of BBDE. That he is not in film four only supports my view that the BBDE by himself is not that important to the resolution of book 7. LB will be in film 7 if not film 6. Goddlefrood who hopes not to rework this theory too many times and would welcome comments From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 03:07:11 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:07:11 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155176 > > Neri: > > Almost correct. Since Voldy uses Nagini's anticoagulant venom in > potions, the simplest explanation for Dumbledore's postmortem bleeding > is that her venom was also an ingredient of the green potion from the > > cave. > > Carol notes: > In which case, Nagini has been Voldemort's familiar since before > Godric's Hollow (if RAB is Regulus, he died before the Potters were > killed) and is quite likely to be a Horcrux. > Neri: Agreed on the first part. I don't see why the second part follows from the first. What, isn't an evil overlord allowed to have a pet snake without turning her into a Horcrux? We know for sure Voldy obtained Slytherin's locket and ring and the Hufflepuff Cup, then he needed two more Horcruxes. Dumbledore thought he had wanted objects from all four founders ? I tend to agree. Dumbledore also believed that in GH Voldy meant to create his sixth and last Horcrux, which apparently was to be the Gryffindor object, or something else because he couldn't get a Gryffindor object (my theory: he settled on Lily). So if Nagini was *already* his Horcrux at that point, it means he also missed the Ravenclaw object (unless Nagini once belonged to Rowena Ravenclaw, which I somehow doubt). Missing *both* the Gryffindor and Ravenclaw objects would screw up the whole founders theme big. > Pippin: > So you assume that Dumbledore's instruction to 'leave me and save > yourself' if so ordered has no narrative purpose? Neri: Of course it has. It's part of the whole "Harry you are more important than I am" narrative, like donating his blood to open the cave, drinking the potion himself, using his last spell to immobilize Harry, etc. But I don't see any indication that Dumbledore extended this approach to Snape. > Pippin: > It is not an assumption that a blast of green light can be produced by > other spells than AK, Neri: It is not? I can't recall any other spell in canon that comes with a green jet of light. For all we know AK could be the only curse of that color. > Pippin: > or that uttering the words Avada Kedavra > won't produce a killing curse without a great deal of magical power > behind it. Nothing vague there. > Neri: We know that Crouch!Moody said that if all the students would say the words, he *doubts* that he'd get as much as a nosebleed. He didn't say if this would produce a green light or not. This is vague. Going from here to a jet of green light that blasts someone several meters in the air but doesn't kill him or even just knock him out, even though he's already dying, is quite a leap. > Pippin: > You either have to assume that the AK knocked Dumbledore up > and backwards, for which we have no other examples in canon, or > that something else did it, for which examples are numerous. > Neri: They are numerous. In fact they are so numerous that they suggest that any curse can blast people in the air, *in addition* for its nominal effect, if executed with enough magical force behind it. > Pippin: > Harry first thinks that he needed to get Dumbledore and Snape together > and later that Dumbledore died when the spell was released, so > he got it wrong one way or another. The only question is which time. > Neri: The first time JKR tells us it's an irrational emotional response: ******************************************************** Terror tore at Harry's heart. ... He had to get to Dumbledore and he had to catch Snape. ... Somehow the two things were linked. ... He could reverse what had happened if he had them both together. ... Dumbledore could not have died. ... ******************************************************** Harry had just seen Dumbledore blasted, he's fighting a battle for his life, hasn't had ten seconds in a row to think it through and is obviously in the denial phase. But he already knows the truth in his heart, as JKR tells us explicitly in the second time. The second time is after Harry had helped Hagrid put down the fire and walked all the distance from the gates back to the castle. He had time to think it through and accept the truth. He sees Dumbledore's body at the distance and has all the motivation in the world to hope that Dumbledore is only unconscious, and yet we are told: ******************************************************** He had known there was no hope from the moment that the full Body-Bind Curse Dumbledore had placed upon him lifted, known that it could have happened only because its caster was dead. ******************************************************** This is a pretty strong testimony coming from someone who is canonically an expert on jinxes. > Pippin: > Canon for Dumbledore's being conscious: after the fall, the locket has > apparently been dislodged from DD's pocket, yet DD's > glasses are only askew. Weird, if both are the results of the fall. > Neri: I don't see why it's weird, and I don't see why it would be less weird if he landed conscious. Are you saying that he took the locket out of his pocket, opened it, didn't pull out the folded note inside, left it there lying on the ground for anybody to find, waited another 20 or 30 minutes, and then died? Doesn't make much sense to me. > Pippin: > She has to explain why Draco's failures with the necklace and the > mead didn't trigger the UV. Neri: Strange, I have never had any problem with that. Draco hasn't failed his mission as long as he still has an ongoing plan and a chance to carry it out. I predict JKR won't bother to explain this part and I won't feel any letdown because of it. Neri From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Jul 11 03:07:42 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:07:42 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155177 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > It is clear that DD could not find or even be sure of the final two Horcruxes. DD also struggled to deal with the ring Horcrux and even get near the locket Horcrux. So are we supposed to believe that Harry has the ability to a) locate and b) destroy these Horcruxes. No he does not. What Harry possesses is the ability to destroy Voldemort once the Horcruxes are destroyed!!It is Snape (who knows more about the Dark Arts than anyone) who is ideally placed to destroy the two unknown Horcruxes. As I've said before, Harry will face LV thinking that certain Horcruxes are still in place - leading to immense over confidence on the part of LV. >> Allie: I agree that it could happen that way - but I don't think LV would be overconfident because of the Horcruxes. Even with horcruxes, if he were hit with AK, he would become the same hideous vapor thing that he was before he came across Quirrell. He might be overconfident because he thinks he's unbeatable magically now that DD is gone. The final confrontation could actually happen the opposite way - Harry "knowing" that there's no point in fighting Voldemort because some of the Horcruxes are still in place, thinking he's going to die in vain - but then miraculously it doesn't happen. Voldemort dead, Harry utterly baffled - Enter Severus Snape. ;) From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Jul 11 03:12:16 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:12:16 EDT Subject: Traitors etc. Message-ID: <3b9.592a0ae.31e47110@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155178 Carol responds: I agree with you about the importance of both loyalty and courage in the Potterverse, but Sirius Black strikes me as having a rash sort of courage that doesn't consider consequences to himself or anyone else, and a fierce but highly restrictive loyalty to a very small group of intimate friends, combined with indifference or intense dislike of anyone outside that group. there's no question that he would have died rather than betray James, but are you sure that he broke out of Azkaban because Harry was in danger? Surely he knew Peter to be both lazy and cowardly, never taking action unless he had to, and Harry had not been harmed by him for the two years he and Scabbers had both been at Hogwarts. I was under the impression that Black escaped from Azkaban "to commit the murder [he] was imprisoneed for"--IOW, to avenge James's murder with a murder of his own. At any rate, I don't think he's held up by JKR as the epitome of loyalty and courage, a role model for Harry to emulate whether or not he's the polar opposite of Pettigrew. Nikkalmati: I certainly agree that Sirius' courage was rash and that his loyalty was limited to a small group of close friends. Doesn't take away from the fact that he had these virtues. Just a little canon support. POA Scholastic paperback version. "The guards told Fudge that Black's been talking in his sleep for a while now. Always the same words: "He's at Hogwarts . . . he's at Hogwarts.'" p 66 "'Come off it,' he [Ron] said weakly. 'Are you trying to say he broke out of Azkaban just to get his hands on Scabbers? I mean . . . ' 'I [Sirius] knew him at once . . . And the caption said the boy would be going back to Hogwarts . . . to where Harry was . . .'" p 362-63. "But then I saw Peter in that picture . . . I realized he was at Hogwarts with Harry . . . perfectly positioned to act, if one hint reached his ears that the Dark Side was gathering strength again . . ." p 371 "'Well --Scabbers--I mean, this --this man -- he's been sleeping in Harry's dormitory for three years. If he's working for You-Know-Who, how come he never tried to hurt Harry before now?' . . . . . . . . . 'I'll tell you why,' said Black. 'Because you never did anything for anyone unless you could see what was in it for you. Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years, they say he's half dead. You weren't about to commit murder right under Albus Dumbledore's nose, for a wreck of a wizard who'd lost all of his power, were you? '"p 370 Nikkalmati ( who will try to give herself more space in the future). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 03:19:29 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:19:29 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155179 > Carol responds: > But how else can you account for > a cut (which is still unhealed when Hagrid places Baby!Harry on the > Dursleys' front porch) from a spell that ordinarily leaves no mark, Mike responds: Well, I account for the cut soon-to-be scar by a piece of LV's soul being implanted into Harry's forehead. > It *is* canon, however, that the scar is not created immediately: > > Dumbledore says "He'll have that scar forever," > but at the moment it isn't yet a scar. It's a cut that heals > into a scar. > So unless Voldemort's powers entered Harry through the AK > they must have entered Harry's head through the open wound. Mike again: Or, Voldemort passes some of his powers to Harry by accidently implanting a piece of his soul into Harry. > Carol: > No. If you believe the Horcrux theory, you postulate a mechanism. > That's not the same thing as knowing it. Mike again: Yes, you're right, I am postulating the mechanism. But we do have it in canon that having a piece of LV's soul cohabiting with your body will allow you to speak Parseltongue. Ginny did in CoS when the diary revenant was possessing her. (BTW, Note also that this is an inate ability, not a learned skill. I haven't noticed any other LV ability that Harry possesses. Can you think of any others?) We don't have any other method in canon of acquiring another's abilities. Even LV's possession of Quirrell doesn't seem to impart any additional abilities to Quirrell, although there isn't enough exact info to determine this either way. JKR has never even hinted that the 'AK that rebounded' by itself could impart powers to the intended victim. So, we have one thing in canon that explains Harry's ability to speak Parseltongue: Harry has a piece of LV's soul in him. That doesn't mean that it's proven, true, or even desirable, but it is our *only* explanation for this ability that has canon support, so far. > Carol: > Whether a Horcrux would be "a significant way" to mark him as his > equal or not is irrelevant without evidence that he has indeed done > so. We have evidence that the powers were transferred, but we have > no evidence (other than a few scattered hints like Harry's feeling > that Tom was an old friend, > and none whatever that a Horcrux can be created accidentally. Mike again: I think we're arguing the same thing from different directions here. We both agree that when LV "transferred some of his own powers" to Harry was what signified *marking*. We'll have to agree to disagree on the method of transfer. We have one more clue, which immediately follows the above quote: "'Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?' Harry said, thunderstruck. 'It certainly seems so.'" (CoS p.333, US) Is a "bit of himself" a piece of his soul or just "some of his own powers" through some as yet unknown means? Like I say, we'll have to agree to disagree. > Carol reponds: > That Voldemort tried to kill Harry *because he was the Prophecy > Boy*, not merely because he wanted another Horcrux (if indeed he > did), is canon. Mike again: Not my nor Neri's point. Voldemort wanted to kill Harry *and* create his final Horcrux with Harry's death (at least according to DD). Neri's point, which I find plausible but not in canon, was that Voldemort changes his strategy when he discovered in the MoM that Harry is carrying his last Horcrux. We do *not* think LV went to GH with the *intention* of making Harry a Horcrux, hence the 'accidental Horcrux theory'. > Carol reponds: > It's also canon that Voldemort has tried to kill > Harry on several later occasions. Clearly, *if* Harry is a > Horcrux, Voldemort didn't intend for him to be one or he wouldn't > have tried repeatedly to kill him, nor did he know of his > accidental Horcrux (if that's what Harry is) as late as the > attempted possession in the MoM or he wouldn't have tried to tempt > Dumbledore to kill Harry. Mike: Yep, Voldemort didn't know Harry was a Horcrux until after he possessed him. That's what we're saying. Up until that point LV only wants Harry dead. > Carol: > And it was not a bit of Voldemort's own soul that drove him out > of Harry's body and mind during the attempted possession; it was > the love Harry was feeling for Sirius Black, which Voldemort > could not endure. Mike: Yep, I agree. I only said that LV discovered his accidental Horcrux, not that it had anything to do with expelling him out of Harry. > Carol: > So while Neri could be right that Harry is an accidental Horcrux > and Voldemort has just realized that fact, I think we'd have had > a clearer hint from Dumbledore, who says that he's telling > Harry everything he needs to know to defeat Voldemort and who > certainly would have reached the conclusion before Voldemort did > given his superior powers of deduction. If Dumbledore, who figured > out that the diary was a Horcrux and that there were six Horcruxes > in all, didn't figure out that Harry is or could be a Horcrux, how > could Voldemort do so, and how is Harry supposed to figure it out? Mike: First off, I'm not sure DD didn't figure it out. It wouldn't be the first time that DD failed to release info before it was too late, would it? He didn't tell Harry about the prophecy and LV's obsession with hearing the rest of it until after Sirius got killed. He never explained his full reason for trusting Snape (nobody believes the 'official' regret story, do they?), and now Harry is sure Snape is one of the bad guys, having never been told the whole story. Dumbledore makes mistakes, huge ones, right? This may or may not be another one. Secondly, I don't have a problem with LV sensing and recognizing his own soul when he encounters it. He's already done more magic with his own soul than any other wizard ever. And Harry figuring it out is part of what we are expecting in book 7. I don't know how he will, but I'm looking forward to finding out. In any case, how hard it might be for Harry is not a reason against it, but a desire that things will be easier for Harry. > Carol: > And what signs do we have that Voldemort has changed his strategy > regarding Harry since the end of OoP, when he tried first to kill > Harry and then to possess Harry and have Dumbledore kill him? > Would he sacrifice a Horcrux so readily? I think not. Mike: I think LV would like to salvage his Horcrux out of Harry if possible. Hence, Neri's postulation that LV might have changed is strategy (speculation, not canon). OTOH, I'm sure losing that piece of soul would be worth it to LV if it meant resolving the prophesy in his favor. Making six Horcruxes not only gave him his "powerfully magical number" it means he could afford to lose a few without destroying his entire strategy for immortality. Is Nagini a Horcrux? A few reservations about this theory: 1. We have nothing in canon that Nagini is magical, although I *suspect* she is. But parselmouths can talk to all snakes, and the only other thing we get in canon is that she has poisoneous venom, not necessarily magical venom. 2. If Voldemort puts a piece of himself into Nagini, wouldn't it follow that Nagini would take on LV's characteristics, not the other way around? 3. If making Nagini a Horcrux gives LV snakelike appearance then he must have done it back before 1957, before LV's interview with DD that we witnessed in the pensieve: "His features were ...not *as* snakelike,..." (HBP p.441, US) Not *as* snakelike means they are still somewhat snakelike, just not as much as they will be when LV emerges from the cauldron 'reborn'. I'm sure the theory isn't that LV starts to look snakelike without Nagini!Horcrux and only looks *more* snakelike after Nagini!Horcrux. Of course, since LV had already used the diary, the ring, the locket, and the cup as Horcruxes,(that's 2 founder's objects out of 4 Horcruxes) using Nagini as his fifth means that all the way back before 1957 LV gave up on using something from all 4 of the founders. Does this seem likely? From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 11 05:34:06 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:34:06 -0000 Subject: How old is Dumbledore??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155180 > > This subject is brushed on many times but I think it is very > > important. I think DD is actually less of an old man and more of a > > relic. > > > > > bridge13219: > > From the HP Lexicon: > http://www.hp- > lexicon.org/timelines/main/timeline_pre1900.html#dumbledore_born > > We know Dumbledore is about 150 years old because JK told us, and > since it's her creation, we'll have to take her word on it. > aussie: if we allow DD to have long life secrets that are unique to Flamel's partner, what about DD's brother? 150 years sounds like an acceptable age for a wizard. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 11 05:26:21 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:26:21 -0000 Subject: Uncle Alphard - why off the Tapestry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155181 Too many times characters give opinions that distract readers form the real thing. (Lupin's Bogart; trio hunting Snape in PS/SS; Black hunting Harry in POA; etc). So, I notice this was worded as an opinion. (OOTP Chap 6) Sirius: "... and when I was seventeen I got a place of my own. My Uncle Alphard had left me a decent bit of gold - he's been wiped off here, too, that's probably why" FACTS: - Uncle Alphard was in Hogwarts at the same time as Tom Riddle (Tom born 1926. Alphard born after 1925 when Sirius' mother was born) - Sirius lived at the Potter's house after he turned 16. Alphard would have still been on the tapestry until then. - Alphard's niece, Bellatrix, joined the DE and is older than Sirius What else could it be? Your turn - ~ aussie From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jul 11 10:39:25 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:39:25 -0000 Subject: Traitors etc. In-Reply-To: <3b9.592a0ae.31e47110@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155182 Nikkalmati: *(snip)* > "'Well --Scabbers--I mean, this --this man -- he's been sleeping in Harry's > dormitory for three years. If he's working for You-Know-Who, how come he > never tried to hurt Harry before now?' . . . . . . . . . > 'I'll tell you why,' said Black. 'Because you never did anything for anyone > unless you could see what was in it for you. Voldemort's been in hiding for > fifteen years, they say he's half dead. You weren't about to commit murder > right under Albus Dumbledore's nose, for a wreck of a wizard who'd lost all > of his power, were you? '"p 370 Ceridwen: "They say he's half-dead..."? But, according to Snape in Spinner's End, page 26 HBP US Scholastic hardcover: "You ask why I did not attempt to find him when he vanished. For the same reason that Avery, Yaxley, the Carrows, Greyback, Lucius" - he inclined his head slightly to Narcissa - "and many others did not attempt to find him. I believed him finished..." Later, page 30: "...I have already confessed that I thought the Dark Lord dead..." So, the prisoners in Azkaban knew, or believed, that LV was not finished, according to Sirius, who heard about Wormtail there as well. Bellatrix said LV "shares everything" with her, that he "...entrusted me with his most precious..." (page 29) and she did not argue about Snape and the other named and implied Death Eaters thinking that LV was dead. It may be merely a matter of faith on Bellatrix's part (page 27), but she didn't think it was unreasonable that *others* thought the Dark Lord dead. Maybe LV really did 'entrust' her with his most precious... secret? Ceridwen. From katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 11 04:29:31 2006 From: katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au (katrinalisa2002) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 04:29:31 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155183 > Susanne wrote: > > Also, Ron does not seem threatened or annoyed by Hermione's > > brains whatsoever, in the books, and there are plenty of > > important jobs out there that don't require you to have an > > outrageously high IQ to be successful and helpful to > > society. > > toto: > > But he does. In PS, that was the whole point about bullying her. > And through the years, he has reserved the right to make fun of her and > make her feel extremely bad (e.g. POA and her crying). When she dates > Krum, no small part of his "jealousies" is because it > is "Krum", a famous guy who is out of Ron's league. Ron is afraid > to be left alone, and I can understand him; it "is" a chilling > thought, and he "is" part of a trio where one is a genius and the > other the most famous boy of the wizarding world. > I think what Ron really objected to in PS was her interfering. He may have resented her showing off, but I think his real problem was that she interfered with his fun. Ron enjoys breaking the rules a little, just like Fred and George, like Ginny and like Harry. Ron takes advantage of Hermione's brains, and I think by GoF he has learned to appreciate her intelligence. So an 11 year old boy doesn't like some girl being smarter than him? Ron's grown up a lot since then. In POA, Ron was angry because, from his POV: he asked Hermione (rather rudely but still) to keep her cat away from his rat. She doesn't, his rat is missing and he finds cat hairs where scabbers was. He is angry because he thinks Hermione's negligence lead to the death of a family pet. Personally I hope Ron becomes a professional quidditch player (After the war, and after being an Auror :)) because it seems to be something he's good at, despite a lack of confidence. Katrina From katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 11 03:35:45 2006 From: katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au (katrinalisa2002) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:35:45 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155184 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > houyhnhnm: > > If every signature on a parchment constitutes a magically > binding contract, why would Crouch!Moody have needed to > point out that Harry was magically bound to compete in the > TWT? Why would any argument have arisen over Harry's > withdrawal from the tournament? Karkaroff and Madame > Maxine would have known it was a magical contract if > in their world there is no other kind. I think this is just their anger showing through. Plus, surely there must be some negating circumstances for magical contracts, and Harry was underage and, they would assume, an illegal entrant. > I can think of only one other example of someone signing > a parchment (other than a letter)--permission forms for > third-years)--but one can imagine occasions on which > witches or wizards would have to sign their names-- > transferring property, entering into apprenticeships, > making wills (We know they make wills). Are all of these > signatures magically binding? It's possible, but where's > the canon support? > And if there isn't, why should Marietta be particularly > wary of putting her name on Hermione's parchment for any > reason other than the obvious one that it will incriminate > her if it falls into the wrong hands? I'm not saying every parchment that is signed constitutes a magically binding contract; I just think it is obvious that, even without the sneak jinx, this was a contract. Breaking a contract, whether magical or Muggle has consequences. Breaking a promise can result in `karmic' punishment, or magic punishment, either way Marietta should have expected punishment. If you tell a friend a secret, and ask them not to tell, and they do, do you not punish them? I mean with your anger or disapproval, not with disfigurement ;) As for signing wills and transferring property...well we would have to assume their signature is *legally* binding, and I see no reason why it would not also be 'magically' binding, if only because the wizarding world includes magic in everything. > What *about* all the letters that go back and forth > between characters in the Potterverse? If there is > something inherently magical about putting one's name > on parchment, wouldn't it come into play even with a letter? No, because it is not simply putting one's name on a piece of paper. It is not even inherently magical to sign a contract, it is just the punishment, if you like, for breaking your word is administered magically. In a letter, the only thing you are promising when you sign at the bottom is that you are who you say you are. In some countries, treachery is punished with death, not that I'm suggesting Marietta deserves to die, or that she deserves her punishment to linger for so long, but it must be remembered, she could have got Harry and co expelled, their wands snapped, so what she did isn't something, IMO, that can be just brushed off. katrina From shagufta_naazpk2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 11:52:10 2006 From: shagufta_naazpk2000 at yahoo.com (shagufta_naazpk2000) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 11:52:10 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155185 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > This is where you lose me. It's bad for Lucius to bait muggles and > his own son, who loves him very much, should turn his back on his > family because he father did such an evil thing. However, when the > twins bait muggles, it's okay. Hi I apologise if anyone else has already raised this point, i did read the entire thread, but sometimes, when the subject title is changed it doesnt come under the same thread. In my opinion you are equating muggle baiting with muggle torture. Two very different things, IMO. Throwing sweets on the floor and hoping someone will pick them up may be termed muggle baiting. But then Dudley had no business picking and eating things that dont belong to him. By that token if a burlglar gets a shock from an electric fence, would you blame that home owner of burglar-baiting..:D But anyways, I'll give you muggle-baiting for Fred and George, what Lucius did was Muggle-torture plain and simple. He did not 'bait' them, or trick them; he and his cronies went into the muggle tents leviated them and displayed them for the world to see. Torture and humiliation plain and simple. Lucius and his friends are in a whole different league to Fred and George and i dont thinki its fair to compare their actions. cheers Shagufta (long time lurker) From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Jul 11 03:52:06 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:52:06 -0400 Subject: Age of Majority Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155186 "Carol wrote in : << the arbitrary decision of the WW to make seventeen the age of majority >> Catlady: "I suppose it has something to do with their love of prime numbers, like seventeen Sickles are one Galleon, 29 Knuds are one Sickle. Still, it would have been equally prime to have 13 Sickles to the Galleon and come of age at 19. If 17 shares some of the powerful magic of 7, then base 10 is less arbitrary than I think." Isn't ANY year as the age of majority arbitrary? After all, people don't develop at the same rate--some people are quite mature at 12, while other people still act like adolescents well into their thirties. In most of the Muggle world the age of majority is 18, but it wasn't that long ago that it was 21 (for some purposes it still is; in the US one can't by alcoholic beverages until one is 21, but one can drive at 16, and one can vote at 18; the age of consent for sexual purposes varies from state to state; in some states one can get married as young as 15.) BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Jul 11 04:02:42 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 00:02:42 -0400 Subject: Horcrux antecedents. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155187 Lupinlore: "(For non-D&D people, a lich is a very powerful and evil wizard who insures immortality by storing his soul, or a part thereof, in an object called a phylactery. He thus becomes a very dangerous kind of undead and essentially unkillable unless you can get your hands on the object he's stored his soul in. But you have to be careful, because those pesky evil wizard souls have a way of invading people's minds and taking up residence. Sound familiar? :-))" BAW: The theme of placing one's soul (or heart, or life-force) in an external object that must be destroyed before you can be killed is a common motive in Slavic folklore. Think of the Firebird, where Koeschi's soul is inside an egg inside a duck in the middle of an inaccessible lake. There are other examples, but that is the one that comes to mind. BAW From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 11 13:40:19 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:40:19 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155188 > > Pippin: > > So you assume that Dumbledore's instruction to 'leave me and save > > yourself' if so ordered has no narrative purpose? > > Neri: > Of course it has. It's part of the whole "Harry you are more important > than I am" narrative, like donating his blood to open the cave, > drinking the potion himself, using his last spell to immobilize Harry, > etc. But I don't see any indication that Dumbledore extended this > approach to Snape. Pippin: As you say, there are all sorts of other things JKR uses to show that Dumbledore considers Harry more important and don't set up a Chekhov's gun. Mentioning the possibility of such an order creates the expectation that it will be given. The order wasn't given to Harry, and the only other person under his command that Dumbledore spoke to before he died was Snape. > Pippin: > > It is not an assumption that a blast of green light can be produced by > > other spells than AK, > > Neri: > It is not? I can't recall any other spell in canon that comes with a > green jet of light. For all we know AK could be the only curse of that > color. > Pippin: Hagrid tells the kids to send up green sparks if they find the unicorn. > > > Pippin: > > or that uttering the words Avada Kedavra > > won't produce a killing curse without a great deal of magical power > > behind it. Nothing vague there. > > > > Neri: > We know that Crouch!Moody said that if all the students would say the > words, he *doubts* that he'd get as much as a nosebleed. He didn't say > if this would produce a green light or not. This is vague. Going from > here to a jet of green light that blasts someone several meters in the > air but doesn't kill him or even just knock him out, even though he's > already dying, is quite a leap. Pippin: I've established there are other ways to produce green light. As you said, there are all kinds of spells that will produce the effect of blasting someone up into the air especially when cast by a powerful wizard. However, AK isn't one of them. Voldemort's AK has to be the most powerful one there is. However when Fawkes swallows it in OOP, he bursts into flame and falls, right in front of Dumbledore. If he'd been blasted backward, he'd have set Dumbledore on fire. When AK hits an inanimate object it produces a blast, which is probably why the rebounding AK blew the Godric's Hollow house to pieces. But Dumbledore already dead when the AK hit him doesn't help your argument . > > Pippin: > > Canon for Dumbledore's being conscious: after the fall, the locket has > > apparently been dislodged from DD's pocket, yet DD's > > glasses are only askew. Weird, if both are the results of the fall. > > > > Neri: > I don't see why it's weird, and I don't see why it would be less weird > if he landed conscious. Are you saying that he took the locket out of > his pocket, opened it, didn't pull out the folded note inside, left it > there lying on the ground for anybody to find, waited another 20 or 30 > minutes, and then died? Doesn't make much sense to me. Pippin: It's weird that Dumbledore would strike the ground with enough force to knock a locket out of his pocket and open it, but not enough to knock his glasses off or break them. In PoA, Harry's friends remark on the fact that his fall didn't break his glasses. Of course we soon find out it's because Dumbledore arranged a soft landing. I'd say DD knew the locket was phony as soon as he'd got it out of the basin. Harry knew it was wrong as soon as he picked it up. Dumbledore was certainly not less observant than Harry. I think DD opened the locket when he knew he was dying in order to make sure any curse that was on it struck him and not the next person to find it. I don't think he was expecting the note. He probably thought Voldemort had left the false locket as a trap. > > Pippin: > > She has to explain why Draco's failures with the necklace and the > > mead didn't trigger the UV. > > Neri: > Strange, I have never had any problem with that. Draco hasn't failed > his mission as long as he still has an ongoing plan and a chance to > carry it out. I predict JKR won't bother to explain this part and I > won't feel any letdown because of it. Pippin: Other people do have a problem with it, though. I can remember it being hashed out on the List. Your explanation is reasonable but it's not the only possible one. In any case, JKR does have to revisit the third part of the UV, because Harry doesn't know about it. It's another shoe waiting to drop. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jul 11 13:46:38 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:46:38 -0000 Subject: How old is Dumbledore??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155189 > aussie: > if we allow DD to have long life secrets that are unique to Flamel's > partner, what about DD's brother? 150 years sounds like an acceptable > age for a wizard. Potioncat: Back in Oct 2000 JKR had this to say: >>>Question: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall? J.K. Rowling responds: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy. Wizards have a much longer life expectancy than Muggles. (Harry hasn't found out about that yet.)<<< But if you look at the wizarding cards, or the Black family tree, or just look at who is alive in canon and who is considered "old" in canon- -it doesn't seem like the greater part of the WW lives any longer than the Muggles do. We know of one witch who is older than DD, there are several wizards who "seem" older, but we aren't told they are. McG doesn't seem 70, but when she's attacked in OoP, someone makes a comment about her age. Hagrid certainly doesn't seem 70. We would have to assume that DD's brother is around 150 as well. The question is, how have the DD brothers lived so long? Better yet, why did JKR say that wizards have longer life spans? > From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 13:14:14 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:14:14 +0400 (MSD) Subject: Horcrux antecedents. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060711131414.42775.qmail@web38305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155190 BAW: The theme of placing one's soul (or heart, or life-force) in an external object that must be destroyed before you can be killed is a common motive in Slavic folklore. Think of the Firebird, where Koeschi's soul is inside an egg inside a duck in the middle of an inaccessible lake. There are other examples, but that is the one that comes to mind. Cassy: A bit off topic, perhaps, but Koeschey wasn't in the Firebird tale and, as I recall, his death (not soul, it is not known if he had one) was on the end of a needle, that was inside an egg, that was inside the duck, that was inside the rabbit, that was inside the chest, that was on the tree. I don't remember anything about the lake, though. But yes, the protagonist had to destroy the needle to kill Koeschey (unlike LV's case, it was enough to get rid of him, no need to duel). From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 11 14:59:45 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:59:45 -0000 Subject: Who will be in Book 7? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155191 We have seen many characters from the wizarding world come and go. Who will return in Book 7? Especially, those that are not expected? Crabbe and Goyle have been in every book, so I don't mean people like that. With Fleur's wedding, Mdm. Maxime and Gabriel Delacor may come back and not do anything special - so they are expected with no exciting twist to the story line there. I mean characters like Norbert, Hagrid's pet dragon sent to Romania 7 years ago. There are real possibilities of a suprising story line there if a tame Norwegian Ridgeback supports Harry's quest. When the release of Book 7 is upon us, this may be similar to one of the questions that comes up. Like last time, there was, "Who is the most senior character that dies?" So be creative! From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 13:46:31 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:46:31 +0400 (MSD) Subject: The Redemption of LV? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060711134631.77160.qmail@web38309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155192 Tonks wrote: >What would happen if LV was somehow redeemed? Cassy: Well, a lot of people would cry: "Arrg, Star Wars!". OK, seriously, I don't see how he can be truly redeemed. Even if LV somehow will understand that he was wrong to do what he has done, would it be a redemption? Saying "I'm sorry" wouldn't unmake all the evil deeds he committed. And there's nothing LV can do, except, probably, saving humanity against terrible desease or, say, alien invaders, which is highly unlikely, to overweight his crimes. I mean, even redemption of Vader, who gave his life for his son and destroyed the main bad guy, seems a little bit undeserving, considering all the kids he killed in Ep3. And LV isn't going to love Harry, or anybody else, more than his life all of sudden or do something heroic, is he? From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 15:28:04 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:28:04 -0000 Subject: The Shrieking Shack and the Tower Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155193 I guess this has been covered already (what hasn't!) but in re- reading POA recently I was struck by the similarities between the scene in the Shrieking Shack and the scene on the Tower in HBP. For example: 1. Harry pointing wand at Sirius, hesitating and ultimately deciding not to attempt to kill, like Draco in HBP. 2. Sound of someone coming up the stairs. 3. Lupin bursts into room his eyes sweeping over the scene, very much like Snape in HBP. 4. Use of expelliarmus (sorry about the spelling). 5. Snape uses invisibility cloak. 6. Werewolves in both scenes. 7. I think (please help me on this) there are 7 people in each scene (The Trio, Lupin, Sirius, Pettigrew, Snape = 7); (Harry, Dumbledore, Draco, Snape, Greyback and the brother and sister death eater = 7) 8. Sirius has look of hate and revulsion at Pettigrew, like Snape's look in HBP during AK. 9. People immobilized in both scenes (different method of course). 10. Snape's rant at Harry in the Shrieking Shack where he references James closely mirrors in ALL CAPS his rant at Harry in the Flight of the Prince where he references "your filty father". From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 11 15:50:44 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:50:44 -0000 Subject: The Shrieking Shack and the Tower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155194 >"steven1965aaa" wrote: > > I guess this has been covered already but in re-reading POA > recently I was struck by the similarities between the scene > in the Shrieking Shack and the scene on the Tower in HBP. For > example: > > 1. Harry pointing wand at Sirius, hesitating and ultimately deciding > not to attempt to kill, like Draco in HBP. > 2. Sound of someone coming up the stairs. > 3. Lupin bursts into room his eyes sweeping over the scene, very > much like Snape in HBP. > 4. Use of expelliarmus (sorry about the spelling). > 5. Snape uses invisibility cloak. > 6. Werewolves in both scenes. > 7. I think (please help me on this) there are 7 people in each scene > (The Trio, Lupin, Sirius, Pettigrew, Snape = 7); (Harry, Dumbledore, > Draco, Snape, Greyback and the brother and sister death eater = 7) > 8. Sirius has look of hate and revulsion at Pettigrew, like Snape's > look in HBP during AK. > 9. People immobilized in both scenes (different method of course). > 10. Snape's rant at Harry in the Shrieking Shack where he references > James closely mirrors in ALL CAPS his rant at Harry in the Flight of > the Prince where he references "your filty father". > aussie now: #7. there was an 8th person on tower, but Harry stunned him. #11. Listening to secrets. Harry on tower, and Snape in Shack. (I am putting together a list of things Snape heard while in Shack) #12. Whomping Willow overhead at Shack and Death's Head above the tower. #13. Things seen from afar with Map in POA and by Rosmerta in HBP #14. Trelawney predicted both. #15. Faithful servant returned to LV after both #16. Hagrid's pets attacked around the same time (Buckbeak and Fang) From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 11 15:08:18 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:08:18 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155195 Betsy Hp: > > This is where you lose me. It's bad for Lucius to bait muggles > > and his own son, who loves him very much, should turn his back on > > his family because he father did such an evil thing. However, > > when the twins bait muggles, it's okay. Shagufta: > In my opinion you are equating muggle baiting with muggle torture. > Two very different things, IMO. Throwing sweets on the floor and > hoping someone will pick them up may be termed muggle baiting. But > then Dudley had no business picking and eating things that dont > belong to him. By that token if a burlglar gets a shock from an > electric fence, would you blame that home owner of burglar- > baiting..:D > But anyways, I'll give you muggle-baiting for Fred and George, > what Lucius did was Muggle-torture plain and simple. I think that Fred and George's defence of themselves wraps this up, they were not baiting Dudley because he was a muggle, merely because he was a bully. The Death Eaters bait muggles purely because they are muggles, without knowing or caring about the individual muggle. The twins were dealing out their own form of retribution for Dudley's ways. I'm not saying this justifies theire actions but it definitely puts them in a totally different area to torturing innocent muggles. Tinktonks From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 15:58:53 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:58:53 -0000 Subject: Ron's career (was Re: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155196 > Katrina wrote: > > Personally I hope Ron becomes a professional quidditch player (After > the war, and after being an Auror :)) because it seems to be > something he's good at, despite a lack of confidence. bridge13219: That's what I was thinking! I was just reading 'Quidditch Through the Ages' the other day and I thought if Ron makes it through book 7 (which I REALLY want him to), he'd go play keeper for the Chudley Cannons and lead them to a winning streak they haven't seen in decades! From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 15:54:24 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:54:24 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155197 > > houyhnhnm: > > And if there isn't, why should Marietta be particularly > > wary of putting her name on Hermione's parchment for any > > reason other than the obvious one that it will incriminate > > her if it falls into the wrong hands? > > katrina: > I'm not saying every parchment that is signed constitutes a magically > binding contract; I just think it is obvious that, even without the > sneak jinx, this was a contract. Breaking a contract, whether magical > or Muggle has consequences. bridge13219: I think what Hermione says (this is a paraphrase since I don't have the books at work with me) is 'by signing this you promise not to tell'. I'll be more than happy to look up the actual quote when I can get my hands on my book, but in the mean time I'm pretty sure that is what happened. From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Tue Jul 11 17:05:57 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:05:57 -0000 Subject: How old is Dumbledore??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155198 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > aussie: > > if we allow DD to have long life secrets that are unique to Flamel's > > partner, what about DD's brother? 150 years sounds like an acceptable > > age for a wizard. > > > Potioncat: > Back in Oct 2000 JKR had this to say: > > >>>Question: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are > Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall? > J.K. Rowling responds: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and Professor > McGonagall is a sprightly seventy. Wizards have a much longer life > expectancy than Muggles. (Harry hasn't found out about that yet.)<<< > > > But if you look at the wizarding cards, or the Black family tree, or > just look at who is alive in canon and who is considered "old" in canon- > -it doesn't seem like the greater part of the WW lives any longer than > the Muggles do. > AmanitaMuscaria now: I guess the population would have been skewed by GrindelWar and VoldyWar1. There may also be a natural progression - we have some evidence of this where Bagman is first a Beater, then works in the Ministry. Perhaps as wizardfolk get older, they move into more contemplative occupations where we (from Harry's POV) don't meet them, Dumbledore being an exception? snipsnip > Better yet, > why did JKR say that wizards have longer life spans? > AmanitaMuscaria now: This may be a subconscious artefact from JKR's mum dying young. From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 17:03:11 2006 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:03:11 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes - Houses - Power to Rule them all In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155199 "Tonks" wrote: If all 4 elements must work together (remember the Sorting Hat's song) and the 5th element that binds them is Love and when all four houses are working as one,this is a positive thing. .. What I am wondering is this: If LV were to get something from all 4 houses what would the synergist effect be? I think that there may be something very important about his having a part of his soul in an object from each of the houses..... If LV can get the Gryffindor item and make a horcrux of it *something* will happen. Janelle: What if instead of there being one horcrux needed to unite them all and make Voldemort the ultimate bad-guy, there is one horcrux that unites them all allowing Voldemort to live at all? what if one of the horcruxes is more powerful than the others or simply unites them all and all Harry needs to do is destray that one, which will, in effect, destroy all the others? Tonks: Remember each of the objects so far also have a special powerful magic of their own, associated with the founder of that house. What would happen if each of these powerful magical objects also had the soul of LV in them? Janelle: You lost me a bit on this part. I don't remember mention of the objects having their own powerful magic, but saw them merely as objects with some sort of significance for Voldemort. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jul 11 17:19:27 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:19:27 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155200 > > Tinktonks > I think that Fred and George's defence of themselves wraps this up, > they were not baiting Dudley because he was a muggle, merely because > he was a bully. The Death Eaters bait muggles purely because they > are muggles, without knowing or caring about the individual muggle. > The twins were dealing out their own form of retribution for Dudley's > ways. I'm not saying this justifies theire actions but it definitely > puts them in a totally different area to torturing innocent muggles. Magpie: Fred and George's explanation doesn't wrap it up for Arthur and as a Muggle myself it doesn't wrap it up for me. There is a difference between the characters, obviously, but if I were living in their universe the distinction I would make was just that Lucius et al. were DEs 24/7 while with Fred and George were okay as long as they decided you had earned it, but if you put a foot out of line out come the wands. I'm not sure how exactly we're supposed to view this in canon (after all Arthur is furious with the twins, so it's not clear we ought to take their view as the author's or our own), but if I was comparing it to real life the twins wouldn't come out too well. They avoid the strictly bigoted motivation, but their actions suggest, imo, that it's lurking beneath the surface, imo. It's like when people will say, "Well there are [insert respectful name of minority] and then there are [insert racial epithet]" and think this proves how non-prejudiced they are, because they're not judging the person based only on their race. The danger of the DEs to other wizards may be, among other things, that by being so bad other people don't examine their own prejudices. It's like as long as they're not a DE they can't have any bigotry--and sometimes that defense is used for them. -m From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Tue Jul 11 17:18:00 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:18:00 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155201 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" > wrote: > > > > > It is clear that DD could not find or even be sure of the final two > Horcruxes. DD also struggled to deal with the ring Horcrux and even > get near the locket Horcrux. AmanitaMuscaria now: But Voldemort might very well have pitched the defences on the Horcruxes towards Dumbledore. It's the same thing as him underestimating Harry in each of their battles. > So are we supposed to believe that Harry > has the ability to a) locate and b) destroy these Horcruxes. No he > does not. AmanitaMuscaria again: Agreed. I think this is where Harry's friends come in - lots of different skills there. There's not enough time, and it would also make a boring read, I think, to have a series of - find Horcrux - nearly get killed - disarm Horcrux. snip > Allie: > > LV might be > overconfident because he thinks he's unbeatable magically now that > DD is gone. AmanitaMuscaria again: Agreed. Underestimating the opposition again. > The final confrontation could actually happen the opposite way - > Harry "knowing" that there's no point in fighting Voldemort because > some of the Horcruxes are still in place, thinking he's going to die > in vain - but then miraculously it doesn't happen. Voldemort dead, > Harry utterly baffled - > > Enter Severus Snape. ;) AmanitaMuscaria again: Can't quite see this myself. That timing would surely make Harry unleash another spell, in the heat of battle, as it were, and *puf* no Snape, no explanation. I prefer Snape turning up before the final battle. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Jul 11 17:44:19 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:44:19 -0000 Subject: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal) In-Reply-To: <20041011.173920.1960.0.annegirl11@juno.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155202 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, annegirl11 at ... wrote: > 15-year-old boys are a helluva lot less mature than 15-year-old girls, > especially overachieving 15-going-on-25 girls like Hermione. I hate this stereotype. It exists because girls hit puberty faster and are often better behaved in classrooms than boys (obedience is a beautiful thing for teachers) not because they exhibit any genuine maturity. As someone who works with teen girls a lot as well as having an army of sisters and nieces as close as sisters I can safely tell you that teenage girls are not more mature than teenage boys. their immaturity just manifests differently. I think he'll probably turn out a lot like his > father. Heaven forbid! I would hope that a grown up Ron would have a spine located somewhere near his back :) > It's the Willow and Xander thing. Smart, socially awkward girl crushing > on her sweet, friendly childhood friend; irresponsible but ultimaltly > decent guy overlooking that smart girls are sexy - but the guy always > figures it out eventually. > > It's the Homer and Marge thing, too, and explains why Ron and Hermione > aren't precisely opposites-attract: "Our differences are only skin- deep, > but our sames go right to the core." Their overall value systems, > backgrounds, even their outwardly engaging personalities are similar. Okay, I disagree with you overall but you get bonus points for using my two favorite shows. Xander and Willow is a good match since Willow/Hermione=Brains and Xander/Ron=Everyman of the series. Not so sure about the homer marge thing though since I think that Ron/Hermione is a little more balanced than the couple from Springfield. > I think one thing's for sure: Ron and Hermione will never just exist in > proximity to each other and not engage. They bait each other, challenge > each other. Their bickering is how they connect. Yeah, they are almost a classic moonlighting style bickering couple. I could never understand how the H/Hr'ers could see it any differently. phoenixgod2000 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 17:46:56 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:46:56 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155203 > > Tinktonks > > I think that Fred and George's defence of themselves wraps this up, > > they were not baiting Dudley because he was a muggle, merely because > > he was a bully. The Death Eaters bait muggles purely because they > > are muggles, without knowing or caring about the individual muggle. > > The twins were dealing out their own form of retribution for Dudley's > > ways. I'm not saying this justifies theire actions but it definitely > > puts them in a totally different area to torturing innocent muggles. > > Magpie: > Fred and George's explanation doesn't wrap it up for Arthur and as a > Muggle myself it doesn't wrap it up for me. > > There is a difference between the characters, obviously, but if I were > living in their universe the distinction I would make was just that > Lucius et al. were DEs 24/7 while with Fred and George were okay as > long as they decided you had earned it, but if you put a foot out of > line out come the wands. I'm not sure how exactly we're supposed to > view this in canon (after all Arthur is furious with the twins, so > it's not clear we ought to take their view as the author's or our > own), but if I was comparing it to real life the twins wouldn't come > out too well. They avoid the strictly bigoted motivation, but their > actions suggest, imo, that it's lurking beneath the surface, imo. Alla: But where do you see it lurking in the books? IMO there is **no** other indication given in canon, other than punish Dudley for his bullying ways. I mean, I understand the debate whether twins have any right to do it in the first place, but I absolutely don't understand the argument that they have **any** other reason than to punish Dudley for being a bully. I mean, I argued in the past that I don't get Twins as DE comparison at all, but I would totally understand it ( disagree but understand) if I could see one of the two things happening in canon: 1. Dursleys were treating Harry well OR 2. Twins indicated in one way or another that they dislike Muggles ( I am not sure, but I don't remember that happening either) Now, I am not arguing Twins right to punish Dudley. I mean, to me it is purely JKR letting Dudleys have it in any ways possible within the story, has nothing to do with RL ( in my mind Twins are firmly filed as tools of carmic justice for JKR and hysterically funny too), but at least I understand the ethics of the argument. What I **am** trying to figure out is where in canon we can see that Twins have **any** other reason to do that to Dudley other than to punish him. Is this argument based on Arthur dissaproval? JMO, Alla, who applauds every time when Dursleys get their just desserts. From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jul 11 18:07:09 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:07:09 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155204 Katrina: > I'm not saying every parchment that is signed constitutes > a magically binding contract; I just think it is obvious > that, even without the sneak jinx, this was a contract. houyhnhnm: You think so, but if you want me to think so, you're going to have to provide some evidence. bridge13219: > I think what Hermione says (this is a paraphrase since > I don't have the books at work with me) is 'by signing > this you promise not to tell'. I'll be more than happy > to look up the actual quote when I can get my hands on > my book, but in the mean time I'm pretty sure that is > what happened. houyhnhnm: Close. "So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge--or anybody else--what we're up to." Hermione could also have said, "So if you show up for the meetings, you're agreeing not to tell." But all the legalistic nitpicking over words is missing the point. So is the wrangling over how *bad* Marietta's betrayal was. It is Hermione's behavior that concerns me, her complacent assumption that she knows what is best for everyone, her willingness to appoint herself judge, jury, and executioner in order to carry out a very harsh summary justice without giving it any thought, as far as we know. Not that I don't have every confidence that Hermione will get her comeuppance (for her own good) when I consider how like she is to Rowling's favorite literary character, who was also beloved by her creator, but whose arrogant determination to order everyone else's life led to one misery after another until she finally came to her senses. We are supposed to love Emma because she is fundamentally a good person whose misguided busybody activities spring from generous intentions, but we are also supposed to see that (like Hermione) she had a lot to learn. Katrina: > In some countries, treachery is punished with death, > not that I'm suggesting Marietta deserves to die, or > that she deserves her punishment to linger for so long, > but it must be remembered, she could have got Harry and > co expelled, their wands snapped, so what she did isn't > something, IMO, that can be just brushed off. houyhnhnm: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" But among civilized people today this is not considered a very evolved concept of justice. Neither is "the ends justify the means." I don't think an author who worked for Amnesty International and links to it on her web site is going to go there. From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jul 11 18:20:39 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:20:39 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155205 Magpie: > The danger of the DEs to other wizards may be, among > other things, that by being so bad other people don't > examine their own prejudices. It's like as long as > they're not a DE they can't have any bigotry--and > sometimes that defense is used for them. houyhnhnm: This is what bothers me about defining goodness merely as being on the "right" side. If all petty meanness, selfishness, etc., can be overlooked as long as one opposes Voldemort, what happens when Voldemort is defeated. How will it be possible to distinguish good from bad when LV is no longer around. With this system of morality, you have to have a Dark Lord. You will always have to have a Dark Lord. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 17:47:58 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:47:58 -0000 Subject: The Shrieking Shack and the Tower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155206 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: >#16. Hagrid's pets attacked around the same time (Buckbeak and Fang) > Steven1965aaa: Great additions, except that Buckbeak did not attack in POA, that was only in the movie. Buckbeak did attack Snape in HBP, Flight of the Prince From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 18:45:02 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:45:02 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155207 > houyhnhnm: > > This is what bothers me about defining goodness merely > as being on the "right" side. If all petty meanness, > selfishness, etc., can be overlooked as long as one > opposes Voldemort, what happens when Voldemort is > defeated. How will it be possible to distinguish good > from bad when LV is no longer around. With this system > of morality, you have to have a Dark Lord. You will > always have to have a Dark Lord. > Alla: Yes, I agree, petty meanness and selfishness should not be overlooked even in one who opposes Voldemort. Even if his name starts with "S". :) To me though in Potterverse goodness is defined not just being on the right side, but in general being on the right side as adhering to the right values, as Pippin remarked earlier. I guess I agree with her on that. Also IMO as long as in general you show what JKR constitutes as a "virtue" on the big scale of things, your lesser mistakes are overlooked often. JMO, Alla From imontero at iname.com Tue Jul 11 18:17:34 2006 From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:17:34 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155208 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: snip > Mike again: > I think we're arguing the same thing from different directions here. > We both agree that when LV "transferred some of his own powers" to > Harry was what signified *marking*. We'll have to agree to disagree > on the method of transfer. We have one more clue, which immediately > follows the above quote: > > "'Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?' Harry said, thunderstruck. > > 'It certainly seems so.'" (CoS p.333, US) > > Is a "bit of himself" a piece of his soul or just "some of his own > powers" through some as yet unknown means? Like I say, we'll have to > agree to disagree. snip Luna: I have a question for you guys: According to Slughorn, in order to create a Horclux, you need to kill someone and perform some kind of incantation in order to have your soul split. According to DD, Voldemort wanted to create his last Horcrux while killing Harry (note that he intended to do it with Harry's death, not with James' or Lily's deaths) We know that when Voldemort casted the killing curse against Harry, it rebounded (thanks to the protection Lily gave to Harry and that required her won death in order to be activated), "killing" Voldemort himself... Now, how can a Horcrux have been accidentally created if Voldemort didn't achieve the killing of the victim in the first place, which, in theory, is the main requirement for the creation of a Horcrux? From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 19:10:03 2006 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060711191003.53596.qmail@web61321.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155209 houyhnhnm102 wrote: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" But among civilized people today this is not considered a very evolved concept of justice. Neither is "the ends justify the means." I don't think an author who worked for Amnesty International and links to it on her web site is going to go there. Joe: Sorry but that is a value judgement. There are plenty of civilized people who stil think that those statements still have great value. I think JKR is a good enough author to understand that, her own beliefs aside, there are those that feel otherwise and might write at least a portion of her books with that in mind. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 19:34:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:34:20 -0000 Subject: What did Bellatrix know? )Was: Traitors etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155210 Ceridwen: Bellatrix said LV "shares everything" with her, that > he "...entrusted me with his most precious..." (page 29) and she did > not argue about Snape and the other named and implied Death Eaters > thinking that LV was dead. It may be merely a matter of faith on > Bellatrix's part (page 27), but she didn't think it was unreasonable > that *others* thought the Dark Lord dead. Maybe LV really > did 'entrust' her with his most precious... secret? Carol responds: Clearly he confided something to her that he apparently shared with few others, probably to reward and maintain her loyalty and make her think she knew more than she did. Tie that in with her attempt to find out the whereabouts of her master by torturing the Longbottoms and IMO, the secret can be only one thing: he told her about *one* Horcrux. I'm betting that it was the locket and that she helped hide it. If Kreacher was in on the secret (he adores Miss Bellatrix) and Kreacher (under a magical obligation to obey any member of the Black family) revealed what the knew to Regulus, then Regulus had a way of finding out about the locket Horcrux. It all makes sense to me. Also, Bellatrix would think that she knew more than Snape about LV's attempts to make himself immortal and would have accepted his statement (almost certainly a lie, IMO) that he believed Voldemort to be dead. Carol, hoping that the locket Horcrux will be found and destroyed rather quickly, probably with the help of Bill Weasley From celizwh at intergate.com Tue Jul 11 19:10:12 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:10:12 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155211 Alla: > To me though in Potterverse goodness is defined not > just being on the right side, but in general being on > the right side as adhering to the right values, as > Pippin remarked earlier. houyhnhnm: Right values such as lying, getting drunk, stealing, disrespecting parents, breaking rules just for the fun of it, cheating on homework, hexing people because they exist? If these are the "right values" of the Potterverse, those who oppose the books may have a point (though they do so for the wrong reasons.) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 20:03:50 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:03:50 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155213 > Pippin: > As you say, there are all sorts of other things JKR uses to show > that Dumbledore considers Harry more important and don't set > up a Chekhov's gun. Mentioning the possibility of such an > order creates the expectation that it will be given. The order wasn't > given to Harry, and the only other person under his command that > Dumbledore spoke to before he died was Snape. > Neri: Maybe, maybe not. It's an assumption anyway. But what I still fail to understand is how is Snape any better morally if he "just" blasted a helpless man of the highest tower in Hogwarts and left him to die a long and painful death, running away when he was the only person who still had a chance to save him. > Pippin: > Hagrid tells the kids to send up green sparks if they find the unicorn. Neri: Sparks, not a jet of light. It is not a curse and we have no reason to think that it blasts people in the air. > Pippin: > I've established there are other ways to produce green light. > As you said, there are all kinds of spells that will produce the > effect of blasting someone up into the air especially when cast by > a powerful wizard. However, AK isn't one of them. > Neri: If AK indeed never blasts the victim, then the DEs on the tower would know that (who'd know it better than somebody who uses AK on people all the time?). So they'd know that Snape's green light on the tower wasn't really an AK. > Pippin: > Voldemort's AK has to be the most powerful one there is. However > when Fawkes swallows it in OOP, he bursts into flame and falls, > right in front of Dumbledore. If he'd been blasted backward, > he'd have set Dumbledore on fire. > > When AK hits an inanimate object it produces a blast, which is probably > why the rebounding AK blew the Godric's Hollow house to pieces. > But Dumbledore already dead when the AK hit him doesn't help your > argument . Neri: As you say, there's a lot of unexplained variation in the AK cases we've seen until now, including sometimes blasting inanimate objects, suggesting that it could blast people too, just like any other curse in the Potterverse that usually doesn't blast people but occasionally do. We were never told that AK doesn't blast people. However, we *were* told that no person had ever survived an AK except for Harry. This implies that there isn't such a thing as "half power AK" or "15% power AK". If there were, then there would have been many survivors of 15% AKs around, and people wouldn't have said that Harry is the only one who survived. They would have assumed that for some reason Voldemort didn't manage to produce a 100% AK. The whole concept of a curse with no protection against is at odds with a "half power AK". The likely explanation is that a failed AK doesn't produce a green light and doesn't blast people *or* inanimate objects. It may give people as much as a nosebleed, but I doubt it. > Pippin: > It's weird that Dumbledore would strike the ground with enough force > to knock a locket out of his pocket and open it, but not enough to > knock his glasses off or break them. Neri: Not at all. If a man lands on his back, as Dumbledore seemed to, then the resulting inertia would push his glasses in the down direction, IOW in the direction of his face. It would push the locket in the same direction, but if it was in a side pocket with an opening facing backwards, it's seems reasonable that it would fall out. If Dumbledore landed softly, then why is he described as "broken" with arms and legs spread wide in unnatural angles? > Pippin: In PoA, Harry's friends remark > on the fact that his fall didn't break his glasses. Of course we soon > find out it's because Dumbledore arranged a soft landing. > Neri: I still don't understand how Dumbledore arrested his own fall without his wand. > Pippin: > I'd say DD knew the locket was phony as soon as he'd got it out of the > basin. Harry knew it was wrong as soon as he picked it up. Dumbledore > was certainly not less observant than Harry. I think DD opened the locket > when he knew he was dying in order to make sure any curse that was on it > struck him and not the next person to find it. I don't think he was expecting > the note. He probably thought Voldemort had left the false locket as a > trap. Neri: Then why did he leave it on the ground for anybody to pick up? > > Pippin: > Other people do have a problem with it, though. I can remember it > being hashed out on the List. Your explanation is reasonable but it's > not the only possible one. In any case, JKR does have to revisit > the third part of the UV, because Harry doesn't know about it. It's > another shoe waiting to drop. > Neri: Harry is already convinced that Snape killed Dumbledore, so it won't be much of a shoe drop that Snape took a UV to do it. I agree that JKR still has to explain Snape's motives in taking the UV, but she doesn't have to explain its mechanism, unless it's relevant to Snape's motive. If it's not relevant then her explanation so far would be sufficient. However, I think that springing a Snape surprise on us based on some loophole in the UV mechanism would probably be poor plotting. If JKR wants to play with loopholes then she first owes us a good description of the mechanism. But if her description of the mechanism has much more holes than loop in it, then finding a loophole isn't a very exciting game. This is why I predict that any Snape surprise we're going to get in Book 7 won't be based on a UV loophole. Neri From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Mon Jul 10 07:04:48 2006 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 23:04:48 -0800 Subject: Character Driven or Plot Driven In-Reply-To: References: <006401c6a147$87aa6940$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155214 Are the HP books considered to be plot driven or character driven? Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jul 11 20:20:04 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:20:04 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155215 > Alla: > > But where do you see it lurking in the books? IMO there is **no** > other indication given in canon, other than punish Dudley for his > bullying ways. > > I mean, I understand the debate whether twins have any right to do it > in the first place, but I absolutely don't understand the argument > that they have **any** other reason than to punish Dudley for being a > bully. Magpie: That is their reason, but Arthur still says it's Muggle-baiting and I agree. They also state they're trying out their products as well and we know they love practical joking. They seem to feel Dudley has made himself a candidate for a try-out in ways a random Muggle might not have because he's a bully. Alla:> > I mean, I argued in the past that I don't get Twins as DE comparison > at all, but I would totally understand it ( disagree but understand) > if I could see one of the two things happening in canon: > > 1. Dursleys were treating Harry well OR > > 2. Twins indicated in one way or another that they dislike Muggles ( > I am not sure, but I don't remember that happening either) Magpie: I don't see much point in arguing that the Twins are Death Eaters because they obviously aren't. My post was saying that I recognize that the Dursleys mistreat Harry and that the Twins don't ever seem to dislike Muggles the way a DE does. My reaction to this scene doesn't depend on that. As a Muggle I don't think it's okay that they would only torment me with Magic if they disapproved of something I did. Alla:> > > What I **am** trying to figure out is where in canon we can see that > Twins have **any** other reason to do that to Dudley other than to > punish him. > > Is this argument based on Arthur dissaproval? Magpie: I don't see where anyone is making the argument that the Twins have any other reason to do that to Dudley except to punish him (and the reasons I stated above, that they like practical jokes and wanted to test their products). My point is I don't think the fact that they want to punish Dudley makes it not Muggle-baiting. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 20:20:11 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:20:11 -0000 Subject: Values of Potterverse WAS: Re: muggle baiting vs/Being good and evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155216 > Alla: > > > To me though in Potterverse goodness is defined not > > just being on the right side, but in general being on > > the right side as adhering to the right values, as > > Pippin remarked earlier. > > houyhnhnm: > > Right values such as lying, getting drunk, stealing, > disrespecting parents, breaking rules just for the fun > of it, cheating on homework, hexing people because they exist? > > If these are the "right values" of the Potterverse, > those who oppose the books may have a point (though > they do so for the wrong reasons.) > Alla: No, right values like opposing the ideology that one group of wizards for some reasons is better than another group of wizards, saving people from death for selfless purposes, standing up to the dark wizard while knowing that you can be dead the next minute, right values like being friends with "dark creature", like risking your life while saving innocent man from terrible fate, like understanding that friendship is worth a lot, **those** values. One can disagree as to whether those values are right in the first place, but to me there is a very little doubt that for JKR they are right values. After all she said that she values courage more than anything else. And then yes, breaking the rules ( especially if they are done for noble purposes, but even if it is not IMO), lying, cheating on homework, etc, IMO is not considered a big deal. I mean it is on the case by case basis, but yes I'd say that those who are virtuous ( it is of course just my interpretation of JKR intent, nothing more), especially courageous for "noble purposes" are allowed to get away with more in Potterverse than those who are not. > houyhnhnm102 wrote: > > > "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" But among civilized > people today this is not considered a very evolved concept > of justice. Neither is "the ends justify the means." > I don't think an author who worked for Amnesty International > and links to it on her web site is going to go there. > > Joe: > > Sorry but that is a value judgement. There are plenty of civilized people who stil think that those statements still have great value. I think JKR is a good enough author to understand that, her own beliefs aside, there are those that feel otherwise and might write at least a portion of her books with that in mind. > Alla: Actually the original post was **not** talking about eye for an eye, but about justice, which to me is hugely different from eye for an eye. I agree with you Joe, I see absolutely no problem with fictional villains getting all they deserve and more, legally or not, **but** I am also wondering why exactly JKR as former employee of Amnesty will not necessarily go into punishing her villains? If Snape **is** guilty in DD murder, I doubt she will portray his linching or something like that, but being in Azkaban forever, why not? How is it eye for an eye? It is justice, because an eye for an eye will be putting Snape, helpless and begging in front of Harry and making Harry kill him. Would she go there? I doubt it and I don't want her to either, but Snape spending his days in Azkaban will be so nice. Now, if she decides to deal with Snape's treatment of Harry and Neville, then in the plot it is not possible to punish legally and that is where carmic justice comes to play IMO. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 20:20:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:20:22 -0000 Subject: Age of Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155217 "Carol wrote in > : > > << the arbitrary decision of the WW to make seventeen the age of majority >> > > Catlady: > "I suppose it has something to do with their love of prime numbers, like seventeen Sickles are one Galleon, 29 Knuds are one Sickle. Still, it would have been equally prime to have 13 Sickles to the Galleon and come of age at 19. If 17 shares some of the powerful magic of 7, then base 10 is less arbitrary than I think." > BAW responded: > Isn't ANY year as the age of majority arbitrary? After all, people don't develop at the same rate--some people are quite mature at 12, while other people still act like adolescents well into their thirties. In most of the Muggle world the age of majority is 18, but it wasn't that long ago that it was 21 (for some purposes it still is; in the US one can't by alcoholic beverages until one is 21, but one can drive at 16, and one can vote at 18; the age of consent for sexual purposes varies from state to state; in some states one can get married as young as 15.) Carol responds: If you go back to the thread that Catlady linked to (link retained in this post), you'll see that I made exactly that point, with examples similar to yours. The unsnipped sig line reads, "Carol, noting that the arbitrary decision of the WW to make seventeen the age of majority should not, IMO, make a difference in the way we judge these characters but still wondering whether Draco was sixteen or seventeen when he faced Dumbledore on the tower." The reason I mentioned Draco is that his birthday is June 5, so if the events on the tower occurred on June 1-4 (and we know that they occurred in early June), he was 16; if they occurred on June 5 or later, he's 17. So a few days' difference determines whether he's a "child" or a "man" when he endangers the staff and students of Hogwarts by smuggling the Death Eaters into the school and acts as an accessory to the murder of Dumbledore, which would not have occurred had he not let the DEs into the school. (In RL, he'd be a minor in either case.) In terms of emotional maturity, a few days make no difference. (I'm not considering the mead or the poisoned necklace, both cases of attempted murder that occurred when he was definitely underage.) By the same token, Harry will become a "man" on July 31. The protective magic on the Dursleys' house will expire and he'll be an "adult" when he confronts Voldemort. (Ron and Hermione are already ostensibly adults, as were Fred and George when they were expelled from Hogwarts.) So, yes, it's all arbitrary, in RL or the WW. But why did JKR choose 17 instead of 18 as the age of majority in the WW? I think it's because she gave Harry her own birthday (conveniently making him a single age throughout each school year, 11 in year 1, 12 in year 2 and so on). Even though there's apparently not going to be a year 7 at Hogwarts (unless JKR is messing with our expectations, which I wouldn't put past her), Harry will still be 17 for most of Book 7. IMO, she wants him to be a "man" when he confronts and defeats Voldemort, and in order to do that, given his birthday, she had to make 17 the age of majority in the WW. At any rate, I don't think it has anything to do with prime numbers (and as for base 10, I always thought it was entirely natural because children instinctively use their ten fingers for counting). Carol, still wondering whether Draco was 16 or 17 on the tower and whether those few days will make a difference to the Wizengamot if they find him guilty of criminal endangerment or being an accessory to murder (crimes that, IMO, he did commit, and intended to commit before the extenuating circumstance of threats to his family occurred) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 11 21:06:50 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:06:50 -0000 Subject: Age of Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155218 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > By the same token, Harry will become a "man" on July 31. The > protective magic on the Dursleys' house will expire and he'll be an > "adult" when he confronts Voldemort. (Ron and Hermione are already > ostensibly adults, as were Fred and George when they were expelled > from Hogwarts.) > > So, yes, it's all arbitrary, in RL or the WW. But why did JKR choose > 17 instead of 18 as the age of majority in the WW? I think it's > because she gave Harry her own birthday (conveniently making him a > single age throughout each school year, 11 in year 1, 12 in year 2 and > so on). Even though there's apparently not going to be a year 7 at > Hogwarts (unless JKR is messing with our expectations, which I > wouldn't put past her), Harry will still be 17 for most of Book 7. > IMO, she wants him to be a "man" when he confronts and defeats > Voldemort, and in order to do that, given his birthday, she had to > make 17 the age of majority in the WW. Geoff: If I might be infuriatingly, nastily and pedantically pedantic, the cut-off date for admission to a specific school year in the UK is 31st August, so he isn't a single age throughout each school year, so there. :-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 21:20:55 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:20:55 -0000 Subject: Willy Widdershins (etymology) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155219 Remember Willy Widdershins, Umbridge's spy who was arrested by Mr. Weasley for backing up Muggle toilets as a prank (OoP)? By a delightful coincidence, Merriam-Webster's word of the day is "widdershins"! http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwwod.pl Warning to lefties: "widdershins" is yet another slur on left-handedness, as if "gauche" and "sinister" weren't sufficient. Here's the entry in full: "The Word of the Day for July 11 is: widdershins ? \WID-er-shinz\ Audio icon ? adverb : in a left-handed, wrong, or contrary direction : counterclockwise "Example sentence: In the book, the members of the coven hold hands and dance widdershins around the fire. "Did you know? "By the mid-1500s, English speakers had adopted "widdershins" (which is from the Middle High German "wider," meaning "back against," and "sinnen," meaning "to travel") for anything following a path that is opposite to the apparent direction of the sun as it travels across the sky in the Northern Hemisphere (or opposite the direction of the movement of the shadow on a sundial or the hands on a clock). In its earliest known uses, "widdershins" was used to describe cases of bad hair in which unruly locks stood on end or fell the wrong way. But because many people in times past considered the widdershins direction to be "backwards," it has long been associated with magic, witchcraft, and, sometimes, the devil." What an appropriate name for a minor bad guy--everything from counterclockwise and therefore backwards to the devil and bad hair! (I wonder if Harry's unruly hair could aptly be described as "widdershins"?) Do we have a description of Willy? All I remember is the bandages covering his entire face as he drank some steaming beverage in the Hog's Head. Carol, hoping that it's appropriate to post this message here rather than OT chatter From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 21:20:48 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:20:48 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155220 > Luna: > I have a question for you guys: > According to Slughorn, in order to create a Horclux, you need to > kill someone and perform some kind of incantation in order to have > your soul split. > According to DD, Voldemort wanted to create his last Horcrux while > killing Harry (note that he intended to do it with Harry's death, > not with James' or Lily's deaths) > We know that when Voldemort casted the killing curse against Harry, > it rebounded (thanks to the protection Lily gave to Harry and that > required her won death in order to be activated), "killing" > Voldemort himself... > Now, how can a Horcrux have been accidentally created if Voldemort > didn't achieve the killing of the victim in the first place, which, > in theory, is the main requirement for the creation of a Horcrux? zgirnius: While Voldemort did not achieve the killing of *Harry* he had just achieved two other killings, those of Harry's parents. So pieces of soul for encasement were available. Slughorn did not say the spell was for splitting the soul-that is an inevitable consequence of murder, as he explained. The spell is for encasing a soul bit into an object. From random832 at gmail.com Tue Jul 11 21:07:28 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:07:28 -0400 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607111407h46210868w189a8b5f61e65055@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155221 > Magpie: > I don't see much point in arguing that the Twins are Death Eaters > because they obviously aren't. My post was saying that I recognize > that the Dursleys mistreat Harry and that the Twins don't ever seem > to dislike Muggles the way a DE does. My reaction to this scene > doesn't depend on that. As a Muggle I don't think it's okay that > they would only torment me with Magic if they disapproved of > something I did. Random832: Do you think that it's somehow uniquely "not ok" to use magic even where it would be "ok" to, say, punch him in the face? I don't really follow your logic here. You also seem to be introducing a certain moral relativism by saying "if they disapproved of something I did" rather than "if I did something wrong" - is that your intention? By reducing it to that, you're basically saying that their reasons wouldn't matter, no matter what your actual offense was. From katbofaye at aol.com Tue Jul 11 21:11:12 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:11:12 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem and the misplaced spell Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155222 I was re-reading GOF in the midst of the Harry as horcrux discussion and I wonder where is the spell that should be between Bertha Jorkins and Lily Potter. Shouldn't Voldemort have come out of that wand since he killed himself accidentally. Is this an oversight by JKR or was another wand used? It also occurs to me that in Book 7 Voldemort is going to choose someone else to kill Harry, either Wormtail or Snape, to avoid the reoccurance of priori incantatem. IMO, each of them has some kind of karmic debt to Harry. Snapes's is unknown at this point. Any ideas why this misplaced spell did not show up while they were encased in the golden web? katssirius From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 11 22:25:39 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:25:39 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem and the misplaced spell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155223 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" wrote: katssirius: > I was re-reading GOF in the midst of the Harry as horcrux discussion > and I wonder where is the spell that should be between Bertha Jorkins > and Lily Potter. Shouldn't Voldemort have come out of that wand since > he killed himself accidentally. Is this an oversight by JKR or was > another wand used? It also occurs to me that in Book 7 Voldemort is > going to choose someone else to kill Harry, either Wormtail or Snape, > to avoid the reoccurance of priori incantatem. IMO, each of them has > some kind of karmic debt to Harry. Snapes's is unknown at this point. > Any ideas why this misplaced spell did not show up while they were > encased in the golden web? Geoff: But Voldemort didn't "kill" himself. He became disembodied. I have said previously I do not believe that that particular casting of the spell did produce a result which could create one of the "reverse echoes" of those who had been killed. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 22:31:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:31:41 -0000 Subject: Jets of green light (Was: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155224 Pippin wrote: > As you say, there are all sorts of other things JKR uses to show that Dumbledore considers Harry more important and don't set up a Chekhov's gun. Mentioning the possibility of such an order creates the expectation that it will be given. The order wasn't given to Harry, and the only other person under his command that Dumbledore spoke to before he died was Snape. Carol: "Chekhov's gun? Is that the same as "smoking gun"? I've never heard the expression. (I agree with you that the order almost certainly relates to Snape for the reasons you stated and because such an order would go a long way toward clearing up events on the tower.) > Pippin earlier: > > > It is not an assumption that a blast of green light can be produced by other spells than AK, > > > > Neri: > > It is not? I can't recall any other spell in canon that comes with a green jet of light. For all we know AK could be the only curse of that color. > > Pippin: > Hagrid tells the kids to send up green sparks if they find the unicorn. Carol adds: We see the green sparks again as the second signal when the Order members rescue Harry from 4 Privet Drive in OoP. Ron's apparently accidental spell, "Eat slugs!" produces green light (somewhere in CoS), and, more to the point, not all the jets of green light in the battle of the MoM are necessarily AKs. We don't constantly hear those words shouted, and we don't know whether an AK can be cast nonverbally. Even the ones that the narrator labels "another killing curse" could be something else given Harry's state of mind. But the best example is the spell that hits Tonks and knocks her unconscious: "A jet of green light had narrowly missed Sirius; across the room Harry saw Tonks fall from halfway up the stone steps, her limp form toppling from stone set to stone seat, and Bellatrix, triumphant, running back toward the fray" (OoP Am. ed. 803). Afterwards, Tonks is sent to St. Mungo's to recover, apparently too badly injured for Madam Pomfrey to heal her. So either an AK can fail to kill or that spell wasn't an AK. The Death Eaters at the QWC also send flashes of green light from their wands when they're levitating the Muggles, but the Muggles aren't killed and neither is anyone else: "Loud jeering, roars of laughter, and drunken yells were drifting toward them; then came a burst of strong green light, which illuminated the scene" (GoF Am. ed. 119). Harry notices that the smallest child's head is flopping limply from side to side (GoF 120); Dumbledore is described as being limp as a rag doll. (Can there be a connection here? Does Levicorpus or a similar spell give off green light?) And of course the light that erupts from Barty Jr's wand as he casts the Dark Mark is green: "And something vast, green and glittering erupted from the patch of darkness Harry's eyes had been struggling to penetrate" (128). Just because a spell gives off a jet of green light doesn't mean it's an AK. We're never told the color of some spells, Impedimenta, Wingardium Leviosa, and Levicorpus among them. Any one of them could be green. Carol, snipping the rest of the post because I want to concentrate on this single point From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 23:43:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:43:20 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155225 Luna wrote: > > I have a question for you guys: > > According to Slughorn, in order to create a Horclux, you need to kill someone and perform some kind of incantation in order to have your soul split. > > According to DD, Voldemort wanted to create his last Horcrux while killing Harry (note that he intended to do it with Harry's death, not with James' or Lily's deaths) We know that when Voldemort casted the killing curse against Harry, it rebounded (thanks to the protection Lily gave to Harry and that required her won death in order to be activated), "killing" Voldemort himself... > > Now, how can a Horcrux have been accidentally created if Voldemort didn't achieve the killing of the victim in the first place, which, in theory, is the main requirement for the creation of a Horcrux? > zgirnius responded: > While Voldemort did not achieve the killing of *Harry* he had just achieved two other killings, those of Harry's parents. So pieces of soul for encasement were available. Slughorn did not say the spell was for splitting the soul-that is an inevitable consequence of murder, as he explained. The spell is for encasing a soul bit into an object. > Carol adds: I agree with zgirnius (though I wonder if all killings or only murders result in soul splitting). But I want to add that DD suspected that LV intended to make his last Horcrux *with* Harry's death, which is not the same thing as making it *while* he's killing Harry. I'm pretty sure that the spell to encase the soul bit in a Horcrux is performed *after* the murder, possibly a long time afterwards, as would have to be the case if Moaning Myrtle's or the Riddles' deaths were used to create Horcruxes. (When Tom killed those four people, he didn't yet know how to create a Horcrux.) You're right that he could not have used Harry's death to create a Horcrux since Harry didn't die, but I don't think anyone is arguing that he did so. They're arguing that a loose soul fragment resulting from Lily's (or maybe two soul bits from Lily's and James's deaths) was somehow floating around loose in the air and accidentally got lodged in Harry when Voldemort vaporized (not a view I agree with, obviously). Since the soul must already be split if a fragment is to be encased in a Horcrux, the spell for encasing the soul bit must logically be performed after the murder. And since a spell is required, according to Slughorn, and a spell must be cast deliberately using a wand, I see no way that an accidental Horcrux could be created. At any rate, there's no canonical evidence that such a thing can be done. It's merely being proposed as a mechanism for the transfer of powers from Voldemort to Harry. Carol, wondering if the diary (which IMO was not originally intended as a Horcrux) and the Marauder's Map operate on the same principle, with a bit of the makers' powers and personality enclosed in the magical object so that it interacts with the reader as the maker himself would (handwriting and all), no soul bit required From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 23:47:09 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:47:09 -0000 Subject: Jets of green light (Was: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155226 > Pippin wrote: > > As you say, there are all sorts of other things JKR uses to show > that Dumbledore considers Harry more important and don't set up a > Chekhov's gun. Mentioning the possibility of such an order creates the > expectation that it will be given. The order wasn't given to Harry, > and the only other person under his command that Dumbledore spoke to > before he died was Snape. > > Carol: > "Chekhov's gun? Is that the same as "smoking gun"? I've never heard > the expression. (I agree with you that the order almost certainly > relates to Snape for the reasons you stated and because such an order > would go a long way toward clearing up events on the tower.) > > zgirnius: Pippin is referring to the principle credited to the Russian playwright Chekhov that in writing a play one should not introduce a loaded gun on stage in Act 1 unless someone is going to be using it in Act 3. So, Dumbledore told to Harry he might order Harry to abandon him ot his fate. But he never gave Harry that order (the gun did not go off). If, however, he gave Snape such an order, the gun was used after all. From jenniferkchoi at gmail.com Tue Jul 11 22:40:19 2006 From: jenniferkchoi at gmail.com (Jennifer Choi) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:40:19 -0700 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607111407h46210868w189a8b5f61e65055@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50607111407h46210868w189a8b5f61e65055@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9d4afd760607111540m51a24774odc5beda2853acab9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155227 Magpie: > > I don't see much point in arguing that the Twins are Death Eaters > > because they obviously aren't. My post was saying that I recognize > > that the Dursleys mistreat Harry and that the Twins don't ever > > seem > > to dislike Muggles the way a DE does. My reaction to this scene > > doesn't depend on that. As a Muggle I don't think it's okay that > > they would only torment me with Magic if they disapproved of > > something I did. Random832: > Do you think that it's somehow uniquely "not ok" to use magic even > where it would be "ok" to, say, punch him in the face? I don't > really follow your logic here. > > You also seem to be introducing a certain moral relativism by saying > "if they disapproved of something I did" rather than "if I did > something wrong" - is that your intention? By reducing it to that, > you're basically saying that their reasons wouldn't matter, no > matter what your actual offense was. jennathasania83: I think that Magpie's discomfort partly stems from the fact that Dudley is obviously incapable of doing magic, and thus has no way to defend himself against the Twins' torment, or at least that is the root of my discomfort with the situation. At least if it came down to a fist fight I imagine that Dudley could give as good as he got, which would not make the fighting "right" but would level the playing field. So yes, I personally would say that it is uniquely "not okay" to use magic, since it brings them right to the point where they are the big playground bully beating on the kid who is physically unable to fight back. Being in the wrong and having someone disapprove of what you have done/are doing are two COMPLETELY different things. True, most people disapprove of things that are socially and legally wrong, but people also disapprove of things that are perfectly normal or legal. It's not that the action itself doesn't matter, but the 'wrongness" can't be reduced down to an individual value judgement. For example, I could think that abortion is completely and utterly wrong, and those who practice it are evil people. (I don't, and I'm not out trying to offend anyone in anyway, this is just an easy example because it is a polarized topic) However, person A who is pro-choice is not "wrong" in anyway beyond my personal judgement, and just because "I" think that they deserve to be punished doesn't mean that their punishment is right, or that I should be able to punish them. So I don't think that Magpie is trying to imply moral relativism, rather she is arguing against. Lastly, "because they deserved it" is the worst defense ever for an action. Not too long ago there was a big scandal about prison abuse occuring in a US military prison which really illustrates this point. The people detained were believed to be terrorists - and I'm sure that everyone will agree that being a terrorist is bad - but that didn't make it either morally or legally acceptable for them to be humiliated or mistreated, and even though the Americans were the "good" guys, didn't mean that they got a pass (technically). Also, although Dudley didn't die from the toffee it was pretty clear that he could have asphixiated (=death); poisoning candies and leaving them out for unsuspecting people will get you major jail time, and it's pretty strange to say that "they deserved to die" because they chose to eat the candies. Being poisoned (having your tongue swell) isn't a forseeable consequence of eating a candy. Anyways, my 3 cents. jennathasania83 From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jul 12 01:35:21 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:35:21 -0000 Subject: Ron's career (was Re: In defense of Hermione (was: Almost normal)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155228 > bridge13219: > That's what I was thinking! I was just reading 'Quidditch Through the > Ages' the other day and I thought if Ron makes it through book 7 > (which I REALLY want him to), he'd go play keeper for the Chudley > Cannons and lead them to a winning streak they haven't seen in decades! Potioncat: Nope. He's going to be a Healer. That's the career he was looking at in Career Advice, athough he acted like he wouldn't want to take it on. He's taking all the required courses--they just happen to be the same as for Auror. He's one who offers tea when people are upset. Healer---you heard it here. From random832 at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 01:14:42 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:14:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <9d4afd760607111540m51a24774odc5beda2853acab9@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50607111407h46210868w189a8b5f61e65055@mail.gmail.com> <9d4afd760607111540m51a24774odc5beda2853acab9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607111814g1a94ca31qa0b5965aa76f8b0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155229 jennathasania83: > > I think that Magpie's discomfort partly stems from the fact that > Dudley is obviously incapable of doing magic, and thus has no way to > defend himself against the Twins' torment, or at least that is the > root of my discomfort with the situation. At least if it came down to > a fist fight I imagine that Dudley could give as good as he got, which > would not make the fighting "right" but would level the playing field. > So yes, I personally would say that it is uniquely "not okay" to use > magic, since it brings them right to the point where they are the big > playground bully beating on the kid who is physically unable to fight > back. Random832: But he _can_ fight back - with his fists. What's so _unique_ about magic in ths instance? Are you saying that when there is a bully, it's categorically inappropriate to try to get back at them or escape them in a way that they could not have done? If they're unintelligent, you'd be doing something wrong by trying to outsmart them? Or if you have some martial arts knowledge you can't use it in self defence because your attacker doesn't have the same skills? I think this is a case of "unfamiliarity breeds contempt" - magic is somehow in a class by itself. jennathasania83: > Being in the wrong and having someone disapprove of what you have > done/are doing are two COMPLETELY different things. Random832: And casting the former as the latter is moral relativism of the worst kind. Using an analogy that comes just short of explicitly claiming that the Dursleys' treatment of Harry was something that the twins merely disapproved of is disingenuous at best. jennathasania83: > True, most people > disapprove of things that are socially and legally wrong, but people > also disapprove of things that are perfectly normal or legal. It's not > that the action itself doesn't matter, but the 'wrongness" can't be > reduced down to an individual value judgement. For example, I could > think that abortion is completely and utterly wrong, and those who > practice it are evil people. (I don't, and I'm not out trying to > offend anyone in anyway, this is just an easy example because it is a > polarized topic) However, person A who is pro-choice is not "wrong" in > anyway beyond my personal judgement, and just because "I" think that > they deserve to be punished doesn't mean that their punishment is > right, or that I should be able to punish them. So I don't think that > Magpie is trying to imply moral relativism, rather she is arguing > against. Random832 Moral relativism is the claim that there are no things that are wrong, only things that are disapproved of. I think that was, conscious or otherwise, one of the core assumptions of her argument. jennathasania83: > Lastly, "because they deserved it" is the worst defense ever for an > action. Not too long ago there was a big scandal about prison abuse > occuring in a US military prison which really illustrates this point. > The people detained were believed to be terrorists - and I'm sure that > everyone will agree that being a terrorist is bad - but that didn't > make it either morally or legally acceptable for them to be humiliated > or mistreated, and even though the Americans were the "good" guys, > didn't mean that they got a pass (technically). Also, although Dudley > didn't die from the toffee it was pretty clear that he could have > asphixiated (=death); Random832: Only if you think too hard about it. It's magic, remember. There's no indication that there was even a possibility that he could have been unable to breathe for a period long enough to asphyxiate. jennathasania83: > poisoning candies and leaving them out for > unsuspecting people will get you major jail time, and it's pretty > strange to say that "they deserved to die" because they chose to eat > the candies. Random832: Nobody was attempting murder here. and it'd be less strange, though perhaps almost as bad, to say that "they deserved to die" because of some prior action they had done that prompted you to leave the candies out for them - your analogy was pretty distorted, you have to admit. But the point is nobody tried to kill anyone, and condemning the use of magic _at all_ is a problem. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 02:00:51 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:00:51 -0000 Subject: Acromantula Venom Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155230 I wonder if Acromantula venom will come into play in book 7. We are told that it is difficult to get, and costly. But what is it used for? Are we ever told? Would it have any effect on a snake? Will the children of Aragog have any part in the killing of LV? I can't remember what we are told in earlier books about Aragog. JKR has a way of dropping hints here and there that turn out to be important later, but at the time seem like nothing. For example in HBP at one point Ron is looking in a broken mirror. It is just a passing comment. But we know that is can't be a passing comment, because it reminds us of the 2 mirrors that Harry and Sirius have/had. And all of that drinking in HBP, I really didn't see it, believe it or not, when I was reading it. But there *is* a lot of drinking, which I think is a set up for us for the drinking that DD does later in the cave. Any ideas about spider venom?? Tonks_op From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Jul 12 02:16:41 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:16:41 -0000 Subject: Uncle Alphard alive? (was: How old is Dumbledore???) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155231 > > Potioncat: > > Back in Oct 2000 JKR had this to say: > > > > >>>Question: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old > > are Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall? > > J.K. Rowling responds: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and > > Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy. Wizards have a much > > longer life expectancy than Muggles. (Harry hasn't found out > > about that yet.)<<< > > > > But if you look at the wizarding cards, or the Black family > > tree, or just look at who is alive in canon and who is > > considered "old" in canon- it doesn't seem like the greater part > > of the WW lives any longer than the Muggles do. > > AUSSIE : Sirius's Uncle Alphard. His name and birth - death dates were wiped off the tapestry. So is there cannon evidence that he's dead? Could he still be around? Could that be where Sirius sent the tropical bird from in GOA instead of an owl to Harry? He isn't recognised by the Black family now and may be independently well off himself. That may be why Sirius prefered to inherit the house to Harry, not his dear uncle. Age wise, Alphard would be a bit younger than sprightly McGonagall If he isn't alive, could he have been a Dark Wizard's victim? > > AmanitaMuscaria now: I guess the population would have been skewed > by GrindelWar and VoldyWar1. > > Potioncat: > > Better yet, why did JKR say that wizards have longer life spans? > > AmanitaMuscaria now: This may be a subconscious artefact from > JKR's mum dying young. > From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jul 12 02:13:28 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:13:28 -0000 Subject: Values of Potterverse WAS: Re: muggle baiting vs/Being good and evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155232 Alla: > No, right values like opposing the ideology > that one group of wizards for some reasons is > better than another group of wizards houyhnhnm: Real tolerance is indeed a virtue. I see little evidence of it in wizard society, which seems to me to be pervaded by an ingroup/outgroup mentality. Defining the ingroup by the particularly stupid criterion of "blood" purity may be less prevalent among those on the "good" side, but then they have other prejudices: Gryffindors vs everybody else, British vs. foreign wizards, wizards vs. other magical beings. I don't see tolerance as a value of the WW on any side. Alla: > saving people from death for selfless purposes, > like risking your life while saving innocent man > from terrible fate houyhnhnm: Harry and Snape (whom you don't consider one of the good guys) Who else? Alla: > standing up to the dark wizard houyhnhnm: But you have to leave the dark wizard out of it because my question is what goodness do the "good" in the Potterverse show besides opposing Voldemort. When Voldemort is finally defeated how will good behavior be distinguished from bad behavior? Alla: > like being friends with "dark creature" houyhnhnm: I have often wondered what would have been the attitude of Peter, James, and Sirius toward Lupin had they surprised his secret and had he *not* been a member of their House. Would they have been friends with him then or would they have persecuted him? Alla: > like understanding that friendship is worth a lot, houyhnhnm: The Slytherins of Harry's year have friendships and they seem to value them. Alla: > And then yes, breaking the rules ( especially if they > are done for noble purposes houyhnhnm: What was the noble purpose of Fred and George when they tested their skiving snackboxes (designed for the sole purpose of allowing students to get away with playing hooky and to make F&G money, of course) on first years? What was the Marauders'noble purpose? Alla: > lying, cheating on homework, etc, IMO is not > considered a big deal. houyhnhnm: ???!!! (I am bereft of words.) This is some anemic kind of system of morality. I'm with Betsy Hp. I'm not very comfortable with the WW, either. It *is* ugly. Muggle and proud of it. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Jul 12 02:01:30 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:01:30 -0000 Subject: The Shrieking Shack and the Tower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155233 > "Hagrid" wrote: > > >#16. Hagrid's pets attacked around the same time (Buckbeak and Fang) > > > Steven1965aaa: > > Great additions, except that Buckbeak did not attack in POA, that was > only in the movie. Buckbeak did attack Snape in HBP, Flight of the > Prince > aussie: Sorry for the confussion. I meant that Hagrid's pets were being attacked ... the trio thought they just witnessed Buckbeak's execution in POA before entering Shack. After tower, Fang was in hut set alight by escaping DEs From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 02:01:08 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:01:08 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155234 > Magpie: > I don't see much point in arguing that the Twins are Death Eaters > because they obviously aren't. My post was saying that I recognize > that the Dursleys mistreat Harry and that the Twins don't ever seem > to dislike Muggles the way a DE does. My reaction to this scene > doesn't depend on that. As a Muggle I don't think it's okay that > they would only torment me with Magic if they disapproved of > something I did. Alla: Okay, I guess I have to second the question then - is the main objection to use of magic as means for punishment, not to the punishment itself? And if it is so, then what I am going to say next is not of course directed at you, but "you" as substitute for Dudley. That what you meant , when you used *you*, right? I am sorry, I am afraid of sounding awkward or worse here. So, please feel free to smack me if I am. :) Um, of course Dudley will disapprove of his punishment, but as long as I agree with the author that what Dudley did is wrong, I could care less, really. If there are no objections to the fact that Dudley should be punished, does it really matter whether he is punished with magic or not? I mean, if the problem is that he cannot fight back, that is exactly what Harry could not do for ten years at least, when he had no clue that he is a wizard? Perfect carma to me. jennathasania: > Lastly, "because they deserved it" is the worst defense ever for an > action. Not too long ago there was a big scandal about prison abuse > occuring in a US military prison which really illustrates this point. > The people detained were believed to be terrorists - and I'm sure that > everyone will agree that being a terrorist is bad - but that didn't > make it either morally or legally acceptable for them to be humiliated > or mistreated, and even though the Americans were the "good" guys, > didn't mean that they got a pass (technically). Also, although Dudley > didn't die from the toffee it was pretty clear that he could have > asphixiated (=death); poisoning candies and leaving them out for > unsuspecting people will get you major jail time, and it's pretty > strange to say that "they deserved to die" because they chose to eat > the candies. Being poisoned (having your tongue swell) isn't a > forseeable consequence of eating a candy. > Alla: Well, to me because they deserved it is a very good defense as to punishment of fictional villains. I mean, I don't want to get into terrorism staff, even though I agree with what you said, but to me Dudley's guilt is proven, I am convinced of that, since I am convinced of that, what I want to see next is punishment. JKR is not likely to put Dudley in juvenile delinquency or something like that, since this is not the main topic of the story, so she uses Twins IMO. I am also not sure where you get that Dudley could die after eating those candies. Aren't they supposed to be very short term? Am confused. See, I think JKR measured the punishment perfectly here. I passionately despise Dursleys and as I mentioned I cheer up for whoever gives them their just desserts , be it Twins or Hagrid or Dumbledore, and I am not sure yet, but I would probably not be upset if Vernon and Petunia bite the dust ( or maybe I will, not sure), but Dudley I would probably not want to see dead. So, I suppose that if I saw Twins beating Dudley and letting him bleed to death or something, then yes, I think I'd consider it to be too much even for Dudley, but to be a victim of joke ( of course this is JMO, I don't see it as anything else but joke and at the same time attempt to achieve retribution for Harry), even if it is a cruel joke? IMO it is just perfect. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 02:33:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:33:37 -0000 Subject: Values of Potterverse WAS: Re: muggle baiting vs/Being good and evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155235 > Alla: > > > No, right values like opposing the ideology > > that one group of wizards for some reasons is > > better than another group of wizards > > houyhnhnm: > > Real tolerance is indeed a virtue. I see little evidence > of it in wizard society, which seems to me to be pervaded > by an ingroup/outgroup mentality. Defining the ingroup > by the particularly stupid criterion of "blood" purity > may be less prevalent among those on the "good" side, > but then they have other prejudices: Gryffindors vs > everybody else, British vs. foreign wizards, wizards > vs. other magical beings. I don't see tolerance as a > value of the WW on any side. Alla: Sure, WW needs to be more tolerant, I guess where we differ is that I consider "pureblood superiority" to be the worst one, if for no other reason that only Voldemort supporters want "muglleborns" to die. Every other form of prejudice except prejudice to non-human races seems to be not so life-threatening to me. Bad, don't get me wrong, but not life threatening. And I absolutely think that *good guys" whom we see close and personal are much more tolerant ( I mean members of the Order) than other side, I think they are used as an example, sort of. > Alla: > > > saving people from death for selfless purposes, > > like risking your life while saving innocent man > > from terrible fate > > houyhnhnm: > > Harry and Snape (whom you don't consider one of the good > guys) Who else? Alla: Nope, not Snape, for whom I still have to be convinced of "selfless purposes". That would be Harry, Hermione, all kids who went to fight with Harry to save him and Sirius, that would be members of the Order who came to MOM for the same reason saving lifes for selfless purposes IMO. > Alla: > > > standing up to the dark wizard > > houyhnhnm: > > But you have to leave the dark wizard out of it because > my question is what goodness do the "good" in the > Potterverse show besides opposing Voldemort. When > Voldemort is finally defeated how will good behavior > be distinguished from bad behavior? Alla: No, I do not **have to**, because to me standing to Voldemort means standing up against the values he wants to implement. And when he will be defeated , hopefully WW will at least start to move towards more tolerance, kindness, etc. > Alla: > > > like being friends with "dark creature" > > houyhnhnm: > > I have often wondered what would have been the attitude > of Peter, James, and Sirius toward Lupin had they > surprised his secret and had he *not* been a member > of their House. Would they have been friends with > him then or would they have persecuted him? Alla: LOL. The canon is that they **were** friends with the "dark creature"". Any canon support for your assumption that they would have persecuted him? > Alla: > > > And then yes, breaking the rules ( especially if they > > are done for noble purposes > > houyhnhnm: > > What was the noble purpose of Fred and George when they > tested their skiving snackboxes (designed for the sole > purpose of allowing students to get away with playing > hooky and to make F&G money, of course) on first years? > What was the Marauders'noble purpose? Alla: But of course when I said "for noble purposes" I meant Trio hunting the stone, going to Chambers, saving Sirius. Would you like more examples? As to what was noble purpose of Marauders (poorly executed of course) - that is very easy - to relieve the sufferings their friend was going through on the monthly basis. In my book - helping your friend - is the good thing to do. JMO, Alla From katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au Wed Jul 12 01:09:51 2006 From: katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au (katrinalisa2002) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:09:51 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil /Hermione is Voldemort in making? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155236 > Katrina: > > > I'm not saying every parchment that is signed constitutes > > a magically binding contract; I just think it is obvious > > that, even without the sneak jinx, this was a contract. > > houyhnhnm: > > You think so, but if you want me to think so, you're going > to have to provide some evidence. > I think it depends on how you define a contract. This is how I would define a contract. Contract: An agreement regarding mutual responsibilities between two or more parties. "So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge or anyone else..." Thus, signing the parchment was a contract between Hermione, and everyone who signed. It's not like she forced anyone to sign it, they all had a choice. The fact that Marietta was either too weak to stand up to Cho, or too weak to stand up to her parents does not excuse her from the consequences of breaking the contract she willingly signed. Katrina Who still feels sorry for Marietta despite it all. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 03:23:29 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:23:29 -0000 Subject: Uncle Alphard alive? (was: How old is Dumbledore???) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155237 > AUSSIE : > Sirius's Uncle Alphard. His name and birth - death dates were wiped off the tapestry. So is there cannon evidence that he's dead? Could he still be around? Could that be where Sirius sent the tropical bird from in GOA instead of an owl to Harry? > > He isn't recognised by the Black family now and may be independently well off himself. That may be why Sirius prefered to inherit the house to Harry, not his dear uncle. > > Age wise, Alphard would be a bit younger than sprightly McGonagall > If he isn't alive, could he have been a Dark Wizard's victim? Tonks: I think Uncle Alphard is dead. I think he is the one that discovered the locket and switched them. He is, IMO, RAB. And he is dead. Tonks_op From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 12 03:25:20 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:25:20 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155238 > Carol wrote: > Since the soul must already be split if a fragment is to be encased in > a Horcrux, the spell for encasing the soul bit must logically be > performed after the murder. We know nothing about the horcrux creation spell other than it exists and that it requires a split soul. As someone else has suggested it may be possible to cast the spell before the murder designating the horcrux object in advance and then the spell takes effect once the soul is split. The curses placed on objects work in this fashion, they do not take effect until some specific event has taken place. We know nothing about soul splitting other than a murder is required. We don't know at which point in the act of murder the split occurs so we don't know if the unprecedented failure of the AK used against Harry would have split LV's soul or not. We don't know what happens to a split soul if you do not create a horcrux immediately. Is is split forever or do the pieces remerge? If the split does heal does this take years or milliseconds? If you commit two murders in succession as LV did that night at GH does the second murder produce a three piece soul or are both pieces of the two piece soul the first murder produced split again to make a four piece soul? If soul splits do not heal relatively quickly just how fractured was LV's soul just before he tried to kill Harry that night?? The possibilites are legion and we have precious little information to argue from. I suspect that answering these questions would give the game away and that is why JKR has not answered them. Ken From rachaelmcadams at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 12 03:38:33 2006 From: rachaelmcadams at yahoo.ca (rachaelmcadams) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:38:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Look of Triumph re: WHERE Harry was cut Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155239 I was just re-reading GoF and I noticed that when Harry talks about Wormtail cutting his arm, Dumbledore wants to look at it and where he's cut: "Dumbledore walked around the desk and told Harry to stretch out his arm. Harry showed them both the place where his robes were torn, and the cut beneath them." (p.604, British version) After that Harry tells them what Voldemort told him and then comes Dumbledore's infamous gleam. >From the graveyard scene, we learn that the cut is in the crook of his right arm (p.557). Now, I have no idea what this means, but since Rowling mentioned that we should look into the triumph once more, I thought it was worth considering and wondered if anyone else had any ideas about it. I didn't think anyone had discussed the place of the cut as having any importance, but Dumbledore does feel the need to inspect it. Any theories here? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 03:35:46 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:35:46 -0000 Subject: AKs,UVs and Green Light, OH MY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155240 > > > Pippin: > > > There is no hypothesis about the operation of the UV that does > > > not require assumptions, so I set that aside. > > > > Neri: > > Convenient, but not all assumptions were created equal. The most > > straightforward assumption in the case of the UV is that Snape would > > die if he doesn't keep his Vow to carry out Dumbledore's assassination > > instead of Draco. I call it the most straightforward in the sense that > > if JKR takes this route, she won't have to supply any further > > explanations of this issue in Book 7. Any more complicated assumptions > > require further elaboration of the UV mechanism, by both the theorist > > and JKR herself. > > Pippin: > She has to explain why Draco's failures with the necklace and the > mead didn't trigger the UV. Any attempt by us to anticipate > the explanation calls for an assumption about how it works. Mike: Did I miss something? Why would Draco's failure with the mead or necklace trigger a UV? Snape's UV was couched in a "should it prove necessary" and a "if it *seems* Draco will fail", but without a time frame. Obviously it hadn't proved necessary yet, and it did not yet *seem* for sure that Draco will ultimately fail, given that there are no time frame constraints. He made the vow to Narcissa, he has to keep his word to her satisfaction. Does anyone really think these obscure, half-hearted, and feeble attempts by Draco, that neither Snape nor probably Narcissa know of in advance, would constitute Snape's failure to keep his word in Narcissa's eyes? Would she consider that Snape, not making these two virtually impossible-to-succeed plots work, has broken his vow? Mike, thinking the vow is still in play and Narcissa was not disappointed with Snape's performance. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 02:11:32 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:11:32 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155241 > > > Luna wrote: > > > I have a question for you guys: > > > Now, how can a Horcrux have been accidentally created if > > > Voldemort didn't achieve the killing of the victim in the > > > first place, which, in theory, is the main requirement for > > > the creation of a Horcrux? > > zgirnius responded: > > The spell is for encasing a soul bit into an object. > Carol adds: > I agree with zgirnius (though I wonder if all killings or only > murders result in soul splitting). > I'm pretty sure that the spell to encase the soul bit in a > Horcrux is performed *after* the murder, possibly a > long time afterwards, > They're arguing that a loose soul fragment resulting > from Lily's (or maybe two soul bits from Lily's and James's deaths) > was somehow floating around loose in the air and accidentally got > lodged in Harry when Voldemort vaporized (not a view I agree with, > obviously). > > Since the soul must already be split if a fragment is to be encased in > a Horcrux, the spell for encasing the soul bit must logically be > performed after the murder. Mike here: My hypothesis for how one creates an accidental Horcrux postulates that the encasement spell is cast prior to committing the murder. My basis for this belief comes from examining Slughorn's explanation: "The wizard *intent* upon creatig a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage." (HBP p.498, US, Slughorn speaking, my emphasis) I read this as the wizard must create the intent, have the encasement object and use the 'spell' to mark the object as well as prepare to capture the torn piece of soul. IMO, if the encasement spell is not cast prior to the murder, the torn piece of soul will not seperate from the core soul and probably reattach to the core. (Carol, I wonder the same thing about whether all killing, or only murder rips the soul. If it's all killing and the soul doesn't mend, Voldemort's must be confetti by now.) IOW, Horcrux creation must be planned in advance, Horcrux object selected and marked, spell cast in advance to capture the torn piece and not let it reattach. Is it canon? No, but the intent part is, and we have no other explanation to refer to besides Sluggy's. To me, it's obvious that the encasing spell is cast in advance of the murder the wizard is *intending* to use to create his Horcrux. How does this advance accidental-Horcrux? I think you see where I'm going. LV prepres the object and creates his intent to encase his soul piece by casting his spell prior to turning to baby Harry. When his AK rebounds it kills LV's body and rips his soul. Because the encasing spell has already been cast, the soul piece seperates from the core and searches for the marked object to lodge. Though we don't know why, the AK marked Harry, cut his forehead, we all agree here I assume. This is how the soul piece comes to accidentally become encased in Harry's forehead making Harry a Horcrux. This is just one persons theory, I know there are others. None of it is in canon, but nothing is refuted by canon and it is at least partially supported by canon. Just as having a piece of LV's soul in you allowing you to speak parseltongue is canon and that's the only mechanism we get in canon. We may or may not get some other reason, but we haven't so far. > Carol, wondering if the diary (which IMO was not originally > intended > as a Horcrux) and the Marauder's Map operate on the same principle, > with a bit of the makers' powers and personality enclosed in the > magical object so that it interacts with the reader as the maker > himself would (handwriting and all), no soul bit required > Mike: Interesting..., add the Sorting Hat to that mix. Are you thinking the Marauders found some way to create a low-voltage non-soul Horcrux (without killing, I hope)? Maybe a thousand years ago, Horcruxes weren't considered so evil. Intriguing to think the Sorting Hat could be a four-way Horcrux of the founders? From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 06:52:57 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:52:57 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Age of Majority In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607112352j2f56cfa9v26ada34f5dfe8f1e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155242 > Carol: > > > By the same token, Harry will become a "man" on July 31. The > > protective magic on the Dursleys' house will expire and he'll be an > > "adult" when he confronts Voldemort. (Ron and Hermione are already > > ostensibly adults, as were Fred and George when they were expelled > > from Hogwarts.) > > > > So, yes, it's all arbitrary, in RL or the WW. But why did JKR choose > > 17 instead of 18 as the age of majority in the WW? I think it's > > because she gave Harry her own birthday (conveniently making him a > > single age throughout each school year, 11 in year 1, 12 in year 2 and > > so on). Even though there's apparently not going to be a year 7 at > > Hogwarts (unless JKR is messing with our expectations, which I > > wouldn't put past her), Harry will still be 17 for most of Book 7. > > IMO, she wants him to be a "man" when he confronts and defeats > > Voldemort, and in order to do that, given his birthday, she had to > > make 17 the age of majority in the WW. > > > Geoff: > If I might be infuriatingly, nastily and pedantically pedantic, the cut-off > date for admission to a specific school year in the UK is 31st August, so > he isn't a single age throughout each school year, so there. > :-) > > > Kemper now: Geoff, you weren't nasty or pedantic, but you were infuriatingly unclear. Are you saying that Harry wasn't the same whole-number age from the ever-Monday September 1 to June 30 of each year he's attended Hogwarts? I don't get it. American it down for me. Please. :-D Kemper, agreeing with Carol that Harry is 11 throughout the SCHOOL year of PS and that he'll be 17 throughout the SCHOOL year in the upcoming book whether he's actually in school or not. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 07:29:08 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:29:08 -0000 Subject: Character Driven or Plot Driven In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155243 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > Are the HP books considered to be plot driven or > character driven? > Laura > -- Well I could argue...that oop/poa/GOF are primarily character driven....has to happen as I believe PS/COS/HBP are primarily plot driven...(aside from romantic plotlines)...although one may get another picture if approached from the voly POV v.s. harry POV I'd hate to be JK at this point...I hope she sticks to her first conclusion religiously! DD From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 12 08:50:08 2006 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (Sandra Collins) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:50:08 -0000 Subject: Character Driven or Plot Driven In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155244 Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: >Are the HP books considered to be plot driven or character driven? > Laura Sandra writes - Hi Laura, I would say that they're character driven, even though I don't feel as if I know the characters that well. We read of what they do as a result of events happening around them, but not enough in my view of what they're like when not responding to 'outside' stimulus. I know Hermione has compassionate moments of conscience (S.P.E.W) when she's not studying or doing H&R's homework for them, and Ron can land a tonsil-hockey girlfriend to pass the time and has a mild jealousy of Harry's wealth and attention, but beyond that I feel that even after all this time, they carry me from A to B with very few enlightening diversions in terms of personality along the way. I don't think I could say the books were being plot driven because after six volumes the WW is only slightly better off than in the first, in other words the same initial problem still exists which could, if JKR hadn't found a publisher happy to roll with seven volumes, could have been wrapped up in the first book. Harry has a problem with Voldermort and his deceased parents, everyone has potential problems with Voldermort, Snape still might be good or bad, Harry and Draco have the same issues now as back then, people in the WW always have short memories as to Harry's worth, and exam time may or may not be happening again. I'll be interested to see how it all gets wrapped up of course, but take away the overdrawn irrelevant side-tales like Quidditch from most of the books (Quidditch being the most successful literary padding device ever dreamed up in my view) and all the consequences in the last three which were simply due to Dumbledore saying "I can't tell you yet", and the six volumes become a whole lot thinner. So I feel they're character driven, because the characters have to make up for the simple, protracted story which is being made to last seven books. Hopefully that doesn't sound negative. That''s the problem with typing thoughts. Sandra (tired with some of the repeated subplots). From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Jul 12 09:36:22 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:36:22 -0000 Subject: IHHS, the I Hate Horcruxes Society (was Re: Harry Horcrux redux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155245 > > > So are we supposed to believe that Harry > > has the ability to a) locate and b) destroy these Horcruxes. No he > > does not. > > AmanitaMuscaria again: Agreed. I think this is where Harry's > friends come in - lots of different skills there. There's not > enough time, and it would also make a boring read, I think, to have > a series of - find Horcrux - nearly get killed - disarm Horcrux. > Brothergib: My thoughts - for what they are worth. Probably Hermione figures out that the locket is a Horcrux. Bill (the curse breaker) destroys the Horcrux (and maybe dies in the process). Harry probably fights and kills Nagini - with a lot of parseltongue insults being thrown around! Cup + ??? - Snape destroys but this will not be described in the book. I used to think that Snape would die in the end, but after JKR recently stated that 2 characters have been given a reprieve, I am starting to think Snape survives - after all, someone has to explain to Harry all that has gone before. And finally LV vs Harry. DD says that one must kill the other. But surely Harry isn't meant to kill anyone! He couldn't even 'Crucio' Bella after she had just killed Sirius, so how is he supposed to do an AK. Obviously he isn't! THe fact that Harry's blood now runs through Voldemort (the gleam!) is clearly important - I just can't think how! Brothergib From alimcj at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 04:16:34 2006 From: alimcj at yahoo.com (AliMcJ) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:16:34 -0000 Subject: Still asking about Mysterious Symbols on Pensieve In-Reply-To: <50b.b3730c.31c9be3e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155246 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MadameSSnape at ... wrote: > > > In a message dated 6/20/2006 2:13:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > alimcj at ... writes: > > > > Does anyone have any idea what the other symbols on the Pensieve could > be? > > Runes and astrological symbols are there and Harry would recognize > them; there are others that book (Goblet of Fire) says he does not > recognize. > > Greek? Hebrew? Aramaic magic or magical symbols as from Waite?? > > > > > ---------------- > Sherrie here: > > There are several magickal alphabets that are used for various purposes. > The Futhark runes are the best known, but there is also the Theban alphabet, > the Enochian, the Ogham, as well as various alchemical systems. The symbols > could be any of the above - they could even be Oriental scripts, elemental > symbols, pictographs... > > Sherrie > Thanks Sherrie for thinking about this. It is possible that it is another of the runic alphabets, although that would seem redundant. It also occurred to me that it could be Chinese Characters (used also as Kanji in Japanese), but it would seen that he would recognize them as "some sort of Chinese" even while not knowing what they mean; likewise Arabic. Somehow, it seems significant to me, and I am looking for some other reference to what they might be, that is, some other source that is perhaps offhandedly mentioned somewhere in one of the books. Right now, all I am getting is a pun on "It's Greek to me," but then he should be able to recognize Greek letters as Greek.... It's something I keep thinking and puzzling about. I suspect that they might be the crosses with circles on the ends as in Waite -- and these can step into the realm of dark arts. I'm puzzling over what symbols Harry must not have had any exposure to as far as what we know of him, his life, his education. Hebrew is about all I can think of -- and it is relevant to Cabalistic teachings, which have never been mentioned in the HP texts. alimcj From jenniferkchoi at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 05:49:30 2006 From: jenniferkchoi at gmail.com (Jennifer Choi) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:49:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607111814g1a94ca31qa0b5965aa76f8b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50607111407h46210868w189a8b5f61e65055@mail.gmail.com> <9d4afd760607111540m51a24774odc5beda2853acab9@mail.gmail.com> <7b9f25e50607111814g1a94ca31qa0b5965aa76f8b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9d4afd760607112249g2fdd1179se99ccd2b1f7e3e89@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155247 > Random832: > But he _can_ fight back - with his fists. What's so _unique_ about > magic in ths instance? Are you saying that when there is a bully, it's > categorically inappropriate to try to get back at them or escape them > in a way that they could not have done? If they're unintelligent, > you'd be doing something wrong by trying to outsmart them? Or if you > have some martial arts knowledge you can't use it in self defence > because your attacker doesn't have the same skills? I think this is a > case of "unfamiliarity breeds contempt" - magic is somehow in a class > by itself. jennathasania83: Respectfully, I think that we have strayed. My point was not that Dudley is incapable of defending himself in some way, but that by using magic the Twins *are* muggle baiting, and are thus being bullies - which by definition usually implies picking on someone who is weaker in some way. This does NOT negate that Dudley himself is a bully, *but* Dudley's being a bully doesn't make what the Twins are doing something other than muggle baiting. Although i'm pretty sure that no matter what I say, it won't change your mind. If the DEs beat Muggles up rather than using magic, it still would be wrong, but perhaps it would no longer be Muggle baiting. Anyways, the issue was whether or not the Twins were Muggle baiting, which I see as tormenting a Muggle in some way with magic. That is why magic is being treated as a special case. Random832: > And casting the former as the latter is moral relativism of the worst > kind. Using an analogy that comes just short of explicitly claiming > that the Dursleys' treatment of Harry was something that the twins > merely disapproved of is disingenuous at best. jennathasania83: Even if the Dursleys killed Harry it doesn't make it morally okay for the Twins to do whatever they want to Dudley (or the Dursleys), IMO. That just becomes revenge, in my mind similar to those endless cycles of violence in blood feuds. No one is saying that what Harry was subjected to isn't wrong. However, in my mind the Twins, and a lot of other people, are rather scary because it seems to me that they think that there is some absolute line after which one crosses anything is fair game; and for the twins it seems that this line lies with whether they approve of you in some way or not. Also, I think that someone made the point before that none of the Dursleys knew that Dudley wasn't going to die, in fact if I recall correctly the Twins themselves were in awe of the size to which Dudley's tongue swelled. I think that inspiring a lot of fear in a person *is* baiting, the extreme example of course is death - which as you pointed out did not happen - but just because no one died doesn't make it *not* baiting, or okay. My point was that: the Twins used magic, which Dudley can't do, to torment him in some fashion - and in my mind this is Muggle baiting. Perhaps my examples were too extreme as they were clearly jumped upon and my point passed up. What he or his family did is completely irrelevant, in my mind, to determining whether or not this is Muggle baiting. Cheers, Jenn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lauramahan at voyager.net Wed Jul 12 06:48:11 2006 From: Lauramahan at voyager.net (laurawkids) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:48:11 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155248 > Carol, wondering if the trickle of blood indicates that Dumbledore > died from the potion rather than from Snape's supposed AK > Laura w(ith)kids: I have been wondering if it is his blood at all. He seemed pretty interested in Slughorn's blood-spattered walls and what Slughorn had used to achieve that effect early on in HBP. Why would DD be interested in that? Would he soon have need? My 11yo daughter and I have a theory: Maybe DD is using a silly Muggle idea like a bullet-proof vest made of 7 layers of dragon hide provided by Charlie Weasley. DD was inspired by the statues in the MoM - physical barrier. They flew when they were AK'd. This could explain his blasting off the tower. Snape can still cast an AK. No convoluted spell casting theories needed. It would still hurt and put DD out of commission for a bit. Charlie, who could have played for England, hangs out in his invisibility cloak, catches DD on the fly(suspending him in the air as he catches him) then brings him down at a good speed to look right. He could even do that with a wand from a window given fast enough reflexes. DD recovers and has a tiny last chat, takes some sleeping draught, maybe improved by that inventive potions master to work for only a specific amount of time, and Charlie breaks a few bones - so easy to mend, just hard to grow back - "lays him out pretty", adds that little trickle of dragon blood, and there you have it. The locket could have fallen unnoticed, or DD sees it is wrong, but has no time for anything else, and makes sure it is out of his pocket. Later, Fawkes has 6 broken bones to heal, plus all the damage from the nasty green basin punch. Call us crazy. It's fun. I am also wondering if the following moment is a clue to a Harry! horcrux, because if you read it with that in mind, you can see how the horcrux has been thinking all night about not wanting attention drawn to itself: US pb GoF, p. 228 "Early next morning, Harry woke with a plan fully formed in his mind, as though his sleeping brain had been working on it all night. ...Dear Sirius, I reckon I just imagined my scar hurting... Don't worry about me, my head feels completely normal. Harry." If I were a horcrux!scar on the front of some popular kid who is trying to kill the other me I would not want undue attention. In fact, since this is my first post, I don't really want too much attention! ; ) I am enjoying all of your posts and can remember a time when my daughter's first reports of "These mean Dursley people are locking their adopted son, who is actually a wizard, in a closet under the stairs. He really hates them a lot!" made me put off reading any of the books until OotP came out, and then I read them all in a few weeks. And here I am now, a hopeless addict. Laura with kids - and 2 out of 4 of them adopted. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 12 10:15:45 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:15:45 -0000 Subject: Age of Majority In-Reply-To: <700201d40607112352j2f56cfa9v26ada34f5dfe8f1e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155249 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: Carol: > > > So, yes, it's all arbitrary, in RL or the WW. But why did JKR choose > > > 17 instead of 18 as the age of majority in the WW? I think it's > > > because she gave Harry her own birthday (conveniently making him a > > > single age throughout each school year, 11 in year 1, 12 in year 2 and > > > so on). Even though there's apparently not going to be a year 7 at > > > Hogwarts (unless JKR is messing with our expectations, which I > > > wouldn't put past her), Harry will still be 17 for most of Book 7. Geoff: > > If I might be infuriatingly, nastily and pedantically pedantic, the cut-off > > date for admission to a specific school year in the UK is 31st August, so > > he isn't a single age throughout each school year, so there. > > :-) > Kemper: > Geoff, you weren't nasty or pedantic, but you were infuriatingly unclear. > > Are you saying that Harry wasn't the same whole-number age from the > ever-Monday September 1 to June 30 of each year he's attended > Hogwarts? > > I don't get it. American it down for me. Please. > :-D > > Kemper, agreeing with Carol that Harry is 11 throughout the SCHOOL > year of PS and that he'll be 17 throughout the SCHOOL year in the > upcoming book whether he's actually in school or not. Geoff: I am about to go off on holiday for 12 days and will have no access to the group during that time so I felt a wicked need to stir things a bit. :-) The UK position is that the school year in administrative and legal terms runs from 1st September in obne year to 31st August the next. So, technically, Harry was 11 for most of his First Year at Hogwarts but that year ran until 31/08/92 so he became 12 while still in his First Year, though of course 31st July fell within the school holidays. And that pattern can be extrapolated into his remaining years in the school except for years where a pupil might leave - after the Fifth Year (if not continuing into the Sixth) or Upper Sixth - when they leave at the end of their last examinations and cease to be on the school roll. Putting it in slightly more modern terms, Harry would be at Hogwarts from Year 7 to Year 11 (OWLs year) and then in the Sixth Form. Hogwarts was a little behind the times in 1991 in still referring to First Year etc. England and Wales generally went over to all-through year numbering in the late 1980s/early 1990s. From random832 at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 11:17:35 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:17:35 -0400 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <9d4afd760607112249g2fdd1179se99ccd2b1f7e3e89@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50607111407h46210868w189a8b5f61e65055@mail.gmail.com> <9d4afd760607111540m51a24774odc5beda2853acab9@mail.gmail.com> <7b9f25e50607111814g1a94ca31qa0b5965aa76f8b0@mail.gmail.com> <9d4afd760607112249g2fdd1179se99ccd2b1f7e3e89@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607120417i17f075feu3e8a1bbd2a0edff1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155250 > jennathasania83: > Respectfully, I think that we have strayed. My point was not that Dudley is > incapable of defending himself in some way, but that by using magic the > Twins *are* muggle baiting, and are thus being bullies - which by definition > usually implies picking on someone who is weaker in some way. Random832: The term "picking on someone" generally isn't applied to 'revenge' against a bully, and I don't see how this is any different, other than the bare fact that magic is used. > This does NOT > negate that Dudley himself is a bully, *but* Dudley's being a bully doesn't > make what the Twins are doing something other than muggle baiting. I think it does - if someone defends himself against a bully with martial arts, is that "non-martial-artist baiting"? > Although > i'm pretty sure that no matter what I say, it won't change your mind. If the > DEs beat Muggles up rather than using magic, it still would be wrong, but > perhaps it would no longer be Muggle baiting. Anyways, the issue was > whether > or not the Twins were Muggle baiting, which I see as tormenting a Muggle in > some way with magic. "tormenting" is the element that I think does not apply here. > That is why magic is being treated as a special case. > > > > Random832: > > And casting the former as the latter is moral relativism of the worst > > kind. Using an analogy that comes just short of explicitly claiming > > that the Dursleys' treatment of Harry was something that the twins > > merely disapproved of is disingenuous at best. > > > > jennathasania83: > Even if the Dursleys killed Harry it doesn't make it morally okay for the > Twins to do whatever they want to Dudley (or the Dursleys), IMO. That just > becomes revenge, in my mind similar to those endless cycles of violence in > blood feuds. No one is saying that what Harry was subjected to isn't wrong. > However, in my mind the Twins, and a lot of other people, are rather scary > because it seems to me that they think that there is some absolute line > after which one crosses anything is fair game; and for the twins it seems > that this line lies with whether they approve of you in some way or not. > > Also, I think that someone made the point before that none of the Dursleys > knew that Dudley wasn't going to die, in fact if I recall correctly the > Twins themselves were in awe of the size to which Dudley's tongue swelled. Which clearly disproves intent, at least to some degree. And anyway, my point here was not only A) no-one died but also B) no-one tried to kill anyone. There's no such crime as attempted involuntary homicide. > I > think that inspiring a lot of fear in a person *is* baiting, the extreme > example of course is death - which as you pointed out did not happen - but > just because no one died doesn't make it *not* baiting, or okay. My point > was that: the Twins used magic, which Dudley can't do, to torment him in > some fashion - and in my mind this is Muggle baiting. Perhaps my examples > were too extreme as they were clearly jumped upon and my point passed up. > What he or his family did is completely irrelevant, in my mind, to > determining whether or not this is Muggle baiting. Endorsing the use of a term like "muggle baiting" at all for something like this requires the implicit assumption that magic is somehow "unique". Random832 From mros at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 12 08:18:32 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:18:32 +0200 Subject: Values of Potterverse WAS: Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture References: Message-ID: <001d01c6a58b$c39cace0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155251 Alla: >>And then yes, breaking the rules ( especially if they are done for noble purposes, but even if it is not IMO), lying, cheating on homework, etc, IMO is not considered a big deal. I mean it is on the case by case basis, but yes I'd say that those who are virtuous ( it is of course just my interpretation of JKR intent, nothing more), especially courageous for "noble purposes" are allowed to get away with more in Potterverse than those who are not.<<< Marion: Lying, cheating on homework and sneaking of (under the guise of a Invisibility Cloak) to Hogsmead to buy chocolate frogs is permissable when you're 'fighting Dark Lords' (though how cheating on your homework or eating chocolate frogs helps you fighting Dark Lords beats me) Rules are there for everybody, but they may be broken by someone with 'noble purposes'. All wizards are equal, but some are more equal than others. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 07:37:13 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:37:13 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155252 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > > houyhnhnm: > > Right values such as lying, getting drunk, stealing, > disrespecting parents, breaking rules just for the fun > of it, cheating on homework, hexing people because they exist? > Or right values such as abusing your students because hey, you're on the good side and they need to learn some life lessons, anyway? Or standing by and ignoring said abuse because you're the epitome of goodness and have the right to determine who suffers for their own good and the good of your plan? As Alla rightly said, this cuts every which way, even to people whose names start wiwith "S" end in "E" and have "NAP" in the middle, or whose names bring to mind white bumblebees. Regardless of how you come at it, this gets at one of the fundamental questions of ethics, indeed THE fundamental question: Are good and evil ultimately arbitrary definitions or is there some consistent and explicable principle underlying such determinations? Of course, what REALLY gets the whole thing complicated is that if you believe there is an underlying principle, then the question is whether THAT principle is arbitrary or in some way defensible by something other than authoritative pronouncement. Personally, I think that in practical terms, questions of ethics almost always come down to questions of authority. That is, they don't so much involve what's right and what's wrong as they involve who has the authority to set those definitions. Even an appeal to utilitarianism begs the question of why a given person in a given situation should care about the greatest good for the greatest number. In terms of the Potterverse, I doubt there will be a consistent theme or underlying principle that can be shown to run through every case. Often it probably will come down to some arbitrary definition, which may not be particularly consistent from case to case. Is muggle baiting bad? We may get the answer (probably tacitly) that yes, it is, except for Dudley and the twins, which is a situation of naughtiness but not really badness. Why? Well, Dudley had it coming. Why does that differ from DEs? Because I say so. Will JKR be in the right if she does that? Don't know, muggle baiting isn't my issue, but people will certainly take firm stands on it. Although, on the other side, I doubt we'll get quite such a cynical answer as David Eddings once (very amusingly) put in the mouth of his sorceror Belgarath: "Good and Evil? I prefer us against them. It keeps the sides straight and doesn't keep us up all night arguing metaphysics." Lupinlore From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 12 06:52:29 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:52:29 -0000 Subject: Who will be in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155253 "Hagrid" wrote: > We have seen many characters from the wizarding world come and go. > Who will return in Book 7? Especially, those that are not expected? > > Crabbe and Goyle have been in every book, so I don't mean people > like that. > > With Fleur's wedding, Mdm. Maxime and Gabriel Delacor may come > back and not do anything special - so they are expected with no > exciting twist to the story line there. Okay, so being creative, how about Professor Quirell, Sirius, Mrs. Lovegood & Dumbledore come back through the veil? (Here I am using the theory that Snape blasted Dumbledore off the tower with a weak and unmeant AK, letting him die from the fall.) My stretch of the imagination theory has people who died untimely any other way than with AK can come back through the veil in the DoM if they are released and Dumbledore passed this info to Snape. (Playing devil's advocate for some good debate ; ) so please argue with this one!) Tinktonks From random832 at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 12:10:34 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:10:34 -0400 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607120510v1f5fdb59v1df4db18a904a0db@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155254 Lupinlore: > In terms of the Potterverse, I doubt there will be a consistent theme > or underlying principle that can be shown to run through every case. > Often it probably will come down to some arbitrary definition, which > may not be particularly consistent from case to case. Is muggle > baiting bad? We may get the answer (probably tacitly) that yes, it is, > except for Dudley and the twins, which is a situation of naughtiness > but not really badness. Why? Well, Dudley had it coming. Why does > that differ from DEs? Because I say so. Will JKR be in the right if > she does that? Don't know, muggle baiting isn't my issue, but people > will certainly take firm stands on it. I think that it's not clear that the definition given for "muggle baiting" even applies to this situation - I see "muggle baiting" as doing such things for personal amusement, rather than retaliation for some real or imagined wrong. I think it's also implied that "muggle baiting" is really meant to refer to doing such things to a muggle with no knowledge of magic (who therefore wouldn't have any idea what was going on). Is what the twins did wrong? Maybe. Is it muggle baiting? Not by any definition we're given. random832. From distaiyi at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 13:05:59 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:05:59 -0000 Subject: Jets of green light (Was: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155255 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > Pippin wrote: > > As you say, there are all sorts of other things JKR uses to show > that Dumbledore considers Harry more important and don't set up a > Chekhov's gun. Mentioning the possibility of such an order creates the > expectation that it will be given. The order wasn't given to Harry, > and the only other person under his command that Dumbledore spoke to > before he died was Snape. > > Carol: > "Chekhov's gun? Is that the same as "smoking gun"? I've never heard > the expression. (I agree with you that the order almost certainly > relates to Snape for the reasons you stated and because such an order > would go a long way toward clearing up events on the tower.) Hope this helps... : A Chekhov's Gun is a Literary technique in which a fictional element (object, character, place, etc.) is introduced early and in which the author expects the reader to invest. That investment must 'pay off' later in the story even if the element disappears offstage for a long interval. From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Jul 12 12:06:29 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:06:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Look of Triumph re: WHERE Harry was cut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155256 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rachaelmcadams" wrote: > ...snip... > I > didn't think anyone had discussed the place of the cut as having any > importance, but Dumbledore does feel the need to inspect it. > > Any theories here? Eddie: I had assumed Dumbledore was interested in seeing it not because of the placement of the cut, but because the _LOOK_ of the wound would be revealing: size, shape, color, etc. Not helpful, I know. From mros at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 12 07:39:07 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:39:07 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Values of Potterverse WAS: Re: muggle baiting vs/Being good and evil References: Message-ID: <001101c6a586$4231d2c0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155257 houyhnhnm: > > I have often wondered what would have been the attitude > > of Peter, James, and Sirius toward Lupin had they > > surprised his secret and had he *not* been a member > > of their House. Would they have been friends with > > him then or would they have persecuted him? Alla: > LOL. The canon is that they **were** friends with the "dark > creature"". Any canon support for your assumption that they would > have persecuted him? Marion: Well, they persecuted Snape, who wasn't a Dark Creature but, like Sirius said "a little oddball up to the eyeballs in Dark Arts". Snape was a Dark Arts geek. He made his own hexes (growing toenails into claws, etc.). He sounds rather harmless, actually. At least Snape didn't turn into a raging monster once a month. But he was ugly, scrawny and *in the wrong house*! Sirius' excuse for the Marauders' persecution of Young Snape is that "James hated the Dark Arts", but in the pensieve scene we see that his excuse is "that he exists". If the Marauders' excuse for persecution of a fellow student is so flimsy ("he is an ugly Slytherin", "he is interested in the Dark Arts", "he is an oddball" and "he exists") I could easily see them excuse their persecution of a Slytherin student because he "was a Dark Creature". Besides, if, according to you, it is proof of one's nobleness to befriend a Dark Creature, then Voldemort must be very noble indeed. Voldie is friends (or at least allies) with Fenrir Greyback and other werewolves. He's got Dementors as his allies. And let's face it, Voldemort does offer Dark Creatures civil rights and that's more than the Ministry does. Indeed, the Ministry wants to regulate and control Dark Creatures (think of Umbridge). Of course, civil rights for werewolves mean they get carte blanche hunting and eating muggles, but hey! Details! Hmm... Maybe there's a reason Dark Creatures are called Dark Creatures? Maybe the Marauders were incredibly irresponsible and stupid when roaming around the countryside with a loose werewolf? Maybe they were incredibly *lucky* nobody ever got killed or injured (or turned)? But that's another discussion entirely. Point is: if the Marauders persecuted Snape for being a geeky Slytherin dark arts geek (and thus in their eyes a potential Dark Wizard) then it would be only to easy for them to persecute and point fingers at him crying "Dark Creature! Dark Creature!" if Snape were a werewolf instead of Lupin. It's all part and parcel of that lovely Gryffindor attitude you praised in another post, Alla. They don't see it's wrong to lie, cheat and break rules when it's done by someone who is 'noble' and 'against the Dark Lord'. They automatically slot Gryffindors into the 'noble' side (because Gryffindors are *courageous*, right?) and Slytherin in the 'supports Dark Arts and supports Dark Lord' side ("there wasn't a Dark Wizard who was not from that House", Hagrid, a Gryffindor, tells Harry in PS/SS). According to this worldview, it would be terribly noble of them to befriend a Dark Creature but at the same time it would also be very noble of them to persecute the same Dark Creature if he were Slytherin, because Slytherin is the Dark Arts House and if you want to be noble you have to be against the Dark Arts and therefor against Slytherins and therefore against Slytherin werewolves. Marion From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 13:52:21 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:52:21 -0000 Subject: Priori Incantatem and the misplaced spell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" wrote: > > I was re-reading GOF in the midst of the Harry as horcrux discussion > and I wonder where is the spell that should be between Bertha Jorkins > and Lily Potter. Shouldn't Voldemort have come out of that wand since > he killed himself accidentally. Is this an oversight by JKR or was > another wand used? It also occurs to me that in Book 7 Voldemort is > going to choose someone else to kill Harry, either Wormtail or Snape, > to avoid the reoccurance of priori incantatem. IMO, each of them has > some kind of karmic debt to Harry. Snapes's is unknown at this point. > Any ideas why this misplaced spell did not show up while they were > encased in the golden web? Bridge13219: I remember in that scene LV wand was producing/echoing screams as well as the shadows of the people he killed. Maybe one of those screams was him when the AK rebounded on himself (in addition to all the Crusios he had done). Just a thought. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 12 14:34:43 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:34:43 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155259 > Neri: > Maybe, maybe not. It's an assumption anyway. But what I still fail to > understand is how is Snape any better morally if he "just" blasted a > helpless man of the highest tower in Hogwarts and left him to die a > long and painful death, running away when he was the only person who > still had a chance to save him. > Pippin: It's an assumption that Snape had a chance to save him. Dumbledore never says he wants Snape because Snape could save him. It's not an assumption that Dumbledore had something very important to ask of Snape, but we don't know what it was. > Neri: > If AK indeed never blasts the victim, then the DEs on the tower would > know that (who'd know it better than somebody who uses AK on people > all the time?). So they'd know that Snape's green light on the tower > wasn't really an AK. Pippin: Most wizards haven't an ounce of logic. I doubt those four had a nanogram between them. Carol (thanks!) has given an exhaustive catalog of green light effects. Snape needed only to say the words "Avada Kedavra" out loud with no intent, then immediately and nonverbally do another spell which produced the green light and propelled Dumbledore from the tower. As Hermione says, the great advantage of nonverbals is that no one can tell what spell you are about to use. Neri: > If Dumbledore landed softly, then why is he described as "broken" > with arms and legs spread wide in unnatural angles? Pippin: Convulsions are one of the symptoms of severe poisoning and can be strong enough to break bones. But see below. > Neri: > I still don't understand how Dumbledore arrested his own fall without > his wand. Pippin: With your permission, I'll assume Dumbledore is *not* a flying Animagus, because that would make it too easy. But you don't need a wand to call your Elf (HBP ch 19) Dobby can do a hover charm (CoS ch 2), and he is proud to keep Dumbledore's secrets (GoF ch 21). He could have stayed with Dumbledore and arranged the body if necessary. That would mean there is someone to tell Harry the tale when the time comes, which would be handy for JKR. > > Neri: > Then why did he leave it on the ground for anybody to pick up? Pippin: Notes aren't Voldemort's style. If Dumbledore saw there was a note inside the locket, he'd know Voldemort wasn't the one who had set the trap. Not good news for DD, since his deduction that the green goo would not be lethal was based on his knowledge of Voldemort's psychology. DD left the locket and note for *Harry* to find. No one who wasn't looking for the locket would be likely to notice it in the dark. Harry was the only person who knew it was there. > Neri: > Harry is already convinced that Snape killed Dumbledore, so it won't > be much of a shoe drop that Snape took a UV to do it. > > I agree that JKR still has to explain Snape's motives in taking the > UV, but she doesn't have to explain its mechanism, unless it's > relevant to Snape's motive. If it's not relevant then her explanation > so far would be sufficient. > Pippin: Harry is right now convinced that Snape is evil. However, as JKR says, if that assumption is not questionable there's not much point in Book Seven. Harry is going to have to rethink somewhere, and knowledge of the third clause is going to be a heavy weight on the scales. It's not the mechanism of the vow that needs to be considered, IMO, it's the logic. As Mike points out there is no time constraint on Draco's task. Since Snape's task is dependent on Draco's, it has no time constraint either, except the one implied by Narcissa's concern that Draco and his family not suffer for his failure. If that's not going to happen, Snape need not fear the vow. Pippin From triinum at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 13:35:21 2006 From: triinum at yahoo.com (triinum) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:35:21 -0000 Subject: Values of Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155260 > Alla: > > Sure, WW needs to be more tolerant, I guess where we differ is that > I consider "pureblood superiority" to be the worst one, if for no > other reason that only Voldemort supporters want "muglleborns" to > die. Triin: Just for correction, I don't think they want mudbloods to die, they just want them to keep "properly" humble and obedient and accept their place as inferiors, just like elves and gnomes. The nobles *need* the commons for contrast. Where the muggleborn-tolerant wizards differ is that they want all wizards, regardless of their birth, rule together over elves and gnomes. I guess that's more tolerant allright, but not *much* more. > Every other form of prejudice except prejudice to non-human races > seems to be not so life-threatening to me. > Bad, don't get me wrong, but not life threatening. Triin: Hmmm, forcing giants out of their natural habitats and lifestyle is threatening the whole species: they are literally killing each other off. Life-threatening then? > And I absolutely think that *good guys" whom we see close and > personal are much more tolerant ( I mean members of the Order) than > other side, I think they are used as an example, sort of. Triin: Yes, mostly. But certainly not Sirius, even if he's portrayed as an "example good guy" with some cute little flaws. Intolerance is simply a cute little flaw of his. [I like Sirius, and I think he shares his type of intolerance with Snape, whom I like even more. They both are utterly intolerant to the human categories that they don't like.] > Alla: > > to me standing to Voldemort means > standing up against the values he wants to implement. > > And when he will be defeated , hopefully WW will at least start to > move towards more tolerance, kindness, etc. Triin: Ah, this is where I disagree. I'd say, the corruption and intolerance was there *before* Tom Riddle came to stage, and that he *used* it to his benefit. I think the intolerant atmosphere of the WW facilitates Dark Lord overtakings. And then, of course, the Dark Lord makes it worse. When did wizards sign a contract with the soul-sucking demons, by the way, does anybody know? Since when have the goblins been a lower race? When were the house elves enslaved? Long before Tom was ever born, I imagine. And the mistreatment of other magical species seems to be as old as the invention of the wand and the development of effective magical technologies by old day wizards. The thing is, wizards are just human. In humans, populations go through periods of higher and lower tolerance. And there's a pattern to it, I think. Perhaps tolerance is something that can be *afforded* at some times, like the times of peace and plenty, and not at other times, when everybody is out for themselves, for there's not enough ice cream for everybody. Maybe the bad political situation of the WW has something to do with their frantic hiding for 300(?) years. There will always be a constant threat out there; they are like a country condemned to be at war for ever. And a longlasting war does no good to the political fairness or the overall tolerance of people. Or this is what I'd suggest. In any case, the guys with white hats seem very little better than the black-hatted ones in HP. And that's nicely realistic, for they are all humans; after all, in real life, not all members of a criminal grouping are utterly evil, and not all police workers are saints. I don't think that too many of Tom's allys *like* doing terrible things to people, but they *can't get out* of the grouping, and end up doing them anyway. Ending up with a black hat is very much a matter of circumstances (what your parents tell you, your social position and economical situation, etc). For example, take a man with 3 children, who wouldn't do stray jobs for some illegal business for 50 galleons a week. The same man, having 5 kids, is much more likely to do it. Therefore, you can easily get a picture where a white-hatted man is more evil than a black-hatted one, but still has a whiter hat because he has less kids to feed, or because he got better advice from his own parents. Triin, trying to be tolerant to people with different hats :-P From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 12 11:23:33 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:23:33 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155261 Carol, wondering if the trickle of blood indicates that Dumbledore died from the potion rather than from Snape's supposed AK Laura w(ith)kids: I have been wondering if it is his blood at all. He seemed pretty interested in Slughorn's blood-spattered walls and what Slughorn had used to achieve that I very much like your Dumbledore faking death theory. Possibly because I am hugely biased and love Dumbledore's character so much I threw HBP across the room when at the end he still appeared to be dead (I REGRETED THIS AFTERWARD!!!) I must say that him being put in a mausoleum rather than burried or cremated does seem to leave your theory possible too. Particularly when cremation (or a funeral pyre type doodad) would have fitted very well with the Phoenix symbology and theories! I like the idea of a sleeping potion too(possibly even the draught of living death which was metioned to us in the first book-very JKR to give tantalising hints that we should have noticed but it doesnt seem relevant to anything), even the AK block seems quite possible (if Snape knew where to aim the curse) but I'm not sure how this would fit in with the UV. I'd love to hear your theories on how the UV is either fulfilled or not in play yet because I'd truely love to believe Dumbledore is still alive and well!!! Tinktonks From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jul 12 15:28:10 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:28:10 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607111407h46210868w189a8b5f61e65055@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155262 > Random832: > Do you think that it's somehow uniquely "not ok" to use magic even > where it would be "ok" to, say, punch him in the face? I don't really > follow your logic here. > > You also seem to be introducing a certain moral relativism by saying > "if they disapproved of something I did" rather than "if I did > something wrong" - is that your intention? By reducing it to that, > you're basically saying that their reasons wouldn't matter, no matter > what your actual offense was. Magpie: I used that term because they might disapprove of something I did that was not wrong (something the Twins have done in the past plenty of times)--moral relativism isn't the issue, imo, abuse of power. I wouldn't trust any Wizard knowing that he would happily take advantage of his greater power over me any more than I'd trust a man who considered it okay to hit me if I did something wrong. Random832: But he _can_ fight back - with his fists. What's so _unique_ about magic in ths instance? Magpie: That it's magic? That Dudley's body is mutating and he's terrified and doesn't know why? They know perfectly well their advantage over him is insurmountable. The ability to do Magic is what defines a Wizard as different from a Muggle. I can't pretend it's not a decisive advantage. The Twins don't pretend it. When dealing with a more pleasant Muggle they use Magic to impress, with an unpleasant one for other reasons. Random: Are you saying that when there is a bully, it's categorically inappropriate to try to get back at them or escape them in a way that they could not have done? Magpie: She's saying, imo, that when one has a great deal of power over another person you can choose to abuse it or not. This does not mean one has to just lie down and take it when one is being bullied. Random: If they're unintelligent, you'd be doing something wrong by trying to outsmart them? Or if you have some martial arts knowledge you can't use it in self defence because your attacker doesn't have the same skills? Magpie: Why are we now talking about self-defense? A martial arts master subduing a person trying to attack him is totally different from a martial arts master who reserves the right to deal out roundhouse kicks to people he thinks deserve it or anyone who's done something wrong. Random: I think this is a case of "unfamiliarity breeds contempt" - magic is somehow in a class by itself. Magpie: Of course magic is in a class by itelf. It's magic. Easily abused for fun, and making Muggle completely helpless with a flick of a wand. And even if it isn't unique, it's still a huge advantage one person has, that can be used responsibly or not. Random832: And casting the former as the latter is moral relativism of the worst kind. Using an analogy that comes just short of explicitly claiming that the Dursleys' treatment of Harry was something that the twins merely disapproved of is disingenuous at best. Magpie: I didn't claim the Dursleys treatment of Harry was something the twins merely disapproved of at all. I believe I've said any number of times the Dursley's treatment of Harry is wrong. Casting the latter as the former isn't great either, but that's not what we're talking about. Random832 Moral relativism is the claim that there are no things that are wrong, only things that are disapproved of. I think that was, conscious or otherwise, one of the core assumptions of her argument. Magpie: No, that was not the core assumption of my argument either consciously or unconsciously. My problems lie in things beyond Harry's treatment at the Dursleys, which is wrong. Once you see that something is wrong (acknowledging, as one must especially on this list, that two people can have genuinely different ideas about what is wrong, though Harry's treatment at the Dursleys doesn't seem to be one of them), there is still the question of how to handle it. Prisons are full of people who acted out against people who did wrong. Random832: Nobody was attempting murder here. and it'd be less strange, though perhaps almost as bad, to say that "they deserved to die" because of some prior action they had done that prompted you to leave the candies out for them - your analogy was pretty distorted, you have to admit. But the point is nobody tried to kill anyone, and condemning the use of magic _at all_ is a problem. Magpie: There are people in the world who have fewer physical abilities than I do, and I've never found it was that much of a problem not to abuse this. If I know someone who is blind, for instance, it's not like I feel the need to shut my eyes because it's rude to see when I'm around them. There would be times when my sight might give me more power that I used in a situation. But I don't think it would be okay to think that if the blind person did something of which I disapproved, or annoyed me, or did something wrong, it would then become just fine for me to sneak into their house and move all the furniture around, or start throwing things in front of them because I can see them and they can't and they'll bump into them because they're blind. If the blind person was trying to kill me and I was protecting myself, sure, that's self-defensive and self-protection--I'd do whatever I had to to stay alive. Just as a Wizard could use Magic to protect himself if in danger from a Muggle. In other circumstances I don't see why I couldn't deal with the disapproval or the thing the person did wrong without going for the disability. Similarly Snape crosses the line between just having more power than Harry and using it responsibly, to abusing it. Alla: Okay, I guess I have to second the question then - is the main objection to use of magic as means for punishment, not to the punishment itself? Magpie: Yes. That's what Muggle-baiting is. Alla: Um, of course Dudley will disapprove of his punishment, but as long as I agree with the author that what Dudley did is wrong, I could care less, really. If there are no objections to the fact that Dudley should be punished, does it really matter whether he is punished with magic or not? Magpie: Because as a Muggle when I see Dudley punished with Magic I can't help but see more than just a couple of 16-year-olds punishing a 14-year- old. It speaks to an entire attitude towards Muggles. Just as as a woman I'm not going to think it's great watching a man beat up his wife even if I agree she did something wrong. Alla: I mean, if the problem is that he cannot fight back, that is exactly what Harry could not do for ten years at least, when he had no clue that he is a wizard? Magpie: I thought Dudley doing it was wrong too--that's the sad cycle we seem to get into. Dudley meeting a bigger bully does seem like a sort of karmic retribution, but there's always a bigger bully down the line. Alla: As to what was noble purpose of Marauders (poorly executed of course) - that is very easy - to relieve the sufferings their friend was going through on the monthly basis. Magpie: And to have fun. They're not dong charitywork with Remus. Sirius even says something about wishing it was the full moon so they could go running around. They are good friends, but friends like normal boys, having fun. Laura Lynn Walsh: > Are the HP books considered to be plot driven or > character driven? ' Magpie: Plot driven, though of course characters are use to drive the plot a lot. Jordan: Is what the twins did wrong? Maybe. Is it muggle baiting? Not by any definition we're given. Magpie: It is Muggle-baiting according to Arthur Weasley's definition! -m (who sometimes fantasizes about Muggle scientists studying and cracking the secret to Magic and giving it to us--Muggles rock!) From Lauramahan at voyager.net Wed Jul 12 15:24:20 2006 From: Lauramahan at voyager.net (laurawkids) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:24:20 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155263 > Tinktonks > I'd love to hear your theories on how the UV is either fulfilled or > not in play yet because I'd truely love to believe Dumbledore is > still alive and well!!! > > I'm just thinking that as long as someone **other than Draco** does not kill DD, then Snape is still in the *process* of helping Draco kill DD. There was no time frame in the UV, right? Although Voldy might have given Draco a DEADline to do it. If Voldy said "Aim a good hard AK at him" then Snape would be off. I guess we need to know exactly what Voldy told Draco to do, for us to know how the UV goes, no? We need to know the exact mission wording that Snape has agreed to do for Draco if he failed. Maybe Snape does some window reflection legilimency (sp?) to Narcissa (maybe consentual) and knows he's got an out, even if we don't. Oh, and Snape's look on the tower has to do with how he knows how beat up DD will be, since he would have kept having to doctor DD up after their practice sessions in the forest. Maybe it is the spread of the AK off the chest that breaks the bones. Snape knows he will be left untreated this time, and feels all this might actually *kill* the old man! Redhen, whose ideas I love, mentions that Snape wipes out all spells during the dueling club practice. Possibly he could do the same on the tower to release Harry. DD had enough to worry about. You see, I have little kids who love Harry, and I need DD to be pulling a fake, and Snape, the most intelligent, to survive to see the end of Voldy, and turn out to be a jerky, petty, but good man. And as a Christian, I even will go so far as to say that not one human on earth is so bad that he cannot be redeemed - even Voldimort. Ebenezer Scrooge would be soooo proud of him! (Although, a deathbed conversion to goodness would be better than having him live and be tempted to get very evil again.) Just my very odd bunch of opinions : ) Laura From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 16:32:34 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:32:34 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155265 Alla: > Um, of course Dudley will disapprove of his punishment, but as long > as I agree with the author that what Dudley did is wrong, I could > care less, really. > > If there are no objections to the fact that Dudley should be > punished, does it really matter whether he is punished with magic or > not? > > Magpie: > Because as a Muggle when I see Dudley punished with Magic I can't help > but see more than just a couple of 16-year-olds punishing a 14-year- > old. It speaks to an entire attitude towards Muggles. Just as as a > woman I'm not going to think it's great watching a man beat up his > wife even if I agree she did something wrong. Alla: Well, see to me it does not. It speaks to me that twins do not tolerate one Muggle boy, who bullied their friend for who knows how many years, that is all. I guess, I don't see the reason to draw generalization here. IMO of course. > Alla: > As to what was noble purpose of Marauders (poorly executed of > course) - that is very easy - to relieve the sufferings their friend > was going through on the monthly basis. > > Magpie: > And to have fun. They're not dong charity work with Remus. Sirius even > says something about wishing it was the full moon so they could go > running around. They are good friends, but friends like normal boys, > having fun. Alla: Charity ? no, helping their friend yes, IMO they absolutely do. They went through very dangerous lessons of Animagus transformation on their own, risking to get hurt to help their friend. Did it lead to fun too? Sure and to danger to the villagers too ( thus ? poorly executed), nevertheless at least **one** of the purpose IMO was very noble. > Jordan: > Is what the twins did wrong? Maybe. Is it muggle baiting? Not by any > definition we're given. > > Magpie: > It is Muggle-baiting according to Arthur Weasley's definition! Alla: I think we got to the bottom of the difference and this is again the difference of the definitions. *If** in WW the acceptable definition of muggle baiting is just to do something to Muggle no matter what the reason is, then sure ? it **is** muggle baiting. If on the other hand the acceptable "legal" definition is what Jordan gave earlier and that is "I see "muggle baiting" as doing such things for personal amusement, rather than retaliation for some real or imagined wrong.", then what twins did does not lie close to muggle baiting." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155254 Arthur is a very moral man, I love him, but I would not be surprised if he reacted by taking a high road, not because this is what muggle baiting is , but because he does not want his sons to do that to any muggle. Is it a good reaction? Sure it is, but somebody has to punish bad guys IMO and if Twins after doing it will have to suffer Arthur's displeasure, I am fine with it. Edited to add: I just realized that we may sort of have some support that what twins did is not muggle baiting. Didn't JKR say in Wombat test that "muggle baiting" definition needs to be less stringent as one of the test answers? I think I wondered about it as the opposite, but now I am thinking that if it needs to be less stringent that means that very few things are accepted to be muggle baiting. IMO I doubt that giving those candies is among those definitions. > -m (who sometimes fantasizes about Muggle scientists studying and > cracking the secret to Magic and giving it to us--Muggles rock!) > Alla: Hehe. JMO, Alla From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Jul 12 16:51:58 2006 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:51:58 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Character Driven or Plot Driven In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155266 >Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: >>Are the HP books considered to be plot driven or character >driven? > Laura > >Sandra writes - > >Hi Laura, >I would say that they're character driven, even though I don't feel >as if I know the characters that well. We read of what they do as a >result of events happening around them, but not enough in my >view of what they're like when not responding to 'outside' >stimulus. I have thought so, too, but when I asked the same question of a few people who are teachers of English or otherwise knowledgeable about literature, they answered emphatically and without hesitation - plot driven! I was curious to know if people who are more involved with the books would see them more as character driven, because that is what they spend a lot of time doing - analyzing character. People who have only read them once or who have only seen the movies might consider them to be more plot driven. The movies certainly were plot driven. In fact, that is what I really dislike about the movies - they sacrifice nearly all of the character development to concentrate on plot only. However, I know this forum is not to discuss the movies. >I know Hermione has compassionate moments of >conscience (S.P.E.W) when she's not studying or doing H&R's >homework for them, and Ron can land a tonsil-hockey girlfriend >to pass the time and has a mild jealousy of Harry's wealth and >attention, but beyond that I feel that even after all this time, they >carry me from A to B with very few enlightening diversions in >terms of personality along the way. I guess I feel we know a lot more about each character than this. Just in the first book, we know a lot about Hermione, for instance. She is driven to excel and to learn. For her, it is as important as breathing. She also feels acutely that she is different, especially before Harry and Ron become her friends. We know that fear sometimes paralyzes her (troll and devil's snare incidents). >So I feel they're character driven, because the characters have to >make up for the simple, protracted story which is being made to >last seven books. I agree with you. I think the important thing is to look at the characters and to understand their motives, their feelings, and their actions. It seems to me that the plot is there just to expose different facets of their characters, which would make the books, in my mind character driven. But I can also see that people who have not immersed themselves in analyzing the characters might view the plots of each book to be more important. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 12 15:29:49 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:29:49 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155267 I'm sorry if this subject has already been mulled over more than Rosmerta's mead (Do excuse my terrible joke!) but it is something that has been bugging me and I would appreciate it if anyone with an answer could help me out. How does Voldemort get his wand back? When the reverse AK happens at Godric's Hollow he is torn from his body, and by his own admission nobody comes to his aid. In which case he would have been unable to collect his wand. He then fled to albania where he was unable to possess anything capable of holding a wand until Quirell comes along. At this stage approximately 8 or 9 years must have passed. It seems highly unlikely that Dumbledore would not have searched Godric's Hollow in the time between these events if there were any chance of Voldemort's wand being there. Does anyone have any idea then, how Voldemort managed to come by his wand while in an Etheral state? Tinktonks From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 16:30:47 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:30:47 -0000 Subject: The Shrieking Shack and the Tower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155268 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > > > "Hagrid" wrote: > > > > >#16. Hagrid's pets attacked around the same time (Buckbeak and Fang) > > > > > Steven1965aaa: > > > > Great additions, except that Buckbeak did not attack in POA, that was only in the movie. Buckbeak did attack Snape in HBP, Flight of the Prince > > > aussie: > Sorry for the confussion. I meant that Hagrid's pets were being > attacked ... the trio thought they just witnessed Buckbeak's execution in POA before entering Shack. After tower, Fang was in hut set alightby escaping DEs > Steven1965aaa now: Gotcha. You're right. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 17:17:40 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:17:40 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155269 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spookedook" wrote: [snip] >Does anyone have any idea then, how Voldemort managed to come by his >wand while in an Etheral state? > Steven1965aaa: It has been speculated and IMO highly probable that someone else was there at Godric's Hollow with Voldemort. I think we will find out more details about the murder in Book 7. We already know, at least, that Peter was there at some point shortly after the murders. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jul 12 17:19:34 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:19:34 -0000 Subject: Character Driven or Plot Driven In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155270 > >Hi Laura, > >I would say that they're character driven, even though I don't feel > >as if I know the characters that well. We read of what they do as a > >result of events happening around them, but not enough in my > >view of what they're like when not responding to 'outside' > >stimulus. > > I have thought so, too, but when I asked the same > question of a few people who are teachers of English > or otherwise knowledgeable about literature, they > answered emphatically and without hesitation - plot > driven! I was curious to know if people who are > more involved with the books would see them more > as character driven, because that is what they spend > a lot of time doing - analyzing character. People who > have only read them once or who have only seen the > movies might consider them to be more plot driven. > The movies certainly were plot driven. In fact, that > is what I really dislike about the movies - they sacrifice > nearly all of the character development to concentrate > on plot only. However, I know this forum is not to > discuss the movies. Magpie: I accidentally stuck my answer to this in the midst of a bigger post without marking it, so I'll answer it here. They're plot driven (said without hesitation), with the characters often used (or created) to drive the plot. I spend a lot of time analyzing the characters, but that doesn't make the books character-driven to me. Laura: > I agree with you. I think the important thing is to look at the > characters and to understand their motives, their feelings, and > their actions. It seems to me that the plot is there just to expose > different facets of their characters, which would make the books, > in my mind character driven. > > But I can also see that people who have not immersed themselves > in analyzing the characters might view the plots of each book to > be more important. Magpie: It's the other way around, with the characters being there far more to make the plot work rather than the plot exposing the characters. You seem to be asking two different questions. The first is whether the books are character or plot *driven*. The second is which is more important, character or plot. The second question is a personal preference, but immersing onesself in characters doesn't change what's driving the story. Orson Scott Card has a way of breaking down stories into four different types: Milieu, Idea, Character or Event. HP as a series is an Event Story, a story driven by something wrong in the world that must be made right, like the return of an evil thought to be dead (Voldemort). Within that there can be lots of other types of stories going on. The individual books are all Idea stories-- stories about a secret that's eventually revealed: Who opened the CoS, who's trying to steal the PS, what does Sirius Black want, who put Harry's name in the Goblet, what is Voldemort doing to Harry and what is in the room behind the door and what is Draco up to? Things like that. The characters being themselves is important to the story, but the stories are being driven by this stuff. In fact, there's not a lot of character development if by development one means that a character develops and changes. Most of the characters are known for the thing that is the essence of their character. Event stories don't actually need to have great characters--though many of them do, and HP is one of them. Still even character development is more often put across in terms of plot rather than a detailed study in the narrative. A change in a character is a twist. Even Harry's love life is first presented in HBP as a mystery with clues to watch for, with little time dissecting his feelings. -m From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Wed Jul 12 17:25:54 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Luckdragon) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:25:54 -0000 Subject: Acromantula Venom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155271 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > I wonder if Acromantula venom will come into play in book 7. We are > told that it is difficult to get, and costly. But what is it used > for? Are we ever told? Would it have any effect on a snake? Will > the children of Aragog have any part in the killing of LV? > > I can't remember what we are told in earlier books about Aragog. JKR > has a way of dropping hints here and there that turn out to be > important later, but at the time seem like nothing. > > For example in HBP at one point Ron is looking in a broken mirror. > It is just a passing comment. But we know that is can't be a passing > comment, because it reminds us of the 2 mirrors that Harry and > Sirius have/had. And all of that drinking in HBP, I really didn't > see it, believe it or not, when I was reading it. But there *is* a > lot of drinking, which I think is a set up for us for the drinking > that DD does later in the cave. > > Any ideas about spider venom?? > > Tonks_op Luckdragon: I bet Hermione knows what it does, and using it agaist LV and and Nagini to counteract the Snake venom is a good guess. I'd bet money that the Spider venom will come into play in book 7. > From bertena1 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 15:40:20 2006 From: bertena1 at yahoo.com (bertena varney) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Who will be in Book 7? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060712154020.82479.qmail@web37511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155272 "Hagrid" wrote: > > We have seen many characters from the wizarding world come and > > go. Who will return in Book 7? Especially, those that are not > > expected? Tinktonks: > Okay, so being creative, how about Professor Quirell, Sirius, Mrs. > Lovegood & Dumbledore come back through the veil? (Here I am using > the theory that Snape blasted Dumbledore off the tower with a weak > and unmeant AK, letting him die from the fall.) > > My stretch of the imagination theory has people who died untimely > any other way than with AK can come back through the veil in the > DoM if they are released and Dumbledore passed this info to Snape. Bertena: This is my first post so I hope that I am doing this right. I think that Krum and the Durmstrangs will return- although many may be on opposite sides. Also, what about the role that Neville's grandmother may play? Wouldn't it be nice if Neville's parents came out of the crucio and finally got revenge? JK has got to tie that loose end together. I am so wanting to hear the truth about that. I think that the Dursleys will have an ending- maybe a quiet respect for the magical world. But most prejudice people never change no matter what happens to them. That is it for now. Bertena- who hopes that she has posted correctly and has not made anyone upset From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 16:33:12 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:33:12 -0000 Subject: Age of Majority In-Reply-To: <700201d40607112352j2f56cfa9v26ada34f5dfe8f1e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155273 Geoff: > > If I might be infuriatingly, nastily and pedantically pedantic, > > the cut-off date for admission to a specific school year in the > > UK is 31st August, so he isn't a single age throughout each > > school year, so there. :-) Kemper now: > Geoff, you weren't nasty or pedantic, but you were infuriatingly > unclear. > > Are you saying that Harry wasn't the same whole-number age from the > ever-Monday September 1 to June 30 of each year he's attended > Hogwarts? > > I don't get it. American it down for me. Please. > :-D > > Kemper, agreeing with Carol that Harry is 11 throughout the SCHOOL > year of PS and that he'll be 17 throughout the SCHOOL year in the > upcoming book whether he's actually in school or not. Bridge13219: I blame it on lack of coffee, but I was unclear as well. About the UK school-year thing. Besides, in PS/SS didn't it say Harry had to respond by 31st July? And that's why Dumbledore sent Hagrid? bridge13219, trying not to look as dim as I feel. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 18:07:43 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:07:43 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155274 > Alla: > > Okay, I guess I have to second the question then - is the main > objection to use of magic as means for punishment, not to the > punishment itself? > > Magpie: > Yes. That's what Muggle-baiting is. > a_svirn: Besides which, there are usually a few stops between "crime" and "punishment". For one thing, there should be a crime in the first place. What is Dudley's crime against the twins? I can't recall of any. Or was he punished for his crimes against Harry? This seems to be somewhat excessive, wouldn't you think so? After all, he had already endured an amputation of that pig's tail for his sins. You don't get punished twice for the same crime. Unless, of course, it was a vicarious punishment for his father's sins... For another there should be a just trial, shouldn't it? There is also a question of judges. I'd like to know who appointed the twins to judge Dudley Dursley? And last but not the least; the punishment must fit the crime. Of course it is somewhat difficult to adhere to this particular principle when the crime is not readily definable... When, however, and where punishments are meted out for the simple reason that some people's very existence offend the sensibilities of their judges-cum-executioners I'd say Muggle-baiting is a very mild term for that. > Alla: > Um, of course Dudley will disapprove of his punishment, but as long > as I agree with the author that what Dudley did is wrong, I could > care less, really. a_svirn: The question is not whether Dudley was in the wrong or not. Although even that is debatable in this particular instance. The question is whether wizards are abusing their power or not. Power brings with it responsibility. Arthur Weasley has tried and failed to instil this bit of ancient wisdom into his sons' conscience on a number of occasions. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 18:43:00 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:43:00 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155276 spookedook: > How does Voldemort get his wand back? zgirnius: My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led Voldemort to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched the wand and scampered away in rat form. He returned it to Voldemort after he joined him in Albania and helped him to regain his baby-body and then his adult body. From celizwh at intergate.com Wed Jul 12 18:25:40 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:25:40 -0000 Subject: Values of Potterverse WAS: Re: muggle baiting vs/Being good and evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155277 Alla: > Nope, not Snape, for whom I still have to be convinced > of "selfless purposes". [snip] > As to what was noble purpose of Marauders (poorly executed > of course) - that is very easy - to relieve the sufferings > their friend was going through on the monthly basis. houyhnhnm: I have yet to be convinced of James' and Sirius' "selfless purposes" in joining Lupin for his monthly transformations. Lupin is grateful to them, but he would be grateful for companionship regardless of the others' motivations and probably wouldn't question those motivations too deeply. We don't know anything about the nature of the friendship before the discovery of Lupin's werewolf status. Neither James nor Sirius seems to require much beyond fawning sycophancy in order to regard someone as a friend as witnessed by the inclusion of Peter in their clique. I can see (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) Lupin as a mere tag-along whose presence was tolerated as long as he made himself agreeable and was properly worshipful. Then came the discovery that Lupin was a werewolf. Cool! All of sudden "highly exciting possibilities were open to" them. If we had evidence that either James or Sirius were generally timid or had a particular fear of werewolves or a deep aversion to breaking school rules, and and overcame it to keep their friend company, then I would concede that their motives were altruistic. But there is no such evidence. On the contrary, they seem to have been on a general lookout for excuses to break the rules and "The risk would've been what made it fun for James." BTW, the really selfless thing that Snape did, IMO, was not muttering a countercurse or going to the Shrieking Shack, or even going into the Forbidden Forest at night, it was getting on a *broom* in front of the whole school. :-) Alla: > In my book - helping your friend - is the good thing to do. houyhnhnm: Wouldn't most people help their *friends*? Loyalty to one's group, keeping their secrets, avenging their wrongs--wouldn't these fall into any gangster's code of ethics? Helping people who are *not* your friends, from whom you don't stand to gain anything--that's my idea of "selfless", "noble", and "good". I don't see much of it in the Potterverse. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 18:50:09 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:50:09 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607120417i17f075feu3e8a1bbd2a0edff1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155278 jennathasania83: > > Respectfully, I think that we have strayed. My point was not that Dudley is incapable of defending himself in some way, but that by using magic the Twins *are* muggle baiting, and are thus being bullies - which by definition usually implies picking on someone who is weaker in some way. > > Random832: > The term "picking on someone" generally isn't applied to 'revenge' against a bully, and I don't see how this is any different, other than the bare fact that magic is used. Carol responds: I'm going to regret becoming involved in this debate because it's clearly a ping pong match. Neither side is listening to the other. However, I think jennathasania83 is right for several reasons. 1) What Dudley has done in the past has no bearing on whether what the twins are doing is right or wrong. It's morally wrong to rape a prostitute ("She was asking for it!") or to torture a murderer ("He deserves it!"), and it's equally wrong to torment a bully, regardless of what he may or may not have done in the past. 2) "The bare fact that magic is used" is important because magic is a weapon against which any Muggle is defenseless. Dudley can't use his fists to protect himself against a potion-laced candy, any more than he could fight off a Dementor with his bare hands. 3) The Twins are taking justice into their own hands through an act of revenge against someone who has never hurt them, whatever he may have done to Harry. (If revenge is justifiable, and I don't think it is, it should be Harry, not the Twins, who gets it.) The Twins are not acting in self-defense, nor are they defending Harry. They are playing a cruel practical joke, "baiting" Dudley (who has been on a starvation diet) with a piece of potion-laced candy that they know he'll take, exactly like a fisherman baiting a trout with a lure. The trout thinks the fly is a treat when in fact, it's a hook. Dudley thinks the candy is a treat, when in fact it's a torture device. 4) There is nothing funny about this sort of practical joke from the standpoint of the victim and his parents. Dudley is choking on his greatly enlarged and elongated tongue (try that some time, fellow Muggles!) and thinks he's dying. To make matters worse, his mother, who is also terrified that Dudley is dying, is pulling on his tongue. If that isn't torture, I don't know what torture is. (Try having someone yank on your tongue trying to tear it from your throat. Go on. Try it.) 5) The Twins are bullying a helpless victim, two on one, much as Sirius and James bullied Severus, knocking his wand from his hand as he was putting his paper away. In a fair fight, Severus could easily have defended himself because he's also a wizard. But a fair fight between the Twins and Dudley is impossible--unless you take away their wands and their potion-laced candies. Magic is a weapon just as a gun is a weapon, and a Muggle victim cannot use that same weapon to defend himself any more than an unarmed victim can fight against a gun. James used to hex people in the hallways just because he could. That was the act of a bully. But at least the people he attacked were fellow wizards who had a wand and presumably could cast a hex or two themselves if they weren't caught off guard. Dudley can no more cast a hex than he can turn himself invisible. The Twins have an unfair advantage, not to mention that it's two to one and they're tricking him into eating something that isn't what it appears to be. Muggle-baiting is wrong because Muggles can't defend themselves against magical abuse. The Dudley is a Muggle who cannot defend himself against the Twins' magic. Therefore what the Twins are doing is wrong. jennathasania83: > > This does NOT negate that Dudley himself is a bully, *but* Dudley's being a bully doesn't make what the Twins are doing something other than muggle baiting. Carol: Exactly. Dudley can no more return his tongue to its normal size than the Robertsons could escape from being levitated by the Death Eaters. If the Twins want to fist fight Dudley, fine. But they have no more right to use magic on him than he has to use his fists on Mark Evans. Two wrongs do not make a right. Carol, wondering if the fanciful nature of this incident masks its cruelty for those who find it funny From littleleah at handbag.com Wed Jul 12 18:39:32 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:39:32 -0000 Subject: Character Driven or Plot Driven In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155279 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > >Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: (snipped) when I asked the same > question of a few people who are teachers of English > or otherwise knowledgeable about literature, they > answered emphatically and without hesitation - plot > driven! I was curious to know if people who are > more involved with the books would see them more > as character driven, because that is what they spend > a lot of time doing - analyzing character. People who > have only read them once or who have only seen the > movies might consider them to be more plot driven. > The movies certainly were plot driven. In fact, that > is what I really dislike about the movies - they sacrifice > nearly all of the character development to concentrate > on plot only. However, I know this forum is not to > discuss the movies. (snip) > I think the important thing is to look at the > characters and to understand their motives, their feelings, and > their actions. It seems to me that the plot is there just to expose > different facets of their characters, which would make the books, > in my mind character driven. > > But I can also see that people who have not immersed themselves > in analyzing the characters might view the plots of each book to > be more important. > Laura > -- Leah: I wonder how much is personal preference. I always used to give a wide berth to Eng Lit questions which required you to 'compare and contrast the characters of X and Y', while leaping on anything that dealt with plot structure, imagery, underlying symbolism etc. So what attracted me to the septology was its strong narrative drive, the possible symbols within it,(and the humour). So it's perhaps not surprising that I find HP plot driven; perhaps I'm just not interested in character analysis. Having said that, I think there are three main elements at work in HP, none of which is characterisation. Firstly, plot. Each book embodies a mystery or mysteries- who is the Heir of Slytherin, what do Harry's dreams mean, why is Harry in the Triwizard Contest, how is he going to get through it etc. In most mysteries, character is subservient to plot. Secondly, I think there's a theme running through the books, about a boy coming to a world which seems like a dream come true, and slowly coming face to face with both its realities and its nightmares-the flaws running like a crack or scar through the WW. Thirdly I see a spiritual/symbolic content that shapes both character and plot. This is not to say that JKR doesn't 'do' character. She has created some memorable ones, not least DD, a good character who manages not to be pious or sanctimonious. However, I don't think we can attach too much importance to characterisation. Take the character who is probably the most discussed of them all- Severus Snape. I greatly enjoy Snape(if enjoy is the right word). But, I think there's rather less to him than meets the eye. IMO, of course, I don't think he is there because it was important for JKR to study a deeply conflicted character, but because it was essential for the plot that we can never be totally sure of Snape's alliegances, and important perhaps for the symbolism that he is a betrayer (or apparently a betrayer). So, for me, plot wins every time. Leah (thinking she is probably expressing a minority view here) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 19:01:30 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:01:30 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155280 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > spookedook: > > How does Voldemort get his wand back? > > zgirnius: > My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led Voldemort > to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched the wand and > scampered away in rat form. He returned it to Voldemort after he joined him in Albania and helped him to regain his baby-body and then his adult body. Tonks: Here is a thought. Would it have been possible that there were enchantments on the place such that the secret keeper would have had to go with the person (LV) in order for the second person (LV) to be able to get in?? That is more than just an unplotable building or a secret keepers power to keep the secret. I would expect if such was the case it would have been some extra spell of some sort. What do others think? Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 19:12:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:12:49 -0000 Subject: Jets of green light (Was: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155281 Carol: > > "Chekhov's gun? Is that the same as "smoking gun"? I've never heard the expression. (I agree with you that the order almost certainly relates to Snape for the reasons you stated and because such an order would go a long way toward clearing up events on the tower.) > > Distaiyi: > A Chekhov's Gun is a Literary technique in which a fictional element (object, character, place, etc.) is introduced early and in which the author expects the reader to invest. That investment must 'pay off' later in the story even if the element disappears offstage for a long interval. > Carol: Thanks. Odd that I've never heard the expression. Maybe I don't read enough mysteries or spend enough time in "fandom," other than here? At any rate, I'd say that JKR uses the technique rather frequently, starting with "Young Sirius Black" in SS/PS. I'm not sure about "wants the reader to invest," but I can think of a number of objects and people that have been introduced but have not yet played a significant role. I expect Aberforth, Dedalus Diggle, and possibly Ragnok the goblin to fall into this category. Also the Sword of Gryffindor and the flying motorcycle. And how about the hidden chamber beneath the Malfoys' drawing room? Or do these people, objects, and places (well, place) not count because the reader has no emotional investment in them? Carol, not sure this post is worth sending but curious to see whether she understands the concept From cpsauter at msn.com Wed Jul 12 17:58:11 2006 From: cpsauter at msn.com (Caprice Sauter) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:58:11 -0700 Subject: Voldemort's Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155282 > > >Steven1965aaa: > >It has been speculated and IMO highly probable that someone else was >there at Godric's Hollow with Voldemort. I think we will find out >more details about the murder in Book 7. We already know, at least, >that Peter was there at some point shortly after the murders. Caprice: I must be forgetting something, but how do we know that Peter was there? It was my understanding that the specifics of what happened at Godric's Hollow after the failed AK curse was still the subject of much speculation. I thought the only thing we knew for sure was what Hagrid told us in Sorcerer's Stone. Please advise. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 19:17:49 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:17:49 -0000 Subject: Acromantula Venom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155283 > > Luckdragon: > I bet Hermione knows what it does, and using it agaist LV and and > Nagini to counteract the Snake venom is a good guess. I'd bet money > that the Spider venom will come into play in book 7. Tonks: Of course, this means that everything will have to take place before Slughorn gets a chance to sell the venom. So Slughorn, Snape and maybe Hermione will know what it is used for and how to use it. Does anyone here know of any RL counterpart as far as spider venom and snakes? Or anyone know what RL spider venom could be used for and have an idea how this might translate to the WW? Tonks_op From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 19:49:01 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:49:01 -0000 Subject: Jets of green light (Was: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155284 > Distaiyi: > > > A Chekhov's Gun is a Literary technique in which a fictional element > (object, character, place, etc.) is introduced early and in which the > author expects the reader to invest. That investment must 'pay off' > later in the story even if the element disappears offstage for a long > interval. > Carol: > I'm not sure about "wants the reader to invest," but I can think of a > number of objects and people that have been introduced but have not > yet played a significant role. I expect Aberforth, Dedalus Diggle, and > possibly Ragnok the goblin to fall into this category.... Or do these people, > objects, and places (well, place) not count because the reader has no > emotional investment in them? Sydney: The Chekhov is Anton Chekhov the playwright (Cherry Orchard, etc.). He was always happy to expound on his theories of drama and the 'gun on the wall' was a favorite example. The most concise quotation is: "If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there." Often the corollary is added, that if a gun is going to go off in the third act, you must hang it on the wall in the first. "Hanging the gun on the wall" is a common shorthand in the film industry, as in, "We need to hang that gun on the wall somewhere, is we're going to use his girlfriend leaving him as a complication", or something like that. I'd say the distinguishing characteristic of a 'Chekhov gun' is not so much emotional investment as that it involves tension creation and tension release. A gun is an obvious object that creates tension (as Godard put it, "all you need for a movie is a girl and gun"); I'd add unsolved questions as another type of 'gun' in that they pull the reader forward through the story with an expectation of a bang. The most obvious example I can think of is in GoF, the 'gun is hung on the wall' of Voldemort's mysterious plan; the gun goes off in the final chapters. -- Sydney, back from the deeeeead! From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Wed Jul 12 19:58:20 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 12 Jul 2006 19:58:20 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1152734300.164.10718.w112@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155285 Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the HPforGrownups group: JKR has stated that in the final chapter of Book 7, one character gets a "reprieve." Who do you think the character is who will get the reprieve? VOTE FOR ONE ONLY. o Harry o Ron o Hermione o Neville o Ginny o Lord Voldemort o Draco Malfoy o Lucius Malfoy o Crabbe or Goyle o Luna o Hagrid o Bellatrix Lestrange o Theo Nott o Percy Weasley o Remus Lupin o Severus Snape o McGonagall o Peter Pettigrew o Cornelius Fudge o Sybill Trelawney o Grawp o Dolores Umbridge o Rufus Scrimgeour o A Death Eater not listed here o OTHER (feel free to name this person onlist!) To vote, please visit the following web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280244 Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above. Thanks! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 19:54:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:54:41 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155287 Mike wrote: > My hypothesis for how one creates an accidental Horcrux postulates > that the encasement spell is cast prior to committing the murder. My > basis for this belief comes from examining Slughorn's explanation: > > "The wizard *intent* upon creatig a Horcrux would use the damage to > his advantage." (HBP p.498, US, Slughorn speaking, my emphasis) > > I read this as the wizard must create the intent, have the > encasement object and use the 'spell' to mark the object as well as > prepare to capture the torn piece of soul. Carol responds: I understand what you're saying. However, it is impossible to encase something that does not yet exist. The soul piece must be torn off *before* it is encased (enclosed) in the object that will become a Horcrux. I hate to use argument by analogy because it proves nothing, but perhaps it will clarify what I'm saying. (Forgive the gruesome imagery; I was going to use pieces of fruitcake, but I thought this idea would come closer.) Suppose that an axe murderer wants to prove that he's killed someone by "encasing" a body part, let's say the head, in a suitcase and mailing it to the victim's wife. He must first commit the murder and "split" the body before he can "encase" the part in the suitcase. If he locks the suitcase (performs the encasement spell) before he cuts off the head, he can't "encase" the head. By the same token, Voldemort must murder someone and split his soul, creating a soul fragment, before he can encase (enclose) the fragment in an object and make that object into a Horcrux. As I see it, the murder does not have to be committed with a Horcrux in mind. He can use a previously committed murder, for example that of his father, to create a Horcrux. He didn't know how to create a Horcrux when he killed the Riddles and took Marvolo Gaunt's ring from Morfin as a souvenir. We don't know exactly when he learned how to create a Horcrux, but certainly it was after the conversation with Slughorn, at which time he was wearing the ring. If I'm right, he used his father's murder, committed when he was sixteen, to create a Horcrux when he was at least eighteen. He already had the object, but he didn't cast a spell to encase the soul bit until after he had committed the murder and after he knew how to create a Horcrux. I think you're confused by "intent on creating a Horcrux." As I understand it, any act of murder splits the soul, but the parts of the damaged soul normally stay inside the murderer. In the case of Voldemort and possibly Grindelvald, a part or parts that were split off through an act or acts of murder were encased in an object or objects after the murder or murders, using a spell that Slughorn either can't or won't reveal. You can't encase a soul bit until after you commit the murder because the soul is not split until the murder is committed. (In Voldemort's case, he had multiple murders and multiple soul bits to choose from, and the Horcruxes, at least some of them, appear to have been created some time, probably several years, after the murders that split off the particular soul bits. It's simply logic. The soul bit cannot be encased before it exists. > > Carol, wondering if the diary (which IMO was not originally intended as a Horcrux) and the Marauder's Map operate on the same principle, with a bit of the makers' powers and personality enclosed in the magical object so that it interacts with the reader as the maker himself would (handwriting and all), no soul bit required > > > Mike: > Interesting..., add the Sorting Hat to that mix. Are you thinking > the Marauders found some way to create a low-voltage non-soul > Horcrux (without killing, I hope)? Maybe a thousand years ago, > Horcruxes weren't considered so evil. Intriguing to think the > Sorting Hat could be a four-way Horcrux of the founders? > Carol responds: I'm not suggesting that the Marauder's Map is a Horcrux, which requires an act of murder to create and which exists to keep the murderer's soul on earth so he can't be killed. I'm saying that it's possible to create an object that thinks for itself and interacts with a reader without encasing a soul bit. The Marauders appear to have placed some part of their personalities in the Maruader's Map so that it will "speak" in their "voices" (respond in their handwriting as they would respond to that person). Witness all four Marauders insulting Snape, knowing who he is and expressing surprise that he'd become a professor. No murder and no soul bit required. I think that the diary was originally created in much the same way, in this case with a memory removed from sixteen-year-old Tom's head on June 13 of his fifth year (the day he killed Moaning Myrtle using the Basilisk), much as Snape and Dumbledore remove memories from their heads to place in the Pensieve. No soul bit was required for the diary to serve its original purpose, seducing a reader into releasing the Basilisk. Memory!Tom had the power of possession, just as the real Tom did, before he knew how to create a Horcrux. Once it became a Horcrux, Memory!Tom had the power to leave the book, using Ginny's soul, not the encased soul bit, to give himself life. (Notice that he does not share her personality, powers, or memories. He knows only what he knew at sixteen and what she has told him about Harry through the diary. His powers and personality remain his own. Carol, imagining herself trying to "encase" a piece of fruitcake in a box after the box is sealed and finding it impossible From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Wed Jul 12 19:51:48 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 12 Jul 2006 19:51:48 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1152733908.236.88690.w121@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155288 Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the HPforGrownups group: JKR has stated that, in the final chapter of Book 7, two additional characters, whom she did not originally intend to kill, will be dying. So who do you think is toast? (Assuming that JKR has known all along whether Harry will live or die, Harry will not be an option for one "originally unintended to die.") VOTE FOR TWO ONLY. o Ron o Hermione o Neville o Ginny o Luna o Hagrid o McGonagall o Professot Flitwick and/or Sprout o Seamus and/or Dean o Parvati and/or Padma Patil o Grawp o Mad-Eye Moody o Lupin o Tonks o Rufus Scrimgeour o Percy Weasley o Bill and/or Fleur Delacour Weasley o Fred and/or George Weasley o Charlie Weasley o Molly Weasley o Arthur Weasley o Vernon and/or Petunia Dursley o Dudley Dursley o Severus Snape o OTHER (feel free to mention the name onlist!) To vote, please visit the following web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280239 Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above. Thanks! From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Wed Jul 12 20:26:43 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:26:43 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155289 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Mike wrote: > > My hypothesis for how one creates an accidental Horcrux postulates > > that the encasement spell is cast prior to committing the murder. snip > > I read this as the wizard must create the intent, have the > > encasement object and use the 'spell' to mark the object as well as > > prepare to capture the torn piece of soul. > > Carol responds: > I understand what you're saying. However, it is impossible to encase > something that does not yet exist. The soul piece must be torn off > *before* it is encased (enclosed) in the object that will become a > Horcrux. AmanitaMuscaria now: I understood Mike to be saying that the horcrux spell is a two-parter. You prepare the object to be used, (by your analogy, you open the suitcase) before committing the murder. Perhaps even stick the address labels on? Then Voldemort (or your axe murderer) commits the deed, splitting his soul. Then, the soul piece is encased, the Horcrux is closed, the suitcase is shut, Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria > > I hate to use argument by analogy because it proves nothing, but > perhaps it will clarify what I'm saying. (Forgive the gruesome > imagery; I was going to use pieces of fruitcake, but I thought this > idea would come closer.) > > Suppose that an axe murderer wants to prove that he's killed someone > by "encasing" a body part, let's say the head, in a suitcase and > mailing it to the victim's wife. He must first commit the murder and > "split" the body before he can "encase" the part in the suitcase. If > he locks the suitcase (performs the encasement spell) before he cuts > off the head, he can't "encase" the head. From random832 at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 19:56:05 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:56:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50607111407h46210868w189a8b5f61e65055@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607121256u7cd1f14co851e69ee340b0c73@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155290 > Magpie: > That it's magic? That Dudley's body is mutating and he's terrified > and doesn't know why? Random832: He doesn't know why? Not his fault he's stupid, I suppose, but not the twins' either. One of the key factors in muggle-baiting is that it takes advantage of things that the muggles don't think should be possible (disappearing keys, etc) - this element is missing here because Dudley knows about magic. > Magpie: > They know perfectly well their advantage over > him is insurmountable. The ability to do Magic is what defines a > Wizard as different from a Muggle. I can't pretend it's not a > decisive advantage. The Twins don't pretend it. When dealing with a > more pleasant Muggle they use Magic to impress, with an unpleasant one > for other reasons. Random832: But it's natural to them. Asking them not to use it is like asking humans (magical or otherwise) not to use their opposable thumbs. > Magpie: > Why are we now talking about self-defense? A martial arts master > subduing a person trying to attack him is totally different from a > martial arts master who reserves the right to deal out roundhouse > kicks to people he thinks deserve it or anyone who's done something > wrong. Random832: OK, so self-defense is fine. how about defense of others? > Magpie: > Yes. That's what Muggle-baiting is. Random832: I don't think that's anything like the definition we've been given. I don't trust Arthur as an authority to say what is and is not muggle-baiting, we've been given a definition (with examples, even) and we should judge it for ourselves. > Magpie: > I thought Dudley doing it was wrong too--that's the sad cycle we seem > to get into. Dudley meeting a bigger bully does seem like a sort of > karmic retribution, but there's always a bigger bully down the line. Random832: I liken it more to a victim bringing his older brother to the schoolyard to intimidate the bully than a simple case of "meeting a bigger bully" - particularly since the Weasleys are more of a family to Harry than the Dursleys ever were. The tongue thing was ultimately harmless, my opinion is that the whole point was simple intimidation rather than retaliatory harm. > > Random832: > > Is what the twins did wrong? Maybe. Is it muggle baiting? Not by any > > definition we're given. > > Magpie: > It is Muggle-baiting according to Arthur Weasley's definition! Random832: We're not given the definition he's using as a basis for his accusation against the twins, and whatever it may be it's in direct conflict with the definition we _are_ given. He's also overzealous to a fault. Remember, this is the man who banned flying carpets because "muggles have rugs too" (yet somehow he didn't notice that we also have brooms... and cars.) I think his anti-muggle bias takes a much more insidious form than the views held by Lucius Malfoy et al. From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 12 20:35:59 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:35:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155291 Alla: > Um, of course Dudley will disapprove of his punishment, but as long > as I agree with the author that what Dudley did is wrong, I could > care less, really. > If there are no objections to the fact that Dudley should be > punished, does it really matter whether he is punished with magic or > not? > > Magpie: > Because as a Muggle when I see Dudley punished with Magic I can't help > but see more than just a couple of 16-year-olds punishing a 14-year- > old. It speaks to an entire attitude towards Muggles. PJ: I clipped these two quotes because, to me, they pretty much sum up both sides of the arguement and I'm too lazy today to go hunting for more. I guess I see Muggle baiting as purposely trying to harm someone specifically *because* they're Muggles and therefore inferior... This doesn't qualify for me The WW seems to be really baffled where muggles are concerned. Even Arthur, who professes to love muggles doesn't have a clue. If he doesn't understand how they differ in more than just magical ability then I can't imagine how the twins, who've never really been exposed to a muggle before, can be expected to. How would they know that a muggle is not just a squib-like person and that the candy that is simply amusing to them could actually be dangerous to a nonmagical person? The half muggles and those at school from muggle familes (like Hermione) don't seem to be harmed by them at all! So basically I see the twins using the candy to get back at Dudley for all the nasty things he's done to Harry in the past but also totally unaware of the real harm they could do. That to me isn't muggle baiting, it's pure ignorance... PJ From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jul 12 20:39:24 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:39:24 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups In-Reply-To: <1152733908.236.88690.w121@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155292 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com wrote: > > group: > > JKR has stated that, in the final chapter of Book 7, two additional characters, whom she did not originally intend to kill, will be dying. So who do you think is toast? (Assuming that JKR has known all along whether Harry will live or die, Harry will not be an option for one "originally unintended to die.") VOTE FOR TWO ONLY. > > o Ron > o Hermione > o Neville > o Ginny > o Luna > o Hagrid > o McGonagall > o Professot Flitwick and/or Sprout > o Seamus and/or Dean > o Parvati and/or Padma Patil > o Grawp > o Mad-Eye Moody > o Lupin > o Tonks > o Rufus Scrimgeour > o Percy Weasley > o Bill and/or Fleur Delacour Weasley > o Fred and/or George Weasley > o Charlie Weasley > o Molly Weasley > o Arthur Weasley > o Vernon and/or Petunia Dursley > o Dudley Dursley > o Severus Snape > o OTHER (feel free to mention the name onlist!) > > > To vote, please visit the following web page: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280239 > > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups > web site listed above. > > Thanks! > since the "other" we could mention onlist, I think that would be Lord Voldemort. colebiancardi From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 12 21:04:38 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:04:38 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155293 > > Mike wrote: > > My hypothesis for how one creates an accidental Horcrux postulates > > that the encasement spell is cast prior to committing the murder. My > > basis for this belief comes from examining Slughorn's explanation: > > > > "The wizard *intent* upon creatig a Horcrux would use the damage to > > his advantage." (HBP p.498, US, Slughorn speaking, my emphasis) > > > > I read this as the wizard must create the intent, have the > > encasement object and use the 'spell' to mark the object as well as > > prepare to capture the torn piece of soul. > > Carol responds: > I understand what you're saying. However, it is impossible to encase > something that does not yet exist. The soul piece must be torn off > *before* it is encased (enclosed) in the object that will become a > Horcrux. > Ken: No, you don't understand what Mike is saying. If you want to understand it you have to cast aside your present convictions on how the horcrux spell works and consider an entirely different possibility. Consider Hermione's curse on the membership list for Dumbledore's Army. She cast the spell before anyone ratted on the group, possibly before anyone even signed the parchment. The spell on the list was able to sense that someone on the list had broken the promise, it was able to identify who that person was, and it was able to mark her with pimples. The spell on the parchment is dormant and it goes into action if/when/and-only-if someone who signed the list betrays the group. Quite a bit of intelligence for a simple piece of parchment! The horcrux spell *could* work in a similar fashion, this is *all* speculation of course since we know next to nothing about how JKR pictures that this works. You put a spell on Hufflepuff's cup, for example, that connects it to your soul and enables it to grab a piece of your soul, if/when/and-only-if your soul is ever split. It is perfectly logical that this could be done before you commit a murder and tear your soul. Then, when you actually do commit a murder one of the torn pieces of your soul automatically gets sucked into the horcrux object. No further action is required on your part. You do have to cast the horcrux spell in order to create a horcrux but you don't necessarily have to cast it *after* the murder that splits your soul. We just don't know for sure; until JKR issues a ruling on the matter one is as plausible as the other. Ken From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 21:12:38 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:12:38 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155294 Carol earlier: > > I understand what you're saying. However, it is impossible to encase something that does not yet exist. The soul piece must be torn off *before* it is encased (enclosed) in the object that will become a Horcrux. > > > > I hate to use argument by analogy because it proves nothing, but perhaps it will clarify what I'm saying. (Forgive the gruesome imagery; I was going to use pieces of fruitcake, but I thought this idea would come closer.) > > > > Suppose that an axe murderer wants to prove that he's killed someone by "encasing" a body part, let's say the head, in a suitcase and mailing it to the victim's wife. He must first commit the murder and "split" the body before he can "encase" the part in the suitcase. If he locks the suitcase (performs the encasement spell) before he cuts off the head, he can't "encase" the head. > > AmanitaMuscaria now: I understood Mike to be saying that the horcrux > spell is a two-parter. You prepare the object to be used, (by your > analogy, you open the suitcase) before committing the murder. Perhaps > even stick the address labels on? Then Voldemort (or your axe > murderer) commits the deed, splitting his soul. Then, the soul piece > is encased, the Horcrux is closed, the suitcase is shut, > Carol responds: But the actual *encasing* (closing and locking the suitcase/Horcrux), *must* be done *after* the body part/soul bit has been split off. The events must occur in this sequence: 1) Commit the act of murder, which splits off the soul bit 2) Remove the soul bit from the main soul (rather like removing a memory to put it in a Pensieve) 3) Perform the spell to open the object, put the soul bit inside it, and seal up the object (all in one motion) 4) (Optional) Add curses and other protections to keep the Horcrux safe If the Horcrux isn't "sealed" (cf. the unopenable locket in 12 GP and the ring that had to be cracked to release the soul bit), anyone can release the soul bit and you won't be immortal--unless there are back-up Horcruxes. (And even then, you don't want to risk of having the soul bit escape from the Horcrux, so unless the Horcrux is also an interactive magical object like the diary, you add curses or other magical protections like Inferi and poisonous potions which are not part of the encasement spell.) *Encase* means "enclose as if in a case." *That's* what the encasement spell does. And you can't encase the soul bit before the murder because the soul bit doesn't yet exist. So a hypothetical preliminary spell, of which there is no suggestion in canon, would not in itself *encase* the soul bit in the Horcrux. At most it would open the Horcrux, but it would not place the soul bit inside or seal it up. If *encasing* requires a spell, an accidental Horcrux is impossible. Carol, feeling as if she's explaining the obvious and hoping she doesn't sound condescending or impatient From peckham at cyberramp.net Wed Jul 12 21:13:36 2006 From: peckham at cyberramp.net (luna_loco) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:13:36 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups In-Reply-To: <1152733908.236.88690.w121@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155295 I am surprised that the list did not include our rat like "friend", Peter Pettigrew. As Wormtail has a life debt still to pay off it is very likely that he will play a small but important part in book 7. My personal guess is that Wormtail will finally snap at yet another insult from Voldemort or Snape and finally lash out in anger at a key moment in time. The reward for this action will naturally be Peter being killed as a traitor to the Dark Lord, but the momentary distraction could prove vital to Harry and company. Allen --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com wrote: > > JKR has stated that, in the final chapter of Book 7, two additional characters, whom she did not originally intend to kill, will be dying. So who do you think is toast? (Assuming that JKR has known all along whether Harry will live or die, Harry will not be an option for one "originally unintended to die.") VOTE FOR TWO ONLY. > (Long list snipped) > o OTHER (feel free to mention the name onlist!) From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jul 12 21:26:36 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:26:36 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607121256u7cd1f14co851e69ee340b0c73@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155296 Random832: He doesn't know why? Not his fault he's stupid, I suppose, but not the twins' either. One of the key factors in muggle-baiting is that it takes advantage of things that the muggles don't think should be possible (disappearing keys, etc) - this element is missing here because Dudley knows about magic. Magpie: Okay, whatever he knows, presumably, after the first few seconds that it's magic, but he doesn't know what exactly is being done to him, nor does he have any control or way of doing anything against it. I don't see why Muggle-baiting has to depend on Muggles not knowing Magic is being used. Are you suggesting that it's illegal to make Muggles' keys disappear but what the DEs were doing was just fine since the Muggles at least had some idea that the guys with the masks were causing them to levitate in the air? > Random832: > But it's natural to them. Asking them not to use it is like asking > humans (magical or otherwise) not to use their opposable thumbs. Magpie: No it's not. Wizards are perfectly capable of choosing not to perform a hex on someone. It's not like they wouldn't make that decision in a different situation. > Random832: > OK, so self-defense is fine. how about defense of others? Magpie: Are we talking about actual defense of others? Or "He did something to my friend and I'm going to get him back for it?" > Random832: > I don't think that's anything like the definition we've been given. I > don't trust Arthur as an authority to say what is and is not > muggle-baiting, we've been given a definition (with examples, even) > and we should judge it for ourselves. Magpie: That's all we can do. I am judging it for myself, as a Muggle. > Random832: > I liken it more to a victim bringing his older brother to the > schoolyard to intimidate the bully than a simple case of "meeting a > bigger bully" - particularly since the Weasleys are more of a family > to Harry than the Dursleys ever were. The tongue thing was ultimately > harmless, my opinion is that the whole point was simple intimidation > rather than retaliatory harm. Magpie: Dudley's already intimidated of Harry as soon as he becomes a Wizard. (And Dudley's gotten his punishment once with the pig's tail, as a_svirn pointed out.) They're not protecting Harry from Dudley in the scene. They're testing their products, having a laugh and trying to give Harry some pleasure by doing something to the cousin that beat him up for years. > Random832: > We're not given the definition he's using as a basis for his > accusation against the twins, and whatever it may be it's in direct > conflict with the definition we _are_ given. Magpie: What definition that we are given is it in conflict with? Random832:> > He's also overzealous to a fault. Remember, this is the man who banned > flying carpets because "muggles have rugs too" (yet somehow he didn't > notice that we also have brooms... and cars.) I think his anti- muggle > bias takes a much more insidious form than the views held by Lucius > Malfoy et al. Magpie: Yes, I think all the Weasleys have an anti-Muggle bias--as do all Wizards I can think of. PJ: I guess I see Muggle baiting as purposely trying to harm someone specifically *because* they're Muggles and therefore inferior... This doesn't qualify for me. Magpie: Whatever we call it, I'm one of those Muggles who isn't comfortable giving Wizard's a blank check to whip out the wands to discipline me (and anyone who'd grant that power over themselves to the Twins, who've never even pretended to not be self-interested first, is a fool). I think the two parts of that sentence can happen independently. One seeks out Muggles, the other acts out when annoyed. But I think a person who truly respects a person of different abilities or a minority person vulnerable to discrimination as a person naturally continues to do so when they are angry at him/her. If the minute you're angry at the person or the minute the person does something wrong you're quick to establish that you are the superior one because of the different things you were born with, I don't think you truly respected them to begin with. Given that Muggles are also sentient beings, and that their children even become Wizards and Wizard children can be born as "Muggles," it should be something they could manage. Even if there were times when they did resort to it, it wouldn't be done lightly. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 22:02:18 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:02:18 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155297 Carol: > *Encase* means "enclose as if in a case." *That's* what the encasement > spell does. And you can't encase the soul bit before the murder > because the soul bit doesn't yet exist. > > So a hypothetical preliminary spell, of which there is no suggestion > in canon, would not in itself *encase* the soul bit in the Horcrux. At > most it would open the Horcrux, but it would not place the soul bit > inside or seal it up. If *encasing* requires a spell, an accidental > Horcrux is impossible. zgirnius: Yahoomort appears to have eaten my earlier post in response to your earlier post. To borrow your analogy of the fruitcake, suppose that you are going to put the fruitcake in a hinged box. The 'encasement spell' could be the equivalent of a spring-loaded mechanism which will snap the lid shut once a sufficiently heavy object is placed into the box. Once you open the box and set the mechanism, all you need to to to 'encase' the fruitcake is drop it in. If you leave, but an explosion in your kitchen knocks the cake off a shelf and into the box, you agency is no longer even needed. The set up you have created will encase it automatically. By analogy, the Horcrux making spell could place the object in a magical condition whereby the addition of a torn soul piece would automatically complete the Horcrux making process. Now, whether magical backlash could cause such a spell to change its location from some suitable artifact Voldemort would have prepared in advance to Harry's forehead is a different question. But my feeling is that if Rowling wishes this to be possible in her universe, it would not be too great a stretch. Personally, I am undecided as to whether she would want to or not, but I think an interesting story could ensue if she did, or if she didn't. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 13 00:44:19 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:44:19 -0000 Subject: Options for "Other" (was: New poll for HPforGrownups) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155298 Re: The poll on the two additional, originally unintended, deaths at the end of Book 7. Colebiancardi wrote: > since the "other" we could mention onlist, I think that would be > Lord Voldemort. SSSusan: Now I confess that suggestion surprises me a bit, Colebiancardi. So IOW, you think JKR originally intended to let Voldy live but has now decided to have him die? I guess I figured Voldy's fate (whether that is to live or to die) has been set in Jo's mind from the get- go, and I just can't quite imagine her changing her mind on THE chief antagonist's fate. But that's just me and MHO. ;-) Allen: > I am surprised that the list did not include our rat like "friend", > Peter Pettigrew. As Wormtail has a life debt still to pay off it > is very likely that he will play a small but important part in > book 7. SSSusan: Heh. Now that you mention it, Wormtail does seem a good one to have included in the list. For some reason, when setting up the polls, I considered him as an option for the reprieve... but not as one of the originally unintended deaths! That's my bad, Allen! I'm guessing there will be several others who agree with you on this one. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who can't believe she misspelled "Professor" as "Professot"! From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 01:09:20 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:09:20 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155299 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > No, you don't understand what Mike is saying. > Consider Hermione's curse on the membership list for Dumbledore's > Army. She cast the spell before anyone ratted on the group, possibly > before anyone even signed the parchment. The spell on the list was > able to sense that someone on the list had broken the promise, it was > able to identify who that person was, and it was able to mark her with > pimples. The spell on the parchment is dormant and it goes into action > if/when/and-only-if someone who signed the list betrays the group. > Quite a bit of intelligence for a simple piece of parchment! > > The horcrux spell *could* work in a similar fashion, this is *all* > speculation of course since we know next to nothing about how JKR > pictures that this works. You put a spell on Hufflepuff's cup, for > example, that connects it to your soul and enables it to grab a piece > of your soul, if/when/and-only-if your soul is ever split. It is > perfectly logical that this could be done before you commit a murder > and tear your soul. Then, when you actually do commit a murder one of > the torn pieces of your soul automatically gets sucked into the > horcrux object. No further action is required on your part. You do > have to cast the horcrux spell in order to create a horcrux but you > don't necessarily have to cast it *after* the murder that splits your > soul. We just don't know for sure; until JKR issues a ruling on the > matter one is as plausible as the other. Mike: Thank you Ken, you explained my theory better than I did! Good analogy to Hermione's jinxed DA membership list. Considering how JKR likes to reuse plot devices, well, makes the idea more plausible. But I also agree that unless Harry is a Horcrux and JKR chooses to explain exactly how it happened, we'll never know the mechanism for creating Horcruxes. Even if she gives an explanation it may be nothing more than rudimentary. I think that's part of the genious of JKR's writing, she gives us all of these intriguing story parts without tying us to only one possibile explanation, giving us plenty to debate about. > > Mike: > > Interesting..., add the Sorting Hat to that mix. Are you thinking > > the Marauders found some way to create a low-voltage non-soul > > Horcrux (without killing, I hope)? > Carol responds: > I'm not suggesting that the Marauder's Map is a Horcrux, which > requires an act of murder to create and which exists to keep the > murderer's soul on earth so he can't be killed. Mike: Low-voltage, non-soul, without-killing Horcrux. I guess I shouldn't have called it a Horcrux, since I did call it non-soul and without killing, my apologies. So let's call the Marauder's Map a personality possessing parchment (how's that alliteration?),with the ability to interact with the maker's personalities. I was just wondering if the Sorting Hat is similarly endowed and whether one could access thoughts of the founders. Can the hat do anything else besides sort and recite poetry? JKR did say the founders will be in play in book 7. Is it just that LV used their former possessions as Horcruxes, or do we/HRH get something from them? From random832 at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 22:40:21 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:40:21 -0400 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50607121256u7cd1f14co851e69ee340b0c73@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607121540x217f165s3ec4a866f354a87@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155300 On 7/12/06, sistermagpie wrote: > Random832: > He doesn't know why? Not his fault he's stupid, I suppose, but not > the twins' either. One of the key factors in muggle-baiting is that > it takes advantage of things that the muggles don't think should be > possible (disappearing keys, etc) - this element is missing here > because Dudley knows about magic. > > Magpie: > Okay, whatever he knows, presumably, after the first few seconds > that it's magic, but he doesn't know what exactly is being done to > him, nor does he have any control or way of doing anything against > it. I don't see why Muggle-baiting has to depend on Muggles not > knowing Magic is being used. Are you suggesting that it's illegal > to make Muggles' keys disappear but what the DEs were doing was just > fine since the Muggles at least had some idea that the guys with the > masks were causing them to levitate in the air? Random832: I'm suggesting that "muggle-baiting" is a specific term, and that neither what the twins did nor what DEs do is "muggle-baiting", but rather what the DEs do is a more severe crime and we disagree on where what the twins did falls on any spectrum. Do you think it would be somehow less severe if they had come up with a way to create that effect using purely mundane ingredients? Heck, _didn't_ they? It's done with a potion, right? I don't think we've been told that muggles can't brew all the same potions wizards can, given access to the ingredients, and I've always thought the classification "this substance/creature/place is magical, this one's not" is a bit questionable - think of flobberworms. And even regardless of that, if it's a potion, and muggles brew potions, it becomes less "using an ability Dudley doesn't have" and more "using knowledge that's being kept from him by a government conspiracy" (if even that - do we know there are restrictions on what muggles who know about magic are allowed to know/see in general? In that case it's "using knowledge that Dudley could theoretically have, but hasn't bothered to learn") IOW, is there anything, other than things like obliviators, muggle repelling charms, etc, that is stopping me or you from going out and gathering all the ingredients and making ton-tongue toffee? > > Random832: > > But it's natural to them. Asking them not to use it is like asking > > humans (magical or otherwise) not to use their opposable thumbs. > > Magpie: > No it's not. Wizards are perfectly capable of choosing not to > perform a hex on someone. It's not like they wouldn't make that > decision in a different situation. I'm talking about the choice between hexing someone vs punching them in the face, not vs doing nothing to them. - the former is more natural. There are plenty of things that you don't _need_ to use your thumb for, but you use it anyway. I'd say "it's second nature", except it's not. there's no "second" about it. > > Random832: > > OK, so self-defense is fine. how about defense of others? > > Magpie: > Are we talking about actual defense of others? Or "He did something > to my friend and I'm going to get him back for it?" I don't know the context. But see my previous statement about a (non-related-to-the-bully) victim bringing his older brother to the schoolyard so he can intimidate the bully. That may not be 100% right, but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this debate. > > Random832: > > I don't think that's anything like the definition we've been > given. I > > don't trust Arthur as an authority to say what is and is not > > muggle-baiting, we've been given a definition (with examples, even) > > and we should judge it for ourselves. > > Magpie: > That's all we can do. I am judging it for myself, as a Muggle. Judging it to be wrong is one thing, but I still think, regardless of that, you're misapplying the term "muggle-baiting". I could even see the position that what they did is _more serious_ an offense in its own right than the muggle-baiting example of a shrinking key. Is whatever class of offense they've committed worse than muggle-baiting, though? That depends. Is stealing something worse than running a red light? > Magpie: > Dudley's already intimidated of Harry as soon as he becomes a > Wizard. And not anymore after the Dursleys all saw that he can't use magic until he's 17. This sort of thing serves (whether they meant it in this light or not) to remind them that he has friends who can. (I don't remember if this was before or after, so bear with me.) > > Random832: > > We're not given the definition he's using as a basis for his > > accusation against the twins, and whatever it may be it's in direct > > conflict with the definition we _are_ given. > > Magpie: > What definition that we are given is it in conflict with? I thought we were given a dictionary definition, but it's possible I was extrapolating from the shrinking-keys example. My point is that this is nothing like that. > Magpie: > Yes, I think all the Weasleys have an anti-Muggle bias--as do all > Wizards I can think of. Even Hermione? Anyway, truth be told, I'd rather have Voldemort than Arthur Weasley - at least with V, it'd all be out in the open and there'd be an off-chance that a tacnuke could affect him. From mros at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 12 22:53:19 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:53:19 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture References: Message-ID: <000b01c6a605$f923d440$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155301 Just my two cents on the whole matter: The idea that the Twins somehow brought some form of justice to Dudley Dursley simply does not fly. Not only because, as better writers have stated before, appointed yourself to be judge, jury and executioner is a form of vigilantism that is both illegal and unethical, but also because they *have done this kind of thing before*. Yes! I'm not even talking about them testing out new products on unsuspecting firsties, I'm talking about them giving their kid brother an acid pop which *burned a hole in his tongue*! (the same kid brother whose teddy they transformed into a spider, giving him a lovely phobia, whose pet puffskein they've murdered when they used it as a bludger at Quidditch practice and whom they've nearly sweettalked into swearing an Unbreakable Vow, which is potentially *lethal*) These sadistic little twerps have a *history* of feeding younger kids harmful sweets, and it has nothing to do with justice, whatsoever. They've also have a history of tormenting younger children and animals. Strange that those who claim that Dudley Dursley *deserved* to be tortured by the Twins because it was karmic justice do not clamour for karmic justice to hit the Twins, the biggest, baddest, unrepentested bullies of them all! Marion (who thinks that Percy Weasley is the only healhty member of that whole horrid family) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dontask2much at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 02:19:08 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:19:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture References: <000b01c6a605$f923d440$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <01cf01c6a622$b92c39a0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 155302 >Marion Ros said; > Just my two cents on the whole matter: > >snip> > These sadistic little twerps have a *history* of feeding younger kids > harmful sweets, and it has nothing to do >with justice, whatsoever. > They've also have a history of tormenting younger children and animals. > Strange that those who claim that Dudley Dursley *deserved* to be tortured > by the Twins because it was karmic justice do not clamour for karmic > justice to hit the Twins, the biggest, baddest, unrepentested bullies of > them all! > > > Marion (who thinks that Percy Weasley is the only healhty member of that > whole horrid family) Rebecca: IMO, Dudley didn't have to pick up the toffee and eat it. He did so because he is a glutton which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the 7 deadly sins in some circles. Choices, choices, they do come to mean something, don't they? The Twins sadists? I don't believe where I see in canon where they take pleasure in inflicting pain? In youth, the Twins are immature, intelligent and bored, perhaps. They're experimenting, not torturing, and they only tempted a gluttonous Dudley. Why someone would pick up something that fell out of someone's pocket he didn't know and put it in his mouth is beyond me, but hey, to each his own :) I might mention that the Twins appear to respect and honor their parents, which is far more than Percy has displayed. His loyalty appears to be to himself and his ambition, turning his back on his family. It appears by the description above that the Twins out-weigh Lord Voldemort on the morality/judgment scale. Personally, I don't think that's the case. Rebecca From dontask2much at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 01:56:13 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:56:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory References: Message-ID: <01c701c6a61f$85c89570$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 155303 > "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > >> The horcrux spell *could* work in a similar fashion, this is *all* >> speculation of course since we know next to nothing about how JKR >> pictures that this works. You put a spell on Hufflepuff's cup, for >> example, that connects it to your soul and enables it to grab a >> piece of your soul, if/when/and-only-if your soul is ever split. >> It isperfectly logical that this could be done before you commit a >> murder and tear your soul. Then, when you actually do commit a >> murder one of the torn pieces of your soul automatically gets sucked >> into the horcrux object. No further action is required on your part. >>You dohave to cast the horcrux spell in order to create a horcrux but >> you don't necessarily have to cast it *after* the murder that splits >> your soul. We just don't know for sure; until JKR issues a ruling on >> the matter one is as plausible as the other. > > Mike: > Thank you Ken, you explained my theory better than I did! Good > analogy to Hermione's jinxed DA membership list. Considering how JKR > likes to reuse plot devices, well, makes the idea more plausible. > Rebecca: Let's say for argument's sake, that this is possible. The only issue that I have with it is what Slughorn said in HBP to young Tom Riddle - specifically that there is a spell but not to ask him what it is as he doesn't know. It's typically JKR vague as with most of the mysteries we debate here, however it is specific in that there's a "spell". I also have to question when in fact that Tom Riddle made the diary and the ring Horcruxes - we don't know how old Riddle was in the memory, but he "did" have the ring on his hand because Harry notices it in the memory Slughorn gave him. Just curious, but if it was a Horcrux then, why did he ask Slughorn about them? As far as the diary goes, we have seen how memories can be "saved" - so while it contains Riddle's memories as a 16 year old, it could have been created as a Horcrux later, which again denotes separate spells. (At least at that point in time - I haven't forgotten what Dumbledore says about Voldemort's brilliance.) Rebecca From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 01:49:13 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 01:49:13 -0000 Subject: Potions as Magtic (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607121540x217f165s3ec4a866f354a87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155304 > Random832: > I'm suggesting that "muggle-baiting" is a specific term, and that > neither what the twins did nor what DEs do is "muggle-baiting", but > rather what the DEs do is a more severe crime and we disagree on where > what the twins did falls on any spectrum. > > Do you think it would be somehow less severe if they had come up with > a way to create that effect using purely mundane ingredients? Heck, > _didn't_ they? It's done with a potion, right? I don't think we've > been told that muggles can't brew all the same potions wizards can, > given access to the ingredients, and I've always thought the > classification "this substance/creature/place is magical, this one's > not" is a bit questionable - think of flobberworms. And even > regardless of that, if it's a potion, and muggles brew potions, it > becomes less "using an ability Dudley doesn't have" and more "using > knowledge that's being kept from him by a government conspiracy" (if > even that - do we know there are restrictions on what muggles who know > about magic are allowed to know/see in general? In that case it's > "using knowledge that Dudley could theoretically have, but hasn't > bothered to learn") > zgirnius: I would disagree with you that nonmagical people can brew potions. My impression is that it requires magic to make potions out of the ingredients. I cite no less an authority then Professor Snape in support of my opinion: "As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic." (But it is, seems to be the implication). From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jul 13 02:50:42 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 02:50:42 -0000 Subject: Acromantula Venom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155305 > > Luckdragon: > > I bet Hermione knows what it does, and using it agaist LV and > > and Nagini to counteract the Snake venom is a good guess. I'd > > bet money that the Spider venom will come into play in book 7. > > Tonks: > Of course, this means that everything will have to take place > before Slughorn gets a chance to sell the venom. So Slughorn, > Snape and maybe Hermione will know what it is used for and how to > use it. > > Does anyone here know of any RL counterpart as far as spider venom > and snakes? Or anyone know what RL spider venom could be used for > and have an idea how this might translate to the WW? > > Tonks_op > Aussie: In COS (Chap 13), Tom called Hagrid's pet spider a monster. It knocked Tom over as it escaped, then Hagrid jumped Tom and knocked his wand away before Tom could hurt the fleeing spider. (A bit different from movie). Although Tom/LV called it a monster, spiders ran away from Basalisks. So not sure if Tom fears it enough to use it in guarding a Horcrux (could Hufflepuff's cup be sitting in Aragog's old lair in the Forbidden Forrest? 45 years ago, it would have been easier for Tom to put it there.) Now about Snake and Spider venom: It is used for anti-venoms, but may be used for other medical research. (or pranks if Fred and George get any ideas). I found out :- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.reptilepark.com.au/venom_spider.asp The venom in spiders helps them in several ways. It immobilize their prey, begins the process of digestion and is a defense against enemies. Venom glands originated as digestive glands, which aided in the external digestion of prey. Venom is a complex mixture of substances, but the toxins are usually only a single substance. Venoms act in different ways and affect different parts of the bite victim. The main types of venom are Neurotoxins: affect the nervous system. Myotoxins: affect the muscles. Haemorrhagins: affect the blood vessels and cause bleeding. Haemotoxins: affect the blood. Nephrotoxins: affect the kidneys Cardiotoxins: affect the heart. Necrotoxins: affect tissue and cause necrosis. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx That site then explains symptoms of 2 dangerous Australian Spiders. One reacts like Ron facing a history exam (twitching, swetting, rapid heartbeat) and the other like getting hit by a bludger from the twins (pain and vomitting) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jul 13 02:49:49 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 02:49:49 -0000 Subject: Options for "Other" (was: New poll for HPforGrownups) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155306 > SSSusan: > Heh. Now that you mention it, Wormtail does seem a good one to have > included in the list. For some reason, when setting up the polls, I > considered him as an option for the reprieve... but not as one of > the originally unintended deaths! That's my bad, Allen! Potioncat: How will we ever know? Unless she chooses to tell us after book 7 comes out, we won't know who she added to the kill list and who she took off. Does anyone remember that she said she got goosebumps in PoA the movie, because some (two?) scenes were going to look as if she told the movie makers to put them in--they so strongly foreshadowed something in HBP? We had all sorts of guesses before the book came out. I don't think I've seen anything about it afterwards. (I don't think we've even discussed it.) I wonder if she remembers. Polls are fun and usually I'm right in there making my opinions known. I'm not voting now because the thought of predicting someone's death creeps me out. I'm sure I would have taken anything rather than study Divination. ;-) Potioncat, who is about to read an article in today's paper about a woman who will be cleared of the charge of witchcraft from a 1706 trial in Virginia. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 02:51:17 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 02:51:17 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux with a Bloodsucking Snake (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155307 > Pippin: > It's an assumption that Snape had a chance to save him. Dumbledore > never says he wants Snape because Snape could save him. It's not > an assumption that Dumbledore had something very important to > ask of Snape, but we don't know what it was. > Neri: I meant that it is an assumption that Dumbledore ever told Snape "save yourself even if it means my death". How much support this assumption has in canon I leave for anyone to estimate for him/herself, but as of now it is an assumption and not a fact. You still manage to avoid detailing your theory, so I still don't understand what exactly happened on the tower, what Snape knew (or didn't) and what Dumbledore told him (or didn't). I have a feeling that this would involve several more assumptions. > > Neri: > > If AK indeed never blasts the victim, then the DEs on the tower would > > know that (who'd know it better than somebody who uses AK on people > > all the time?). So they'd know that Snape's green light on the tower > > wasn't really an AK. > > Pippin: > Most wizards haven't an ounce of logic. I doubt those four had a > nanogram between them. > Neri: OK, I add another assumption: All four DEs on the tower don't have a nanogram of logic between them. > Pippin: > Carol (thanks!) has given an exhaustive catalog of green light effects. > Snape needed only to say the words "Avada Kedavra" out loud with > no intent, then immediately and nonverbally do another spell which > produced the green light and propelled Dumbledore from the tower. > > As Hermione says, the great advantage of nonverbals is that no > one can tell what spell you are about to use. > Neri: OK. I add the assumption "Snape said the words Avada Kedavra out loud with no intent, then immediately and nonverbally did another spell which produced the green light and propelled Dumbledore from the tower." > Neri: > > If Dumbledore landed softly, then why is he described as "broken" > > with arms and legs spread wide in unnatural angles? > > Pippin: > Convulsions are one of the symptoms of severe poisoning and can > be strong enough to break bones. But see below. > Neri: I add the assumption "the green potion generates convolutions strong enough to break bones, but only during the last half an hour of its action and not during the hour before". > > Neri: > > I still don't understand how Dumbledore arrested his own fall without > > his wand. > > Pippin: > With your permission, I'll assume Dumbledore is *not* a flying > Animagus, because that would make it too easy. But you don't > need a wand to call your Elf (HBP ch 19) Dobby can do a hover charm > (CoS ch 2), and he is proud to keep Dumbledore's secrets (GoF ch 21). > > He could have stayed with Dumbledore and arranged the body if > necessary. That would mean there is someone to tell Harry the tale > when the time comes, which would be handy for JKR. > Neri: I dully add the assumption "during the three seconds or so of his fall from the tower, Dumbledore had the time to summon Dobby who had the time to do a hover charm". I still don't see why couldn't Dumbledore, when he was alone on the tower with Draco, summon Dobby to zap Draco. I guess the reason for that would involve another assumption or three, but I've lost count anyway . > Pippin: > It's not the mechanism of the vow that needs to be considered, IMO, > it's the logic. As Mike points out there is no time constraint on > Draco's task. Since Snape's task is dependent on Draco's, it has > no time constraint either, except the one implied by Narcissa's > concern that Draco and his family not suffer for his failure. If > that's not going to happen, Snape need not fear the vow. > Neri: In other words, a loophole. I add the assumption "there's some loophole in the UV". To all the above add the assumption that Harry was mistaken when he knew that the Body-Bind curse could have only lifted because its caster was dead. In comparison, my alternative theory for explaining Dumbledore's bleeding requires a single assumption: that Voldemort used Nagini's venom in the potion from the cave. This assumption is quite reasonable since he canonically used it in another potion. Note that I don't even need the assumption that AK sometimes blasts people in the air, since my theory would work just as well if Dumbledore was killed by the fall. So I reiterate my original claim: my explanation of Dumbledore's bleeding is considerably more straightforward and simple. Neri From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jul 13 03:11:14 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:11:14 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155308 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > spookedook: > > How does Voldemort get his wand back? > > zgirnius: > My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led Voldemort > to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched the wand and > scampered away in rat form. He returned it to Voldemort after he joined > him in Albania and helped him to regain his baby-body and then his > adult body. > aussie: Just as LV likes an audience when he dueled with Harry, he may have had other DE with him at Godric' Hollow. If Peter took the wand with him all the time till Albania, he would have been tempted to use it making other spells come out before Lilly and James. I suggest faithful DE that were with him hid the wand for him until his return. That would mean Peter or Batty Couch Jr, as the DE that met him in Baby-like form. I doubt Peter would have been trusted as the only escort to LV to GH since his loyalties to James may have come into play whils standing behing Voldy. Peter would have needed at least one other DE there to hold his leash. I'd say either Barty, or my old theory, Severus Snape. ~aussie From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jul 13 03:55:21 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:55:21 -0000 Subject: Acromantula Venom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155309 Tonks: > Or anyone know what RL spider venom could be used for > and have an idea how this might translate to the WW? houyhnhnm: Tarantula venom is being investigated for its potential as an antiarrhythmic agent (treatment for abnormal heart rhythms), so maybe Slughorn will come up with a potion made from acromantula venom that protects against an AK? Really, I don't imagine JKR put any more time into researching experimental pharmacology than she did into researching herpetology. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 13 04:09:55 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 04:09:55 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: <01c701c6a61f$85c89570$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155310 > > > "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > > > > >> The horcrux spell *could* work in a similar fashion, this is *all* > >> speculation of course since we know next to nothing about how JKR > >> pictures that this works. You put a spell on Hufflepuff's cup, for > >> example, that connects it to your soul and enables it to grab a > >> piece of your soul, if/when/and-only-if your soul is ever split. > >> It isperfectly logical that this could be done before you commit a > >> murder and tear your soul. Then, when you actually do commit a > >> murder one of the torn pieces of your soul automatically gets sucked > >> into the horcrux object. No further action is required on your part. > >>You dohave to cast the horcrux spell in order to create a horcrux but > >> you don't necessarily have to cast it *after* the murder that splits > >> your soul. We just don't know for sure; until JKR issues a ruling on > >> the matter one is as plausible as the other. > > > > Mike: > > Thank you Ken, you explained my theory better than I did! Good > > analogy to Hermione's jinxed DA membership list. Considering how JKR > > likes to reuse plot devices, well, makes the idea more plausible. > > > > Rebecca: > > Let's say for argument's sake, that this is possible. The only issue that I > have with it is what Slughorn said in HBP to young Tom Riddle - specifically > that there is a spell but not to ask him what it is as he doesn't know. > It's typically JKR vague as with most of the mysteries we debate here, > however it is specific in that there's a "spell". I also have to question > when in fact that Tom Riddle made the diary and the ring Horcruxes - we > don't know how old Riddle was in the memory, but he "did" have the ring on > his hand because Harry notices it in the memory Slughorn gave him. Just > curious, but if it was a Horcrux then, why did he ask Slughorn about them? > As far as the diary goes, we have seen how memories can be "saved" - so > while it contains Riddle's memories as a 16 year old, it could have been > created as a Horcrux later, which again denotes separate spells. (At least > at that point in time - I haven't forgotten what Dumbledore says about > Voldemort's brilliance.) > > Rebecca > Ken: I'm not sure I understand your objection. You seem to be making a point of the fact that Slughorn uses the singular. We are proposing that there is a single spell used to create a horcrux. We are just saying that it could be cast before the murder. If the spell works as we have outlined it could be cast after the murder instead, it just doesn't *have* to be cast after the murder. A murder has to be committed too and that apparently may or may not be done by means of another spell. DD says LV could have created a horcrux by using the caretaker's murder and he used Nagini to commit that murder. During the scene where we finally see Tom Riddle asking Slughorn about horcruxes Harry comments on how smooth an operator Tom is. It is possible he is being smoother than we realize. He may already know how to create a horcrux, his real intent may have been to sound Slughorn out on the possibility of creating multiple horcruxes. He overplays his hand a bit since he seems to have thought a little too much about multiple horcruxes to have been as ignorant of them as he claims when he first asks about them. Ken From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 04:58:11 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 04:58:11 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155311 Carol earlier: > > *Encase* means "enclose as if in a case." *That's* what the encasement spell does. And you can't encase the soul bit before the murder because the soul bit doesn't yet exist. > > > > So a hypothetical preliminary spell, of which there is no suggestion in canon, would not in itself *encase* the soul bit in the Horcrux. At most it would open the Horcrux, but it would not place the soul bit inside or seal it up. If *encasing* requires a spell, an accidental Horcrux is impossible. > zgirnius responded: To borrow your analogy of the fruitcake, suppose that you > are going to put the fruitcake in a hinged box. > > The 'encasement spell' could be the equivalent of a spring-loaded > mechanism which will snap the lid shut once a sufficiently heavy object is placed into the box. Once you open the box and set the mechanism, all you need to to to 'encase' the fruitcake is drop it in. If you leave, but an explosion in your kitchen knocks the cake off a shelf and into the box, you agency is no longer even needed. The set up you have created will encase it automatically. > > By analogy, the Horcrux making spell could place the object in a > magical condition whereby the addition of a torn soul piece would > automatically complete the Horcrux making process. > Carol: Maybe it could, but where is the evidence that the Horcrux spell works that way, or that a preliminary spell is ever needed or used? At least four murders (three if you disregard Myrtle) predate the first two Horcruxes. Are you saying that he may have prepared the ring and diary Horcruxes and gone out and killed two more people because his soul was no longer split from the earlier murders? Where was he going to find a victim more significant than his father (before the Prophecy)? zgirnius: > Now, whether magical backlash could cause such a spell to change its location from some suitable artifact Voldemort would have prepared in advance to Harry's forehead is a different question. Carol: Aye, there's the rub. What's the use of a prepared Horcrux if the soul bit goes into Harry's cut instead? And clearly Harry himself was not a prepared Horcrux because Voldemort was trying to kill him. Slughorn says that a spell is required to encase the fragment, not to prepare the Horcrux. And a spell on a prepared Horcrux, if such a thing existed, would not enable the soul fragment to lodge itself in some other object or person, such as Harry or his scar. And in all cases that we've seen, the murder appears to precede the Horcrux. zgirnius: But my feeling is > that if Rowling wishes this to be possible in her universe, it would > not be too great a stretch. Personally, I am undecided as to whether > she would want to or not, but I think an interesting story could ensue if she did, or if she didn't. > Carol responds: I'm not saying that an interesting story couldn't be created using a previously prepared Horcrux, but I don't think it's done that way. Suppose that LV used Frank Bryce's murder to make Nagini into a Horcrux, as DD suggests. Do you think he prepared her in advance, knowing that the old Muggle was going to come up the stairs and be AK'd? Clearly he killed Hepzibah Smith before he stole the cup and locket, and I'd be very surprised if he didn't use her murder to create the cup Horcrux--*after* he had split his soul by killing her. Obviously, JKR can do anything she likes with her story, but I expect her to have a plausible mechanism for creating Horcruxes that fits with what we've already been told, and I don't think that a preliminary spell placed on an object before a murder fits with what we've seen so far. Carol, feeling a bit like Molly Weasley at 12 GP, looking around for allies and not finding them From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Jul 13 04:43:08 2006 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:43:08 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Character Driven or Plot Driven In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155312 >Magpie: > >Orson Scott Card has a way of breaking down stories into four >different types: Milieu, Idea, Character or Event. HP as a series >is an Event Story, a story driven by something wrong in the world >that must be made right, like the return of an evil thought to be >dead (Voldemort). Within that there can be lots of other types of >stories going on. The individual books are all Idea stories-- >stories about a secret that's eventually revealed: ... Finally, something that seems to bring together what others have been telling me. These categories make more sense to me than the plot driven/character driven dichotomy. I suppose the plot driven part is closest to "Idea" or "Event". >In fact, >there's not a lot of character development if by development one >means that a character develops and changes. I don't see this as much. I think all three of the trio develop and change throughout the books. >Still even character development is more often put across in terms >of plot rather than a detailed study in the narrative. A change in a >character is a twist. Even Harry's love life is first presented in >HBP as a mystery with clues to watch for, with little time >dissecting his feelings. > >-m Yes, I can see that character development often leads to plot twists. Hermione's acceptance of some degree of rule-breaking leads to friendship between her and Harry and Ron. Harry's recognition that he is unwilling to kill Sirius in PA leads to the other revelations about him. Thank you. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com From imontero at iname.com Wed Jul 12 21:00:01 2006 From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:00:01 -0000 Subject: Character Driven or Plot Driven In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155313 > > Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > snipped > > I think the important thing is to look at the characters and > > to understand their motives, their feelings, and their actions. > > It seems to me that the plot is there just to expose different > > facets of their characters, which would make the books, in my > > mind character driven. > > > > But I can also see that people who have not immersed themselves > > in analyzing the characters might view the plots of each book to > > be more important. > > Leah: > I wonder how much is personal preference. snip > > So it's perhaps not surprising that I find HP plot driven; perhaps > I'm just not interested in character analysis. Having said that, > I think there are three main elements at work in HP, none of which > is characterisation. Firstly, plot. Each book embodies a mystery > or mysteries- In most mysteries, character is subservient > to plot. Luna: Thanks Laura and Lea to bring about this subject! Actually, I find myself in the plot driven group. I also see the characters serving the plot, and not the plot serving the characters. I remember a similar discussion with someone in the shipping discussion list. After HBP, some H/Hers were all startled and surprised with the outcome and were asking R/Her about the Anvil sized clues that Jo was supposed to have shown in the books. While explaining this, I realized that a lot of the H/Her's in the list were character driven persons who centered their attention an awful lot in Hermione, which somehow rendered it very hard for them to see the books from a plot point of view. It was hard because they were talking apples and I was talking oranges! Now I wonder... Is it possible that most H/Hers are more character than plot driven readers...? Luna, who wonders if being a tranlator also rendered her plot driven reader... From imontero at iname.com Wed Jul 12 21:47:41 2006 From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:47:41 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : another question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155314 > > Luna: > > Now, how can a Horcrux have been accidentally created > > if Voldemort didn't achieve the killing of the victim in the > > first place, which, in theory, is the main requirement for the > > creation of a Horcrux? > > zgirnius: > While Voldemort did not achieve the killing of *Harry* he had just > achieved two other killings, those of Harry's parents. So pieces > of soul for encasement were available. Slughorn did not say the > spell was for splitting the soul-that is an inevitable consequence > of murder, as he explained. The spell is for encasing a soul bit > into an object. Luna: We don't know for sure if your soul is split every time you kill someone (as someone else said in this list, if that's the case, Voldemort would be confetti by now, what with all those inferi, etc...) And, DD was clear, Voldemort was intending to create his horcrux with Harry's death, not Lily's or James's deaths. Slughorn said that you need to commit murder. Lily and James were killed, in fact, Voldemort didn't want to kill Lily at first, but Harry was supposed to be murdered. Then, there is intent, so Voldemort must have already chosen an object to encase his soul upon killing Harry. Then a spell needs to be performed. I think it has to be done after you commit murder, so you can catch and encase the piece of soul. Well, now I am lost. I feel 50/50 about this Harry or Harry's scar being a horcrux. And BTW, have anyone given a thought to the word Horcrux? Crux is the latin word for cross... What are the implications of the word cross being part of this term? Luna, now thinking she needs something for her headache... From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 03:10:07 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:10:07 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155315 > spookedook: > > How does Voldemort get his wand back? > > zgirnius: > My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led > Voldemort to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched > the wand and scampered away in rat form. He returned it to > Voldemort after he joined him in Albania and helped him to > regain his baby-body and then his adult body. Mike: I think JKR confirmed in one of her interviews that, indeed it was Peter who retrieved LV's wand and brought it to him. At least I read that on Red Hen's site, although I don't remember for sure if Red Hen was extrapolating from some of JKR's hints or if she told us flat out. From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 02:39:53 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:39:53 -0400 Subject: Potions as Magtic (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50607121540x217f165s3ec4a866f354a87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607121939j79c2460fnafb37be195dd2541@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155316 > zgirnius: > I would disagree with you that nonmagical people can brew potions. > My impression is that it requires magic to make potions out of the > ingredients. I cite no less an authority then Professor Snape in > support of my opinion: > > "As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will > hardly believe this is magic." > > (But it is, seems to be the implication). random832: It could well be that the only magic involved is that naturally present in the ingredients. From katbofaye at aol.com Thu Jul 13 03:28:04 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:28:04 -0000 Subject: RE Priori Incantatem and the misplaced spell Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155317 Bridge13219: >> I remember in that scene LV wand was producing/echoing screams as well as the shadows of the people he killed. Maybe one of those screams was him when the AK rebounded on himself (in addition to all the Crusios he had done). << katssirius: In response to the suggestion that it is hidden in other screams, unfortunately there is only a long pause between Bertha' echo and Lily's echo. Even if Voldemort was disembodied (as Geoff suggested) the spell is not there. Other less significant pieces of magic show up like Crucios in the form of their results. So whatever happened to Voldy should have come out of that wand unless it was not used. Did JKR just forget to include it or is the absence significant? Explanations anyone? From jamess at climaxgroup.com Thu Jul 13 09:38:19 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:38:19 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE Priori Incantatem and the misplaced spell Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B1F@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 155318 The first editions of the book had James coming out of the wand before Lilly, obviously this resulted in a lot of speculation that what we were told about the event at godrics hollow was suspect (Primarily that Lilly died before James, not the other way around as we have always been told). In the end JKR explained that this had been an error and later prints had been corrected. You can take from this, one of two things: 1) That we shouldn't try and pull too much information from the Priori Incantatem spell in this case. 2) The version we now have has presumably been checked repeatedly, and any anomaly is presumably intentional. It's possible that the absence of any shadow of the failed AK could be critical, but it's more likely to be nothing at all. If you PI'd a first year students wand would you get hundreds of failed spells from their learning? The PI of a crucio produces a scream, a conjured item produces a ghost of the item and an AK produces a ghost of the dead person. But what does a failed spell do? The PI shadow related directly to the effects of the spell, the effect of that AK was no dead person, so the PI produced a shadow of nothing. One other option: (please take as slightly tongue in cheek) *grin* A friend and I in a semi inebriated state came up with the following idea. The ghost of Lilly told Harrry that his father was coming soon, this implies that the ghosts had some level of communication with each other before coming out of the wand (This is the important bit). The person who did anything close to dying from the failed AK was Voldemort himself, and his "ghost" was due to make an appearance at the appropriate time. My friend and I took great amusement in the idea that the ghost of Voldemorts destroyed body was unable to make an appearance because the ghosts of James and Lilly (and the others) gave it a damn good kicking in the PI waiting room. -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of katssirius Sent: 13 July 2006 04:28 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE Priori Incantatem and the misplaced spell Bridge13219: >> I remember in that scene LV wand was producing/echoing screams as well as the shadows of the people he killed. Maybe one of those screams was him when the AK rebounded on himself (in addition to all the Crusios he had done). << katssirius: In response to the suggestion that it is hidden in other screams, unfortunately there is only a long pause between Bertha' echo and Lily's echo. Even if Voldemort was disembodied (as Geoff suggested) the spell is not there. Other less significant pieces of magic show up like Crucios in the form of their results. So whatever happened to Voldy should have come out of that wand unless it was not used. Did JKR just forget to include it or is the absence significant? Explanations anyone? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jamess at climaxgroup.com Thu Jul 13 09:44:24 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:44:24 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B20@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 155319 I suspect the ring was already a horcrux at this point. I think that Voldemort and worked out the horcrux creation process in advance of his visit to the family. Having spent a long time learning dark magic, Tom riddle had already discovered the horcrux process and set about creating one himself. He was obsessed with immortality and wanted to go further. The thrust of his discussion with Slughorn related to the creation of multiple horcri. Rebecca: Let's say for argument's sake, that this is possible. The only issue that I have with it is what Slughorn said in HBP to young Tom Riddle - specifically that there is a spell but not to ask him what it is as he doesn't know. It's typically JKR vague as with most of the mysteries we debate here, however it is specific in that there's a "spell". I also have to question when in fact that Tom Riddle made the diary and the ring Horcruxes - we don't know how old Riddle was in the memory, but he "did" have the ring on his hand because Harry notices it in the memory Slughorn gave him. Just curious, but if it was a Horcrux then, why did he ask Slughorn about them? As far as the diary goes, we have seen how memories can be "saved" - so while it contains Riddle's memories as a 16 year old, it could have been created as a Horcrux later, which again denotes separate spells. (At least at that point in time - I haven't forgotten what Dumbledore says about Voldemort's brilliance.) Rebecca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 10:33:16 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:33:16 -0000 Subject: Wiz. Morality In-Reply-To: <01cf01c6a622$b92c39a0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155320 > > Rebecca: > > IMO, Dudley didn't have to pick up the toffee and eat it. He did so because > he is a glutton which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the 7 deadly sins in > some circles. Choices, choices, they do come to mean something, don't they? Finwitch: I agree with this. Besides, Dudley was on a diet for health reasons - he REALLY should have known better than to eat it. Guess he learned THAT lesson there as he was much more fit in the next two books -- (boxing champion in OOP). So that shock might have saved Dudley's life. (not that one needs to appreciate boxing, but it IS exercise). As for morality of WW. Sorting Hat told as the virtues of the 4 houses right there in the first book -- Gryffindor: Bravery, nerve and chivalry. Ravenclaw: Quick mind, Wit and learning Hufflepuff: loyalty, fair play, unafraid of hard toil - Slytherin: Cunning, ambition, use any means to achieve the goal. I myself found Harry throwing mud on Malfoy while under invisibility cloak as the BOTTOM he ever went. Even worse than his angered crucios. Why? Because that broke against *chivalry*. Twins 'dropping' that candy did not. Besides, those two exemplify nerve by Ginny's testimony. And yes, I do find this the 'older brother doing in the bully'- sort as well. Harry's as close as family, their team mate, and anyway -- the twins DID save Harry with that Ford Anglia earlier... Finwitch From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 07:24:42 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:24:42 -0000 Subject: What will become of Dolores Umbridge? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155321 Now for something that is neither Snapey-poo or horcruxes. JKR has told us that we will be seeing Umbridge again, as she wants to "torture her a bit more" before having done with her -- which is good, since Umbridge and her treatment of Harry is one of the big dangling threads, and big moral issues, with which JKR needs to deal. Now, that raises an interesting question. What will become of Dolores Umbridge? I offer the following delightful possibilities: 1) Following an attack on Privet Drive, Vernon Dursley demands protection. Umbridge is assigned as the Dursleys' wizard bodyguard. 2) In a desperate attempt to gather support for the war effort, Scrimgeour decides to appoint an emissary to the Centaurs and Werewolves. Dolores gets the job. 3) Dolores is publically revealed by the DEs to be half-hag, thus discrediting her stance on half-breeds and werewolves. 4) In a ministerial re-shuffle, Dolores is assigned as the assistant to the new secretary for muggle and half-breed relations -- Percy Weasley. 5) Ditto for above accept the new secretary is Arthur Weasley. 6) A Dementor attack on the ministry reveals the former DADA professor as incapable of producing a Patronus. She winds up in St. Mungo's going "clip clop, clip clop." 7) In an effort to co-opt Harry, the Ministry surprises him in public with the Order of Merlin, presented by Dolores. Harry does not react well. 8) Dolores is a victim of a love potion, causing her to feel and intense and unrequited passion for Severus Snape. Any more? From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jul 13 08:53:11 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:53:11 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155322 spookedook: How does Voldemort get his wand back? zgirnius: My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led Voldemort to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched the wand and scampered away in rat form. He returned it to Voldemort after he joined him in Albania and helped him to regain his baby-body and then his adult body. aussie: Just as LV likes an audience when he dueled with Harry, he may have had other DE with him at Godric' Hollow. I disagree, we all know that LV is very secretive, he wouldn't want PP knowing his plans, I don't think he'd have wanted anyone to know his methods of making himself immortal, because that way they could do it too and detract from his power. Also, if there had been a death eater with him he could have returned to his body almost immediately! I'm sorry but it still isn't explained for me Tinktonks From jenniferkchoi at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 10:30:31 2006 From: jenniferkchoi at gmail.com (Jennifer Choi) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:30:31 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <01cf01c6a622$b92c39a0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> References: <000b01c6a605$f923d440$63fe54d5@Marion> <01cf01c6a622$b92c39a0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <9d4afd760607130330w638adecbi89df62f26a27aa73@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155323 Rebecca: >IMO, Dudley didn't have to pick up the toffee and eat it. He did so because .he is a glutton which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the 7 deadly sins in >some circles. Choices, choices, they do come to mean something, don't they? Jennathasania: I'm curious here how in the Potterverse blaming the victim for the crime is such a normal reaction. In my mind the situation above, where Dudley is not thought of as the victim would only apply if he knew all the risks involved in eating the candy (i.e. if he knew that his tongue was going to swell). I'm not sure why he should have assumed that the candies were harmful, and even if he is a glutton that doesn't make it *okay.* As Carol said above, raping a prostitute can't be justified in any way, shape, or form by saying that she was lustful (also classified as a deadly sin), and therefore asking for it by dressing in a provokative way or soliciting Johns on the side of the road. Or alternatively that someone that was killed by riding in the same car as a drunk driver deserved it, because they *chose* to ride in the car with the driver, which is inarguably a stupid thing to do. Rebecca: >The Twins sadists? I don't believe where I see in canon where they take >pleasure in inflicting pain? In youth, the Twins are immature, intelligent >and bored, perhaps. They're experimenting, not torturing, and they only >tempted a gluttonous Dudley. Why someone would pick up something that fell >out of someone's pocket he didn't know and put it in his mouth is beyond me, >but hey, to each his own :) Jennathasania: I don't have the books infront of me, but it seems pretty obvious that the Twins thought that what happened to Dudley was a great joke, or at least they were amused rather than horrified (like Petunia) or indifferent. While this is certainly not the same as sexual enjoyment, I would feel fairly confident in making the statement that, for most people, laughing brings pleasure - or being amused brings more pleasure than not being amused. I don't think this makes them sadists on the level of Voldemort, but it certainly precludes this from being innocent fun, IMO, since someone suffers. Also, the candy situation to me seems to be similar to accepting a drink at a bar. Who takes a drink from a complete stranger? Personally I don't, but if someone did and that drink contained a ruffie would you blame what happened following on the person who accepted the drink or the person who spiked it and then offered it up for consumption - and let's keep in mind that the Twins were probably very certain Dudley would have eaten the candy. Again, revenge isn't justice. Sometimes the justice system may impose a sentence that one regards as revenge, but revenge is not the primary purpose, which is why people who are biased in some personal way are not part of juries. Above somewhere it was mentioned that Muggle baiting could be defined deriving a positive feeling from using magic on a Muggle to harm or frighten them, later it was argued that this *wasn't* Muggle baiting, and neither was what the DE's did at the Quiddich world cup: Random832: >I'm suggesting that "muggle-baiting" is a specific term, and that >neither what the twins did nor what DEs do is "muggle-baiting", which makes me curious as to what level of harm would constitute Muggle baiting. Along the same vein, in my mind, it could be said that Malfoy is not baiting, or tormenting, Hermione with his name calling and Mudblood references (I personally don't think that this is the case). He thinks that her reaction is funny; it's a cruel thing to say, but he laughs, so it is just a cruel joke. Maybe revenge, even, for all the times that she injured his feelings. And personally, I think that this is both less wrong and more fair (although not right) than what the Twins did to Dudley, because Hermione can call him names right back, whereas Dudley can't hex the Twins. Jennathasania [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mkeller01 at alltel.net Thu Jul 13 11:18:53 2006 From: mkeller01 at alltel.net (jksunflower2002) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:18:53 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : another question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155324 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lunamk03" wrote: > > > > Luna: > > > Now, how can a Horcrux have been accidentally created > > > if Voldemort didn't achieve the killing of the victim in the > > > first place, which, in theory, is the main requirement for the > > > creation of a Horcrux? > > > > zgirnius: > > While Voldemort did not achieve the killing of *Harry* he had just > > achieved two other killings, those of Harry's parents. So pieces > > of soul for encasement were available. Slughorn did not say the > > spell was for splitting the soul-that is an inevitable consequence > > of murder, as he explained. The spell is for encasing a soul bit > > into an object. > > Luna: > We don't know for sure if your soul is split every time you kill > someone (as someone else said in this list, if that's the case, > Voldemort would be confetti by now, what with all those inferi, > etc...) > And, DD was clear, Voldemort was intending to create his horcrux > with Harry's death, not Lily's or James's deaths. > Slughorn said that you need to commit murder. Lily and James were > killed, in fact, Voldemort didn't want to kill Lily at first, but > Harry was supposed to be murdered. > Then, there is intent, so Voldemort must have already chosen an > object to encase his soul upon killing Harry. > Then a spell needs to be performed. I think it has to be done after > you commit murder, so you can catch and encase the piece of soul. > > Well, now I am lost. I feel 50/50 about this Harry or Harry's scar > being a horcrux. > > And BTW, have anyone given a thought to the word Horcrux? > Crux is the latin word for cross... > What are the implications of the word cross being part of this term? > > Luna, now thinking she needs something for her headache... > I've heard a theory bantered about before (somewhere) that the "murder" was achieved by Voldemort's spell backfiring....he murdered himself. Had he prepared to "split" right before casting the spell on Harry? Just tossin' it out. Toad (who is not sure if this has already been brought up, but after four years on this list has decided that sanity would best be preserved by not reading every single post...bah!) From phil at pcsgames.net Thu Jul 13 10:56:58 2006 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:56:58 -0400 Subject: -=Spam=- [HPforGrownups] Acromantula Venom References: Message-ID: <018701c6a66b$1603d820$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 155325 Aussie: Although Tom/LV called it a monster, spiders ran away from Basalisks. So not sure if Tom fears it enough to use it in guarding a Horcrux (could Hufflepuff's cup be sitting in Aragog's old lair in the Forbidden Forrest? 45 years ago, it would have been easier for Tom to put it there.) Now Phil: In Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Acromantula This beast is believed to be wizard-bred, possibly intended to guard wizard dwellings or treasure. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 13 12:50:04 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:50:04 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607121540x217f165s3ec4a866f354a87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155326 > > Random832: > I'm suggesting that "muggle-baiting" is a specific term, and that > neither what the twins did nor what DEs do is "muggle-baiting", but > rather what the DEs do is a more severe crime and we disagree on where > what the twins did falls on any spectrum. Pippin: What Mr. Weasley says is that he spends half his life campaigning against the mistreatment of Muggles, and his own sons are undermining what he does. What the DE's did at the World Cup was not usual -- even now that Voldemort is back, the DE's are not marching in public and openly flouting the ministry. What Fred and George did is more like Morphin's misbehavior. That *is* probably something that happens all the time and Mr. Weasley spends half his life campaigning against -- a wizard has a personal grievance against some Muggles and thinks he ought to be able to use magic to get even, and if the laws don't allow it, they jolly well should. That may be different than picking on random Muggles just because, but it's still anti-Muggleism. Muggles have chosen to believe that magic is abhorrent and unnatural, and, as far as possible, non-existent. That may be shortsighted of them, and vastly illogical, but the wizards have encouraged this belief and benefit from it, because they're not being constantly badgered to find magical solutions for Muggle problems, as Hagrid says. That being the case, using magic to get even with a Muggle carries an overtone that using magic to get even with another wizard doesn't have. To me, the Twins using magic to frighten and humiliate Dudley is a bit like tricking a Catholic child into cursing the Pope or an Orthodox Jewish child into eating pork. Regardless of whether those particular children deserved to be frightened or humiliated, it would be an attack on their beliefs and thus an attack on everyone who shares them. It's also unfair if wizards are allowed to use magic to punish Muggles whenever they feel like it, but aren't allowed to use it to help them. Pippin From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 12:28:02 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:28:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <9d4afd760607130330w638adecbi89df62f26a27aa73@mail.gmail.com> References: <000b01c6a605$f923d440$63fe54d5@Marion> <01cf01c6a622$b92c39a0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> <9d4afd760607130330w638adecbi89df62f26a27aa73@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607130528y36248a13r4e10282d12a6442d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155327 > Jennathasania: > As Carol said above, > raping a prostitute can't be justified in any way, shape, or form by saying > that she was lustful (also classified as a deadly sin), and therefore asking > for it by dressing in a provokative way or soliciting Johns on the side of > the road. Excellent proof by analogy. The only problem is you forgot the key step of proving that your analogy is in any way similar to the original situation. If the same prostitute got an STD, would you blame the person who she got it from for not wearing a condom, or would you call it an occupational hazard? Jennathasania: > Above somewhere it was mentioned that Muggle baiting could > be defined deriving a positive feeling from using magic on a Muggle > to harm or frighten them, I don't think anyone said that. If they did, I think whoever it was was mistaken. A shrinking key neither harms nor frightens, though it may confuse. Jennathasania: > later it was argued that this *wasn't* Muggle baiting, and > neither was what the DE's did at the Quiddich world cup: Just to be clear (I made it clear in the post you're quoting, but you snipped that part), saying "this wasn't muggle-baiting" is NOT saying that it's not bad enough to be muggle-baiting - it's saying that it's a different type of crime. >> Random832: >> I'm suggesting that "muggle-baiting" is a specific term, and that >> neither what the twins did nor what DEs do is "muggle-baiting", > > Jennathasania: > which makes me curious as to what level of harm would constitute > Muggle baiting. It's not a specific level of harm. It's a specific type of action. How much do you have to steal for it to constitute running a red light? Or, for that matter, to constitute muggle-baiting? Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 13:35:22 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:35:22 -0400 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50607121540x217f165s3ec4a866f354a87@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607130635k188b8a45r7e019119c16f6f14@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155328 > Pippin: > It's also unfair if wizards are allowed to use magic to punish Muggles > whenever they feel like it, but aren't allowed to use it to help them. Random832: But aren't relatives of wizards generally an exception to the whole "don't tell them about magic, don't use magic to help them, etc" rule anyway? From kjones at telus.net Thu Jul 13 14:45:24 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:45:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44B65C84.7050205@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155329 justcarol67 wrote: > Carol earlier: snip >>> So a hypothetical preliminary spell, of which there is no > suggestion in canon, would not in itself *encase* the soul bit in the > Horcrux. At most it would open the Horcrux, but it would not place the > soul bit inside or seal it up. If *encasing* requires a spell, an > accidental Horcrux is impossible. KJ writes: I also do not believe that the spell was something pre-made. I don't think that Voldy had any intention of doing anything else other than killing Harry and using his death to make his final horcrux at some other place and time. He probably had the receptacle chosen and available only because he was much more organized in horcrux-making, and had lots of time to find the items he wished to use. To borrow the fruitcake, my vision is more along the lines of inserting an explosive device into the fruitcake. When Voldemorte cursed Harry, I don't think the spell touched him because of the protections of his mother, but rebounded and ignited the fruitcake. The resulting massive explosion blew Voldemorte into his component parts, one of which sliced into Harry's head. The other split soul parts may have rejoined the main part after the explosion, or perhaps they are stuck in the drywall somewhere at Godric's Hollow. The only thing that bothers me about this is that if Harry was far enough into his crib to not be able to see what was happening, how did anything cut his head??? KJ enjoying the vision of an exploding fruitcake. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jul 13 15:51:02 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:51:02 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: <01c701c6a61f$85c89570$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155330 Rebecca: *(snip)* > I also have to question > when in fact that Tom Riddle made the diary and the ring Horcruxes - we > don't know how old Riddle was in the memory, but he "did" have the ring on > his hand because Harry notices it in the memory Slughorn gave him. Just > curious, but if it was a Horcrux then, why did he ask Slughorn about them? Ceridwen: I think it's possible that the only thing Tom Riddle really meant to find out from Slughorn was if it was possible to make more than one Horcrux. As he gets closer to the information he wants, the smooth line drops away, he is visibly impatient. See Horcruxes chapter, page 497 US Scholastic hardcover, as the 'careful flattery' begins to give way to excitement. On page 498 he demands information which Slughorn cannot or will not give. Then he backs off, apologizes for possibly offending, then gets to the question that I think was really his purpose: "What I don't understand, though - just out of curiosity - I mean, would one Horcrux be much use? Can you only split your soul once? Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger, to have your soul in more pieces, I mean, for instance, isn't seven the most powerfully magical number, wouldn't seven - ?" When Tom leaves, Harry notices a look of 'wild happiness' that made him look 'less human' (page 499). Since Horcruxes are a banned subject at Hogwarts (Slughorn doesn't say DD banned them or was instrumental in their banning, only that he was fierce about upholding the ban), then how did Tom, Muggle-raised, know about them if he didn't know more than he got from Slughorn in the first place? He needed to know if it was possible to make more than one, in my opinion. Ceridwen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jul 13 15:26:50 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:26:50 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <01cf01c6a622$b92c39a0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155331 Rebecca: > > IMO, Dudley didn't have to pick up the toffee and eat it. He did so because > he is a glutton which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the 7 deadly sins in > some circles. Choices, choices, they do come to mean something, don't they? > They're experimenting, not torturing, and they only > tempted a gluttonous Dudley. Why someone would pick up something that fell > out of someone's pocket he didn't know and put it in his mouth is beyond me, > but hey, to each his own :) Ceridwen: I've been on diets. The last one was a diabetic diet when I had gestational diabetes with my lastborn. I would have killed for that piece of candy! The book mentions that everyone in the Dursley household is on a near-starvation diet for Dudley's health, not that either Harry or Petunia need it! But, when I was on my diet, I cooked the diet food for everyone. It's much easier than hanging out a shingle for a restaurant where everyone gets to choose his or her own menu. And, the twins knew about the diet, which is why, I think, they used the candy to tempt Dudley. My husband and eldest son would sit there while I was on that diet and eat M&Ms and cupcakes in front of me. Believe me, diets are the pits, and people who are on them really do have more issues about sweets than people who can have sweets at any time and choose to just walk away. Many diet sites will advocate a 'naughty day' where people can break their diets so they won't break down and fall completely off the wagon in a splurge of binging. The diabetic diet is different, of course, there are physical discomforts and dangers from breaking the diet. For instance, I got dizzy from drinking half a cup of eggnog that Christmas. Try tempting a dieting friend with candy and see what happens. If the friend has been on the diet for any length of time without a 'naughty day', he or she will at the least wonder why you did it. Dieting isn't pleasant for an adult, and it's darned hard for a child. Dudley's weight, signalling his parents giving in to his wants the way they do, is probably part of what Dumbledore meant when he said the Dursleys had abused Dudley. They had to go to extreme measures to see to his weight before it became a serious health issue, and he still gets whatever he wants - see the tantrum about how many presents he got for his birthday in POA, for an instance. Still, tempting someone on a strict diet with candy is not nice. The twins, at sixteen, may not think of that, they may just think it's fun to bait Dudley (which is what it is, they're baiting Dudley in particular by the method, knowing he's on a diet) without thinking of how it *might* also be Muggle-baiting. They're young, too. Arthur was right to admonish them for it. That's his job as their father, to teach them shared social and familial values. I do think the twins were baiting Dudley. Maybe not as a Muggle per se, but as a fat boy they don't like who is on a diet. Understandable since they're kids, but not nice, and not something they should carry over into adulthood. Ceridwen. From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 14:22:13 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:22:13 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <01cf01c6a622$b92c39a0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155332 Marion Ros said: > > These sadistic little twerps have a *history* of feeding younger > > kids harmful sweets, and it has nothing to do with justice, > > whatsoever. They've also have a history of tormenting younger > > children and animals. Strange that those who claim that Dudley > > Dursley *deserved* to be tortured by the Twins because it was > > karmic justice do not clamour for karmic justice to hit the > > Twins, the biggest, baddest, unrepentested bullies of them all! > > Marion (who thinks that Percy Weasley is the only healhty member > > of that whole horrid family) Rebecca: > IMO, Dudley didn't have to pick up the toffee and eat it. He did > so because he is a glutton which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of > the 7 deadly sins in some circles. Choices, choices, they do come > to mean something, don't they? > > The Twins sadists? I don't believe where I see in canon where they > take pleasure in inflicting pain? In youth, the Twins are > immature, intelligent and bored, perhaps. They're experimenting, > not torturing, and they only tempted a gluttonous Dudley. bridge13219: Whoa! Sadistic? Torment? Torture? How about they're just stupid kids? Whatever adult situations they've faced already, they're still kids. Doesn't anybody have siblings? My sisters didn't have acid pops or the ability to transfigure my toys, but they would have if they could (and vice versa). They are, however, close to that arbitrary age of majority at that point, still kids with bad/undeveloped judgement skills. I feel (however misguided their actions were) they were demonstrating their loyalty to Harry as an honorary member of the Weasley clan. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jul 13 16:57:22 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:57:22 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607120510v1f5fdb59v1df4db18a904a0db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155333 Jordan: > Do you think it would be somehow less severe if they had come up with > a way to create that effect using purely mundane ingredients? Heck, > _didn't_ they? It's done with a potion, right? I don't think we've > been told that muggles can't brew all the same potions wizards can, > given access to the ingredients, and I've always thought the > classification "this substance/creature/place is magical, this one's > not" is a bit questionable - think of flobberworms. And even > regardless of that, if it's a potion, and muggles brew potions, it > becomes less "using an ability Dudley doesn't have" and more "using > knowledge that's being kept from him by a government conspiracy" (if > even that - do we know there are restrictions on what muggles who know > about magic are allowed to know/see in general? In that case it's > "using knowledge that Dudley could theoretically have, but hasn't > bothered to learn") Magpie: Interesting question. Dudley couldn't make anything on that level, because Magic is required for Potions--we Muggles can't make them. But I wonder what they could taint the candy with in a Muggle way that would be on the same level without seeming insane! Jordan: I'm talking about the choice between hexing someone vs punching them in the face, not vs doing nothing to them. - the former is more natural. There are plenty of things that you don't _need_ to use your thumb for, but you use it anyway. I'd say "it's second nature", except it's not. there's no "second" about it. Magpie: The Twins actually do punch naturally when they're angry, just like Muggles do--they do it in OotP. If they did that to Dudley in this scene they'd still be two 16-year-olds ganging up to punch a 14-year- old, but I couldn't say they were abusing their power as Wizards. The Dursleys wouldn't need another Wizard there to fix things for them, at least. I mean, I accept that the boys aren't perfect and sometimes they're just going to act out and do something that satisfies them or whatever. But I do think Magic this way is bringing out big guns and they just don't really ever try to think of things from the Muggle pov. The Twins are also testing out their products. This was a thought-out plan, they didn't just whip out the wand without thinking. Jordan: I don't know the context. But see my previous statement about a (non-related-to-the-bully) victim bringing his older brother to the schoolyard so he can intimidate the bully. Magpie: Oh--yes, I think that's fine. It's not like the 8-year-old boy is bringing his 16-year-old brother and the older brother is beating the 8-year-old bully up for him. He stops the harassment. An older brother throwing a bottle at the kid who used to beat up his brother in fifth grade would be a different thing. Jordan: Judging it to be wrong is one thing, but I still think, regardless of that, you're misapplying the term "muggle-baiting". Magpie: Ah, I see what you're saying. So it's abuse of Muggles, but not Muggle *baiting* which you see as a very specific thing, where you trick Muggles with Magic and they keep thinking something weird is going on and have no idea. I can understand that--though I agree with Pippin's explanation that Arthur is (correctly, imo) saying that this undermines the spirit of his work against Muggle-baiting. Jordan: And not anymore after the Dursleys all saw that he can't use magic until he's 17. This sort of thing serves (whether they meant it in this light or not) to remind them that he has friends who can. (I don't remember if this was before or after, so bear with me.) Magpie: Though remember that Harry's adult friends act like the older brother of the bully--they show up to give the Dursleys the message to leave Harry alone, and they do. The Twins aren't showing up and being intimidating for any purpose, they're just playing a Prank of their own. What they do doesn't change the Durlsey's treatment of Harry. Sometimes this comes across as being too judgmental against the Twins--I'm not completely freaked out by what they do. They're being kids and they're doing something stupid, not attempting murder. I only wind up arguing against it so much when it's twisted into some kind of bizarre self-help for Dudley, or something that Dudley does to himself. Rebecca:: > IMO, Dudley didn't have to pick up the toffee and eat it. He did so > because he is a glutton which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the 7 > deadly sins in some circles. Choices, choices, they do come to mean > something, don't they?...Why someone would pick up something that fell > out of someone's pocket he didn't know and put it in his mouth is > beyond me, but hey, to each his own :) Magpie: Yeah, it's just ridiculous to act like the Twins are the ones to blame just for creating the thing, bringing it into the house and intentionally dropping it hoping someone would eat it when Dudley ate the thing himself! (Although they can be given credit for Dudley's losing weight later. Dudley can only make bad decisions.) I mean, if some a family who were friends of my cousin came to visit and one of their kids dropped, say, some caramels and when he left I realized that he'd missed one when he gathered them all up, and I was never going to see him again, I'd have to be a big glutton to actually consider eating the thing myself. It's a CARAMEL for goodness sake. They always have at least a 50/50 chance of causing some physical deformity, and besides these people are...well, they're not strangers, they're friends of my cousin, so why wouldn't their candy by laced with something? Plus Dudley's on a diet, and what's a strict diet without a little amusing temptation? Didn't these people see Se7en? Somebody's got to punish those sins! I personally like to carry around chocolate laced with a powerful laxative which I scatter around in front of everyone with too much body fat. -m From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 13 17:15:39 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:15:39 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155334 > Magpie: > Whatever we call it, I'm one of those Muggles who isn't comfortable > giving Wizard's a blank check to whip out the wands to discipline me > (and anyone who'd grant that power over themselves to the Twins, > who've never even pretended to not be self-interested first, is a > fool). PJ: I wouldn't be comfortable with that either but that's not exactly what is going on in that scene... At least not the way I read it. What is happening is that they are, as usual, playing a *joke* on someone (a nasty joke but a joke nonetheless) but this time the person they're playing the joke on can be seriously injured. Something they're not used to in their normal world. Magpie: But I think a person who truly respects a person of > different abilities or a minority person vulnerable to > discrimination as a person naturally continues to do so when they > are angry at him/her. If the minute you're angry at the person or > the minute the person does something wrong you're quick to establish > that you are the superior one because of the different things you > were born with, I don't think you truly respected them to begin > with. PJ: Agreed, but first you have to realize exactly how those different abilities relate and, IMO, they don't have the maturity or the personal experience to be able to figure that out yet. What they know is that *no one* has been injured by those candies and they don't expect the results with Dudley to be any different. They grew up enjoying candies that, for us would be deadly -like acid pops - and don't know that muggles don't have the same tolerance for these things. Why would they? They're still kids with little or no interaction with actual muggles! Magpie: >Given that Muggles are also sentient beings, and that their > children even become Wizards and Wizard children can be born > as "Muggles," it should be something they could manage. Even if > there were times when they did resort to it, it wouldn't be done > lightly. I think they treat Hermione well and she is from a muggle family... I don't see the twins as being anti-muggle at all! Just ignorant of what hurts them... like most of the wizarding world is. PJ From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 17:10:04 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <9d4afd760607130330w638adecbi89df62f26a27aa73@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060713171004.39519.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155335 --- Jennifer Choi wrote: > I don't have the books infront of me, but it seems pretty obvious > that the Twins thought that what happened to Dudley was a great > joke, or at least they were amused rather than horrified (like > Petunia) or indifferent. While this is certainly not the same as > sexual enjoyment, I would feel fairly confident in making the > statement that, for most people, laughing brings > pleasure - or being amused brings more pleasure than not being > amused. I don't think this makes them sadists on the level of > Voldemort, but it certainly precludes this from being innocent > fun, IMO, since someone suffers. I quite agree with Jennifer and everyone else who thinks the twins' treatment of Dudley was beyond the line. I would also add that since the twins didn't inform Dudley that he was being punished for his treatment of Harry that it was highly unlikely that Dudley would learn the proper lesson from it. In fact, by the start of GOF it's been years since Dudley has taken a poke at Harry or tried to dominate him (Petunia and Vernon are another story). Arthur's anger is, I think, the key to how we're supposed to understand this scene. He's livid - and this is the first time we've seen that kind of reaction from Arthur. It's the foreshadowing to the later abuse we see the DE's give to the muggles at the campgrounds - and we can see for ourselves how helpless muggles are at the hands of wizards. And how attractive it might be to bad people to have that kind of power over others. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 19:41:19 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:41:19 -0000 Subject: RE Priori Incantatem and the misplaced spell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155336 katssirius wrote: > In response to the suggestion that it is hidden in other screams, > unfortunately there is only a long pause between Bertha' echo and > Lily's echo. Even if Voldemort was disembodied (as Geoff suggested) > the spell is not there. Other less significant pieces of magic show > up like Crucios in the form of their results. So whatever happened > to Voldy should have come out of that wand unless it was not used. > Did JKR just forget to include it or is the absence significant? > Explanations anyone? > Carol responds: I doubt that JKR would overlook something so important to her story. The simplest explanation is that failed spells don't register in Priori Incantatem, whether it's a deliberate spell or the accidental effect of a conflict between "brother wands." A successful AK produces a body. This AK was unsuccessful (or incomplete, if you prefer). No one died, so there was no body to show up as an "echo," and the vaporized remnant of Voldemort's soul, if its "echo" came out of the wand, would presumably be invisible (and either silent or indistinguishable from the scream of agony indicating a Crucio). There's also Harry's state of mind to consider; he would have seen and heard the ghostlike forms of the victims, heard the screams from the Crucios, and seen the "echo" of the conjured hand conjured, but he may not have registered any less obvious "echoes." He was too preoccupied at the moment to be fully aware of what was happening even if he'd known what was going on. Carol, who would not consider a Crucio an insignificant spell From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 19:19:57 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:19:57 -0000 Subject: Potions as Magic (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607121939j79c2460fnafb37be195dd2541@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155337 zgirnius wrote: > > I would disagree with you that nonmagical people can brew potions. > > My impression is that it requires magic to make potions out of the ingredients. I cite no less an authority then Professor Snape in support of my opinion: > > > > "As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic." > > > > (But it is, seems to be the implication). > > random832: > It could well be that the only magic involved is that naturally present in the ingredients. > Carol responds: I was under the impression that JKR was once asked whether a Muggle could brew a potion given the proper ingredients and directions and her answer was no, but unfortunately I can't find the interview. However, since Snape calls refers to "the subtle science and exact art that is potion-making" and in the same speech refers to potion-making as "magic" (as quoted by zgirnius), I think it's extremely unlikely that a Muggle, even a scientist, could brew a potion. Not even all wizards are good at it. (Lupin can't make his own wolfsbane potion, and Ron isn't gifted at it, either.) Also, some potions, at least at NEWT level, must be stirred with a wand (HBP), which would be a mere stick in the hands of a Muggle or a Squib. (If it weren't, Mrs. Figg would be able to Transfigure a tea bag by pointing a wand at it and reciting the proper spell.) IMO, and I realize that I can't prove this assertion but it seems to me to be in character, Snape would no more teach a course that could be taught to Muggles than he would wear a purple turban (with or without Voldemort inside it). Carol, who thinks that Snape's gift for potion making is evidence not only of his genius, a trait that a Muggle might share, but of his unusual range of magical skills and powers From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 18:50:37 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:50:37 -0400 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50607120510v1f5fdb59v1df4db18a904a0db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607131150q52555403y21ece22d3062c76@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155338 > Magpie: > Interesting question. Dudley couldn't make anything on that level, > because Magic is required for Potions--we Muggles can't make them. > But I wonder what they could taint the candy with in a Muggle way > that would be on the same level without seeming insane! Random832: It's not clear from canon that magic in terms of the magic a wizard uses is _required_ for potions - all Snape says, if you read closely, is that magic is _involved_. He could very well simply have meant the magical properties of the ingredients (and, in that case since potions still work _on_ muggles, there's no reason to think they wouldn't also work _for_ them.) > Random832: > I'm talking about the choice between hexing someone vs punching them > in the face, not vs doing nothing to them. - the former is more > natural. There are plenty of things that you don't _need_ to use > your thumb for, but you use it anyway. I'd say "it's second nature", > except it's not. there's no "second" about it. > > Magpie: > The Twins actually do punch naturally when they're angry, just like > Muggles do--they do it in OotP. Random832: But is it because they're restraining themselves from using magic in particular, or is it simply a case of a punch being more natural in one situation, vs a hex in another, vs a kick in still another? > Magpie: > If they did that to Dudley in this > scene they'd still be two 16-year-olds ganging up to punch a 14-year- > old, but I couldn't say they were abusing their power as Wizards. > The Dursleys wouldn't need another Wizard there to fix things for > them, at least. I thought that the effect wears off, and that it wore off in this instance - it's been a while since I've read the books, though. > I mean, I accept that the boys aren't perfect and > sometimes they're just going to act out and do something that > satisfies them or whatever. But I do think Magic this way is > bringing out big guns and they just don't really ever try to think > of things from the Muggle pov. If they're not thinking of things from the muggle POV, what reason do you have to think that they have any idea that magic is "big guns"? > Jordan: > I don't know the context. But see my previous statement about a > (non-related-to-the-bully) victim bringing his older brother to the > schoolyard so he can intimidate the bully. > > Magpie: > Oh--yes, I think that's fine. It's not like the 8-year-old boy is > bringing his 16-year-old brother and the older brother is beating > the 8-year-old bully up for him. He stops the harassment. An older > brother throwing a bottle at the kid who used to beat up his brother > in fifth grade would be a different thing. "Used to" isn't clear - particularly if (I can't quite place this scene) it takes place after CoS, when the Dursleys know Harry isn't allowed to use magic at home. (and the age difference is a bit narrower here than 8 vs 16, a demonstration might well be needed if the bully otherwise thinks he can take them) > Random832: > Judging it to be wrong is one thing, but I still think, regardless > of that, you're misapplying the term "muggle-baiting". > > Magpie: > Ah, I see what you're saying. So it's abuse of Muggles, but not > Muggle *baiting* which you see as a very specific thing, where you > trick Muggles with Magic and they keep thinking something weird is > going on and have no idea. I can understand that--though I agree > with Pippin's explanation that Arthur is (correctly, imo) saying > that this undermines the spirit of his work against Muggle-baiting. Random832: Sure... Though, as a muggle, if I were in that world and knew about it I don't think I'd approve of Arthur's "work" at all. It's the ministry's job to make sure you go on thinking you keep losing the key instead of it shrinking, and I don't approve of that at all. > Magpie: > I only wind up arguing against it so much when it's twisted > into some kind of bizarre self-help for Dudley, or something that > Dudley does to himself. Random832: Well, he did cheat on his diet. I'm sure there are some people who would actually like to have such a strong deterrent to help with their diet/quitting smoking/etc (though not without their knowledge/permission of course) If Vernon/Petunia were willing to impose a diet, you know then that he really was in _dire_ need of one. Having no immediate consequences for going off it would have almost certainly been much worse for him in the long run. But we can't really give the twins credit for that, since there's no way that was anywhere in their motives. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Jul 13 19:55:33 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:55:33 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemorts Wand Message-ID: <499.5dc9def.31e7ff35@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155339 In a message dated 7/12/06 2:45:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, zgirnius at yahoo.com writes: > zgirnius: > My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led Voldemort > to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched the wand and > scampered away in rat form. He returned it to Voldemort after he joined > him in Albania and helped him to regain his baby-body and then his > adult body. > > > > > Sandy responds: To me, Peter having LV's wand is the only logical conclusion, but... where was the wand during the 12 or 13 years Peter was masquerading as a rat in the Weasley household? Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ikhendley at comcast.net Thu Jul 13 19:37:16 2006 From: ikhendley at comcast.net (hendlei) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:37:16 -0000 Subject: What will become of Dolores Umbridge? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155340 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Now for something that is neither Snapey-poo or horcruxes. JKR has > told us that we will be seeing Umbridge again, as she wants > to "torture her a bit more" before having done with her -- which is > good, since Umbridge and her treatment of Harry is one of the big > dangling threads, and big moral issues, with which JKR needs to deal. > > Now, that raises an interesting question. What will become of > Dolores Umbridge? I offer the following delightful possibilities: > > 1) Following an attack on Privet Drive, Vernon Dursley demands > protection. Umbridge is assigned as the Dursleys' wizard bodyguard. > > 2) In a desperate attempt to gather support for the war effort, > Scrimgeour decides to appoint an emissary to the Centaurs and > Werewolves. Dolores gets the job. >> Any more? > This is priceless! I expecially love number two. IMO Umbridge is perhaps even more evil than LV because she does her bad deeds in the name of "justice". At least LV admits - and even brags - that he's really bad, and you'd better watch out. "Toad" Umbridge hides behind authority. Hey, maybe that's another one. DU is turned into a frog to take over MOM relations with the Merpeople. hendlei From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 20:29:04 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:29:04 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155341 > Jordan: > Judging it to be wrong is one thing, but I still think, regardless > of that, you're misapplying the term "muggle-baiting". > > Magpie: > Ah, I see what you're saying. So it's abuse of Muggles, but not > Muggle *baiting* which you see as a very specific thing, where you > trick Muggles with Magic and they keep thinking something weird is > going on and have no idea. I can understand that--though I agree > with Pippin's explanation that Arthur is (correctly, imo) saying > that this undermines the spirit of his work against Muggle-baiting. > a_svirn: Well, I for one don't understand this objection. What the twins did is muggle-baiting in every possible sense, including the most literal one. After all, Dudley did swallow a bait that was, to quote the Bard, "on purpose laid to make the taker mad". From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 20:33:10 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:33:10 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: <44B65C84.7050205@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155342 KJ wrote: > > I also do not believe that the spell was something pre-made. I > don't think that Voldy had any intention of doing anything else other than killing Harry and using his death to make his final horcrux at some other place and time. He probably had the receptacle chosen and available only because he was much more organized in horcrux-making, and had lots of time to find the items he wished to use. > > To borrow the fruitcake, my vision is more along the lines of inserting an explosive device into the fruitcake. When Voldemorte cursed Harry, I don't think the spell touched him because of the protections of his mother, but rebounded and ignited the fruitcake. The resulting massive explosion blew Voldemorte into his component parts, one of which sliced into Harry's head. The other split soul parts may have rejoined the main part after the explosion, or perhaps they are stuck in the drywall somewhere at Godric's Hollow. > > The only thing that bothers me about this is that if Harry was far enough into his crib to not be able to see what was happening, how did anything cut his head??? > > KJ enjoying the vision of an exploding fruitcake. > Carol responds: Thanks for your support, but I don't quite understand the part of your response about the spell rebounding and igniting the fruitcake. You're referring to Voldemort's soul, right, or rather, what's left of it after he's removed at least four parts and encased them in the diary, ring, cup, and locket, respectively? And you're arguing that Harry is an accidental Horcrux even though you don't think that a preparatory spell was performed? At any rate, as I see it, Harry's scar was not caused by any "part" of Voldemort (powers, soul bit, or anything else) striking him, but by the failed AK rebounding *out* of him. I don't see how a soul bit (or a power such as Parseltongue) could cut into Harry where the AK was aimed, and the AK itself wouldn't leave a mark, as we know from the unmarked bodies of Cedric and the Riddles. This AK entered Harry (he recalls the burning pain somewhere in SS/PS), but it didn't kill him. Instead it rebounded and struck Voldemort (who would have died if it weren't for the Horcruxes). I think the cut was created when the AK burst out of Harry with the force of an explosion strong enough not only to vaporize Voldemort and blow up the house. How else could the curse get out of Harry, if not by bursting out of his forehead, creating a lightning-shaped cut much as Fred and George's brooms created broom-shaped holes in Umbridge's door when they were summoned? (I think that some of Voldemort's powers entered Harry through the cut, but I don't think that they, or a soul bit, created it. IMO, it was the AK that marked Harry, but on its way out, not in. That, of course, makes him unique in the history of the WW.) Carol, who really does bake fruitcakes at Christmas and always "splits" the fruitcakes *before* she "encases" the "bits" (thirds or halves) in their respective boxes to be mailed to friends and relatives (not all fruitcakes taste like waxed cardboard ;-) ) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 20:29:57 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:29:57 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: <499.5dc9def.31e7ff35@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155343 > > zgirnius, before: > > My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led Voldemort > > to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched the wand and > > scampered away in rat form. > > Sandy responds: > > To me, Peter having LV's wand is the only logical conclusion, but... where > was the wand during the 12 or 13 years Peter was masquerading as a rat in the > Weasley household? zgirnius: In Peter's pocket, wherever his clothes hang out while he is a rat, would be my guess. I think that the things a person is wearing/carrying when they transform stay with them. The same way McGonagall still has her glasses, when she comes back from her cat form. From felix_quinn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 19:53:49 2006 From: felix_quinn at yahoo.com (felix_quinn) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:53:49 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : another question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155344 >Snip< Luna: > And BTW, have anyone given a thought to the word Horcrux? > Crux is the latin word for cross... > What are the implications of the word cross being part of this term? I actually thought of 'cross' at first, and it's entirely possible that that may be the implication, as it's the most obvious. After thinking about it, though, I thought of few other possibilities- In Afrikaans, a 'kruk' is something used as support, or possibly as backup. It's usually used to indicate something that someone relies heavily on, sometimes too much. It might be a bit of a stretch, but as I was reading it for the first time, this was actually what it struck me as sounding like, or what the _concept_ sounded like. I know that many times with the names of some of the spells, they seem to make some kind of sense, even when I can't exactly remember the word the spell is reminding me of, but I just know that it fits- "lumos" reminds me illuminate, (I'm quite aware of the latin influences) but even though I couldn't immediately remember which word it sounded like, I knew I understood her reasoning. It was the same feeling with "horcrux" and the Afrikaans word "kruk". I'm quite sure that seeing as how Afrikaans is a relatively young language, and I know it borrows heavily from other more traditional languages, that the word "kruk" is not exclusive to Afrikaans, and that it could have relation to "horcrux". The other thing I thought of was that "crux" also indicates "the heart of the matter" or "core"- could there possibly be something in that? Of course, "crux" could quite simply be a reference to "cross", in which case it simply indicates the presence of death. Felix From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 13 21:33:21 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:33:21 -0000 Subject: Age of Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155345 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bridge13219" wrote: > > Geoff: > > > If I might be infuriatingly, nastily and pedantically pedantic, > > > the cut-off date for admission to a specific school year in the > > > UK is 31st August, so he isn't a single age throughout each > > > school year, so there. :-) > > Kemper now: > > Geoff, you weren't nasty or pedantic, but you were infuriatingly > > unclear. > > > > Are you saying that Harry wasn't the same whole-number age from the > > ever-Monday September 1 to June 30 of each year he's attended > > Hogwarts? > > > > I don't get it. American it down for me. Please. > > :-D > > > > Kemper, agreeing with Carol that Harry is 11 throughout the SCHOOL > > year of PS and that he'll be 17 throughout the SCHOOL year in the > > upcoming book whether he's actually in school or not. > > > Bridge13219: > I blame it on lack of coffee, but I was unclear as well. About the > UK school-year thing. Besides, in PS/SS didn't it say Harry had to > respond by 31st July? And that's why Dumbledore sent Hagrid? > > bridge13219, trying not to look as dim as I feel. Geoff: Whose coffee? Give me a decent hot chocolate any day.... Having managed to get my hands on a friend's computer in Cardiff before I do disappear into the limbo of the Isles of Scilly until the 22nd, I can reply. Mark you, I'm fighting a PC; give me back my 3-month old Mac mini - I'm suffering withdrawal symptoms. By good fortune, I've got the first two books with me as light reading - "This is light reading?" 'Term begins on 1 September. We await your owl by no later then 31 July.' (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.43 UK edition) I don't think that has anything to do with HP's birthday. I think it would be a standard procedure to set a deadline for replying so that lists, registers, dormitories etc. could be organised. From oppen at mycns.net Thu Jul 13 22:00:55 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:00:55 -0000 Subject: The Twins and the Transfigured Teddy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155346 While I have to agree (greatly against my will, since if I had the ability to do so, I'd love to give the Dursleys, all three of them, the finest beatings ever seen this side of _A Clockwork Orange_) that the Ton-Tongue Toffee Incident was over the line, I have to speak up in defense of the Twins, at least as far as Ron's teddy bear being Transfigured into a spider goes. The Twins are about two years or so older than Ron. At the time this happened, they wouldn't have been to Hogwarts---and we know that magical children, under stress (such as is produced by anger) produce spurts of wild magic. Harry has done it, as with the hair growing, the "jump" to the top of the school, and the like. At the Wizengamot hearing, we find that such spurts of wild magic, not being under the wizard's or witch's control, do not come under the purview of the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery rules. Particularly if _both_ the Twins were angry at their little brother at the same time, I could see something like this happening without any conscious volition on their part. Since it happened at a time before anybody's considered criminally responsible, and also almost certainly not by any intention of the Twins, I have to say that in the case of R. vs. Weasleys (in re Transfiguration of Stuffed Animals) I'd have to direct an acquittal, were I on the bench. --Eric, who loves _Rumpole of the Bailey,_ and wonders where Rumpole would Sort---Hilda'd be a Slytherin for sure. Hmmm...we never hear _which_ school she and Dodo Mackintosh were at, do we? *grin* From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 21:47:55 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:47:55 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155347 zgirnius: > In Peter's pocket, wherever his clothes hang out while he is a rat, > would be my guess. I think that the things a person is > wearing/carrying when they transform stay with them. The same way > McGonagall still has her glasses, when she comes back from her cat > form. > Carol responds: I would think that Peter's own wand, as opposed to Voldemort's would normally be in his pocket and would transform with him along with his clothes. Since he's wandless when he's forced back into human form in the shrieking Shack, I conclude that he left his wand behind, along with a bloody cloak, and his blown-off finger, as evidence that he was "dead." How he managed to leave a cloak behind, I can't guess. Many he's smarter and more talented than he's given credit for being.) As for Voldemort's wand, I think he hid it in Godric's Hollow immediately after Voldemort was vaporized and then scampered away in rat form, still in possession of his own wand. (See above.) After the Shrikeing Shack incident, I think he returned to Godric's Hollow and retrieved Voldemort's wand, which Wormtail returned to LV after restoring him to a "rudimentary" body. Since Wormtail apparently lost his own wand in the confrontation with Sirius Black after Godric's Hollow, I speculate that he used Bertha Jorkins' wand for routine daily magic after returning Voldemort's to him. Carol, wondering where the DEs got the wands they used in the MoM since theirs must have been broken when they were sentenced to Azkaban From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 21:51:11 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:51:11 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155348 > >>Random832: > It's not clear from canon that magic in terms of the magic a wizard > uses is _required_ for potions - all Snape says, if you read > closely, is that magic is _involved_. Betsy Hp: Well, this certainly is an interesting way to get the twins out of the muggle baiting charge. Potions aren't really magic so magic wasn't used? It doesn't make any sense to me, personally. You'll have to explain to me why Potions is taught at Hogwarts (a required class, no less) and explain to me why it *isn't* taught in Muggle schools if you hope to win me over to that particular point of view. But it is fascinating, IMO, the way people bend over backwards (and are actually *required* to do that sort of bending) to try and show the difference between the good guys and the bad guys within the Potterverse. > >>a_svirn: > > What the twins did is muggle-baiting in every possible sense, > including the most literal one. After all, Dudley did swallow a > bait that was, to quote the Bard, "on purpose laid to make the > taker mad". Betsy Hp: Absolutely. Arthur (whose job it is to identify such behavior) makes that *very* clear. Of course, the twins have such little respect for their father (which they also make very clear in the very next scene) they completely ignore him. But it doesn't change the fact that they abused a muggle child using magic. They did so for a joke, yes, but it was a malicious form of humor. Lucius Malfoy would have been very amused. But the thing that's been bothering me is that if the muggle family attacked by Death Eaters a few days later had been the Dursleys, Harry would have been amused at that point too. Yes, the Death Eaters were more sinister in their attack on the muggle family than the twins were in their attack on Dudley. But the fact remains, the twins did something fairly similar and for a very weak reason. I just... I wish I could see some measure of nobility and goodness expressed by the good guys. I mean, yes it's wonderful that our heroes are "real", but shouldn't they be a bit more than that? Harry is fighting Voldemort because Voldemort killed his parents. That's what brought him into the arena. But shouldn't there be something deeper? Some higher reason for Harry to contemplate becoming a killer? Must it all boil down to vengeance? Unfortunately, the discussions I've read seem to suggest that vengeance is all it is. Dudley deserved to suffer because he was mean to Harry a few years back. Vengeance. Hermione was right to disfigure Marietta because Marietta snitched. Vengeance. Montague deserved to die of thirst because he took points away from Gryffindor. Vengeance. So, why was Draco's attempted murder of Dumbledore wrong? Seriously. If vengeance is where it's at (as Harry and his friends and their RL supporters seem to imply), shouldn't Draco have gone full speed ahead? Doesn't it mean that his Hamlet-like hesitations are signs of weakness on his part not improvement? And doesn't it mean that DDM!Snape is actually a fool? That ESE! Snape is actually the better man, per the rules of this universe, because ESE!Snape manages to achieve proper vengeance on those who wronged him? Of course this would also mean that Grayback is a hero as well, visiting mighty karmic justice on all who've done him and his wrong. Gosh, why on earth are children allowed to read these books? The only reason I've not given up on the books yet is that the fat lady hasn't sung. There's still a chance that vengeance and doling out of karmic justice is *not* the actual theme of the books. Harry may actually figure out that there *are* basic rules that should *not* be broken. That blind loyalty is not always a good thing. That Arthur was right and the twins were wrong. That Hermione needs to treat other people as, well, people and not little puppets in her great machine. That no matter how much they annoy you, the strong should *never* beat up the weak. Betsy Hp (trying to remember why she liked these books in the first place) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 21:27:50 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:27:50 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155349 PJ wrote: > > What they know is that *no one* has been injured by those candies > and they don't expect the results with Dudley to be any different. > They grew up enjoying candies that, for us would be deadly -like > acid pops - and don't know that muggles don't have the same > tolerance for these things. Why would they? They're still kids > with little or no interaction with actual muggles! Carol responds: The Twins know that Dudley is a Muggle and that he can't defend himself magically. They view Muggles as generally inferior to Wizards, so they probably know, or suspect, that Muggles are less tolerant of potion-laced candies than Wizards. It's possible that they don't understand that Dudley is really suffering, but I think even a wizard would suffer from a greatly enlarged and elongated tongue. And they certainly should anticipate Dudley's terror, even if they can't anticipate Aunt Petunia attempting to tear Dudley's tongue from his mouth. Since no one is quoting from the scene, I'll do it. "At that moment, however, a *horrible gagging sound erupted* behind him, and Aunt Petunia started to scream. ". . . Dudley . . . was kneeling beside the coffee table, and he was gagging and sputtering on a foot-long, purple, slimy thing that was protruding from his mouth. One bewildered second later, Harry realized that the foot-long thing was Dudley's tongue . . . . ". . . Far from being reassured [by Mr. Weasley's words], the Dursleys became more panic-stricken. Aunt Petunia was sobbing hysterically, tugging Dudley's tongue as though determined to rip it out; Dudley appeared to be suffocating under the combined pressure of his mother and his tongue . . . " (GoF Am. ed. 49). Uncle Vernon is completely out of control, "bellowing like a wounded hippo" and throwing ornaments at Mr. Weasley. The last thing Harry sees before he leaves is Dudley's tongue "lolling around like a great slimy python" (50). I'd say that the whole family is being tormented, emotionally if not physically (in Dudley's case, both). However, I've already made my points on Dudley baiting, and I want to focus on something else here. You said that "no one has been injured by those candies." While that's probably true of the puking pastilles and fainting fancies, Katie Bell nearly bled to death when Fred gave her the wrong end of a nosebleed nougat (or whatever it was) and had to be sent to the hospital wing. And we don't see Fred and George testing ton-tongue toffees on first years (fortunately). Dudley appears to be the first--and last--victim of this particular candy. Maybe Fred and George learned a lesson from this particular experiment cum "practical" joke, which really isn't funny (and seems more than usually dangerous). Unfortunately, it probably wasn't that Muggles, however flawed, are human, too, or that it isn't their place to punish strangers for bullying their friends. Carol, who thinks that the Twins should confine their displays of loyalty to rescuing Harry from his bedroom in a flying Ford Anglia and similar exploits, not tormenting his Muggle relatives, whose faults will not be remedied by their interference From dougsamu at golden.net Thu Jul 13 21:45:29 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:45:29 -0400 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory Message-ID: <602CBD1C-93A9-4677-BFEE-0F877DDE2DFB@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155350 Carol: At any rate, as I see it, Harry's scar was not caused by any "part" of Voldemort (powers, soul bit, or anything else) striking him, but by the failed AK rebounding *out* of him. Doug: OOoooH! Now that's very interesting, very interesting.... Hmm, but if Avada Kedavra doesn't usually leave a mark?.... Carol: ... and the AK itself wouldn't leave a mark, as we know from the unmarked bodies of Cedric and the Riddles. This AK entered Harry ..., but it didn't kill him. ...I think that some of Voldemort's powers entered Harry through the cut, but I don't think that they, or a soul bit, created it. IMO, it was the AK that marked Harry, but on its way out, not in. I don't see how a soul bit (or a power such as Parseltongue) could cut into Harry where the AK was aimed, Doug: This implies for me that the scar is the conduit, the sign of the curse incomplete. The curse is still, in a sense, 'Live' between the two of them through the scar. I have been proposing a theory of magic, based admittedly on a small bit of canon, that of Lupin's explanation of the Patronus spell. A thought completely of Happiness is projected to become a kind of impenetrable Dementor shield. I think that that is basically how magic works in Potterverse, a thought is manifest as real, like an image on film is projected against a screen. So to enchant an object, the projected image is severed and now exists in the now enchanted object. Otherwise they return to the caster. And as to the soul ..... what better to force the removal of the life force of another than by projecting your own? Google submits to Chinese Gov't. Tibetan cybercafe warning: "Do not use Internet for any political or unintelligent purposes." ____________________ From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jul 13 21:41:48 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:41:48 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : another question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155351 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "felix_quinn" wrote: > > >Snip< Luna: > > And BTW, have anyone given a thought to the word Horcrux? > > Crux is the latin word for cross... > > What are the implications of the word cross being part of this term? > Felix: > I actually thought of 'cross' at first, and it's entirely possible > that that may be the implication, as it's the most obvious. After > thinking about it, though, I thought of few other possibilities- In > Afrikaans, a 'kruk' is something used as support, or possibly as > backup. It's usually used to indicate something that someone relies > heavily on, sometimes too much. Geoff: I haven't got my Latin dictionary with me on holiday - I couldn't fit my entire HPFGU associated bookshelf in the suitcase(!) but my gut reaction and linguistic sense makes me think that "kruk" is related to "crutch". The meaning you give certainly implies that. From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Jul 13 22:23:28 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:23:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155352 Betsy Hp: But the thing that's been bothering me is that if the muggle family attacked by Death Eaters a few days later had been the Dursleys, Harry would have been amused at that point too. (snip) Sherry now: I do not believe Harry would have found it funny if the Dursleys had been the muggles tormented at the world cup. Remember how he saved Dudley from the dementors? Sure, dementors are far worse than being flipped upside down, but I think Harry would have been very uncomfortable and unhappy and disgusted if it had happened to the Dursleys. He didn't even think it was funny when it happened to Snape as done by James in the pensieve memory. I think there is hope for Harry, and he's not as blas? as you might think. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 22:32:44 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:32:44 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : another question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155353 Luna wrote: > > And BTW, have anyone given a thought to the word Horcrux? > > Crux is the latin word for cross... > > What are the implications of the word cross being part of this term? > Felix responded: > I actually thought of 'cross' at first, and it's entirely possible > that that may be the implication, as it's the most obvious. After > thinking about it, though, I thought of few other possibilities- In > Afrikaans, a 'kruk' is something used as support, or possibly as > backup. It's usually used to indicate something that someone relies > heavily on, sometimes too much. It might be a bit of a stretch, but > as I was reading it for the first time, this was actually what it > struck me as sounding like, or what the _concept_ sounded like. I > know that many times with the names of some of the spells, they seem > to make some kind of sense, even when I can't exactly remember the > word the spell is reminding me of, but I just know that it fits- > "lumos" reminds me illuminate, (I'm quite aware of the latin > influences) but even though I couldn't immediately remember which > word it sounded like, I knew I understood her reasoning. It was the > same feeling with "horcrux" and the Afrikaans word "kruk". I'm quite > sure that seeing as how Afrikaans is a relatively young language, and > I know it borrows heavily from other more traditional languages, that > the word "kruk" is not exclusive to Afrikaans, and that it could have > relation to "horcrux". The other thing I thought of was that "crux" > also indicates "the heart of the matter" or "core"- could there > possibly be something in that? Of course, "crux" could quite simply > be a reference to "cross", in which case it simply indicates the > presence of death. Carol responds: While that's an interesting idea, I think it's unlikely that JKR would resort to a language other than (faux) Latin, which she uses for most of the spells in her books, for a concept as crucial as a Horcrux. Also, if she wanted to suggest a prop or support, why not make it "Horcrutch," which would at least involve a recognizable English root? However, given JKR's Christianity and her use of Latin adaptations throughout the books, I think "crux" (cross) is the probable root, in combination with "hor(ror)" (also Latin, with a self-evident meaning). I've explored these ideas in more detail in message 153862: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/153862 You can work up and down thread for more ideas on the subject. It might also be profitable to use our newly revamped search engine with "horcrux etymology" (no quotes) as your search terms. I don't think it's coincidence that "Crucio" and "Cruciatus" relate to torture, as does "crucify," which derives from "crux." In fact, "crucio" and "cruciatus" are actual Latin words, which likewise derive from "crux": crux crucis f. [a cross]; hence [torment, trouble] cruciatus -us m. [torture, torment]. crucio -are [to torture, torment]. Maybe there's a conceptual link between the Cruciatus Curse and Horcruxes, if only in terms of the sheer horror JKR is trying to inspire. But, of course, a crux is also a puzzle, and she's certainly set us a puzzle with the etymology of "Horcrux." Carol, who thinks that a Horcrux (for JKR) is a sort of "anticross" in the sense that it represents earthbound immortality in contrast to eternal life (see her comments on yew wood vs. holly wood in the Wands section of her website) From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 22:24:10 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:24:10 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: <000901c69d3a$0fa3e0e0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155354 > Marion: > I agree. Harry will still have to pay for nearly killing Draco whilst attacking the crying, distraught boy in the toilets (because let's face it, he only got a few detentions for near-murder and he resented even *that* little slap-on-the-wrist by Snape, whilst he *should've* been grateful that Snape healed Draco, hauling his bacon out of the fire yet *again* because if he hadn't Harry had been in Azkaban for murder) AD: Harry did not attack Draco. Draco attacked Harry. Draco fired a hex that shattered a lamp when it missed Harry. Harry returned fire with a hex, Levicorpus, that was unlikely to actually hurt Draco. Draco fired a curse that exploded a bin behind Harry when it hit. Harry fired off a Leg-Locker, another hex that wouldn't hurt Draco, that missed, ricocheted, and broke a toilet. When Harry slipped and fell on the now-flooded floor, Draco attempted to use the Cruciatus curse on a downed opponent. It was only then, on the floor, soaking wet and desperate, that Harry used the Sectumsempra curse. Up until then, he had tried to defend himself with fairly benign magic. "Near-murder"? No, it wasn't anywhere near murder. And wouldn't have been even if Draco had bled to death. Amiable Dorsai From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 20:31:34 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:31:34 -0400 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: <499.5dc9def.31e7ff35@aol.com> References: <499.5dc9def.31e7ff35@aol.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607131331v480c0ca3q3f06572967a2bca2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155355 > Sandy responds: > > To me, Peter having LV's wand is the only logical conclusion, but... where > was the wand during the 12 or 13 years Peter was masquerading as a rat in the > Weasley household? Random832: Same place as Peter's own wand, and his clothes and stuff. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 22:22:13 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:22:13 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155356 > Betsy Hp: > I just... I wish I could see some measure of nobility and goodness > expressed by the good guys. I mean, yes it's wonderful that our > heroes are "real", but shouldn't they be a bit more than that? > Harry is fighting Voldemort because Voldemort killed his parents. > That's what brought him into the arena. But shouldn't there be > something deeper? Some higher reason for Harry to contemplate > becoming a killer? Must it all boil down to vengeance? Alla: Not in the books I am reading, seriously. In the books I am reading yes, the murder of his parents brought Harry to this fight. But in the books I am reading Harry fights for protection, for protection of those he loves **and** for self-protection too of course. Although yes, of course vengeance plays a role too, although i would call it justice, not vengeance. Betsy: > Unfortunately, the discussions I've read seem to suggest that > vengeance is all it is. Dudley deserved to suffer because he was > mean to Harry a few years back. Vengeance. Hermione was right to > disfigure Marietta because Marietta snitched. Vengeance. Montague > deserved to die of thirst because he took points away from > Gryffindor. Vengeance. Alla: Not to me. Hermione IMO was right ( although as I said, not perfectly executed too), because the reason she casted that hex was protection, protection of fellow DA members from treachery. I **so** don't see any vengeance here, but that is JMO. Montague IMO deserved a bit of suffering because he supported a monster reign over the school ( yes, that is my opinion of dear Dolores Umbridge). Would I support that in RL? Twins issuing the punishment? No, that is not their place, but do I think Montague deserved the punishment for participaing in IS? Yes, I definitely do. Betsy: > So, why was Draco's attempted murder of Dumbledore wrong? > Seriously. If vengeance is where it's at (as Harry and his friends > and their RL supporters seem to imply), shouldn't Draco have gone > full speed ahead? Doesn't it mean that his Hamlet-like hesitations > are signs of weakness on his part not improvement? Alla: Well, this Harry supporter certainly does not imply that vengeance is all there is, cannot speak for others of course. To me there is a huge difference between villains getting their dues, by any means author thinks possible within the plot and vengeance. Although as a reader, I am certainly "bloodfirsty" enough to hope for their sufferings, that does not mean that **good guys** in Potterverse are just as bloodfirsty IMO. Betsy Hp: > That Hermione needs > to treat other people as, well, people and not little puppets in her > great machine. Alla: Honestly, I hope that Hermione never, **ever** abandons the desire to protect her loved ones, just puts a bit more thought in it. JMO, Alla. From oppen at mycns.net Thu Jul 13 22:03:30 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:03:30 -0000 Subject: What do we do with Dolores Umbridge? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155357 "...ear-lee in the morning..." The idea of having her as guard over the Dursleys is a good one. However, it would be even better if she and Vernon, at first sight, fell Madly In Lurve with each other... Dudley comes running into Harry's room: "HARRY! For God's sake, make it stop! It's driving me mad! That---that---_woman_ and _my Dad_ are shagging in the living room! I can't get the images out of my brain!" *grabs Harry's wand out of his startled fingers* "How do you do a Death Spell with this thing? I want to end it all!" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 22:34:15 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:34:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's **revengeful, evil and unforgiving nature** WAS: Re: muggle baiting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155358 > Sherry now: > > I do not believe Harry would have found it funny if the Dursleys had been > the muggles tormented at the world cup. Remember how he saved Dudley from > the dementors? Sure, dementors are far worse than being flipped upside > down, but I think Harry would have been very uncomfortable and unhappy and > disgusted if it had happened to the Dursleys. He didn't even think it was > funny when it happened to Snape as done by James in the pensieve memory. I > think there is hope for Harry, and he's not as blas? as you might think. Alla: Don't forget that right before that Dudley mocked Harry's nightmares and still Harry's **saving people thing** worked even to save his **relative** who tormented him for years. ( I put relative in astericks, because to me family means something very different) Harry fails many times in the books and I love him for that, but so far he never refuses to save people who treated him like absolute crap, IMO. Oh, and of course let's not forget Harry feeling pity for Tom Riddle. YES, it was very brief, but I find the fact that this kid could feel pity for the monster who killed his parents to be fascinating. I don't know if I could have done that if G-d forbid my parents were killed. I think that he will save Snape in book 7 too, which is too bad, really. Hehe. At least hopefully JKR will fulfill my wish and would write **one** scene with Snape suffering and helpless. Please, JKR? Please? :) Alla, very bloodfirsty one, especially when it comes to Snape. ;) From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 22:45:38 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:45:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: References: <000901c69d3a$0fa3e0e0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607131545t7a66b658xa9d467d0b3c38aee@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155359 On 7/13/06, amiabledorsai wrote: > AD: > "Near-murder"? No, it wasn't anywhere near murder. > > And wouldn't have been even if Draco had bled to death. Random832: One could argue reckless homicide, since he had no idea what the curse would do, except the attempted unforgivable might be considered to justify deadly force anyway. There's (as far as i know) no real-world legal equivalent of something being "unforgivable", so it's hard to say. From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 22:37:32 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:37:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607131537v2b9dd369qb9280e6018c9279@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155360 > Carol responds: > I would think that Peter's own wand, as opposed to Voldemort's would > normally be in his pocket and would transform with him along with his > clothes. Since he's wandless when he's forced back into human form in > the shrieking Shack, I conclude that he left his wand behind, along > with a bloody cloak, and his blown-off finger, as evidence that he was > "dead." Random832: I doubt he would leave the wand behind since it would contain evidence of _him_ blasting those 13 muggles. From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Thu Jul 13 20:42:47 2006 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:42:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155361 >If Vernon/Petunia were willing to impose a diet, you know then that he really was in _dire_ need of one. Having no immediate consequences for going off it would have almost certainly been much worse for him in the long run. But we can't really give the twins credit for that, since there's no way that was anywhere in their motives.< Pam now: Diet or no diet, muggles or wizards, I have often wondered about the wizarding popularity of some of the items sold in the Joke Shop. Fred and George are amassing a small fortune with their inventions, and some of them seem downright dangerous and cruel, even to other wizards. Why do wizards think turning their child's tongues into 4-foot monstrosities is hysterical? Because they can just make it go away? That's fine, but it crosses the line, I think, from funny into cruelty. I mean, in the WW, how long is one the prankster going to let their victim choke on their own tongues? That scene has always bothered me; not because Dudley is a nasty Muggle, but because it didn't wear off on its own; Arthur had to fix it. So many of Zonko's and Weasley's "jokes" seem like they'd be better used on DE's. Or BY them. Anyone? From estesrandy at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 00:27:06 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:27:06 -0000 Subject: RE Priori Incantatem and the misplaced spell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155362 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" wrote: > > Bridge13219: > >> I remember in that scene LV wand was producing/echoing screams > as well as the shadows of the people he killed. Maybe one of those > screams was him when the AK rebounded on himself (in addition to all > the Crusios he had done). << > > > katssirius: > In response to the suggestion that it is hidden in other screams, > unfortunately there is only a long pause between Bertha' echo and > Lily's echo. Even if Voldemort was disembodied (as Geoff suggested) > the spell is not there. Other less significant pieces of magic show > up like Crucios in the form of their results. So whatever happened > to Voldy should have come out of that wand unless it was not used. > Did JKR just forget to include it or is the absence significant? > Explanations anyone? > Randy replies... After reading some of these posts, an idea comes to mind. I believe from earlier timeline speculations, that Godric's Hollow event happened in the 1980's. Given the canon carbon dating method, we have to look at the resources available at that time for Voldemort to do his horcrux spells. He probably had a beta version of Microsoft SPELL (with the additional Horcrux subroutine). There was no Microsoft windows with simple icons to click on. As Voldy is trying to type his commands in DOS, it seems obvious that his drive crashed and caused a catastrophic failure. This assumes that he did not have a Macintosh, but even the Macs of the early 80s would have had trouble with very complicated spells such as the Horcrux. I am not even sure that Horcrux software was available for Macs at that time! Even after running the disc recovery routine with Priori Incantatem, some spells were lost and therefore left out of the canon. It then leads us to speculate about the source of the scar on Harry's forehead. Since Microsoft SPELL beta version was not thoroughly tested before worldwide distribution, it was imperative for the user to keep up with subsequent upgrades for their wands (at his own expense of course). Voldemort being the loner that he is may not have kept in touch with local retailers. So we could speculate that he did not have the latest version from Olivanders (PS 1.5 perhaps). The software interrupt caused a hardware crash which caused a disc write error which left a permanent lightning bolt shaped scar due to the large amount of static elecricity in GH at that moment in time. Bill Gates has not answered any of our phone calls lately. His associates can neither confirm nor deny these rumours. Subsequently, Microsoft SPELL is no longer available in the bundled software on your PC wand. You have to pay for the upgrade to get any Horcrux related features. Randy ;0) From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 00:27:00 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:27:00 -0000 Subject: Being Good and Evil ( Draco and a bit of Ron)/Harry as DD man In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607131545t7a66b658xa9d467d0b3c38aee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > On 7/13/06, amiabledorsai wrote: > > AD: > > "Near-murder"? No, it wasn't anywhere near murder. > > > > And wouldn't have been even if Draco had bled to death. > > Random832: > One could argue reckless homicide, since he had no idea what the > curse would do, except the attempted unforgivable might be > considered to justify deadly force anyway. There's (as far as i > know) no real-world legal equivalent of something being > "unforgivable", so it's hard to say. AD: At a guess, the Wizarding authorities would drop charges against Harry as soon as someone thought to roll up Draco's sleeves. Amiable Dorsai From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Jul 14 00:38:41 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:38:41 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155364 > spookedook: > How does Voldemort get his wand back? > > zgirnius: > My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led > Voldemort to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched the > wand and scampered away in rat form. He returned it to Voldemort > after he joined him in (*)Albania and helped him to regain his > baby-body and then his adult body. > > aussie: > Just as LV likes an audience when he dueled with Harry, he may > have had other DE with him at Godric' Hollow. > > Tinktonks: > I disagree, we all know that LV is very secretive, he wouldn't > want PP knowing his (**)plans, I don't think he'd have wanted > anyone to know his methods of making himself immortal, because > that way they could do it too and detract from his power. > > Also, if there had been a death eater with him he could have > (***)returned to his body almost immediately! > > I'm sorry but it still isn't explained for me aussie: Let's look at the things straight after Harry became the "Boy who Lived" until Hagrid takes him away. LV may have gone to GH with DE without revealing his (***)plans since an AK will split your soul, but a spell performed afterwards can take that spit piece to make a Horcrux. (HBP - Slughorn's memory "There is a spell. Do not ask me. I don't know" - so it is not done instead of AK, but after) Voldemort, with or without other Death Eaters, suddenly looses the physical form he is accustomed to and becomes the whisp we see later. Look at it from Voldemort's POV. That was a radical change. He may not have known, or may have been too shocked, to possess a DE before they ran away. LV was "reduced to something barely alive", but able to make a trip to (*) Albania. (Let me point out, many of us would envy going that distance for our annual holidays). LV in GOF said, "Aaah . . . pain beyond pain, my friends; nothing could have prepared me for it. I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost. . . but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know","I was as powerless as the weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself... for I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me required the use of a wand." Once he came to his sences, deserted by the escaping DE, he realised he needed a wand, but the magic he could do wasn't enough. He may have done something to the wand himself so he could return to GH to collect it with a DE later. Any Death Eaters who accompanied him would have run away scared at what they saw. Someone had to start the rumours that LV was dead. They were well known the next morning Vernon drove to work. Hagrid (in POA at the 3 Broomsticks) said he got there before Sirius because DD sent him (Maybe by making a portkey the way that DD sent Harry away from the MOM at the end of OOTP). Hagrid wasn't sent by the secret keeper, so would have been sent to the right street, but not be able to find the house under normal wizarding conditions. A Dark Mark flying over over a house in ruins was not normal, so Hagrid could go in and rescue Harry. Voldy had experience at hiding objects (ring at Molovo's hut). Hagrid would not have found it at all, and others missed it too. From kjones at telus.net Fri Jul 14 01:46:00 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:46:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44B6F758.3090207@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155365 justcarol67 wrote: > I think the cut was created when the AK burst out of Harry with the > force of an explosion strong enough not only to vaporize Voldemort and > blow up the house. How else could the curse get out of Harry, if not > by bursting out of his forehead, creating a lightning-shaped cut much > as Fred and George's brooms created broom-shaped holes in Umbridge's > door when they were summoned? (I think that some of Voldemort's powers > entered Harry through the cut, but I don't think that they, or a soul > bit, created it. IMO, it was the AK that marked Harry, but on its way > out, not in. That, of course, makes him unique in the history of the WW.) KJ writes: I dont' think that the AK even touched Harry. That is where we are running into confusion perhaps. I suspect that Lilly's sacrifice literally shielded Harry from the curse. The curse rebounded from the shield and struck Voldemorte or even a wall of the house causing the same type of explosion that we saw in the MoM. As a result, of the explosion, Voldemorte's loose bits were blasted all over, one of them striking Harry. Since the bit of soul was not an actual curse, Lily's protections might not have prevented that type of injury. JKR did say that it was the scar that was of importance, not the shape of it. I am interested as to why you believe that the curse entered Harry and burst back out. What do you think would be the internal mechanism causing that type of rebound rather than a deflection prior to penetration. Perhaps you could send me a fruitcake in order to test my theory. Hopefully KJ From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 02:21:36 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:21:36 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155366 > >>Betsy Hp: > But the thing that's been bothering me is that if the muggle > family attacked by Death Eaters a few days later had been the > Dursleys, Harry would have been amused at that point too. > (snip) > >>Sherry: > I do not believe Harry would have found it funny if the Dursleys > had been the muggles tormented at the world cup. Remember how he > saved Dudley from the dementors? Sure, dementors are far worse > than being flipped upside down, but I think Harry would have been > very uncomfortable and unhappy and disgusted if it had happened to > the Dursleys. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I think Harry would have laughed at first. After all, Dudley's gasping for air, Petunia screams of terror did not seem to phase him. But then again, he knew Arthur was there to help Dudley, and he'd had a hint that a prank was about to be had. He also knew that twins aren't murderers. (I'll throw in a "not yet, anyway" because of my evil!twins soap-box .) But I do think that if he'd seen the Dursleys dragged into the air and spun around, Harry would have been amused. However, Arthur's very real panic, the not joking manner of those doing the baiting (yes, that what I call it ), and the screams of fellow magical folk would have finally clued Harry in. Just as Dudley's very near death experience at the hands of the Dementors (which Harry was fully cognizant of) wasn't something Harry was going to laugh at. And I think Arthur's very real anger at the twins (the one time we ever witness Arthur attempt to discipline one of his children) does suggest that the twins' actions really were wrong. > >>Sherry: > He didn't even think it was funny when it happened to Snape as > done by James in the pensieve memory. I think there is hope for > Harry, and he's not as blas? as you might think. Betsy Hp: Ooh, I hope you're right. It was nice to see Harry *not* enjoy Snape's pain and humiliation. Though it was a bit disturbing when he suggested that Draco in a similar situation would be quite justified. I can't help but think JKR is setting up *something* when she shows the good guys do something and then has the bad guys reflect it back, only darker. Why use the parallel if there isn't a point being made? So I feel like you *are* right, Sherry. Harry will learn. > >>Alla: > Well, this Harry supporter certainly does not imply that vengeance > is all there is, cannot speak for others of course. > To me there is a huge difference between villains getting their > dues, by any means author thinks possible within the plot and > vengeance. > Although as a reader, I am certainly "bloodfirsty" enough to hope > for their sufferings, that does not mean that **good guys** in > Potterverse are just as bloodfirsty IMO. Betsy Hp: I guess I don't understand what else there is. I mean, I don't like what Hermione did to Marietta, not because Marietta is good or innocent or anything other than a snitch, but because what Hermione did was cruel. I don't care if Hermione had tricked Umbridge herself (nasty, horrible Umbridge) into tripping a disfigurement hex that appears to be uncurable. I would still worry about Hermione's behavior for *Hermione's* sake. Because I really don't see where it's about anything *more* than vengeance. I just feel like, if you're (and I'm using universal "you" here, not speaking directly to Alla) going to explain (for example) why letting someone die of thirst is proper behavior against prefects who support a headmaster you dislike you're really explaining why vengeance is a good thing. The twins weren't saving their lives, or the lives of anyone else. They weren't even slowing Umbridge down. The DA, on the other hand, *did* have a noble purpose and *actually* did something to fight Umbridge's reign. Attacking Montague does nothing. It just made the twins feel better because they got a bit of rage worked off. And Harry and Ron lived a little vicariously through them. But it didn't help anyone at all. There was no positive effect. Once again, Lucius Malfoy would have approved. (Heck *Voldemort* would have approved.) I'm very interested to see what JKR does in the last book. How interesting will it be if Marietta and Zacharius and Draco are needed to take down Voldemort? It would force the trio to confront some of their past wrongs, and it'll give Ginny some page time too! Betsy Hp From djklaugh at comcast.net Fri Jul 14 02:57:04 2006 From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:57:04 -0000 Subject: What will become of Dolores Umbridge? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155367 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Now for something that is neither Snapey-poo or horcruxes. JKR has > told us that we will be seeing Umbridge again, as she wants > to "torture her a bit more" before having done with her -- which is > good, since Umbridge and her treatment of Harry is one of the big > dangling threads, and big moral issues, with which JKR needs to deal. (Snip) LOL lupinlore!! Those are marvelous. My suggestions would be: 9 - Someone (probably the Weasley twins) send her a birthday gift of a box of Chocolate Frogs laced with PolyJuice - to which has been added a bit of real frog skin. But other than tinting her hair and skin green and causing her voice to get croaky, the effects are not very noticable. 10 - Because of her experience as an educator (miniscule as that is) she is selected to continue Grawp's education when Hagrid and Madame Maxine decide to elope. 11 - After being hexed by an irate Hogwarts Alum, she is treated at St Mungo's and her bed is between the dog-faced lady and Gilderoy Lockhart who now is learning to care for Cornish Pixies as part of his therapy. 12 - Someone (again probably Fred and George) sign her up for the Fantastic Beast of the Month club - selections include nifflers, skrewts, kneazles, etc. 13 - Somehow a centaur foal accidentally imprints on Delores and follows her everywhere calling "Mama, Mama, Mama" 14 - Peeves' younger cousin, Irks, is looking for a job so Peeves sends him to Delores's home From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 02:54:39 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:54:39 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155368 > Betsy Hp: > I guess I don't understand what else there is. I mean, I don't like > what Hermione did to Marietta, not because Marietta is good or > innocent or anything other than a snitch, but because what Hermione > did was cruel. I don't care if Hermione had tricked Umbridge > herself (nasty, horrible Umbridge) into tripping a disfigurement hex > that appears to be uncurable. I would still worry about Hermione's > behavior for *Hermione's* sake. Because I really don't see where > it's about anything *more* than vengeance. Alla: I am so very puzzled. We discussed it for several days and I am puzzled all over again. Where do you find vengeance in what Hermione did? I see protection of DA members from horrible fate as the only reason for Hermione's actions. I can see the argument of them being cruel, but **vengeance** as motive? She did not set the hex after the fact, to go after Marietta after she did the deed, she set the hex **in case** treachery happens. I don't see vengeance here at all. Sorry. Umbridge - well, anything that can happen to her, I will be only happy. And here again, I go back to JKR saying that Umbridge is fun to torture. I hopefully see the hint that JKR is really not shy of giving justice to those who deserve it. IMO of course. She used the word "torture", no less, I doubt we will see the real torture, but hopefully Dolores dear will get her dues. Betsy Hp: > I just feel like, if you're (and I'm using universal "you" here, not > speaking directly to Alla) going to explain (for example) why > letting someone die of thirst is proper behavior against prefects > who support a headmaster you dislike you're really explaining why > vengeance is a good thing. The twins weren't saving their lives, or > the lives of anyone else. They weren't even slowing Umbridge down. Alla: Yes, of course. Just a bit of vicarious retribution for Montague for sigting with monster. To me Twins are not even fully developed characters - to me they are funny and tools of justice, that is why I evaluate his actions differently from the way I evaluate Trio and some other characters. Does it make sense? As I mentioned earlier - I think JKR uses them often when she cannot punish bad guys in any other ways and for humor of course. Betsy Hp: > The DA, on the other hand, *did* have a noble purpose and *actually* > did something to fight Umbridge's reign. Attacking Montague does > nothing. It just made the twins feel better because they got a bit > of rage worked off. And Harry and Ron lived a little vicariously > through them. But it didn't help anyone at all. There was no > positive effect. Once again, Lucius Malfoy would have approved. > (Heck *Voldemort* would have approved.) Alla: Yes, I think it was not supposed to help anybody. I think it was supposed to show us that bad guys in one way or another will get from fate what they deserved. Of course it backfired too. Betsy Hp: > I'm very interested to see what JKR does in the last book. How > interesting will it be if Marietta and Zacharius and Draco are > needed to take down Voldemort? It would force the trio to confront > some of their past wrongs, and it'll give Ginny some page time too! > Alla: I will make you another prediction - if they are needed, then before trio will confront their wrongs, those will confront their wrongs first . The list of Draco's wrongs is too long for me to put here, Marietta will have to confront what she was ready to condemn fellow students too and Zacharius, well, Okay, I let him off :) Then Trio may confront their wrongs, whatever they are ;) JMO, Alla From enlil65 at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 04:50:20 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:50:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360607132150k315445a2of127721159be5260@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155369 On 7/13/06, spookedook wrote: > spookedook: > How does Voldemort get his wand back? > > zgirnius: > My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led Voldemort > to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched the wand and > scampered away in rat form. He returned it to Voldemort after he joined > him in Albania and helped him to regain his baby-body and then his > adult body. > > aussie: > Just as LV likes an audience when he dueled with Harry, he may have > had other DE with him at Godric' Hollow. > > > spookedook: > I disagree, we all know that LV is very secretive, he wouldn't want > PP knowing his plans, I don't think he'd have wanted anyone to know > his methods of making himself immortal, because that way they could > do it too and detract from his power. > > Also, if there had been a death eater with him he could have > returned to his body almost immediately! Peggy W: I'm with you on this... I consider it highly unlikely that Voldemort would have taken any Death Eaters other than Peter to his mission at Godric's Hollow. The Death Eaters seem to have completely lost track of Voldemort; they only knew that he had gone after the Potters on Wormtail's information. As we find out in POA, this is a big reason Peter had to hide out in rat form for so many years: the Death Eaters blamed him for Voldemort's disappearance and would have killed him if they could find him. This suggests that no other Death Eaters had firsthand experience of the Godric's Hollow events -- if other DEs had gone along to Godric's Hollow they would have known what happened to Voldemort. This also suggests that the LeStranges would have had no need of trying to torture information out of the Longbottoms regarding Voldemort's whereabouts, if a fellow DE could have told of what happened. I go along with the idea already proposed, that Wormtail either hid or ran off with Voldemort's wand, returning it to him after relocating him. This makes a lot of sense, actually, because it fits in with Wormtail playing an important active role in this story. I think it fits his personality completely: he betrayed the Potters to Voldemort for his own advantage; he took Voldemort to their doorstep and witnessed what happened (speculation, we don't yet know this for sure); he schemed to cover up his role, all the while knowing Voldemort wasn't dead; and he brought Voldemort back only when it was to his own advantage to do so. I can easily imagine him secreting Voldemort's wand to be retrieved at a future time in case it would be of strategic use to him -- and indeed it was, after Sirius found him. Hiding Voldemort's wand is part of keeping all his options open. It fits Wormtail to a tee. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Fri Jul 14 06:05:19 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:05:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155370 Carol responds: >The Twins know that Dudley is a Muggle and that he can't defend >himself magically. They view Muggles as generally inferior to Wizards, >so they probably know, or suspect, that Muggles are less tolerant of >potion-laced candies than Wizards. It's possible that they don't >understand that Dudley is really suffering, but I think even a wizard >would suffer from a greatly enlarged and elongated tongue. And they >certainly should anticipate Dudley's terror, even if they can't >anticipate Aunt Petunia attempting to tear Dudley's tongue from his mouth. PJ: I don't see that at all. Where is it written in canon that the twins view *Muggles* (Dudley is considered a spoiled, bullying oaf because he is, not simply because he's a muggle) as generally inferior and that they'd suspect, even for a moment, that the candies would seriously harm Dudley? I never read any such thing. Look at where the Burrow is... far from everyone with lots of fields and trees around. Not a muggle in sight. Then look at where the twins go to school. No true muggles there either. So just how would they *know* that muggles are less tolerant of what is child's play to wizards? From their father? Somehow I doubt it since Arthur honestly has no idea what make muggles tick. Carol: Since no one is quoting from the scene, I'll do it. ". . . Dudley . . . was kneeling beside the coffee table, and he was gagging and sputtering on a foot-long, purple, slimy thing that was protruding from his mouth. One bewildered second later, Harry realized that the foot-long thing was Dudley's tongue . . . . ". . . Far from being reassured [by Mr. Weasley's words], the Dursleys became more panic-stricken. Aunt Petunia was sobbing hysterically, tugging Dudley's tongue as though determined to rip it out; Dudley appeared to be suffocating under the combined pressure of his mother and his tongue . . . " (GoF Am. ed. 49). PJ: Thankyou, I believe you made my point for me very nicely. First, Harry is surprised to see what the candy does to Dudley (and he grew up with Muggles!) and secondly the part you neglected to quote was where Mr. Weasley explained that it was a "simple engorgement charm" and that he could sort it out. Had the Dursleys not panicked so badly (Petunia probably made things worse by yanking Dudley's tongue half out of his head) it would've been sorted in a jiffy and, though scary, would not have been dangerous. Carol: >However, I've already made my points on Dudley baiting, and I want to >focus on something else here. You said that "no one has been injured >by those candies." While that's probably true of the puking pastilles >and fainting fancies, Katie Bell nearly bled to death when Fred gave >her the wrong end of a nosebleed nougat (or whatever it was) and had >to be sent to the hospital wing. And we don't see Fred and George >testing ton-tongue toffees on first years (fortunately). Dudley >appears to be the first--and last--victim of this particular candy. PJ: You're right... they'd tested the toffees (as well as every other candy they've made) on *themselves* which, if they considered them dangerous, would've been the last thing they'd have done. They're not suicidal. As for Katie Bell, yes that was an error but things like that happen in the WW and no one thinks much about it... For example, Lockhart and the bones in Harry's arm. Madam Pomphrey simply gave him a bone re-growing potion and it was all fixed in a couple of days. No big deal. I think JKR has, over the last 6 books, gone to great pains to show that things in the WW are so very different that we *can't* judge them by our society's standards. It's like comparing apples to coconuts... PJ From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Fri Jul 14 06:30:23 2006 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:30:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was muggle baiting Now Hermionne and Marietta In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68c6a0056375ee5d6232e91c07554fa8@bellsouth.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155371 Barbara (Ivogun): As far as the spots, I think it's a clever plot device. I don't think that JKR means for us to focus a lot of attention on whether Hermione did the right thing, but rather she was setting up a situation that shows what happens to traitors or collaborators during a war. If the Death Eaters can be compared to the Nazis, then Marietta can be compared to a Nazi collaborator in France. After the war, suspected collaborators had to face all sorts of humiliation and ostracization. (See http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/gallery2/81857.HTM ) Considering the what would happen to the members of DA if they were turned in (expulsion, lack of employable credentials), just having spots--spots that could be covered up--isn't so bad. Actually I'm not sure that threatening with spots is an effective deterrent. Leave it to a teenage girl to make Acme a horrible punishment. Too much. And of course, Hermione didn't force Marietta to sign it. Marietta made the oath, knowing there was some repercussions for breaking it. > > Betsy Hp: > ...I don't like what Hermione did to Marietta, not because Marietta > is good or > > innocent or anything other than a snitch, but because what > Hermione did was cruel. > Alla: > > ... Where do you find vengeance in what Hermione did? I see protection > of DA members from horrible fate as the only reason for Hermione's > actions.... > > She did not set the hex after the fact, to go after Marietta after > she did the deed, she set the hex **in case** treachery happens. > > I don't see vengeance here at all. Sorry. As far as the spots, I think it was clever plot device. I don't think that JKR means for us to focus a lot of attention on whether Hermione did the right thing, but rather she was setting up a situation that shows what happens to traitors or collaborators during a war. If the Death Eaters can be compared to the Nazis, then Marietta can be compared to a Nazi collaborator in France. After the war, suspected collaborators had to face all sorts of humiliation and ostracization. (See http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/gallery2/81857.HTM ) Considering the what would happen to the members of DA who were turned in (expulsion, lack of employable credentials) just having spots--spots that could be covered up-- isn't so bad. Actually I thought the spots weren't really an effective deterrent. Leave it to a teenage girl to think that Acme is horrible punishment. Too much. And then too, Marietta made the oath, knowing that there was some repercussions for breaking it. Hermione did not force her to sign it. Oaths are not to be taken lightly...ever. This is why we take oaths in courts. Not a bad lesson to learn. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Fri Jul 14 07:12:30 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:12:30 EDT Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture Message-ID: <237.e088de8.31e89dde@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155372 Betsy wrote: The only reason I've not given up on the books yet is that the fat lady hasn't sung. There's still a chance that vengeance and doling out of karmic justice is *not* the actual theme of the books. Harry may actually figure out that there *are* basic rules that should *not* be broken. That blind loyalty is not always a good thing. That Arthur was right and the twins were wrong. That Hermione needs to treat other people as, well, people and not little puppets in her great machine. That no matter how much they annoy you, the strong should *never* beat up the weak. Betsy Hp (trying to remember why she liked these books in the first place) Julie: Because of Dumbledore, of course! He's the moral center of the books, JKR's epitome of goodness. If there is one thing Dumbledore does not stand for in any way, it's vengeance. He will accept justice in the form of punishment when necessary, but he prefers to give second chances when possible (even if it comes back to bite him). Dumbledore stands for tolerance, kindness, mercy, and forgiveness, traits clearly lacking in too many wizards on *both* sides (though I suppose those traits would always be lacking on the bad side!). And Dumbledore is Harry's mentor, his role model. Right now Harry is Dumbledore's Man in words, not always in action, but he's still growing. I believe by the end of Book 7 Harry will prove to be Dumbledore's Man in philosophy and deeds also. After all, the books are about good versus evil, not about karmic justice, IMO, and Dumbledore stands for goodness by JKR's own words, so who else would she have her hero emulate in the end? Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 08:23:05 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:23:05 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155373 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > > > > zgirnius, before: > > > My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led > Voldemort to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched the wand and scampered away in rat form. > > > > Sandy responds: > > > > To me, Peter having LV's wand is the only logical conclusion, > but... where was the wand during the 12 or 13 years Peter was masquerading as a rat in the Weasley household? > > zgirnius: > In Peter's pocket, wherever his clothes hang out while he is a rat, would be my guess. I think that the things a person is ng/carrying when they transform stay with them. The same way > McGonagall still has her glasses, when she comes back from her cat > form. > I used to think this....but I love the "snape is not so good"(i.e. not entirely on dd's side).... so I would place Snape in Godrics Hollow.....this would explain why voldie thought it would be okay to put Wormtail and Snape together during HBP--thus far this is the only good thing I can think about voldy pairing them up(in Voldy's mind)..(in my mind a couple of life debt characters are the last two voldy should pair up) and we can go back and reread the books from a different perspective..(perhaps Snape had voldie's wand and that's why scabbers went missing but did not immediately hide in Hagrid's hut in POA(and complained later too that he had been robbed..by Harry of course)......he had to get the wand back first!?!?!? So scabbers retrieved said wand..and escaped-- I think it may have been a prized possession of Snape's.... (PP/Wormtail probably spoke of the "great virtues of snape" when going back to the "dark lord"; hence voldy was more readily to accept snape's lame excuses and take him back into the fold of DE's after Lucius' grave blunders' If snape had said wand and did not destroy it....then one must consider if 1. Snape was waiting for voldy to return 2. a great souvenier 3. was planning to destroy Harry with it on his own.. 4.he could wield it and become the "new" dark lord.. Doddiemoemoe (who thinks that if james and sirius hadn't tormented snape so...that he truly may have fancied himself as the "new dark lord"..) From jamess at climaxgroup.com Fri Jul 14 09:11:03 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:11:03 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemorts Wand - It may not matter Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B24@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 155374 It seems that some people think there is some kind critical information at stake with regard to how Voldemorts wand was returned to him. I think it's irrelevant. Think of the conversations between V and Wormtail. If he had saved the wand and returned it to voldemort he would have been reminding him of the service at every opportunity. I suspect wormtail turned up with whatever wand he had and when voldemort he was restored to his limited body picked up the wand and screamed "accio wand". No need for a mystery at all. -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of doddiemoemoe Sent: 14 July 2006 09:23 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemorts Wand --- In HPforGrownups@ yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > > > > zgirnius, before: > > > My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led > Voldemort to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched the wand and scampered away in rat form. > > > > Sandy responds: > > > > To me, Peter having LV's wand is the only logical conclusion, > but... where was the wand during the 12 or 13 years Peter was masquerading as a rat in the Weasley household? > > zgirnius: > In Peter's pocket, wherever his clothes hang out while he is a rat, would be my guess. I think that the things a person is ng/carrying when they transform stay with them. The same way > McGonagall still has her glasses, when she comes back from her cat > form. > I used to think this....but I love the "snape is not so good"(i.e. not entirely on dd's side).... so I would place Snape in Godrics Hollow.....this would explain why voldie thought it would be okay to put Wormtail and Snape together during HBP--thus far this is the only good thing I can think about voldy pairing them up(in Voldy's mind)..(in my mind a couple of life debt characters are the last two voldy should pair up) and we can go back and reread the books from a different perspective..(perhaps Snape had voldie's wand and that's why scabbers went missing but did not immediately hide in Hagrid's hut in POA(and complained later too that he had been robbed..by Harry of course)......he had to get the wand back first!?!?!? So scabbers retrieved said wand..and escaped-- I think it may have been a prized possession of Snape's.... (PP/Wormtail probably spoke of the "great virtues of snape" when going back to the "dark lord"; hence voldy was more readily to accept snape's lame excuses and take him back into the fold of DE's after Lucius' grave blunders' If snape had said wand and did not destroy it....then one must consider if 1. Snape was waiting for voldy to return 2. a great souvenier 3. was planning to destroy Harry with it on his own.. 4.he could wield it and become the "new" dark lord.. Doddiemoemoe (who thinks that if james and sirius hadn't tormented snape so...that he truly may have fancied himself as the "new dark lord"..) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jul 13 22:31:21 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:31:21 -0400 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607131531g593f24e1v8618c801785f2fad@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155375 > a_svirn: > Well, I for one don't understand this objection. What the twins did is > muggle-baiting in every possible sense, including the most literal > one. After all, Dudley did swallow a bait that was, to quote the > Bard, "on purpose laid to make the taker mad". I guess I interpreted the text as presenting "muggle baiting" as a term of art, rather than breaking it down to the individual words and using their dictionary definitions. random832. From enlil65 at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 13:01:05 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:01:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1789c2360607140601l519e9f6age2b497ec2e4d452@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155376 On 7/14/06, doddiemoemoe wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > > > > > zgirnius, before: > > > > My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led > > Voldemort to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched the > wand and scampered away in rat form. > > > > Sandy responds: > > > > > > To me, Peter having LV's wand is the only logical conclusion, > > but... where was the wand during the 12 or 13 years Peter was > masquerading as a rat in the Weasley household? > > > > zgirnius: > > In Peter's pocket, wherever his clothes hang out while he is a > rat, would be my guess. I think that the things a person is > ng/carrying when they transform stay with them. The same way > > McGonagall still has her glasses, when she comes back from her cat > > form. > > > Doddiemoemoe: > I used to think this....but I love the "snape is not so good"(i.e. > not entirely on dd's side).... > > so I would place Snape in Godrics Hollow.....this would explain why > voldie thought it would be okay to put Wormtail and Snape together > during HBP--thus far this is the only good thing I can think about > voldy pairing them up(in Voldy's mind)... Peggy W: There's a reason to think that Snape wasn't at Godric's Hollow. In the Spinner's End chapter, Bella asks Snape, Where were you when the Dark Lord fell? In his reply, Snape states that he was at Hogwarts as ordered by Voldemort. In this same conversation, he tells Bella that she can confirm everything he tells her with Voldemort, who asked exactly the same questions and to whom he gave exactly the same answers. If this is true (I know, pretty suspect where Snape is concerned, so one at least has to formally question any information he gives) then Snape was at Hogwarts, not at Godric's Hollow. To have been at Godric's Hollow, Snape either would have had to have a lot of faith that Bella wouldn't try to confirm his tale with Voldemort, or else Voldemort would have needed to deceive Bella on this point and would need a motivation to do so. The latter complexity, while not too difficult to imagine, makes Snape's presence at Godric's Hollow much less likely in my view. I just don't see any motivation for Voldemort to be in collusion with Snape on this particular point. I'm still thinking, it's Wormtail secreting that wand. -- Peggy Wilkins enlil65 at gmail.com From felix_quinn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 12:48:21 2006 From: felix_quinn at yahoo.com (felix_quinn) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:48:21 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155377 > Marion Ros: > These sadistic little twerps have a *history* of feeding younger > kids harmful sweets, and it has nothing to do with justice, > whatsoever. They've also have a history of tormenting younger >children and animals. I think this is not due to a sadistic nature, but more of a result of their upbringing. By this I don't mean that Mr and Mrs Weasly raised them wrong or instilled some intrinsic instinct in them to drive them to what can be viewed by some as sadistic behaviour, but rather the twin factor. Twins are often linked mentally and emotionally in a way so unlike anything other people experience, that we tend to overlook the value and intensity of this bond. The Weasly twins, having grown up in a large family where, although there was much love, that love was spread quite far- and attention more so. We've seen what this has done to the other siblings- Ron's self esteem, being the youngest brother, has made him feel like an outcast. He feels like everything worth doing (within his family) has already been done, and even if it is done again it's still just going to be a repeated event. Percy has taken it upon himself to be the notable brother, covering his feelings of inadequacy by trying to be the best and trying to outshine his brothers at every corner possible. Ginny, being not only the youngest but also the only girl, was for a long time a painfully shy girl, being severely outnumbered gender-wise. Even when she started to come out of her shell, she still retains a certain amount of resentment of her position in the family- she takes on the role of the 'strong' one, possibly even noting her brothers' desperations to stand out, and deciding that SHE would be the one to stand out, and she would not be desperate in doing so. She is conciously trying to remain 'cool' on the outside. Even Bill and Charlie, although we don't know as much about them, both have personalities so radically different from the rest of their siblings, each fulfilling a role that is unlike any other sibling in order to stand out. We find that each and every one of the Weasly kids is as different as night and day, and most probably with psychological intent. The twins are different, though. Twins have so often been painted as indentical both in appearance and in personality in fiction, and many authors strive to break that mold. It can almost be cliche if not done properly (to make twins so similar) and so it is avoided so pointedly that JKR's decision to go this route is quite remarkable. I think that this stems from the big family, and the rest of the siblings being so intent on their own private mission to be special. Being a twin already puts them at a disatvantage in _that_ race, because there's two of you to try to be special. Instead of resenting that fact, they take advantage of it, finding an ally in each other in the midst of such a chaotic family. They grow up understanding each other so implicitly- so aware of each other's whims and fancies- that they forget that the rest of the world is outside of their special bond. Just because they understand each other so well, doesn't mean that everyone else understands them equally as well, and I think that this is important. Because all they've ever known is that to each other, all motives are quite clear and they both find it quite obvious that they mean no harm- so everyone else must automatically know this too. They seem to believe, however subconciously, that no matter how bad they bugger up, (the original intent of any 'adventure' being attention seeking, I believe) the 'victims' and authority figures will undoubtedly know that they did not mean it in a vindictive way, and that all will be forgiven. Most of the time, they _do_ end up getting away with their pranks, because the people who would punish them are quite busily occupied with many, MANY other things, and somehow their actions have always been fixable or haven't led to any catastphic consequences. This has just strengthened their belief that everyone else understands their innocent intent, and has spurred the behaviour on. This in no way means that their actions were excusable, or that the consequences of their pranks could have gone terribly awry and the intent lost. It just means that they don't do what they do out of deliberate maliciousness or even a subconcious vindictiveness. It's just them assuming that any prank without harmful intent cannot possibly lead to bad things, and cannot possibly be misunderstood. Felix From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 14 15:25:52 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:25:52 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155378 > > Alla: > > I am so very puzzled. We discussed it for several days and I am > puzzled all over again. > > Where do you find vengeance in what Hermione did? I see protection > of DA members from horrible fate as the only reason for Hermione's > actions. > > I can see the argument of them being cruel, but **vengeance** as > motive? Pippin: "Believe me, if anyone's run off and told Umbridge, we'll know exactly who they are and they will really regret it." "What'll happen to them?" asked Ron eagerly. "Well, put it this way," said Hermione, "it'll make Eloise Midgen's acne look like a couple of cute freckles." -OOP ch 17 I don't see how making the traitor look worse than Eloise protects the DA. Ron's eagerness makes it clear that *he* reads vengeance as Hermione's motive. He can hardly be eager for someone to betray the DA. > Alla: > > Yes, of course. Just a bit of vicarious retribution for Montague for > sigting with monster. > > To me Twins are not even fully developed characters - to me they are > funny and tools of justice, that is why I evaluate his actions > differently from the way I evaluate Trio and some other characters. > Does it make sense? > > As I mentioned earlier - I think JKR uses them often when she cannot > punish bad guys in any other ways and for humor of course. > Pippin: For me, that would undermine the moral lesson, because it says we are supposed to see some people as more human than others. If only fully developed characters are responsible for their actions, then why shouldn't we let Crabbe and Goyle off the hook? Or Marietta for that matter? How is a Potterverse character supposed to tell which characters don't have 'real' thoughts and feelings, so it doesn't matter if they're treated badly? How is Snape, for example, supposed to know that it would be okay for him to kick Montague around but not Harry? > Alla: > > Yes, I think it was not supposed to help anybody. I think it was > supposed to show us that bad guys in one way or another will get > from fate what they deserved. > > Of course it backfired too.] Pippin: I just can't think that way, because then I would have to think that the good guys got what they deserved for letting Fred and George run wild. Greyback is Montague's avenging angel?!! I don't think we're going there. I think what JKR is doing is a bit more complicated than that. She shows us that it's normal to feel gratified when the guilty suffer. The Twins are not depicted as cruel people because of that. We never see their eyes lighting up at the thought of hurting those they know to be innocent. But by letting their satisfaction with punishing Montague make them indifferent to his fate they literally created an opening for evil. Metaphorically, they put Montague in the cabinet but they got Greyback out. I think this is what Dumbledore was trying to explain when he talked about the price of Sirius's indifference to Kreacher, which Harry misunderstood as saying Sirius deserved what he got. Sirius did not do evil and get evil in return any more than the Twins did. But his indifference exposed him to an evil which did not care whether he deserved to die or not. Indifference breeds cruelty, not only metaphorically but literally, because it makes it easier for some people to be cruel. That's what JKR is trying to tell us IMO. We see in canon that people respond to cruelty and neglect in different ways. Some get the saving people thing. Others, through no fault of their own, are altered so that they are gratified when anyone suffers, guilty or not. This, I think, is the appalling damage that Dumbledore saw in Dudley. JKR makes it easy to confuse this condition with wickedness. But nowhere are we told that this is a choice. Nowhere in canon do we have a moment where Dudley, Draco, Snape or even Voldemort sat down and said, I want to like it when I hurt people, any more than Harry ever said to himself, I want to like it when I save people. Voldemort may have been born with this damage already done. Dudley probably wasn't. But no one decided to be damaged in this way. And characters who are damaged in this way can still be on the side of good, because they can still choose to risk their lives in order to protect the innocent and they can still fight to keep evil from power, and they can still resist the temptation to hurt others just because it feels good when they do it. The choices the undamaged characters have to make, more important for them because they are harder, are not to be indifferent, not to let the pleasure of punishing those who deserve it be their excuse for being too severe, and not to let bias influence their judgement. The Twins and a great many other characters have not yet learned to be mindful of the damage they can cause, not by being cruel, but by being indifferent to cruelty. Fortunately there's a book left. Hermione is not deliberately cruel even to her worst enemies. She would never dream of tattooing 'racist' in purple pustles on Draco's face. But she thinks because her intentions are good, though a better word might be undamaged, her actions are going to be good too. But causing needless suffering is not good, and she does not weigh her actions in terms of how much needless suffering they might cause. That's what I'd like to see her start doing. Pippin From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Fri Jul 14 15:04:01 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:04:01 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr and Longbottoms (was: Voldemorts Wand) In-Reply-To: <1789c2360607132150k315445a2of127721159be5260@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155379 > > spookedook: > > How does Voldemort get his wand back? > > > > zgirnius: > > My guess is that Peter Pettigrew, as the Secret Keeper, led > > Voldemort to Godric's Hollow. After the events, he snatched > > the wand and scampered away in rat form. > > > > aussie: > > Just as LV likes an audience when he dueled with Harry, he may > > have had other DE with him at Godric' Hollow. > > > > spookedook: > > Also, if there had been a death eater with him he could have > > returned to his body almost immediately! > > Peggy W: > I'm with you on this... I consider it highly unlikely that > Voldemort would have taken any Death Eaters other than Peter to > his mission at Godric's Hollow. The Death Eaters seem to have > completely lost track of Voldemort; they only knew that he had > gone after the Potters on Wormtail's information. As we find out > in POA, this is a big reason Peter had to hide out in rat form for > so many years: the Death Eaters blamed him for Voldemort's > disappearance and would have killed him if they could find him. > This suggests that no other Death Eaters had firsthand experience > of the Godric's Hollow events -- if other DEs had gone along to > Godric's Hollow they would have known what happened to Voldemort. > > This also suggests that the LeStranges would have had no > need of trying to torture information out of the Longbottoms > regarding Voldemort's whereabouts, if a fellow DE could have told > of what happened. aussie: Voldemort went through a very painful and unexpected change when he ost his body. Any Death Eater with him would have understandably fled from the appalling thing that remained, expecting Voldy to die. If a DE was there, he would not speak up openly about what he witnessed if he ran off ... which brings us to Barty Jr and the LeStranges' torturing the Longbottoms. Why did those DE believe LV to still be alive when no-one else did? Bellatrix may have known about LV having a Horcrux (previous postings suggested that is what she almost said in Spinners End and how RAB knew of the Pendant Horcrux). She would have brought the other 2 LeStranges, but what motivated Barty Couch Jr? If any DE was at GH, he would have been singled out during the graveyard DE reunion. The only exceptions would have been those that met LV before his body-building program. If an absent DE were at GH, Voldemort would have condemned him without remorse. So now I am thinking it was Barty Couch Jr at GH. LV would have gotten enough information from Bertha Jorkins about how Barty Jr had to escape Azkaban, why he was there and how he was enprisoned in his own home. Barty would have convinced LV of his loyalty with: 1/ That history already confirmed by Bertha 2/ His account of the Dark Mark at the Quidditch World Cup 3/ Promising to impersonate Moody and bring him Harry 4/ Get Voldamort his wand back He wasn't proud of running away from GH. But he knew better than any DE LV still existed, and in what pitiful form. Barty would have helped Crucio the Longbottoms for that reason. That would also explain why no-one had tried using such a powerful wand for 10 - 15 years. The only one who knew it's whereabouts was locked away. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jul 14 15:40:24 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:40:24 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155380 > PJ: > I don't see that at all. Where is it written in canon that the twins view > *Muggles* (Dudley is considered a spoiled, bullying oaf because he is, not > simply because he's a muggle) as generally inferior and that they'd suspect, > even for a moment, that the candies would seriously harm Dudley? I never > read any such thing. > > Look at where the Burrow is... far from everyone with lots of fields and > trees around. Not a muggle in sight. Then look at where the twins go to > school. No true muggles there either. So just how would they *know* that > muggles are less tolerant of what is child's play to wizards? >From their > father? Somehow I doubt it since Arthur honestly has no idea what make > muggles tick. Magpie: All Wizards know about Muggles, no matter how much actual contact they have with them. And they all speak of them, off-handedly, as being inferior. They're entire society seems rather based on the idea. Hagrid says how cute all the stuff that Muggles come up with because they don't have magic is. Ginny scoffs at stitches (and Hermione only "fairly" says that they work on non-Magical wound while having assumed complete independence from her Muggle parents and begun referring to things Muggles have as "substitutes for Magic"). The Prime Minister has no say in anything when dealing with Wizards. Arthur routinely zaps Muggles in the head for his job and finds them kind of cute and precious. There are Muggles in the Weasley's neighborhood. George leaves the house in HBP to see a Muggle girl in town who "thinks his card tricks are great--like real magic!" Iow, his interaction with her is completely unequal, as usual. For the Twins to not consider Muggles inferior they would seem to be unique in all the Wizarding World, and they aren't that. Nor are they innocent child giants who don't know what hurts Muggles. They're 16-year-old boys brought up to not Prank Muggles who do it anyway. > PJ: > Thankyou, I believe you made my point for me very nicely. First, Harry is > surprised to see what the candy does to Dudley (and he grew up with > Muggles!) and secondly the part you neglected to quote was where Mr. Weasley > explained that it was a "simple engorgement charm" and that he could sort it > out. Had the Dursleys not panicked so badly (Petunia probably made things > worse by yanking Dudley's tongue half out of his head) it would've been > sorted in a jiffy and, though scary, would not have been dangerous. Magpie: One of the results of the candy--an easily forseeable and presumably desired result--is the panic (and remember the only reason Arthur was able to sort it out "in a jiffy" is because Dudley ate the candy on the spot before Arthur had left. Arthur himself, iirc, makes it clear that his being there luckily prevents something worse rather than the Dursleys panic creating something out of nothing). Leaving aside the idea that it's the Dursleys fault for not responding the way any Muggle would, the ultimate danger of the charm isn't necessarily relevent. The Muggles at the QWC aren't being hurt either when we see them. The Twins are not trying to kill Dudley, they're just playing a practical joke on him, with perhaps a slightly higher level of cruelty than your average practical joke. The last funny joke placed on Dudley by a Wizard had to be removed surgically. I've no idea if the engorgement charm in the candy would have worn off by itself, but it's still kind of silly to brush off "a simple engorgement charm" as if that makes it simple to the Dursleys. -m From logic_alley at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 17:07:31 2006 From: logic_alley at yahoo.com (logic_alley) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:07:31 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald falls Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155381 Just a little reality-meets-HP - the piece of the Swiss mountain Eiger that fell off yesterday did it in a place called Grindelwald. It's amazing how prophetic the series can be sometimes. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 18:03:13 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:03:13 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155382 > >>Marion Ros: > > These sadistic little twerps have a *history* of feeding younger > > kids harmful sweets, and it has nothing to do with justice, > > whatsoever. They've also have a history of tormenting younger > > children and animals. > >>Felix: > I think this is not due to a sadistic nature, but more of a result > of their upbringing. By this I don't mean that Mr and Mrs Weasly > raised them wrong or instilled some intrinsic instinct in them to > drive them to what can be viewed by some as sadistic behaviour, > but rather the twin factor. > > They grow up understanding each other so implicitly- so aware of > each other's whims and fancies- that they forget that the rest of > the world is outside of their special bond. Just because they > understand each other so well, doesn't mean that everyone else > understands them equally as well, and I think that this is > important. Because all they've ever known is that to each other, > all motives are quite clear and they both find it quite obvious > that they mean no harm- so everyone else must automatically know > this too. > > This in no way means that their actions were excusable, or that the > consequences of their pranks could have gone terribly awry and the > intent lost. It just means that they don't do what they do out of > deliberate maliciousness or even a subconcious vindictiveness. It's > just them assuming that any prank without harmful intent cannot > possibly lead to bad things, and cannot possibly be misunderstood. Betsy Hp: This is a *fascinating* take on the twins. Oddly enough (because I'm not a big fan of the twins) I do agree with it. I think, especially in the beginning, the twins did what they did out of boyish exuberance, rather than an innate cruelty. But I do think things are starting to go wrong. I think the twins *have* started to behave more maliciously and that, if they aren't checked, they could go down a seriously dark path. Part of the problem I do lay at Arthur and Molly's feet. They do not seem to have set some basic ground rules as I think they should have. I think we see *why* this occured in the scene following the prank on Dudley. Arthur is not respected by the twins; I think because he checked out of the family a long time ago, possibly before the twins were even born. When he does try and play the father, they blow him off. Crazy old Dad and his crazy ways, etc. And they don't seem to respect Molly either; I think because she's too emotional and treats everything they do as the worst behavior ever. When your mother screams at you about *everything* you stop taking her screams about anything seriously. This lack of respect is undermined, IMO, by Arthur's and Molly's inability to work as a team. Arthur sees the issue as treatment of muggles, Molly sees the issue as their joke shop. Both parents makes clear they think the other parent is wrong in their view, and the twins walk away thinking that niether parent is valid. What this has lead to, IMO, is the twins not learning when to check themselves. All they've learned is it's best to not get caught. They don't know, nor do they seem to care, about *why* their behavior might be bad. On top of all this, they go to a school with built in scapegoats. Slytherins are understood (especially in Gryffindor) to be lesser- than. You might prick them and they may even bleed, but they probably didn't really feel it. So the twins, at fourteen (IIRC), hiss eleven year old Slytherins at the Sorting. No prefects or professors say a word, so it's okay (they think) to pick on Slytherins. Which, okay, hissing small children is a bit drippy behavior to my mind, but it's not horrible. But I think that leads to the twins feeling no sense of remorse for what they do to Montague. And that's a big step, IMO. They toss a human-being into a *broken* magical object. That human-being isn't seen for weeks. When he does finally show up he's in the hospital for a long time. Never once do we get a sense that the twins feel the slightest remorse. I don't think the twins had murder on their minds when they threw Montague away. I doubt they even had torture. But the consequences of their actions was that Montague suffered and nearly died. And their brother Bill is permanently disfigured. I don't think the twins were going for that outcome either. The thing is though, they need to *realize* that they've done wrong. It's very possible they will (thanks to Ron?) and that may turn them from the path they're on. But I do think they've crossed a line and aren't even aware of it. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 18:00:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:00:49 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155383 Alla wrote: > > In the books I am reading yes, the murder of his parents brought Harry to this fight. But in the books I am reading Harry fights for protection, for protection of those he loves **and** for self-protection too of course. > > Although yes, of course vengeance plays a role too, although i would > call it justice, not vengeance. Carol responds: I would love to agree with you, but his conversation with Dumbledore about why he should fight Voldemort seems to indicate otherwise. Self-protection I can see--after all, Voldemort has been after him for six books, not to mention the attack at Godric's Hollow. But I don't recall Harry expressing a desire to protect his friends, or the WW, from Voldemort since SS/PS (before he entered the third-floor to save the stone from "Snape"), back when he was an innocent child of eleven. And at the moment, he's certainly intent on vengeance against Snape. While he is certainly the Chosen One when it comes to Voldemort, I don't think it's his job, or his destiny, to take vengeance on Snape, not would it be justice if he did so, even if Snape is evil (which, of course, you think he is and I don't). Alla wrote: > > Not to me. Hermione IMO was right ( although as I said, not > perfectly executed too), because the reason she casted that hex was > protection, protection of fellow DA members from treachery. I **so** > don't see any vengeance here, but that is JMO. Carol responds: Punishing a person for snitching by "horribly disfigur[ing]" her with the word "SNEAK" across her face, perhaps permanently, isn't vengeance? How are you defining "vengeance," then? > Alla wrote: > Montague IMO deserved a bit of suffering because he supported a > monster reign over the school ( yes, that is my opinion of dear > Dolores Umbridge). Would I support that in RL? Twins issuing the > punishment? No, that is not their place, but do I think Montague > deserved the punishment for participaing in IS? Yes, I definitely do. Carol responds: Montague deserves to be stuck in limbo in a Vanishing Cabinet for trying to take points from the Twins, who may actually have been breaking a rule? Granted, they didn't know he would be stuck in a toilet on the return trip, but they did know he might be unable to return to Hogwarts for a while--rather like Mad-Eye Moody being trapped in his own trunk, it seems to me. And you're right; it was not their place to punish him. The Twins, like the Marauders before them (especially Sirius), need to start thinking about the potential consequences of their actions, it seems to me. (And you do believe in vengeance if you think that Montague deserved to suffer, or that anyone deserves to suffer.) Montague must have known that Umbridge was a dictator, but like Draco, he probably disliked Dumbledore and believed that the school was well rid of the deluded old "Mudblood lover." He could not have known about her cruel detentions or her Dementor attack on Harry. I know it's hard, but perhaps we should try to see things from the Slytherin point of view, which at this point is being supported by the Daily Prophet and the Ministry. > Alla: > To me there is a huge difference between villains getting their dues, by any means author thinks possible within the plot and vengeance. > Carol: I see no difference. Alla: > Although as a reader, I am certainly "bloodfirsty" enough to hope for their sufferings, that does not mean that **good guys** in Potterverse are just as bloodfirsty IMO. Carol: "Bloodfirsty"? Am I missing a joke here? Carol, pretty sure that JKR doesn't believe in vengeance or she'd have had Lupin and Black kill Pettigrew From littleleah at handbag.com Fri Jul 14 17:31:43 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:31:43 -0000 Subject: What will become of Dolores Umbridge? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155384 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Deb" wrote: > > > > LOL lupinlore!! Those are marvelous. My suggestions would be: > > 9 - Someone (probably the Weasley twins) send her a birthday gift of a > box of Chocolate Frogs laced with PolyJuice - to which has been added > a bit of real frog skin. But other than tinting her hair and skin > green and causing her voice to get croaky, the effects are not very > noticable. > > 10 - Because of her experience as an educator (miniscule as that is) > she is selected to continue Grawp's education when Hagrid and Madame > Maxine decide to elope. > > 11 - After being hexed by an irate Hogwarts Alum, she is treated at St > Mungo's and her bed is between the dog-faced lady and Gilderoy > Lockhart who now is learning to care for Cornish Pixies as part of his > therapy. > > 12 - Someone (again probably Fred and George) sign her up for the > Fantastic Beast of the Month club - selections include nifflers, > skrewts, kneazles, etc. > > 13 - Somehow a centaur foal accidentally imprints on Delores and > follows her everywhere calling "Mama, Mama, Mama" > > 14 - Peeves' younger cousin, Irks, is looking for a job so Peeves > sends him to Delores's home Leah: Great ideas, loved St Mungo's. 15. Dolores' kitten plates are found to be enchanted muggle artefacts and are destroyed by Arthur Weasley (no actual kittens will be harmed). 16. The MOM appoint Hagrid to carry out a survey of the Forbidden Forest. Dolores is appointed as his ministry assistant. 17. Rufus Scrimgeour orders Delores to select a present for his grandson from Weasleys' Wizarding Wheezes. Fred and George are asked to demonstrate the full range to her, including of course a dose of You-no-poo. Leah From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jul 14 17:53:42 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:53:42 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <237.e088de8.31e89dde@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155385 Many listees: > carmic [sic] > karmic houyhnhnm: I have to take exception to the way the word "karmic" has been used recently on the list in a way almost the opposite, it seems to me, of its real meaning. Karma is not some supernatural agency doling out punishment to *my* enemies. It does not take sides. Karma literally means "deed" or "act". The law of karma is the binding effect of action. Karma is not punishment or retribution, but simply an extended expression of natural acts. It can be likened to Newton's Third law of Motion. In Buddhism the law of karma states that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful. I think there are a number of examples of the operation of karma in Harry Potter. Sirius's recklessness in going after Peter by himself leads to his being falsely accused and incarcerated. His recklessness ultimately leads to his death. The caused events in both cases are unpleasant because the original actions were unskillfull. DDM!Snape's cherishing of resentment leads him into the snares of the Dark Lord, and that mistake results in his living a lonely and bitter existence after returning to the right side, not because he is being punished by some supernatural agency, but merely because it is the inevitable consequence of the choice he made. Running off to join an evil dark lord because you feel you have been wronged is an unskillful act. The twins unskillful action (because it put another's life at risk and served no purpose) with respect to Montague leads to Draco's discovery of a way to get DEs into the castle. An additional result was to put Harry in temptation's way when he was left alone with the Pensieve causing the Occlumency lessons to fail causing Harry to be lured to the MoM. That is why some people on this list are concerned about the way in which Hermione carried out the organization of Dumbledore's Army. Her unskillful actions led to Dumbledore leaving the school at a time when they had most need of him. We don't know yet whether or not there will be further unpleasant consequences resulting from Hermione's unskillful actions, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are. From triinum at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 12:16:31 2006 From: triinum at yahoo.com (triinum) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:16:31 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture / Hermione vs Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155386 > Alla: > > Not to me. Hermione IMO was right ( although as I said, not > perfectly executed too), because the reason she casted that hex was > protection, protection of fellow DA members from treachery. I **so** > don't see any vengeance here, but that is JMO. Triin: Oh, come on! :) It was not meant for protection, how could it have been? It _did not_ protect the DA members, did it? And there is absolutely _no way_ that simply cursing the parchment _could have_ protected them, is there? Hermione is not fool, she knew that casting the curse and _not telling_ anyone could by no means prevent betrayal. To prevent betrayal, she should have cursed it, and then said, "now that you've signed, know that anyone who tells on us, will be disfigured for life." (Or, she could have cast a curse that kicks in _before_ the traitor does the deed, say, right after she/he decides to do it.) Only, she didn't. She chose not to tell anyone, which was highly unpractical at the circumstances (because telling would certainly have prevented the whole disaster). Was it just an Idiot Plot on JKR's part? Or did Hermione choose vengeance over safety? (Or was she afraid that she'd be hexed to oblivion if she told them?) What other reasons could she have had to cast the curse _secretly_? Identifying the traitor later, so that measures could be taken to prevent further offences by her/him? Yes, that's reasonable, but writing "sneak" on someone's face in blisters is not the only possible way of marking them, is it? So, there _had_ to be a good measure of vengeance involved, even before anyone had betrayed her. Let's hope that 'identifying the traitor' was the main reason, and 'vengeance' the secondary one in Hermione's acts. I do understand vengeance, and I don't blame H for casting the hex, but I in her place would have started feeling sorry for Marietta after calming down and thinking a bit. After all, as far as we knew, Marietta chose the "right" action (regarding the info she had) and not the "easy" one, just like DD teaches us to do. It wasn't a Peter-type betrayal of ones classmates, it was DDM!Snape-type betrayal of them. All for the better cause; only she was misinformed. Should you be punished for stupidity/misinformation? Perhaps, but not by blister-writing 'sneak' on a young girl's face, which I consider a fate somewhat worse than death. In conclusion, Marietta's guilt can be arguable, but the fact that the objective of Hermione's curse was _not_ to protect DA from betrayal, is simple logic, IMO. Triin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 18:20:03 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:20:03 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607131537v2b9dd369qb9280e6018c9279@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155389 Carol wrote: > > I would think that Peter's own wand, as opposed to Voldemort's would normally be in his pocket and would transform with him along with his clothes. Since he's wandless when he's forced back into human form in the Shrieking Shack, I conclude that he left his wand behind, along with a bloody cloak, and his blown-off finger, as evidence that he was "dead." > Random832 responded: > I doubt he would leave the wand behind since it would contain evidence of _him_ blasting those 13 muggles. > Carol responds: Then how do you explain the absence of a wand when Black and Lupin forced him to take human form in the Shrieking Shack? Also, since all those witnesses were testifying against Sirius Black (who must have cast a spell simultaneously) and Pettigrew appeared to be a murder victim, I think it's highly unlikely that the Minsitry would have examined his wand. And why would it matter, since he was quite literally going underground (into the sewers) where no one could catch him even if they knew he was (literally and figuratively) a rat? Even if his plan failed and Black wasn't sent to Azkaban for his (Pettigrew's) crimes, he would still have gotten away. And a rat doesn't need a wand. (BTW, it was twelve Muggles. The thirteenth "victim" was Pettigrew himself.) Carol, who would be happy to hear an alternative explanation for wandless Wormtail From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 18:19:58 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:19:58 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155390 Alla wrote: > > In the books I am reading yes, the murder of his parents brought Harry to this fight. But in the books I am reading Harry fights for protection, for protection of those he loves **and** for self-protection too of course. > > Although yes, of course vengeance plays a role too, although i would > call it justice, not vengeance. Carol responds: I would love to agree with you, but his conversation with Dumbledore about why he should fight Voldemort seems to indicate otherwise. Self-protection I can see--after all, Voldemort has been after him for six books, not to mention the attack at Godric's Hollow. But I don't recall Harry expressing a desire to protect his friends, or the WW, from Voldemort since SS/PS (before he entered the third-floor to save the stone from "Snape"), back when he was an innocent child of eleven. And at the moment, he's certainly intent on vengeance against Snape. While he is certainly the Chosen One when it comes to Voldemort, I don't think it's his job, or his destiny, to take vengeance on Snape, not would it be justice if he did so, even if Snape is evil (which, of course, you think he is and I don't). Alla: Whether Harry expresses the desire to protect his friends or not, he **does** protect them IMO. He went to Chamber of Secrets to save Ginny. What **is** it if not protection? He went to save Sirius for the same reason IMO. So, no, I disagree. Of course the fact that evil touched Harry directly is what brought him into this fight, but I absolutely stand by my argument that Harry stays in it to protect his loved ones and **of course** to defend himself. And I was not talking about Snape at all, I thought Betsy's argument touched Harry reasons to fight Voldemort as vengeance, which I disagree that it is his primary reason. I mean, I am sure that right now Harry also wants vengeance for the death of his loved ones, but that is IMO not the main reason he fights. Alla wrote: > > Not to me. Hermione IMO was right ( although as I said, not > perfectly executed too), because the reason she casted that hex was > protection, protection of fellow DA members from treachery. I **so** > don't see any vengeance here, but that is JMO. Carol responds: Punishing a person for snitching by "horribly disfigur[ing]" her with the word "SNEAK" across her face, perhaps permanently, isn't vengeance? How are you defining "vengeance," then? Alla: We disagree on how we name what Marietta did. I call it betrayal, not snitching. As to how I define vengeance ? it is very simple. If Hermione **started** to think of the ways to punish Marietta **after** the fact, after she betrayed DA, then absolutely I would call it vengeance. I would still understand it, but **that** is what vengeance is to me. When you want to punish somebody for the wrong that is done *after the fact*, I call it vengeance. Just as what Harry wants to do to Snape, **that ** to me is vengeance. When somebody plans the protection of the group, not even knowing whether the betrayal will happens, I call it the **protection plans**. It could have been better executed protection plans, but IMO what Hermione came up does not even come close to vengeance. Alla: > To me there is a huge difference between villains getting their dues, by any means author thinks possible within the plot and vengeance. > Carol: I see no difference. Alla: The first is justice, the second is vengeance. IMO of course. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 18:59:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:59:49 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155391 aussie wrote: > Let's look at the things straight after Harry became the "Boy who > Lived" until Hagrid takes him away. > > LV may have gone to GH with DE without revealing his (***)plans > since an AK will split your soul, but a spell performed afterwards > can take that spit piece to make a Horcrux. (HBP - Slughorn's > memory "There is a spell. Do not ask me. I don't know" - so it is > not done instead of AK, but after) > > Voldemort, with or without other Death Eaters, suddenly looses the > physical form he is accustomed to and becomes the whisp we see > later. > > Look at it from Voldemort's POV. That was a radical change. He may > not have known, or may have been too shocked, to possess a DE before > they ran away. > > LV was "reduced to something barely alive", but able to make a trip > to (*) Albania. > > LV in GOF said, "Aaah . . . pain beyond pain, my friends; nothing > could have prepared me for it. I was ripped from my body, I was > less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost. . . but still, I was > alive. What I was, even I do not know","I was as powerless as the > weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself... for > I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me required > the use of a wand." > > Once he came to his sences, deserted by the escaping DE, he realised > he needed a wand, but the magic he could do wasn't enough. He may > have done something to the wand himself so he could return to GH to > collect it with a DE later. > > Any Death Eaters who accompanied him would have run away scared at > what they saw. Someone had to start the rumours that LV was dead. > They were well known the next morning Vernon drove to work. > > Hagrid (in POA at the 3 Broomsticks) said he got there before Sirius > because DD sent him (Maybe by making a portkey the way that DD sent > Harry away from the MOM at the end of OOTP). > > Hagrid wasn't sent by the secret keeper, so would have been sent to > the right street, but not be able to find the house under normal > wizarding conditions. A Dark Mark flying over over a house in ruins > was not normal, so Hagrid could go in and rescue Harry. > > Voldy had experience at hiding objects (ring at Molovo's hut). > Hagrid would not have found it at all, and others missed it too. > Carol responds: I agree that Voldemort must have been in too much pain and too weak to possess anyone after he was hit by the rebounded AK or he would surely have possessed Harry, who as a mere toddler in a crib (cot) could not have run away. I also agree that he would not have told anyone of the plan to make a Horcrux (afterwards, not necessarily at GH) using Harry's murder. It's one thing to have a DE witness the murders; another thing entirely to have him (or her) witness the creation of a Horcrux. However, the evidence from Harry's memories (some of them Dementor-induced) indicates that no one except LV himself was present, or at least visible to James, who calls out to Lily that "he" (Voldemort) is here. James says he'll fight him (not "them" off) so that Lily can take Harry and run. It's quite possible, in fact likely, that Wormtail is present, hiding in rat form and invisible to James, but otherwise LV seems to be alone. Wormtail's presence explains not only how Voldemort got his wand back but how the whole WW seemed to know about Godric's Hollow the next morning. (I'm sure that JKR confirmed his presence in an interview, but I can't find it. She does say that Wormtail used Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric, who counts in the Priori Incantatem scene as one of Voldemort's victims.) Wormtail could have gone to the WW to report that Sirius Black, the Secret Keeper, had betrayed the Potters, who had been murdered by Voldemort. The Ministry could have come to investigate, found Hagrid rescuing Harry (lightning-shaped cut and all) from the ruins, and gone after Sirius Black without telling Hagrid what they were doing. Afterwards, the "innocent" Pettigrew would be "murdered" by Black, apparently confirming his story. No need for any other DEs at Godric's Hollow that I can see. As for Hagrid's being able to see the ruined house, I think the Fidelius Charm ended when the people it was designed to protect were revealed to Voldemort and/or the place they were hiding no longer existed. The secret (the Potters are hiding in Godric's Hollow) was no longer a secret and no longer true. I think the moment that Voldemort arrived and saw them, or the moment he killed James, the spell was broken and Dumbledore sensed it. (I think that Snape sensed something, too, perhaps a terrible pain in his arm that woke him up, and watched as his Dark Mark almost but not quite disappeared. I think he ran to DD and together they concluded that the Potters must be dead but Voldemort, too, was almost destroyed--which meant that Harry, the Prophecy Boy, must somehow have survived.) Carol, noting that it's Marvolo, not Molovo, and pretty sure that LV hid nothing in Godric's Hollow From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 19:19:19 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:19:19 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: <44B6F758.3090207@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155392 Carol earlier: > > I think the cut was created when the AK burst out of Harry with the force of an explosion strong enough not only to vaporize Voldemort and blow up the house. How else could the curse get out of Harry, if not by bursting out of his forehead, creating a lightning-shaped cut much as Fred and George's brooms created broom-shaped holes in Umbridge's door when they were summoned? (I think that some of Voldemort's powers entered Harry through the cut, but I don't think that they, or a soul bit, created it. IMO, it was the AK that marked Harry, but on its way out, not in. That, of course, makes him unique in the history of the WW.) > KJ responded: > I dont' think that the AK even touched Harry. That is where we are running into confusion perhaps. I suspect that Lilly's sacrifice literally shielded Harry from the curse. The curse rebounded from the shield and struck Voldemorte or even a wall of the house causing the same type of explosion that we saw in the MoM. As a result, of the explosion, Voldemorte's loose bits were blasted all over, one of them striking Harry. Since the bit of soul was not an actual curse, Lily's protections might not have prevented that type of injury. JKR did say that it was the scar that was of importance, not the shape of it. I am interested as to why you believe that the curse entered Harry and burst back out. What do you think would be the internal mechanism causing that type of rebound rather than a deflection prior to penetration. > Perhaps you could send me a fruitcake in order to test my theory. Carol responds: I used to think that Lily's sacrifice acted as a kind of Protego that shielded Harry from the curse and that it bounced back, but that theory doesn't account for the scar, which is referred to by DD and others as a curse scar. Since an AK doesn't cause a scar and *something* cut Harry's forehead open, I account for it as the AK entering normally, failing to kill him because of Lily's sacrifice (the blood protection, which is *in* Harry's blood, and which the curse could not have sensed without actually encountering his blood) and bursting out again, perhaps in intensified form, so that it has sufficient force to explode both Voldemort and the house (or the house exploded from the explosion or vaporization of Voldemort, which also sent some of Voldemort's powers into the open wound). I realize it's not the only possible explanation, but it makes more sense to me than a soul bit causing a cut and entering Harry to become an accidental Horcrux. We know there was an AK curse that was deflected onto Voldemort. We know there was a cut, still unhealed when Harry was left on the Dursleys' doorstep. We don't know there was a soul bit. That part is speculation. We can't take Harry!Horcrux as anything but a hypothesis, and I think we need to explore alternative explanations for the scar and the transfer of powers. Carol, noting that her fruitcake recipe can be found on OTChatter for anyone who's interested, but only for those who intend to eat it, not explode it! ;-) From mros at xs4all.nl Fri Jul 14 01:09:23 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:09:23 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture References: <200607140033.k6E0Xcwo025053@mxdrop8.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <000701c6a6e2$24f31d10$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155393 Pam now: Diet or no diet, muggles or wizards, I have often wondered about the wizarding popularity of some of the items sold in the Joke Shop. Fred and George are amassing a small fortune with their inventions, and some of them seem downright dangerous and cruel, even to other wizards. Why do wizards think turning their child's tongues into 4-foot monstrosities is hysterical? Because they can just make it go away? That's fine, but it crosses the line, I think, from funny into cruelty. I mean, in the WW, how long is one the prankster going to let their victim choke on their own tongues? That scene has always bothered me; not because Dudley is a nasty Muggle, but because it didn't wear off on its own; Arthur had to fix it. So many of Zonko's and Weasley's "jokes" seem like they'd be better used on DE's. Or BY them. Anyone? Marion: I just wonder about collapsable swamps (or whatever it is called - I don't have the books on me) Who would want a collapsable/portable swamp? For what purpose? Security? (to keep the Muggles away from your property) While there are stay-away charms or whatever? And what about if the Muggle gets lost in the swamp? Which touches on my point: you can't use a swamp as a prank on a wizard. Wizards use a broom, a floo or they apparate to travel. They don't walk through familiar landscapes and whoopsie, it had turned overnight into a swamp. There are folktales about fairies, pookas, witte wieven ('white ladies' - swamp gas lights) tricking poor mortals into walking through swamps and drowning them. Why do I have the uncomfortable idea that those collapsable swamps (and many other products from their shops) are going to be used on *muggles*? I'm going to get the Weasley fans all over me for this, but this is not just twin-bashing, it's a possibility. Muggle-baiting is not something only DEs do. Small annoyances (and bigger ones) are visited with regularity on the Muggles. We hear about enchanted teakettles and misplacing keys and hexing muggle objects to do unexpected things. The twins products would fit in. What the twins are doing is only slightly on this side of legal. They secretly bought illegal ingredients from Mundungus, they smuggled/stole several Dark objecs from Sirius house when 'cleaning up'. It would be the ultimate painful confrontation when Arthur had to assist the Auror department to procure an arrest for his own sons because they supply muggle-baiters. The twins would then try to blackmail their father with his own crime of owning an illegally charmed flying car. And they could use the fact that Harry Potter is co-owner of their shop to get out of trouble with the Ministry... They'd probably get away with it, as they got away with everything their entire lives. Unless of course Percy becomes Minister for Magic! Mwahaahah! Sorry, it's getting *very* late and I'm indulging shamelessly in Percy-for-Minister fantasies. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 19:39:13 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:39:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What will become of Dolores Umbridge? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607141239m24242036tfef3f55f8962caab@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155394 > Leah: > 15. Dolores' kitten plates are found to be enchanted muggle > artefacts and are destroyed by Arthur Weasley (no actual kittens > will be harmed). Random832: I've never liked the whole "enchanted muggle artifact" thing - for one thing, he clearly violates the (rather dubious to begin with) spirit of the law himself with e.g. the Anglia. And it's ridiculously inconsistent - a carpet is a "muggle artifact" but a broom isn't? I'd wager that most muggle homes are actually somewhat more likely to contain one or more brooms than any (non-wall-to-wall) carpet. -- Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 19:47:59 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:47:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607141247y72714cfblb8ed8867512f6d99@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155395 Magpie: > They're 16-year-old boys brought up to not Prank Muggles who do it > anyway. An alternate interpretation would be that they're 16-year-old boys brought up to treat Muggles as inferior who treat them as equals anyway. (or it's only OK to treat them as inferior when it's to "protect" them?) Magpie > The last funny joke placed on Dudley by a Wizard had to be removed > surgically. They made no move to ask him to reverse it. And they could have hidden it - or maybe it would have worn off in a matter of days, but their zealotry against all things magic led them to a perceived need to remove it ASAP. -- Random832 From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jul 14 21:06:52 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:06:52 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607141247y72714cfblb8ed8867512f6d99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155396 > Magpie: > > They're 16-year-old boys brought up to not Prank Muggles who do it > > anyway. Jordan: > An alternate interpretation would be that they're 16-year-old boys > brought up to treat Muggles as inferior who treat them as equals > anyway. (or it's only OK to treat them as inferior when it's to > "protect" them?) Magpie: Personally, I'd rather they not be treated as inferiors (in a general sense, in ways that they aren't) at all, of course. Arthur, the self-appointed protector of Muggles, seems fine with memory- charming them into oblivion, which is pretty disturbing. When that sort of thing is the norm, it's understandable why Wizards can't see Muggles as equals, and don't treat them as such. > > Magpie > > The last funny joke placed on Dudley by a Wizard had to be removed > > surgically. Jordan:> > They made no move to ask him to reverse it. And they could have hidden > it - or maybe it would have worn off in a matter of days, but their > zealotry against all things magic led them to a perceived need to > remove it ASAP. Magpie: But if one has to start faulting the Dursleys for not asking Hagrid to remove the tail, or making up uncanonical stuff to dilute what's in canon, doesn't it suggest something problematic with what happened? Telling us that the tail had to be surgically removed, imo, tells us that the tail was permenant, period. "It would have worn off eventually even if that's never indicated and the person in question has no way of knowing it" is a surprisingly common assertion given that it doesn't seem to be stressed in canon at all. -m From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 21:05:32 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:05:32 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <000701c6a6e2$24f31d10$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155397 > Marion: > What the twins are doing is only slightly on this side of legal. They secretly bought illegal ingredients from Mundungus, they smuggled/stole several Dark objecs from Sirius house when 'cleaning up'. > It would be the ultimate painful confrontation when Arthur had to assist the Auror department to procure an arrest for his own sons because they supply muggle-baiters. > The twins would then try to blackmail their father with his own crime of owning an illegally charmed flying car. And they could use the fact that Harry Potter is co-owner of their shop to get out of trouble with the Ministry... They'd probably get away with it, as they got away with everything their entire lives. Sydney: What I wonder is, why on earth aren't the twins in Slytherin? They are by far the most Slytherinish of the kids we've met, certainly way more so than Crabbe or Goyle, or even Draco who could stand to brush up on his cunning and ambition. They're purebloods. They use any means to attain their ends-- testing products on the first years! They are certainly cunning. They are ambitious, and clearly relish success and it's accoutrements. They enjoy rule-breaking for the sake of it-- it's easy to see how they stumbled across "I solemly swear I am up to no good". I have no problem imagining the scenario Marion describes above. They're Griffindorish in that they seem to have no fear, but there's nothing remotely chivalrous about them. The word that would leap to mind with the ton-tongue toffee incident is "dishonourable", using magic like that on a muggle seems like a big man striking a woman, which no matter how shrewish she was isn't exactly noble. If JKR was looking to paint a picture of the "good Slytherin", surely it would look much like the twins? So, what I wonder is, why didn't JKR put them in Slytherin? As I see it, either the point is that Slytherin IS the universal house of vileness and of course no one with a trace of okayness would wind up there; or, as I think more likely, there's something hinkey with the house system. As in, it's actually pretty meaningless and only an artificial source of division. Regarding the 'commeupance' of the twins.. personally I doubt it will happen. I see them 'twinned' with Peeves, as indestructible spirits of disorder around which the other characters must learn to adapt in this rough world of ours. Which is both positive and negative, and to try to soften or play down the negative aspects isn't doing justice to what chaos means, IMO. --Sydney-- burn the hat! From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 21:24:05 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:24:05 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155398 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: >> I used to think that Lily's sacrifice acted as a kind of Protego that shielded Harry from the curse and that it bounced back, but that > theory doesn't account for the scar, which is referred to by DD and > others as a curse scar. Since an AK doesn't cause a scar and > *something* cut Harry's forehead open, I account for it as the AK > entering normally, failing to kill him because of Lily's sacrifice > (the blood protection, which is *in* Harry's blood, and which the > curse could not have sensed without actually encountering his blood) and bursting out again, perhaps in intensified form, so that it has sufficient force to explode both Voldemort and the house (or the house exploded from the explosion or vaporization of Voldemort, which also sent some of Voldemort's powers into the open wound). [snip] Steven1965aaa: Maybe the protection acted like "protego" around Harry's SOUL and not his body (postulating that AK attacks the soul), so the curse goes into Harry's body, but can't get to his protected soul and "rebounds" out of his body through the scar? Makes as much sense as any of the other theories and fits in with all the soul themes. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 21:55:18 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:55:18 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607141247y72714cfblb8ed8867512f6d99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155399 > >>Magpie > > The last funny joke placed on Dudley by a Wizard had to be > > removed surgically. > >>Random832: > They made no move to ask him to reverse it. And they could have > hidden it - or maybe it would have worn off in a matter of days, > but their zealotry against all things magic led them to a > perceived need to remove it ASAP. Betsy Hp: Just a canon clarification: The Dursley's don't take Dudley in for surgery until a month has gone by. "Harry's last month with the Dursley's wasn't fun." [SS paperback p.88] "All right, we'll take you to King's Cross. We're going to London tomorrow anyway, or I wouldn't bother." [...] "Got to have that ruddy tail removed before he goes to Smeltings." [ibid p. 90] I think the Dursley's wait long enough to see if the curse on their son will wear off naturally. As to hiding it... Impossible, I would think, in a boarding school. Betsy Hp From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 21:35:40 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:35:40 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155400 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > Sydney: > > What I wonder is, why on earth aren't the twins in Slytherin? They > are by far the most Slytherinish of the kids we've met, certainly way more so than Crabbe or Goyle, or even Draco who could stand to brush up on his cunning and ambition. [snip] > They're Griffindorish in that they seem to have no fear, but there's nothing remotely chivalrous about them. The word that would leap to mind with the ton-tongue toffee incident is "dishonourable", using magic like that on a muggle seems like a big man striking a woman, which no matter how shrewish she was isn't exactly noble. If JKR was looking to paint a picture of the "good Slytherin", surely it would look much like the twins? Steven1965aaa: No Slytherin would have given away the Maurauders Map without getting back something in return. They gave it to Harry because his need was greater. They also keep asking (OOP) to join the Order even though there's nothing in it for them. They didn't go after Dudley because he is a muggle, they went after him because he's a prat and a bully himself, he just happened to be a muggle. That's the difference from the death eaters who levitated those people at the World Cup BECAUSE they were muggles. Also they have gone after magical prats like Umbrige. The toffee was comic relief and Dudley deserved it. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jul 14 22:07:15 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:07:15 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155401 Sydney: > What I wonder is, why on earth aren't the twins in > Slytherin? They are by far the most Slytherinish of > the kids we've met, certainly way more so than Crabbe > or Goyle, or even Draco who could stand to brush up > on his cunning and ambition. houyhnhnm: The frivolous nature of the twins' consuming interest in life might make them un-Slytherinish. The running of a joke shop might not fit the Slytherin definition of ambition. It's Ron I've been wondering about lately. I just can't see Gryffindor as a House of good chess players. I'll bet Gryffindor hasn't won a wizard chess tournament since Hufflepuff won the Quidditch cup. Apparently the Hat entertains entreaties from the head upon which it is sitting. It did in Harry's case. I can see a lot of reasons why Fred and George might have asked to be put in Gryffindor. Popular older brothers on whose reputations they could coattail would be one. Less competition from other minds equally cunning might be another. From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 21:54:22 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:54:22 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607141247y72714cfblb8ed8867512f6d99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155402 > Magpie > > The last funny joke placed on Dudley by a Wizard had to be removed > > surgically. > Jordan: > They made no move to ask him to reverse it. And they could have hidden > it - or maybe it would have worn off in a matter of days, but their > zealotry against all things magic led them to a perceived need to > remove it ASAP. Sydney: Well, they are in the UK-- so "ASAP" under the National Health Service for surgery like that would mean like, six months. So it wearing off in a "matter of days" isn't very likely. "Hidden it"? Are you actually suggesting that unless they just shrug and leave their child with a tail, they're a bunch of anti-magic bigots? As for asking Hagrid to remove it, how are they meant to get a hold of him? They're muggles. They have no way to do that. That is the whole point of why it's wrong to use magic on muggles; they have no means of appeal. -- Sydney From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 22:24:09 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:24:09 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607131531g593f24e1v8618c801785f2fad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > Well, I for one don't understand this objection. What the twins did is > > muggle-baiting in every possible sense, including the most literal > > one. After all, Dudley did swallow a bait that was, to quote the > > Bard, "on purpose laid to make the taker mad". > > I guess I interpreted the text as presenting "muggle baiting" as a > term of art, rather than breaking it down to the individual words and > using their dictionary definitions. > > random832. > a_svirn: What's wrong with dictionary definitions? They can come in handy when you try to make sense of tricky terms. As for muggle baiting's being *art* I'd say it's too noble a word for such disgusting tricks as "regurgitating toilets". And the twins' *humour* more often than not is of the same toilet variety. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 22:37:40 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:37:40 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155404 > >>Steven1965aaa: > They didn't go after Dudley because he is a muggle, they went > after him because he's a prat and a bully himself, he just > happened to be a muggle. Betsy Hp: I'm reminded of a line from the movie, "Batman Begins". If I have it right it goes, "It's not who you are inside but what you do that really matters." So, the twins as wizards, use magic for the sole purpose of entertainment and possibly a bit of revenge against a Muggle. Judging by what they *do*, the twins are baiting a Muggle. > >>Steven1965aaa: > That's the difference from the death eaters who levitated > those people at the World Cup BECAUSE they were muggles. > Betsy Hp: Oh, yes, the Death Eaters are worse. But, the Death Eaters would totally approve of what the twins did. They'd probably laugh the loudest. Do the twins really want to do things Death Eaters would approve of? > Steven1965aaa: > > The toffee was comic relief and Dudley deserved it. Betsy Hp: If JKR really wanted to keep this scene as pure comic relief, why follow it up with Death Eaters doing something similar? Why have Arthur blow up like he does? Also, who died and made the twins, God? Why wasn't the pig tail enough? Betsy Hp From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 22:34:20 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:34:20 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155405 > > Sydney: > > > > What I wonder is, why on earth aren't the twins in Slytherin? > Steven1965aaa: > Steven: > No Slytherin would have given away the Maurauders Map without > getting back something in return. Sydney: Didn't they get a huge bag of gold from Harry the next year? Perhaps they just knew it would be smart to invest in someone well-connected and wealthy early. And, as they themselves cheerful assert, it wasn't a sacrifice as they had already memorized it. And I'm uncomfortable with the assertion "no Slytherin would have.." etc. Kids of eleven years old are labelled with this. Is this the sort of book you want this to be? >They also keep asking (OOP) to join the Order even > though there's nothing in it for them. Hmmmmm... except for being where the action is. That rings more of "it was the risk that would have made it fun for James", than nobility. Neville, who is frightened of Death Eaters and wants to live a quiet life, is unambiguously brave in trying to take part. The twins are shown as fearless and relishing adventure and hijinks. I'm not quite ready to give them points for trying to join the Order. > They didn't go after Dudley because he is a muggle, they went after > him because he's a prat and a bully himself, he just happened to be > a muggle. That's the difference from the death eaters who levitated > those people at the World Cup BECAUSE they were muggles. Also they > have gone after magical prats like Umbrige. The toffee was comic > relief and Dudley deserved it. The toffee was comic relief, Dudley deserved it, AND the twins were dishonourable in using magic against someone who couldn't fight back. My point about the toffee went to then being unchivalrous, not anti-muggle. I don't think the twins are specifically anti-muggle. I just think they are very, very comfortable with taking power over other people, which naturally will have the most uncomfortable overtones when dealing with muggles. I suspect a future plot development will be whichever twin it was developing his relationship with that muggle girl in the village who was so impressed with his card tricks. Personally, I would never, ever trust either of them, if was a muggle married to them, or a muggle friend of theirs, not to use magic to trick or control me. Would you? -- Sydney, who was once accuse of being of being a bourgeois moralist for being uncomfortable with a Snape/Hermionie relationship; and now is startled to find herself suspected of being a bleeding-heart hippie for thinking extendedly choking a helpless child a bit harsh From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 23:11:20 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:11:20 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155406 > Sydney: > I don't think the twins are specifically anti-muggle. I just think > they are very, very comfortable with taking power over other people, > which naturally will have the most uncomfortable overtones when > dealing with muggles. I suspect a future plot development will be > whichever twin it was developing his relationship with that muggle > girl in the village who was so impressed with his card tricks. > Personally, I would never, ever trust either of them, if was a muggle > married to them, or a muggle friend of theirs, not to use magic to > trick or control me. Would you? a_svirn: Who says anything of marriage or friendship? For a wizard the possibilities of taking advantage of a muggle and avoiding any sort of entanglement are virtually limitless. And the twins are precisely the sort of persons who'd think nothing of having fun at other people's expense. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 00:41:08 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:41:08 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155407 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > > > Sydney: > > > > > > What I wonder is, why on earth aren't the twins in Slytherin? > > Steven1965aaa: > > > Steven: > > > No Slytherin would have given away the Maurauders Map without > > getting back something in return. > > Sydney: > > Didn't they get a huge bag of gold from Harry the next year? Perhaps> they just knew it would be smart to invest in someone well- connected> and wealthy early. And, as they themselves cheerful assert, it wasn't a sacrifice as they had already memorized it. > >Steven1965aaa: Sydney, do you REALLY think the reason they gave him the map because he was well connected and wealthy and they were hoping to get something from him in the future? Do you really believe that the twins anticipated that Harry would enter and win the triwizard tournament, get the gold and give it to them, months after they gave him the map? Do you really believe that was their motivation? Of course not. Sure it was a sacrifice. I'm not saying it was like giving him their 1st born child (!), but they were giving up something really cool, unique and valuable without getting anything back. Having memorized the map is surely of some value, but the real value of the map is that it shows where everybody is and their movements. Look back to the beginning of book 1, contrast how Draco interacts with Harry at their 1st meeting in Diagon Alley with how the twins meet him on the train. I'm not saying they're perfect, and I'm certainly not condoning the toffee (although I still think it was funny and that Dudley deserved it) but they basically have their hearts in the right place and most importantly I think if push comes to shove they are 2 people Harry can really count on, despite their antics from time to time. Come on, if Harry is in trouble and the twins have a choice of helping him or saving their own skins, what do you think they'd do? Flee and save themselves or help him? That's a basic difference (in general of course) between Gryn and Slyth -- see Phineas portrait's comment to Harry in xmas chapter in OOP (something like we slytherins are brave too but when given a choice we always save our own necks)! From mros at xs4all.nl Fri Jul 14 22:20:04 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:20:04 +0200 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture References: Message-ID: <002801c6a793$a7f7e4f0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155408 Sydney: >>>So, what I wonder is, why didn't JKR put them in Slytherin? As I see it, either the point is that Slytherin IS the universal house of vileness and of course no one with a trace of okayness would wind up there; or, as I think more likely, there's something hinkey with the house system. As in, it's actually pretty meaningless and only an artificial source of division.<<< Marion: Red Hen did a wonderful essay on the way the Hat decides which House a kid is Sorted in, the Houses themselves and probes the possibility that the Hat has been tampered with: http://www.redhen-publications.com/Hufflepuff.html SisterMagpie: >>The last funny joke placed on Dudley by a Wizard had to be removed surgically. I've no idea if the engorgement charm in the candy would have worn off by itself, but it's still kind of silly to brush off "a simple engorgement charm" as if that makes it simple to the Dursleys.<< Marion: Word! I don't think people realize how horrible it must be to be at the tender mercy of magical 'pranksters' because magic seems so benign, so much fun, so harmless with all those batbogie hexes and whatnot. Are there mothers or fathers amongst you all with a child with a food allergy? Allergic for, say, peanuts. And some 16 year olds, knowing all to well that your child has this allergy, doctor some chocolates to look harmless but to contain traces of peanuts. Your child eats it, knowing he should be careful with food but hey, it's a chocolate, and his throat swells and he has difficulty to breathe. He's going into anaphylactic shock. You, his mother or father react with understandable panic. Luckily, the father of the boys who gave your child the rogue choccies (and you've never seen these people before but the boys are standing there, watching your suffering and suffocating child with grins on their faces, making the whole desperate sitiuation feel more nightmarish), luckily the father is a medic and knows what to do. Okay, another example. One of my best friends is severely asthmathic. She can't walk into a room where people have smoked a hour before because that will bring on a heavy attack. Now, suppose your child has asthma and the two boys purposely blow cigarettesmoke in his face, bringing on a debilitating and very frightening asthma attack? My point being: the 'funny' pranks the twins pull stop being funny when you take the novelty of magic away, when you strip it of its bizarre-ness. However, Dudley did not have an anaphylactic shock or an asthma attack (although the results were largely the same: a sense of suffocation). A part of his body suddenly grotesquely mutated within seconds. Think about it: this is the stuff of nightmares, comparable with the 'chestburster' scene from 'Alien'. Now, I know a lot of you will say "hey, it's only a kid's story, it's not meant to be taken seriously|", but although the first two books might be written for a young audience, the books gradually 'grow up'. After the third book, where we find out that the WW isn't so perfect as Harry thought (Azkaban, people thrown in prison without a trial etc) nothing is simple and morally cut 'n dried black and white anymore. So no, I don't think the twins' 'prank' funny. And I don't *care* why the twins did it (although 'just for the fun of it' or 'we were bored' or 'just because he exists' would cover it mostly) or if Dudley 'deserved' it or what Dudley did - no-one should purpously feed a child with a peanut allergy candy with peanuts and watch him go into anaphylactic shock with glee. No-one should blow smoke in the face of a kid with asthma, no matter how nasty that kid had been to a friend of yours. Add to all that that muggles are totally helpless against magic and that the Dursleys are terrified of magic (with good reason apparently). Now bear with me a little longer. I wonder why the Dursleys are so absolutely terrified of magic. At first we thought it was because Petunia was jealous of Lily and turned her lack into a virtue: Lily's specialness became Lily's freakiness and Petunia's ordinariness became Petunia's normalness and thus Petunia's superiorness. But although envy might breed contempt, it does not, as a rule, breed terror. Then we thought that the Dursleys, silly muggles that they are, were simply comic relief. A bit like the Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons: violence and stupid behaviour is visited on him and we're supposed to laugh. But although this might look this way in the first few books, the story has become more grown-up, more complex, has more issues about right and wrong and this explanation simply doesn't cut it anymore. The Dursleys' fear is not simply an irrational fear to show how stupid muggles are. This would defeat the purpose of the books to show how bad looking down on non-magical folks is. Now, why do I get the feeling that Petunia and Vernon have encountered 'pranks' like the twins before? Lily's sister was engaged and then married to one of the biggest pranksters of his time: James Potter. Petunia or Vernon could have said something about Lily that James or Sirius found insulting. If you consider what James and Sirius at fifteen did to somebody whom they thought were insulting to Lily Evans, what would they do to a muggle who did the same? Maybe they turned *her* upside down and stripped her of her underwear as well. And Vernon would be utterly powerless against them/him. Oh, the Dursleys are not pleasant people at all, I would agree with you on that, but the Dursleys have the right, as any other muggle, not to be magically harrassed by any git with a wand for some real or imagined insult. From random832 at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 22:58:37 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:58:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <000701c6a6e2$24f31d10$63fe54d5@Marion> References: <200607140033.k6E0Xcwo025053@mxdrop8.xs4all.nl> <000701c6a6e2$24f31d10$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607141558x799f9091q826061eb16f6ea39@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155409 Marion: > Which touches on my point: you can't use a swamp as a prank on a wizard. Manifestly false. The twins can and have done so. They also offered a special discount on other items from their shop if intended for the same victim. -- Random832 From juli17 at aol.com Sat Jul 15 01:32:13 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:32:13 EDT Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture Message-ID: <55b.2bfd345.31e99f9d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155410 houyhnhnm: Karma literally means "deed" or "act". The law of karma is the binding effect of action. Karma is not punishment or retribution, but simply an extended expression of natural acts. It can be likened to Newton's Third law of Motion. In Buddhism the law of karma states that for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful. Julie: I've always thought of karmic justice as your actions coming back to bite you on the a** (or reward you, depending on your action). And that type of justice is based on whether your action is harmful or helpful, i.e. bad or good, IMO. I found a couple of other notes on this issue of karmic justice at Wikipedia: "Karma is not fate, for man acts with free will creating his own destiny. According to the Vedas (Hindu), if we sow goodness, we will reap goodness; if we sow evil, we will reap evil." Every state of existence, good or bad, is caused by ethically good or evil deeds, and karmic justice ultimately rewards good behaviour (by allowing escape from suffering into Nirvana--in Buddhist philosophy). But each individual is judged **independently of any other** and actions, good or bad, just or unjust, will have their inescapable consequence." The asterisks** above are mine. Each person is judged *individually,* not based on their interactions with others who might have committed bad or unjust actions. Each person is also judged based on his/her intent in taking his/her specific actions, whether such intent is bad (unjust, vengeful, selfish, malicious, or as houyhnhnm says, unskilled--which would be the same as thoughtless/unheeding of consequences?), or good (apply opposites here). And I do realize that sometimes a person does have to act to prevent *further* evil (killing in war, for one example). But if the justification is merely vengeance--an eye for an eye, tit for tat--I don't think that justification will pass the independent judgment of one's actions inherent in karmic justice. Not on the good side of the scale anyway. To use one of houyhnhnm's excellent examples: The ultimate arrival of the DEs in HBP would not have occurred if Draco hadn't figured out how to use the Vanishing cabinet to let them into Hogwarts, which wouldn't have occurred if the twins hadn't stuffed Montague in the cabinet with no thought or concern about his ultimate fate (thoughtless, malicious and vengeful intent). And their "bad karma"/karmic justice led directly to Dumbledore's death. houyhnhnm also wrote: That is why some people on this list are concerned about the way in which Hermione carried out the organization of Dumbledore's Army. Her unskillful actions led to Dumbledore leaving the school at a time when they had most need of him. We don't know yet whether or not there will be further unpleasant consequences resulting from Hermione's unskillful actions, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are. Julie: I agree, though I still would call Hermione's actions "bad" in the sense of karma. Had she been acting to *prevent* evil by having everyone sign as a deterrent to betrayal of the group--which would have necessitated the signers knowing the consequences of their betrayal beforehand--then her actions wouldn't have been on the bad side (and the betrayal very likely wouldn't have taken place). But applying the jinx unknown to the signers and setting it to act only *after the fact* of the betrayal made her motive nothing more than vengeance for a wrong deed, which is also a wrong deed in itself (remembering that karma is judged independently of others' actions). I also don't know if JKR will revisit the Hermione/Marietta business, but she's certainly shown before that she understands the concept of karmic justice and has used it knowingly and frequently in the HP books. Julie, who wonders if JKR's refusal to make clear all the religious implications in the books until they are finished is not because she's Christian, but because she is both Christian *and* a believer in Eastern philosophies such as karma (which is a universal concept that rears its head in all walks of life and all religions, including Christianity). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jul 15 01:43:02 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:43:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory Message-ID: <3cb.56875f4.31e9a226@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155411 >Carol >I think that the diary was originally created in much the same way, in this case with a memory removed from sixteen-year-this case with a me June 13 of his fifth year (the day he killed Moaning Myrtle using the Basilisk), much as Snape and Dumbledore remove memories from their heads to place in the Pensieve. No soul bit was required for the diary to serve its original purpose, seducing a reader into releasing the Basilisk. Memory!Tom had the power of possession, just as the real Tom did, before he knew how to create a Horcrux. Once it became a Horcrux, Memory!Tom had the power to leave the book, using Ginny's soul, not the encased soul bit, to give himself life. (Notice that he does not share her personality, powers, or memories. He knows only what he knew at sixteen and what she has told him about Nikkalmati; When did the Diary become a Horcrux? Did LV stop writing in it after his 16th year but take it with him when he left Hogwarts and make it a Horcrux many years later when he had learned how to do it? Did he leave it at Hogwarts and retrieve it later? Did he then keep it in hiding until he gave it to Malfoy before he was destroyed at GH? What do you all think is the history of the diary? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 03:00:16 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 03:00:16 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155412 Steven1965aaa wrote: > They didn't go after Dudley because he is a muggle, they went after > him because he's a prat and a bully himself, he just happened to be > a muggle. That's the difference from the death eaters who levitated > those people at the World Cup BECAUSE they were muggles. Also they > have gone after magical prats like Umbrige. The toffee was comic > relief and Dudley deserved it. > Carol responds: Maybe they didn't go after Dudley *because* he's a Muggle, but they did go after him *knowing* that he's a Muggle, and that both he and his parents would be helpless and terrified. Whether Dudley deserved it or not, it was not their job to punish him--nor did the punishment have any permanent effect except to give the Dursleys firmer grounds for hating and fearing the WW. It certainly did not improve their treatment of Harry. As for the toffee being comic relief, that's your opinion, not fact. I for one don't find gagging on your own greatly engorged tongue funny. If it happened to me, I'd be terrified. If the incident were meant as harmless comic relief, they should have given Dudley a canary cream--one moment of startled terror and he'd be back to himself because the spell wears off almost instantly, with no pain and no fear that he was going to die. The Twins could have their laugh and vanish up the chimney with no effort from Arthur required to "sort it out." If I want comedy in the HP books, I'll look up the Luna Lovegood passages. The Rotfang Conspiracy is (IMO) laugh-aloud funny. (Harry thought so, too, or he wouldn't have inhaled his mead up his nose. Notice that he *didn't* laugh at what was happening to Dudley.) Luna never seeks revenge on the many people who underestimate and mistreat her. She trusts that the people who take her belongings will return them at the end of the year and they always do, perhaps feeling a bit ashamed of themselves for taking advantage of a little oddball. The other characters--Harry, Hermione, Ron, the Twins, Snape, and many others--could learn a lesson from Luna. Carol, tired of pranks and cruelty and pointless revenge, and hoping that Book 7 will take us in an entirely different direction once we get past the Harry-Snape confrontation From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Jul 15 03:28:16 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 03:28:16 -0000 Subject: Acromantula Venom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155413 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Luckdragon" wrote: > > Luckdragon: > I bet Hermione knows what it does, and using it agaist LV and and > Nagini to counteract the Snake venom is a good guess. I'd bet money > that the Spider venom will come into play in book 7. > > > Allie: Second that! We're also told that spiders flee before the basilisk... Nagini isn't a basilisk but she is a big giant snake... Maybe there is some interaction between her milk or venom and the acromantula venom. Allie (who is a vet and wonders if JKR knows that non-magic snakes don't make milk) From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 03:37:58 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:37:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture References: Message-ID: <016e01c6a7c0$112fe9f0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 155414 > Steven1965aaa wrote: > >> They didn't go after Dudley because he is a muggle, they went after >> him because he's a prat and a bully himself, he just happened to be >> a muggle. That's the difference from the death eaters who levitated >> those people at the World Cup BECAUSE they were muggles. Also they >> have gone after magical prats like Umbrige. The toffee was comic >> relief and Dudley deserved it. >> > Carol responds: > Maybe they didn't go after Dudley *because* he's a Muggle, but they > did go after him *knowing* that he's a Muggle, and that both he and > his parents would be helpless and terrified. Whether Dudley deserved > it or not, it was not their job to punish him--nor did the punishment > have any permanent effect except to give the Dursleys firmer grounds > for hating and fearing the WW. It certainly did not improve their > treatment of Harry. Rebecca now: "It isn't funny!" Mr. Weasley shouted. "That sort of behavior seriously undermines wizard-Muggle relations! I spend half my life campaigning against the mistreatment of Muggles, and my own sons...." "We didn't give it to him because he's a Muggle!" said Fred indignantly. "No, we gave it to him because he's a great bullying git," said George. "Isn't he, Harry?" Canon specifies that when Arthur Weasley confronts the Twins after the Dursleys and talks about the Twins behavior as "undermining Muggle-wizard relations", Fred actually interrupts his father indignantly professing they did what they did because Dudley is a "great bullying git" not because he's a Muggle. While some may not agree with Fred and George's statements in this passage, it's canon and I personally have no reason to doubt it. That said, Arthur makes the point JKR intended and what's been widely discussed in this thread: Muggle and wizard relations are tenuous and can be damaged by the slightest infraction. I don't think they "knew" the Dursleys would be helpless and terrified - at least I don't see that in canon, nor do I think they thought that far ahead; like kids, they act first and think the deep stuff later as maturity sets in. And if I'm not mistaken, the Twins treat Harry as a little brother just like Ron, complete with teasing and the support one might come to expect of big brothers. They give Harry the map because his need was greater than theirs - they didn't expect anything in return from him. Big brothers and big sisters typically look out for their younger siblings. I know I did at that age, and nobody, but nobody, messed with my sisters or youbetcha, they answered to me - whether you think that is right or wrong of me for that, so be it. Sorry, but I'm not relegating Fred and George to the cruel/immoral bucket for this when their intent is clear, whether right, wrong or indifferent, in canon. Since Harry is the crucial character in these books (it is Harry Potter and the "xxxx" after all) and the Twins relationship with him is A-ok, I think I'll still like reading about Gred and Forge. It's like Dumbledore says, sometimes age forgets what youth is like. And when young, I think we all implicitly assume we're indestructible and so is everybody else, magical or not. Rebecca From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 05:11:14 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 05:11:14 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155415 > >>Steven1965aaa: > > Come on, if Harry is in trouble and the twins have a choice of > helping him or saving their own skins, what do you think they'd > do? > Flee and save themselves or help him? That's a basic difference > (in general of course) between Gryn and Slyth -- see Phineas > portrait's comment to Harry in xmas chapter in OOP (something like > we slytherins are brave too but when given a choice we always save > our own necks)! Betsy Hp: Funnily enough, when Harry does need the twins help they *do* flee. While their exit in OotP was thrilling and it saved them both from a flogging, it also meant that they left Harry and co. to deal with a mess they had a massive hand in stirring up. It also meant that when Harry really needed help they weren't around to provide it. So I guess Slytherins flee to protect their necks, and Gryffindors flee to protect their skins? Betsy Hp From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 05:11:40 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 05:11:40 -0000 Subject: 4 Founders, 4 Elements, and Secret Rooms Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155416 I am wondering about the 4 founders of Hogwarts, the 4 elements and secret rooms. We know that Slytherin created the Chamber of Secrets and the passage there was through the water which is the element of Slytherin. And we have the Room of Requirement. We don't know who created it, when, or why. Some here have suggested that is was done by Ravenclaw. I guess this could be possible perhaps because of the connection of name RR and RR for the room. It might also be a Gryffindor room since it was DD that found it first, if I remember correctly. I am wonder if each of the founders has a secret room in the castle. Each room would be associated with the element of that house. If is theory is correct, what element would the Room of Requirement be associated with? And what would be Hufflepuff? The Womping Willow and the secret passage under it?? (Looking for something of the earth here.) And we need fire for Gryffindor and air for Ravenclaw. Remembering that there is a fifth element in British Wizardry and that is Love or Spirit. So there could actually be 5 rooms. Any thoughts?? Tonks_op From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 08:47:40 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:47:40 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand - It may not matter In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B24@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155417 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, James Sharman wrote: > > It seems that some people think there is some kind critical information at > stake with regard to how Voldemorts wand was returned to him. I think it's irrelevant. Think of the conversations between V and Wormtail. *snip* Doddie here: I don't think's it's "critical"....but anyone would have to admit that if either snape nor wormtail were at Godrics hollow........it could have a major impact on the plot line...(makes me also wonder where hagrid was to be transporting infant harry around and get Sirius's motorcycle....so soon after the potter deaths..In all likelyhood; Hagrid would be the biggest culprit to inadvertanly place voldy's wand into one of Voldy's follower's hands...hence I began to wonder about snape...I don't think Hagrid would give something away to anyone other than 1. DD or 2. Someone DD would trust.... Hence, this is why I think Hagrid may well of given said wand to Snape....and we all know that Hargrid would have been swept away by details of rescuing baby Harry...he would have been too distracted by Harry.(he takes his "saving lives" protocl very seriously. So I agree with you that it may not matter on the "WHOLE"....but I think it's a massive clue.. I love this clue not only because this could have happened in Godricks Hollow...but this may also may have happened in POA....in the shrieking shack scene....(a great place that wormtail may have hidden said wand throughout said school year or before or after--irregardless it was a place that snape had access to)... I would explain why snape was all on about the "confundus charm"....seeing as he would love nothing better than to see the trio expelled from Hogwarts for casting spells against him!!! This adds yet another light when considering snape... Doddiemoemoe (who thinks we will all be surprised when we find out who was/was not ther and also to knew that something "huge" was to happen there.. (wouldn't it be great if aberforth was hiding in a wardrobe somewhere?!?!?!) From sydpad at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 11:01:29 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:01:29 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155418 > >Steven1965aaa: > > Sydney, do you REALLY think the reason they gave him the map because > he was well connected and wealthy and they were hoping to get > something from him in the future? Do you really believe that the > twins anticipated that Harry would enter and win the triwizard > tournament, get the gold and give it to them, months after they gave > him the map? Do you really believe that was their motivation? Of > course not. Sydney: Obviously I don't think they expected that exact set of events. I just think they are good capitalists-- they build relationships with people who might be useful to them. Harry is a celebrity, and a rich celebrity-- he gets stuff for free, for the very good reason that it makes sense to associate with him. Don't the twins give him free stuff from his shop, and ask him to make sure to tell everyone where they got it? It's like giving Julia Roberts a Fendi bag, so everyone will want one. The twins are, IMO, just being better 'slytherins' in this than Draco or certainly than Snape. Snape's efforts to instantly alienate everyone he comes across always struck me as most unSlytherinish, as far as we're told what that House values. Smart people who want to get ahead are nearly always friendly and charming and do favours for people they think might make it big in the future. I'm not even saying that the twins are insincere! They're 'people people' and do seem to genuinely like Harry. I just see no reason to think the twins-- who are consistently presented as planning ahead for years to open the joke shop-- were innocently unaware of what good relationships could get them. > Come on, if Harry is in trouble and the twins have a choice of > helping him or saving their own skins, what do you think they'd do? > Flee and save themselves or help him? Seriously? I have no idea, and I'm not sure why you are so certain that they would. I'm not going to assume they would just because 'they're in Gryffindor', or because they show up in the first reel wearing a white hat. First, Pettigrew was in Gryffindor too. Second, I don't think these books are about how it would be great if there was some magical hat you could put on everyone when they are 11 that would sort the good people from the bad and never had to think about them individually any more. -- Sydney From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Jul 15 12:43:25 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:43:25 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155419 Sydney, post 155397 So, what I wonder is, why didn't JKR put [the twins] in Slytherin? As I see it, either the point is that Slytherin IS the universal house of vileness and of course no one with a trace of okayness would wind up there; or, as I think more likely, there's something hinkey with the house system. As in, it's actually pretty meaningless and only an artificial source of division. Sydney again, post 155418 I'm not sure why you are so certain that [the twins] would [help Harry rather than save their own skins]. I'm not going to assume they would just because 'they're in Gryffindor', or because they show up in the first reel wearing a white hat. First, Pettigrew was in Gryffindor too. Second, I don't think these books are about how it would be great if there was some magical hat you could put on everyone when they are 11 that would sort the good people from the bad and never had to think about them individually any more. Dungrollin: This has undoubtedly been suggested before (and possibly even by me, and been forgotten), but hey-ho... I suspect that the groups the hat sorts students into are not meaningless, however, neither can you judge a witch or wizard by which house they were in. If it is our actions that show what we are, far more than our abilities, how on earth could the sorting hat know where we would fit best? All it has to go by are the memories of actions which are already in the head of an eleven-year-old. It would be judging an entire life on the basis of eleven years of childhood. If, on the other hand, the hat separates students on the basis of the virtues *the student values most*, which presumably would be relatively easy to pick out of somebody's head (and, incidentally, less likely to change much over the course their life), it all begins to make a bit more sense. It gives us a nice explanation for why Pettigrew, despite being a coward, ended up in Gryffindor ? because he admires bravery in others (fawning over James and Sirius), and wishes he had the courage to do what's right instead of what's easy himself ("I was never brave, like you and Remus and James.") This also explains why the twins are in Gryffindor ? they're ambitious and cunning, but when the chips are down, they think the most important thing is being brave and fighting for what's right. And Hermione, of course, highly prizes books and cleverness, but freely admits in book 1 that there are more important things like friendship and bravery (don't have the quote on me), which is presumably why she ended up in Gryffindor. I imagine that a lot of the time people will prize the character traits that they exhibit themselves, so we should often see that brave people *do* end up in Gryffindor (except when the brave are humble, and care more about fair play, like Cedric, then they end up in Hufflepuff), and cunning people end up in Slytherin (except when they have an overwhelming desire to right the wrongs of the world and fight for the underdog, when they end up in Gryffindor, like Dumbledore). On this basis, considering her prizing loyalty to the Ministry, I could easily envisage Umbridge being in Hufflepuff, even though that's traditionally viewed as the 'nice' house, and Umbridge is anything but 'nice'. Dung From triinum at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 09:45:29 2006 From: triinum at yahoo.com (triinum) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:45:29 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155420 > Sydney: > > What I wonder is, why on earth aren't the twins in Slytherin? They > are by far the most Slytherinish of the kids we've met, certainly way > more so than Crabbe or Goyle, or even Draco who could stand to brush > up on his cunning and ambition. > So, what I wonder is, why didn't JKR put them in Slytherin? As I see > it, either the point is that Slytherin IS the universal house of > vileness and of course no one with a trace of okayness would wind up > there; or, as I think more likely, there's something hinkey with the > house system. As in, it's actually pretty meaningless and only an > artificial source of division. Triin: I think the answer is given. I can't remember where, but I think we are told that almost everybody goes to the house where their parents and siblings went. This may be because most children already know where they _want_ to go, that being usually the house their parents have spoken approvingly about. And the hat takes their preference into account very strongly. I guess it only puts the kids in another house than that of their parents when a) they don't want to go there, or b) they really really wouldn't fit in. The twins wanted to go to Gryffindor, and they fit in just well enough, even though they might have matched the Slytherin stereotype somewhat better. The personality traits that presumably distinguish one house from another do not run in families quite as firmly as the house-membership seems to. That's why we get slytherinish kids in gryffindor and vice versa. And the differences between the houses the hat sings about are not as clear as they would be if it chose by personality fist, and by the child's own preference only then. Once in a House, the child gets forced into a role associated with that House, by the housemates and outsiders alike. And they probably try to "live up" to their house stereotype. Just like many people who know what they should be like according to their zodiac sign, conciously or subconciously try to act fittingly. This explanation may be boring, but it's the only simple and logical one, IMO. Triin From scarrie5 at verizon.net Sat Jul 15 07:05:09 2006 From: scarrie5 at verizon.net (Carrie) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 07:05:09 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155421 > Carol, noting that it's Marvolo, not Molovo, and pretty sure that LV > hid nothing in Godric's Hollow Carrie: Wouldn't the object that was going to become the horcrux be in the house? Probably in Harry's bedroom. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 14:44:04 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:44:04 -0000 Subject: Question to Neri and other supporters of Harry as horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155422 Okay, here it goes. As I mentioned earlier, I am sitting on the fence as to whether Harry is a horcrux or not, I think in metathinking terms being a horcrux is a very easy reason for Harry to be ready to sacrifice himself, and even if he is not one, I still think that he would believe at some point that he is. Now, as always with Neri's posts, I find his arguments to be very very convincing and absolutely buying the mechanics of how ""Accidental Horcrux" can be created. So, please, please you don't have to convince me of the possibility, I do buy it. What I have not seen anybody addressing though yet and if I missed it, please refer me to the relevant post? :) That is Rebecca's reference to Dumbledore's remark that Harry's soul is "untarnished and whole". So, to anybody who thinks that Harry is a Horcrux, what is your interpretation of Dumbledore's remark, especially since JKR said that Dumbledore's guesses are never far off mark ( paraphrase), I think specifically in relation to horcruxes? Do you think Dumbledore is lying here? Do you think he does not know? Do you think that Harry's soul somehow could be "untarnished and whole" with the piece of Voldy sould attached to it? ( I confess I find this interpretation to be highly unlikely) Thank you very much, Alla From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jul 15 13:23:44 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:23:44 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155423 Magpie: The last funny joke placed on Dudley by a Wizard had to be removed surgically. Random832: They made no move to ask him to reverse it. And they could have hidden it - or maybe it would have worn off in a matter of days, Betsy Hp: Just a canon clarification: The Dursley's don't take Dudley in for surgery until a month has gone by. I think the Dursley's wait long enough to see if the curse on their son will wear off naturally. As to hiding it... Impossible, I would think, in a boarding school. Tinktonks: Actually I think that we can surmise from Hagrid's confession that he was trying to turn Dudley into a pig, that he was actually attempting transfiguration not a hex, therefore it is highly unlikely that this would have worn off. In fact it would have taken a member of the reversal of accidental magic squad or an adept wizard to remove the tail, and no attempt was made to invoke such assistance. Dudley was left with it, much like Harry was with his scar, a permanent blight on his appearance unless he had muggle cosmetic surgery!! Tinktonks From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 15 14:47:00 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:47:00 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155424 > > Sydney again, post 155418 > I'm not sure why you are so certain that [the twins] would [help > Harry rather than save their own skins]. I'm not going to assume > they would just because 'they're in Gryffindor', or because they > show up in the first reel wearing a white hat. First, Pettigrew was > in Gryffindor too. Second, I don't think these books are about how > it would be great if there was some magical hat you could put on > everyone when they are 11 that would sort the good people from the > bad and never had to think about them individually any more. > > Dungrollin: > If, on the other hand, the hat separates students on the basis of > the virtues *the student values most*, which presumably would be > relatively easy to pick out of somebody's head (and, incidentally, > less likely to change much over the course their life), it all > begins to make a bit more sense. Pippin: Exactly. What matters to the hat is not what you are but what you want to be. As Harry thinks to himself, the only House he's really equipped for at the moment of Sorting would be the one for the slightly queasy. But he very much wants to be brave. Of course people who want to be something for which they are not naturally well-equipped are going to have a struggle ahead of them, and indeed, Harry isn't terribly popular in Gryffindor during his first two years. He's shunned in PS/SS and suspected of being a dark wizard in CoS. Hermione is teased for being a swot, which surely doesn't happen in Ravenclaw. Her two friends constantly get her into situations where, at first, her courage fails. Neville, whose hard work seems to get him nowhere at first, would probably have been more popular in Hufflepuff. I've often thought that Moaning Myrtle, who can't seem to to accept the reality of her situation, was that way in life and insisted on Slytherin despite being Muggleborn. It would explain why she was so unhappy. The Twins want to be chivalrous. They help Harry with his trunk before they know who he is. Most of their pranks are against authority and so defend the weak against the strong, which is the essence of chivalry. But the categories are blurred with Dudley-- the Twins see him as a bully and a glutton who is fair game, but to their father he's a Muggle, a child, and a victim of temptation. Readers seem to be similarly divided. I think if the Twins had been in Slytherin they would have become more cautious. I doubt 7th year Slytherins with their intelligence would have tossed Montague into the cabinet without considering the consequences. Recklessness is the downside of Gryffindor courage, as patronizing is the downside of the desire to protect the weak. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jul 15 15:25:29 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:25:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...) References: Message-ID: <003501c6a822$e8ad1710$c086400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155425 Dungrollin: It gives us a nice explanation for why Pettigrew, despite being a coward, ended up in Gryffindor - because he admires bravery in others (fawning over James and Sirius), and wishes he had the courage to do what's right instead of what's easy himself ("I was never brave, like you and Remus and James.") This also explains why the twins are in Gryffindor - they're ambitious and cunning, but when the chips are down, they think the most important thing is being brave and fighting for what's right. And Hermione, of course, highly prizes books and cleverness, but freely admits in book 1 that there are more important things like friendship and bravery (don't have the quote on me), which is presumably why she ended up in Gryffindor. Magpie: I've always thought that was how the house system works--though with the Twins one is, imo, forced to take it on faith because they're really not shown prizing doing the right thing over being ambitious. Percy, to me, is a better example of this sort of thing. He's been reading books on ambition etc., but we see that underneath he's more motivated by a desire to do the right thing, even when he's unable to correctly identify the right thing. I have never gotten the impression that Percy is pretending to suck up to the Ministry while really believing in Harry and Dumbledore. With the Twins, though, well...we've got examples of them being angry when one of their own gets hit, and they do seem to want to be where the action is, like Sydney said. They attack authority they don't respect(but then, so do Slytherins). But beyond that they seem most motivated by making money and ambition. For all their irreverent attitude about other people they actually seem very serious about seeking money and the power that that brings. They provided the Love Potion that dosed Ron, the idea by which Ron's poison was brought in, the Peruvian Darkness Powder. Obviously they didn't intentionally want to produce any of these results. They don't seem to be fulfilling any contracts for Death Eaters like they are for the Ministry. But neither are they presented as being particularly concerned about that. They're pleased at having contracts from the Ministry, and also happy to help kids circumvent the security at Hogwarts. They don't seem to think it's their job to worry about how their stuff is being used (beyond their personal quirks and preferences, like not wanting Ginny to have Love Potions). And many agree, which is fine, but it seems to suggest to me that the Twins' priorities are more connected to their ambition, and that seems consistent with the way they've always been portrayed. Just as with Hermione we see her interested in schoolwork etc. but she's always been more driven by her admiration of courage and her friends. -m From dossett at lds.net Sat Jul 15 15:59:25 2006 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:59:25 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > DD says LV could have created a horcrux by using the caretaker's > murder and he used Nagini to commit that murder. > > > Ken > Pat: This is something that has bothered me for quite a while. I haven't seen it discussed here and wondered if anyone else found it somewhat disturbing. Yes, Dumbledore gave Harry the information that Ken cites above, but Harry's *dream* specifically showed us that Nagini was not the agent of death here - LV used an AK. Harry never corrected DD, but the two stories do not jibe. I'm torn between thinking that DD could be wrong about Nagini-as-horcrux here, or if the detail is simply insignificant and doesn't change the outcome. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? Thanks for your two knuts, Pat From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sat Jul 15 16:44:40 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:44:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155427 Magpie: >All Wizards know about Muggles, no matter how much actual contact >they have with them. And they all speak of them, off-handedly, as >being inferior. They're entire society seems rather based on the >idea. PJ: Of course they know muggles exist but I believe we were shown exactly how much real information wizards have about muggles and muggle culture during the TWT. All those jazzy outfits they used to "blend in". Genuine fonts of muggle knowledge weren't they? Y'know, National Geographic tells me via my television that some group of peoples in the world today still use reed boats or handmade canoes because they don't know about cabin cruisers... Personally I think that's kind of quaint. I can admire their ingenuity while still wondering how they manage without electric motors, etc. Does this mean I look down on them as inferior? I don't believe it does... I'm facinated with their ability to get along without the things I take for granted in my daily life and I sometimes wonder if I would be able to live that way. I think most people in the WW share a similar curiosity about Muggles as I do about that tribe in the Amazon. I can't imagine why that would be considered wrong. I find it about as normal as normal can be... Magpie: >One of the results of the candy--an easily forseeable and presumably >desired result--is the panic PJ: What we have are a couple of *kids* who are so used to the effects of strange candies that they don't consider all the ramifications of giving them to a muggle. Immature, yes. Even ignorant and stupid, but I didn't see it as intentional cruelty on their part. And certainly not muggle baiting since they told their father straight out that it wasn't because he was a muggle, it was just because he was Dudley... If it had been an adult wizard who'd dropped those candies for Dudley I might more easily see your point of view but having raised 4 teens I can tell you that they aren't always the brightest bulb in the lamp and that sometimes they don't think too far ahead in considering the consequences of their actions. If they did I'd certainly have fewer gray hairs to cover up.... PJ From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jul 15 17:28:09 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:28:09 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155428 Pat: > Harry's *dream* specifically showed us that Nagini was > not the agent of death here - LV used an AK. Harry > never corrected DD,but the two stories do not jibe. > I'm torn between thinking that DD could be wrong about > Nagini-as-horcrux here, or if the detail is simply > insignificant and doesn't change the outcome. houyhnhnm: Harry's dreams about Voldemort seem to have been correct in every case except when LV was deliberately misleading him in order to draw him to the Department of Mysteries. I think the way Harry saw it is probably the way it really happened. Dumbledore's information would have to have been at least third hand. This is how I can imagine it: Snape gave DD a report which included information about Nagini. Dumbledore's suspicions were aroused and he ordered Snape to find out as much as he could about the snake. Snape nosed around and he would have to have done so cautiously in order not to arouse suspicion. He may have been able to Legilimence Wormtail, but not knowing exactly what he was looking for, came away with only an image of the snake and the dead Muggle. Or he may not have been able to use Legilimency on Wormtail and had to rely on rumors circulating among the DEs. Either way the story got garbled. In a sense, LV did use Nagini to kill Frank Bryce because she was the one who discovered him hiding. He might have gotten away if she hadn't. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jul 15 17:38:31 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:38:31 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...) In-Reply-To: <003501c6a822$e8ad1710$c086400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155429 Dungrollin: > It gives us a nice explanation for why Pettigrew, despite > being a coward, ended up in Gryffindor - because he admires > bravery in others (fawning over James and Sirius), and wishes > he had the courage to do what's right instead of what's easy > himself ("I was never brave, like you and Remus and James.") Magpie: > I've always thought that was how the house system works-- > though with the Twins one is, imo, forced to take it on faith > because they're really not shown prizing doing the right thing > over being ambitious. houyhnhnm: However shoddy an excuse for a human being Peter is, I don't think he is necessarily a *physical* coward. After all, he ran with a werewolf for years in the form of a rat! He cut off his finger, and later his whole hand. That takes some guts. And when did Gryffindor morph into the House for those who Do The Right Thing? That is really being Gryffindor-centric. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Jul 15 18:05:17 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:05:17 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155430 > Ken wrote: > > > DD says LV could have created a horcrux by using the caretaker's > > murder and he used Nagini to commit that murder. > > > > > > Ken > > > > Pat responded: > This is something that has bothered me for quite a while. I haven't > seen it discussed here and wondered if anyone else found it somewhat > disturbing. Yes, Dumbledore gave Harry the information that Ken cites > above, but Harry's *dream* specifically showed us that Nagini was not > the agent of death here - LV used an AK. Harry never corrected DD, > but the two stories do not jibe. I'm torn between thinking that DD > could be wrong about Nagini-as-horcrux here, or if the detail is > simply insignificant and doesn't change the outcome. Does anyone have > any thoughts about this? > > Thanks for your two knuts, > Pat > Ken: You are right I was taking DD's word for this since this scene was the more fresh in my mind. Now that you mention it Frank's "echo" in the graveyard scene reports that it was LV not Nagini that killed him too. I suspect that JKR might have originally planned for the caretaker's killing to be done like the attack on Arthur Weasely and then forgot that she changed it when she wrote the scene in HBP. DD says those words to Harry who is not shy about correcting DD, screaming at DD, or smashing up DD's office by this point and Harry doesn't say a word about the error. It is possible that DD was speaking of using Nagini in the murder in a broader sense, as someone else suggests. I tend to think it is an error on JKR's part. In either of those cases it would not be significant. If DD did make an error maybe it was an intentional one. Those of us who think that Harry *could* be a horcrux tend to believe that DD *could* be trying to plant the idea of a living horcrux into Harry's mind without coming right out and telling him that he is a horcrux. DD has a tendency to withold information from Harry when he doesn't believe Harry is ready for it. We've had that drummed into us endlessly. DD could be making an intentional mistatement that will stand out in Harry's memory at some point and lead him to realize that He, not Nagini, is the horcrux. The wonder is that Harry does not see the error immediately so that would be a rather weak reed for DD and JKR to lean on. Ken From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jul 15 18:17:46 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:17:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture/Sorting Hat References: Message-ID: <008501c6a83a$ffe4ebc0$c086400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155431 > PJ: > Y'know, National Geographic tells me via my television that some group of > peoples in the world today still use reed boats or handmade canoes because > they don't know about cabin cruisers... Personally I think that's kind of > quaint. I can admire their ingenuity while still wondering how they > manage > without electric motors, etc. Does this mean I look down on them as > inferior? I don't believe it does... I'm facinated with their ability > to > get along without the things I take for granted in my daily life and I > sometimes wonder if I would be able to live that way. I think most > people > in the WW share a similar curiosity about Muggles as I do about that tribe > in the Amazon. I can't imagine why that would be considered wrong. I > find > it about as normal as normal can be... Magpie: Yes, but there's a difference between being fascinated at the way people live differently and seeing them as children (with you as the adult) because you come from a different society. Especially when you're continually taking children from those people and claiming them for your own. Basically, the books aren't interested in the interplay between the two worlds. Despite the fact that some Muggles are Wizards and some Wizards are Muggles, and some Wizarding stuff seems modified from the Muggle, the Muggle world isn't taken seriously anywhere. Which is the author's decision, but it's also the author's decision to make just this kind of arrogance a theme of the books. It just makes for sort of an odd mix where one is writing about prejudice the modern concern highlighted by nineteenth century abolitionist attitudes. > PJ: > What we have are a couple of *kids* who are so used to the effects of > strange candies that they don't consider all the ramifications of giving > them to a muggle. Immature, yes. Even ignorant and stupid, but I didn't > see it as intentional cruelty on their part. And certainly not muggle > baiting since they told their father straight out that it wasn't because > he > was a muggle, it was just because he was Dudley... Magpie: They defend themselves to their father by claiming it's not Muggle-baiting because they didn't do it because he's a Muggle and their father is still just as angry, as if this doesn't actually make it a totally different thing. He seems to be trying to teach them something. If the twins can't be expected to know the results of the kinds of Pranks they play all the time, much less care once the results are explained to them by their angry father, their opinion is probably the less informed one. PJ: > If it had been an adult wizard who'd dropped those candies for Dudley I > might more easily see your point of view but having raised 4 teens I can > tell you that they aren't always the brightest bulb in the lamp and that > sometimes they don't think too far ahead in considering the consequences > of > their actions. If they did I'd certainly have fewer gray hairs to cover > up.... Magpie: So they're stupid teenagers playing the kinds of practical jokes they've been playing all their lives, not well-meaning innocents who couldn't possibly know the results. We shouldn't judge them as adults, but nor should we judge them as toddlers. Teenagers being stupid is something acknowledged in the books, but it's also always made clear that each teenager is stupid in his own way. When James and Sirius are defended that way the person they're defending them to is Harry, another 15-year-old. houyhnhnm: However shoddy an excuse for a human being Peter is, I don't think he is necessarily a *physical* coward. After all, he ran with a werewolf for years in the form of a rat! He cut off his finger, and later his whole hand. That takes some guts. And when did Gryffindor morph into the House for those who Do The Right Thing? That is really being Gryffindor-centric. Magpie: Whoa--you're right. That is totally Gryffindor-centric. Many Gryffindors do prize that attitude, of course. If you prize bravery you want to find opportunities to be brave in the world, and so might be more likely to seek out situations where you're fighting for justice. Not that every Gryffindor does this--McClaggen, for instance, doesn't seem to care. (Personally I have always thought Lockhart was a Gryffindor as well.) I think that's what Hermione means when she puts courage over books and cleverness--she wants to be doing things in the world. It's also the kind of bravery Neville prizes. (One could also come to the desire to do what is right over what is easy through the intelligence prized in Ravenclaw, Slytherin's ambition or Hufflepuff's hard work and fair play.) Peter, even before Voldemort, was running around with a werewolf and probably wouldn't have been able to stay friends with James if he wasn't willing to take risks. He wasn't brave the same way as his friends were, but the guy's got guts when it comes to saving his skin. That's partly why Phineas' line shouldn't be taken completely at face value. *Peter* however brave he was, chose to save his own neck. Sirius wouldn't. There are Slytherin examples of not doing that either. -m From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Jul 15 18:13:30 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:13:30 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Still asking about Mysterious Symbols on Pensieve Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155432 In a message dated 7/12/2006 6:24:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, alimcj at yahoo.com writes: I'm puzzling over what symbols Harry must not have had any exposure to as far as what we know of him, his life, his education. Hebrew is about all I can think of -- and it is relevant to Cabalistic teachings, which have never been mentioned in the HP texts. -------- Sherrie here: All of this is why I'm beginning to lean toward the Theban alphabet, or possibly the Alphabet of the Magi (created by Paracelsus), or the Enochian of Dr. Dee. (You can find them all at omniglot.com, if you want to see them.) These wouldn't be common in the Muggle world, & might not be common knowledge in the Wizarding World, either - certainly not to a fifth or sixth year student wizard who isn't all that keen on studying. Hermione might have run across them in extracurricular works, but Harry isn't much for extra work. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kjones at telus.net Sat Jul 15 18:14:21 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:14:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question to Neri and other supporters of Harry as horcrux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44B9307D.7020702@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155433 dumbledore11214 wrote: > That is Rebecca's reference to Dumbledore's remark that Harry's soul > is "untarnished and whole". > > So, to anybody who thinks that Harry is a Horcrux, what is your > interpretation of Dumbledore's remark, especially since JKR said > that Dumbledore's guesses are never far off mark ( paraphrase), I > think specifically in relation to horcruxes? > > Do you think Dumbledore is lying here? Do you think he does not know? > > Do you think that Harry's soul somehow could be "untarnished and > whole" with the piece of Voldy sould attached to it? ( I confess I > find this interpretation to be highly unlikely) > > Thank you very much, KJ writes: I think that Harry having a whole, untarnished soul is very important to his protection against the soul piece. As DD's little silver instrument describes it, Harry's soul and the Voldy soul piece are divided. I think that DD was checking for that very problem after Harry had been able to see through the snakes eyes. I also think that this division or separation has to be taken care of, which is why Snape said "No Unforgiveables for you, Potter". As long as Harry remains whole and untarnished, Voldemorte will not be able to make use of that soul piece when they finally confront each other. I think that Dumbledore has known about it, or guessed since the night at Godric's Hollow, and that this knowledge was the basis for his "great plan". JMHO, of course. KJ From triinum at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 17:02:18 2006 From: triinum at yahoo.com (triinum) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:02:18 -0000 Subject: Question to Neri and other supporters of Harry as horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155434 Alla: > That is Rebecca's reference to Dumbledore's remark that Harry's soul > is "untarnished and whole". > > So, to anybody who thinks that Harry is a Horcrux, what is your > interpretation of Dumbledore's remark, especially since JKR said > that Dumbledore's guesses are never far off mark ( paraphrase), I > think specifically in relation to horcruxes? > > Do you think Dumbledore is lying here? Do you think he does not know? Triin: What DD might suspect is an interesting topic. I find it unlikely that, given the circumstances and the highly suspicious nature of Harry's scar, that DD hasn't at least contemplated this possibility. But, if he suspected it, would he have told Harry? That would be a terrible thing to tell, and could easily cause H to commit suicide instead of saving the world? But still. The circumstances *are* suspicious. Harry feeling Tom's emotions, having his skills - just like there was a part of Tom in his head? Plus a horcrux *was* likely about to be created by Harrys death... I'd say, certainly DD has thought about it. Maybe he's disregarded the thought, though. Or has left it for Harry to sort out. Alla: > Do you think that Harry's soul somehow could be "untarnished and > whole" with the piece of Voldy sould attached to it? ( I confess I > find this interpretation to be highly unlikely) Triin: Yes, a soul that has been mingled up with an external piece of soul-material with dragged edges, is not actually untarnished any more... Don't you think this could be overcome if, say, the two souls are still separate, not conjoined, in H-s body? That is, his *body* is lumbered with the alian soul fragment, but his *soul* is unaffected? I had a totally materialistic upbringing, so I have trouble thinking in the terms of souls, and probably sound naivistic when I try. But still, let's say Harry's soul is situated in (or connected to) his heart/brain/blood/wherever, and Tom's soul fragment is situated in his scar/scull/somewhere else? After all, at least in Potterverse, souls *are* connected to distinct physical objects? Triin From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Sat Jul 15 19:05:58 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:05:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture/Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: <008501c6a83a$ffe4ebc0$c086400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155435 Magpie: Yes, but there's a difference between being fascinated at the way people live differently and seeing them as children (with you as the adult) because you come from a different society. Especially when you're continually taking children from those people and claiming them for your own. Basically, the books aren't interested in the interplay between the two worlds. Despite the fact that some Muggles are Wizards and some Wizards are Muggles, and some Wizarding stuff seems modified from the Muggle, the Muggle world isn't taken seriously anywhere. PJ: And see, this is exactly where I feel this arguement falls flat.... We're told outright that Purebred Wizards are dying out which means that the Muggleborn and mixed wizards are the *majority*. So what you seem to be saying is that they're all predjudiced against themselves? Against the world they know, the families who raised them and their old friends? I don't see it that way at all. I will grant you that the leaders of the WW all seem to be Purebred Wizards but that will slowly change over time. The old timers will die out or retire, and their children or grandchildren will mix with muggleborns as well. It's inevitable. Magpie: They defend themselves to their father by claiming it's not Muggle-baiting because they didn't do it because he's a Muggle and their father is still just as angry, as if this doesn't actually make it a totally different thing. He seems to be trying to teach them something. If the twins can't be expected to know the results of the kinds of Pranks they play all the time, much less care once the results are explained to them by their angry father, their opinion is probably the less informed one. PJ: It's a parent's job to teach their children and even though this isn't a case of muggle baiting (as per Canon) it is Arthur's job as their father to explain what they did wrong. To me it's a matter of "No, you didn't mean to hurt the child next door but be more careful in the future because next time you might do some serious harm." I guess this is a case where we'll simply have to agree to disagree. PJ From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 18:59:14 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:59:14 -0000 Subject: Harry's Soul with Harry as horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155436 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > That is Rebecca's reference to Dumbledore's remark that Harry's > soul is "untarnished and whole". > > Do you think Dumbledore is lying here? Do you think he does not know? > > Do you think that Harry's soul somehow could be "untarnished and > whole" with the piece of Voldy sould attached to it? ( I confess I > find this interpretation to be highly unlikely) Mike responds: Alla, I think you're assuming that Voldy's soul piece is attaching to Harry's soul. Seeing as most Horcruxes are not assigned to other living things, there is no requirement for another soul to attach Voldy's soul piece to. In fact the accidental Horcrux theory postulates that Voldy had intended to assign that soul piece to an inanimate object. It was never intended to possess another's soul like the diary Horcrux. We don't know how Voldy managed this bit of magic with the diary Horcrux, but DD does say Riddle was probably the most brilliant student to attend Hogwarts. In any case, Voldy's soul was not intended to and probably isn't attached to Harry's soul. This may be due to Lily's protection or it may show that Harry is inately more powerful than Voldemort in the mystic realm of Love and Souls. As far as Dumbledore is concerned, I rather think he knew but didn't know how to present this possibility to Harry. His whole hint about Nagini possibly being a Horcrux was to get Harry to realize that a Horcrux could be enterred into another living being, as well as becoming a Red Herring to the readers. JKR never gives us clues with only one purpose in mind, does she? See, I fall into the camp of people who believe that although DD is brilliant magically, very wise analytically, very learned scholastically-speaking (150+ years helps a lot in this area), but DD is not a brilliant tactician and has that frustratingly annoying habit of holding onto secrets way, waaay too long. For instance, why doesn't he shout it from the rooftops that Voldemort is really Tom Riddle, a half-blood wizard? But NO, he even confides in Harry that few people know this. Why? Wouldn't it hurt his recruiting at least some if the whole WW knew this fact, at least it could have prevented a few of the more fervent pure-blood fanatics from taking up his mantle. Another case: he never told Harry how to destroy a Horcrux, despite the fact that he promised to expand on the Ring Horcrux story. Is this not an important piece of knowledge? Does this only pose a problem to us, the readers, and Harry doesn't need any more knowledge in this area? I can't say, but it is another case where DD leaves at least us hanging when it seems this is critical knowledge to pass on. So why wouldn't DD tell Harry if he knew or suspected Harry is a Horcrux? Is he afraid Harry would immediately assume that he must sacrifice himself, as you Alla have suggested, without considering other possibilities? Does DD think that Nagini is too valuable of an ally for LV, and hopes that Harry will make an effort to terminate that friendship? Or is it simply DD's maddening habit of not telling us and Harry the whole story? I'm sure others have many more ideas/possibilities. Or is there some secret hidden behind that door in the DoM which doesn't require Harry to perform some invasive spell to eliminate Horcruxes. Maybe what is behind the door would allow Harry to vanquish Voldemort without even dealing with the Horcruxes. Could Harry learn how to project Love in a spell/charm and was this the spell or a form of the spell that DD threw at LV in the MoM. LV would certainly realise this kind of spell wouldn't kill him, but he still doesn't want to be hit by it. This is all wild speculation on my part. Alla, does any of this help? Mike, who even after all this is not 100% convinced that Harry is a Horcrux. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 19:54:40 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:54:40 -0000 Subject: Nagini's venom as "mother's milk" (Was: Acromantula Venom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155437 Allie wrote: > > Second that! We're also told that spiders flee before the > basilisk... Nagini isn't a basilisk but she is a big giant snake... > Maybe there is some interaction between her milk or venom and the > acromantula venom. > Allie (who is a vet and wonders if JKR knows that non-magic snakes > don't make milk) Carol responds: I'm not sure whether you're thinking of my posts, in which I was referring to Nagini (whose venom is also an ingredient in the potion that restores Vapor!mort to a rudimentary body in the first place) as a surrogate mother to Baby!mort. If so, I was referring to "milk" in a figurative sense. Wormtail "milks" Nagini (Voldemort's word) to remove her venom so that he (Wormtail) can feed it to Baby!mort to sustain his/its existence as a mother's milk sustains her baby. Very creepy, horrible parody of motherhood, IMO. I'm sure JKR knows that reptiles don't have mammary glands and that she's using "milk" in the figurative sense of inducing a snake to release its venom, but I'm also fairly sure that she used the metaphor intentionally for its symbolic implications, just as I think she deliberately made Voldemort's rudimentary body resemble a horrible fetus to suggest potential evil, which will become full-fledged evil when Voldemort is "reborn." Baby!mort is utterly helpless (except for being able to manipulate Wormtail and to wield a wand) and wholly dependent on Wormtail to meet his needs. He can't Apparate or walk or even feed himself. He's evil combined with weakness and dependency, an "infant" whose "parents" are Nagini and Wormtail. But when he's (re)born, it will be as an adult, no longer dependent on anyone, in full possession of his formidable powers. Wormtail, the reluctant surrogate father, is reduced to servitude (or perhaps to another form of servitude, since he was already Voldemort's factotum and is now reduced to spying on or waiting on Snape), and "dear Nagini," who may or may not have a bit of his soul in her, is also subject to his control (though at least for her he retains something like affection). Evil combined with power feels no gratitude, no debt to any human being, no emotion except fear and anger, no remorse. Perhaps we're meant to see that the resurrectd Voldemort, "born" from a fetal monstrosity sustained by venom in place of mother's milk, is no longer human despite his memories of life as the murderous boy Tom Riddle. As for Nagini, who must be defeated in Book 7 whether or not she's a Horcrux (and it will simplify matters greatly if DD is right on this point), I think we'll see a reprise of the Sword of Gryffindor, which Harry will wield somewhat more skilfully than he did in CoS, without the need for Phoenix tears this time around. I don't think Acromantula venom will have anything to do with her death. Acromantulas may well play a part in the next book, but I can't guess what it will be since they won't even cooperate with Hagrid, and I don't think Voldemort has anything to offer them. (They're perfectly content in the Forbidden Forest, which is now a more dangerous place than it's ever been, unless the Centaurs have come back to "our side" with the death of Dumbledore.) I suspect that having Slughorn "milk" the dead Aragog (ugh! no surrogate mother imagery here, I hope) is nothing more than a plot device for getting Slughorn to Aragog's funeral so that Harry can get the Horcrux memory. Carol, who almost typed "Aragorn" for "Aragog" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 20:29:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:29:42 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155438 Triin: > > I think the answer is given. I can't remember where, but I think we > are told that almost everybody goes to the house where their parents > and siblings went. This may be because most children already know > where they _want_ to go, that being usually the house their parents > have spoken approvingly about. And the hat takes their preference into account very strongly. I guess it only puts the kids in another house than that of their parents when a) they don't want to go there, or b) they really really wouldn't fit in. Carol responds: I don't think it's that simple, or the Hat would automatically have placed Harry in Gryffindor, the House that both his parents had been sorted into. Instead, it hesitates, pointing out that he has courage, lots of talent, "not a bad mind," and a thirst to prove himself, and then it asks *itself*, not Harry, "Where shall I put you?" Even when Harry thinks, "Not Slytherin! Not Slytherin!" it argues that he would do well ther. It's only when Harry makes it clear that he doesn't want to go there that the Hat chooses what it appears to be the second-best fit, Gryffindor. I think the Hat really makes an effort to put the students where it thinks they belong, giving equal weight to Slytherin and with no bias against it (though it dislikes the idea of "quartering" in general and later advocates unity among the Houses). I think it takes the student's preference into account only when the student expresses it strongly; otherwise, it examines the abilities and character traits it sees (ambition, courage, wit, loyalty, etc.) and places the student where he or she would fit best. Note the long hesitation in placing Seamus, who does not automatically go into the same house as his mother, and Neville, who does not automatically go into the same house as his parents and Gran. (I'm guessing that Gran, at least, was a Gryffindor, since McGonagall knew that she failed her Charms OWL and she's loyal to Gryffindor. Courage seems to be a prized family trait, so Frank was probably a Gryffindor, too. Yet Neville's placement in Gryffindor is not automatic. Possibly, the Hat placed him there because he begged it to do so even though it thought he was better suited to Hufflepuff.) Also, if families always go into the same House, how did Parvati and Padma, identical twins who were sorted within minutes of each other, end up in different Houses? Carol, who thinks the Sorting Hat tries its best to do what the Founders intended it to do and would rather see it retired (and given a magical cleaning) than burned From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jul 15 21:06:11 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:06:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture/Sorting Hat References: Message-ID: <00aa01c6a852$80952340$c086400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155439 > PJ: > And see, this is exactly where I feel this arguement falls flat.... We're > told outright that Purebred Wizards are dying out which means that the > Muggleborn and mixed wizards are the *majority*. So what you seem to be > saying is that they're all predjudiced against themselves? Against the > world they know, the families who raised them and their old friends? I > don't see it that way at all. Magpie: You can think that it's more logical for Muggle-related Wizards to be incapable of anti-Muggle prejudice, and that they will eventually raise generations not prejudiced against them, but that's not what gets dramatized in canon any more than Snape being a Half-blood means he must really dislike Slytherin and always have been against Voldemort's Pureblood ideology. Muggleborns and Half-bloods have always been part of Wizarding society. Imo, realistically Muggleborn Wizards and Witches would have special connections to each other and would provide a different perspective, one obviously more Muggle-centric. But they don't that we see. The author also says that the Wizard population is 2/4 Half-blood, 1/4 Muggleborn and 1/4 Pureblood. Not all Purebloods are Voldemort-friendly. Discussion of Muggles as equally worthy of respect is almost nonexistant--it's not a subject that comes up often. Prejudice is a big theme throughout the books--it doesn't seem to be taking care of itself through the death of a few Purebloods. The Wizarding World is set against the Muggle one, obsessed with secrecy. That seems like it's by far the greatest influence on young Wizards. The grandchild of four Muggleborns isn't necessarily going to identify himself as Muggle or be all that familiar with the Muggle World. > PJ: > It's a parent's job to teach their children and even though this isn't a > case of muggle baiting (as per Canon) it is Arthur's job as their father > to > explain what they did wrong. To me it's a matter of "No, you didn't mean > to > hurt the child next door but be more careful in the future because next > time > you might do some serious harm." Magpie: Arthur seems to be furious that his children are undermining the specific thing he's fighting against. He's not saying, "Well, this isn't really Muggle-baiting and you didn't mean to hurt him but next time be more careful." If I were the Twins I'd hear approval in that. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 21:29:21 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:29:21 -0000 Subject: Harry's Soul with Harry as horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155440 > Mike responds: > > Alla, I think you're assuming that Voldy's soul piece is attaching > to Harry's soul. Seeing as most Horcruxes are not assigned to other > living things, there is no requirement for another soul to attach > Voldy's soul piece to. In fact the accidental Horcrux theory > postulates that Voldy had intended to assign that soul piece to an > inanimate object. Alla: Hehe, no, I am not assuming anything, in fact as I said on whether Harry as a horcrux I am incredibly undecisive and don't have a strong opinion contrary to some other topics ;). I totally get the possibility of soul piece not being attached to Harry's soul. But it is still there, though, no? Inside of Harry? At least metaphorically it is inside Harry's soul or am I missing something after all? Mike: It was never intended to possess another's soul like > the diary Horcrux. We don't know how Voldy managed this bit of magic > with the diary Horcrux, but DD does say Riddle was probably the most > brilliant student to attend Hogwarts. In any case, Voldy's soul was > not intended to and probably isn't attached to Harry's soul. This may > be due to Lily's protection or it may show that Harry is inately more > powerful than Voldemort in the mystic realm of Love and Souls. > > As far as Dumbledore is concerned, I rather think he knew but didn't > know how to present this possibility to Harry. His whole hint about > Nagini possibly being a Horcrux was to get Harry to realize that a > Horcrux could be enterred into another living being, as well as > becoming a Red Herring to the readers. Alla: Okay, yes, this **is** my question and I am still not quite clear. What does Dumbledore assume when he makes this remark? Is it your argument that when Dumbledore says that Harry's soul is "untarnished and whole" , what he **really** means to say is that "Harry's soul is untarnished and whole, **except** that piece of Voldie that we don't count"? Am I making sense to you? It seems to me that even if Voldie piece is not meshed with Harry's soul, it is still in Harry and it just seems strange to me to say it that way, **if** Dumbledore knows? If he does not know, Okay, I can see him saying that. Mike: See, I fall into the camp of > people who believe that although DD is brilliant magically, very wise > analytically, very learned scholastically-speaking (150+ years helps a > lot in this area), but DD is not a brilliant tactician and has that > frustratingly annoying habit of holding onto secrets way, waaay too > long. Alla: Oh, I share your conviction about Dumbledore's annoying habits, believe me. ;) Mike: > For instance, why doesn't he shout it from the rooftops that Voldemort > is really Tom Riddle, a half-blood wizard? Alla: Heeee, let me know when you have a satisfactory answer to that, except for plot related reasons. Mike: Another case: he never told Harry how to destroy a > Horcrux, despite the fact that he promised to expand on the Ring > Horcrux story. Is this not an important piece of knowledge? Alla: Oh, totally, that is one of the most important reasons I never bought Dumbledore wanted to die on the Tower argument. Mike: > So why wouldn't DD tell Harry if he knew or suspected Harry is a > Horcrux? Is he afraid Harry would immediately assume that he must > sacrifice himself, as you Alla have suggested, without considering > other possibilities? Alla: Just to be clear and I promise not to bug you anymore :) - so it is your argument that Dumbledore knows that Harry is a horcrux, and still consider his soul untarnished and whole, and just does not count Voldie piece, because it is not really attached to Harry's soul, but just floats in him? Mike: > Alla, does any of this help? > > Mike, who even after all this is not 100% convinced that Harry is a > Horcrux. > Alla: See above, if you could just clarify Dumbledore's thoughts process when he makes this remark, it would help even more. From caaf at hotmail.com Sat Jul 15 20:58:27 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:58:27 -0000 Subject: Harry getting Unfrozen on the Tower... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155441 Hi, I have been an avid reader of many of the discussions on this group, being a recent member myself. SOmewhere, one of these raised a thought in my mind - about us mixing Harry's opinions for reality in the WW. I do not know if this has been discussed earlier, so I am going to post it anyway :) When Harry is under the Freezing Charm on the Tower - he is apparently released only when Snape AK's DD. In Harry's opinion, he believes that the release has occurred only because the caster (DD) was now dead. I could not find any other example of such a case occurring in canon - on the contrary there are numerous examples of spells lasting far beyond the caster's life, such as: 1. The *ancient* magic that is in the air at Hogwarts - all cast many centuries ago 2. The spells cast by Sirius' father on 12 GP - which provide protection to the Order even today (am assuming old man Black is long dead - else the entre ownership issue would be a new debate) 3. Even JKs response to the FAQ which specified that the Fidelius Charm spell continued even after the death of the caster. So, while Harry may believe that DD's death released the spell, it seems that magic does not work that way. The only reason that I could think of for the spell to be released would be if Snape did it (nvbl of course). This would be only becuase DD informed SS about Harry being hidden under the Cloak (through Legimency and Occlumency) - without which Harry would be there for a long time to come - with probably no one ever looking for him at that spot (unless Ron/Hermione use the Map to look for him somewhere in Hogwarts) If this is the case - it may also be a reason to show that SS was indeed a DD man. Welcome any other inputs about what may have happened that fateful night that we all remember so well. Cyril - posting for the first time and welcoming all inputs and thoughts on this. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jul 15 22:13:22 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:13:22 -0000 Subject: Harry getting Unfrozen on the Tower... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155442 Cyril: > The only reason that I could think of for the spell to > be released would be if Snape did it (nvbl of course). > This would be only becuase DD informed SS about Harry > being hidden under the Cloak (through Legimency and > Occlumency) - without which Harry would be there for > a long time to come - with probably no one ever looking > for him at that spot (unless Ron/Hermione use the Map > to look for him somewhere in Hogwarts) houyhnhnm: I agree that there is no certainty that a freezing charm is cancelled when the caster dies. The idea of Snape's casting a non-verbal Finite Incantatem hadn't occurred to me but it's an interesting idea. If that's what happened, it would be the mirror image (there are so many of them in HBP) of Tonks releasing Harry from Draco's freezing spell when he was hidden under his invisibility cloak on the train. Her Finite was also non-verbal. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 22:18:24 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:18:24 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carrie" wrote: > > > Carol, noting that it's Marvolo, not Molovo, and pretty sure that LV hid nothing in Godric's Hollow > > Carrie: > > Wouldn't the object that was going to become the horcrux be in the > house? Probably in Harry's bedroom. > Carol responds: I don't think so. In many cases, there seems to be no connection between the murder itself and the Horcrux. Certainly, the Horcrux-to-be doesn't have to be present at the murder. For example, I don't think that Tom had the diary with him when he used the Basilisk to kill Myrtle, and he may have worn the ring when he killed his father, but he didn't know at that time how to make a Horcrux. And whatever objects he made into a Horcrux with his grandparents' murders, the locket and Ravenclaw Horcruxes, for example, certainly were not present. There's a long period, two years at least, between these murders and the first two Horcruxes (the diary and the ring), and another two years or so between the Riddles' deaths and the locket Horcrux. Tom Riddle murdered Hepzibah Smith to steal the locket and the cup, both of which he subquently made into Horcruxes, but only one (probably the cup) could have been created with her murder. The other Horcrux (the locket) probably used a previously committed murder (probably a Riddle grandparent). There's no indication that the Horcrux object has to be present at the murder, or that the murderer needs to know in advance that he'll use that murder to create a Horcrux. All that's required is a soul split by murder and a spell to encase the soul bit in an object, presumably *after* the soul bit has been created, and quite possibly years afterwards--at least that's how I read it. (See my fruitcake posts upthread.) There would be no need for Voldemort to carry any object with him other than his wand (which Wormtail seems to have hidden after Voldemort's vaporization--see upthread), and he certainly had no time to hide anything in Harry's bedroom. Carol, who thinks that Voldemort went to Godric's Hollow with one purpose, to thwart the Prophecy by killing Harry, and any Horcrux he may have intended to make using Harry's murder could have been made at his leisure afterwards, in private, as far from Wormtail as possible From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 22:43:58 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:43:58 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : a theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155444 Pat: > This is something that has bothered me for quite a while. I haven't seen it discussed here and wondered if anyone else found it somewhat disturbing. Yes, Dumbledore gave Harry the information that Ken cites above, but Harry's *dream* specifically showed us that Nagini was not the agent of death here - LV used an AK. Harry never corrected DD, but the two stories do not jibe. I'm torn between thinking that DD could be wrong about Nagini-as-horcrux here, or if the detail is simply insignificant and doesn't change the outcome. Does anyone have any thoughts about this? > Carol responds: I also find this discrepancy annoying. Maybe it's a Flint, like Scrimgeour's reference to a Stupefied DE who was actually Petrified, and of little consequence, but I don't think so. I think it's a case of DD being on the right track but not quite spot on, and his reark that LV used Nagini to kill Frank Bryce is our clue to that. IMO, Nagini *is* a Horcrux, but she was already a Horcrux as far back as Godric's Hollow, as indicated by LV's snakelike appearance at that time, his dependency on Nagini's venom both to create and to sustain the "rudimentary" body that Wormtail creates for him while he's waiting to be resurrected, and his (LV's) ability to possess Nagini without killing her. If I'm right, DD's error is insignificant--Nagini is still a Horcrux and still must be destroyed as the last step in Harry's Horcrux Hunt. But whether the detail is a clue or a Flint, I don't think it affects the arguments for Nagini as Horcrux, only the use of Frank Bryce's murder to make her one. Carol, who has already presented her Nagini!crux arguments in detail and doesn't want to repeat them here From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 23:42:30 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:42:30 -0000 Subject: Question to Neri and other supporters of Harry as horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155445 Alla wrote: > So, to anybody who thinks that Harry is a Horcrux, what is your > interpretation of Dumbledore's remark, especially since JKR said > that Dumbledore's guesses are never far off mark ( paraphrase), I > think specifically in relation to horcruxes? > > Do you think Dumbledore is lying here? Do you think he does not know? > > Do you think that Harry's soul somehow could be "untarnished and > whole" with the piece of Voldy sould attached to it? ( I confess I > find this interpretation to be highly unlikely) zgirnius: I have no strong opinion; certainly, I think Harry being a Horcrux is not ruled out by anything in the books. I think the solution to your conundrum is that Voldemort's soul bit is not attached to Harry's soul, but to Harry's body (perhaps, specifically, his scar). So, Harry's body has, like every other body not Kissed by a Dementor, a soul. In Harry's case, that soul is whole and untarnished. Unusually, it also has attached to it in a different way (via the Horcrux process) a small bit of Voldemort's soul. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 23:58:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 23:58:42 -0000 Subject: Harry getting Unfrozen on the Tower... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155446 Cyril wrote: > > > The only reason that I could think of for the spell to > > be released would be if Snape did it (nvbl of course). > > This would be only becuase DD informed SS about Harry > > being hidden under the Cloak (through Legimency and > > Occlumency) - without which Harry would be there for > > a long time to come - with probably no one ever looking > > for him at that spot (unless Ron/Hermione use the Map > > to look for him somewhere in Hogwarts) > > houyhnhnm: > > I agree that there is no certainty that a freezing charm > is cancelled when the caster dies. The idea of Snape's > casting a non-verbal Finite Incantatem hadn't occurred > to me but it's an interesting idea. If that's what > happened, it would be the mirror image (there are so > many of them in HBP) of Tonks releasing Harry from > Draco's freezing spell when he was hidden under his > invisibility cloak on the train. Her Finite was > also non-verbal. > Carol responds: I agree that it's an interesting possibility (as is Snape's being the one who shouts "Petrificus Totalus!" to save Harry from Fenrir Greyback, as I proposed some time back), and one I hadn't thought of. However, I don't think Snape needed Legilimency to know that Harry was on the Tower in his Invisibility Cloak. All he needed was to see the second broom (which we know that Draco saw) and use his powers of deduction ("putting two and two together as only Snape could," as the narrator puts it in GoF). Since Snape was trying to get the DEs and Draco off the tower as quickly as he could (IMO, to keep Harry from trying to fight them and getting killed), the last thing he would want is for Harry to be prematurely released from the spell. If Harry is right that the spell enede with DD's death, Snape would know that and would take advantage of those few seconds to separate the DEs and Draco. If, OTOH, the spell would last until someone cast a Finite Incantatem, I suppose that Snape might choose to silently release him on the assumption that he wouldn't otherwise be found. But surely, once the DEs were gone, some Order member would have gone up to the tower to investigate and would have found Harry? The two brooms would be a giveaway, and Tonks would remember what happened on the train. BTW, I'm not arguing against a possible message exchanged via mutual Legilimency. There's a pause between "Severus" and "Severus, please" in which Snape looks at Dumbledore, changes from his usual inscrutable expression to the look of hatred and revulsion, but still doesn't raise his wand--perfect for eye-to-eye silent communication that neither Harry nor the DEs (including Draco) is aware of. I just don't think that DD needed to tell Snape that Harry was there. Snape could figure it out just as easily as Tonks did on the train. Carol, agreeing that Snape was acting in Harry's best interests, but pretty sure that he didn't want Harry to unfreeze until the last possible second because, like Dumbledore when he cast the spell in the first place, he didn't want Harry rushing out to fight the DEs From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 16 00:28:58 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:28:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's Soul with Harry as horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155447 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > I totally get the possibility of soul piece not being attached to > Harry's soul. But it is still there, though, no? Inside of Harry? > At least metaphorically it is inside Harry's soul or am I missing > something after all? Mike again: Okay, I got the sheep dip out of my ears, I think I hear what your sayin'. Let's first put the quote on the table: "...but he cannot possess you without enduring mortal agony, as he discovered in the Ministry. I do not think he understsnds why, Harry, but then, he was in such a hurry to mutilate his own soul, he never paused to understand the incomperable power of a soul that is *untarnished and whole*." (HBP p.511, US) First off, we agree that Harry's soul is whole compared to LV's. But we are worried that it may be too whole and therefore tarnished with a piece of LV's. That's your question, right? (and Alla sighs 'It's about time'). My speculation, presented in two parts: 1) "...but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not..." Dumbledore says it just above the tarnished and whole bit; "You are protected, in short, by your ability to love!" then, "Voldemort should have known then what he was dealing with, but he did not! "But he knows now. You have flitted into LordVoldemort's mind without damage to yourself," (ibid). IOW, Harry's inate ability to love protects him not only from the Horcrux, but even when he's inside of LV's mind which puts him in close proximity to LV's core soul piece, ostensibly a more powerfully magical bit of soul, bigger pull and all that. Harry's soul remains untarnished because his power/ability to love protects his soul from any incursions by the Horcrux. 2) My second part pertains to what I wrote earlier: > > Mike: > > It was never intended to possess another's soul like > > the diary Horcrux. We don't know how Voldy managed this bit of > > magic with the diary Horcrux, but DD does say Riddle was > > probably the most brilliant student to attend Hogwarts. IMO, most detached soul pieces are not able to interact with the vessel that contains them. In fact, the soul piece didn't interact with the diary, the diary acted as a conduit allowing the soul to interact with someone who wrote in it. There's a small but distinct difference. Harry can access it spiritually (he gets his ability to speak Parseltongue from it; he gets some psychic connection to Voldemort through it), but it has no effect on him both because of his protection and because LV was not able to augment it with additional spells. Harry acts as the vessel, but without any more of LV's hocus pocus, this soul piece is nothing more than a benign tumor in the spirit dimension. Being benign means it can't attack Harry to tarnish his soul. Benign tumors will still hurt if you poke them, which happens to Harry when LV is near or emotional, and not employing Occlumency. But that's not an attack on Harry's soul. So, Alla, are you buying any of this rot? > Alla: > > Just to be clear and I promise not to bug you anymore :) - so it > is your argument that Dumbledore knows that Harry is a horcrux, > and still consider his soul untarnished and whole, and just does > not count Voldie piece, because it is not really attached to > Harry's soul, but just floats in him? > Yep, that about covers it ;>) And how does Dumbledore know this? I like the hypothesis/hint I read on Red Hen's sight that Dumbledore knows more about Horcruxes than Sluggy or even LV, because of some slightly shady experimentation he did in his youth. Nothing sinister, mind you, but stuff he had to later live down; but it also taught him a lot about the whole area of Horcruxes. Mike, who's wind is getting too long, eh? From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jul 16 02:38:22 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:38:22 EDT Subject: Horcrux dispatching (was Re: Harry's Soul with Harry as horcrux) Message-ID: <53a.227aee00.31eb009e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155448 Mike: Another case: he never told Harry how to destroy a > Horcrux, despite the fact that he promised to expand on the Ring > Horcrux story. Is this not an important piece of knowledge? Alla: Oh, totally, that is one of the most important reasons I never bought Dumbledore wanted to die on the Tower argument. Julie: I agree that DD really didn't tell Harry how to destroy a horcrux. He *showed* Harry how in the cave, but without any verbal explanations about what he was doing. Which does make for some difficulty in learning the task! (And it's an interesting opposition to how Snape teaches in Potions, by giving the students verbal/written instructions and then leaving them to actually perform the task.) Still, I don't see how Dumbledore's actions in the cave scene reflect on whether he was willing to die on the Tower (I too don't think he *wanted* to die, he just chose that alternative when it seemed the best alternative at that moment). But are you saying that Dumbledore led Harry through the task of destroying the horcrux, intending to later verbally explain the mechanics of each step he took? That doesn't make complete sense to me, since Dumbledore could have explained what he was doing during the task. For instance, when Dumbledore said "This is the place" and Harry asked "How do you know?", Dumbledore merely replied "It has known magic." At this point Harry couldn't tell if his own shivers were from the same awareness of magic or from his spine-deep coldness. Why didn't Dumbledore just add, "You no doubt also feel a strong shivering sensation in the presence of these magic enchantments"? That's only one example of many where Dumbledore doesn't go into the actual basis of his knowledge or mechanics of his actions. But I think it's less likely Dumbledore intended to explain further later than that Dumbledore knew Harry would not need to know the exact step by step mechanics he used to hunt down that particular horcrux. But I also think horcrux hunting in the way Dumbledore performed it in HBP won't happen in the Book 7. Been there, done that, after all, and JKR isn't one to repeat herself, especially when she has about a thousand other things to deal with in Book 7! Certainly the rest of the horcruxes will be addressed and destroyed, but probably in a manner and perhaps with an expediency we can't yet fathom ;-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mros at xs4all.nl Sun Jul 16 00:09:45 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 02:09:45 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry getting Unfrozen on the Tower... References: Message-ID: <000901c6a86c$2515ae30$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155449 Carol: >>>BTW, I'm not arguing against a possible message exchanged via mutual Legilimency. There's a pause between "Severus" and "Severus, please" in which Snape looks at Dumbledore, changes from his usual inscrutable expression to the look of hatred and revulsion<<< Marion: Ooohhh, that's interesting! Do you think the look of hatred and revulsion was because he realised that Harry was there? Hah! And so many fans are argueing wether the look meant loathing for Dumbledore or whether it was meant as a look of self-loathing. But there is only one person Snape loathes (and yet saves time and time again) Hah! It would be very Harry-like to misread the situation and Snape's bodylanguage.. Cyrill is quite right about misreading Harry's opinions for reality. Another year 'till book 7.... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jul 16 04:39:02 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 04:39:02 -0000 Subject: Harry getting Unfrozen on the Tower... In-Reply-To: <000901c6a86c$2515ae30$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155450 > Marion: > Ooohhh, that's interesting! Do you think the look of hatred and revulsion was because he realised that Harry was there? > Hah! And so many fans are argueing wether the look meant loathing for Dumbledore or whether it was meant as a look of self-loathing. But there is only one person Snape loathes (and yet saves time and time again) Hah! It would be very Harry-like to misread the situation and Snape's bodylanguage.. Cyrill is quite right about misreading Harry's opinions for reality. zgirnius: No, I don't think the look was for Harry (I can't speak for Carol, though...). I think Snape figured Harry's presence out (or at least, that it was highly likely) the moment he showed up on the scene. Draco noticed the broom...so of course Snape would catch that detail, we have plenty of evidence that he is an obervant person. And, logical man that he is, I think he could make a good guess as to who would have been going on a mysterious errand with Dumbledore that evening. Nope, I think the look of hatred and revulsion was a reaction to a suggestion/order Dumbledore communicated to him via Legilimency. He looked at Dumbledore, got the expression of hatred/revulsion, and still did nothing. Then Dumbledore (seeing it? interpreting it correctly?) said "Severus, please". Only then did Snape raise his wand and kill him. I don't think that the similarity of the feelings shown on Snape's face on the Tower, and the feelings reported by the narrator for Harry in the Cave ("Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing...") is a coincidence. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 16 03:58:26 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 03:58:26 -0000 Subject: Horcrux dispatching (was Re: Harry's Soul with Harry as horcrux) In-Reply-To: <53a.227aee00.31eb009e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > > > > Mike: > > > > Another case: he never told Harry how to destroy a > > > Horcrux, despite the fact that he promised to expand on the > > > Ring Horcrux story. Is this not an important piece of > > > knowledge? > > > > > Alla: > > > Oh, totally, that is one of the most important reasons I never > > bought Dumbledore wanted to die on the Tower argument. > > Julie: > I agree that DD really didn't tell Harry how to destroy a horcrux. > He *showed* Harry how in the cave, but without any verbal > explanations about what he was doing. > But are you saying that Dumbledore led Harry through > the task of destroying the horcrux, intending to later verbally > explain the mechanics of each step he took? > But I think it's less likely Dumbledore intended to explain > further later than that Dumbledore knew Harry would not need > to know the exact step by step mechanics he used to hunt down > that particular horcrux. > Mike here: Julie, are you mixing up Horcrux hunting with destroying Horcruxes? Because Dumbledore didn't even get a Horcrux from the cave much less destroy one. Julie again: > But I also think horcrux hunting in the way Dumbledore performed > it in HBP won't happen in the Book 7. Been there, done that, after > all, and JKR isn't one to repeat herself, especially when she has > about a thousand other things to deal with in Book 7! Certainly > the rest of the horcruxes will be addressed and destroyed, but > probably in a manner and perhaps with an expediency we can't yet > fathom ;-) Mike again: I agree, there won't be a lot of paragraphs wasted on the great Horcrux hunt. But if, as you say, the rest of the Horcruxes must be destroyed, I didn't see DD give Harry any lessons, verbal or non- verbal, on how to do it. Like I questioned elsewhere, maybe destroying Horcruxes is the easy step in this whole process and Harry doesn't need any lessons on the destruction part. Maybe the whole trick is getting your hands on the things, avoiding or getting around any spells/booby-traps that LV set up to protect the things. But we have no indication in canon that this is the case. That's why Alla and I, amongst many others, think DD left Harry in the lurch on this point. Dumbledore, who is powerfully magical and infinitely more learned than Harry, got a whithered hand from destroying one Horcrux. Harry's got four to go, but only two hands last I remembered. Maybe this is where Ron and Hermione lend a hand! (Ooh, that was bad!) Speaking of DD dying or not on the tower, check out Cyril's post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155441 I think he has a valid point, and some hope for us DD is still alive diehards. (can you say that?) From random832 at gmail.com Sun Jul 16 02:04:48 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:04:48 -0400 Subject: Question to Neri and other supporters of Harry as horcrux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607151904i1fd9add2t587672317fce9064@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155452 On 7/15/06, Alla wrote: > Okay, here it goes. As I mentioned earlier, I am sitting on the > fence as to whether Harry is a horcrux or not, I think in > metathinking terms being a horcrux is a very easy reason for Harry > to be ready to sacrifice himself, and even if he is not one, I still > think that he would believe at some point that he is. > > Now, as always with Neri's posts, I find his arguments to be very > very convincing and absolutely buying the mechanics of > how ""Accidental Horcrux" can be created. > > So, please, please you don't have to convince me of the possibility, > I do buy it. > > What I have not seen anybody addressing though yet and if I missed > it, please refer me to the relevant post? :) > > That is Rebecca's reference to Dumbledore's remark that Harry's soul > is "untarnished and whole". Sure, his soul is untarnished and whole - That doesn't mean it's alone in his body - my belief is that it's not _he_ who is the horcrux, but his _scar_ is. Or possibly his body in general, which isn't contradicted by any pristine aspect of his soul. > So, to anybody who thinks that Harry is a Horcrux, what is your > interpretation of Dumbledore's remark, especially since JKR said > that Dumbledore's guesses are never far off mark ( paraphrase), I > think specifically in relation to horcruxes? My interpretation is that Harry's soul is not a horcrux. I could buy that Dumbledore doesn't know that his body / his scar / etc is, or that he's being misleading. > Do you think Dumbledore is lying here? Do you think he does not > know? I think he's telling the truth, as far as what he says goes. > Do you think that Harry's soul somehow could be "untarnished and > whole" with the piece of Voldy sould attached to it? ( I confess I > find this interpretation to be highly unlikely) Yes. Random832 From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jul 16 07:03:03 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:03:03 -0000 Subject: Horcrux dispatching (was Re: Harry's Soul with Harry as horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155453 > Mike here: > Julie, are you mixing up Horcrux hunting with destroying Horcruxes? > Because Dumbledore didn't even get a Horcrux from the cave much less > destroy one. Julie: You're right, I did mix those up! Dumbledore located and retrieved the locket Horcrux, he didn't destroy it (and it turned out to be a fake, of course). Since he never got around to telling Harry about his "thrilling adventure" with the ring Horcrux we don't know how hard it is to actually destroy one. Maybe the most difficult part is just getting possession of it in the first place. That task certainly negatively impacted Dumbledore's health, which makes me wonder what part of the ring Horcrux adventure caused the severe damage to his hand--retrieving the horcrux or actually destroying it? > > Julie again: > > But I also think horcrux hunting in the way Dumbledore performed > > it in HBP won't happen in the Book 7. Been there, done that, after > > all, and JKR isn't one to repeat herself, especially when she has > > about a thousand other things to deal with in Book 7! Certainly > > the rest of the horcruxes will be addressed and destroyed, but > > probably in a manner and perhaps with an expediency we can't yet > > fathom ;-) > Mike again: > I agree, there won't be a lot of paragraphs wasted on the great > Horcrux hunt. But if, as you say, the rest of the Horcruxes must be > destroyed, I didn't see DD give Harry any lessons, verbal or non- > verbal, on how to do it. Like I questioned elsewhere, maybe > destroying Horcruxes is the easy step in this whole process and > Harry doesn't need any lessons on the destruction part. Maybe the > whole trick is getting your hands on the things, avoiding or getting > around any spells/booby-traps that LV set up to protect the things. > But we have no indication in canon that this is the case. That's why > Alla and I, amongst many others, think DD left Harry in the lurch on > this point. Dumbledore, who is powerfully magical and infinitely > more learned than Harry, got a whithered hand from destroying one > Horcrux. Harry's got four to go, but only two hands last I > remembered. Maybe this is where Ron and Hermione lend a hand! (Ooh, > that was bad!) Julie: I still wonder what part of the process injured Dumbledore's hand. Dumbledore says "The ring, Harry. Marvolo's ring. And a terrible curse there was upon it too....(mention of Snape's timely action in saving him)...a withered hand does not seem an unreasonable exchange for a seventh of Voldemort's soul. The ring is no longer a Horcrux." Which leaves it a little unclear whether it was the retrieval of the ring itself or the destruction of the Horcrux inside that nearly killed Dumbledore. And even if Dumbledore intended to show Harry how to actually destroy the Horcrux inside the locket (if he still actually believed it was the real Horcrux locket), I don't think it really impacts whether he chose to die or not on the Tower (Alla's original point). He's still going to choose to leave Harry in the lurch rather than leave Harry potentially dead (should Snape refuse to kill DD, then become incapacitated or immediately drop dead from the UV, leaving Harry-- and Draco, and the still very-sick-if-not-dying-Dumbledore-- vulnerable to Fenrir and the Death Eaters). Julie From phil at pcsgames.net Sun Jul 16 11:13:17 2006 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:13:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Horcrux dispatching (was Re: Harry's Soul with Harry as horcrux) References: Message-ID: <010901c6a8c8$dcb89e10$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 155454 > > Mike: > > > > Another case: he never told Harry how to destroy a > > > Horcrux, despite the fact that he promised to expand on the > > > Ring Horcrux story. Is this not an important piece of > > > knowledge? > > > > > Alla: > > > Oh, totally, that is one of the most important reasons I never > > bought Dumbledore wanted to die on the Tower argument. > > Julie: > I agree that DD really didn't tell Harry how to destroy a horcrux. > He *showed* Harry how in the cave, but without any verbal > explanations about what he was doing. > But are you saying that Dumbledore led Harry through > the task of destroying the horcrux, intending to later verbally > explain the mechanics of each step he took? > But I think it's less likely Dumbledore intended to explain > further later than that Dumbledore knew Harry would not need > to know the exact step by step mechanics he used to hunt down > that particular horcrux. > Mike here: Julie, are you mixing up Horcrux hunting with destroying Horcruxes? Because Dumbledore didn't even get a Horcrux from the cave much less destroy one. Julie again: > But I also think horcrux hunting in the way Dumbledore performed > it in HBP won't happen in the Book 7. Been there, done that, after > all, and JKR isn't one to repeat herself, especially when she has > about a thousand other things to deal with in Book 7! Certainly > the rest of the horcruxes will be addressed and destroyed, but > probably in a manner and perhaps with an expediency we can't yet > fathom ;-) Mike again: I agree, there won't be a lot of paragraphs wasted on the great Horcrux hunt. But if, as you say, the rest of the Horcruxes must be destroyed, I didn't see DD give Harry any lessons, verbal or non- verbal, on how to do it. Like I questioned elsewhere, maybe destroying Horcruxes is the easy step in this whole process and Harry doesn't need any lessons on the destruction part. Maybe the whole trick is getting your hands on the things, avoiding or getting around any spells/booby-traps that LV set up to protect the things. But we have no indication in canon that this is the case. That's why Alla and I, amongst many others, think DD left Harry in the lurch on this point. Dumbledore, who is powerfully magical and infinitely more learned than Harry, got a whithered hand from destroying one Horcrux. Harry's got four to go, but only two hands last I remembered. Maybe this is where Ron and Hermione lend a hand! (Ooh, that was bad!) Now Phil: Harry knows how to dispatch a Horcrux, as he did it with the poisonous magical Basilisk fang. Now what poisonous creature does Harry know of from the last book? And after it died, someone got some good quality venom from it? Aragog And Harry knows something that could possibly suck part of a soul from a Horcrux. A dementor. Could Harry use the Imperius Curse to get a dementor to do the job? Phil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jul 16 12:13:57 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:13:57 -0000 Subject: Horcrux dispatching (was Re: Harry's Soul with Harry as horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155455 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juli17ptf" wrote: > > Julie: sniping and more sniping... > And even if Dumbledore intended to show Harry how to actually destroy > the Horcrux inside the locket (if he still actually believed it was > the real Horcrux locket), I don't think it really impacts whether he > chose to die or not on the Tower (Alla's original point). He's still > going to choose to leave Harry in the lurch rather than leave Harry > potentially dead (should Snape refuse to kill DD, then become > incapacitated or immediately drop dead from the UV, leaving Harry-- > and Draco, and the still very-sick-if-not-dying-Dumbledore-- > vulnerable to Fenrir and the Death Eaters). > > colebiancardi: I've read these posts with interest, because I don't think DD ever really thought about "telling" Harry how to destroy Horcrux(es). Harry managed very well on his own with the Diary. I think Harry has an "instinct" and DD recognizes that. I also think that DD never intentionally thought he was going to die on the Tower, but he also knew that things could go horribly wrong and his(DD's) death was something that he made provisions for(with Snape). In times of War, you need several plans, not just plan A. good thread!! cole From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Jul 16 12:58:45 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:58:45 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155456 > houyhnhnm: > And when did Gryffindor morph into the House for those > who Do The Right Thing? That is really being Gryffindor-centric. > Dung: No, absolutely, I didn't mean to imply that (though looking back I realise I may have inadvertantly done so). Sydney was wondering why JKR didn't put the twins in Slytherin, and I suggested that if the sorting hat sort people according to what traits they *prize*, rather than which traits they *have*, it makes more sense. So you can have Gryffindors not always behaving with their stereotypical courage (Pettigrew) or Slytherins who appear to have zero guile (Crabbe & Goyle), but you can also have ambitious cunning people in Gryffindor, because they prize having the courage to actually *do* stupid things like feeding magic sweets to Muggles right under their campaigning father's nose. Which makes me wonder whether Arthur might have got his point across to the twins better if he'd pointed out that using magic on Muggles is a bit *cowardly*, abusing an advantage like that, particularly with no provocation. The finer points of wizard-muggle relations were always going to go over their heads (because they, like many on this list, think that bad people should be punished, and don't see that it matters *who* does the punishing) but hit their Gryffindor pride by calling them cowardly, and they might begin to understand. Just a thought... Dung. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Jul 16 13:27:45 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:27:45 -0000 Subject: James left Cloak with DD - Why? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155457 Christmas in PS/SS, Harry got James' invisibility cloak with this note - "Your father left this in my possession before he died. It is time it was returned to you. Use it well. A Very Merry Christmas to you." So why did James leave it with DD? Not for DD to use ... "I don't need a cloak to become invisible," DD Now that we know more about the lead up to that Halloween when James and Lily died, does this message seem odd to anyone? James, Lily and Harry are in hiding, yet leave an invisibility cloak with the head of OOTP. James would have found it handy to move around outside, but DD must have convinced him someone else needed it more than him. Any ideas? Someone escaping (RAB), or someone spying? From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Jul 16 14:55:30 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:55:30 -0000 Subject: Character Driven or Plot Driven In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155458 > > Leah: > > I think there are three main elements at work in HP, none of > > which Is characterisation. Firstly, plot. Each book embodies a > > mystery or mysteries- In most mysteries, character is > > subservient to plot. > > Luna: > Actually, I find myself in the plot driven group. > > After HBP, some H/Hers were all startled and surprised a > lot of the H/Her's in the list were character driven persons who > centered their attention an awful lot in Hermione, > > Now I wonder... Is it possible that most H/Hers are more character > than plot driven readers...? aussie: The books are plot driven. JKR is character driven. OK, so she had an idea and wrote the last chapter before finishing PS/SS. Their is a plot woven into the dialogues that occur. But she needs characters fleshed out to breath life into the WW. - While talking to directors of the movies, she had a LOT of background information on each minor character. - Her favourite scene to write was Hermione, Luna and Rita discussion about Harry's interview for the Quibbler. Why? Because three very different personalities tried to all get their heads around one thing. - Quiddich's final match with Luna commentating. Fun! Fun! Fun! To survive so many years in front of a word processor on a story you have already worked out eons ago, your personal motivation needs to be more than the externals. Amnesty International themes. Empowering Women and the underdogs. Yes, they are visible in her books. But they are not the driving force that gets her thumping out hundreds of thousands of words per book. For JKR, Harry has body temperature. From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Sun Jul 16 15:35:06 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:35:06 -0000 Subject: Horcrux dispatching (was Re: Harry's Soul with Harry as horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155459 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17@ wrote: > > > > > > Mike: > > > > > > Another case: he never told Harry how to destroy a > > > > Horcrux, despite the fact that he promised to expand on the > > > > Ring Horcrux story. Is this not an important piece of > > > > knowledge? > > > > > > > > Alla: > > > > > Oh, totally, that is one of the most important reasons I never > > > bought Dumbledore wanted to die on the Tower argument. > > > > Julie: > > I agree that DD really didn't tell Harry how to destroy a horcrux. snipsnip > > But I also think horcrux hunting in the way Dumbledore performed > > it in HBP won't happen in the Book 7. Been there, done that, after > > all, and JKR isn't one to repeat herself, especially when she has > > about a thousand other things to deal with in Book 7! Certainly > > the rest of the horcruxes will be addressed and destroyed, but > > probably in a manner and perhaps with an expediency we can't yet > > fathom ;-) > > Mike again: > I agree, there won't be a lot of paragraphs wasted on the great > Horcrux hunt. But if, as you say, the rest of the Horcruxes must be > destroyed, I didn't see DD give Harry any lessons, verbal or non- > verbal, on how to do it. Like I questioned elsewhere, maybe > destroying Horcruxes is the easy step in this whole process and > Harry doesn't need any lessons on the destruction part. Maybe the > whole trick is getting your hands on the things, avoiding or getting > around any spells/booby-traps that LV set up to protect the things. > But we have no indication in canon that this is the case. AmanitaMuscaria now: Perhaps - your posts got me thinking - perhaps this is a classic JKR big red herring? Maybe Harry doesn't need to do anything with the horcruxes? Maybe the point is exactly that Harry can possess Lord Voldemort without coming to any harm, whereas LV can't possess Harry without great pain? OK, what happens if Harry and LV duel, and it's a duel of possession? If Harry kills LV, AND destroys the soul part in LV, what happens then? Obviously, I don't know, nor does anyone except JKR. But as everyone has said, Dumbledore hasn't shown Harry how to disable horcruxes. Harry isn't going to believe anything Snape might tell him about disabling horcruxes, as he believes Snape is a DeathEater. JKR isn't going to have the last book be a long horcrux hunt, she's got too much else to write for that. I'm wondering, though, if LV got it totally wrong. He's been busy splitting his soul and storing pieces all over the place. And, perhaps, if he just gets killed, however that happened in Godric's Hollow, he's ok - he's protected by his horcruxes. But if he gets killed AND the soul piece in him is destroyed, maybe his little soul orphans just - sort of - vanish? JMO. AmanitaMuscaria From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jul 16 15:43:46 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:43:46 -0000 Subject: Harry's Soul with Harry as horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155460 > Alla: > > Okay, yes, this **is** my question and I am still not quite clear. > What does Dumbledore assume when he makes this remark? > > Is it your argument that when Dumbledore says that Harry's soul > is "untarnished and whole" , what he **really** means to say is > that "Harry's soul is untarnished and whole, **except** that piece > of Voldie that we don't count"? > > Am I making sense to you? It seems to me that even if Voldie piece > is not meshed with Harry's soul, it is still in Harry and it just > seems strange to me to say it that way, **if** Dumbledore knows? > > If he does not know, Okay, I can see him saying that. Pippin: I don't think he knows, but he knows it's a possibility, one that he doesn't like very much and prefers not to speak of, like the horcruxes themselves. Is it possible that the pieces that tear off of Voldemort's soul when he murders are pure and untarnished? The Diary was evil, but the Diary was also imprinted with Voldemort's personality, which according to Dumbledore only rests in the core soul. Maybe Voldemort has been losing his innocence literally. Alla: Oh, totally, that is one of the most important reasons I never > bought Dumbledore wanted to die on the Tower argument. > Pippin: Of course he did not want to die, not in the sense that he had nothing to live for. But if he had something to die for, and it was more important than anything else, then he would die, IMO. We know from the Fluffy episode that unlike some wizards, Snape can only zap one target at a time. Even if Snape wasn't incapacitated by the vow, there would still be spells flying all over the place if a fight started. Harry was frozen and wouldn't have been able to duck. He'd have been helpless if a stray spell or a piece of debris hit him. Pippin From triinum at yahoo.com Sun Jul 16 06:15:29 2006 From: triinum at yahoo.com (triinum) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 06:15:29 -0000 Subject: Harry's Soul with Harry as horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155461 > Alla: > > Okay, yes, this **is** my question and I am still not quite clear. > What does Dumbledore assume when he makes this remark? > > Is it your argument that when Dumbledore says that Harry's soul > is "untarnished and whole" , what he **really** means to say is > that "Harry's soul is untarnished and whole, **except** that piece > of Voldie that we don't count"? Triin: He could mean that when all other horcruxes (and V's body) are gone and it comes down to who gets to use *Harry's* body - Harry soul or V soul fragment - then Harry's soul wins because its untarnished and whole, while the V soul fragment is only a piece. Just an idle thought. T From triinum at yahoo.com Sun Jul 16 07:02:07 2006 From: triinum at yahoo.com (triinum) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 07:02:07 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155462 > Carol: > I don't think it's that simple, or the Hat would automatically have > placed Harry in Gryffindor, the House that both his parents had been > sorted into. Instead, it hesitates, pointing out that he has courage, > lots of talent, "not a bad mind," and a thirst to prove himself, and > then it asks *itself*, not Harry, "Where shall I put you?" Even when > Harry thinks, "Not Slytherin! Not Slytherin!" it argues that he would > do well ther. It's only when Harry makes it clear that he doesn't want > to go there that the Hat chooses what it appears to be the second-best > fit, Gryffindor. Triin: Alright, I'm convinced. And that makes me more sure that the hat is illogical. As I understand, courage is a Gryf trait, talent and "good mind" are Ravenclaw traits shared by Slytherins, and a thirst to prove oneself is a shared Gryf-Slyth trait. Then why Slyth and no Gryff *or* 'Claw? What is it about Harry's personality that makes him so Slytherin that the hat had to be begged not to put him there? He is such a *straightfoward* person, with a "saving people thing", etc; to me he sounds like an epitome of Gryffindor values.. > Carol: > I think the Hat really makes an effort to put the students where it > thinks they belong, giving equal weight to Slytherin and with no bias > against it (though it dislikes the idea of "quartering" in general and > later advocates unity among the Houses). Triin: If I was the hat, I'd be clever and sort all personality types to all houses equally, different Weasleys to different houses, and so forth. That would soften the edges down in no time! > Carol: > so Frank was probably a Gryffindor, too. Yet Neville's placement in > Gryffindor is not automatic. Possibly, the Hat placed him there > because he begged it to do so even though it thought he was better > suited to Hufflepuff.) Triin: I'm puzzled why people tend to sort Neville to Hufflepuff. To me he reads like a *natural* loner, not a *forced* one. I don't think he'd be comfortable in Hufflepuff where you are expected to do team work and be *social*. He seems the sort who lives in his own little separate world and only pays little visits to the reality. I always thought the hat took so long because there is actually *no house* where Neville fits in perfectly. Perhaps the hat was contemplating Ravenclaw, for that's a house for intellectual loners. Only he's not all that intellectual (I don't mean that he's not *intelligent*; I'm uncomfortable with the notion that "intelligent people go to Ravenclaw". I think *intellectuals* go there, which is a different thing). But he *is* very brave, and has a hidden pride so strong that he'll jump to almost certain death for reasons of chivalry, nobility, revenge and honour. Gryffindor material alright. Triin, who always feels sorry for Hufflepuffs and craves for a Big Day For Hufflepuff to occur in Book 7, in which the Hufflepuffs save the world... From caaf at hotmail.com Sun Jul 16 09:49:44 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:49:44 -0000 Subject: Harry getting Unfrozen on the Tower... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155463 > > zgirnius: > No, I don't think the look was for Harry (I can't speak for Carol, > though...). I think Snape figured Harry's presence out (or at > least, that it was highly likely) the moment he showed up on the > scene. Draco noticed the broom...so of course Snape would catch that > detail, we have plenty of evidence that he is an obervant person. > And, logical man that he is, I think he could make a good guess as to > who would have been going on a mysterious errand with Dumbledore that > evening. > > Nope, I think the look of hatred and revulsion was a reaction to a > suggestion/order Dumbledore communicated to him via Legilimency. He > looked at Dumbledore, got the expression of hatred/revulsion, and > still did nothing. Then Dumbledore (seeing it? interpreting it > correctly?) said "Severus, please". Only then did Snape raise his > wand and kill him. > > I don't think that the similarity of the feelings shown on Snape's > face on the Tower, and the feelings reported by the narrator for > Harry in the Cave ("Hating himself, repulsed by what he was > doing...") is a coincidence. > Hi, I quite agree that SS knew that Harry had gone with DD. However, there is not reason to believe: a) That Harry was still on Tower - he could already have gone ahead (though unlikely) b) Not too sure about the amount of space the top of the tower had - but I doubt that Snape would know exactly where on it HP was located, and hence he would have to cast the spell in multiple directions to hope to get Harry unfrozen. He would also have to know that harry was indeed frozen - and who else could let him know all this ifo except DD. Absolutely agree that Snape did not want Harry getting into the fight and probably released Harry only at the last possible mooment. Wonder if this provides any additional clues to whether SS was indeed DD's man or not - because it could be read both ways: Option A - To prevent putting Harry in danger - leave him under the spell for someone else to locate (maybe even send an Owl/Patronus message later on if required - am sure Snape would not think too much of Harry to be frozen for sometime longer on the Tower) Option B - Release him at the end of the scene on top of the Tower and hope that he does get into trouble later on - at a point when Snape could not really protect him - thus in a way washing his hands of HP - but in such a way that Harry's death/injury could not be under Snape's nose. This maybe a way to interpret a possible UV that SS may have made wityh DD/Lily to protect Harry - and Snape can easily use the wording to play with options as to when he would really look out harry. For example in OOTP ministry scene - Snape did not participate. This is shown as wanting to blow his cover for either side - since if he was there he would have to fight alongside the DE's as well as ensure Harry's safety. But buy not being at the scene, he would not be responsible for Harry's life even under the UV. Have gone off the original thought in my earlier post - but do feel that it throws some more light on our ever slippery friend :) Cyril From whtwitch91 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 16 14:00:34 2006 From: whtwitch91 at yahoo.com (whtwitch91) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:00:34 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155464 I've held this theory since February and it has stood the test of time unlike many of my theories that fall apart under careful scrutiny. So, here is my theory. See what you think. I believe that DD had discovered the cave and the locket long before he took Harry there. Indeed I am convinced that Snape has been DD's man and together they hatched this plot. This night was to be the pivotal point in a plan that probably stretched back to a time before Harry came to Hogwarts, because they both believed that Voldemort was not really permanently dead. I will skip the theory on the 24 hour mystery since I am still working on that part. I believe that at some point prior to the beginning of book 6 they determinded that the end of this year Snape would go undercover with Voldemort. It was the only way to discover the location of the other horcruxes. And he was to take the fake locket horcrux with him. "See, Master, I was able to take this from DD. Of course, I killed him for you as well." That way Voldemort would know someone was on to his horcruxes and he would immediately start to check up on them. DD would be waiting, Snape would be trusted to help by Voldemort, and together Snape and DD would use Vol. to find all the pesty things. DD and Snape were to have their confrontation at Hogsmead where Alberforth would be available to assist the "dead" DD. They could have pulled the whole thing off. Snape would have been imbedded with Voldemort, his golden, most honored ally, unimpeachable. DD in hiding, waiting to pounce. It was a good plan. Unfortunately Draco messed it up. The confrontation took place on the tower, in front of a lot of witnesses, not just Harry who had been conditioned for 6 years to expect the worst of Snape. Snape was forced to improvise the plan, leave without the fake horcrux, levitate DD off the tower, and not be able to check up on what had happened until days later. No wonder he was full of hate . and revulsion. The whole plan was messed up. That's what DD was pleading with him to do. Improvise. Finish the plan. What are the clues that led me to this? Harry left DD in his office. After Harry left, how easy it was to put up the picture on the wall, to give final instrctions to Fawkes. Didn't the whole cave thing seem to come too easy to DD, finding the entrance, getting the boat? And DD was calling for Harry to get Snape at Hogsmeade. All this year DD had been hinting that he anticipated death. And it was to be the last year at Hogwarts for Snape. Ohterwise DD wouldn't have appointed him the DADA instructor. There are other clues as well that you can find, many in Book 1. This isn't well written, I know. I should flesh it out more but I really am conflicted about posting this. I meant to hold on to it and still haven't pushed the button to post. But ever after throwing us those tidbits about changing her mind about who lives and who dies, it really isn't enough. She should update her website, she should write faster. How can we wait one more full year wihout sliding over the edge? I might even give up the clue of the snake. Anyway, I predict that DD will show up about the halfway point or earlier. And Snape has to be on Harry's side to give him the clue about the snake, and that has to be well before the end. So I really am going to post this, after all. I must spend less time on Harry Potter and more time weeding my garden. Sue, going to look for her trowel. From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Jul 16 17:00:04 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:00:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155465 Triin: What is it about Harry's personality that makes him so Slytherin that the hat had to be begged not to put him there? He is such a *straightfoward* person, with a "saving people thing", etc; to me he sounds like an epitome of Gryffindor values.. Sherry now: But the hat did not have to be begged not to put Harry in Slytherin. There's nothing to indicate that the Hat wanted to put him there in the beginning. It is Harry who first says, "not Slytherin". I felt like the following discussion was the hat's almost taunting Harry, are you sure about that? Slytherin could be good for you. That kind of thing. I don't read it as the Hat being convinced against its will to put Harry In Gryffindor. At first, he's considering all the houses, which is obvious by how it runs through all those characteristics. I imagine everyone has qualities prized in all the houses. I think Harry was meant to be in Gryffindor, and that unlike what so many seem to see in that scene, it was never the Hat's second choice for Harry. Sherry From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jul 16 17:00:04 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 16 Jul 2006 17:00:04 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/16/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1153069204.18.30281.m41@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155466 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday July 16, 2006 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Event Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Jul 16 17:50:28 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:50:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What really happened on the tower In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607161050w393588den410c9f2736247a3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155467 > Sue wrote: > > ... > I believe that DD had discovered the cave and the locket long before > he took Harry there. Indeed I am convinced that Snape has been DD's > man and together they hatched this plot. This night was to be the > pivotal point in a plan that probably stretched back to a time > before Harry came to Hogwarts, because they both believed that > Voldemort was not really permanently dead. I will skip the theory on > the 24 hour mystery since I am still working on that part. > Kemper now: This part confused me and made it difficult for me to follow the rest of your reasoning. If DD and Snape knew of the fake locket before hand, why would DD go through the potion at the cave? For theatrics? Or, are you saying the potion was fake as well and that DD put Harry through some emotional hell in order to make Harry stronger? >Sue: ... snip ... > > Anyway, I predict that DD will show up about the halfway point or > earlier. And Snape has to be on Harry's side to give him the clue > about the snake, and that has to be well before the end. > . Kemper now: While I'm a big fan of DD and Snape working to rid the world of Voldemort's Horcruxes, I don't think Harry will know that until _after_ he faces and vanquishes the Dark Lord. It makes for higher drama if the reader believes that one or two of the Horcruxes still exists when Harry and Voldemort duel. Kemper, who predicts that we will see no DD until story's end and what little we see of Snape will be used red herrings. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jul 16 17:54:59 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:54:59 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155468 houyhnhnm: > > And when did Gryffindor morph into the House > > for those who Do The Right Thing? That is really > > being Gryffindor-centric. Dung: > No, absolutely, I didn't mean to imply that (though > looking back I realise I may have inadvertantly done so). > Sydney was wondering why JKR didn't put the twins in > Slytherin, and I suggested that if the sorting hat sort > people according to what traits they *prize*, rather > than which traits they *have*, it makes more sense. houyhnhnm: I didn't think you meant that. I was combining my replies to you and Magpie into one post, but was too lazy to separate them on the page. I agree that the Hat probably sorts students according to the traits they prize. I can't except the idea that someone's character is fully formed at the age of eleven. And real people are a mixture of traits anyway, as are the characters in HP. Dung: > Which makes me wonder whether Arthur might have got his > point across to the twins better if he'd pointed out that > using magic on Muggles is a bit *cowardly*, abusing an > advantage like that, particularly with no provocation. houyhnhnm: Too bad he didn't think of it, but then none of the adults in the WW seem to be very good at getting their points across to teenagers. Marion: > Red Hen did a wonderful essay on the way the Hat decides > which House a kid is Sorted in, the Houses themselves and > probes the possibility that the Hat has been tampered with: houyhnhnm: I had considered the possibility that the Hat may have been tampered with by Tom Riddle, but I think there is another way it could have happened. I do wonder about how and when the Hat was transfigured into a magical object. Was it before or after the split between Salazar Slythrin and Godric Gryffindor? It seems to me that a Sorting Hat would not have been needed when the school was founded because the founders could have used their own judgement to sort students. It seems logical that it was only as they aged and began to consider the future of Hogwarts after they were gone, that they would have wanted to create the Hat. The Hat itself said: While still alive they did divide Their favourites from the throng, Yet how to pick the worthy ones When they were dead and gone? 'Twas Gryffindor who found the way, He whipped me off his head The founders put some brains in me So I could choose instead! I have been wondering if this happened after Slytherin split from the others. Rowling has told us that the four Houses correspond to the four elements. I'm not into the occult; I'm not looking for some kind of esoteric clue. What I think is important about the classical elements is that in that cosmology (which is common to all branches of the occult, astrology, tarot, etc.) there is the idea that no element is superior to any other. All four are necessary. Each fundamental approach to life represented by the four elements is equally capable of being bad or good depending on how it is expressed. She hasn't just told us; she has shown us. She has even shown us the positive side of water (healing power is one example). But from the Hat, all we get of Slytherin characteristics is the negative: "Those cunning folk use any means To achieve their ends." And power-hungry Slytherin Loved those of great ambition." It sounds like a Gryffindor stereotype of Slytherin. So what I am wondering is if the Hat was created *after* Slytherin departed, did the other three founders put into it what they *thought* constituted the qualities that Slytherin prized and did they get it wrong. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Jul 16 19:45:45 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:45:45 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155469 "whtwitch91" wrote: > And he was to take the fake locket > horcrux with him. "See, Master, I was > able to take this from DD. Of course, > I killed him for you as well." That way > Voldemort would know someone was on to > his horcruxes and he would immediately > start to check up on them. If the good guys wanted Voldemort to know that they knew all about his Horcruxes (and that would be the last thing on planet Earth they'd want to do) all they'd have to do is send Voldemort a little note telling him about the one Harry had already destroyed and another one that Dumbledore had taken care of. > I predict that DD will show up about > the halfway point or earlier. I predicted right after book 4 came out that Dumbledore would die at the end of book 6, and not a comic book death (see lord of the rings) where the wizard dies and then somehow comes back, Dumbledore will really and permanently be dead. For artistic reasons JKR had to do it, when Harry and Voldemort have their apocalyptic fight in book 7 he must do so alone. > here is my theory. See what you think. Your theory doesn't explain some things. If Snape is really a good guy how could he be so brain dead dumb as to make that unbreakable vow? Snape was already the most trusted adviser Voldemort had, so how did him murdering the most powerful wizard the good guys had help the good guys? And there's something wlse not often commented on: In chapter 2 Snape said he helped provide information that caused the death of Sirius Black. If that wasn't true why did he say it? How did he expect to get away with a lie of that magnitude to the two people who know more about the incident than anyone else on planet Earth? Kreature went to Narcissa and told her secret stuff about Sirius, and Bellatrix was the one who actually killed him. Snape would be a absolute fool to say that if it wasn't true. Those two knew the truth and if they thought Snape's boast was full of hot air one or both would have said something, but they did not. Eggplant From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jul 16 20:32:23 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:32:23 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Your theory doesn't explain some things. If Snape is really a good guy > how could he be so brain dead dumb as to make that unbreakable vow? > Snape was already the most trusted adviser Voldemort had, so how did > him murdering the most powerful wizard the good guys had help the good > guys? And there's something wlse not often commented on: > colebiancardi: brain-dead? Well, maybe not. I don't think Snape is as trusted with Voldemort as he states he is; I don't think Voldemort TRUSTS anyone really. Why did he made the UV? Many people have addressed that - my short version (as I have commented on it a lot in the past) is that he needed to protect Draco. DD HAS always protected the student's at Hogwarts, always. To prevent a youth from committing the unspeakable crime of splitting a soul or murder is something DD would have wanted Snape to do - even if it meant Snape's soul(which I think has been damaged due to his ex-Death Eater days). DD stated that Harry was more important than himself; Snape saved Harry from certain death up in the tower, IMHO. How did Snape's "murder" of DD help the good guys? Well, it prevented several more people from dying, such as Harry, such as Draco, such as the OotP. DD made Snape the DADA's teacher, knowing that it would be Snape's last year at Hogwarts; the book doesn't state, but I have the feeling that DD made Snape the DADA after Snape told him he made that UV. The plan to have Snape go back into hiding in LV's lair was probably made then. > eggplant: In chapter 2 Snape said he helped provide information that caused the > death of Sirius Black. If that wasn't true why did he say it? How did > he expect to get away with a lie of that magnitude to the two people > who know more about the incident than anyone else on planet Earth? > Kreature went to Narcissa and told her secret stuff about Sirius, and > Bellatrix was the one who actually killed him. Snape would be a > absolute fool to say that if it wasn't true. Those two knew the truth > and if they thought Snape's boast was full of hot air one or both > would have said something, but they did not. > colebiancardi: Snape's job as a double spy is an "act". He takes chances. He lied because Bella & Cissie aren't on "good terms" with LV. Snape even mocks Bella about her being LV's most "trusted" servant. Kreacher is mad, crazy and how would he know anything? Since DD questioned Kreacher, who is to say that DD didn't do a little modification on Kreacher's memory? Bella & Cissie don't know much of anything, when you break it down. Cissie is not part of LV's crew - her husband is and he is locked away in prison. Bella is just as mad as Kreacher. colebiancardi From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jul 16 21:25:52 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:25:52 -0000 Subject: Scar/Acromantula/Twins/SnapeSuffer/FoundersRooms/SortingNeville&Seamus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155471 Ken Hutchinson wrote in : << end up looking like Mad-Eye. I could see this fear coming to pass in the process of removing a soul fragment from Harry. Given Fleur's example I can see Ginny not caring about how Harry looks too. I hope the series ends on that note anyway, no matter how it is accomplished. >> So the famous last word 'scar' is in a sentence like 'He laughed, remembering when he been embarrassed about having one lone scar"? Leah wrote in : << someone must have obtained an acromantula egg from South America (FB says they live in Brazil) >> *My* copy of FB says Acromantulae originated in Borneo. Marion Ros wrote in : << the same kid brother whose teddy they transformed into a spider, giving him a lovely phobia, >> "when I was three [so the twins were 5], Fred turned my - my teddy bear into a great big fiIthy spider because I broke his toy broomstick .... " 'Fred', not 'they'. I erased the rest of this paragraph because Eric Oppen said it better (of course) in . "whose pet puffskein they've murdered when they used it as a bludger at Quidditch practice >> I'm inclined to think so -- just another example that Rowling doesn't care about cruelty to animals. But when I went on about it at length, someone pointed out that 1) Ron's scribble in FB doesn't say that it died, 2) and magical people are extremely resilient (e.g. Neville surviving the fall from the runaway broom in PS/SS) so magical beasts might also be, 3) so maybe it wasn't killed or badly injured, just pained and annoyed, so it ran away to a better home. Alla wrote in : << At least hopefully JKR will fulfill my wish and would write **one** scene with Snape suffering and helpless. >> That was the OoP Pensieve scene. Tonks_op wrote in : << I am wonder if each of the founders has a secret room in the castle. >> I think that was recently suggested, with the Headmaster's Office as the Gryffindor Room and the Kitchen as the Hufflepuff Room. Maybe the the Library (at least the Restricted Section) is the Ravenclaw Room, rather than the Room of Requirement. Then the Great Hall could be the room of all four Houses joining together. While Dumbledore was the first person to mention what turned out to be the Room of Requirement to us readers, I seriously doubt he was the first person to discover it. When Harry found it as 'place to hide things', it was a *huge* room stuffed to the gills with different junk. I think it is supposed to have taken many hundreds of years of hiding things in it to accumulate that much junk. DD mentioned it in conversation with Karkaroff while dining at the Head Table at the Yule Ball in GoF. If Karkaroff had never been a Hogwarts student or staff member, then he wouldn't know to say "Oh, that's the Room of Requirement, you must be the *las*t person to have discovered it." Percy was listening in on the conversation, but Percy would never contradict the Headmaster like that in public while the Headmaster was still in Ministry favor. If Cedric or Roger or Parvati or Cho (I'm trying to think of Hogwarts people at that table) heard the remark, if they knew about the RoR, they wouldn't contradict their Headmaster, either. Harry, who did hear it, and Hermione, who was positioned to hear it, apparently didn't know about the RoR (because when they were looking for where to have DA club, neither of them thought of RoR until Dobby suggested it). Y'know, if DD said that simply to drop a hint to Harry, which Harry didn't pick up on, then maybe he was supposed to walk his screaming egg three times past that stretch of wall instead of waiting for Cedric to give him the password to the prefect's bathroom... Carol wrote in : << Yet Neville's placement in Gryffindor is not automatic. Possibly, the Hat placed him there because he begged it to do so even though it thought he was better suited to Hufflepuff.) >> I think Sorting Neville took so long because the Hat wanted to put him in Gryffindor almost immediately, but he argued with it, insisting he only belonged in Hufflepuff. Eventually the Hat told him that anyone who argues *that* vehemently with a powerful magical object has enough courage to be in -- "GRYFFINDOR!" For many years I was *certain* that it *meant something* that it took almost an entire minute to Sort Seamus. I thought maybe he would turn traitor like Pettigrew at a particularly dramatic and dangerous moment ... Maybe his distrust of Harry in OoP foreshadowed that ... But now it would seem out of left field to have a conversation like: Hermione: "How could you give Harry to Voldemort for thirty pieces of silver?! What kind of Gryffindor are you?!" Seamus: "The Sorting Hat wanted to put me in Slytherin but I argued." From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 16 21:45:32 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:45:32 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155472 > Eggplant wrote: > I predicted right after book 4 came out that Dumbledore would die at > the end of book 6, and not a comic book death (see lord of the rings) > where the wizard dies and then somehow comes back, Dumbledore will > really and permanently be dead. For artistic reasons JKR had to do it, > when Harry and Voldemort have their apocalyptic fight in book 7 he > must do so alone. > Gandalf's resurrection may seem comic book to you, it isn't if you know the backstory though. You can be forgiven if you don't since I don't think Tolkien gives much of it in the main story. There may be enough to piece it together in the material at the end for those who bother with it. DD and Gandalf are in no way equivalent. DD is a human wizard, Gandalf only appears to be one. Like the evil opponent, Sauron, Gandalf is a spirit being, a lesser angel. Sauron is a fallen angel, Gandalf remains true to the cause. There is nothing comic book about Gandalf's ressurection, the destruction of his physical body did not harm his essence and he was merely sent back to Middle Earth to coninue his mission. Sauron himself returned from the death of his physical body, possibly more than once, I forget now. If Gandalf's ressurection is comic book than LV's is no less. It is only the lack (we presume) of a horcrux that prevents DD from making a comic book return of his own. For all we know DD does have a horcrux. He "defeated" the dark wizard Grindlewald. We know nothing about this event except that it may have presented DD with the opportunity to make a horcrux. I know many here would find the idea abhorrent. I know it doesn't seem like the DD we know and I know that DD hates horcruxes. Yet it is possible. Ex smokers are often the strongest supporters of anti-smoking laws after all. I tend to think that DD is playing possum. There are "clues" in the text that point every which way so I don't see any way to hold a firm opinion of DD's fate. I agree that he and JKR feel that Harry needs to face LV alone so dead or alive I don't expect him to try to help Harry face to face. I expect that he will help Harry behind the scenes either in person, or if dead, by means of plans he set in motion before his death. The resurrected Gandal did not appear to Frodo and Sam but he did help them by creating the most excellent diversions. Ken From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jul 16 22:10:15 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:10:15 -0000 Subject: Question to Neri and other supporters of Harry as horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155473 > Alla: > What I have not seen anybody addressing though yet and if I missed > it, please refer me to the relevant post? :) > > That is Rebecca's reference to Dumbledore's remark that Harry's soul > is "untarnished and whole". > > So, to anybody who thinks that Harry is a Horcrux, what is your > interpretation of Dumbledore's remark, especially since JKR said > that Dumbledore's guesses are never far off mark ( paraphrase), I > think specifically in relation to horcruxes? > > Do you think Dumbledore is lying here? Do you think he does not know? > > Do you think that Harry's soul somehow could be "untarnished and > whole" with the piece of Voldy sould attached to it? ( I confess I > find this interpretation to be highly unlikely) Neri: I thought that Rebbeca's original post was actually for the Horcrux!Harry theory, although she didn't use that term. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/153541 Going by Dumbledore's logic, it's Harry's *choices* that show the true condition of his soul, not the soul's composition or origin. In fact, in that very paragraph were Dumbledore talks about the Harry's "untarnished and whole" soul he says it was in spite of" "temptations", "suffering" and "lure of power like Voldemort's". How exactly was Harry lured by powers like Voldemort's? JKR first used the prophecy as a cheap plot device, but one book later she made it thematic, and the theme was the theme of choices. I expect her to do a similar thing with the Horcruxes plot device, and the theme will be the same. Neri, embarrassed by the compliments. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jul 16 22:36:33 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:36:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What really happened on the tower/RoR. References: Message-ID: <009701c6a928$4af2a600$38ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155474 >> eggplant: In chapter 2 Snape said he helped provide information that > caused the >> death of Sirius Black. If that wasn't true why did he say it? How did >> he expect to get away with a lie of that magnitude to the two people >> who know more about the incident than anyone else on planet Earth? >> Kreature went to Narcissa and told her secret stuff about Sirius, and >> Bellatrix was the one who actually killed him. Snape would be a >> absolute fool to say that if it wasn't true. Those two knew the truth >> and if they thought Snape's boast was full of hot air one or both >> would have said something, but they did not. >> > > colebiancardi: > > Snape's job as a double spy is an "act". He takes chances. He lied > because Bella & Cissie aren't on "good terms" with LV. Snape even > mocks Bella about her being LV's most "trusted" servant. Kreacher is > mad, crazy and how would he know anything? Since DD questioned > Kreacher, who is to say that DD didn't do a little modification on > Kreacher's memory? Magpie: Snape's claim is incredibly vague--he just provided information that led to his death, right? It could have been anything. That read to me as an easy way for Snape to stick himself into the story. That Narcissa doesn't contradict him doesn't say to me that he's telling the truth, just that she believes it could be true. It doesn't contradict her knowledge. Catlady: While Dumbledore was the first person to mention what turned out to be the Room of Requirement to us readers, I seriously doubt he was the first person to discover it. When Harry found it as 'place to hide things', it was a *huge* room stuffed to the gills with different junk. I think it is supposed to have taken many hundreds of years of hiding things in it to accumulate that much junk. Magpie: Don't the Twins say they found it as well? I think they said it was a broom closet when they needed a place to hide from Filch. It's just they, like Harry in GoF, don't figure out that it's the room they need. They just thought it was a broom closet. -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 00:30:03 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:30:03 -0000 Subject: James left Cloak with DD - Why? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > > Christmas in PS/SS, Harry got James' invisibility cloak with this > note - > > "Your father left this in my possession before he died. It is time > it was returned to you. Use it well. > A Very Merry Christmas to you." > > So why did James leave it with DD? Not for DD to use ... > > "I don't need a cloak to become invisible," DD > > Now that we know more about the lead up to that Halloween when James > and Lily died, does this message seem odd to anyone? > > James, Lily and Harry are in hiding, yet leave an invisibility cloak > with the head of OOTP. James would have found it handy to move > around outside, but DD must have convinced him someone else needed > it more than him. > > Any ideas? Someone escaping (RAB), or someone spying? > Tonks: I have always assumed that it was left behind when he was a student. Sort of like the Mauraders Map was left at Hogwarts. I have never thought that there was anything important about it. Maybe it was conficated for some wrong doing and James just never went back to get it. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 00:39:35 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:39:35 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155476 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > It is only the lack (we presume) of a horcrux that prevents DD from making a comic book return of his own. For all we know DD does have a horcrux. > He "defeated" the dark wizard Grindlewald. We know nothing about > this event except that it may have presented DD with the opportunity to make a horcrux. I know many here would find the idea abhorrent. I know it doesn't seem like the DD we know and I know that DD hates horcruxes. Yet it is possible. Ex smokers are often the strongest supporters of anti-smoking laws after all. > Tonks: DD does not need an invisibility cloak to be invisible. And he does not need a horcrux to return. He is not bound to the earth like LV. He is really dead. For a true resurrection, the person needs to be truly dead. We will see DD again. Not till the end, but He will return in all the glory that is a true Phoenix. Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 17 01:04:21 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:04:21 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155477 Eggplant: > In chapter 2 Snape said he helped provide information that caused the > death of Sirius Black. If that wasn't true why did he say it? How did > he expect to get away with a lie of that magnitude to the two people > who know more about the incident than anyone else on planet Earth? > Kreature went to Narcissa and told her secret stuff about Sirius, and > Bellatrix was the one who actually killed him. Snape would be a > absolute fool to say that if it wasn't true. Those two knew the truth > and if they thought Snape's boast was full of hot air one or both > would have said something, but they did not. Pippin: Narcissa's there to beg a favor, literally on bended knee, from someone who is "the only one who can help me." She's hardly in a position to call Snape's bluff. If pressed for details, Snape can claim to have helped Kreacher defect. Since Kreacher is currently in Dumbledore's custody, there's no way for either Narcissa or Bella to check up on the story. It's also possible that Snape is telling the truth and that information on Sirius was intentionally passed with Dumbledore's permission. A double agent has to give some genuine information to the enemy in order to establish his usefulness. It would be safe enough for Voldemort to learn that Sirius was in London, for example, provided Sirius remained in hiding at GP. Pippin From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 01:42:31 2006 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:42:31 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman, Blondie and the Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155478 --- Goddlefrood wrote: > > My conclusion is that the BBDE is none other than Ludovic Bagman and > what follows sets out supporting material for this view and also the > opinion that Bagman was and is a Death Eater whether reluctantly or > otherwise. > CV: I have no problem with Ludo Bagman being the blond death eater, although I had some other ideas. But I'm pretty sure that Blondie is a Good Guy based on his actions during the Battle of Hogwarts. All of Blondie's actions are helpful to Harry and the Order and seem to be designed to keep Harry out of trouble and permit Snape to escape safely with Draco. Let's review the actions in the proper chronology: BATTLE OF HOGWARTS (tm) Death Eaters arrive through the vanishing cabinet. They start a fight with members of the Order. Blondie, who is described as "enormous" is blasting curses everywhere, but always just misses Order members. He is making a mess of the castle, though. Gibbon, a DE, goes to the top of the Astronomy Tower and sets off the Dark Mark. His orders are to stay there and wait for Dumbledore, but he disobeys and comes back down to join the fight. Blondie, who is fighting Tonks, "accidentally" kills him with an AK, apparently meant for Ginnie. Neville is hurt, Bill is bitten. Dumbledore and Harry arrive at the top of the Tower. Malfoy slips through the battle and goes to the top of the Tower. Fenrir, Amycus, Alecto and Brutal-face go up the tower stairs and lock the entrance behind them. Fenrir starts to bite Dumbledore, but Brutal-face stops him by blasting him out of the way. Snape arrives. Snape AK's Dumbledore. Snape and Malfoy flee the tower. Greyback, Amycus and Alecto follow. Brutal-face gets frozen, possibly by Harry. Harry runs down the tower. Greyback attacks Harry. Someone (Blondie?) freezes Greyback, stopping him from doing permanent damage to Harry. Harry pushes Greyback off him. A flash of green light comes toward him but doesn't connect with anyone. (Blondie threatening Greyback with an AK?) Ginnie is fighting Amycus who is trying to Crucio her. Harry blasts him away. Blondie is fighting Tonks and again is missing all the vitals but doing heavy damage to the surroundings. Harry is trying to follow Snape, but Blondie's blasts slow him down. Harry hexes Blondie, painfully, and is able to resume chasing Amycus, Alecto and Snape. Someone (Blondie?) is calling Harry to come back, but Harry ignores it. Harry races toward the front doors. He turns a corner and a curse (apparently) misses him, knocking over a suit of armor. (From whom?) He sees Amycus and Alecto. He attempts to jinx them, but misses. He jumps over the suit of armor (Was the curse actually aimed at the suit of armor to create an obstacle to slow down Harry as he chases down Snape?) Harry takes a short cut. He arrives at the oak front doors which have been blasted and show signs of blood. The Gryffindor hourglass is broken and the rubies are falling onto the flagstones. (Another attempt to slow Harry down?) Harry runs through the oak doors and outside where he sees Snape, Malfoy and Blondie headed for the gates. (How did Blondie get ahead of Harry, anyway? Weird.) Hagrid tries to stop the three from escaping and gets repeatedly blasted by Blondie. The hexes do no damage to Hagrid. Amycus and Alecto hex Harry from behind. Harry falls down. He hexes them back, hitting one and causing the other to fall down. Blondie is buying time for Snape and Malfoy by repeatedly hexing Hagrid while Snape and Malfoy run towards their escape. Harry runs past Blondie and Hagrid and attempts to hex Snape. Snape tells Malfoy to run and turns to face Harry. Harry attempts to Crucio Snape but Snape parries, stopping Harry from completing the curse. Blondie Incendio's Hagrid's hut, stopping Harry from committing any more unforgiveable curses. Hagrid rushes to his hut to save Fang. Harry tries many curses on Snape which Snape parries easily. Snape does not attempt any hexes against Harry. Neither does Blondie. Someone painfully hexes Harry, possibly a crucio, but we don't hear it. Snape cancels the curse with a yell, and tells the caster of the curse that they are to leave Harry for Voldy. Possible casters of the curse are: Amycus, Alecto and Blondie who are all in position to do it. Based on past other history, my guess is that it is Amycus or Alecto. Amycus, Alecto and Blondie run for the gates. Snape stays behind to deal with Harry. Harry attempts Levicorpus and Snape blasts him. They have an impassioned discussion. Snape blasts Harry to the ground once more, knocking the breath out of him. Buckbeak attacks Snape. Snape heads for the gates, being chased by Buckbeak. Snape escapes. So, what is the conclusion here? In every case, Blondie and Snape's actions are helpful to Harry. Both stop Harry from casting Unforgiveable curses which could put Harry in Azkaban. Blondie's main purpose seems to be to interfere with Harry catching up with Snape. The only fatalities from Blondie's actions are Gibbon, who was disobeying orders, and the bowtruckles in Hagrid's hut. There was no way to know that flammable beasts could be in the path of fire and could not be rescued by Hagrid. They were unfortunate collateral damage. Otherwise, setting the Hut on fire was a safe diversion - the hut could be repaired by a skilled wizard and Hagrid could be relied upon to rescue any living thing inside. All evidence in the Battle of Hogwarts seems to point to Snape and Blondie being Good Guy double agents. CV > Goddlefrood who hopes not to rework this theory too many times and > would welcome comments > CV's comment is that she likes Goddlefrood's theory, but hopes she has rescued Blondie from loyal DE status with this post. From arwenrjl at aol.com Sun Jul 16 14:16:05 2006 From: arwenrjl at aol.com (arwengryffin) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:16:05 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : another question / Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155479 > zgirnius: > > While Voldemort did not achieve the killing of *Harry* he had > > just achieved two other killings, those of Harry's parents. So > > pieces of soul for encasement were available. > > Luna: > > And, DD was clear, Voldemort was intending to create his horcrux > with Harry's death, not Lily's or James's deaths. > Slughorn said that you need to commit murder. Lily and James were > killed, in fact, Voldemort didn't want to kill Lily at first, but > Harry was supposed to be murdered. arwengryffin: It's all very interesting. Obviously, there is a lot we don't know about that Halloween night at Godric's Hollow and it is going to be critical for the end of the series. There does seem to be an important link between Lily and Harry. We are told repeatedly that he has his mother's eyes. Ms. Rowling has said this is indeed important and we will learn more about this and about Lily in Book 7. Including what she did for a living, which I think will also prove to be important. We know she cast a spell right before she died. We know it was crtically important and that it protected Harry. However, we don't know exactly what it is. Is there any chance that Harry has not part of Voldemort's soul, but part of his mother's? From arwenrjl at aol.com Sun Jul 16 15:08:39 2006 From: arwenrjl at aol.com (arwengryffin) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:08:39 -0000 Subject: Age of Majority In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155480 > Geoff: > > > the cut-off date for admission to a specific > > > school year in the UK is 31st August, so he isn't a > > > single age throughout each school year, so there. :-) > > > > Kemper now: > > Are you saying that Harry wasn't the same whole-number age > > from the ever-Monday September 1 to June 30 of each year > > he's attended Hogwarts? > > Geoff: > > 'Term begins on 1 September. We await your owl by > no later then 31 July.' > (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.43 UK edition) > > I don't think that has anything to do with HP's > birthday. I think it would be a standard procedure > to set a deadline for replying so that lists, > registers, dormitories etc. could be organised. arwengryffin: This is a small point, but one of the things I find interesting about the date of Harry's birthday and the cut off date to start at Hogwarts is that it means Harry is one of the youngest in his class. Only those born in August would be younger than Harry in his year. Yet, he is clearly a leader. Hermione, for example, is 10 months older than Harry. Its just a point of interest. From arwenrjl at aol.com Sun Jul 16 15:36:56 2006 From: arwenrjl at aol.com (arwengryffin) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:36:56 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155481 > Betsy Hp: > But the thing that's been bothering me is that if the muggle > family attacked by Death Eaters a few days later had been the > Dursleys, Harry would have been amused at that point too. (snip) > > > Sherry now: > I do not believe Harry would have found it funny if the Dursleys > had been the muggles tormented at the world cup. Remember how > he saved Dudley from the dementors? Sure, dementors are far > worse than being flipped upside down, but I think Harry would > have been very uncomfortable and unhappy and disgusted if it had > happened to the Dursleys. He didn't even think it was funny when > it happened to Snape as done by James in the pensieve memory. I > think there is hope for Harry, and he's not as blas? as you might > think. arwengryffin: Thank you, Sherry for restoring a little reason here. I think people were going way off track. Harry does have real values and real morals. It is not just about revenge. Saving Dudley from the Dementors is a good example of that, as is feeling sympathy for Snape. There is a big, big differnce, folks, between the actions of the DE and the twins pulling a practical joke on Dudley or Hermione jinxing Marietta Edgecomb, who, after all betrayed the good side. The little turncoat. Keep in mind what the stakes are here. From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 16 23:03:11 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:03:11 -0400 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) References: Message-ID: <04dc01c6a92c$02d24e30$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 155482 Triin, who always feels sorry for Hufflepuffs and craves for a Big Day For Hufflepuff to occur in Book 7, in which the Hufflepuffs save the world... end snip Kellie now: Actually, I have wondered if Hufflepuff will play a more active roll in book seven and here is why. While I was researching online, trying to discover the reason for Hufflepuff's animal, a badger. I learned some interesting things about this creature. First, Because of their fidelity and gentle nature, badgers are seen by some as a symbol of love and loyalty. I had never known that, so now I know why it is the symbol for the Hufflepuff house. In folklore, they are considered to have great courage and to possess quick thinking. On another site, I read that badgers are typical gentle creatures but when cornered, they are ferocious fighters. That is why I wonder if we will see more from Hufflepuff in the final book. I imagine that things are going to be quite dark, and that everyone may get involved. Perhaps it is here that the Hufflepuffs take a more direct stand. Kellie who doesn't know but is eager to see what the seventh book has in store for us. From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 16 23:20:44 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:20:44 -0400 Subject: house emblems References: Message-ID: <055a01c6a92e$765fd6e0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 155483 I was thinking about the house emblems. It seems that the animal relates to the name of the founder of the house. Gryffindor, uses a lion, and a gryffin is part lion, snakes slither, hence Slytherin and eagles have talons, so it fits with Ravenclaw. However, does anyone know where the name Hufflepuff came from, in relation to using abadger? It doesn't seem apparent that the animal and the founders name fit, so I just wondered if there were any connection between them. Kellie From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 16 23:27:32 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:27:32 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore from Gryffindor References: Message-ID: <055d01c6a92f$698615f0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 155484 Ok, one more post from me and I am done for today. A friend and I were talking yesterday about the books. She asked if there was any proof in cannon to support Dumbledore being in Gryffindor when he was a student at Hogwarts. I honestly, can't say that I recall anything, though I may have missed something. I am rereading the books now and don't remember anything that said wich house Dumbledore was from. So I wasn't sure if it said, or did J. K. say in an interview that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor house? He is brave and would fit in Gryffindor, but I can also see him being a Ravenclaw. He is very clever, quite intelectual. An example is, In the first book, he used the Mirror of Erised to conceal the sorcerer's stone. He is very difficult to trick. So, I just wondered if anyone could tell me if what house he is from, is speculation or fact. Kellie who is just curious. From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 16 22:43:19 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:43:19 -0400 Subject: 4 Founders, 4 Elements, and Secret Rooms References: Message-ID: <03f501c6a929$3cbbed20$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 155485 snip Tonks > I am wonder if each of the founders has a secret room in the > castle. Each room would be associated with the element of that > house. If is theory is correct, what element would the Room of > Requirement be associated with? And what would be Hufflepuff? The > Womping Willow and the secret passage under it?? end snip Kellie now: This is an interesting thought and considering all the secrets Hogwarts has, I wouldn't be surprised. One comment with the womping willow with the tunnel under it. I suppose that it is possible that the tunnel could very well be the secret passage, but the willow couldn't be part of it. That hadn't been there since the founding of the school. That tree was planted when Lupen started going to Hogwarts. I have been thinking about this and wonder, would a tunnel be a secret room? We know about the chamber of secrets, and lets assume the room of requirement is a secret room from one of the founders of the school. If this is the case, it seems that the secret rooms are important or have some significance in some way. The chamber of secrets, while not considered a good thing to the rest of the school, was thought quite important to Salazar Slytherin. And the room of requirement, (let's assume that it is Ravenclaw because of the tricky way to get into it) provides whatever the person attempting to enter it needs. It has a purpose. I would think that the other secret rooms would have a purpose for them. Something out of the ordinary to distinguish them as different from all the other quarky things at Hogwarts. Could a tunnel be considered unusual enough for that? I am undecided, Just my thoughts on it. Kellie From arwenrjl at aol.com Sun Jul 16 18:37:46 2006 From: arwenrjl at aol.com (arwengryffin) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:37:46 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Marietta (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155486 > Carol: > > Punishing a person for snitching by "horribly disfigur[ing]" > > her with the word "SNEAK" across her face, perhaps permanently, > > isn't vengeance? How are you defining "vengeance," then? > > Alla: > > When you want to punish somebody for the wrong that is done > *after the fact*, I call it vengeance. Just as what Harry wants > to do to Snape, **that ** to me is vengeance. > > When somebody plans the protection of the group, not even knowing > whether the betrayal will happens, I call it the **protection > plans**. It could have been better executed protection plans, but > IMO what Hermione came up does not even come close to vengeance. arwengryffin: Notice too, guys, that Hermione's "sneak" hex does work to protect the DA. Once she breaks out, Marietta stops talking to Umbridge. It scares her into silence and Umbridge does not get her proof and DD is able to step in and salvage the situation and keep Harry at school. It reminds me of an ink or dye that is left behind on criminals who try to break into a vault or something. Hermione did her job and, IMO, is clearly and consistantly on the side of the good guys. She is not evil and she is not out for revenge, again IMO. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Jul 17 02:19:28 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:19:28 -0000 Subject: James left Cloak with DD - Why? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155487 > "Hagrid" wrote: > > > > Christmas in PS/SS, > > > > "Your father left this in my possession before he died. > > > > So why did James leave it with DD? Not for DD to use ... > > > > "I don't need a cloak to become invisible," DD > > > > Any ideas? Someone escaping (RAB), or someone spying? > > > > Tonks: > I have always assumed that it was left behind when he was a student. > Sort of like the Mauraders Map was left at Hogwarts. I have never > thought that there was anything important about it. Maybe it was > conficated for some wrong doing and James just never went back to > get it. > aussie: I know. I skimmed over it a few times without thinking. But Ron had said, "they're really rare, and really valuable". The Map is useful only at Hogwarts, but we have seen other things the cloak is useful for since then. RARE? - Snape has to use Harry's cloak in POA - I think we have only seen the Crouch's with a Cloak, no-one else. - OOTP get Harry to use it to leave Dursleys - but others didn't have one - DD tells Harry to keep it with him all year in HBP. So why did a person in hiding not need something that makes him invisible? ... What greater purpose did DD have for it? From arwenrjl at aol.com Sun Jul 16 14:06:09 2006 From: arwenrjl at aol.com (arwengryffin) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:06:09 -0000 Subject: What will become of Dolores Umbridge? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155488 Lupinlore wrote: > JKR has told us that we will be seeing Umbridge again, as she > wants to "torture her a bit more" before having done with her > -- > > Now, that raises an interesting question. What will become of > Dolores Umbridge? I offer the following delightful possibilities: > arwengryffin: Umbridge gets community service and is assigned to work with werewolves. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jul 17 03:04:10 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:04:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and Marietta (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) References: Message-ID: <00f001c6a94d$ad7d16f0$38ba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155489 > arwengryffin: > Notice too, guys, that Hermione's "sneak" hex does work to protect > the DA. Once she breaks out, Marietta stops talking to Umbridge. > It scares her into silence and Umbridge does not get her proof and > DD is able to step in and salvage the situation and keep Harry at > school. It reminds me of an ink or dye that is left behind on > criminals who try to break into a vault or something. Hermione did > her job and, IMO, is clearly and consistantly on the side of the > good guys. She is not evil and she is not out for revenge, again Magpie: She only stops talking because she happens to see the hex in a mirror, doesn't she (and somewhere a memory charm comes in)? That's not really something Hermione could count on. Umbridge gets the list of all the students involved and DD's "salvage" of the situation is to make Umbridge the headmistress. The hex does work like an ink that identifies the person, but it's not something that stops crime, it's something that helps you identify the person who did it afterwards. The way that Hermione's hex happens to stop Marietta from talking is pure chance. Her suffering afterwards (which is the revenge aspect) is inherent in the hex itself. Hermione herself even alludes to that when she tells us about the hex. -m From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 17 03:22:22 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:22:22 -0000 Subject: Room of Requirement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155490 Catlady wrote: > > While Dumbledore was the first person to mention what turned out to be > the Room of Requirement to us readers, I seriously doubt he was the > first person to discover it. When Harry found it as 'place to hide > things', it was a *huge* room stuffed to the gills with different > junk. I think it is supposed to have taken many hundreds of years of > hiding things in it to accumulate that much junk. > I think the supposed secrecy of the RoR is quite possibly the most implausible element of the Potterverse. A castle full of teenagers desperate for some privacy.... No, this would be the most well known room in the castle. They just wouldn't call it the room of requirement ;-) Ken From aceworker at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 03:34:46 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: James left Cloak with DD - Why? Message-ID: <20060717033446.96378.qmail@web30202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155491 Hagrid said: < Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155492 > aussie: > So why did a person in hiding not need something that makes him > invisible? ... What greater purpose did DD have for it? > Potioncat: The FC would protect James, Lily and Harry. Perhaps James left the cloak with DD for the Order's use. We'll see Order members use an IC in Harry's time (I've forgotten who it belonged to.) I'm sure James expected to get the cloak back soon---but then You Know Who showed up. The Marauders' Map was confiscated by Filch. It wasn't left on purpose. It's really interesting that none of the Marauders ever told DD about the map or about being Animagi. From random832 at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 02:27:27 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:27:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore from Gryffindor In-Reply-To: <055d01c6a92f$698615f0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> References: <055d01c6a92f$698615f0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607161927r5b9b16c6xf1ac7fb54c2560d5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155493 On 7/16/06, Kellie wrote: > A friend and I were talking yesterday about the books. She asked > if there was any proof in canon to support Dumbledore being in > Gryffindor when he was a student at Hogwarts. I honestly, can't > say that I recall anything, though I may have missed something. Isn't he their head of house when TR was there? -- Random832 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 05:15:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:15:12 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : another question / Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155494 arwengryffin wrote: > There does seem to be an > important link between Lily and Harry. We are told repeatedly that > he has his mother's eyes. Ms. Rowling has said this is indeed > important and we will learn more about this and about Lily in Book > 7. Including what she did for a living, which I think will also > prove to be important. We know she cast a spell right before she > died. We know it was crtically important and that it protected > Harry. However, we don't know exactly what it is. Is there any > chance that Harry has not part of Voldemort's soul, but part of his > mother's? > Carol responds: Do we know that Lily cast a spell right before she died? I was under the impression that she was wandless and helpless. She wasn't fighting LV as James did; she was offering her life for Harry's. It's her sacrifice that provided Harry's protection, as JKR has confirmed in interviews. I don't think Voldemort would have ordered her to step aside if she'd had her wand. He'd have AKd her on the spot. I don't think Harry has her soul *or* Voldemort's, just her blood protection and some of Voldemort's powers (Parseltongue, the special form of Legilimency that allows them to enter each other's minds unless blocked by Occlumency, and possibly possession) which mysteriously entered Harry via the cut that later became a scar. Carol, still betting that Harry isn't a Horcrux and that he will defeat Voldemort by possessing him From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 05:35:44 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:35:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore from Gryffindor In-Reply-To: <055d01c6a92f$698615f0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155495 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kellie and Lady J" wrote: > > Ok, one more post from me and I am done for today. > > A friend and I were talking yesterday about the books. She asked if there > was any proof in cannon to support Dumbledore being in Gryffindor when he > was a student at Hogwarts. I honestly, can't say that I recall anything, > though I may have missed something. I am rereading the books now and don't > remember anything that said wich house Dumbledore was from. So I wasn't > sure if it said, or did J. K. say in an interview that Dumbledore was in > Gryffindor house? > > He is brave and would fit in Gryffindor, but I can also see him being a Ravenclaw. He is very clever, quite intelectual. An example is, In the first book, he used the Mirror of Erised to conceal the sorcerer's stone. He is very difficult to trick. So, I just wondered if anyone could tell me if what house he is from, is speculation or fact. > > Kellie who is just curious. > Carol responds: Not proof, exactly, but Hermione says in SS/PS that she's heard that Dumbledore was in Gryffindor, one reason why she believes it's "by far the best House." There's no reason to doubt Hermione here, since she's almost certainly read it in a book, perhaps "Hogwarts: A History," and JKR uses her to provide factual information (you can't Apparate on Hogwarts grounds, for example). Also, Dumbledore either owns or has charge of the Sword of Gryffindor, which suggests that he's Gryffindor's spiritual heir, even if he's not literally the Heir of Gryffindor; his Phoenix, Fawkes, is scarlet and gold, the Gryffindor colors (and he tells Harry that "only a true Gryffindor" could have pulled the sword out of the Sorting Hat, suggesting that perhaps only a true Gryffindor could have put it in); and he has a Gryffindor knocker, erm, a griffin door knocker, which I believe is a JKR-Dumbledore-style pun. (I'm guessing that he owned the house in Godric's Hollow that the Potters hid in, but I realize ther's no canon evidence for that idea. I'm also guessing that he was the HoH of Gryffindor, as well as Transfiguration teacher, before Mcgonagall took over both posts.) I can find the Hermione quote easily enough. It's in "The Journey from Platform Nine and Three Quarters," IIRC, but it could also be in "the Sorting Hat." Carol, noting that most of JKR's favorite characters, including Hagrid, were in Gryffindor, and it seems likely that Dumbledore would be from her favorite House From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 05:45:28 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:45:28 -0000 Subject: James left Cloak with DD - Why? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155496 aussie wrote: > I know. I skimmed over it a few times without thinking. But Ron had > said, "they're really rare, and really valuable". > > The Map is useful only at Hogwarts, but we have seen other things > the cloak is useful for since then. > > RARE? - Snape has to use Harry's cloak in POA > - I think we have only seen the Crouch's with a Cloak, no-one else. > - OOTP get Harry to use it to leave Dursleys - but others didn't > have one > - DD tells Harry to keep it with him all year in HBP. > > So why did a person in hiding not need something that makes him > invisible? ... What greater purpose did DD have for it? > Carol responds: Small correction: Mad-Eye Moody had two of them, one of which Sturgis Podmore failed to return after he was Imperio'd and before he was arrested. Moody, no doubt, used them in his work as an Auror, and he lent first one, then the other, to the Order members who were watching the entrance to the DoM. Mr. Weasley must have been wearing the second one when he was bitten. As for James's cloak, he probably thought he wouldn't need it when he was going into hiding because of the Fidelius Charm, so he gave it to Dumbledore for the Order members' use at the same time he informed Dumbledore that he'd chosen Sirius Black as Secret Keeper. At least, that's the best explanation I can come up with. Carol, who agrees that Dumbledore would not have needed the cloak himself From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Mon Jul 17 07:45:39 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:45:39 -0000 Subject: James left Cloak with DD - Why? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155497 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > > > "Hagrid" wrote: > > > > > > Christmas in PS/SS, > > > > > > "Your father left this in my possession before he died. > > > > > > So why did James leave it with DD? Not for DD to use ... > > > > > > "I don't need a cloak to become invisible," DD > > > > > > Any ideas? Someone escaping (RAB), or someone spying? > > > SNIP > aussie: > I know. I skimmed over it a few times without thinking. But Ron had > said, "they're really rare, and really valuable". > > The Map is useful only at Hogwarts, but we have seen other things > the cloak is useful for since then. > > RARE? - Snape has to use Harry's cloak in POA > - I think we have only seen the Crouch's with a Cloak, no-one else. > - OOTP get Harry to use it to leave Dursleys - but others didn't > have one > - DD tells Harry to keep it with him all year in HBP. > > So why did a person in hiding not need something that makes him > invisible? ... What greater purpose did DD have for it? > AmanitaMuscaria now - Perhaps the cloak wasn't _bought_ by James, but was found? In the ROR, or elsewhere in Hogwarts? Perhaps it 'belongs' to Hogwarts, not James... Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria From sarah at eskimo.com Mon Jul 17 05:23:54 2006 From: sarah at eskimo.com (Sarah Schreffler) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:23:54 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James left Cloak with DD - Why? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6a961$36262830$6401a8c0@Princess> No: HPFGUIDX 155498 aussie: >RARE? - Snape has to use Harry's cloak in POA >- I think we have only seen the Crouch's with a Cloak, no-one else. >- OOTP get Harry to use it to leave Dursleys - but others didn't have one >- DD tells Harry to keep it with him all year in HBP. >So why did a person in hiding not need something that makes him >invisible? ... What greater purpose did DD have for it? Sarah: Moody had two invisibility cloaks. OOTP, Chapter 17, p. 370 Sirius in the fireplace "We lost Moody's Spare Invisibility Cloak when Sturgis was arrested, so Dung's been dressing as a witch a lot lately..." Sarah Schreffler "Magic," whispered Digory. "Can't you feel it?" From elainewebster1 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 05:18:38 2006 From: elainewebster1 at yahoo.com (Elaine Webster) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Voldemort and Unicorn blood WAS: voldermort /hex/harry potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060717051838.68600.qmail@web33604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155499 I have a question but I have never posted on here before but have been very interested in knowing some answers if there are any. In the first book of HP Voldermort is drinking the unicorn's blood. When the half horse/man guy (don't know his name sorry) came and told Harry that the forest was not safe and that he needs to leave because he was well known etc. When Harry Potter found out that was Voldermort and the half man/horse dude was telling him that when he drinks from something that pure such as unicorn blood that he is somewhat protected or can half live....so my question is that if he could drink that pure unicorn blood but yet was able to have hexes because he killed other people then how was he able to continue to live? Is is required for him to kill innocent people to live even though he drank the pure blood from the unicorn (from the first book?) Could anyone help me out? I am sorry if this was already discussed and I missed it or I am bringing something up that has been talked about for ages....I was just wondering how it all works with the hexes and stuff. Thank you for reading my e-mail and I hope I didn't sound like an idiot. I do try to keep up with all the Harry Potter stuff but I know most of you if not all of you are about to come up with some great conclusions about everything. Again, thank you for understanding and being patient with my e-mail. Elaine Webster A GREAT TOOL TO HELP YOUR CHILD LEARN www.discoverytoyslink.com/elainewebster From iowagirl681 at mchsi.com Mon Jul 17 11:35:04 2006 From: iowagirl681 at mchsi.com (girl_loves_her_coffee) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:35:04 -0000 Subject: James left Cloak with DD - Why? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155500 "Hagrid" wrote: > So why did James leave it with DD? Not for DD to use ... > > "I don't need a cloak to become invisible," DD > Any ideas? Someone escaping (RAB), or someone spying? I've heard a few people raise this question, but I had always thought that it was likely that James had loaned his cloak for use by the order (the same as Moody had loaned his to Sturgis Podmore and Arthur Weasley in OotP). James and Lily were in the Order after all, and Dumbledore, knowing the whereabouts of James and Lily and being head of the Order of the Phoenix would have naturally been the one to give the cloak to for use by anyone in the Order who had need of it. My guess is also that James and Lily assumed they were protected by the fidelius charm, and not expecting to need it while in their home in Godric's Hollow. I doubt if it would have been all that useful against Voldemort, not personally anyway - if Dumbledore can see through cloaks (and I kind of think he can - a la Hagrid's hut in CoS) then Voldemort possibly can see through them too? An invisibility cloak would have been much more useful to members of the Order doing covert work against other's of Voldemort's troupe. (DEs) girl_loves_her_coffee From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 12:48:39 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 05:48:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry getting Unfrozen on the Tower... In-Reply-To: <000901c6a86c$2515ae30$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <20060717124839.76297.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155501 > Carol: > BTW, I'm not arguing against a possible message exchanged via > mutual Legilimency. There's a pause between "Severus" and "Severus, > please" in which Snape looks at Dumbledore, changes from his usual > inscrutable expression to the look of hatred and revulsion<<< > > Marion: > Ooohhh, that's interesting! Do you think the look of hatred and > revulsion was because he realised that Harry was there? Personally I think the look of hatred and revulsion was because Snape finally realized that Dumbledore, not Harry, was Draco's real target; that Dumbledore knew all along and didn't tell him (based on what I assume was their earlier conversations about the issue during the year); and that he (Snape) would have to be the one to kill Dumbledore so that the UV wouldn't kick in and so that he'd have something so pro-LV to his "credit" that Bellatrix et al would never be able to challenge his loyalty to the Dark Side ever again. That would rouse his revulsion pretty good, I would think. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 17 14:07:05 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:07:05 -0000 Subject: Harry getting Unfrozen on the Tower... In-Reply-To: <20060717124839.76297.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155502 Magda wrote: > Personally I think the look of hatred and revulsion was because Snape > finally realized that Dumbledore, not Harry, was Draco's real target; > that Dumbledore knew all along and didn't tell him (based on what I > assume was their earlier conversations about the issue during the > year); and that he (Snape) would have to be the one to kill > Dumbledore so that the UV wouldn't kick in and so that he'd have > something so pro-LV to his "credit" that Bellatrix et al would never > be able to challenge his loyalty to the Dark Side ever again. > > That would rouse his revulsion pretty good, I would think. Potioncat: I can understand his revulsion if that was the first moment he knew. In fact I understand it if he had been concerned about this possibility all the time. But, are you saying he would not have felt the same revulsion at having to kill Harry? From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 17 14:23:54 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:23:54 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155503 "colebiancardi" wrote: > I don't think Snape is as trusted with > Voldemort as he states he is Snape never said he was Voldemort's most trusted aid, Narcissa said it, and Bellatrix who didn't like Snape one bit would have certainly challenged that remark if she thought it untrue but she said nothing. > Why did he made the UV? Many people > have addressed that ? my short version > (as I have commented on it a lot in the past) > is that he needed to protect Draco. That doesn't explain why it was necessary to vow to kill Dumbledore to protect Draco. Narcissa and Bellatrix were not Snape's boss, when they demanded he make that vow he could have told them to soak their head. If Voldemort didn't demand he make such a vow (and he may have) how could they? And if Snape was a good guy why didn't he tell Dumbledore about that vow? He thought Snape was only pretending to have made the vow but we readers know better. I have heard hundreds of theories trying to explain why Snape made that vow but only one holds water: Snape was only vowing to do what he had every intention of doing anyway, and in fact may have only been repeating a vow he'd already made to Voldemort. > How did Snape's "murder" of DD > help the good guys? Why the quotation marks? > Well, it prevented several more people from > dying, such as Harry, such as Draco, > such as the OotP. If Snape is a good guy then he is a royal idiot for making that vow, otherwise he could have surprised the Death Eaters and turned his wand on them rather than on Dumbledore. In another post Ken Hutchinson, a Tolkien fan and son of Clogknee, chief of the Bustalator people who come from across the Onrobonob river beyond the Dyphlesator mountains on the planes of Diplet in the land of Fustalator near the forest of Sphincter which in the elfin tongue is called Whogivesadamn wrote: , he wrote , ah oh dear, I seem to have lost my thread, what were we talking about? And now for no particular reason I'm going to sing a long and pointless song in a language I know you don't understand because I just made it up. Hey, where are you going? Come back, you'll miss my song! Eggplant From muellem at bc.edu Mon Jul 17 15:33:01 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:33:01 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155504 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > > "colebiancardi": > > I don't think Snape is as trusted with > > Voldemort as he states he is > > Snape never said he was Voldemort's most trusted aid, Narcissa said > it, and Bellatrix who didn't like Snape one bit would have certainly > challenged that remark if she thought it untrue but she said nothing. > colebiancardi: well, who sent that rumor around? Voldemort must have stated it or someone in the LV lair started it. Probably Snape, if not Voldy. >eggplant: That doesn't explain why it was necessary to vow to kill Dumbledore to > protect Draco. Narcissa and Bellatrix were not Snape's boss, when they > demanded he make that vow he could have told them to soak their head. > If Voldemort didn't demand he make such a vow (and he may have) how > could they? And if Snape was a good guy why didn't he tell Dumbledore > about that vow? He thought Snape was only pretending to have made the > vow but we readers know better. > colebiancardi: No, they are not Snape's boss. And we aren't really sure if Snape *knew* what Draco was supposed to do; only that Snape stated he knew it and even then, Narcissa didn't tell him the complete story. If Snape *told* them to soak their heads, it would have made Bellatrix more suspicious of Snape(she even stated Snape wouldn't do it) and Snape would have never found out what Draco was up to. Snape's involvement with the UV gave him the perfect opportunity to spy on Draco - to get his nose into Draco's businesses. And how do we know that Snape didn't tell DD about the UV? When Harry tells DD about the UV, DD was not suprised at all about it. And who is the "we" readers? >eggplant: I have heard hundreds of theories trying to explain why Snape made > that vow but only one holds water: Snape was only vowing to do what he > had every intention of doing anyway, and in fact may have only been > repeating a vow he'd already made to Voldemort. > colebiancardi: To you, it is the only one that holds water. The HP world is not divided into black & white areas. There is a lot of grey in it. > > How did Snape's "murder" of DD > > help the good guys? > > Why the quotation marks? > colebiancardi: Because I don't believe Snape "murdered" DD. I believe he was acting under orders from DD. And that is not "murder" in times of war. > eggplant: If Snape is a good guy then he is a royal idiot for making that vow, > otherwise he could have surprised the Death Eaters and turned his wand > on them rather than on Dumbledore. > colebiancardi: outnumbered? And then what? He doesn't complete Draco's task and turns his wand on the DE's and Snape would drop dead on the spot. What good is that? And DD would have died, Harry would have died. Draco probably would have died or been taken back to LV and crucio'd to death. colebiancardi From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 15:37:15 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:37:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry getting Unfrozen on the Tower... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060717153715.31248.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155505 > Potioncat: > I can understand his revulsion if that was the first moment he > knew. In fact I understand it if he had been concerned about this > possibility all the time. But, are you saying he would not have > felt the same revulsion at having to kill Harry? Probably in a general "it's wrong to kill anyone" kind of way. I'm assuming that with Dumbledore there's more of a personal bond that might get in the way of Snape going through with it, which is why Dumbledore repeats his first name in a pleading manner. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 15:25:26 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:25:26 -0000 Subject: 4 Founders, 4 Elements, and Secret Rooms In-Reply-To: <03f501c6a929$3cbbed20$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155506 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kellie and Lady J" wrote:> > We know about the chamber of secrets, and lets assume the room of > requirement is a secret room from one of the founders of the school. If this is the case, it seems that the secret rooms are important or have some significance in some way. > > The chamber of secrets, while not considered a good thing to the rest of the school, was thought quite important to Salazar Slytherin. And the room of requirement, (let's assume that it is Ravenclaw because of the tricky way to get into it) provides whatever the person attempting to enter it needs. It has a purpose. > > I would think that the other secret rooms would have a purpose for them. Something out of the ordinary to distinguish them as different from all the other quarky things at Hogwarts. > > Tonks: OK. So we have the Chamber of Secrets, Water and Slytherin. We could say that the Room of Requirement was Ravenclaw, comes out of the Air. That leaves Hufflepuff and earth, and Gryffindor and fire. I have been doing some serious reading about Alchemy. Found some obscure notes from Carl Jung's lectures. We know that JKR was seen in the company of a book by Jung. (Yes, I know, everything is a clue to us even when a cigar is just a cigar.) Jung wrote a lot about symbols and about, much to my surprise, Alchemy. There is something important about the 4 elements in Alchemy. And putting the elements together to produce something very powerful. So far I have only gotten that the godhead was separated and became the 4 elements and uniting them brings creation back into the godhead. It is all very difficult reading. The bottom line is if JKR says the Houses are the 4 elements, then we have to look for the elements of Hufflepuff and Gryffindor and figure out what she might do with them. We know that the Sorting Hat says that the 4 Houses have to work together. I have never been a big proponent of the idea of HP being about Alchemy, but I am beginning to see some signs of Alchemy at least having some small part in the series. And the fact that the fifth element is Love is, IMO, a very important reason to look at this. We are told that Love is what Harry has, and Love is the secret weapon. It is Love that unites the other 4 elements. Help.. Tonks_op From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 17 15:48:43 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:48:43 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155507 I don't post often, but read a lot, and thought you all might be interested in this. I recently ran across this quote from JKR from the Readers Digest, 2000. "I love a good whodunnit and my passion is plot construction. Readers loved to be tricked, but not conned," Rowling says, warming to her theme. "The best twist ever in literature is in Jane Austen's Emma. To me she is the target of perfection at which we shoot in vain." I love "Emma," and decided to look up something that analyzed how Austen achieved the surprise twists of that book. Here's a exerpt from an essay written by Jitender Rajpoot, at Cal State and is titled "The 'Seeming' Reality." "In Jane Austen's Emma, we catch a glimpse of a character that seems to be attuned to her surroundings, and who is observant enough to provide us with a glimpse into the interior world of her supporting cast. This effect is attained by the writing style of the author who provides us with a seemingly omniscient narration that appears to travel within the consciousness of her characters. However, there is an undermining irony operating throughout the text which makes a more effective claim than what a superficial reading might suggest. The inability of Emma to perceive the true intentions of other characters, or as Harriet states "see into the heart" of others, actually envelops the reader as well. The narration of the novel makes us as vulnerable to take superficiality as reality as does the plot in misdirecting Emma." "Austen achieves the art of misdirecting the reader by getting him caught up in the mundane details that border precision, but in reality serve to get him enraptured in a feeling of trusting the narrator. At times we are regaled the same account of events from different perspectives, which lead us to believe the validity of the event because there is corroboration from different characters. Ironically, this is a fault that we are critiquing in Emma who takes superficial details to infer something deeper (truthful). Just as she misconstrues signs, we take the corroboration of events to lead us down a misdirected path. And this is a crucial effect of Austen's writing style- have the reader believe all that is told to him as if the narrator has an inner view into the character's motivation (omniscient perspective), but the deception is that in reality the narrator is limited...... " "Just as Emma is guilty of taking superficial details to confirm the pre-existing convictions in her mind, we are at fault to consider the narrator to be all-knowing and honest with us. Austen plays a trick on Emma by pulling the rug from underneath her feet, and we are duped analogously for confirming our convictions by taking the events of the story to be relayed in an unbiased fashion." While not everyone is fooled by Austen's plot, who was or wasn't fooled doesn't matter - the point is that JKR thought it was the standard of all surprise plots, and that's the kind of thing she says she likes to write. So whether or not Austen fooled everyone isn't the point. The point is that JKR wants to trick people and is likely using the methods of Austen to do it. So the question isn't whether, if you've read it, you were tricked by Austen, but whether we are being tricked by JKR, using similar misdirection methods. And, by the way, it isn't just any character that you shouldn't trust. If JKR is using Austen's method, it would be Harry's point of view, and by extension the narrator's pov, that you shouldn't trust. wynnleaf From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 15:59:26 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:59:26 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Unicorn Blood Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155508 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Elaine Webster wrote: > > I have a question but I have never posted on here before but have been very interested in knowing some answers if there are any. In the first book of HP Voldermort is drinking the unicorn's blood. When the half horse/man guy (don't know his name sorry) came and told Harry that the forest was not safe and that he needs to leave because he was well known etc. When Harry Potter found out that was Voldermort and the half man/horse dude was telling him that when he drinks from something that pure such as unicorn blood that he is somewhat protected or can half live....so my question is that if he could drink that pure unicorn blood but yet was able to have hexes because he killed other people then how was he able to continue to live? > > Is is required for him to kill innocent people to live even though he drank the pure blood from the unicorn (from the first book?) Could anyone help me out? Tonks: Hi Elaine: Welcome to the group. The horse guy is a Centaur and I think you mean Horcruxes not hexes. Having sorted that out let me try to provide some input into the answers. I do not have the total answer, but I can point out some of the symbolism involved. Unicorn's are, among other things, a symbol of Christ, and a symbol of purity. The Horcruxes bind LV's soul to the earth, but if he has any sort of a body he must drink the blood to keep it going. Now he did not have a real body until the graveyard. But he did have that weird baby body, and that is a mystery as to how that came into being. I can't remember or maybe we are never told, how he went from a disembodied spirit to some strange entity that was not a real body. Does anyone remember? As to why LV must drink the blood of the Unicorn, I guess it is because the blood is very magical and will keep a person alive, but in a cursed way. This is like taking the blood of Christ in the Eucharist. It was once thought that if you took communion and were not in a state of grace (the reason for confession and absolution beforehand) you would be drinking condemnation unto yourself. LV lived on Unicorn blood and later on the venom from Nagini. This is a rather interesting question to ponder. As to why he must do so. What is in JKR's mind? I am at a lost on this one. Maybe there is something from Egyptian lore about snakes. ? Tonks_op just rambling on... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 16:09:28 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:09:28 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155509 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > > I don't post often, but read a lot, and thought you all might be > interested in this. > > I recently ran across this quote from JKR from the Readers Digest, > 2000. "I love a good whodunnit and my passion is plot construction. > Readers loved to be tricked, but not conned," Rowling says, warming > to her theme. "The best twist ever in literature is in Jane Austen's > Emma. To me she is the target of perfection at which we shoot in > vain." > So the question isn't > whether, if you've read it, you were tricked by Austen, but whether > we are being tricked by JKR, using similar misdirection methods. > And, by the way, it isn't just any character that you shouldn't > trust. If JKR is using Austen's method, it would be Harry's point > of view, and by extension the narrator's pov, that you shouldn't > trust. Alla: Heeee, sorry I am not buying "Harry filter", or at least not completely. I am not talking about limitations of the narration of course in that sense "Harry filter" obviously exists. But not buying "Harry being wrong" about Snape being nasty bastard. Sorry, I just don't. Harry can even be wrong about Snape being loyal to Dumbledore, he may have not seen or observed everything that occurred, but what ever happens between him and Snape - he reports IMO very accurately. So,what I am saying - that I don't see Rowling would treat us to main character being so completely and absolutely fooled as Emma was at the end. For all her talking about liking to trick us, she specifically pointed to main issue of HBP, putting us on the "right speculation" path ( if such exists of course). Remember? Before HBP came out she hinted that we should think why Voldemort did not die. Does not sound very tricky to me. Not that she is giving out the plot, but she is giving direct hints sometimes, you know? And of course the much talked about "anvil sized clues", etc. So, what am I trying to say? That JKR "tricky ways" are IMO really not that tricky and because of Emma being a love story and Harry Potter is not quite, it is IMO perfectly understandable. JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jul 17 16:46:53 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:46:53 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155510 Alla: > Not that she is giving out the plot, but she is giving direct hints > sometimes, you know? > > And of course the much talked about "anvil sized clues", etc. > > So, what am I trying to say? > > That JKR "tricky ways" are IMO really not that tricky and because of > Emma being a love story and Harry Potter is not quite, it is IMO > perfectly understandable. Magpie: But JKR has already uses the same kind of twist as Emma all the time with her (as I think Sydney calls them) re-cognition mysteries. In every book Harry, like Emma, usually has some wrong impression that's validated by things he sees. Then when we find out the truth we realize that we've seen everything wrong even though it was right in front of us. Sometimes it's a question of misunderstanding a physical thing that's going on, but more often it's about motivation. Harry doesn't get everything wrong, and neither do Jane Austen's characters, but the ends of the books usually do wind up explaining things that never quite added up with new information. Jane Austen isn't that tricky either, after all. It's not like Emma doesn't pick up on anything. She's less reliable when her personal biases or pre- conceptions come into play. Oops, sounds like I'm talking about Snape, huh? :-) But Rowling did that in the first book where Harry was focused on catching Snape and he turned out not to be the bad guy. Though even then Harry wasn't wrong about Snape in the way some fans write him. It's not like every time it seems like Snape is being a jerk he's really being nice. Harry was perfectly correct when he sensed that Snape hated him that very first day. He's not always wrong about Snape. He just doesn't know the man truly and neither do we readers. There's a big question mark at the center of him. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 17:18:08 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:18:08 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155512 ?? Magpie: > Oops, sounds like I'm talking about Snape, huh? :-) But Rowling did > that in the first book where Harry was focused on catching Snape and > he turned out not to be the bad guy. Though even then Harry wasn't > wrong about Snape in the way some fans write him. It's not like every > time it seems like Snape is being a jerk he's really being nice. > Harry was perfectly correct when he sensed that Snape hated him that > very first day. He's not always wrong about Snape. He just doesn't > know the man truly and neither do we readers. There's a big question > mark at the center of him. Alla: Well, yes, that is all I am saying, really and believe it or not, I have read plenty of arguments that Harry is wrong when he describes Snape as nasty jerk. Hate as I do the possibility of DD!M Snape, I can totally see Harry being wrong about that, you know? :) What I do **not** see Harry being wrong about is Snape being nasty bastard, because for that to be true, the **words** that leaving Snape's mouth should be different, or in other words, Harry has to report distorted picture, completely distorted picture. I do not think that Harry does that, I think his opinion of Snape's character is spot on, his loyalties , well of course that can be incorrect ( hopefully not), but I just don't see how if anybody else reports what occurs between Harry and Snape, Snape's character can come out differently. "You and your filfy father" will always be the same. "Our new celebrity" will not change it is meaning, etc,etc. Edited to add: Basically I believe that when Harry's judgment is off base it happens because he does not have sufficient information to judge well, but on the information he has I believe he judges well enough. What I strongly disagree with is the idea that based on what Harry sees, he makes distorted judgments and/or reports distorted picture. It could be distorted of course, but IMO due to insufficient information, **not** wrong judgment. Take Tower again. Could it be that things happened that Harry is not aware of? Sure, unfortunately I have to assume that this is possible.But based on what Harry saw and knew I think he made the **only** right decision-to catch Dumbledore's murderer ( as he sees it). JMO, Alla From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Jul 17 17:25:35 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:25:35 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155513 > > Alla: > What I do **not** see Harry being wrong about is Snape being nasty > bastard, because for that to be true, the **words** that leaving > Snape's mouth should be different, or in other words, Harry has to > report distorted picture, completely distorted picture. > Hickengruendler: I agree with you about Snape. (Well, that he is nasty that is. I disagree with you about his loyalties, but I guess you already know this. ;-) ). But IMO there are some characters, where she has Harry and his friends (and by extention the readers through the narration) misinterpret their intentions completely. Mostly it are the secret villains, but I would also add Crookshanks and maybe Sirius in PoA to the list. Take the fake Moody for example. He helps Harry during the schoolyear, both in some "daily life problems" /the ferret incident) and in the Triwizard Tournament, and both Harry and the readers see this as a sign, that he's Harry's friends, while in fact the reasons for his good deeds are very sinister one and don't come out into the open until the very end. Similarly, after the first DADA lesson he seemingly consoles Neville, which makes him sympathetic. In truth, however, he mentally torments the boy in basically showing him, what he did to his parents (giving away his real self accidentily for a very short time, when he doesn't stop using Crucio on the spider before Hermione makes him stop), just to use him in a scheme and create a reason to give him the Herbology book. Quirrell and Tom Riddle fit the example as well, in that their real actions are disguised, but they may fit the bill less, because they had not the seemingly omnipresent pagetime the fake Mad-Eye had, and therefore were less able to gain the readers trust/sympathy. And on the other hand we have Crookshanks, whose intentions were completely misinterpreted by everyone (even his staunchest defender Hermione). What JKR is doing here is using one of the oldest stories, the cat and mouse game, and basically turn it around. The cat is the hero and the mouse/rat a dangerous murderer in disguise. I mean, prior to the Shrieking Shack scene I suppose the most one could say in Crookshank's defense was, that it is normal for cats to try to eat rats. JKR also rather cleverly doesn't introduce Crookshanks before PoA, which gives the reader not one but two reasons to sympathise with Scabbers. Not only is he the seemingly weaker animal, but he's also around longer and the readers are gotten used to have him around (may even like him in a "isn't he cute" way), while Crookshanks is the seemingly disturbing intruder. Therefore I think JKR does indeed sometimes use the "Austen technique". Hickengruendler From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Jul 17 17:26:50 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:26:50 -0000 Subject: Possession => Accidental Harrycrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155514 Carol wrote (in message 155392): I realize it's not the only possible explanation, but it makes more sense to me than a soul bit causing a cut and entering Harry to become an accidental Horcrux. Dung: Just out of interest, since I've not been around much, has anyone given any of the Possession at Godric's Hollow theories an airing since HBP was published? (SFAIK it was Kneasy's brainchild sometime early-mid '04, but I can't find a post number to refer you to.) We don't know much about how possession works, but it's at least plausible that it's done with the soul. That Voldy can somehow move his soul into another's body, and take control of that body. I reviewed Possession a couple of years ago, here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116301 (And it's worthwhile, if the subject interests you, checking out Annemehr's response down-thread, "Possession: Taking it Further".) Anyway, here's my take on it since HBP: Voldemort thinks that using "special" deaths will imbue his horcruxes with more power. Is he right, or wrong? I have always assumed that it was just serial killer superstition, but had an arresting thought this morning... what if he's partly right? What if the kind of murder, and the kind of person murdered affects the piece of soul which is ripped off? For example, whether the person is armed and trying to fight back, or whether they are unarmed and begging for mercy. So Voldy turns up at GH, intent on killing all three Potters. He's been mulling over the first few lines of that prophecy, and suspects that this baby might have some interesting magical powers; powers, moreover, that the prophetess reckons Voldy himself doesn't have. GoF, ch33 "The Death Eaters", Voldy: "I could not touch the boy." I've always found this line interesting, because you don't need to touch somebody to AK them, you just point your wand and bang. He could be speaking figuratively, of course (but that's no fun!) so let's just assume he was speaking literally. He tried to do something else before he AKed Harry. What if, just after tearing his soul by gunning down an unarmed mother who freely gave her life that her son might live, he tries to possess that son, to discover what this intriguing and mysterious power might be? Now, either, he finds the experience unbearably painful the way he would do later in the MoM, and gives it up as a bad job, or he manages to possess Harry for an instant, but is repelled by Lily's sacrifice. (Or, thirdly, he succeeds and has a good poke around, but doesn't recognise the love stuff as a power ? possibly even dismisses it as weakness; though this is unlikely, if we're taking the "I could not touch the boy" literally). For the purposes of this theory, it doesn't really matter either way, even if he only possesses Harry for an instant, the following could happen: The piece of soul which ripped when he killed Lily, has somehow (and I appreciate that the vagueness of 'somehow' may hide a plethora of inadequacies) been affected by the fact that it was Lily who died, who gave her life for Harry, and now that piece of soul is within the body of the baby for whom she died. It's not impossible that Lily's sacrifice (ancient magic) has so deeply affected this piece of soul that it feels a very strong affinity for Harry. So strong that it remains behind when Voldemort returns to his own body (possibly turning Harry's eyes green at the same time). Voldemort returns to his own body, frustrated, and levels his wand to AK Harry. The AK rebounds upon him and we all know how much he didn't like that, leaving Harry with a lightning-shaped scar. At which point we can speculate that either it was Lily's sacrifice alone which caused the AK to rebound, or that it was the fact that Harry is now, effectively, a Horcrux which caused the bounce (my preferred version). But if the latter is true, Harry only became a Horcrux because of Lily's sacrifice, so DD was quite right in PS when he said that Voldy couldn't kill Harry because his mother died to save him. Any takers? It's not 100% watertight, but I reckon it floats. Its consequences are a little difficult to untangle, though. Dung. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 17 17:51:18 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:51:18 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155515 Eggplant the 107th, descendent of a long line of illustrious vegetables wrote: > > > In another post Ken Hutchinson, a Tolkien fan and son of Clogknee, > chief of the Bustalator people who come from across the Onrobonob > river beyond the Dyphlesator mountains on the planes of Diplet in the > land of Fustalator near the forest of Sphincter which in the elfin > tongue is called Whogivesadamn wrote: , he wrote , ah oh dear, I > seem to have lost my thread, what were we talking about? > > And now for no particular reason I'm going to sing a long and > pointless song in a language I know you don't understand because I > just made it up. Hey, where are you going? Come back, you'll miss my > song! > > Eggplant > Ken: To enjoy any work of fiction you have to be willing to suspend your disbelief. Works of fantasy require more of the reader in this way than, say, a Jane Austin novel will. I am sorry that you find Tolkien too comic bookey to enjoy. We all have authors we can't connect with, try as we might. I happen to enjoy Tolkien as well as Rowling, guilty as charged. Clearly you don't. If you prefer horcruxes to angels, if you prefer latinesque mumbling (nvbl) to Quenya, if you too believe that every September starts on Monday and Orion stands proud of the western horizon at 11pm in the second week of June, then Rowling is your gal. No need to bother with that Tolkien chap. I can overlook Rowling's cluelessness with "maths" because she writes so convincingly and accurately about adolesence, right down to the fact that girls always get their driver's licenses on the first try. I can induldge Tolkien his love for language because he manages to impart some of it to me. To dismiss either LotR or HP as a comic book is to miss not just your thread, but the point. So sing away, oh proud and mighty Eggplant! Baggins and Bach have taught me to enjoy songs in languages I do not understand. Lovegood and Carroll have taught me to delight in the implausible. Be forewarned that people who understand Tolkien, people who love Tolkien, can do a much better sendup of Tolkien than you have shown us so far.... Ken From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 18:12:13 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:12:13 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155516 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Steven1965aaa: > > > > Come on, if Harry is in trouble and the twins have a choice of > > helping him or saving their own skins, what do you think they'd > > do? Flee and save themselves or help him? > > Betsy Hp: > Funnily enough, when Harry does need the twins help they *do* flee. While their exit in OotP was thrilling and it saved them both from a flogging, it also meant that they left Harry and co. to deal with a mess they had a massive hand in stirring up. It also meant that when Harry really needed help they weren't around to provide it. > > Steven1965aaa: I don't think their leaving had anything to do with Harry. They did help him at great personal risk just before that, to get into Umbridge's office to use the fireplace. It's just hypothetical of course but IMO if Harry had had some specific need for them to stay in order to help him further they would have done so. They did not know about the scars on his hand. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 17 18:16:39 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:16:39 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155517 wynnleaf quoted: > At times we are regaled the same account of events from > different perspectives, which lead us to believe the > validity of the event because there is corroboration > from different characters. Magpie: > It's not like every time it seems like Snape is being > a jerk he's really being nice. Harry was perfectly > correct when he sensed that Snape hated him that very > first day. He's not always wrong about Snape. He just > doesn't know the man truly and neither do we readers. Alla: > What I do **not** see Harry being wrong about is Snape > being nasty bastard, because for that to be true, the > **words** that leaving Snape's mouth should be different, > or in other words, Harry has to report distorted picture, > completely distorted picture. houyhnhnm: Just as Frank Churchill is convicted by his own words and actions of being a shallow irresponsible fop. And that view of him is corroborated by the judgement of other characters (his father and stepmother) as sensible and down-to-earth as Emma is fanciful. So certain is the reader that Frank really is a great coxcomb, that Austen can drop her anvil-sized hint (the piano arriving right after Frank's trip to London, a device she's even used before in _Sense and Sensibility_) and nobody gets it (I certainly didn't) because Frank's excuse of going to London to get his hair cut is soooo believable. What we find out about Frank at the end doesn't excuse all of his behavior, either. Entering into a secret engagement in the first place, flirting with Emma at the picnic show that Frank *does* have some responsibility and judgement issues, but overall, it turns out that his behavior is capapble of a very different interpretation. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 18:30:18 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:30:18 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155518 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > >> Obviously I don't think they expected that exact set of events. I > just think they are good capitalists-- they build relationships with people who might be useful to them. Harry is a celebrity, and a rich celebrity-- he gets stuff for free, for the very good reason that makes sense to associate with him. Don't the twins give him free stuff from his shop, and ask him to make sure to tell everyone where they got it? It's like giving Julia Roberts a Fendi bag, so everyone will want one. Steven1965aa: I think we just read it differently. You seem to see the Twins as cagey opportunists looking out for themselves, and I don't see it that way at all. I don't think they were hoping for anything in return when they gave Harry the map. I think that given the irreplacable nature of the map it was an extroardinarily generous thing to do (you pointed out that they have already memorized it, but that does not eliminate its value to them as it shows everybody's location, they could have easily waited a couple more years until after they were finished at HW to hand it down to Harry). With regard to the free stuff from their store, I take them at their word --- Harry gave them their start up loan and therefore they wouldn't feel right charging him (query: the twins always refer to it as a start up "loan" - I wonder if they will pay it back eventually? Sydney, maybe this supports your point somewhat if they don't pay him back?). Sure they want him to tell people where he got the stuff if anyone asks, but I don't think that's their motivation. I see them as good guys who sometimes go overboard but with their hearts in the right place. I think Rebecca made a good point earlier about them viewing Harry like a little brother. Harry certainly does not seem to share your view, and the Twins also receive eye gleams from Dumbledore in a couple of places in the books. Hermione went on a lot in HBP in a few different places about how impressive their magic was - I wonder if this forshadows anything for book 7 (I don't think Malfoy's use of the darkness powder in HBP counts because that was imported from Peru, the Twins didn't come up with it)? By the way, I don't think that being in Slytherin makes you evil, by a long shot. I think that was suggested earlier. In fact, IMO the #1 candidate for redemption in Book 7 (keeping with the admonitions from Dumbledore and the Sorting Hat that the Houses must cooperate) is Draco. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 17 18:25:59 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:25:59 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155519 > Hickengruendler: > > But IMO there are some characters, where she has Harry and his > friends (and by extention the readers through the narration) > misinterpret their intentions completely. Mostly it are the secret > villains, but I would also add Crookshanks and maybe Sirius in PoA to > the list. > > Take the fake Moody for example. He helps Harry during the > schoolyear, both in some "daily life problems" /the ferret incident) > and in the Triwizard Tournament, and both Harry and the readers see > this as a sign, that he's Harry's friends, while in fact the reasons > for his good deeds are very sinister one and don't come out into the > open until the very end. Similarly, after the first DADA lesson he > seemingly consoles Neville, which makes him sympathetic. In truth, > however, he mentally torments the boy in basically showing him, what > he did to his parents (giving away his real self accidentily for a > very short time, when he doesn't stop using Crucio on the spider > before Hermione makes him stop), just to use him in a scheme and > create a reason to give him the Herbology book. Quirrell and Tom > Riddle fit the example as well, in that their real actions are > disguised, but they may fit the bill less, because they had not the > seemingly omnipresent pagetime the fake Mad-Eye had, and therefore > were less able to gain the readers trust/sympathy. > > And on the other hand we have Crookshanks, whose intentions were > completely misinterpreted by everyone (even his staunchest defender > Hermione). What JKR is doing here is using one of the oldest stories, > the cat and mouse game, and basically turn it around. The cat is the > hero and the mouse/rat a dangerous murderer in disguise. I mean, > prior to the Shrieking Shack scene I suppose the most one could say > in Crookshank's defense was, that it is normal for cats to try to eat > rats. JKR also rather cleverly doesn't introduce Crookshanks before > PoA, which gives the reader not one but two reasons to sympathise > with Scabbers. Not only is he the seemingly weaker animal, but he's > also around longer and the readers are gotten used to have him around > (may even like him in a "isn't he cute" way), while Crookshanks is > the seemingly disturbing intruder. > > Therefore I think JKR does indeed sometimes use the "Austen > technique". wynnleaf These were excellent examples and point out that it's important not to solely think of this as whether or not there's misdirection about Snape. JKR could be doing it with any number of characters or circumstances and we haven't seen it yet. It's also important to realize that with Austen, and in particular in "Emma," the misdirection is *not* achieved by simply getting the reader to think the character, Emma, is correct. In fact, the reader picks up on the fact that Emma is often wrong. No, the misdirection takes place through the *narration.* Through skillfully selecting what events, dialog, facial expressions, etc. the reader learns about -- and presenting them all in a manner similar to the way the lead character sees it -- the narrator can lead the reader into conclusions that are not correct. And the reader *thinks* he's gotten it right, because even if he's learned to not trust the lead character, he still trusts the narration to be objective. But the narration is *not* objective. This is why it's so important that JKR thinks of Austen, and her book "Emma" in particular, as the "standard" to which she, JKR, aspires. If JKR is using the Austen approach (note, I didn't say her "style," but her approach at tricking readers), then we have to realize that the narration itself is not completely trustworthy. Not that the narrator is lying to the reader -- oh, no. The problem is that the narrator is working from mostly the same vantage point as the lead character (Harry, in HP), and the writer picks and chooses what the narrator will reveal to the reader and the manner in which it's revealed, specifically *in order* to lead the reader to particular conclusions. Many of the conclusions are of course correct, otherwise the reader would completely loose faith in the narrator. But the reader is also duped into believing certain "facts" which later, in the surprise conclusion, turn out to be completely incorrect. JKR has done it with every single book. HBP is a little different in that JKR has stressed that it's more like the first half of one bigger book -- HBP and Book 7 together. I am certainly expecting to see that Harry and the narrator have been misdirecting us about Snape. What I'm very curious to see is whether or not JKR is misdirecting us about somethings utterly unexpected, as well. wynnleaf From mhersheybar at hotmail.com Mon Jul 17 18:29:22 2006 From: mhersheybar at hotmail.com (melhersheybar) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:29:22 -0000 Subject: The two way mirrors Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155520 I was rereading some of JK's answers to questions on her website, and in her discussion about why Harry never used the two way mirrors from Sirius to confirm if whether he was at the MoM, she stated that she could not tell us everything about the mirrors because they were important to books 6 and 7. I think she actually said something to the effect that they were both more less important than they appeared, but also would be more important than they seemed, to the last two books. Question - I don't recall anything in book 6 regarding the mirrors or their importance. Do you think they will make an appearance in book 7? Mel From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 18:48:43 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:48:43 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155521 > Alla: > > > What I do **not** see Harry being wrong about is Snape > > being nasty bastard, because for that to be true, the > > **words** that leaving Snape's mouth should be different, > > or in other words, Harry has to report distorted picture, > > completely distorted picture. > > houyhnhnm: > > Just as Frank Churchill is convicted by his own words and > actions of being a shallow irresponsible fop. And that > view of him is corroborated by the judgement of other > characters (his father and stepmother) as sensible and > down-to-earth as Emma is fanciful. Alla: Well, I just don't see that paralell. I don't see that to the degree you are seeing or maybe not at all. It had been awhile since I read "Emma", but I don't recall the possibility of interpreting Frank's behaviour as evil, while Snape's behaviour gives me plenty. Seeming to be shallow and irresponsible,while turning to be pretty decent guy is not the same as seeming to be nasty bastard and turning out to be not. The difference is just too huge IMO. I take it it is your argument that **everything** that Harry judges about Snape is wrong? And Snape really does not hate everybody whose last name is Potter and when he screams "you and your filfy father" , it really does not mean that Snape hates both Potters and confuses them a lot? I am not even talking about his loyalties, only about his character. If it is so, well we have to agree to disagree and we will revisit this after book 7, I suppose. ;) But I am ready to put my prediction for the record - not about Snape's loyalties, but about who he is. He **is** nasty, abusive jerk, who considered it possible to transfer the hate he felt for James ( maybe hundred times justified) to the innocent kid. Unfortunately, he may turn out to be loyal to Dumbledore, but I sincerely doubt that his character will miraculously change. Am ready to eat that tasty crow, if Snape will turn out to not hate Harry in book 7. :) JMO, Alla From aceworker at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 19:00:35 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hufflepuffs ( Was Sorting Hat ) Message-ID: <20060717190035.30897.qmail@web30208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155522 Kellie < Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155523 Wynnleaf: > I am certainly expecting to see that Harry and the narrator have > been misdirecting us about Snape. What I'm very curious to see is > whether or not JKR is misdirecting us about somethings utterly > unexpected, as well. Potioncat: Yes, well, the HP series isn't just about Snape, is it? Oh, my. The room is spinning. I think I'd better sit down. What did I just say? I'm enjoying this thread, Wynnleaf. It is a companion piece, sort of, to Just Carol's Narrator and PoV posts. (I'm embarrassed to say that I can't ever remember the name of this type of narrator, but it always sets folks off if they don't know it's the name of a device and not a slur against Harry.) I love Austen. There is always a surprise or two. We have JKR's word that she likes doing the same thing, so we are fore-warned. Many of us do think something surprising will come up about Snape---I mean, we think even more surprising revelations will come about. But there are so many other potential areas of twists: the Prophecy, Love-as-a-Force, the Horcruxes, RAB, Lupin, Pettigrew, Big Blond DE--- I'm sure there are more. JKR must be having a blast right now! Whatever may happen to Snape, I'm sure she has several little surprises for us. Of course, some of us may figure some of them out. In the chapter discussions, a lot of readers were fooled by the DADA teacher twist while others (Me, me!) had it figured out. On the other hand, I was completely fooled by Harry's (not) spiking the pumpkin juice while other readers weren't taken in at all. >From Austen to mysteries. I don't usually chose murder mysteries, so maybe it's just part and parcel of that genre, but I just read a book with a huge example of these sort of twists. In some case the main character's PoV was tricking us and in some cases, we weren't let in on something the main character knew. The author is Joanne Harris and it takes place in a boys' school in England. It's hard not to compare that sort of setting with Hogwarts, but I really lost it when the Headmaster became fixated on socks. If anyone reads it. Email me off list. I'd like to hear your reactions. ("Gentlemen and Players" is the book.) From imontero at iname.com Mon Jul 17 16:30:32 2006 From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:30:32 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : another question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155524 Luna wrote earlier: > And BTW, have anyone given a thought to the word Horcrux? > Crux is the latin word for cross... > What are the implications of the word cross being part of this term? Felix responded: > I actually thought of 'cross' at first, and it's entirely possible > that that may be the implication, as it's the most obvious. After > thinking about it, though, I thought of few other possibilities- > In Afrikaans, a 'kruk' is something used as support, or possibly as > backup. snip Carol responded: snip > However, given JKR's Christianity and her use of Latin adaptations > throughout the books, I think "crux" (cross) is the probable root, > in combination with "hor(ror)" (also Latin, with a self-evident > meaning). snip > I don't think it's coincidence that "Crucio" and "Cruciatus" relate > to torture, as does "crucify," which derives from "crux." In fact, > "crucio" and "cruciatus" are actual Latin words, which likewise > derive from "crux": > crux crucis f. [a cross]; hence [torment, trouble] > cruciatus -us m. [torture, torment]. > crucio -are [to torture, torment]. > Maybe there's a conceptual link between the Cruciatus Curse and > Horcruxes, if only in terms of the sheer horror JKR is trying to > inspire. Luna respods: Thanks Carol and Felix for your posts! I agree with Carol. It is more likely that the word's root is all Latin According to this interpretation, a Horcrux is a cross of horror. Voldemort marked Harry, giving him a destiny that Harry will feel compelled to fulfill. Following a Christian interpretation, it could be said that Harry is carrying this "cross of horror," which is his mission to vanquish Lord Voldemort. I am not 100% convinced that Harry or Harry's scar is a Horcrux, but I can't deny that this idea could be a possible explanation to Voldemort's powers transference to Harry. What I feel sure of, however, is that Harry will vanquish Voldemort via Agape love. I think Carol's idea is very close to what could happen: Harry could posses Voldemort and fill him with this Agape love until Voldemort and the piece of soul in Voldemort's body dies. If Harry is a Horcrux and if he survives, then the only bit of Voldemort left would be Harry or Harry's scar. Harry will have to live with it, this will be his cross. This will also show that evil cannot be completely eliminated, it'll remain latent and it is up to our choices to have it under control. This could be a possible ending! Luna, who hasn't made up her mind about this Horcrux issue :( From cass_da_sweet at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 18:50:07 2006 From: cass_da_sweet at yahoo.com (cass_da_sweet) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:50:07 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155525 I have yet to see this posted and it's been bugging me for a while. In HBP Hermione continues to insist that the HBP's Potions book was written by a girl. I know that it was Snape's mother's book but we are giving Snape all the credit for the spells and such written in it when it might not have been he who wrote it. Maybe it matters and maybe it doesn't but well it's bugging me. Cass_da_sweet From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 17 19:30:37 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:30:37 -0000 Subject: Update on who's dying/getting a reprieve polls Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155526 Polls update! In the poll regarding the two additional people whom JKR has decided she'll be killing off in the last chapter of Book 7 -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280239 -- it seems Hagrid is so far the "top choice." Percy Weasley is currently seen as next most likely, according to voter opinion. Close behind Percy are Ron, Neville & Snape. In the poll regarding which character will be receiving a reprieve -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280244 -- there is a true runaway favorite. Can you guess who it is? ;-) If you've not yet voted, go register your best guesses! Siriusly Snapey Susan From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jul 17 19:52:10 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:52:10 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155527 > Alla: > > Well, yes, that is all I am saying, really and believe it or not, I > have read plenty of arguments that Harry is wrong when he describes > Snape as nasty jerk. Hate as I do the possibility of DD!M Snape, I can > totally see Harry being wrong about that, you know? :) > > What I do **not** see Harry being wrong about is Snape being nasty > bastard, because for that to be true, the **words** that leaving > Snape's mouth should be different, or in other words, Harry has to > report distorted picture, completely distorted picture. Magpie: Oh, I absolutely believe you've read those arguments! But I agree that's not what JKR does--nor does Jane Austen do that. I think both women are more interested in the difference between personality and I guess what would be ethics or basic character. Some of Austen's characters are obnoxious and also not good people. Some are unpleasant but not as bad, some pleasant and bad. So I don't think it will turn out everything seemingly bad about Snape was good--there's no fun in that. It erases the character people have grown to like/hate/like to hate to begin with and just stamps "JUST KIDDING!" in his place. The trick, if Snape is DDM, is to make both sides of his personality work together and be true. That should make it *more* fun to re-read Snape's scenes later, not less. The ferret scene being a great example of this--once we know the whole story about who Moody is the ferret scene gets better, not worse. Because it's not like everything we see in Fake!Moody is just an act. No, JKR makes sure that we're mostly seeing the real thing, just not understanding the person underneath. I think it's the same thing with Snape. In HBP Harry says, with regards to the idea that Snape is just pretending to help Draco, that "not even Snape is that good an actor" (or something like that). Even though Snape himself in that scene is saying how important it is to know how to act. They're two different things. Harry is, imo, right when he instinctively feels that Snape is not acting when he says he's committed to helping Draco. If he wasn't right about that I think JKR would have had him say something else, not those kinds of words. What he could be satisfyingly wrong about was just what that meant to Snape to be helping him (it does not have to mean they're both committed to helping the Dark Lord take over the world). Taking away Snape's hatred of Harry and James, as opposed to just adding a dimension to it, wouldn't be half as satisfying. Especially if Snape was just "acting." Or if Harry's pov was skewed in a way that seemed completely fake. Whatever surprises there are with Snape, I doubt they will read like a post that's turning Snape's every bad moment into something selfless and good. In fact, while I also think Harry might be on the receiving end of some unflattering re-cognition about himself, I doubt Snape will be the one in position to do it. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 17 20:07:12 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:07:12 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155528 > Alla: > > Well, I just don't see that paralell. I don't see that to the degree > you are seeing or maybe not at all. It had been awhile since I > read "Emma", but I don't recall the possibility of interpreting > Frank's behaviour as evil, while Snape's behaviour gives me plenty. Potioncat: As I recall Emma--we were led to believe certain motives for a person based on the charater traits we saw and supported by certain conversations. The behaviors really happened, but the motives weren't what we thought they were. In one case, the behavior didn't mean what we thought it did at all. It isn't so much a case that if JKR is playing Austen with Snape that he won't be a jerk when she's done. It's not an "evil/not evil" formula. It would just mean he wasn't a jerk for the reasons we thought he was. Or that, yes, he is a jerk but did these other things too. Put on your time turner and go back to the end of the first book-- before any of the other books were written. From the first moment Harry saw Snape, Harry suspected something was wrong. Snape made his scar hurt. Snape was mean to him in class for no reason. Even Hermione was convinced that Snape was hexing the broom. We were all there with Harry, eager to keep Snape from getting the stone. (Well, I wasn't. But that's because someone let it slip that Snape wasn't the bad guy.) That's what Austen does. Snape didn't cause Harry's scar to hurt. He was mean to Harry in class for no reason, (at least not one provided by canon) except that maybe he's taking it out on Harry that James is his father. Snape wasn't hexing the broom. Snape wasn't after the stone. Twist the time-turner again and go to GoF (because I've just listened to it.) In GoF JKR does another Austen with Snape. Black--Sirius Black of all people-- is the one who tells us 1)I never heard anyone say Snape was a DE. 2)I don't think DD would hire someone who ever worked for LV. Heck, if Sirius Black doesn't think Snape was a DE, then I'm with Sirius! Hagrid would say it to say it, but Black was sincere! Was that a surprise when Snape showed the dark mark? (I didn't expect JKR to top that one.) I'm sure there are more examples. And I'm sure there are more non- Snape ones too. Any one else? From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 17 20:18:35 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:18:35 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155529 "colebiancardi" wrote: > we aren't really sure if Snape *knew* > what Draco was supposed to do; Then Snape was rather stupid to interrupt Narcissa right when she was about to blurt it out, and if Snape made the vow and he didn't even know what he was vowing to do then we can only gaze at the stupidity of the man in slack jawed wonder. > If Snape *told* them to soak their heads, > it would have made Bellatrix more > suspicious of Snape Big deal, Bellatrix never trusted Snape anyway but her trust was not important, Voldemort's was. > Snape's involvement with the UV gave him > the perfect opportunity to spy on Draco Not so perfect, Draco still kept Snape largely in the dark about his activities. A unbreakable vow would be grossly disproportionate to a good Snape, a loyal CIA agent would never assassinate the President of the United States because he thought it would slightly help his undercover work. Real Human Beings just don't behave like that, although a character in a very bad children's novel might, but JKR seems incapable of writing a bad book. > outnumbered? Snape may have been outnumbered that terrible night in the tower but he was not outgunned, the other Death Eaters seemed terrified of him, and he had the element of surprise on his side. It's interesting that Harry was able to beat the hell out of all the Death Eaters that night with the significant exception of Snape. The man is very powerful. > And then what? He doesn't complete Draco's > task and turns his wand on the DE's and > Snape would drop dead on the spot. He would drop dead on the spot because Snape decided to make that vow, a decision that was either incredibly evil or incredibly stupid. Snape is either a brilliant bastard or a good natured imbecile. I tend to think a brilliant evil Snape would make a better character for book 7 than a comic relief Snape. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 20:10:04 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:10:04 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155530 Wynnleaf wrote: > I don't post often, but read a lot, and thought you all might be > interested in this. > > I recently ran across this quote from JKR from the Readers Digest, > 2000. "I love a good whodunnit and my passion is plot construction. > Readers loved to be tricked, but not conned," Rowling says, warming > to her theme. "The best twist ever in literature is in Jane Austen's > Emma. To me she is the target of perfection at which we shoot in > vain." > > I love "Emma," and decided to look up something that analyzed how > Austen achieved the surprise twists of that book. Here's a exerpt > from an essay written by Jitender Rajpoot, at Cal State and is > titled "The 'Seeming' Reality." > > While not everyone is fooled by Austen's plot, who was or wasn't > fooled doesn't matter - the point is that JKR thought it was the > standard of all surprise plots, and that's the kind of thing she > says she likes to write. So whether or not Austen fooled everyone > isn't the point. The point is that JKR wants to trick people and is > likely using the methods of Austen to do it. So the question isn't > whether, if you've read it, you were tricked by Austen, but whether > we are being tricked by JKR, using similar misdirection methods. > And, by the way, it isn't just any character that you shouldn't > trust. If JKR is using Austen's method, it would be Harry's point > of view, and by extension the narrator's pov, that you shouldn't > trust. Carol responds: As I've noted in other posts, the unreliable narrator is a literary device used by many authors to misdirect readers. Many first-person narrators are unreliable, both because their perspective is naturally limited to what they personally know or witness and because their biases and preconceptions shape their perceptions of objective reality. The same limitations apply to the type of narrator we most frequently see in the HP books, technically called a third-person limited narrator, meaning that the narrator's "omniscience" is limited to the pov of a single character or a few select characters and is both limited and distorted in the same ways as a first person narrator's. In a very few scenes in the HP books--McGonagall, Dumbledore, and Hagrid leaving Baby!Harry on the doorstep in SS/PS, part of "The Riddle House" in GoF and "Spinner's End" in HBP, we see the characters and action from the outside, not so much an omniscient as an objective pov in which we have only our own preconceptions and biases to guide us (at least on a rereading). In a very few other scenes--the first half of "The Boy Who Lived," in which Vernon Dursley is the pov character; the second half of "the Riddle House, in which the Muggle Frank Bryce is the pov character; "The Other Minister," in which the Muggle Prime Minister is the pov character; and bits and pieces of various books--the broom-jinxing scene in SS/PS and moments when Harry is asleep--the pov shifts briefly away from Harry, but in most cases, what we know is limited to what Harry knows--or thinks he knows--and his reactions and perceptions color his interpretation of the action and the other characters, just as Vernon Dursley's and Frank Bryce's and the Muggle Prime Minister's do. In fact, it may be useful to look at these chapters, which present the WW from a Muggle perspective, to see just how unreliable the narrator can be. To take just one example, the narrator comments that there's no such word as "Quidditch" because that's the "truth" according to Frank Bryce. The same technique is frequently used with Harry (the so-called Harry filter), the most obvious and familiar example being his belief that his parents were killed in a car accident. And we see him misinterpreting other characters' actions and motives throughout the series, and even mistaking what's happening to him when his scar hurts for possession in OoP. He sees the Thestrals as "terrible" and he thinks that he must be hallucinating because the only other person who sees them is Luna. Harry "knows" that Professor Moody drinks from his own flask for fear of being poisoned; what he doesn't know is that "Professor Moody" is the polyjuiced Barty Jr., taking advantage of the real Moody's habit of drinking from a flask to drink polyjuice potion in plain sight of the entire school. Harry also "knows" that Snape is going to Crucio him into insanity when in fact Snape is about to save him from the DE who's actually casting the spell. The phrase "Harry knew" is highly suspect and should be regarded as a red flag, one of many devices that JKR uses to mislead the reader. Other forms of misdirection include having two events happening simultaneously, so that one seems to cause the other; having Harry's back turned when something happens or having him distracted so that he doesn't overhear an entire conversation; not identifying the speaker, so that even if Harry knows who spoke, the reader doesn't. I could give examples in every category and list other forms of misdirection, including standard red herrings relating to the detective/mystery elements of the plot(s), but I don't want to bore anyone who's read this far. Some time back, I started a thread on the Unreliable Narrator (I finally, found it, Alla!). If you're interested, you can read the first post here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116981 and follow the thread. All of this is to say that you're exactly right, Wynnleaf. All is not as it seems in the Potterverse, and we can't trust the narrator except on those rare occasions when he or she slips out of limited-omniscient mode into the objective ("dramatic," meaning presented from the outside, as in a play) pov, in which we see the characters from the outside with little or no interpretive commentary. And even then, we're denied access to their thoughts. Imagine "Spinner's End" from Harry's perspective if that were possible (which would present Snape as utterly evil), or from Snape's pov (which were answer all our questions about him and spoil the fun). Then imagine "The Lightning-Struck Tower" from the objective ("dramatic") pov. In fact, reading the tower scene without the distorting filter of Harry's perception might just be a good idea. It won't tell us everything we want to know (what DD and Snape were thinking and whether they used mutual Legilimency and whether Snape cast some other nonverbal spell under cover of the AK), but it will at least enable us to witness the events without Harry's emotions and preconceptions coloring our perception. Carol, who really thought she was just going to include a link to the old thread and can't believe that her fingers typed seven paragraphs of their own accord From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 17 20:28:39 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:28:39 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155531 Magpie: Though even then Harry wasn't wrong about Snape in the way some fans write him. It's not like every time it seems like Snape is being a jerk he's really being nice. Harry was perfectly correct when he sensed that Snape hated him that very first day. He's not always wrong about Snape. He just doesn't know the man truly and neither do we readers. There's a big question mark at the center of him. Pippin: Harry is not very good at analyzing motives -- especially when his own feelings are in the way. He doesn't even get Ron when they're angry at each other in GoF, and a more obvious character never graced the page. So while Snape certainly treats Harry like a jerk, I'm not sure that hate is the right word. This is where the Harry filter may mislead us. Harry is told he is wrong when he says that Lily hated James and that Sirius hated Kreacher, but he isn't offered an alternative. I think the alternative word is "despise." Hatred is a wish to destroy, "despise" means to find unworthy. Lily did not want to destroy James and Sirius did not want to destroy Kreacher, so in each case Harry was mistaken to call the feeling he saw hatred. I don't really see that Snape wants to destroy Harry. If he did he could surely find more efficient ways to do it. I do think that Snape hated James, and perhaps still does, but it may be that he came to despise James more than hate him. That could be the realization that drove Snape back to the right side -- that he never had hated or no longer hated James enough to want him dead. It should be remembered that DDM!Snape is not a static character, and is capable of changing his motivations. The unreadable expression Snape wears as he looks at Harry after he has returned to Hogwarts at the end of GoF has to signify something. I think up to that time Snape genuinely thought that Harry was unworthy, and owed most of his success to his friends and his luck. I think Snape started to reconsider after he learned about the graveyard, but Harry's failure to learn occlumency reinforced Snape's earlier opinion. In any case, Snape had to continue to play the role of someone who did not take Harry seriously, but it is very possible that he still despises Harry. Of course we see in the books, most famously with Harry's sectum sempra curse that many times behavior which is not driven by the wish to destroy can still be extremely destructive. I am not saying Harry's always wrong about who hates him. I think Petunia really hates him, but even her hatred is not complete. IMO, she 'only' hates the magical part of him, but never really understood or cared that she couldn't destroy that part of him without destroying Harry himself. Pippin From phil at pcsgames.net Mon Jul 17 20:23:54 2006 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:23:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 4 Founders, 4 Elements, and Secret Rooms References: Message-ID: <019601c6a9de$f5517cf0$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 155532 Tonks said: "Kellie and Lady J" wrote:> > We know about the chamber of secrets, and lets assume the room of > requirement is a secret room from one of the founders of the school. If this is the case, it seems that the secret rooms are important or have some significance in some way. > > The chamber of secrets, while not considered a good thing to the rest of the school, was thought quite important to Salazar Slytherin. And the room of requirement, (let's assume that it is Ravenclaw because of the tricky way to get into it) provides whatever the person attempting to enter it needs. It has a purpose. > > I would think that the other secret rooms would have a purpose for them. Something out of the ordinary to distinguish them as different from all the other quarky things at Hogwarts. > > Tonks: OK. So we have the Chamber of Secrets, Water and Slytherin. We could say that the Room of Requirement was Ravenclaw, comes out of the Air. That leaves Hufflepuff and earth, and Gryffindor and fire. I have been doing some serious reading about Alchemy. Found some obscure notes from Carl Jung's lectures. We know that JKR was seen in the company of a book by Jung. (Yes, I know, everything is a clue to us even when a cigar is just a cigar.) Jung wrote a lot about symbols and about, much to my surprise, Alchemy. There is something important about the 4 elements in Alchemy. And putting the elements together to produce something very powerful. So far I have only gotten that the godhead was separated and became the 4 elements and uniting them brings creation back into the godhead. It is all very difficult reading. The bottom line is if JKR says the Houses are the 4 elements, then we have to look for the elements of Hufflepuff and Gryffindor and figure out what she might do with them. We know that the Sorting Hat says that the 4 Houses have to work together. Tonks_op Now Phil: I think the secret room of Hufflepuff was revealed in the first book was entered through a trap door and was guarded by fluffy. For Gryffindor, the only other room in the castle that would be difficult to get into and is entered through a trap door on the ceiling is the Divination classroom. Phil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 17 20:42:12 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:42:12 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155533 Alla: > I take it it is your argument that **everything** that > Harry judges about Snape is wrong? And Snape really does > not hate everybody whose last name is Potter and when he > screams "you and your filfy father" , it really does not > mean that Snape hates both Potters and confuses them a lot? houyhnhnm: I see Harry as reacting to Snape rather than judging him (except in PS/SS where he did turn out to be wrong and HBP where I am certain he will also turn out to be wrong). What I mean is nowhere does Harry analyze Snape's behavior toward himself objectively and think that Snape is a bitter man who can't get over past hatreds and who projects his own misery onto others (as Ron does with Filtch). Harry's attitude toward Snape is stricly reactionary: He hates me so I hate him. I think Harry will get over that in book 7. I think he will see Snape with pity as a bitter man who can't get over past hatreds and who projects his own misery onto others. I also think that a lot of Snape's apparently *gratuitous* meanness will turn out to have been motivated by fear that Harry is putting himself in danger or that he is not learning what he needs to in order to defeat the Dark Lord. That is my prediction. From pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 17 20:22:45 2006 From: pebbles104 at sbcglobal.net (Kellie and Lady J) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:22:45 -0400 Subject: Voldemort and Unicorn blood WAS: voldermort /hex/harry potter References: <20060717051838.68600.qmail@web33604.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <022901c6a9de$c406c650$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> No: HPFGUIDX 155534 snip Elaine In the first book of HP Voldermort is drinking the unicorn's blood. When the half horse/man guy (don't know his name sorry) came and told Harry that the forest was not safe and that he needs to leave because he was well known etc. When Harry Potter found out that was Voldermort and the half man/horse dude was telling him that when he drinks from something that pure such as unicorn blood that he is somewhat protected or can half live....so my question is that if he could drink that pure unicorn blood but yet was able to have hexes because he killed other people then how was he able to continue to live? end snip Kellie now: Would LV be the now: Did LV actually drink the unicorn blood, or was it professor Quirrel? If it was the professor, perhaps he is the one who will suffer from the half life, while LV benefits from the unicorn blood. I mean, he didn't have a body, he isn't really human at this point. I don't know. Kellie From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Jul 17 20:54:21 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:54:21 +0200 Subject: Dumbledore from Gryffindor References: <055d01c6a92f$698615f0$6500a8c0@shannonn2zgd3u> Message-ID: <014d01c6a9e3$2ea455f0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 155535 Kellie and Lady J wrote: > A friend and I were talking yesterday about the books. She asked if > there > was any proof in cannon to support Dumbledore being in Gryffindor > when he > was a student at Hogwarts. Miles: We had this discussion some months ago, starting with a mail I posted here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144504 We discussed it and most of us came to the conclusion, that it is most probable, yet not proved in canon that Dumbledore was a Gryffindor as a student. As a result of the discussion (and a mail sent to the HP Lexicon), they changed the article on Dumbledore on this note. I personally don't expect it, but wouldn't be surprised if JKR used this small uncertainty for a small, but teaching twist... Harry: "We can't work together with Slytherins. It is impossible! Dumbledore died as a real Gryffindor at the hand of a Slytherin!" McGonagall: "But Harry - didn't you know? Dumbledore was Prefect in Slytherin House in his days!" Ok ok, she would do it slightly better ;). Miles, expecting to see much more misinterpretations from Harry and Harry, the narrator From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 21:32:03 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:32:03 -0000 Subject: Harry & Slytherin (was:Re: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155536 > >>Triin: > What is it about Harry's personality that makes him so Slytherin > that the hat had to be begged not to put him there? He is such a > *straightfoward* person, with a "saving people thing", etc; to me > he sounds like an epitome of Gryffindor values.. Betsy Hp: Huh. I would never have thought to describe Harry as "straightforward". He strikes me as someone who plays his cards very close to the vest, letting as few people in as possible. Part of it probably has to do with his upbringing when any insight shared might be used as a weapon. But I also think Harry is naturally a bit of an introvert. He'd rather not be the center of attention, thank you very much. Because of that I think Harry rather naturally goes a bit sneaky when he wants to find something out. I don't think it's an accident that his two most important tools are a cloak that allows him to disappear and map that allows him to silently spy. Harry likes to creep about rather than straightforwardly ask for information. I don't think that informs at all on his "saving people thing". It's just, when it's time to do his thing Harry tends to tip-toe into action, rather than bellow out a war-cry that brings allies tumbling out of the woodwork. I'm not sure if secrecy is a Slytherin trait. Maybe it can be classified as "cunning"? (That's a trait twice cited by the Hat as particular to Slytherin.) > >>Sherry: > > I think Harry was meant to be in Gryffindor, and that > unlike what so many seem to see in that scene, it was never the > Hat's second choice for Harry. Betsy Hp: I don't know that Slytherin was the Hat's *first* choice for Harry (Gryffindor may well have been). But the Hat does seem to imply that it's a *viable* choice, a House Harry could do well in. Which, since Harry has been lead to believe Slytherin is the root of all evil in the WW, is quite enough to give him the willies. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 21:50:15 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:50:15 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155537 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Funnily enough, when Harry does need the twins help they *do* > > flee. While their exit in OotP was thrilling and it saved them > > both from a flogging, it also meant that they left Harry and co. > > to deal with a mess they had a massive hand in stirring up. It > > also meant that when Harry really needed help they weren't > > around to provide it. > >>Steven1965aaa: > I don't think their leaving had anything to do with Harry. They > did help him at great personal risk just before that, to get into > Umbridge's office to use the fireplace. It's just hypothetical of > course but IMO if Harry had had some specific need for them to > stay in order to help him further they would have done so. They > did not know about the scars on his hand. Betsy Hp: Oh, I don't really hold it against the twins that they chose to leave the school (and the DA) instead of stay and get flogged by Umbridge. As far as they know they're just stirring up a bit of trouble to make things a bit difficult for the new headmistress. They're not fighting in an all out war. As you point out, they didn't know what all Umbridge was doing to Harry. They didn't know how far she was willing to take things. Which is interesting, IMO. Because those who feel Marietta deserved her brand tend to say that the DA *was* in a war; that Marietta was more than just a snitch, she was a traitor. But wouldn't that make the twins deserters? Because if everyone in the DA was supposed to realize that this was an all out war it means the twins chose to leave their post when things got a bit hot. So either, they twins didn't really see the DA as something other than a study group (and again, that says something about Marietta's role as a snitch), or they did see the DA as an army but weren't willing to give it their all. So shouldn't they be wearing a brand across their face ("coward"?) as per Hermione's rules? Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 21:51:21 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:51:21 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155538 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cass_da_sweet" wrote: > > I have yet to see this posted and it's been bugging me for a while. In > HBP Hermione continues to insist that the HBP's Potions book was > written by a girl. I know that it was Snape's mother's book but we are > giving Snape all the credit for the spells and such written in it when > it might not have been he who wrote it. Maybe it matters and maybe it > doesn't but well it's bugging me. > > Cass_da_sweet > Carol responds: Since we know that he's a Potions genius and that he came to Hogwarts knowing more hexes than most sixth-years, and since we learn in HBP that he's also a Healer and he refers to himself as the Half-Blood Prince, I really don't think there's much doubt. I think Hermione's insistence that the author of the spells might be a girl and her discovery o Eileen Prince's existence is chiefly a red herring, but also foreshadowing of Snape's Half-blood parentage. The cheeky little remark on stuffing a bezoar down their throats sounds like something the young Snape would write and fits in beautifully with the adult Snape's bezoar lesson on the first day of Potions class in SS/PS--Snape is doubly responsible for (indirectly) saving Ron's life in HBP. (And of course, there are all the references to his knowledge of both the Dark Arts and healing in HBP, and Slughorn's view of him as highly talented--almost as brilliant as Harry, the Potions "natural"!) The irony would be lost if the Potions hints were Eileen's, not Snape's. And the Potions hints, including the bezoar remark, are written in the same minuscule, cramped handwriting as the spells, which we know are Snape's. (He tells Harry not to use his own spells against him and he alone, apparently, knows the countercurse to Sectumsempra. Lucky for Draco that Snape was keeping an eye on him or Harry!) Another clue that pretty much cinches the HBP's identity, at least for me, is the teenage Snape's handwriting, described when he's taking his DADA exam in the Pensieve memory in OoP as minuscule and cramped (he's written a foot more than his nearest neighbor, indicating a detailed knowledge of the subject, and is clearly squeezing as much knowledge as he can into his exam answers). And we see that same minuscule, cramped writing used to cram notes on potions and drafts of spells in the margins of his mother's old NEWT Potions book. It's interesting that Snape writes the Potions ingredients and step-by-step directions on the board with a flick of his wand, whereas Slughorn has the students use their books. Clearly, Snape has memorized every step of the process for every potion (he knows exactly which step has been skipped or what has been done incorrectly when Neville or Harry makes a mistake in concocting a potion). It's possible, too, that the potions directions are his own improved versions rather than those in the book. Hermione does much better in his class than in Slughorn's, perhaps for this reason. Altogether, I see no reason to assume that anyone other than Teen!Snape should get credit for the potions tips just as no one else should get credit for inventing Muffliato--or blame for inventing Sectumsempra. IMO, the whole idea of HBP is that it's Harry interacting with Snape on two different levels, hating the one and identifying with the other. Eileen Prince is unimportant in herself; Snape is a major character, Harry's paradoxical antagonist and sometime ally/protector. To have anything written by the HBP be other than Snape's would, IMO, spoil that complexly ironic relationship, including the irony of Harry hiding the HBP's own book from the HBP. Carol, noting that Slughorn's use of the same Potions text for fifty years doesn't say much for his own inventiveness or incentive, in marked contrast to Snape's From carodave92 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 23:36:46 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:36:46 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cass_da_sweet" > wrote: > > > > I have yet to see this posted and it's been bugging me for a while. In > > HBP Hermione continues to insist that the HBP's Potions book was > > written by a girl. I know that it was Snape's mother's book but we are > > giving Snape all the credit for the spells and such written in it when > > it might not have been he who wrote it. Maybe it matters and maybe it > > doesn't but well it's bugging me. > > > > Cass_da_sweet > > > Carol responds: > Since we know that he's a Potions genius and that he came to Hogwarts > knowing more hexes than most sixth-years, and since we learn in HBP > that he's also a Healer and he refers to himself as the Half-Blood > Prince, I really don't think there's much doubt. I think Hermione's > insistence that the author of the spells might be a girl and her > discovery o Eileen Prince's existence is chiefly a red herring, but > also foreshadowing of Snape's Half-blood parentage. > Carol, noting that Slughorn's use of the same Potions text for fifty > years doesn't say much for his own inventiveness or incentive, in > marked contrast to Snape's > Now Carodave: The Snape family must have been poor - Severus comes to school with his mother's textbook. Even Ron Weasley buys a new textbook for the class, although in the past he has purchased used textbooks. (Arthur's promotion must mean more money - good for him!) There was some discussion in another thread about how wealth or lack thereof may have affected Peter Pettigrew in life; maybe coming to Hogwarts as a poor student (and a half-blood one at that) primed Snape to look for acceptance where he could find it, ie, the Death Eaters. Carodave From carodave92 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 23:53:24 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:53:24 -0000 Subject: Ludo Bagman, Blondie and the Battle of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155540 Goddlefrood wrote: > > > > > > My conclusion is that the BBDE is none other than Ludovic Bagman > and > > what follows sets out supporting material for this view and also > the > > opinion that Bagman was and is a Death Eater whether reluctantly > or > > otherwise. > > > > > > wrote: > > I have no problem with Ludo Bagman being the blond death eater, > although I had some other ideas. Carodave: I don't think the blond DE can be Ludovic Bagman. Bagman was a celebrity - a famous athlete - and personally known by the Hogwarts staff. They would have recognized him. Minerva McGonagall is a Quidditch fan and wwould certainly have known him. He is also personally known from the World Cup to all of the Weasleys. Ginny and Ron would have recognized him, as Harry would have when he joined the fight. However dark it was and however confusing the fight may have been, everyone else was easily recognizable and Bagman would have been known if he were there. Carodave From estesrandy at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 23:57:26 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:57:26 -0000 Subject: 4 Founders, 4 Elements, and Secret Rooms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > SNIP SNIP > I have been doing some serious reading about Alchemy. Found some > obscure notes from Carl Jung's lectures. We know that JKR was seen > in the company of a book by Jung. (Yes, I know, everything is a clue > to us even when a cigar is just a cigar.) Jung wrote a lot about > symbols and about, much to my surprise, Alchemy. > > There is something important about the 4 elements in Alchemy. And > putting the elements together to produce something very powerful. So > far I have only gotten that the godhead was separated and became the > 4 elements and uniting them brings creation back into the godhead. > It is all very difficult reading. > > The bottom line is if JKR says the Houses are the 4 elements, then > we have to look for the elements of Hufflepuff and Gryffindor and > figure out what she might do with them. We know that the Sorting Hat > says that the 4 Houses have to work together. > > I have never been a big proponent of the idea of HP being about > Alchemy, but I am beginning to see some signs of Alchemy at least > having some small part in the series. And the fact that the fifth > element is Love is, IMO, a very important reason to look at this. We > are told that Love is what Harry has, and Love is the secret weapon. > It is Love that unites the other 4 elements. > > Help.. > > Tonks_op > I remember reading some interesting essays by John Granger about Harry Potter and Alchemy. I suggest you google "John Granger Harry Potter and Alchemy" Randy From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Jul 18 00:05:26 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (Schlobin at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:05:26 EDT Subject: open letter to JKR Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155542 An Open Letter to J.K. Rowling ? I trust you to do the right thing! Okay, I?m 55, I?ve been reading your books from the beginning, and I run an internet list serve called Harry Potter for Grownups over 40. My entire family, my partner, my 8 year old son and my 6 year old daughter have read the books over and over and over again, heard both versions of the tapes (when too young to read), seen the movies and play our own version of HP Trivia constantly. I?m a fanatic. I love your books. Now, I know that you are a progressive who believes in social justice, bravery, fighting for what?s right, loyalty to friends, doing the right thing ? it oozes out of every page in every one of your remarkable books. You are clear about how the wizards and witches have oppressed and mistreated other magical creatures (goblins, giants, elves, centaurs, etc.). I quote you! ??. bigotry is probably the thing I detest most. All forms of intolerance, the whole idea of ?that which is different from me is necessary evil.? I really like to explore the idea that difference is equal and good?.? Entertainment Weekly, 9/7/2000. One of the most despicably evil characters in your book is Delores Umbrage, a pillar of the Ministry for Magic, who despises half breeds, enacts laws against werewolves, ridicules and persecutes Hagrid (culminating with an attack designed to send him to Azkaban for no reason at all), and who calls the Centaurs filthy half-breeds. When Hagrid is outed as a half giant, the trio leaps to his defense, as does Albus Dumbledore. Olympe Maxime may initially succumb to internalized oppression (believing what the wizarding world says about her and denying her true identity as a half giant). But then, we witness her personal transformation ? moving to embracing her giant side she travels with Hagrid as an ambassador from the wizarding world to the Giants, who as a race are almost gone. Remus Lupin is the victim of vicious prejudice against werewolves ? unable to get a job, becoming more and more poor, shunned by many. Although we are invited to laugh at Hermione who goes a little over the edge with SPEW?we see that the House Elves ARE treated cruelly and indifferently by the wizard world. We see the excesses of barbarism ? Sirius Black?s Aunt Elladora who instituted the practice of beheading house elves when they got too old ? Barty Crouch, Sr., gets rid of Winky despite her many years of service in keeping his secrets and caretaking his son. Hermione?s obsession with the welfare of House Elves becomes more and more reasonable, and less and less silly. You are particularly clear about racial prejudice and discrimination based on ancestry. The evil guys in your book ? Draco Malfoy and Lucius Malfoy for example - are obsessed with their ?pure blood.? They ignore the contradictions in their own bigotry ? they ignore that Tom Riddle, styling himself as Lord Voldemort, is himself a half blood. They despise blood traitors like the Weasleys, themselves pure blood who take the side of not only mudbloods and half bloods but of MUGGLES?? Sirius Black?s mother obliterates such trash by blasting their names out of the family quilt. You are clear about how some members of the privileged class (Weasleys, and I ?m assuming Dumbledore and Minerva McGonagall are also pure bloods) use their privilege to assist the oppressed giants, elves, goblins, Mudbloods, and half bloods. It?s obvious that you are a feminist. The first three books saw women in quite limited roles (with the exception of Hermione) and defined primarily by their relationship to men. Yet, starting in the Goblet of Fire, and breaking out big time in the Order of the Phoenix, women and girls start coming into their own. Hermione masterminds how to tell the wizarding world the truth about Harry?s experiences witnessing the return of Lord Voldemort, and squashes Rita Skeeter. Ginny comes into her own as more than someone who is crushed out on Harry ? she is outspoken, an outstanding Quidditch player, inspired caster of bat bogey curses and other hexes. Professor McGonagall charges heroically into battle to defend Hagrid when he is attacked in the OoP. Luna Lovegood and Nymphadora Tonks are new wonderful female characters. I have imagined that you heard some feminist critiques of the first few books, were annoyed, but still listened, which resulted in the changes in the last few books. You celebrate resistance to tyranny and injustice ? the wonderful student uprising against Umbrage, Dumbledore?s Army, Fred and George?s dramatic flight from Hogwarts?. And of course, the whole character of Harry Potter is shaped by the injustice done to him by Vernon and Petunia Dursley ? who abuse, neglect, scapegoat and ignore him. Harry?s resistance to their maltreatment of him grows as he gains power, support, and a sense of how truly valuable an individual he is. So, I?ve got to ask you to go the next step. There really needs to be a lesbian and/or gay male character in the Harry Potter series. And?as everyone in the whole world knows, there?s only one more book to go. It?s possible that your original visualization of the HP universe did not include any giblet characters. I don?t know. Perhaps there is no out lesbian and gay character because you wrote the books from Harry?s point of view, AND he is just discovering his own sexual orientation and feelings, and does not see or perceive any same gender pairings, so there are none in the book. Or ? could this be a publisher?s ban, like the ban on profanity? I KNOW you do not buy into the right wing crap that says that the books don? t include ?controversial topics? such as abortion, incest, drug abuse or homosexuality. Unlike too many of your right wing critics, I DO read the books. First, you do talk about drug abuse ? Winky is addicted to butterbeer, Madame Trelawney is addicted to sherry, and Sirius smells of alcohol in his despair and isolation at Grimmauld Place. Second, it is true you do not discuss birth control, abortion, portray teenagers as having sex, or portray any explicit sexual activity at all. BUT you do show the kids having crushes, dates, holding hands, and kissing, and show some good and bad examples of mixed gender couples (Weasleys, Dursleys, Potters, etc.) Of course you know that our sexual orientation is just one part of our lives and identities as lesbians or gay men, and that in creating a lesbian or gay character (or outing one that already exists) you do not need to discuss their sexual practices. (anymore than you discuss Molly and Arthur?s sexual practices other than the fact that he calls her Mollywobbles in private). You know that lesbians and gay men are not ?flaunting our sexuality ? by holding hands or doing things that mixed gender couples often do without thinking twice about it. So that can?t be your reason. I KNOW (because I know your values) that you do not believe that people who are lesbians or gay men are deviant, or sinful, or damned, or unnatural. I know that you?re aware that lesbians and gay men are like everyone else ? some bad, and some good. I know you understand that lesbians and gay men are not child abusers anymore than heterosexual women and men are child abusers. I know that you understand that child rape is a barbarous act that cuts across lines of sexual orientation and that most of it is committed by men against girls. I KNOW that you are not a bigot. Many of us were very hopeful when we saw the movie the Prisoner of Azkaban. It was reported that you approved many of director?s Alphonse Cuaron?s minor changes from the book that showed up in the film. So when we saw Lupin portrayed as the quintessential gay man (limping away as in Goodbye Mr. Chips..file in), and when Severus snapped that (Sirius and Remus) were ?quarrelling like an old married couple,? we really hoped that Sirius and Remus ? two guys who loved each other ? would be revealed as gay men. We were disappointed when in the Half Blood Prince, Remus got involved with Tonks. But never fear?there is a rationale here. Many gay men have at one point been involved with women, and tons of lesbians have been involved with men (compulsory heterosexuality). So Lupin could have been in love and involved with Sirius as a youth, and later turned to women, or whatever. NO PROBLEM! Here?s why we urgently need you to have a positive lesbian or gay male character in the last book (and we?d welcome a bisexual or transgender character, too!) 1) Many of us lesbians and gay men have kids. In the U.S., the 2000 census reported 601,209 lesbian gay households with kids ? and that?s just who decided to come out to the government! (And remember, lesbian and gay teenagers are more likely to be children of heterosexuals than lesbians and gays) One study in Scotland found that more than 20% of lesbian and gay people have children. Some of us lesbians have children by men in prior relationships. Some of us did artificial insemination. Some lesbians and gay men have done surrogate parenting. Some of us (including me) have adopted children. Our children urgently need reassurance that their parents are okay. As my kids read and absorb the Harry Potter series, it is hard for them not to see any families like their own. 2) There is a tremendously high rate of suicide, suicide attempts, and other self destructive acts among lesbian and gay youth. You have the power to send these children and these youth the message that they are OK, and that they are valuable, wonderful, amazing lovable people. 3) There are many adult lesbians and gay men who still believe on some level that they are unnatural, or condemned by God, or lesser in some way. You have the power to mitigate those feelings. So what if your publisher objects..I think you have the leverage. So what if the right wing across the globe goes bananas, it can?t hurt you. So, please, please, please?..consider my request. And from the bottom of my heart, thank you for the joy and wonder you have brought to me, my partner, my children, and the world. Love, Susan McGee P.S. Please tell me that Snape is not really evil. Those signing this petition ask J.K. Rowling to consider including a lesbian or gay male character in her next book (but do not necessarily agree with every single point in the letter). Petition available at _http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/jkrlesbiangaybook7_ (http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/jkrlesbiangaybook7) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 01:09:48 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 01:09:48 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155543 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Which is interesting, IMO. Because those who feel Marietta deserved her brand tend to say that the DA *was* in a war; that Marietta was more than just a snitch, she was a traitor. But wouldn't that make the twins deserters? Because if everyone in the DA was supposed to realize that this was an all out war it means the twins chose to leave their post when things got a bit hot. > > So either, they twins didn't really see the DA as something other > than a study group (and again, that says something about Marietta's role as a snitch), or they did see the DA as an army but weren't willing to give it their all. So shouldn't they be wearing a brand across their face ("coward"?) as per Hermione's rules? > Steven1965aaa now: Well, I see what you're saying and I'm not one of the people who go by the war theory, but I think there are a couple of important differences. First, everyone in the DA agreed to keep it secret, and Marietta violated that agreement. 2nd, at the time the Twins "deserted" the DA was no longer meeting because of Marietta's vilation, so even accepting the premise of your argument there was nothing really left to "desert". I don't think Hermione would make a spell which would brand someone coward for leaving, I don't think she or Harry would have held it against anyone for dropping out --- the problem with Marietta was that she violated a trust by turning them in after promising not to. From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Tue Jul 18 01:09:42 2006 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:09:42 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] open letter to JKR In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44BC34D6.6000803@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155544 Schlobin at aol.com wrote: > > (snip) > There really needs to be a lesbian and/or gay male character in the Harry > Potter series. And?as everyone in the whole world knows, there?s only > one more > book to go. It?s possible that your original visualization of the HP > universe did not include any giblet characters. I don?t know. > Perhaps there is no out lesbian and gay character because you wrote the > books from Harry?s point of view, AND he is just discovering his own > sexual > orientation and feelings, and does not see or perceive any same gender > pairings, > so there are none in the book. > (snip) I disagree. I am not a bigot, but I feel that adding gay characters will distract from the story as much as putting the spotlight on any specific race, religion, etc. JK has neatly sidestepped religions, sexual preferences, real world political party divisions and 'muggle' human racial prejudice (i.e.. skin color.. she replaced it with fantasy half-humans or nonexistent race bigotry instead). This is a fantasy book and doesn't need muggle concepts like sexual preference, religion, etc. jammed into the magical world. It already HAS magical/mythical equivalents. The Harry Potter books are not gay/lesbian literature, they are written for the mainstream public. As such, it would be literary suicide to change the focus of the books, even without meaning to change it. The media focus on the books would change the books in the minds of the public to 'gay literature'. While yes, there needs to be books with gay/lesbian characters, it should be with a NEW series, NOT using an existing popular series as a political soap box for gays/lesbians. Maybe you are not trying to make it a gay/lesbian soapbox, but thats exactly what the book would become if the media focused on added gay/lesbian characters. So no...... If the books had such characters from the begining, it would be okay, but its too late in the series and the style of the books too defined to make such a change. The books are NOT about sex, sexuality or sexual preferences, so theres no reason to change them to make them such. Not to mention people will be too busy in the last book saving the world to worry about dating, one would guess.... Jazmyn > (sni > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 01:45:51 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 01:45:51 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155545 > wynnleaf: > I recently ran across this quote from JKR from the Readers Digest, > 2000. "I love a good whodunnit and my passion is plot construction. > Readers loved to be tricked, but not conned," Rowling says, warming > to her theme. "The best twist ever in literature is in Jane Austen's > Emma. To me she is the target of perfection at which we shoot in > vain." > Neri: IIRC, no character in Emma turns out to be ESE, and no seemingly evil person turns out to be good . OK, so lets take P&P instead (JKR has it in her bookshelf too, according to her website). Here we seem to have much better parallels: Wickham is ESE (well, he is in Austen's standards) and Darcy seems to be evil but is really good. Or are they? In fact Elizabeth isn't much duped. True, she believes Wickham's story about Darcy in the beginning, because she doesn't have any data to the contrary. But she never falls for Wickham. She realizes herself that he's not a very admirable person, even before she finds out the true story about him. And she has respect for Darcy almost from the beginning. She only thinks she hates him because he's proud, which is true, and because she suspects he ruined the engagements of her sister, which is also true. So in fact, the only things that Elizabeth is really duped about are Darcy's feelings about her and her own feelings about him. Now back to Emma. Throughout the whole story Emma is never duped about the true nature of any of the characters. She's only duped about their motivations, more specifically about a single kind of motivation ? who they fancy. So she doesn't fall for Frank Churchill, even though she believes he's courting her, because she (and the reader) can feel that he's not serious about it, and that he isn't worthy of her love. Like Austen, I think JKR doesn't believe that a character can dupe the hero for long about his/her true nature. Motivations yes. Personal history yes. Real nature no. Neri From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 18 02:11:33 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:11:33 -0000 Subject: Harry & Slytherin (was:Re: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155546 Triin: > > What is it about Harry's personality that makes him so > > Slytherin that the hat had to be begged not to put him there? He > > is such a *straightfoward* person, with a "saving people thing", > > etc; to me he sounds like an epitome of Gryffindor values.. Betsy Hp: > Huh. I would never have thought to describe Harry > as "straightforward". He strikes me as someone who plays his > cards very close to the vest, letting as few people in as > possible. SSSusan: I can't speak for Triin, of course, but I wonder if what was meant by calling him a *straightforward* person is simply that he's not... I don't know... duplicitous? He's not going to *consciously* tweak how he comes across to others. He's not going to present one face to one person and another face to another, simply because he senses some benefit or advantage in doing so. He's "just Harry," in other words. He is who he is, and that's that. But, yes, he *does* play his cards close to the vest. And he is naturally an introvert. I think those don't *not* fit with being straightforward. Maybe you're thinking of straightforward in the sense of someone who's *forthright*? But Triin may mean it more like this (from dictionary.com): 1. Not circuitous or evasive; honest and frank. 2. Free from ambiguity or pretense; plain and open. Betsy Hp: > Because of that I think Harry rather naturally goes a bit sneaky > when he wants to find something out. I don't think it's an > accident that his two most important tools are a cloak that allows > him to disappear and map that allows him to silently spy. Harry > likes to creep about rather than straightforwardly ask for > information. SSSusan: This is a *great* insight into Harry's personality, imo. So, okay, he is sneaky... but I still think he can be straightforward in that the sneakiness isn't really about pretense; it's about facility or necessity (as Harry sees it). What I'm saying is that I think your comment here shows that your use of the word "straightforwardly" might well be more in line with "forthrightly" than with the "free from pretense, honest and frank" kind of definition. Sherry: > > I think Harry was meant to be in Gryffindor, and that > > unlike what so many seem to see in that scene, it was never > > the Hat's second choice for Harry. Betsy Hp: > I don't know that Slytherin was the Hat's *first* choice for Harry > (Gryffindor may well have been). But the Hat does seem to imply > that it's a *viable* choice, a House Harry could do well in. SSSusan: I have always maintained that the hat never "wanted" to put Harry in Slytherin. All it really does it tell Harry that he would do well there. Yet Harry insists that he doesn't want Slytherin, and the hat goes along with this. In my view, the hat simply wanted Harry to MAKE HIS OWN CHOICE. It pointed out some benefits of other houses besides Gryffindor, but it never said, "Oh, not Gryffindor, Harry! I really want you to be in Slytherin!!" I think the hat simply "wanted" to highlight to Harry -- hoping that he would look back on it, eventually -- that it was truly about CHOICES. Siriusly Snapey Susan From scarah at gmail.com Tue Jul 18 02:29:52 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:29:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] open letter to JKR In-Reply-To: <44BC34D6.6000803@pacificpuma.com> References: <44BC34D6.6000803@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: <3202590607171929r20914faeq751167595dd3916b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155547 I think the topic could be approached without making it a soapbox. It all comes down to Harry's reaction, really. If it's an actual plot point, then yes, this could distract attention. But a simple line about seeing someone like Grubbly-Plank's female partner narrated matter-of-factly by Harry is something I think would please many fans, and not raise too many eyebrows except those of folks who think the books are Satanic anyway. I personally wouldn't like to discover that Sirius and Lupin ever had anything going. Why? Too negative. I don't think Sirius cared much about Lupin's feelings (as observed in the Pensieve in OotP) and he was miserable when they lived together. He also didn't leave him any of his estate. Platonic or not, there has been one man that Sirius has loved, and that wasn't Lupin. There are still many points along the Kinsey scale where Lupin could be, however. Before HBP I was hoping he'd get together with the new werewolf he met at St Mungos. JK tells us in interviews of her index cards and notebooks, filled with character backgrounds very little of which will ever make it into the books. I'd be surprised if *she* doesn't already know which characters are gay. ;) I don't think anyone is saying Harry should be riding a float dressed as Dorothy in a parade, it has to be approached very simply, and matter-of-factly. In fact, it can be one more vehicle to show that the wizarding world doesn't have the same prejudices as the Muggle world. Who made a joke about Cedric having been Harry's boyfriend? Dudley, a character who a) we don't like very much and b) is a Muggle. Wouldn't it be something if only Muggle kids did this because wizards don't see what the big deal is? Sarah From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 02:52:08 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:52:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] open letter to JKR References: <44BC34D6.6000803@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: <00a701c6aa15$2953a2e0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 155548 >>Susan wrote: > >>(snip) >>There really needs to be a lesbian and/or gay male character in the Harry >>Potter series. And.as everyone in the whole world knows, there's only >>one more >>book to go. It's possible that your original visualization of the HP >>universe did not include any giblet characters. I don't know. >>Perhaps there is no out lesbian and gay character because you wrote the >>books from Harry's point of view, AND he is just discovering his own >>sexual >>orientation and feelings, and does not see or perceive any same gender >>pairings, >>so there are none in the book. >Jazmyn: >While yes, there needs to be books with gay/lesbian characters, it >should be with a NEW series, NOT using an existing popular series as a >political soap box for gays/lesbians. Maybe you are not trying to make >it a gay/lesbian soapbox, but thats exactly what the book would become >if the media focused on added gay/lesbian characters. Rebecca now: Jazmyn's point is well stated, and personally, I am confused by what purpose is in having a gay or lesbian character in the series. What exactly would that really do to forward the plot? Why focus on a character's sexuality when there's Lord Voldemort to defeat? Furthermore, JKR does a pretty good job of communicating bigotry in the world she's created (that's a general definition of bigotry in *any* form), and pointing out sexual orientation as suggested by this petition and letter may actually backfire with some against the very concepts she's been able to portray thus far. The *story* is about Harry (again, Harry and the ) and his maturation and efforts to thwart Lord Voldemort. I think, as Jazmyn, it's too late for special characters in Book 7 as it has quite enough in order to wrap up the series. According to JKR's interviews, she has no intention to add more "characters" in the final book. Since she's said that, this effort may be a very mute point and such desires to change the thinking of sections of the world's beliefs about sexual orientation could be handled via much more effective avenues than a work of fiction. Rebecca From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 03:00:01 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:00:01 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155549 > Potioncat: > It isn't so much a case that if JKR is playing Austen with Snape that > he won't be a jerk when she's done. It's not an "evil/not evil" > formula. It would just mean he wasn't a jerk for the reasons we > thought he was. Or that, yes, he is a jerk but did these other things > too. Alla: Well I can buy the after "or" part of this paragraph - as in "jerk but did other things too". If he is a jerk but for different reasons, does it really matter though? My point is that unless the narrator and /or Harry deaf and blind, the interactions of Harry and Snape **as reported** show to me very very ugly picture of Severus dearest. As I mentioned earlier I can see ( very reluctantly and unwillingly) that based on **unsufficient information** Harry and narrator with him can make a mistake about Snape loyalties, **but** based on what I hear from the narrator and by extension from Harry, I do not see how Snape can turn out to be **not** a jerk. Does it make sense? Potioncat: > Snape didn't cause Harry's scar to hurt. He was mean to Harry in > class for no reason, (at least not one provided by canon) except that > maybe he's taking it out on Harry that James is his father. Snape > wasn't hexing the broom. Snape wasn't after the stone. Alla: Yes, just as Neri so brilliantly sums up down thread Harry was wrong about Snape motivations ( or not - Hehe, in light of possibly evil or OFH! Snape), but not wrong about Snape nature, as the man so bitter who does not hesitate to take his issues with the child's father on this child. Neri: > Like Austen, I think JKR doesn't believe that a character can dupe the > hero for long about his/her true nature. Motivations yes. Personal > history yes. Real nature no. Alla: Word, Neri, word of agreement :) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 02:49:27 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:49:27 -0000 Subject: 4 Founders, 4 Elements, and Secret Rooms In-Reply-To: <019601c6a9de$f5517cf0$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155550 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phil Vlasak" wrote: > > > Tonks said: > > OK. So we have the Chamber of Secrets, Water and Slytherin. > > We could say that the Room of Requirement was Ravenclaw, comes > > out of the Air. That leaves Hufflepuff and earth, and > > Gryffindor and fire. > > > > Now Phil: > I think the secret room of Hufflepuff was revealed in the first > book was entered through a trap door and was guarded by Fluffy. Mike: I love this idea, so I really hate postulating that the castle was probably nowhere near as big in the times of the founders. If wizard population is proportionate to the muggle population there would have only been about 50 - 75 kids at Hogwarts back then. Hardly any need for an eight floor castle (G, 1-7 Fl.), not counting the turrets/towers. That would rule out the RoR on the 7th floor being original to the castle. Then again, JKR admits she's terrible with numbers. Oh, hang logic, I'm in. OK, we need a fire room. It's not a room, but travelling by Floo Network is via fire. How about one has to step thru a fireplace to get to Gryffindor's room. Chuck in floo powder and call out the code word for his room. Is anything engraved on the back side of his sword? You can only get there from one fire in Hogwarts. My vote is for that handsome fireplace in the room off of the Great Hall, you know the one where the champions went after their name's came out of the GoF. This could have been GG's study, back in the day. Now, what is in this room that makes it worth keeping secret? Hmmm I'm stumped here. I don't have near the imagination of JKR, that's why nobody blogs about my books (besides the fact that I haven't written any). How's this? You have to pass a challenge proving your bravery, and if you do, a Phoenix will be summoned to become your faithful pet. This is how DD got Fawkes. Well, I tried! From zehms at aol.com Mon Jul 17 19:21:38 2006 From: zehms at aol.com (Szehms) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:21:38 -0000 Subject: Harry the accidental horcrux: is it Harry not Nagini which is the last horcrux? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155551 > Pat: >This is something that has bothered me for quite a while. I haven't >seen it discussed here and wondered if anyone else found it somewhat >disturbing. Yes, Dumbledore gave Harry the information that Ken cites >above, but Harry's *dream* specifically showed us that Nagini was not >the agent of death here - LV used an AK. Harry never corrected DD, >but the two stories do not jibe. I'm torn between thinking that DD >could be wrong about Nagini-as-horcrux here, or if the detail is >simply insignificant and doesn't change the outcome. Does anyone have >any thoughts about this? >Thanks for your two knuts, >Pat Scarlett replies: Harry a horcrux? I don't know, but I believe that Nagini may not be a horcrux object....this is long... Third person to first person....Harry and Voldemort's intensified connection: In GOF Harry is able to "sense" Lord Voldemort in his dreams, but notice how Harry views the death of Frank Bryce...he sees the death in the THIRD PERSON...Harry watches the scene as a bystander, not unlike how he views events in a pensieve. Then notice a change....in OOTP Harry now sees events unfold in the FIRST PERSON, that is HE views events in his dreams as if he is Lord Voldemort...when Arthur is attacked HARRY is the snake, he isn't watching as a bystander anymore. Why the change? The only thing I can figure is that at the end of GOF LV uses Harry's blood to regenerate himself. Did LV enhance the connection by taking Harry's blood? It has been argued by other posters in this thread that Harry is not a traditional horcrux, but he does share a 'soul-mind' connection with LV that is very unusual in the wizarding world. I think that the change in Harry from GOF to OOTP enhances this theory. But does this mean Harry is an accidental horcrux or simply deeply connected to LV? The GLEAM: In GOF (696 paperback)There is an unexplained "gleam" in DD eyes, is this because when LV shared Harry's blood he only deepened his connection with Harry? I think we all agree on this point. DD realizes the extent of the deepened connection in OOTP when Harry views Arthur's attack through possessed Nagini (essentially LV's) eyes... Did the tinkering with the instrument in OOTP signify that Nagini is a horcrux... OR DID DD NOTICE THAT CHANGE IN HARRY'S DREAMS-that is that Harry was now viewing events in the first person (notice how DD appears very concerned that Harry views the events in the first person, he notices the change since GOF) Did DD tinker with the instrument in order to validate the "gleam"? That is was his suspicion that LV had made another grave error by taking Harry's blood reinforced? Now LV and Harry were connected, but in essence divided? Did DD know that LV has sealed his fate by taking Harry's blood...now the Prophecy was completely fulfilled...only Harry could destroy LV because only Harry was uniquely qualified to do so as Harry and LV share the same blood and their connection is enhanced? I believe the answer is yes, but does this mean Harry is a horcrux? I can only make this assumption: If Harry is a horcrux, that portion of Voldemort's soul lies dormant inside him unless it is triggered. Only when Lord Voldemorts presence is near or his emotions are aroused does the scar burn-the scar is an "alarm bell" it burns and causes pain to Harry signaling the presence of Voldemort or LV emotions when they are particularly acute. It is true Harry felt as if his scar was going to "burst open" when he was possessed by LV because the alarm bell was raging full force. When LV possesses Harry "Harry did not know where his body ended and the creatures began. They were fused together.." But they could not remain fused because when Harry thought of Sirius his heart filled with Joy, Hope and love. SO it appears that VOldemort CANNOT survive in his last "horcrux" as long as Harry's soul and being is side by side with Voldemorts, so I guess you could say "one cannot live while the other lives.." sound familiar? However, I would venture to say that there are very few who Voldemort could possess for any length of time that is why he created horcruxes in objects. Could Voldemort possess Hermione or Ron, NO, for the same reasons he cannot fully possess Harry, the difference is that they do not have a scar that burns intensely, and that is the key. You are probably thinking "aha" exactly, Voldemort cannot possess a human very long so why make a human a horcrux! I would agree, Voldemort probably did not desire to make a human horcrux because 1) it looks like it has never been done, so 2) who knows what the consequences would be, Voldemorts greatest fear would likely be transferring his powers to someone else and therefore GIVING SOMEONE ELSE THE TOOLS TO DEFEAT HIM. Also a human is weak, a human dies, then what would happen to the horcrux? This question leads me to another .if the horcrux were attempted on a human, would it attach to the body or the soul .no one knew but I think we now know, the horcrux would attach to the essence of the person, essentially splitting the soul, sharing it with another Voldemort would not want this, wouldn't doing this give that person the power to defeat him, give him the abilities that only the great lord voldemort, the heir of slytherin, possesses? Therefore it would have to be an accident, an unintended consequence of the rebounded curse..we know almost nothing about the horcrux curse other than a murder is necessary and there were two murders that night...the soul is split and the horcrux curse directs that portion of the soul into an object or if this is true a person-- encasing the split soul. Lets revisit the one Horcrux we DO know about that Harry destroyed... You see in COS a portion of the soul resided in the object of a diary, however it was simply a vessel waiting to be filled, a trigger waiting to be pulled, The Horcrux when in an object does not have a mind of its own, it needs an accomplice, the diary needed Ginny's soul, maybe a "soul exchange." Tom riddle materialized more and more the closer to death she became, eventually her death would have made the process complete. So again, in order for the Horcrux to be activated and used to house Voldemorts soul, it appears a soul must be sacrificed. If Harry were a horcrux would not Voldemort have only to destroy Harry's soul to reclaim Harry as a horcrux ? Then it wouldn't matter if Harry was filled with love .But how can he destroy Harry's soul and still retain the portion necessary for him? But hey all we know for sure and we can all agree on is that "Voldemort put a bit of himself" in Harry and no one, not even Dumbledore knows how it happened. I think the connection can be explained via a horcrux. It can also be as simple as DD has told Harry, but I lean towards Harry as the 'accidental horcrux'. I can't help but wonder how Harry knew what to do in COS. How did he, a 2nd year at hogwarts, know how Tom Riddle? "while Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M. Riddle before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he had had when he was very small, and had half- forgotten"...(COS) How did he SOMEHOW know how to destroy the horcrux?? "then without thinking, without considering, as if he meant to do it all along, Harry seized the basilisk fang on the floor..." (COS) How did Harry know parceltongue? Why did the sorting hat see the mind and talents of a slytherin inside of Harry? you can say that somehow the backfiring of the avada curse gave Harry a bit of voldemort, but isn't that in essence a horcrux? I think it is back in the vestiges of his mind is Voldemort, lying dormant with just a small piece of a soul that can only become whole when the horcrux is properly activated. Voldemort cannot fully possess Harry, but a horcrux isn't a simple possession, I think it is a small deposit, Voldemorts actual soul or original soul can only possess the weak, like Quirrell, or simple animals and rodents.. Activating a horcrux I think we will find is more complex than mere possession. I would like to end this long posting with this passage: "a tiny puff of pale green smoke issued from the minuscule silver tube at the top...after a few seconds the tiny puffs became a steady stream of smoke....a serpents head grew out of the end (voldemort) opening its mouth wide...the smoke serpent, however, split itself instantly into two snakes...(Voldemort splits its soul with Harry)..with a look of grim satisfaction DD gave the instrument another gentle tap...." That night Voldemort split a piece of his soul with harry, why did DD say "in essence divided" does that mean that they are connected but in essence divided, that neither can live with the other (neither can possess the other), why the look of grim satisfaction? I can only guess... Harry's defeat of LV: But as long as Tom Riddle's soul is on this side of the Veil, Voldemort will continue to return. And to completely destroy him, Harry must destroy all of his parts. He must destroy the all the "horcruxes" and if harry is indeed a horcrux, he must destroy that part of the soul within him. The question is is harry a horcrux? If so will he know before or after he destroys all the other horcruxes? Is it possible that with the destruction of all the horcruxes a battle will launch between Voldemort and Harry as he is the last horcrux....a battle of possession? Wouldn't this fulfill the prophecy one cannot live while the other lives? If Harry is a horcrux...... On Voldemort's side it is also clear that he must personally destroy Harry Potter but retain the soul he has transferred inside if he is ever to be able to function again as a "complete" entity. If anyone else should manage to kill the boy, the human "soul" of Voldemort is so entangled with that of Harry Potter that it may be carried through the Veil with it and permanently lost. BEFORE BOOK 6 it is also clear that Voldemort was not aware that he was missing his horcruxes. But now he realizes that if he does succeed in murdering Harry and recovering it, he will be recovering a soul that has been connected to Harry Potter. This will not necessarily work to Lord Voldemort's advantage. That soul has undergone considerable transformation since it was last in his keeping. For the past 15 years it has been living the life of Harry Potter. Harry's reality, perceptions and objectives are by now far more "real" to it. And, having incorporated the infant Potter's memories, it knows what love is now; even though it has personally experienced little of it. It accepts the existence of love as an act of faith, and it is no longer the soul of a sociopath. Could Voldemort LIVE with such a portion of a soul like this? He can't even live 5 minutes in Harry's body? Could Voldemort reclaim this portion and then be destroyed? So long as Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort/Tom Riddle are a hybrid entity, one but as DD said "in essence divided" they can never truly be free. The question whose answer is now far more difficult to anticipate is whether Harry Potter himself is to survive the final confrontation. Will Harry need to sacrifice himself, altogether, to be sure the soul passes beyond the Veil? Must he, in order to vanquish his enemy, sacrifice this internal Other who has been a part of himself for most of his life, and without whom he would not have survived? And will that other Self willingly choose to be so sacrificed? Will their two souls again be divided? The question of Nagini: The reason why 'some' theorize Harry's scar as a horcrux is because a lot of fans are not convinced that Nagini is a horcrux. Many think that Nagini is a red Herring. DD IS USUALLY RIGHT, but I do think this is an area that DD could be mistaken in his ASSUMPTION (although DD's assumptions are usually correct). Arguments against Nagini horcrux: "you can use animals to make horcruxes?" (Harry) "Well it is inadviseable to do so " said Dumbledore, "because to confide a part of your soul into something that can think and move for itself is obviously very risky business. However, if my calculations are correct, Voldemort was still at least one Horcrux short of his goal of six the night he entered your parents house with the intention of killing you....he believed that in killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined. He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure he was intending to make his final horcrux with your death." however.... 1) How could LV split his soul when he was so weak he could barely hold his own wand, he was in a snake-like fetal state and needed to be bottle fed by wormtail? It appears that everytime LV creates a horcruxes he becomes a little less human-it appears that creating a horcrux literally 'takes a lot out of you,' I just don't see LV strong enough of soul to create a horcrux out of Frank Bryce's death- remeber at this point he only recently was 'barely a ghost' Wormtail had just helped restore him to a 'form' and LV would have been reduced back to a ghost with just a few days neglect. 2) Why would LV use an INSIGNIFICANT death to create his final horcrux? Even if LV were strong enough why use the death of a muggle like Frank to create his LAST horcrux? He had originally planned to use Harry's death, are we to really believe that LV gave up that ambition and decided to use Frank Bryce instead? The death of Frank is meaningless to him, akin to one stepping on a bug, it would have probably been more meaningful to use Bertha's death-at least she helped LV formulate his 'plan' in GOF. No one who is sure Nagini is in fact a horcrux can answer this quesion, LV uses trpohy deaths to create trophy horcruxes...why would LV change? Isn't he more consumed with Harry's death than ever? Wouldn't he want to continue his original plans an create his last horcrux out of Harry's death? 3) Why would LV feel 'urgency' to create another horcrux? Only one horcrux had been destroyed to his knowledge-only the diary. He knew there was 4 other objects. I think LV conceit is clearly portryed in the series, he thinks himself much too clever to think that anyone has any of his other 4 objects, I think there is no reason to believe that he would feel 'urgency.' 5) Probably the most important objection, why would LV give up on his plan? Many scholarly fans have written extensively on the four houses and the four elements air, water, fire, earth...Hogwarts Professor.com has a new article about the power of four in alchemy...it is clear in ther series that LV is devoted to symbolism, it is also clear that he prizes his soul and the horcruxes that encase his soul above all things...why would he deviate from his master plan, and why would JKR deviate from the powerful number 4? I think she hasn't. I think there are indeed 4 horcruxes, from the four relics, or the four houses. I think that either Harry is the Gryffindor object or the Gryffindor object has yet to be made. 6) why would he put his precious soul 'purposefully' in an living object when it is unadviseable to do so? If Harry isn't a horcrux, and frankly I am not at all certain he is, I just think it is a 'possibility' to consider, I think THAT THE LAST HORCRUX HAS YET TO BE MADE! I think LV plans to kill Harry and create his last Gryffindor horcrux, I also think he is eyeing up the very same Trophy object he desired 16 - 17 years ago-the Gryffindor sword. I wouldn't be surprised if he is planning an attack on Hogwarts, a plan to have the sword and use Harry's death to create his final horcrux... To use the death that escaped him to make a horcrux out of the object that alluded him-The trophy death of Harry to create the trophy horcrux-The Gryffindor Sword. Frankly, if indeed Nagini is the last horcrux, I would be disappointed, in the sense that IMO Nagini as a horcrux doesn't gel with the storyline nor with the character of LV. I hope my rambling thoughts are coherent enough, I await the thoughts of others.... Scarlett From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jul 18 04:04:43 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 04:04:43 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155552 > Alla: > > Well I can buy the after "or" part of this paragraph - as in "jerk > but did other things too". If he is a jerk but for different > reasons, does it really matter though? Potioncat: What I was trying to say, is that Snape-the-jerk was still trying to save Harry from Quirrell/LV, or from Black. He was no less a jerk, but he was protecting Harry. (Pending the final page of book 7) We each have such large trollies of Snape baggage, I'm not sure we can really manage this topic. Keep in mind, the original post in this thread has nothing to do with Snape. It isn't that a character is duping the hero, it's the author who is duping the hero. Or more importantly, she's duping us. In a fun way. And, as has been demonstrated up thread, it's not just with Snape. In CoS one of the characters from a different House gives some very good reasons why Harry could be the Heir of Slytherin. He was wrong, but his reasons were all good ones. Same with Harry. Instead maybe, look how Harry/the reader was misled about Black. Look at the things he did, and the reasons we were given for those actions. Afterwards it was a very different situation. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 04:28:57 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 04:28:57 -0000 Subject: Of Basilisks and rubies Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155553 With all the threads on alchemy and the symbolism of the four Houses, I started wondering about the Sword of Gryffindor, the hilt of which is encrusted with rubies. Ruby is, of course, the birthstone for people born in July and consequently for Harry, and (like Phoenixes) it's associated with fire and therefore with Gryffindor, but I also came across this tantalizing tidbit from a late medieval lapidarium (which I take to mean a book on the symbolism of gemstones written by a lapidary or gem cutter): According to the website ("Medieval Jewelry"), "The twenty-fourth chapter [of the lapidarium] is entitled 'On the virtues of carbuncle, or Ruby, and how it is the master of all stones.' Its virtues are many and powerful: 'If you wear it on you, neither spiritual poison can harm you, nor air, nor water, however poisonous it would be, nor even the sight of a Basilisk.' Here's the URL for the site if anyone is curious: http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/manual/SRM/symbol.htm I wonder if JKR had that passage or a similar one in mind when she had Harry fight the basilisk using a ruby-encrusted sword. Sounds to me as if he should not only use it to fight and kill the venomous Nagini (who would also represent "spiritual poison" if she's a Horcrux), but have it in hand when he fights Voldemort as well. Even though I doubt he'll destroy Voldemort that way, it might still protect him. (Could it also protect him against protective curses placed on the Horcruxes?) Carol, thinking that the Sword of Gryffindor will play a role in the battle against Voldemort one way or another and just tossing out ideas From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jul 18 04:44:33 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 04:44:33 -0000 Subject: Harry getting Unfrozen on the Tower... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155554 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Magda wrote: > > Personally I think the look of hatred and revulsion was because Snape > > finally realized that Dumbledore, not Harry, was Draco's real target; > > that Dumbledore knew all along and didn't tell him (based on what I > > assume was their earlier conversations about the issue during the > > year); and that he (Snape) would have to be the one to kill > > Dumbledore so that the UV wouldn't kick in and so that he'd have > > something so pro-LV to his "credit" that Bellatrix et al would never > > be able to challenge his loyalty to the Dark Side ever again. > > > > That would rouse his revulsion pretty good, I would think. > > > Potioncat: > I can understand his revulsion if that was the first moment he knew. In > fact I understand it if he had been concerned about this possibility > all the time. But, are you saying he would not have felt the same > revulsion at having to kill Harry? Julie: My problem with Snape thinking all along that Draco was supposed to kill Harry is what Snape says a few minutes later when he's stopping the unknown DE from Crucioing Harry--"Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord..." So, did Snape just make this up on the spur of the moment? It doesn't seem likely to me. And if Voldemort had given some general order that Potter was for him to deal with directly and no one else, then why would Snape suspect all this time that Draco was going after Harry? He wouldn't. Julie From scarah at gmail.com Tue Jul 18 04:40:17 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:40:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590607172140g269057ei9735af3bd710069b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155555 Wait, what? I must be missing something. Seriously, maybe an email got spam filtered or something. The original post pointed out that JK likes Emma and Jane Austen, and wondered if she might be using techniques inspired by Emma and Jane Austen. Where did anyone suggest that Snape doesn't act like a jerk, or Harry will be shown to have been hallucinating during all of his conversations with him? I'm very confused. I'm quite sure that there are things Harry (and by extension, we) do not yet understand about Snape's motivations. But I don't expect Snape to go "Sorry I had to act like I hated you all those times, I really love you!!!!" And I don't think anyone else said they expected that either. Unless I'm totally missing something. Sarah From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jul 18 05:13:47 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:13:47 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155556 Eggplant wrote: > Snape may have been outnumbered that terrible night in the tower but > he was not outgunned, the other Death Eaters seemed terrified of him, > and he had the element of surprise on his side. It's interesting that > Harry was able to beat the hell out of all the Death Eaters that night > with the significant exception of Snape. The man is very powerful. Julie: Say what? Snape is indeed a powerful wizard, however Harry was *not* able to beat the hell out of all the Death Eaters besides Snape that night. It was Snape who stopped the Crucio one of the Death Eaters threw at Harry. And the text also makes it unclear if Harry or someone else shouted "Petrificus Totalis!" when Fenrir was at Harry's throat. So Harry was felled twice during the fight by someone other than Snape. And nothing changes the fact that if the UV works immediately on the wizard who deliberately breaks it, Snape wouldn't be able to take down one Death Eater, let alone four of them plus Fenrir. Eggplant also wrote: > > He would drop dead on the spot because Snape decided to make that vow, > a decision that was either incredibly evil or incredibly stupid. Snape > is either a brilliant bastard or a good natured imbecile. I tend to > think a brilliant evil Snape would make a better character for book 7 > than a comic relief Snape. > Julie: For you it has to be one of those two versions of Snape, which is fine, but there can be other versions. For instance, deeply concerned Snape who is determined to protect a student he cares about (Draco), and who, when he was confronted with the unexpected third part of the vow, decided to do what most spies do. Take a huge risk few outside the spy game would ever consider, figuring he'd find a way to get around it. It didn't work out that way, but those are the tough breaks in the game, and both Snape and Dumbledore were willing to play. Julie, who thinks a conflicted tragic Snape makes a better character for Book 7 than either of your above versions. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 18 06:04:57 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 06:04:57 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155557 "juli17ptf" wrote: > The text also makes it unclear if > Harry or someone else shouted > "Petrificus Totalis!" when Fenrir > was at Harry's throat. It sure wasn't unclear to me! Of course Harry did it, or do you think some mystery man did it and Harry was so incurious he never wondered who had saved his life? > It was Snape who stopped the Crucio one > of the Death Eaters threw at Harry. Harry was vastly outnumbered and hit in the back, one on one Harry would have made mince meat of every single one of those Death Eaters, except for Snape. > And nothing changes the fact that if > the UV works immediately on the wizard > who deliberately breaks it, Snape wouldn't > be able to take down one Death Eater, > let alone four of them plus Fenrir. There is absolutely positively 100% no way you can use the unbreakable vow as an excuse for Snape's despicable actions. Snape could have refused but he decided to make that vow, and that makes him either a monster or an imbecile. A monster would be more interesting. > when he was confronted with the unexpected > third part of the vow, decided to do what > most spies do. Take a huge risk If you're right then Snape falls from his lofty perch of being a brilliant but evil enigma to a Forest Gump style idiot. Eggplant From kjones at telus.net Tue Jul 18 06:31:20 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:31:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44BC8038.7080901@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155558 juli17ptf wrote: > Eggplant also wrote: >> He would drop dead on the spot because Snape decided to make that > vow, >> a decision that was either incredibly evil or incredibly stupid. > Snape >> is either a brilliant bastard or a good natured imbecile. I tend to >> think a brilliant evil Snape would make a better character for book > 7 >> than a comic relief Snape. >> > > Julie: > For you it has to be one of those two versions of Snape, which is > fine, but there can be other versions. For instance, deeply concerned > Snape who is determined to protect a student he cares about (Draco), > and who, when he was confronted with the unexpected third part of the > vow, decided to do what most spies do. Take a huge risk few outside > the spy game would ever consider, figuring he'd find a way to get > around it. It didn't work out that way, but those are the tough > breaks in the game, and both Snape and Dumbledore were willing to > play. > > Julie, who thinks a conflicted tragic Snape makes a better character > for Book 7 than either of your above versions. KJ writes: I would have to agree with Julie on this one, if for no other reason than the matter of plot. Had Super-Snape leaped into action James Bond style, zapped all the Death Eaters, allowed Dumbledore to go to a peaceful death, comforted Harry at the loss of Dumbledore, and shown Draco the way to the light, it would have beat the Hell out of the plot. This is also assuming that Snape survived the vow long enough for all of this activity. There might even have been a touching scene where Snape apologized to Harry with his dying breath for all the mean, nasty things he did in his life. However, the fact remains that the conflict between Harry and Snape is important to the conclusion, the death of Dumbledore was also important, and I suspect that Snape's position in the Death Eaters is also important. If the whole scene had gone the way that Eggplant favours, where would JKR take the story? From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Tue Jul 18 11:16:56 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:16:56 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155559 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carodave92" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cass_da_sweet" > > wrote: > > > > > > I have yet to see this posted and it's been bugging me for a > while. In > > > HBP Hermione continues to insist that the HBP's Potions book was > > > written by a girl. I know that it was Snape's mother's book but > we are > > > giving Snape all the credit for the spells and such written in > it when > > > it might not have been he who wrote it. Maybe it matters and > maybe it > > > doesn't but well it's bugging me. > > > > > > Cass_da_sweet > > > > > Carol responds: > > Since we know that he's a Potions genius and that he came to > Hogwarts > > knowing more hexes than most sixth-years, and since we learn in HBP > > that he's also a Healer and he refers to himself as the Half-Blood > > Prince, I really don't think there's much doubt. I think Hermione's > > insistence that the author of the spells might be a girl and her > > discovery o Eileen Prince's existence is chiefly a red herring, but > > also foreshadowing of Snape's Half-blood parentage. > > > > Carol, noting that Slughorn's use of the same Potions text for > fifty > > years doesn't say much for his own inventiveness or incentive, in > > marked contrast to Snape's > > > Now Carodave: > > The Snape family must have been poor - Severus comes to school with > his mother's textbook. Even Ron Weasley buys a new textbook for the > class, although in the past he has purchased used textbooks. > (Arthur's promotion must mean more money - good for him!) There was > some discussion in another thread about how wealth or lack thereof > may have affected Peter Pettigrew in life; maybe coming to Hogwarts > as a poor student (and a half-blood one at that) primed Snape to > look for acceptance where he could find it, ie, the Death Eaters. > > Carodave > AmanitaMuscaria now - Two points on the above observations: First, the idea that everyone has new things is a fairly recent one in RW, and I'd guess in HPWorld too. In the UK at least, how much money your family had wasn't as important as what class your family was. Upper-class didn't mean you were rich - you might have been, but it wasn't a given. I believe the same applies to HPWorld - Arthur is respected, as a member of an 'old wizarding family', even if he's poor. Although the Malfoys, I believe, are also referred to as owf, the way both Lucius and Draco behave is more like 'nouveau riche' - flash and mouthy. The other point is that there are familial resemblances in handwriting. This may be even more emphasized if the student were initially home-taught, as I assume most Hogwarts pupils from wizarding families are. Snape _may_ have been, by his mother, and may further have modelled himself and his handwriting on the family member he feels proud of, thus the Half-blood Prince Just some thoughts. AmanitaMuscaria From srhchttrsn at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 22:27:25 2006 From: srhchttrsn at yahoo.com (srhchttrsn) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:27:25 -0000 Subject: Hermione as a Ravenclaw Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155560 I don't know if this topic has already been discussed, but doens't it seem that Hermione has qualities better suited to those in Ravenclaw? Yes she is honorable and brave, but I feel that more than anything she is clever and intellectual. srhchttrsn From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Tue Jul 18 05:47:27 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:47:27 -0000 Subject: 4 Founders, 4 Elements, and Secret Rooms and Sorting hat In-Reply-To: <019601c6a9de$f5517cf0$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155561 Phil says: >That leaves Hufflepuff and earth, and Gryffindor and fire. > For Gryffindor, the only other room in the castle that would be difficult to get into and is entered through a trap door on the ceiling is the Divination classroom. Laura now: I can see that, wherever there is smoke (from all the incense) there is fire! And that would help to brew all that tea. Could it be that Trelawney is there because it has something special which would keep her safer than eleswhere? As to the hat: maybe the hat is asking a simple question of Harry in DD's office in COS- Bee in your bonnet, Potter? (or is that movie contamination?) As if it sees something extra there, and is just wondering, not using the phrase to ask if something is wrong. Wouldn't Hufflepuff's room be within the greenhouses, through a plant (which would gladly strangle you) covered wall, somewhat like "the Secret Garden"? Laura From katbofaye at aol.com Tue Jul 18 07:05:03 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:05:03 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155562 So I was just re reading JKR's quotes at Madam Scoop on the topic of Snape and it occured to me that maybe it is Petunia instead of Lily that was in love with Snape. It would explain why Petunia would hate both the magic and the boy that broke her heart as well as the reasons for disliking James Potter et al. Lily would be kind to her sister's boyfriend. Dumbledore calls Petunia by her first name. The only people he does this with are people he knew as students. Since we know Petunia is not a witch he must have known her at least as a child to use her given name. He is obsessively old world in that regard. Petunia shares Snape's close feelings for Harry as well. The question as to how they would ever have met well I haven't a clue. However I also haven't a clue why Dumbledore would have met her and known her early and well enough to call her Petunia and yet he does. katssirius From srhchttrsn at yahoo.com Mon Jul 17 22:27:25 2006 From: srhchttrsn at yahoo.com (srhchttrsn) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:27:25 -0000 Subject: Hermione as a Ravenclaw Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155563 I don't know if this topic has already been discussed, but doens't it seem that Hermione has qualities better suited to those in Ravenclaw? Yes she is honorable and brave, but I feel that more than anything she is clever and intellectual. srhchttrsn From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jul 18 13:03:59 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:03:59 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155564 > Carol responds: > Since we know that he's a Potions genius and that he came to Hogwarts > knowing more hexes than most sixth-years, and since we learn in HBP > that he's also a Healer and he refers to himself as the Half-Blood > Prince, I really don't think there's much doubt. I think Hermione's > insistence that the author of the spells might be a girl and her > discovery o Eileen Prince's existence is chiefly a red herring, but > also foreshadowing of Snape's Half-blood parentage. Potioncat: In support of this, I'll add a few lines. Hermione is our voice of authority. So her comments about it being a girl carried some weight at the time. Just like her "I know a hex when see one" comment had authority. Both are wrong. We've seen Snape's handwriting before and it fits the description in the Potions book. Now, did JKR expect many (any?) of the readers to remember that detail? If so, Hermione's opinion cast some doubt--just in case anyone did recall. And, at the same time, it provides proof of his style. It was a very Austen-like thing to do---to have Hermione believe it was a girl's writing. From muellem at bc.edu Tue Jul 18 13:12:04 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:12:04 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155566 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" wrote: > > Since we know > Petunia is not a witch he must have known her at least as a child to > use her given name. He is obsessively old world in that regard. > Petunia shares Snape's close feelings for Harry as well. The question > as to how they would ever have met well I haven't a clue. However I > also haven't a clue why Dumbledore would have met her and known her > early and well enough to call her Petunia and yet he does. > > katssirius > colebiancardi: that is a good hunch. In OotP, Petunia states: 'I heard ... that awful boy ... telling her about them 0 years ago,' she said jerkily. 'If you mean my mum and dad, why don't your use their names?' said Harry loudly, but Aunt Petunia ignored him. Now, she never names that "awful boy" - which Harry thinks is James. Many people think she is not referring to James but to Snape or Sirius instead. colebiancardi From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 18 13:26:20 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:26:20 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155567 > Neri: > IIRC, no character in Emma turns out to be ESE, and no seemingly evil > person turns out to be good . > > OK, so lets take P&P instead (JKR has it in her bookshelf too, > according to her website). Here we seem to have much better parallels: > Wickham is ESE (well, he is in Austen's standards) and Darcy seems to > be evil but is really good. Or are they? > > In fact Elizabeth isn't much duped. True, she believes Wickham's story > about Darcy in the beginning, because she doesn't have any data to the > contrary. But she never falls for Wickham. She realizes herself that > he's not a very admirable person, even before she finds out the true > story about him. And she has respect for Darcy almost from the > beginning. She only thinks she hates him because he's proud, which is > true, and because she suspects he ruined the engagements of her > sister, which is also true. So in fact, the only things that Elizabeth > is really duped about are Darcy's feelings about her and her own > feelings about him. Pippin: Um, no. In Elizabeth's culture pride is a deadly sin. She does think Darcy is evil, not on the epic, world-destroying scale of a Voldemort, of course, but certainly she believes he is purposefully ruining lives. This prejudice colors her observations of Darcy and so compels her to deny her feelings for him. Or at least that's the book I remember. Neri: > > Like Austen, I think JKR doesn't believe that a character can dupe the > hero for long about his/her true nature. Motivations yes. Personal > history yes. Real nature no. > Pippin: Are we reading the same books? Harry was duped about his own true nature for ten years running. He still does not understand what it is about himself that made Dumbledore think he was capable of overcoming Voldemort. He is trusts Dumbledore to be right in this, and yet he thinks Dumbledore has overlooked very obvious faults in Snape. So one way or another, Harry is being duped. He either has a very wrong opinon of Snape's nature or a very wrong opinion of Dumbledore's. Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jul 18 13:38:12 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:38:12 -0000 Subject: Of Basilisks and rubies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155568 Carol: > According to the website ("Medieval Jewelry"), "The twenty-fourth > chapter [of the lapidarium] is entitled 'On the virtues of carbuncle, > or Ruby, and how it is the master of all stones.' Its virtues are many > and powerful: 'If you wear it on you, neither spiritual poison can > harm you, nor air, nor water, however poisonous it would be, nor even > the sight of a Basilisk.' > http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/manual/SRM/symbol.htm Ceridwen: Speaking of rubies, then, and connecting them to the HP stories, what, besides the obvious motive of dissing Gryffindor, was the reason rubies from the hourglass were spilled across the floor toward the end of HBP? Was this *only* to show contempt for Gryffindor? If so, then why? Does it confirm that Dumbledore was a Gryffindor: does the hourglass take the place of "My Grandfather's Clock" (which 'stopped, short, never to go again when the old man died')? (If so, could this be the end of the house system?) When I read it, I thought it was a jab at Harry. But now that you've got me thinking, why would it be? Who knew *for a fact* that Harry would follow Snape and the other DEs instead of staying on the upper floors to help the Order with any clean-up of stray DEs or to see if everyone was all right? Did *anyone* spill them, or did they spill themselves? If rubies are a protection against forms of poison, could the WW also see them as protection against various forms of malevolent magic? What was the purpose, if other than the obvious, of the Gryffindor rubies spilling on the floor? Ceridwen. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 14:06:53 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060718140653.59074.qmail@web53114.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155569 --- steven1965aaa wrote: > I see them as good guys who sometimes go overboard but > with their hearts in the right place. I think Rebecca made a good > point earlier about them viewing Harry like a little brother. Actually they treat Harry much better than they do their little brother; as Ron indignantly points out when they give Harry the Marauders' Map: "Why didn't they give it to me? I'm their brother!" (or close enough; I don't have the book with me but I remember clearly thinking the exact same thing). Magda (who thinks the twins aren't evil but in bad need of some sobering up - which they might have got in OOTP) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 18 14:13:22 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:13:22 -0000 Subject: Of Basilisks and rubies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155570 justcarol wrote: > > Carol, thinking that the Sword of Gryffindor will play a role in the > battle against Voldemort one way or another and just tossing out ideas > I did not know what Chekhov's gun was until the discussion of a few days ago. Gryffindor's sword would be an odd example of Chekhov's gun in that it has already been fired in the scene in which it was introduced. But, I agree we have seen it a little too often for it to play no further role. Harry's gaze seems to alight on it every time he visits DD's office. In fact Chekhov seems to have a complete arsenal to hand in this story: Lily's eyes, the locked door at the DoM, Neville's cactus, Gryffindor's sword, Dumbledore's gleam, Aragog's venom, .... Ken From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 14:29:47 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:29:47 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155571 Neri: > In fact Elizabeth isn't much duped. True, she believes Wickham's story > about Darcy in the beginning, because she doesn't have any data to the > contrary. But she never falls for Wickham. She realizes herself that > he's not a very admirable person, even before she finds out the true > story about him. And she has respect for Darcy almost from the > beginning. She only thinks she hates him because he's proud, which is > true, and because she suspects he ruined the engagements of her > sister, which is also true. So in fact, the only things that Elizabeth > is really duped about are Darcy's feelings about her and her own > feelings about him. Sydney: *blink* Um, did we read the same book? Of course Elizabeth's mistaken about Darcy's motives and his whole character. She is ready to believe he defrauded a man out of his inheritance, and that he wilfully destroyed the love of Bingley and Jane because Jane wasn't rich enough. When she finds out the truth, she's hardly just, "huh. so that's what really happened." She's like: "Astonishment, apprehension, and even horror, oppressed her. She wished to discredit it entirely, repeatedly exclaiming, "This must be false! This cannot be! This must be the grossest falsehood!" " It's only when she goes back over what she knows rationally about both of them that she realizes how much she's been distorting her perceptions. And she was most certainly duped by Wickham. She was fantasizing about marrying him even without any money, and never pegged him as a wastrel: "The extravagance and general profligacy which he scrupled not to lay to Mr. Wickham's charge, exceedingly shocked her; the more so, as she could bring no proof of its injustice......As to his real character, had information been in her power, she had never felt a wish of enquiring. His countenance, voice, and manner, had established him at once in the possession of every virtue." It seems to me if Elizabeth isn't substantially wrong about both of them, the book shouldn't be called "Pride and Prejudice", but "Pride and the Girl Who Was Right Most of the Time", and while it might have a PLOT, it wouldn't have a STORY-- certainly not a story that rightly has a place among the classics! Shouldn't all great literature be in some way about human transformation? The story takes Lizzy from someone who says: "It is difficult indeed -- it is distressing. One does not know what to think." "I beg your pardon; one knows exactly what to think." To someone who says: "How despicably have I acted!" she cried; "I, who have prided myself on my discernment! I, who have valued myself on my abilities! who have often disdained the generous candour of my sister, and gratified my vanity in useless or blameable distrust. How humiliating is this discovery! yet, how just a humiliation!...I have courted prepossession and ignorance, and driven reason away, where either were concerned. Till this moment I never knew myself." Jane Austen's plots are most emphatically not about people who are basically right in their first instincts about people and only have to give slight tweaks to their impression of "who fancies who". She's not P.G. Woodehouse! Her characters are profoundly wrong about other people precicely because they trust their instincts, which are biased and self-absorbed, over their reason and generosity: "Heaven forbid! -- That would be the greatest misfortune of all! -- To find a man agreeable whom one is determined to hate! -- Do not wish me such an evil." "Determined to hate"... now let me see, where have I heard that before: "You are determined to hate him, Harry," said Lupin, with a faint smile, "And I understand; with James as your father, and Sirius your godfather, you have inherited an old prejudice." "Prejudice", eh? I've often thought about posting on how closely the Harry/Snape relationship follows the dynamics of the Elizabeth/Darcy relationship, with the love angle taken out and the stakes raised. -- on their first meeting, Snape/Darcy unjustly insults Harry/Elizabeth -- H/E suspects S/D of larger and larger evils-- from being unpleasant to being evil, from being a jerk to stealing the Stone, from being prideful to being a tyrant who disregarded his father's will. -- at a critical moment, a third character, ignorant of its import, let's slip a vital, damning piece of information about S/D. In P&P, Fitzwilliam mentions hearing about Darcy separating Bingley from some girl (actually Elizabeth's sister); in HP, Trelawney inadvertently outs Snape as the eavesdropper on the Prophecy. -- H/E confronts someone with this new information, feeling vindicated about his/her opinion. The language is pretty close in both books: "Had not my own feelings decided against you, had they been indifferent, or had they even been favourable, do you think that any consideration would tempt me to accept the man, who has been the means of ruining, perhaps for ever, the happiness of a most beloved sister?'' As she pronounced these words, Mr. Darcy changed colour; but the emotion was short, and he listened without attempting to interrupt her while she continued. compare with: ".. He told Voldemort about the prophecy, it was HIM, he listened outside the door, Trelawney told me!" Dumbledore's expression did not change, but Harry thought his face whitened under the bloody tinge cast by the setting sun. For a long moment, Dumbledore said nothing. -- H/E broods upon the hated figure: "When they were gone, Elizabeth, as if intending to exasperate herself as much as possible against Mr. Darcy, chose for her employment the examination of all the letters which Jane had written to her since her being in Kent"; and, "So when he arrived at the fight, he joined in on the Death Eater's side?" asked Harry, who wanted every detail of Snape's duplicity and infamy, feverishly collecting more reasons to hate him, to swear vengeance. Of course, seeing as JKR doesn't have to get to the point where we want Harry and Snape to get married (;)), she can raise the stakes, and also make Snape much nastier than Darcy. Plus of course, JKR doesn't write on "little pieces of ivory" as Austen described herself, she writes big stomping fantasy, so the betrayals and nastiness are about murder and wars and so on rather than rudeness. I don't think it's a cooincidence that nearly all of JKR's favorite books-- Emma, I Capture the Castle, Little White Horse, etc.-- are all about protagonists who are very smart but turn out to have misinterpreted a lot of what goes on. It is, after all, the whole story of Philosopher's Stone. As for what other assumptions are going to be reevaluated in book VII-- my money's on the historic Gryffindor/Slytherin split, with its tantalizing contradictory versions. Anyone who has read "Little White Horse" will get the same feeling I think! -- Sydney, apologizing for all the Jane Austen, but feeling she must be rescued from an intimation of triviality. From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 09:30:38 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:30:38 +1200 (NZST) Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060718093038.83169.qmail@web38308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155572 carodave92 wrote: maybe coming to Hogwarts as a poor student (and a half-blood one at that) primed Snape to look for acceptance where he could find it, ie, the Death Eaters. Cassy: It seems somehow strange to me that a poor half-blood found acceptance from the Death Eaters, of all people. They should despise his muggle parentage by definition, it's in their political program, so to say. And we all remember on how many occasions Malfoy made fun of Weasleys' poverty. I believe the older generation of Slytherins looked down on their not so wealthy classmates the same way. Interestingly, Harry outlines several similarities between Snape and Riddle. Perhaps one of the reasons for Snape to be accepted in the inner circle was that LV could relate more to him than to members of wizard aristocracy, such as Malfoys or Blacks. That is, if we suppose that LV considers his followers persons, not simply tools. From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 09:46:38 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:46:38 +1200 (NZST) Subject: The two way mirrors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060718094638.68372.qmail@web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155573 melhersheybar wrote: I don't recall anything in book 6 regarding the mirrors or their importance. Do you think they will make an appearance in book 7? Cassy: Considering how many things that "have great importance" never appeared or were barely mentioned (such as Harry's eyes, Lily's wand, etc.), the 7th book is bound to look like really large FAQ listling, should JKR attempt to explain everything she promised to. Though in case of the mirrors, their NOT appearing again would not make any sense, since they never played any part at all and it is unclear why to introduce them in the first place if not to use later. As for emotional impact, Harry could just as well brood over any other memorabilia given to him by Sirius instead. From katbofaye at aol.com Tue Jul 18 07:16:38 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 07:16:38 -0000 Subject: RE open letter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155574 A "new" gay character would not have to be introduced. We have lots of characters including most of the staff whose sexuality is unknown and does not need to be explored in the context of the book. It merely needs to be one more piece of the the background fabric to make it more colorful, more like the magic world and the real world. Being straight or gay is not a book topic or controversial. It just is, like whether or not someone is a centaur or a house elf. The next time Flitwick comes up someone mentions "You know his partner's family was killed by Voldemort" or when Prof McGonigle is overwhelmed with her new duties she could lament that Poppy and she had not had a vacation in years. It is that simple, one sentence, no more, and a character is known to be gay without changing the focus of the story or upsetting anyone who is not all ready trying to get the book banned. By the way the British Medical Journal published that the weekends the last two Harry Potter books came out ER visits by kids dropped 40%. They believe this is a direct result of kids staying home to read the books. Not bad for a book's influence. katssirius From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 14:41:24 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:41:24 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155575 > Pippin: > Um, no. In Elizabeth's culture pride is a deadly sin. Neri: I think you take things far out of context here. Several characters in P&P express the opinion that in a person of high status pride is quite common and understandable, if not to be praised. If I bothered searching I could probably find several cases where Elizabeth herself thinks so, even before she falls for Darcy. Memorable lines like "I could easily forgive his pride if he had not mortified mine" come to mind. You don't see Harry expressing similar opinions about Snape's behavior. > > > Pippin: > Are we reading the same books? Harry was duped about his own true > nature for ten years running. Neri: It is our choices, Pippin, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities . Neri From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 18 15:10:53 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:10:53 -0000 Subject: What will become of Dolores Umbridge? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155576 Rita Skeeter could do a story on her that reveals her quill. In an effort to distance himself from Umbridge, Fudge will leak that Dolores sent the Dementors to attack Harry. Harry and Rita are vindicated. Umbridge crosses over to DE to escape and LV gets her to work with the dementors. Is that tortured enough? ... lol From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 18 15:44:40 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:44:40 -0000 Subject: Of Basilisks and rubies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155577 > carol wrote: > > With all the threads on alchemy and the symbolism of the four Houses, > I started wondering about the Sword of Gryffindor, the hilt of which > is encrusted with rubies. Ruby is, of course, the birthstone for > people born in July and consequently for Harry, and (like Phoenixes) > it's associated with fire and therefore with Gryffindor, aussie: Another birthstone site (www.artofgold.com/store%20lore/stonelore.htm) shows that Ruby comes from the Latin word, RUBEUS, meaning "red". Rubeus Hagrid is a Gryffindor man through and through. It always interested me that DD sent one of the OOTP members with the least magical ability to be the first on the scene at a James' murder - with the possibility of DEs around. And insteasd of a "battalion of Aurors", Hagrid was Harry's "top-grade security status. And we'll be joining up with additional security" Blind trust or does DD know a secret about that "Ruby" From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 18 16:00:33 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:00:33 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > > > > Pippin: > > Um, no. In Elizabeth's culture pride is a deadly sin. > > Neri: > I think you take things far out of context here. Several characters in > P&P express the opinion that in a person of high status pride is quite > common and understandable, if not to be praised. If I bothered > searching I could probably find several cases where Elizabeth herself > thinks so, even before she falls for Darcy. Memorable lines like "I > could easily forgive his pride if he had not mortified mine" come to > mind. You don't see Harry expressing similar opinions about Snape's > behavior. > Pippin: If you can't see the irony in "I could forgive his pride" then I guess we are reading the same book but living in different universes Yes, pride is considered common and understandable, and great men (and women) may be forgiven for it, but it is also their worst and greatest temptation. The great temptation in 'Emma' is to meddle -- and that is the great temptation for wizards too. Snape and Harry are very apt to accuse one other of meddling in things that ought not to concern them. > > > > > > Pippin: > > Are we reading the same books? Harry was duped about his own true > > nature for ten years running. > > Neri: > It is our choices, Pippin, that show what we truly are, far more than > our abilities . Pippin: Yes, Harry judged himself by his abilities rather than his choices and didn't think he had what it took to be a great wizard. He is still doing that, for himself and for others, so I don't see how he can be right. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 15:59:04 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:59:04 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: <20060718093038.83169.qmail@web38308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155579 > Cassy: > Interestingly, Harry outlines several similarities between Snape and Riddle. Perhaps one of the reasons for Snape to be accepted in the inner circle was that LV could relate more to him than to members of wizard aristocracy, such as Malfoys or Blacks. That is, if we suppose that LV considers his followers persons, not simply tools. > zgirnius: I am sure that Voldemort considers his followers as simply tools, and not persons. However, I think he does put in the effort to try and understand them as persons, the better to manipulate them, at least until they are in so deep there is no going back for them. Voldemort is not really a devoted pureblood supremacist. He is just exploiting the ideology to achieve his own goals. Snape being a half- blood would not matter to Voldemort if he believed that Snape would be a useful follower to have. I think his brains and talents in Potions and The Dark Arts/DADA do make him potentially useful. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jul 18 16:10:23 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:10:23 -0000 Subject: Of Basilisks and rubies/Hermione as Ravenclaw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155580 > Ceridwen What > was the purpose, if other than the obvious, of the Gryffindor rubies > spilling on the floor? Magpie: I thought it was supposed to look like blood. The school/SS had been wounded and was almost-literally bleeding (spilling out rubies on the floor). Who could resist such a dramatic symbol, especially in HBP, the Slytherin book dripping with liquids of all kinds. srhchttrsn: I don't know if this topic has already been discussed, but doens't it seem that Hermione has qualities better suited to those in Ravenclaw? Yes she is honorable and brave, but I feel that more than anything she is clever and intellectual. Magpie: Can't say I agree. Hermione seems very Gryffindor to me. As she states it herself, however much she superficially enjoys books and cleverness, what she thinks is important are other values, and she's definitely driven to using knowledge in the world to change it for the better. It's a means to an end. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jul 18 16:15:11 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:15:11 -0000 Subject: Hermione as a Ravenclaw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155581 "srhchttrsn"wrote: > > I don't know if this topic has already been discussed, but doens't it > seem that Hermione has qualities better suited to those in Ravenclaw? > > Yes she is honorable and brave, but I feel that more than anything she > is clever and intellectual. Potioncat: A few threads up (sorting hat was a portion of the subject, I think) Dot suggested that the sorting hat may actually look at the traits the child "values" rather than the ones he has. If that has ever been suggested before, I never 'got' it, but I have to say, I think Dot is right. The traits we value have more to do with our choices than our abilities. I think Dot even suggested someone might value courage without actually feeling brave. It also explains (imo) how a child who exhibits qualities of different houses could be fine-tuned into one house. We know Hermione and the Sorting Hat talked about Ravenclaw. We don't know what Hermione said. We do know she very interested in Gryffindor before the sorting. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 17:09:38 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:09:38 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155582 Julie wrote: > > > The text also makes it unclear if Harry or someone else shouted > > "Petrificus Totalis!" when Fenrir was at Harry's throat. > Eggplant responded: > It sure wasn't unclear to me! Of course Harry did it, or do you think some mystery man did it and Harry was so incurious he never wondered who had saved his life? Carol notes: You may be thinking of the first Petrificus Totalus, which Harry casts from behind at the "brutal-faced Death Eater" (Yaxley?). But the second Petrificus Totalus, the one that saves Harry from Fenrir Greyback, is cast by an unidentified person who can't be Harry because Harry is pinned down and can't move: "As Harry plunged after them, one of the fighters detached themselves from the fray and flew at him. It was the werewolf, Fenrir. He was on top of Harry before Harry could raise his wand: Harry fell backward, with filthy matted hair in his face, the stench of sweat and blood filling his nose and, hot greedy breath at his throat-- "'Petrificus Totalus!' "Harry felt Fenrir collapse against him; with a stupendous effort he pushed the werewolf off and onto the floor. . . ." (HBP Am. ed. 598). Clearly, Harry was saved from a horrible death by whoever cast the Petrificus Totalus. But Harry is obsessed with catching Snape, and nothing else matters to him at that moment. So, yes, he's incurious about the mystery man or woman who saved his life, and no, it's not at all clear that Harry saved himself. It appears quite otherwise to me. Carol, betting five galleons that the mystery man is Snape but not arguing that point in this post From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 17:58:59 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:58:59 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155583 AmanitaMuscaria wrote: > > The other point is that there are familial resemblances in handwriting. This may be even more emphasized if the student were initially home-taught, as I assume most Hogwarts pupils from wizarding families are. Snape _may_ have been, by his mother, and may further have modelled himself and his handwriting on the family member he feels proud of, thus the Half-blood Prince > Just some thoughts. > So you're saying that Eileen Prince may have written "This book belongs to the Half-Blood Prince" in the cramped, minuscule writing used throughout the book? That would make *her* the Half-blood Prince, which makes nonsense of Snape's words near the end of HBP ("I, the Half-Blood Prince") and makes her the inventor of Levicorpus, which makes nonsense of Snape's anger at Harry for trying to use his own spells against him, and makes her the inventor of Sectumsempra as well, clearing Teen!Snape of the charge of inventing that curse as retaliation against his enemies and at the same time gives *her* partial credit for the bezoar idea that saves Ron's life (as well as credit for inventing the countercurse that saves Draco's). If Eileen is the "Prince" and the spells and/or potions are hers, then she's a more important figure than we thought and Snape himself is deluded. Or are you saying that the invented spells are Teen!Severus's, but the potion hints are his mother's, despite his known proficiency at potions and despite being in the same handwriting in the same book, apparently identical to the writing on his DADA exam, which JKR would have no reason to mention if it weren't a clue? I'd say that the handwriting and Snape's claims at the end of HBP pretty much solve the mystery of the Prince's identity, just as the individual mysteries in the other books have all been solved. No one has come back to say that Crouch!Moody didn't really put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire or Quirrell didn't really try to steal the Sorceror's/Philosopher's Stone. I don't think anyone is going to say that snape isn't really the HBP and therefore the inventor of both the spells and the potions hints. It's the adult Snape's motives that are still mysterious. As for Hermione's idea that Eileen is the Half-Blood Prince, clearly disproved by Snape's claiming that title at the end of the book, we're shown that Hermione is not always right. (However, she does use Eileen's name later in the book to provide some facts on Snape's background that explain the origin of the phrase "Half-Blood Prince." I agree that Severus identified with that side of his family, not the Muggle side, which is why he chose that title for himself.) Carol, not understanding why anyone would want to make Eileen the HBP rather than a red herring or what purpose would be served by doing so From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jul 18 19:04:03 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:04:03 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155584 AmanitaMuscaria: > > The other point is that there are familial resemblances in > handwriting. This may be even more emphasized if the student were > initially home-taught, as I assume most Hogwarts pupils from > wizarding families are. Snape _may_ have been, by his mother, and may > further have modelled himself and his handwriting on the family > member he feels proud of, thus the Half-blood Prince > > Just some thoughts. Carol: > So you're saying that Eileen Prince may have written "This book > belongs to the Half-Blood Prince" in the cramped, minuscule writing > used throughout the book? *(snip)* > Or are you saying that the invented spells are Teen!Severus's, but the > potion hints are his mother's, despite his known proficiency at > potions and despite being in the same handwriting in the same book, > apparently identical to the writing on his DADA exam, which JKR would > have no reason to mention if it weren't a clue? *(snip)* > Carol, not understanding why anyone would want to make Eileen the HBP > rather than a red herring or what purpose would be served by doing so Ceridwen: I thought that Amanita was saying that the writing in the book could possibly be by two people, one of whom was taught to write by the other and so both handwritings look alike to Harry, who is no expert on handwriting. If this was Eileen's book, and she was good at Potions as Severus was in school, the hints could well be hers... ...except for what Slughorn says to Snape at the Christmas party, that Harry did better at the Draught of Living Death on his first try than even Snape had done, which means that the hints and corrections were not in the book when Snape entered sixth-year Potions, or at least that's how it seems to me. Ceridwen. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jul 18 19:47:59 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:47:59 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155585 Be warned...long post. :D Rather than list a lot of other poster's quotes, I think I'll try to address several of the types of comments. 1. It doesn't make any difference that Austen's books are completely different in plot, or the characters are completely different from the HP books. The point of the similarities has nothing to do with similar or dissimilar characters, situations, etc. The similarity is in how the authors approach how to trick the reader. 2. JKR said that she loves plotting and she loves who-dunnits, and she loves surprising plot twists. Within that context, she said that "Emma" was the standard she aspired to. She wasn't talking about character or plot comparisons, but the fact that "Emma" is such an excellent example of how to work plot twists that fool the reader. Therefore, the primary thing to consider in comparing Austen and "Emma" to JKR and HP, is how Austen went about developing plot twists and fooling the reader, compared to how JKR seems to be going about it. 3. Austen did not primarily fool the reader by getting the reader to accept everything that the primary character thought. We aren't surprised at the end of "Emma" because we believe Emma's "take" on other characters. Most readers have learned through the book to do just the opposite -- we learn that Emma is an unreliable judge of individuals. The reader is surprised at the end of the book because the *narration* has convinced the reader of character motivations and actions that turn out to be untrue. However, the narration is sort of "Emma-centric" just as the narration in "Pride and Prejudice" is focused on Elizabeth. If JKR is using similar methods to make plot twists work in the HP books, it would mean that we have to be careful of what the *narration* tells us, not just what Harry thinks. The narration isn't 1st person Harry, but it is generally what I call "Harry- centric." It follows Harry and we generally only see what Harry sees. But that doesn't mean that we can't back up a bit and see the action more objectively. It's difficult, but it is possible. I read a fan-fic once from a Snape pov. I can only remember one part of that story. At the opening feast of Harry's first year, the writer had Snape enter the feast knowing he was going to see for the first time the son of James who he hated, and who hated him. At the feast, he looks over at Harry and they catch each other's eye. Immediately, Snape sees Harry stare over at him with a rather dramatic grimace. Snape glares back, assuming the son of James Potter has already heard about him and has decided to hate him. It's not that I think that was what was really going on in that scene. But I use that example to show how juxtaposing certain events can create a certain impression. Sort of a post hoc ergo proctor hoc. You could take the same event, and see it from two different character's pov, and have a completely different understanding of what was going on. Because JKR almost only uses Harry's perspective, it is easy for her to manipulate the reader's opinions of the situation to closely mirror what Harry thinks is going on. This doesn't make Harry somehow culpable for all of his views of what is going on or where he gets it wrong (not *all,* although some of his conclusions even *he* has plenty of evidence to the contrary). Harry can't help many of his conclusions as he's doing the best he can with what he knows, sees or hears. It certainly makes sense, for instance, at the end of HBP for him to conclude that Snape has murdered DD in cold blood. However, the reader is not caught up in events like Harry is -- especially with years between books and lots of friends to help disect the whole thing. We should have plenty of time to spot at least some of those hints that JKR drops, unlike the reader of an Austen book who continues turning pages and doesn't take a break to put the text under the proverbial microscope. Anyway, the long and short of what I'm saying is that we need to stop thinking the narration is *objective.* It's just not. Consider that the narration is trying to lead you to a conclusion. The narration will be unlikely to lie to the reader. That would break faith with the reader. But the narration *is* going to try to misdirect the reader. Not always, but in at least *some* very important ways. After all, JKR wants to surprise us. She can't do that without misdirecting us. Now.... what I'm surprised at is that everyone mostly looks at Snape as the focus of the misdirection. Yes, I think JKR wants to fool us about Snape. But is that all? After all, she made us think Quirrell was ineffective, fake-Moody was a great support for Harry, Sirius was a crazed murderer, and Scabbers was a nice pet. If that's not tricking us about characters, I don't know what is. Especially with fake-Moody, who I *really* liked up until the end of GOF. Could there be another character out there who is an unknown villian? It's one thing to think that Snape is DDM. But I really hate to think that one of the characters who I actually like could turn out, like fake-Moody, to be a villian. Yet JKR has done this before and I certainly wouldn't put it past her to do it again. After all, Book 7 is the last book. Don't you think she'll want the surprise twists of the last book to be the most surprising of all? 4. Last, on what can be "misdirected." In "Emma" the reader is completely misdirected about Frank Churchill's motivations. He appears, through much of the book, to not only care nothing for Jane Fairfax, but to take some sort of slightly spiteful pleasure in teasing her and embarressing her in public. We, the readers, think that perhaps he does this because he knows Emma doesn't care for Jane. What we are unaware of is that he is secretly engaged to Jane and is, among other things, trying to keep his true relationship with her a secret. This doesn't however, mean that his actions toward Jane are just fine. She does get hurt through his public actions toward her. We eventually learn some of his reasons, but we still think he enjoyed embarrassing her in public, although we (the readers) perhaps are willing to grant that he didn't realize how much it hurt her. Learning that possibly the nicest, most talented, beautiful, and generally likeable character in the book loved Frank doesn't necessarily change reader opinion about him. But learning that he loved her, and was willing to commit to her regardless of her low social standing and lack of money (and we think he's really into money and social standing, btw), makes the reader accept Frank more. My point there is that in the misdirection, we don't later discover that Frank was guiltless of the faults we thought he had. He did have those faults. But in general, we tend to find those faults a bit more acceptable because we learn his motivations, and we also learn some good things about him. Like others, I don't think we're going to find out that Snape is really a "nice" guy and all those nasty things he said to Harry didn't really mean anything. But it's possible that we'll learn more about what motivated those comments and actions, as well as other perhaps better things about Snape, that will change the way we consider the character. wynnleaf From felix_quinn at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 15:38:38 2006 From: felix_quinn at yahoo.com (felix_quinn) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:38:38 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : another question (nature of a horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155586 > Carol: > > However, given JKR's Christianity and her use of Latin adaptations > > throughout the books, I think "crux" (cross) is the probable root, > > in combination with "hor(ror)" (also Latin, with a self-evident > > meaning). Luna: > Following a Christian interpretation, it could > be said that Harry is carrying this "cross of horror," which is his > mission to vanquish Lord Voldemort. I am not 100% convinced that > Harry or Harry's scar is a Horcrux, but I can't deny that this idea > could be a possible explanation to Voldemort's powers transference > to Harry. I wonder if it's possible that the word crux was used because it serves so many purposes. I think the interpetation of crux as 'cross' is the most likely, but I also think that it indicates how important it is to Voldemort's ultimate plan, and his mortality- like I said and you said, crux as in "the root", and 'kruk' as it relates to 'crutch'. I had wondered, also, if maybe the destruction of the horcruxes (horcri?) aren't maybe what we expect at all. There have been many theories thrown around, and this might have come up before, but what if the entire search for the horcruxes keeps running into dead ends, and in the final battle it's discovered that the destruction of all of them can be done in a way that requires Harry to do something that results in his own death or in him possibly somehow taking the horcuxes or at least the burden of them onto himself? Possibly, instead of being destroyed, they can be neutralised? Their nature lends itself to a loveless existence, one without compassion or remorse, so what if that can be counteracted? Offhand, this brings to mind two villians- Xayide from Neverending story 2, and Mab from Merlin. (there are probably loads more that fit the example I want to make, but I can only think of these two.) Xayide was destroyed when Bastian, instead of doing that which would save him from the Nothing and take him home, used his last wish "that Xayide have a heart". Her very nature being against this, she sheds one tear that repairs the damage she's done and kills her. Mab, in Merlin, relies on attention and power (much like _someone_ we know) and gets her power from the awe and fear she inspires in others- when Merlin tells her that they are simply going to forget her, and walks away, she can't handle it and evaporates. Two somewhat simplified examples from stories that don't have quite the depth or intricacy of the HP series, but possible parralels. We know of the importance of love in the HP world, so what if that- rather than the flat out murder of LV- is the key to his destruction? It obviously won't be quite as simple as just 'forgiving' him (or something along those lines) but what if the solution is a slightly glorified way of doing so? Ideas, anyone? Felix, who blames possible weak theories on a bad perm affecting her brain. From concollins at cox.net Tue Jul 11 14:13:19 2006 From: concollins at cox.net (Con Collins) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:13:19 -0700 Subject: open letter to JKR Message-ID: <001401c6a4f4$2985fc20$6501a8c0@con2k6tzno4dge> No: HPFGUIDX 155587 Hi, I always wondered whether Madam Hooch was a lesbian ... or could it be that she simply represents the "gym teacher" stereotype? Of course, one might argue that the wizarding community itself is a metaphor for the gay community (or any other misunderstood population). Con. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 20:06:57 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060718200657.30123.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155588 > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I don't really hold it against the twins that they chose to > leave the school (and the DA) instead of stay and get flogged by > Umbridge. As far as they know they're just stirring up a bit of > trouble to make things a bit difficult for the new headmistress. > They're not fighting in an all out war. As you point out, they > didn't know what all Umbridge was doing to Harry. They didn't know > how far she was willing to take things. > >....But wouldn't that make the twins deserters? Because if everyone > in the DA was supposed to realize that this was an all out war it > means the twins chose to leave their post when things got a bit hot. I disagree here. As much as I think the twins are a lot less likeable than JKR does, they rose magnificently to the Umbridge challenge in a way that no one else did. They saw - perhaps instinctively - that the best way to defeat a total control freak is to unleash total chaos. And it worked - it gave the other students a model of what to do; it gave the teachers the opportunity to engage in some wonderful passive-aggressive work ("I could have removed the fireworks myself but I wasn't sure I had the authority" - Flitwick) and it showed Umbridge up as not being able to enforce all her stupid petty rules. No, I think the twins knew exactly what they were doing - and their terrific exit was inspiring to the other students, not seen as cowardly at all. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 20:08:20 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:08:20 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower./ Who cast second "petrifucus"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155589 > Carol notes: > You may be thinking of the first Petrificus Totalus, which Harry casts > from behind at the "brutal-faced Death Eater" (Yaxley?). But the > second Petrificus Totalus, the one that saves Harry from Fenrir > Greyback, is cast by an unidentified person who can't be Harry because > Harry is pinned down and can't move: SNIP, go UPTHREAD to read the quote> >" (HBP Am. ed. 598). Alla: I don't know which one Eggplant was thinking about, but no, I don't think that Harry **could not** cast this one because he was pinned down. It could have been done unverbally and yes, I know that we read the spell, so it seems that it was said out loud, **but**, if it was Harry, for him it may seem that he shouted. I will grant you that it is not clear one way or another, but to me Harry casting it is a very big possibility. And this would not be the first time when at the time of need Harry manages something he was struggling with before. JMO, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 20:34:12 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:34:12 -0000 Subject: 4 Founders, 4 Elements, and Secret Rooms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155590 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Mike: > OK, we need a fire room. It's not a room, but travelling by Floo > Network is via fire. How about one has to step thru a fireplace to > get to Gryffindor's room. Chuck in floo powder and call out the code word for his room. Is anything engraved on the back side of his > sword? You can only get there from one fire in Hogwarts. My vote is for that handsome fireplace in the room off of the Great Hall, you know the one where the champions went after their name's came out of the GoF. This could have been GG's study, back in the day. > > Now, what is in this room that makes it worth keeping secret? (Snip) How's this? You have to pass a challenge proving your bravery, and if you do, a Phoenix will be summoned to become your faithful pet. This is how DD got Fawkes. > Tonks: Gosh, I had forgotten that there were so many secret rooms that we have already seen. I agree with Laura that a Greenhouse sort of room might be the Hufflepuff room. Has to be an earthy sort of place. I like Mike's idea of the fireplace and idea of Fawkes. But wouldn't the fireplace be in Headmaster's room? There must be a lot of secrets in that room. And it can seal itself against all unauthorized persons. Plus that Gryffindor door knocker. Has anyone seen a fireplace in the headmasters room? I think there is one in all the rooms, given that they do not have central heating. How will Harry find it? Does McG know about it?? Tonks_op From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 16:56:15 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:56:15 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155591 > > Cassy: > > > Interestingly, Harry outlines several similarities between Snape > and Riddle. Perhaps one of the reasons for Snape to be accepted in > the inner circle was that LV could relate more to him than to members > of wizard aristocracy, such as Malfoys or Blacks. That is, if we > suppose that LV considers his followers persons, not simply tools. > > > zgirnius: > I am sure that Voldemort considers his followers as simply tools, and > not persons. However, I think he does put in the effort to try and > understand them as persons, the better to manipulate them, at least > until they are in so deep there is no going back for them. > > Voldemort is not really a devoted pureblood supremacist. He is just > exploiting the ideology to achieve his own goals. Snape being a half- > blood would not matter to Voldemort if he believed that Snape would > be a useful follower to have. I think his brains and talents in > Potions and The Dark Arts/DADA do make him potentially useful. > Bridge13219: I think some very important point have been hit on here. First, while LV probably doesn's care about the DE's as people so much as tools, he does "take more seriously" (wrong turn of phrase but I can't think of a better one now) the ones of mixed heritage such as himself (which is why he marked Harry "as his equal"). I have gotten the feeling that he enjoys the power he has over the "superior" purebloods. However, I tend to think LV doesn't try to understand anyone. He seems to use the same pat threat: death to you and yours if you don't do what I want. What DD pointed out (at some point, don't have books right now) one of LV's greatest weaknesses is that he doesn't understand (or even try to understand) humanity; his or anyone else's. He doesn't believe in the power of love even after it forced him out of Harry in the MoM, he doesn't understand the power of a whole soul and on and on. I think this will be very important when it comes time to finish him off. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 21:01:36 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:01:36 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155592 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Which is interesting, IMO. Because those who feel Marietta > > deserved her brand tend to say that the DA *was* in a war; that > > Marietta was more than just a snitch, she was a traitor. But > > wouldn't that make the twins deserters? > > > >>Steven1965aaa now: > Well, I see what you're saying and I'm not one of the people who > go by the war theory, but I think there are a couple of important > differences. First, everyone in the DA agreed to keep it secret, > and Marietta violated that agreement. Betsy Hp: Right. Marietta was a snitch; that has never been a fact under contention. Those who feel her disfigurement was well deserved justice rather than cruel vengence tend to argue that as this is war rules of civil and honorable behavior are out the window. All I'm pointing out is, if this argument is sincere than Hermione should have refused to play favorites and arranged for the twins to be disfigured too. Deserters are just as bad within a war situation as traitors. Sometimes they're even worse. > >>Steven1965aaa now: > 2nd, at the time the Twins "deserted" the DA was no longer meeting > because of Marietta's vilation, so even accepting the premise of > your argument there was nothing really left to "desert". Betsy Hp: Hang on, are you saying the war was over because the DA had lost? First of all that would suggest that the war was against Umbridge and not Voldemort, and second it would suggest that in stirring up the chaos that got them in trouble in the first place, the twins were wasting everybody's time. I actually do agree that the DA was a study group, nothing more. Hermione may have had aspirations but the DA never rose to meet them. (Mainly because Harry wasn't really looking for an army, IMO.) But that would also mean that there's no "big picture" to excuse the cruelty of Hermione's actions regarding Marietta. > >>Steven1965aaa now: > I don't think Hermione would make a spell which would brand > someone coward for leaving, I don't think she or Harry would have > held it against anyone for dropping out... > Betsy Hp: The problem I have with Hermione at this moment is that I cannot say "Oh, Hermione would never..." I honestly can't think, now, of anything Hermione wouldn't do if it achieved her ends. Honestly, I think Hermione is the one member of the trio who'd have the least problem with killing, as long as she thought it the best solution to the problem in front of her. Hermione's the Tin Man of the group, and if she doesn't get a heart, I think they'll be in trouble. Betsy Hp From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 20:51:06 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:51:06 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155593 > Pippin: > If you can't see the irony in "I could forgive his pride" then I guess > we are reading the same book but living in different universes Neri: Of course there's irony. There's also self-irony in the other half "if he hadn't mortified mine". This is exactly why this line is memorable. But there isn't condemnation of pride as a deadly sin here, or of Darcy as an evil man. > Sydney: > > *blink* Um, did we read the same book? Of course Elizabeth's > mistaken about Darcy's motives and his whole character. She is ready > to believe he defrauded a man out of his inheritance, and that he > wilfully destroyed the love of Bingley and Jane because Jane wasn't > rich enough. When she finds out the truth, she's hardly just, "huh. > so that's what really happened." She's like: > > "Astonishment, apprehension, and even horror, oppressed her. She > wished to discredit it entirely, repeatedly exclaiming, "This must be > false! This cannot be! This must be the grossest falsehood!" " > Neri: You miss the distinction I make between motivations, biography and true nature. Elizabeth *is* mistaken about motivations (of herself as well as of others), about biography (The quarrel between Wickham and Darcy) but she does not mistake true nature for long. The quotes above, as you say, show Elizabeth when she isn't rational, mainly because of the marriage proposal she just refused. However, at that point she had already found by herself that she's not in love with Wickham, that he's not an admirable man, and she has only believed his version because she didn't have Darcy's version. Just several days after reading Darcy's version, when her agitation subsides a bit, she believes him although it's still only his word against Wickham's, and despite her other objections to him (his interference with her sister's engagements and his despise for her family) have only been confirmed. Basically both Elizabeth and Emma show good instincts regarding human true nature despite their intellectual failure to recognize motivations and being lied to about the facts. Elizabeth never falls for Wickham and Emma never falls for Churchill. Elizabeth is deceived about Darcy's character only for a short time and Emma is never deceived about Knightly's character. So in principle the ESE and DDM paradigms just don't work in Austen's novels. Neri From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jul 18 20:44:32 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:44:32 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155594 > Potioncat: > Keep in mind, the original post in this > thread has nothing to do with Snape. wynnleaf Thanks for noticing! Of course, we think of Snape right away. But won't that help JKR if she's planning some other big surprises? Sort of like a magician's technique. While we're all looking one way, something else is also going on... > > It isn't that a character is duping the hero, it's the author who is > duping the hero. Or more importantly, she's duping us. wynnleaf Exactly. And we're not necessarily being duped because we believe that Harry's got it right. We're duped because we think the narrator has it right. From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jul 18 17:03:42 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:03:42 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155595 Cassy: Interestingly, Harry outlines several similarities between Snape and Riddle. SNIP Tinktonks: ? This is a very interesting point, the similarities between Snape and LV, and Harry & LV have both been noticed by Harry yet somehow he manages to not connect the similarities between HIMSELF & snape. Like he almost finds it more repulsive to think that him and Snape are alike. I caught a snippet of a convo where people were saying both Harry & Snape think the other is a meddlesome fool. Well I'm saluting that one, they both think similar things of each other in different circumstances. I think they will have to face up to how similar they are in ways at some point in book 7 (Which incidently CANNOT come soon enough!!!!) Tinktonks (who thinks her head will explode if she doesn't get some answers quick!) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 21:22:14 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:22:14 -0000 Subject: Harry & Slytherin (was:Re: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155596 > >>Triin: > > What is it about Harry's personality that makes him so > > Slytherin that the hat had to be begged not to put him there? He > > is such a *straightfoward* person, with a "saving people thing", > > etc; to me he sounds like an epitome of Gryffindor values.. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Huh. I would never have thought to describe Harry > > as "straightforward". He strikes me as someone who plays his > > cards very close to the vest, letting as few people in as > > possible. > SSSusan: > I can't speak for Triin, of course, but I wonder if what was meant > by calling him a *straightforward* person is simply that he's > not... I don't know... duplicitous? He's not going to > *consciously* tweak how he comes across to others. > > But, yes, he *does* play his cards close to the vest. And he is > naturally an introvert. I think those don't *not* fit with being > straightforward. Maybe you're thinking of straightforward in the > sense of someone who's *forthright*? But Triin may mean it more > like this (from dictionary.com): > 1. Not circuitous or evasive; honest and frank. > 2. Free from ambiguity or pretense; plain and open. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I do agree that Harry isn't naturally duplicitous. So I probably *am* thinking more about "forthright". However, I'm not sure I'd label Harry as "plain and open" or "honest and frank". Not that Harry would present a *false* face, but he'd do his best to present no face at all. With Harry, if he's questioned too much or he's under stress, he shuts down and closes off. So while he doesn't majorly tweak how he's coming across ("I'm a big shining sun of confidence!!"), he does do some minor tweaking ("Nothing to see here folks, I feel fine."). And he does it well enough that he manages to keep his friends at arms length if that's his goal. I certainly wouldn't label that sort of self-protection as duplicitous, but I wouldn't call it honest either. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Because of that I think Harry rather naturally goes a bit sneaky > > when he wants to find something out. I don't think it's an > > accident that his two most important tools are a cloak that > > allows him to disappear and map that allows him to silently > > spy. Harry likes to creep about rather than straightforwardly > > ask for information. > >>SSSusan: > This is a *great* insight into Harry's personality, imo. So, > okay, he is sneaky... but I still think he can be straightforward > in that the sneakiness isn't really about pretense; it's about > facility or necessity (as Harry sees it). What I'm saying is that > I think your comment here shows that your use of the > word "straightforwardly" might well be more in line > with "forthrightly" than with the "free from pretense, honest and > frank" kind of definition. Betsy Hp: Well, I'll definitely rule out "forthright". But I'm still on the fence about "straightforward". Harry is certainly single-minded when he wants to be, but the very fact that he's usually hiding the fact that he's after something (information, etc.) suggests a certain lack of honesty or frankness. And Harry will engage in a minor bit of pretense if it suits him (ie his true feelings regarding Mrs. Figg; the amount of work he put into his occlumency, etc.). I wouldn't call Harry *manipulative*, but he is secretive. And if neccessary, he'll lie to keep his secrets. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 21:59:51 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:59:51 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155597 > >>Sydney: > > *blink* Um, did we read the same book? Of course Elizabeth's > > mistaken about Darcy's motives and his whole character. She is > > ready to believe he defrauded a man out of his inheritance, and > > that he wilfully destroyed the love of Bingley and Jane because > > Jane wasn't rich enough. When she finds out the truth, she's > > hardly just, "huh. so that's what really happened." She's like: > > "Astonishment, apprehension, and even horror, oppressed her. She > > wished to discredit it entirely, repeatedly exclaiming, "This > > must be false! This cannot be! This must be the grossest > > falsehood!" " > >>Neri: > You miss the distinction I make between motivations, biography and > true nature. Elizabeth *is* mistaken about motivations (of herself > as well as of others), about biography (The quarrel between > Wickham and Darcy) but she does not mistake true nature for long. > Betsy Hp: I think I'm still missing the distinction you're making. Elizabeth saw Darcy's personality traits and used them to define his true nature for herself. And she was completely wrong. Just as she was completely wrong about Wickham. Wrong as in she assigned the correct nature to the wrong man in each case. And she was wrong about their true natures for most of the book. What Elizabeth learned is that it's possible to have a prickly personality but an honorable true nature, and it's possible to have a pleasant personality and to be completely without honor. (What Wickham does to Elizabeth's sister would easily fit under an ESE moniker in those days. Girls did not bounce back from that sort of social ruin. Generally their families were destroyed as well.) > >>Neri: > Basically both Elizabeth and Emma show good instincts regarding > human true nature despite their intellectual failure to recognize > motivations and being lied to about the facts. > Betsy Hp: I totally disagree. Of course that's another discussion, but both books, IMO, are based on both girls being too confident in their abilities to judge other peoples' true natures. > >>Neri: > So in principle the ESE and DDM paradigms just don't work in > Austen's novels. Betsy Hp: Ooh, I totally disagree. Yes, Austen wasn't about good vs. evil. But she was all about mis-identifying friend and foe. And JKR has shown herself to be very good at a similar game. Fake!Moody was a stunning example of that in GoF. As was the great Crookshanks vs. Scabbers battle in PoA. I think the main point is that JKR is more Austen than Dahl. The bad guys can't always be easily identified by their black hats. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 21:18:45 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:18:45 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155598 > Betsy Hp: > I actually do agree that the DA was a study group, nothing more. > Hermione may have had aspirations but the DA never rose to meet > them. (Mainly because Harry wasn't really looking for an army, > IMO.) But that would also mean that there's no "big picture" to > excuse the cruelty of Hermione's actions regarding Marietta. Alla: Whether Harry was **looking** for the army or not, he IMO **found** it. All students who stood with him in MoM were members of the DA. **A lot** of what they had used there , they learned there IMO. So to me the **big picture** is there and Marietta to me is still a traitor, **not** a snitch. And no, IMO Twins glorious, inspiring chaos against Umrbidge( see Magda's post, I agree completely) cannot be compared at all with the act of treachery. This is how I see it of course. Alla From srhchttrsn at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 19:35:28 2006 From: srhchttrsn at yahoo.com (srhchttrsn) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:35:28 -0000 Subject: Levicorpus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155599 I'm a little hazy with the OotP, but at any point does it become clear how James Potter learned the Levicorpus spell when Harry sees him use it in Snape's pensieve memory? It became clear in HBP that Snape invented this spell and I seriously doubt he would have shared such info with his mortal enemy. srhchttrsn. From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 18 13:29:03 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:29:03 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione as a Ravenclaw References: Message-ID: <000701c6aa6e$234162d0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155600 srhchttrsn: >>I don't know if this topic has already been discussed, but doens't it seem that Hermione has qualities better suited to those in Ravenclaw? Yes she is honorable and brave, but I feel that more than anything she is clever and intellectual. << Marion: Hermione is not an intellectual in the Ravenclaw sense (and it's not as if all Ravenclaws are geniuses; they value learning and knowledge and think they are *right* about what they know, even if it's, um, esoteric knowledge like the Rotfang Conspiracy) Hermione doesn't read all her books because she's so immensly intrigued by the knowledge of how things work (if that was true she would have devoured the HBP potions book - instead she doggedly follows the faulty instructions of the standard potions book) but because she has a deep need to be admired. To be the best. To have *adults* acknowledge her as admirable. That points her straight to Gryffindor. It's not as if the Gryffs are all so very brave and noble and stuff (they'd *like* to be), it's simply that the Gryffs like to be admired. That means that they often will do things that get them admired, such as heroic deeds. Slyths don't care so much for admiration, they just want to succeed, wether people like them or not. The power behind the throne? A Slyth. A Gryff would never resign to be an anomynous, but powerful, force. A Gryff shouts "look at me!" A Gryff cares what people think about them. A Ravenclaw doesn't care what people think, a 'Claw wants to be *right*, and if all the world proclaimed him or her to be wrong, s/he wouldn't give a damn as long as s/he firmly believed it (Luna Lovegood, anyone?) A Hufflepuff *does* care what others think. Hufflepuffs live for the group. But 'Puffs don't like oddballs, people who go against the group, people who make trouble for the group. 'Puffs are not the pushovers people think they are. Nor are they so superkind. They're kind to their group, but be an oddball, an outsider, an individual (and Ravenclaws are SuperIndividuals) within their groupthink and they'll show you another side to 'kind' Hufflepuff. Don't underestimate 'Puffs! In short, it is a total no-brainer for me. The Hermione who tried to impress the boys with her knowledge in the train and before Sorting, the Hermione who raises her hand for every question and does her best to be Teacher's Pet Extraordinaire, the Hermione whose *boggart* turns into a teacher who tells her she *failed* every class, that Hermione is not a Ravenclaw. Ravenclaws don't *care* if they failed a class, if they think the teacher or the book is wrong they will stick with their own opinion and give that as an answer. Can you imagine what Luna Lovegood would anwer on a popquiz? And I doubt Luna is the only Ravenclaw that has her own unique view on the world (although Luna's has taken a certain weird turn due to her father being the editor of the Quibbler). Hermione is definately a Gryffindor. She wants to be admired. She wants people to say about her, "oh, see that girl? She got 12 OWLS and 12 NEWTS and they were all O's. She must be the cleverest witch of her age. Let's give her a footnote in 'Hogwarts a History.'" I like House system. It puts the children into peergroups that have the same priorities in life. Even if that doesn't always ensure harmony amongst them, it does give them housemates that understand what they are all about. Mostly. (Harry for instance would hate being in Hufflepuff. Hufflepuffs do not appreciate people who set themselves apart from the group and Harry always goes off on his own tangent. Puffs would *not* allow that) What I dislike is the strange notion that Gryffindors are somehow more brave, more noble, than, say, Ravenclaws or Hufflepuffs. Is Lavender Brown more brave than Blaize Zabini? Is Colin Creevey more noble than Cedric? Is Zacharias Smith more loyal than Ron Weasley or Vincent Crabbe more cunning than Hermione? No, of course not. Quite apart from the fact that you cannot make such a value distinction at age eleven, it is also bollocks. Being brave comes in all kind of packages. As does intelligence, cunning or loyalty. What the Hat selects for is not what the children *are*, but how they look at live and what they want of it. If a child wants to be admired, it's a definite Gryff. If a child wants to belong, it's a Puff. If a child want to be on top, to succeed no matter what the cost, it's a Slyth. And if a child wants to be right about things, to have an opinion and stick to it no matter what, it's a definate Claw. Even if the Gryff child isn't very brave, the Slyth child isn't very cunning or if the Claw child isn't very intelligent. Although it's a fair guess that it usually does work out that way. The child that wants to be admired by all will have to step into the limelight to get admired. The child that wants to be right about things will have to be interested into research. The child that wants to belong to a group will know it would have to posses grouployalty for it to work and the child that wants to win, no matter what, will probably have some measure of cunning. Although that doesn't mean that the children always *succeed* in what they want out of live. There must be hundreds, nay thousands of Gryffs who never did anything slightly heroic and Claws who simply did not have the required sharpness of mind to be a succesfull Claw. Anyway, Hermione is a total Gryff. She might've liked it better in Ravenclaw (if only because Claws don't care about other Claws being bossy little know it alls) and she does have a tendency to think that she knows best (but that is different from thinking you are *right*) but put a Ravenclaw all alone in a locked tower with nothing but books and she will be happy. Put Hermione in alone in a tower with nothing but books and she'd go nuts. Nobody to *see* how clever she is? Then what would be the point in reading? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jul 18 21:50:30 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:50:30 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155601 Neri > > Basically both Elizabeth and Emma show good instincts regarding human > true nature despite their intellectual failure to recognize > motivations and being lied to about the facts. Elizabeth never falls > for Wickham and Emma never falls for Churchill. Elizabeth is deceived > about Darcy's character only for a short time and Emma is never > deceived about Knightly's character. So in principle the ESE and DDM > paradigms just don't work in Austen's novels. wynnleaf The problem here is that the *reader* is not deceived by Elizabeth or Emma -- and particularly Emma, since the surprises in Emma are much bigger, and it was the book, "Emma," that JKR particularly cited as the "standard." To repeat... the *reader* is not deceived by Emma's understanding of the character's or motivations of others. The reader is deceived by the narration. Most decerning readers figure out relatively early on that Emma's ideas about her friends and aquaintances are mostly fairy tales and wishful thinking. Or, in the case of what she thinks of Jane (hey, she didn't get Jane right, did she?) it's basically jealousy and spite. No, the reader is not deceived by Emma. The reader is deceived by the narrator. And that's the principal that *does* fit JKR. After all, JKR didn't base her plot construction, or her characters on Janes Austen novels -- "let's see, I'll have Snape be like Darcy." Certainly not. Her quote about Austen was in praise of her ability to create plot and "who dunnit" twists that surprised the reader. Often that includes totally surprising the reader about particular characters. But one needn't try to figure out who is ESE in an Austen novel. There are weak, spiteful, or deceitful characters, but not "ever" so evil ones. Wickham is about as close to evil as you get and he doesn't come close to a death eater. In Emma, there aren't any evil characters. That's not the point of the comparison. There are, however, major plot surprises, caused by using the narration to misdirect the reader. That's what JKR was praising, and that's very likely exactly what JKR likes to do. Now, lets suppose that JKR is really, really good at this. I didn't see fake-Moody coming. I didn't see good-Sirius coming. I never thought Scabbers was anything, but a rat. I bet few of any posters here did either. But everyone is wondering about Snape. I'll bet that's one plot twist and it will surprise most of the millions of readers who don't nitpick over the books and read them a dozen times each. But if JKR really wants to surprise almost *all* of us, she'll have to have some other big plot twists up her sleeve. And what might they be? It would be very like JKR to have another character surprise. Is there anyone that's a possible shock for us? I really *liked* fake-Moody. What if she had some character that we truly think we know, be completely different from what we thought? l And personally, I think that all the information that JKR seemed to give us at the end of HBP -- that info that makes us *think* we know what Book 7 is going to be about (go to Privet Dr., go to wedding, visit Godrics Hollow and graves, don't go to Hogwarts, find horcruxes, destroy them, kill LV) is misdirection. Would a lover of plot twists really hand us the basics of Book 7 like that? Not that she won't cover those topics, but I'm guessing that the main action is going to be something quite different. wynnleaf From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Jul 18 23:13:15 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:13:15 -0000 Subject: Nagini's venom as "mother's milk" (Was: Acromantula Venom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol responds: > I'm not sure whether you're thinking of my posts, in which I was > referring to Nagini (whose venom is also an ingredient in the potion > that restores Vapor!mort to a rudimentary body in the first place) as > a surrogate mother to Baby!mort. If so, I was referring to "milk" in a > figurative sense. Wormtail "milks" Nagini (Voldemort's word) to remove > her venom so that he (Wormtail) can feed it to Baby!mort to sustain > his/its existence as a mother's milk sustains her baby. Very creepy, > horrible parody of motherhood, IMO. > Allie: LOL, between my very literal interpretation of everything, my incorrect memory of the book, and your last posts, yes, I was confused about her use of the word "milk" regarding Nagini. I'm sure she was going for the metaphor. Carol: >I suspect that having Slughorn "milk" > the dead Aragog (ugh! no surrogate mother imagery here, I hope) is > nothing more than a plot device for getting Slughorn to Aragog's > funeral so that Harry can get the Horcrux memory. > > Allie: I don't think the acromantulas will play a part either, but during that scene I specifically wondered, "Now when are we going to see that venom again." I suppose Slughorn might just sell it and buy some crystallized pineapple though... From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Tue Jul 18 22:35:23 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:35:23 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155603 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > AmanitaMuscaria: > > > > The other point is that there are familial resemblances in > > handwriting. This may be even more emphasized if the student were > > initially home-taught, as I assume most Hogwarts pupils from > > wizarding families are. Snape _may_ have been, by his mother, and > may > > further have modelled himself and his handwriting on the family > > member he feels proud of, thus the Half-blood Prince > > > Just some thoughts. > > Carol: > > So you're saying that Eileen Prince may have written "This book > > belongs to the Half-Blood Prince" in the cramped, minuscule writing > > used throughout the book? > *(snip)* > > Or are you saying that the invented spells are Teen!Severus's, but > the > > potion hints are his mother's, despite his known proficiency at > > potions and despite being in the same handwriting in the same book, > > apparently identical to the writing on his DADA exam, which JKR > would > > have no reason to mention if it weren't a clue? > *(snip)* > > Carol, not understanding why anyone would want to make Eileen the > HBP > > rather than a red herring or what purpose would be served by doing > so > > Ceridwen: > I thought that Amanita was saying that the writing in the book could > possibly be by two people, one of whom was taught to write by the > other and so both handwritings look alike to Harry, who is no expert > on handwriting. If this was Eileen's book, and she was good at > Potions as Severus was in school, the hints could well be hers... > > ...except for what Slughorn says to Snape at the Christmas party, > that Harry did better at the Draught of Living Death on his first try > than even Snape had done, which means that the hints and corrections > were not in the book when Snape entered sixth-year Potions, or at > least that's how it seems to me. > > Ceridwen. > AmanitaMuscaria now - As Ceridwen puts it so well, I was not saying Eileen was 'the Half-Blood Prince', merely that it was her book originally, and there may be two persons' work in it. I was answering cass_da_sweet's note, and going off on a tangent. Ron can't read the handwriting at all, so takes the unwritten-in book. Hermione thinks the handwriting is a girl's - presumably, then, she can read it, or some of it? It may not be important, just that some time ago there was a discussion that Harry may have been the only one (apart from Snape, of course) who could read it, and that the book had been bewitched (bewizarded, surely?) so this would happen. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From dontask2much at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 00:56:35 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:56:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione as a Ravenclaw References: <000701c6aa6e$234162d0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <006f01c6aace$2f95d010$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 155605 > Marion: > Hermione is not an intellectual in the Ravenclaw sense (and it's not as if > all Ravenclaws are geniuses; they value learning and knowledge and think > they are *right* about what they know, even if it's, um, esoteric > knowledge like the Rotfang Conspiracy) Hermione doesn't read all her books > because she's so immensly intrigued by the knowledge of how things work > (if that was true she would have devoured the HBP potions book - instead > she doggedly follows the faulty instructions of the standard potions book) > but because she has a deep need to be admired. To be the best. To have > *adults* acknowledge her as admirable > Hermione is definately a Gryffindor. She wants to be admired. She wants > people to say about her, "oh, see that girl? She got 12 OWLS and 12 NEWTS > and they were all O's. She must be the cleverest witch of her age. Let's > give her a footnote in 'Hogwarts a History.'" > No, of course not. Quite apart from the fact that you cannot make such a > value distinction at age eleven, it is also bollocks. Being brave comes in > all kind of packages. As does intelligence, cunning or loyalty. > What the Hat selects for is not what the children *are*, but how they look > at live and what they want of it. > If a child wants to be admired, it's a definite Gryff. > If a child wants to belong, it's a Puff. > If a child want to be on top, to succeed no matter what the cost, it's a > Slyth. Rebecca: Actually, this is your opinion and should be couched as such, don't you think? Personally I'd like some canon references to support your analysis? (I'm sorry, but this is something that we do here: explore canon references with our interpretations or theories.) Has JKR stated such things about Houses in interviews that we all may have missed which support your view? WRT to the characteristics of the individual Houses, the only canon that explicit I think we've seen thus far is from the Sorting Hat, and that was in it's yearly song and not so nearly as detailed as your interpretation - which differs from mine. I think that the character traits/definitions you've expressed in your post are generalizations which aren't fully supported in canon. For example, Slughorn (who is a past Slytherin) doesn't want to be "on top", he wants to orchestrate behind the scenes and he appears to have somewhat of a conscience. In other words, he isn't affected as Lord Voldemort is with that nasty uncontrolled ambition. So, this generalization may not work when defining House character traits other than what we've been provided in canon. Also, if I'm not mistaken, IMO a person's fears probably say more about them than the Houses they're part of do, and Hermoine's fear is *to fail.* That doesn't completely denote *adults* acknowledging her as admirable in my mind, just that she be taken respectfully and seriously by *everybody*, including adults. The Trio together (hell with that, every kid) wishes that, so Hermoine is not alone. In POA, when Dumbledore tells them that the Ministry will not take the word of 3 underage wizards when they try to explain Sirius & Peter, when Molly doesn't want to allow them to hear about the OoP...these are all instances where teenagers want to be taken seriously regardless of their age. Voldemort didn't think an underage wizard was worth any magical weight, so to speak, and exemplifies this when choosing Draco for his mission in HBP (Dumbledore tells Draco in the US version of the book that he believes Voldemort probably didn't expect that Draco would succeed); Dumbledore says Harry's weight in the cave's boat wouldn't count to Voldemort because he was underage. So in effect, the argument Hermoine and Gryffindors want to be admired to me just doesn't fit with what you've postulated and what's in canon. Draco is a Slytherin and wanted to be "validated" too when telling Dumbledore how he was able to get the Death Eaters into Hogwarts. Snape is brilliant, more brilliant than Hermoine and in fact, can't ever be "wrong" when accusing Harry of all manners of infractions. Under the above definition and view, Snape should have immediately been sorted to Ravenclaw, don't pass Go and don't collect your Felix :) He's also described as oddball by Sirius- wouldn't that have made him a candidate for Hufflepuff under your definitions? I think I would modify your thought "what the Hat selects for is not what the children *are*, but how they look at live and what they want of it" to "what house the Hat allows the children to be sorted to is what they *choose to be* at sorting time" In canon, isn't it choices that determine who we are, not our abilities? One might say the same of House sorting. Rebecca From dossett at lds.net Wed Jul 19 01:36:08 2006 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:36:08 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower./ Who cast second "petrifucus"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Carol notes: > > You may be thinking of the first Petrificus Totalus, which Harry > casts > > from behind at the "brutal-faced Death Eater" (Yaxley?). But the > > second Petrificus Totalus, the one that saves Harry from Fenrir > > Greyback, is cast by an unidentified person who can't be Harry > because > > Harry is pinned down and can't move: > SNIP, go UPTHREAD to read the quote> > >" (HBP Am. ed. 598). > > > Alla: > > I don't know which one Eggplant was thinking about, but no, I don't > think that Harry **could not** cast this one because he was pinned > down. > > It could have been done unverbally and yes, I know that we read the > spell, so it seems that it was said out loud, **but**, if it was > Harry, > for him it may seem that he shouted. > > I will grant you that it is not clear one way or another, but to me > Harry casting it is a very big possibility. > > And this would not be the first time when at the time of need Harry > manages something he was struggling with before. > > JMO, > > Alla > Now Pat: Nope! Can't buy this one. Just a few pages later the only NVBL he's able to cast is "Levicorpus" and he can't do that one, either, because Snape stops him in mid-curse and reminds him of how important it will be for him to be able to do the NVBLs. I have to say I'm with Carol on this one. It had to be someone else, and Snape is certainly in the realm of possibility. Pat From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Jul 18 22:20:53 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:20:53 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155607 > Neri: > You miss the distinction I make between motivations, biography and > true nature. Elizabeth *is* mistaken about motivations (of herself as > well as of others), about biography (The quarrel between Wickham and > Darcy) but she does not mistake true nature for long. Sydney: I think the weasel words here are 'for long'. In what way is Elizabeth NOT mistaken about Darcy's 'true nature' for the several months she believes him to have defrauded an innocent Wickham of his inheritance? Is this a 'biography' or is it a 'true nature'? Neri: > The quotes above, as you say, show Elizabeth when she isn't rational, > mainly because of the marriage proposal she just refused. Sydney: So, the pivotal moment of Elizabeth's realization of her biases is just about her momentary agitation? Here I thought that was the emotional center of the book, but now I see I should just have written it off as a case of the vapours! Elizabeth, I thought, was being irrational in the specific stuff that the plot hinges on for most of the book-- which is what makes it a story, as opposed to just a bunch of stuff happening. The point at which she has to reasses not only her judgement about the two men but about how she judges people in general, is what the whole story is ABOUT. To make that some sort of momentary hicup in the otherwise smooth flow of her psyche is to suck out the whole point of the book, IMO, and turn it into an 'idiot plot' of stupid misunderstandings rather a deep story of human frailties. Neri: However, at > that point she had already found by herself that she's not in love > with Wickham, that he's not an admirable man, and she has only > believed his version because she didn't have Darcy's version. Sydney: Darcy's version is indirectly given her by Bingley and, of course, hotly dismissed: ``I have not a doubt of Mr. Bingley's sincerity,'' said Elizabeth warmly; ``but you must excuse my not being convinced by assurances only. Mr. Bingley's defence of his friend was a very able one I dare say, but since he is unacquainted with several parts of the story, and has learnt the rest from that friend himself, I shall venture still to think of both gentlemen as I did before.'' I love that passage-- Elizabeth, of course, is also unaquainted with several parts of the story! She found out she wasn't in love with Wickham because he left her to persue an heiress, but she certainly didn't realize he wasn't an 'admirable man' until she got Darcy's letter. There is quite an extended passage, I believe, when she's rationalizing why an 'admirable man' would dump her for a chick with money and succeeding in coming up with quite handy explanations, I believe. Neri: > Basically both Elizabeth and Emma show good instincts regarding human > true nature despite their intellectual failure to recognize > motivations and being lied to about the facts. Elizabeth never falls > for Wickham and Emma never falls for Churchill. Elizabeth is deceived > about Darcy's character only for a short time Sydney: I don't quite understand what you mean by 'a short time'here. I mean, Othello was decieved by Iago for 'a short time' in the sense of, just a couple of days, but really, he's deceived for just long enough for it to affect the plot. Elizabeth is deceived about Darcy for just long enough for it to play its part in the plot, which is a few months; Harry is deceived about Snape's character for just long enough for it to play its part in the plot, about seven years. If something in the plot of Pride and Prejudice required seven years to happen, I'm pretty sure Elizabeth's misunderstanding of Darcy would continue for about that long. Elizabeth DOES generally show good instincts about people-- which is why she's led into being so overconfident of being smarter than anybody else when the events of the story begin. I mean, if she'd always had terrible instincts then the story would be more of a farce. It is exactly their smug confidence in her instincts that lead both characters astray. Neri: and Emma is never > deceived about Knightly's character. So in principle the ESE and DDM > paradigms just don't work in Austen's novels. Incidentally the character Emma is MOST wrong about is not Knightley, but Jane Fairfax, the upright young lady about whom Emma spun some quite monstrous fantasies, did she not? The paradigm, such as it is, isn't about people being good or evil. It's about how hard it is to judge and understand people from our own narrow point of view, how easy it is to overlay our own prejudices and life experiences, how impossible to get into someone else's head. The ESE or DDM paradigm of course is much more clearly demonstrated by another of JKR's favorites, Agatha Christie, who tailored the misunderstanding-of-character theme to fit neatly into mystery plots. And who in a million years would never reveal the True Villain at this point of the story. THIS point of the story is where we become really, really sure the Red Herring character is the villain, so the real villain can spring out of the woodwork at the last possible instant. Like in Philosopher's Stone, which used classic Christie timing. To return to Wynleaf's question about reader misdirection in HP-- there's a very nice example in the setup about Peter Pettigrew. Becuase of how McGonnegal describes him, Harry connects him with Neville, which sets up a radically different sort of personality than we're expecting! And, of course, the revelation about James' character as a careless bully, which has to be my favorite shocker in the series-- I totally didn't see it coming and laughed aloud at the Pensive scene. The technique here is to put the truth in the mouth of a disagreeable character-- Snape says James was arrogant and strutted around, and so he did, but who believed him? The truth is hidden in plain sight. I've noticed this technique used a lot by Wilkie Collins-- has JKR ever mentioned him as an influence? -- Sydney From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 00:59:19 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:59:19 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > Hang on, are you saying the war was over because the DA had lost? > First of all that would suggest that the war was against Umbridge > and not Voldemort, and second it would suggest that in stirring up > the chaos that got them in trouble in the first place, the twins > were wasting everybody's time. Steven1965aaa: No, I am not one of the "war" people, I agree with you on that. I was just making that point hypothetically, saying even if you would view it as a "war" against Umbridge, which I thought other people had suggested earlier, then ... > Betsy Hp: > The problem I have with Hermione at this moment is that I cannot > say "Oh, Hermione would never..." I honestly can't think, now, of > anything Hermione wouldn't do if it achieved her ends. Honestly, I think Hermione is the one member of the trio who'd have the least > problem with killing, as long as she thought it the best solution to the problem in front of her. Hermione's the Tin Man of the group, and if she doesn't get a heart, I think they'll be in trouble. Steven1965aaa now: I didn't say "never". I just don't think Hermione or Harry would have had a problem with someone quitting the DA, as long as they didn't squeal, and therefore Hermione would have felt no need to "punish" a quitter or deter further quitters by branding someone "quitter". I agree that I certainly wouldn't want to get on Hermione's bad side! But (wanting to see the good) I chalk Rita Skeeter and Marietta up to Hermione's fierce desire to protect Harry. By the way, didn't it tun out that Tin Man had a heart all along? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 02:02:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:02:32 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155609 AmanitaMuscaria now wrote: - As Ceridwen puts it so well, I was not saying > Eileen was 'the Half-Blood Prince', merely that it was her book > originally, and there may be two persons' work in it. I was answering > cass_da_sweet's note, and going off on a tangent. Ron can't read the > handwriting at all, so takes the unwritten-in book. Hermione thinks > the handwriting is a girl's - presumably, then, she can read it, or > some of it? It may not be important, just that some time ago there > was a discussion that Harry may have been the only one (apart from > Snape, of course) who could read it, and that the book had been > bewitched (bewizarded, surely?) so this would happen. > Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria > Carol responds: But surely the whole point of having Teen!Severus as the inventor of both the hexes and potion hints is the irony of having Harry learning from him and liking and admiring him, not to mention getting credit for Teen!Severus's ideas in Potions when he thinks he hasn't learned anything from the adult Snape and having both Potions Master Snape and his alter ego the Half-Blood Prince indirectly responsible for saving Ron through their comments on bezoars. The whole delicious irony of having Slughorn think that Harry is even better at Potions than Teen!Snape is lost if both the Potions hints and the spells (which he'd be silly not to use just because he hates their inventor) aren't the products of Teen!Snape's mind. IMO, HBP is really "Harry Potter and Severus Snape," meaning both the HBP and the DADA teacher who, for whatever reason, killed Albus Dumbledore. There's no hint anywhere that more than one person wrote in the HBP's Potions books. The spells and the potions hints are in the same minuscule handwriting. Carol, who would like to hear a good plot reason for having the potions hints be the products of a very minor character's mind From aceworker at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 01:08:22 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What really happened on the tower. Message-ID: <20060719010822.91912.qmail@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155610 Posted by: "justcarol67" justcarol67 at yahoo.com justcarol67 Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:39 am (PST) > > The text also makes it unclear if Harry or someone else shouted > > "Petrificus Totalis!" when Fenrir was at Harry's throat. > Eggplant responded: > It sure wasn't unclear to me! Of course Harry did it, or do you think some mystery man did it and Harry was so incurious he never wondered who had saved his life? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155611 wynnleaf wrote: > we're not necessarily being duped because we believe that Harry's got it right. We're duped because we think the narrator has it right. > Carol responds: That's the point I was trying to make in my unreliable narrator post upthread. The narrator establishes himself (or herself) as unreliable almost from the first word of the books, when we're informed that the Dursleys are "perfectly normal thank you very much." That's the Dursleys' perspective, but it isn't the reader's, at least not for very long. And when we shift to Harry's pov, we get, via the third-person limited omniscient narrator (again, the narrator "knows" what the pov character "knows"), "He'd lived with the Dursleys ten years, ten miserable years, as long as he could remember, ever since he'd been a baby and his parents had died in that car crash" (SS Am. ed. 29). We know that this information comes from Aunt Petunia, but we don't learn that it's false until p. 53, by which time the reader has come to trust the chatty, Harry-centered narrative and forgets that he's been misinformed by anyone other than Aunt Petunia. Then we get "It happened very suddenly. The hook-nosed teacher looked past Quirrell's turban straight into Harry's eyes--and a sharp, hot pain shot across the scar on Harry's forehead" (126). JKR uses the narrator's seemingly straightforward description of Snape's action and the nearly simultaneous pain in Harry's scar to imply that Snape's gaze caused the scar to hurt, a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy on the reader's part that Harry seems to share. Snape is being set up as the villain. Of course, the "clue" is a red herring, but it's more than that. It illustrates one of many types of misdirection from this unreliable narrator. In this case and many others, Harry's perception becomes our reality. Even at the end of SS/PS, when Snape is revealed to have been trying to thwart the real villain, Quirrell, this first scene has firmly established him in the minds of many readers as ESE. The misleading narration extends to Quirrell as well: "Quirrell, however, must have been braver than they thought. In the weeks that followed, he did seem to be getting paler and thinner, but it didn't look as though he'd cracked yet" (126). Quirrell, IOW, has not yet knuckled under to Snape and revealed his supposed Anti-Dark arts spell to help Snape get the Stone. Even anti-Snapers know on a second reading of SS/PS that this statement, with its "must have been" and "seem" and "look as though" is wide of the mark, but it illustrates another narrative tactic--HRH's perspective revealed as apparently false, not because they've misjudged Quirrell's loyalties but because they've underestimated his courage! So we have Harry smiling at Quirrell to encourage him to stand up to Snape. We also have "important stuff hidden in the waffel"--Quirrell is getting thinner and paler, but not for fear of Snape. His life force is being used up by the parasite inside his turban. I've used SS/PS because it establishes the technique, which is also used, perhaps more subtly, in the later books. One more example, this one from OoP: "Kreacher, it transpired, had been lurking in the attic" (OoP Am. ed. 516). This straightforward statement from the narrator, not presented as Harry's perspective but as a fact, is only partly true. Yes, Kreacher was lurking in the attic, but that isn't where he disappeared to when Sirius kicked him out. Like Snape and Dumbledore when the need arises, the narrator is not telling the reader the full truth here. I'm sure that other posters can come up with other examples from various books, but my point is that there's more at stake than "the Harry filter" causing us to see Snape as evil because Harry does. JKR is, as wynnleaf keeps saying, using the *narrator* to mislead the reader. Sometimes it's just a means of obscuring the identity of the villain in a particular book, but at other times it involves straightforward statements, usually but not always representing Harry's perspective, presented as fact. Watch out for "knew" (how many times have we been told that Harry "knew" he was going to die--or, worse, be expelled?), for "seems," for "must have been." Watch out for partial explanations and unattributed speeches. Watch out for parts of conversations that Harry doesn't overhear and for interrupted speeches. Watch out for Harry's emotions coloring what the narrator reports. The unreliable narrator is not unique to JKR or Jane Austen. It's a common literary device, and we need to be aware of its presence, and of the specific forms of misdirection that JKR uses to maintain the mystery, which has not yet been resolved in the half-book that is HBP. Carol, who can provide other examples from other books, including HBP, but wanted to use examples in which the narrator was clearly unreliable, as opposed to illustrations from HBP in which that may or may not be the case From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 04:10:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 04:10:42 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: <20060719010822.91912.qmail@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155612 DA Jones wrote: > I always thought both Petrificus Totalus (let's call them PT's) , were cast wordlessly. In Harry's head, as he learned to do in he book. A PT is a rather simple spell. Hermione uses it in PP/SP on Neville, so prob not a lot of wand movement is required which explains Harry's ability to PT Fenrir. It is also prob an easy spell to cast wordlessly. Also the description of Greybacksattack says nothing about Harry's wand arm being pinned; just that he was suprised and Greyback almost bit him. . > > This reinforces Snapes argument latter that Harry can never defeat him until he can learn to "....keep his mouth shut and his mind closed." (HBP-- Scholastic pg. 603) Because when Harry kept his mouth shut he defeated two wizards. If Fenrir is a wizard? Carol responds: If Harry can cast a nonverbal spell (other than Levicorpus), why is he shouting his spells at Snape (who wouldn't have to tell him to keep his mouth shut if he were doing it)? Also, Harry didn't "defeat two wizards." He hit the Brutal-faced Death Eater *in the back* with the first Petrificus Totalus. He wasn't fighting him; the DE didn't know he was there. And we *are* told that Harry didn't have time to raise his wand before Fenrir Greyback leaped on him, which (along with Greyback's rancid breath in his face) strongly suggests that Harry was in no position to cast the spell himself. JKR has someone shout the spell but she chooses not to identify the caster. It's most unlikely to be Harry, and certainly you can't state as fact that he "defeated two wizards" using nonverbal spells when we don't know any such thing. I do, however, agree with you that Harry needs to take Snape's advice and cast his spells nonverbally--as snape has been trying to teach him to do all year. As for Fenrir Greyback being a wizard, I think he must be considering that he's a Death Eater. The narrator mentions his DE robes being tight across his chest, and he must have had the Dark Mark on his arm to get through the barrier on the tower stairs. I don't think that Voldemort would allow a Muggle to be a Death Eater no matter how vicious he was. Certainly Greyback is part of the WW and has been for a long time, given his attack on child!Remus some thirty or so years earlier. And if he were a Muggle, he probably wouldn't even be able to see Hogwarts. granted, he doesn't seem to use a wand, but he wouldn't have attended Hogwarts (he's apparently older than Lupin), so he wouldn't be a fully qualified wizard. He may not even have received a Hogwarts letter, not because he isn't a wizard but because Hogwarts didn't accept werewolves in his day. Carol, wondering if Greyback is related to dear Delores since they both have pointy teeth Carol From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 03:05:50 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:05:50 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155613 > > Betsy Hp: > I think I'm still missing the distinction you're making. Elizabeth > saw Darcy's personality traits and used them to define his true > nature for herself. And she was completely wrong. Just as she was > completely wrong about Wickham. Wrong as in she assigned the > correct nature to the wrong man in each case. And she was wrong > about their true natures for most of the book. > Neri: That's P&P fanon, perhaps, but it just doesn't work with Austen's canon. The canon is that Elizabeth is very quickly disillusioned about Wickham's nature. The first sign is when he chickens out of the Netherfield ball despite previously claiming that he's not afraid of confronting Darcy. The next sign is when he transfers his charms from Elizabeth to Miss King because the last has a bigger inheritance. Elizabeth perceives these signs and interprets them correctly. And she hardly even feels disappointed about losing him. All this takes place already before Darcy's first proposal. > Betsy Hp: > What Elizabeth learned is that it's possible to have a prickly > personality but an honorable true nature, and it's possible to have > a pleasant personality and to be completely without honor. Neri: But this happens pretty early in the novel. Already after Darcy's first proposal and his letter, the situation is that it's his word against Wickham's. Elizabeth doesn't have any other information to know who lies and who tells the truth. Darcy has confirmed that he sees Elizabeth's family beneath him while Wickham treats them pleasantly. Darcy admitted to his responsibility for Jane's situation while Wickham has never wronged her or any other person that Elizabeth knows. And yet, despite all this Elizabeth believes Darcy's story and not Wickham's, even though it would mean that Wickham is, as you say, an evil man in Austen's standards. When Jane tries to convince her that this could all be some misunderstanding Elizabeth insists that (paraphrasing for memory) "Darcy has all the good in the world and Wickham all the appearance of it". Already at this stage Elizabeth has no problem perceiving that a seemingly unpleasant man can be honorable ? and why should she? Her own father is like that, although in a different style than Darcy. At this point Elizabeth already judges correctly the true nature of both Darcy and Wickham. During the second half of the novel she is only surprised by Darcy's motivation (that is, by how much he's ready to do for her) and not by his true nature. Wickham running away with Lydia isn't a surprise for Elizabeth at all, except that she didn't think he'd be stupid enough to blow his chance of catching a richer bride. > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, I totally disagree. Yes, Austen wasn't about good vs. evil. > But she was all about mis-identifying friend and foe. Neri: I'm not familiar with any canon for that. Not in P&P, not in Emma, not in Persuasion and not in Mansfield Park, in none of these novels misidentifying friend from foe by the heroine is a major issue. You could perhaps make a case for Willoughby in S&S but I doubt it. He's a weak person but (unlike Wickham) hardly a scheming villain. It's misidentifying characters *motivations* (especially who's in love with who and how much) that is the major issue in most these novels. > wynnleaf > > The problem here is that the *reader* is not deceived by Elizabeth or > Emma -- and particularly Emma, since the surprises in Emma are much > bigger, and it was the book, "Emma," that JKR particularly cited as > the "standard." > > To repeat... the *reader* is not deceived by Emma's understanding of > the character's or motivations of others. The reader is deceived by > the narration. Most decerning readers figure out relatively early on > that Emma's ideas about her friends and aquaintances are mostly fairy > tales and wishful thinking. Or, in the case of what she thinks of > Jane (hey, she didn't get Jane right, did she?) it's basically > jealousy and spite. No, the reader is not deceived by Emma. The > reader is deceived by the narrator. And that's the principal that > *does* fit JKR. Neri: It's more difficult to say what the reader was deceived about than what the heroine was deceived about, since each reader is different. Still, I doubt many readers wanted Emma to end up with Churchill (OK, unless it was a movie and he was played by Ewan McGregor ). I also doubt many readers thought that Knightly was scheming or deceiving anybody. So Austen never deceived the readers about the true nature of the characters ? only about their motivations. I don't think this is any coincidence. As JKR says, the readers like to be tricked, but no conned. It is very difficult to trick but *not* con the reader regarding the true nature of a regular. In fact, right now I can't recall any author who did it successfully. Doing it with secondary characters that we don't know much about, like Crouch!Moody, is a different thing, in part because we care less about them. I quite agree that JKR has surprises in store about character motivations and histories, and that she uses hero-limited narration for that, but I doubt it would be extended to the true nature of main characters. In any case you can't conclude that from Austen's and certainly not from Emma. Neri From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Jul 19 04:21:32 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:21:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155615 Sydney > >To return to Wynleaf's question about reader misdirection in HP-- >there's a very nice example in the setup about Peter Pettigrew. >Becuase of how McGonnegal describes him, Harry connects him with >Neville, which sets up a radically different sort of personality than >we're expecting! And, of course, the revelation about James' >character as a careless bully, which has to be my favorite shocker in >the series-- I totally didn't see it coming and laughed aloud at the >Pensive scene. The technique here is to put the truth in the mouth of >a disagreeable character-- Snape says James was arrogant and strutted >around, and so he did, but who believed him? The truth is hidden in >plain sight. I've noticed this technique used a lot by Wilkie >Collins-- has JKR ever mentioned him as an influence? wynnleaf I haven't seen her mention Collins, but the technique of putting truth in a disagreeable character's mouth as certainly not only from JKR. In fact, it's so interesting that so far I *think* that all of Snape's comments that we have any proof of, one way or the other, have turned out to be true, or at least there is some strong evidence to support them. I was interested to notice recently that DD says, of Snape's discontinuing the occlumency lessons, that some scars are too deep for healing. He didn't say or even imply that Snape was being petty and his saying that Snape's hatred of James is a result of a scar too deep for healing actually tends to recognize the legitimacy of whatever Snape has against James. I mention that only to point out a bit more evidence for the things Snape has had to say about James -- a person we used to assume, pre-OOTP, was just as honorable and good as Harry thought him. I'm still wondering who we'll be surprised at in Book 7. Surely not just Snape. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 00:30:47 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Levicorpus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060719003047.34391.qmail@web52712.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155616 srhchttrsn wrote: I'm a little hazy with the OotP, but at any point does it become clear how James Potter learned the Levicorpus spell when Harry sees him use it in Snape's pensieve memory? It became clear in HBP that Snape invented this spell and I seriously doubt he would have shared such info with his mortal enemy. Katie replies: No, we never have clear explanation of how James knew it - but in either OotP or HBP, I can't remember ( and don't have my books with me), Lupin tells Harry that (paraphrasing) "Everyone was doing it" or at least that's the essence of the converstaion. My feeling after reading HBP was that Snape probably shared it with some Slytherins and it got around, the way things would in a boarding school...or any school, for that matter. Simple explanation, but I think it makes sense. Katie . From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Jul 19 04:52:26 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 04:52:26 -0000 Subject: open letter to JKR In-Reply-To: <44BC34D6.6000803@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155617 > > > I disagree. I am not a bigot, but I feel that adding gay characters > will distract from the story as much as putting the spotlight on any > specific race, religion, etc. JK has neatly sidestepped religions, > sexual preferences, real world political party divisions and 'muggle' > human racial prejudice (i.e.. skin color.. she replaced it with fantasy > half-humans or nonexistent race bigotry instead). This is a fantasy > book and doesn't need muggle concepts like sexual preference, religion, > etc. jammed into the magical world. It already HAS magical/mythical > equivalents. The Harry Potter books are not gay/lesbian literature, > they are written for the mainstream public. As such, it would be > literary suicide to change the focus of the books, even without meaning > to change it. The media focus on the books would change the books in > the minds of the public to 'gay literature'. > > While yes, there needs to be books with gay/lesbian characters, it > should be with a NEW series, NOT using an existing popular series as a > political soap box for gays/lesbians. Maybe you are not trying to make > it a gay/lesbian soapbox, but thats exactly what the book would become > if the media focused on added gay/lesbian characters. > > So no...... If the books had such characters from the begining, it > would be okay, but its too late in the series and the style of the books > too defined to make such a change. The books are NOT about sex, > sexuality or sexual preferences, so theres no reason to change them to > make them such. > > Not to mention people will be too busy in the last book saving the world > to worry about dating, one would guess.... > > Jazmyn > > > thanks for taking the time to respond. JKR HAS NOT done what you state..I quote you "in fact JK has neatly sidestepped religions, > sexual preferences, real world political party divisions and 'muggle' > human racial prejudice (i.e.. skin color" What she has done about race is to nonchalantly include non-white characters as a matter of course....they're normal...I actually didn't realize Cho Chang was non-white until I saw the movie! I am not suggesting a soapbox by any means... JKR should include a lesbian or gay male character as a matter of course...as no big deal....anymore than it's a big deal that Lee Jordan is black..... Susan From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Jul 19 04:30:41 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:30:41 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture Message-ID: <4a6.5251311.31ef0f71@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155618 In a message dated 7/17/06 2:32:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, steven1965aaa at yahoo.com writes: > With regard to the free stuff from their store, I take them > at their word --- Harry gave them their start up loan and therefore > they wouldn't feel right charging him (query: the twins always refer > to it as a start up "loan" - I wonder if they will pay it back > eventually? Sydney, maybe this supports your point somewhat if they > don't pay him back?). Sandy: Regardless of what term the twins use it was *not* a loan. "Fred -- George -- wait a moment". The twins turned. Harry pulled open his trunk and drew out his Triwizard winnings. "Take it", he said, and he thrust the sack into George's hand. "What?" said Fred, looking flabbergasted. "Take it," Harry repeated firmly. "I don't want it." "You're mental," said George, trying to push it back at Harry. "No, I'm not," said Harry. "You take it, and get inventing. It's for the joke shop." "He is mental," Fred said in an almost awed voice. "Listen," said Harry firmly. "If you don't take it, I'm throwing it down the drain. I don't want it and I don't need it. But I could do with a few laughs. I've got a feeling we're going to need them more than usual before long." GoF, page 733, American edition. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Jul 19 02:35:53 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:35:53 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Accidental Harrycrux : another question / Lily Message-ID: <52a.42c5fd8.31eef489@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155619 >Carol, still betting that Harry isn't a Horcrux and that he will defeat Voldemort by possessing him Nikkalmati: I am sure you have expounded on this idea before, but I don't recall exactly how this works. Do you mean that Harry, having discovered he has the power of possession, decides to possess LV in the final confrontation - LV is unable to tolerate the contact with love (just as in the MOM) and voluntarily exits his body. He thinks he will not die because of his Horcruxes, but SURPRISE they all have been destroyed and his soul must leave the earth forever. Is that it? Nikkalmati (I could see this happening. A bit of a shock for old LV) :>) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Jul 19 06:00:56 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:00:56 -0000 Subject: open letter to JKR In-Reply-To: <00a701c6aa15$2953a2e0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155620 I think, as > Jazmyn, it's too late for special characters in Book 7 as it has quite > enough in order to wrap up the series. But of course you don't really need a special or new character, there are any number of characters who easily could be lesbian or gay whose sexual orientation has not been revealed in the books). According to JKR's interviews, she > has no intention to add more "characters" in the final book. Since she's > said that, this effort may be a very mute point and such desires to change > the thinking of sections of the world's beliefs about sexual orientation > could be handled via much more effective avenues than a work of fiction. > > Rebecca > Oh, goodness, but fiction, movies are a very powerful way of working on our imagination. If they are good literature, good films (meaning extremely high quality that cause us to suspend disbelief) then they have REMENDOUS power to change attitudes because they work on the part of us that is feeling not thinking.....There are a ton of examples, most recently the DaVinci Code, but books like Gulliver's Travels, Gone with the Wind, Stranger in a Strange Land..(I'll make a list if anyone is interested)..... Susan (Harry Potter for Grownups Over 40 is a low volume list for older HP fans. Email me off list for details). From estesrandy at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 02:38:27 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:38:27 -0000 Subject: What will become of Dolores Umbridge? Another Filking Reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155621 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > > Rita Skeeter could do a story on her that reveals her quill. In an > effort to distance himself from Umbridge, Fudge will leak that Dolores > sent the Dementors to attack Harry. > > Harry and Rita are vindicated. > > Umbridge crosses over to DE to escape and LV gets her to work with the > dementors. > > Is that tortured enough? ... lol > What should we do with Dolores Umbridge? (sung to the tune of "What do you do with a Drunken Sailor?" What should we do with Dolores Umbridge? What should we do with Dolores Umbridge? What should we do with Dolores Umbridge? Early in the morning! Throw her in woods with a hundred Centaurs! Throw her in woods with a hundred Centaurs! Throw her in woods with a hundred Centaurs! Early in the morning! She might escape and tell the Ministry! She might escape and tell the Ministry! She might escape and tell the Ministry! Early in the morning! Toss her in a cell with a Dementor! Toss her in a cell with a Dementor! Toss her in a cell with a Dementor! Early in the morning! Dementors said they're afraid of Umbridge! Dementors said they're afraid of Umbridge! Dementors said they're afraid of Umbridge! Early in the morning! Make her sign books for JK Rowling! Make her sign books for JK Rowling! Make her sign books for JK Rowling! Early in the morning! Rowling's afraid she'll scare the kiddies! Rowling's afraid she'll scare the kiddies! Rowling's afraid she'll scare the kiddies! Early in the morning! Suck out her soul with an incantation! Suck out her soul with an incantation! Suck out her soul with an incantation! Early in the morning! McGonagall says that "she doesn't have one!" McGonagall says that "she doesn't have one!" McGonagall says that "she doesn't have one!" Early in the morning! Make her kiss toads `til she finds a husband! Make her kiss toads `til she finds a husband! Make her kiss toads `til she finds a husband! Early in the morning! The Reptile Union will sue our fannies! The Reptile Union will sue our fannies! The Reptile Union will sue our fannies! Early in the morning! Make her set sail with Davy Jones' Ghost ship! Make her set sail with Davy Jones' Ghost ship! Make her set sail with Davy Jones' Ghost ship! Early in the morning! Davy's afraid that she'll scare the Kraken! Davy's afraid that she'll scare the Kraken! Davy's afraid that she'll scare the Kraken! Early in the morning! So what do you do with Dolores Umbridge! What do you do with Dolores Umbridge! What do you do with Dolores Umbridge! Early in the morning! I just could not get that tune out of my head tonight! Thanks so much to whoever came up with that funny phrase! Red Eye Randy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 04:09:18 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 04:09:18 -0000 Subject: 4 houses/elements - Alchemy used to defeat LV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155622 As I have mentioned, I am studying the lecture notes from Carl Jung's lecture on Alchemy. I am learning a lot and thought that I would post my finding here as I go along. That way those who want to know can learn along with me. I am half way through the first of 2 volumes. (Elves, don't worry I am also relating everything to the HP series.) These ideas are added to the ideas in a previous post of the importance of the 4 houses which JKR says represent the 4 elements, and the idea that the houses united will aid in the defeat of LV. The very oldest versions of Alchemy text have 8 divisions instead of 4 for the elements. The is a Ying/Yang idea of the unity of the opposites, a male and a female principle. I am wondering if this might lead us to a male and female (not shipping) from each house. This idea would give us 8 students or student/adult combinations that will aid in the downfall of LV. If this idea were true (and I am only toying with it here, no true theory yet.) We have to look at who would be the male principle and the female principle from each house. In HBP in the scene where Ginny is fighting a DE, the narrator referred to Ginny's hair being like flames of fire. I don't think that is accidental. Ginny and Harry are the male/female principle for the element of fire. Luna would be the female principle for air. Who will be the male? And who will be the male and female principle for Hufflepuff? Will it be Narcissa and Snape for Slytherin? Or if they all have to be students will it be Draco and ??? There is also a very interesting Alchemy text that I will post about tomorrow that makes me think that, at least to JKR, a Phoenix may be involved in the final transformation. Tonks_op From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Jul 19 06:23:29 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:23:29 -0000 Subject: open letter to JKR In-Reply-To: <001401c6a4f4$2985fc20$6501a8c0@con2k6tzno4dge> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155623 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Con Collins" wrote: > > Hi, > I always wondered whether Madam Hooch was a lesbian ... or could it be that she simply represents the "gym teacher" stereotype? > Of course, one might argue that the wizarding community itself is a metaphor for the gay community (or any other misunderstood population). > > Con. > Interesting question, Con. I would have never thought that Madam Hooch was a lesbian from reading the books.However, when I saw Madam Hooch in the movies, I immediately wondered..since she was portrayed as a stereotypical lesbian with short grey, boots, etc... about her orientation. In the books, the only woman who is portrayed as stereotypically lesbian is Professor Grubbly-Plank.(in appearance)..due to her crew cut and pipe....but of course JKR is not stuck in old junk...that is, in my opinion, she is clear that appearance, haircut, dress has nothing to do with orientation. I agree that you COULD see the HP universe as a metaphor for the lesbian/gay population. But it is also a metaphor, as you point out, for ANY oppressed group. That's because the way oppressed groups are kept down is the same whatever the nature of oppression is.(one way oppressed groups are kept down is spreading myths, lies, stereotypes about them).. JKR also talks in one of her interviews about how disadvantaged populations don't always stick together and do fight amongst themselves. Susan From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Jul 19 05:34:44 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:34:44 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155624 > wynnleaf I was interested to > notice recently that DD says, of Snape's discontinuing the occlumency > lessons, that some scars are too deep for healing. He didn't say or even > imply that Snape was being petty and his saying that Snape's hatred of James > is a result of a scar too deep for healing actually tends to recognize the > legitimacy of whatever Snape has against James. I mention that only to > point out a bit more evidence for the things Snape has had to say about > James -- a person we used to assume, pre-OOTP, was just as honorable and > good as Harry thought him. Scars can be self inflicted as well. Just because Snape has scars from his youth at Hogwarts doesn't mean that James is as bad as Snape thinks he is. I don't think Dumbledore is legitimizing Snape's actions in regards to occulmency, he's just explaining them. phoenixgod2000 From Schlobin at aol.com Wed Jul 19 05:54:55 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:54:55 -0000 Subject: open letter to JKR In-Reply-To: <3202590607171929r20914faeq751167595dd3916b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155625 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah wrote: > > I think the topic could be approached without making it a soapbox. It > all comes down to Harry's reaction, really. If it's an actual plot > point, then yes, this could distract attention. But a simple line > about seeing someone like Grubbly-Plank's female partner narrated > matter-of-factly by Harry is something I think would please many fans, > and not raise too many eyebrows except those of folks who think the > books are Satanic anyway. > > I personally wouldn't like to discover that Sirius and Lupin ever had > anything going. Why? Too negative. I don't think Sirius cared much > about Lupin's feelings (as observed in the Pensieve in OotP) and he > was miserable when they lived together. He also didn't leave him any > of his estate. Platonic or not, there has been one man that Sirius > has loved, and that wasn't Lupin. There are still many points along > the Kinsey scale where Lupin could be, however. Before HBP I was > hoping he'd get together with the new werewolf he met at St Mungos. > > JK tells us in interviews of her index cards and notebooks, filled > with character backgrounds very little of which will ever make it into > the books. I'd be surprised if *she* doesn't already know which > characters are gay. ;) > > I don't think anyone is saying Harry should be riding a float dressed > as Dorothy in a parade, it has to be approached very simply, and > matter-of-factly. In fact, it can be one more vehicle to show that > the wizarding world doesn't have the same prejudices as the Muggle > world. Who made a joke about Cedric having been Harry's boyfriend? > Dudley, a character who a) we don't like very much and b) is a Muggle. > Wouldn't it be something if only Muggle kids did this because wizards > don't see what the big deal is? > > Sarah > Sarah, thanks for helping me say that I'm looking for a "no big deal" situation. AND, I had never thought about the negative aspects of Sirius/Lupin. It's a very good point that he didn't leave him any money, and goodness, why didn't he? He KNEW Harry had plenty of money, and that Lupin needed it desperately....well, if I wanted to push the Sirius/Lupin connection I'd suggest an old lovers' quarrel...but that's probably stretching it.... Also, let's note that the "they'll be announcing their engagement any day now" was used twice in the series. The first time, it could be construed as a homophobic comment because it was said about Percy and Mr. Crouch...but then, of course, the second time it was used about Hermione and the Apparition teacher (both times very funny. Susan From MadameSSnape at aol.com Wed Jul 19 08:50:28 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 04:50:28 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: open letter to JKR Message-ID: <3f7.7493974.31ef4c54@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155627 In a message dated 7/19/2006 12:53:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Schlobin at aol.com writes: JKR should include a lesbian or gay male character as a matter of course...as no big deal....anymore than it's a big deal that Lee Jordan is black..... -------------- Sherrie here: According to a friend of mine with balanced gender preference, she already has two - Professors Hooch and Grubbly-Plank. She just doesn't make any particular point of it, anymore than she does of Lee Jordan being black. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From distaiyi at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 13:47:12 2006 From: distaiyi at yahoo.com (distaiyi) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:47:12 -0000 Subject: Levicorpus In-Reply-To: <20060719003047.34391.qmail@web52712.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155628 --- Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > Katie replies: > No, we never have clear explanation of how James knew it - but in either OotP or HBP, I can't remember ( and don't have my books with me), Lupin tells Harry that (paraphrasing) "Everyone was doing it" or at least that's the essence of the converstaion. My feeling after reading HBP was that Snape probably shared it with some Slytherins and it got around, the way things would in a boarding school...or any school, for that matter. Simple explanation, but I think it makes sense. Katie > > I tend to agree. In HBP Lupin says everyone was doing it. What probably happened was Snape or some other Slytherin used it after learning it from Snape. Then people picked up on it and started using it themselves. It doesn't seem to be an overly difficult spell. Distaiyi From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 19 14:37:03 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:37:03 -0000 Subject: open letter to JKR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155629 -Susan: > I agree that you COULD see the HP universe as a metaphor for the > lesbian/gay population. > > But it is also a metaphor, as you point out, for ANY oppressed group. > That's because the way oppressed groups are kept down is the same > whatever the nature of oppression is.(one way oppressed groups are > kept down is spreading myths, lies, stereotypes about them).. JKR also > talks in one of her interviews about how disadvantaged populations > don't always stick together and do fight amongst themselves. > Pippin: Aren't the strategies for resisting oppression much the same also? Does everybody who belongs to an oppressed group need a character from that group in order to identify? It was brilliant of JKR to make her hero a child, because childhood is the one condition of oppression and weakness that everyone has shared. JKR can write freely about the problems of oppression and the various strategies, good and bad, for coping with it, without offering succor or criticism to any particular group. Would you still want Lupin to be a gay character if his strategy is a poor one? If he has chosen an evil and destructive path? In any case, do we want JKR, a heterosexual as far as I know, to define what signifies gayness? What guarantee is there that she would get it right if she tried? Consider the golden fountain in OOP. It's the wizard's vision of what goblins, House Elves and centaurs are like, but except in the House Elves' case, it differs drastically from how those beings see themselves. Hags, werewolves and vampires, meanwhile, have all been left out, but would the fountain be better if they were represented in the same superficial and fatuous manner as the others? I can imagine that Anthony Goldstein is Jewish without seeing him light a menorah, and so can Jews who never light menorahs.To me, the Potterverse gives a nod to the possibility of Jewishness without telling people how to be Jews, and I appreciate that. Pippin From random832 at gmail.com Wed Jul 19 10:55:16 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:55:16 -0400 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <4a6.5251311.31ef0f71@aol.com> References: <4a6.5251311.31ef0f71@aol.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607190355h25a4cabbp222efd2dbc3aa8e7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155630 Sandy: > Regardless of what term the twins use it was *not* a loan. The term they use establishes that there's a good chance that they'll pay him back, whether he wants them to or not. -- Random832 From zehms at aol.com Tue Jul 18 22:22:24 2006 From: zehms at aol.com (Szehms) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:22:24 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155631 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" wrote: > > So I was just re reading JKR's quotes at Madam Scoop on the topic of > Snape and it occured to me that maybe it is Petunia instead of Lily > that was in love with Snape. It would explain why Petunia would hate > both the magic and the boy that broke her heart as well as the reasons > for disliking James Potter et al. Lily would be kind to her sister's > boyfriend. Dumbledore calls Petunia by her first name. The only > people he does this with are people he knew as students. Since we know > Petunia is not a witch he must have known her at least as a child to > use her given name. He is obsessively old world in that regard. > Petunia shares Snape's close feelings for Harry as well. The question > as to how they would ever have met well I haven't a clue. However I > also haven't a clue why Dumbledore would have met her and known her > early and well enough to call her Petunia and yet he does. > > I completely agree, Last year after re-reading OOTP Petunia's "that awful boy" comment really stood out, I realized that Harry assumes and through the "Harry filter" we assume that Petunia is talking about James, but after reading HBP I began to think she was in fact referring to Snape. The reason the "awful boy" comment could be significant IMO is because the Snape/ Lily connection rather than the Snape/Petunia connection. If Snape came to the Evans home perhaps he and Lily were closer than has been let on...NOT A LOVE CONNECTION...but a respectful personal relationship (keeping in mind how socially awkward Snape is I mean personal in the loosest sense of the word). When in HBP Harry wants to know why DD trusted Snape, DD pauses reflecting if he should tell Harry, we know he decides that he can't do so, I think DD could not reveal the reason because it involved Lily. I think Snape's greatest regret involves endangering Lily. I think JKR has brilliantly written the role of Professor Snape, particularly in HBP. After HBP I think those who think that SNape is, and has always been, a death eater; and those who think Snape is loyal to Dumbledore can effectively argue their side with canon support. I think the character of Snape will be an issue debated until put to rest in book 7. I think Professor Snape is JKR's most complex character. I think Snape has become a perpetual red herring throughout the series (and after book 6 this trend continues), primarily because even when he saves or helps Harry, Hermione, Ron, or a member of the order his demeanor is so, well repulsive. His loathing of a character we all love, Harry Potter, makes Snape as a character difficult to like, on top of that he is rude an hurtful to hermoine, and he relentlessly torments loveable Neville Longbottom- Snape's behavior, his prejudices, in conjunction with the fact that he was (and to some still is) a death eater has made Snape an easy target to vilify. However, I think Snape can indeed be will be redeemed by JKR. If Snape was always a traitor, then Dumbledore has been played a fool, and that is a wretched way to end Dumbledore's life-as a great wizard who in the end has been "hoodwinked" by a repulsive character like Snape. I think JKR can turn our opinion by showing us exactly how Snape earned Dumbledore's trust and maybe we as readers can, like Dumbledore, pity and regain trust of Snape once we learn the reason (which I believe is connected to Lily). I think he is neither as good as dumbledore, nor is as evil as Voldemort; I believe it was Lupin who said we cannot classify wizards into death eaters and non-death eaters, there are shades of grey. I think JKR has done a brilliant job conveying the complexity of Snape's character, and I think she will effortlessly bring the story full circle. Scarlett--hoping I didn't stray too far off the subject.... From random832 at gmail.com Wed Jul 19 11:00:45 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:00:45 -0400 Subject: open letter to JKR In-Reply-To: References: <3202590607171929r20914faeq751167595dd3916b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607190400r2858a767rad0f04c810d2062d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155632 On 7/19/06, susanmcgee48176 wrote: > AND, I had never thought about the negative aspects of Sirius/Lupin. > It's a very good point that he didn't leave him any money, and > goodness, why didn't he? He KNEW Harry had plenty of money, and that > Lupin needed it desperately....well, if I wanted to push the > Sirius/Lupin connection I'd suggest an old lovers' quarrel...but > that's probably stretching it.... Maybe werewolves aren't allowed to own more than a certain amount of money, or any property at all - it certainly fits with the way they're otherwise treated. And how much does Harry have, anyway, are we ever told? -- Random832 From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 19 14:16:19 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:16:19 -0000 Subject: Alchemy vs Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155633 Tinktonks- Here is a quote I've nabbed from Wikipedia (A gem of a website!) >>>Since its earliest times, alchemy has been closely connected to astrology ? which, in the Islamic world and Europe, generally meant the traditional Babylonian-Greek school of astrology. Alchemical systems often postulated that each of the seven planets known to the ancients "ruled" or was associated with a certain metal. See the separate article on astrology and alchemy for further details. In Hermeticism it is linked with both astrology and theurgy. "Everything that happens once will never happen again. But anything that happens twice will surely happen a third time." A quote from The Alchemist.<<< Here we have the magic number 7, the same number of soul parts. I'm wondering whether this will have some relevance to the Horcrux elimination. Also the last sentence strikes me as onimous!!! Particularly with the previous references in the prophecy to those who have thrice thwarted LV! ANY THOUGHTS Tinktonks - Who is probably thinking about this far too much From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 17:38:17 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:38:17 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Szehms" wrote: > > The reason the "awful boy" comment could be significant IMO is > because the Snape/ Lily connection rather than the Snape/Petunia > connection.If Snape came to the Evans home perhaps he and Lily were closer than has been let on...NOT A LOVE CONNECTION...but a respectful personalrelationship (keeping in mind how socially awkward Snape is I mean personal in the loosest sense of the word). > Steven1965aaa: I have speculated before, without having any canon basis whatsoever (except that Snape's father was a muggle (from Hermione's reseach) who apparently made his wife cower (from pensieve, assuming that Snape was the boy in the memory and those were his parents) that Snape grew up in the muggle world and knew Lily from that time in his life. Wild speculation, I know, but what the heck .... From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 19 17:43:51 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:43:51 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155635 "horridporrid03" wrote: > Deserters are just as bad within a war situation > as traitors. No, actually they are not. But it doesn't matter because Fred and George were hardly deserters, they just refused to be chained and wiped by a very evil person, and they didn't exactly quietly slip away in the night, they utterly humiliated the enemy and gave the good guys a new infusion of confidence; nor did they retire from the field of battle, they publicly offered a discount at their store to anyone willing to continue the good fight. It's sort of odd when you think about the mirror image world of Potter fan sights, not just this one but all of them; Snape is good Harry is bad, Marietta is good Hermione is bad. I've read far more posts reacting with moral outrage because Harry raised his voice at his friends than those who were outraged because Snape murdered Dumbledore. The good guys do not get one inch of slack but the bad guys get about a thousand miles of it. > the DA was a study group, nothing more. A illegal study group that risked death and more than held there own against twice as many experienced and very evil Death Eaters. That's some "study group". > there's no "big picture" to excuse the > cruelty of Hermione's actions regarding Marietta. In a war there is no place for squeamishness, not if you intend to win. I hope we see far far far more of that sort of thing in book 7, especially from Harry. Harry Potter let me introduce you to Dirty Harry. Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 17:50:40 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:50:40 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155636 > Steven1965aaa: > > I have speculated before, without having any canon basis whatsoever > (except that Snape's father was a muggle (from Hermione's reseach) who apparently made his wife cower (from pensieve, assuming that Snape was the boy in the memory and those were his parents) that Snape grew up in the muggle world and knew Lily from that time in his life. Wild > speculation, I know, but what the heck .... > Tonks: This is an interesting idea, except that I think Snape and Lily were from different social economic groups and may not have lived near each other or gone to the same school. So my guess is that they met at Hogwarts and were both members of the Slug club. Tonks_op From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jul 19 17:49:03 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:49:03 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155637 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "steven1965aaa" wrote: > > I have speculated before, without having any canon basis whatsoever > (except that Snape's father was a muggle (from Hermione's reseach) who > apparently made his wife cower (from pensieve, assuming that Snape was > the boy in the memory and those were his parents) that Snape grew up > in the muggle world and knew Lily from that time in his life. Wild > speculation, I know, but what the heck .... > colebiancardi: I even have thought that the Snape's & the Evan's family were related in some way. Could be that Snape is a first or second cousin to Lily & Petunia and is *gasp* an uncle of some sorts to Harry...OMG From vdander24 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 02:51:22 2006 From: vdander24 at yahoo.com (Vivian) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:51:22 -0000 Subject: Will Harry be mentioned in Dumbledore's will? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155638 If this has been asked and answered, please disregard. I have some trouble keeping up with this. Here is my question. Will Dumbledore leave something to Harry? The reason for my concern is that DD and HP are two of a very few number to know about the horcruxes. I doubt if the OOTP members are aware of it. If so, the pensieve might be pretty useful, along with whatever relevant memories that come with it. I am not entirely sure that we have seen the last of Fawkes, either. Any thoughts? Alla. From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 19 14:37:59 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:37:59 -0000 Subject: The Severan Dynasty Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155639 This came up while researching the word Serevus- Ring any bells!!! Macrinus (Emperor, 217?218) and Diadumenian (Caesar, 217?218) Of the Severan dynasty!!! M.M. Opelius Macrinus was born in 164 at Caesarea. Although coming from a humble background (not dynastically related to the Severan dynasty), he rose through the imperial household until, under the emperor Caracalla, he was made prefect of the praetorian guard. On account of the cruelty and treachery of the emperor, Macrinus became involved in a conspiracy to kill him, and ordered the praetorian guard to do so. On April 8th 217, Caracalla was assassinated traveling to Carrhae. Tinktonks From jycmutoni at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 19 14:46:27 2006 From: jycmutoni at yahoo.co.uk (jycmutoni) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:46:27 -0000 Subject: Levicorpus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155640 > Katie: > No, we never have clear explanation of how James knew it - > but in either OotP or HBP, Lupin tells Harry that > (paraphrasing) "Everyone was doing it" or at least that's > the essence of the conversation. My feeling after reading > HBP was that Snape probably shared it with some Slytherins > and it got around, the way things would in a boarding > school Joyce: In book 6, we learn that Harry saw his dad use the same spell. Towards the end of this book, we learn that Snape is the halfblood prince and that he invented most of those spells Harry was using from the potions book. From this I therefore conclude that Snape and James were at Hogwarts around the same time and James must have learnt about the spell after Snape had demonstrated some action. Joyce From srhchttrsn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 17:34:55 2006 From: srhchttrsn at yahoo.com (Emilynne) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:34:55 -0000 Subject: Hermione as a Ravenclaw In-Reply-To: <000701c6aa6e$234162d0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155641 > srhchttrsn: > >>I don't know if this topic has already been discussed, but > doens't it seem that Hermione has qualities better suited to > those in Ravenclaw? > > Yes she is honorable and brave, but I feel that more than > anything she is clever and intellectual. << > > > Marion: > Hermione is not an intellectual in the Ravenclaw sense (and it's not as if all Ravenclaws are geniuses; they value learning and knowledge and think they are *right* about what they know, even if it's, um, esoteric knowledge like the Rotfang Conspiracy) Hermione doesn't read all her books because she's so immensely intrigued by the knowledge of how things work (if that was true she would have devoured the HBP potions book - instead she doggedly follows the faulty instructions of the standard potions book) but because she has a deep need to be admired. To be the best. To have *adults* acknowledge her as admirable. That points her straight to Gryffindor. It's not as if the Gryffs are all so very brave and noble and stuff (they'd *like* to be), it's simply that the Gryffs like to be admired. That means that they often will do things that get them admired, such as heroic deeds. Slyths don't care so much for admiration, they just want to succeed, whether people like them or not. The power behind the throne? A Slyth. A Gryff would never resign to be an anomynous, but powerful, force. A Gryff shouts "look at me!" A Gryff cares what people think about them. > A Ravenclaw doesn't care what people think, a 'Claw wants to be *right*, and if all the world proclaimed him or her to be wrong, s/he wouldn't give a damn as long as s/he firmly believed it (Luna Lovegood, anyone?) > > Hermione is definately a Gryffindor. She wants to be admired. > Put Hermione in alone in a tower with nothing but books and she'd go nuts. Nobody to *see* how clever she is? Then what would be > the point in reading? Emmy: I can see the point you're trying to make, but I don't completely agree. Yes, Hermione likes people to acknowledge her intelligence and her book savvy but I do not belive this is her sole motivation. I believe that she has a true desire for furthering her personal knowledge and gets more out of learning than she does putting her wit and abilities on display. It's human nature to want people to recognize your efforts and praise you for them (everyone does this in all of the houses), and Hermione is totally normal in this regard. I do not believe that she was placed in Gryffindor in order to be with a bunch of other pretentious and snotty kids (that's how the Gryffindors you describe sound) to showcase her abilities. We do not know as much about the prefernces and personalities of Ravenclaws as we do Gryffindors simply because all of our main characters are Gryffs. So for you to say that you know what Ravenclaws would prefer and what characteristics define them doesn't make sense. I believe Hermione is suited as a Gryff because her loyalty and bravery and her "take charge" attitude in the face of adversity, but I still believe she would have made a prime candidate for Ravenclaw if not for her lack of modesty (because admittedly she is not at all humble about her abilities), than for her love of knowledge and problem solving. I believe it was more the friendships and personal relationships that were formed that placed the children in their houses. Because if each student was examined beyond the surface they would each have desires and characteristics that would be great for any of the houses. -Emmy From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Jul 19 19:12:19 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:12:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "steven1965aaa" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Szehms" wrote: > > > > The reason the "awful boy" comment could be significant IMO is > > because the Snape/ Lily connection rather than the Snape/Petunia > > connection.If Snape came to the Evans home perhaps he and Lily were > closer than has been let on...NOT A LOVE CONNECTION...but a respectful > personalrelationship (keeping in mind how socially awkward Snape is I > mean personal in the loosest sense of the word). > > > Steven1965aaa: > > I have speculated before, without having any canon basis whatsoever > (except that Snape's father was a muggle (from Hermione's reseach) who > apparently made his wife cower (from pensieve, assuming that Snape was > the boy in the memory and those were his parents) that Snape grew up > in the muggle world and knew Lily from that time in his life. Wild > speculation, I know, but what the heck .... > wynnleaf JKR was asked, about the time OOTP came out, where Petunia had heard of dementors. JKR said that Petunia overheard a conversation as mentioned in the beginning of OOTP. But the even more interesting thing is that JKR also said, "The reason I am hesitant is because there is more to it than that. As I think you suspect. Correctly, but I don't want to say what else there is because it relates to book 7." So Petunia overhearing a conversation of that "awful boy" mentioning dementors is significant for Book 7. Hm, curiouser and curiouser, don't you think? What could it matter to Book 7 if she overheard James? Or even Sirius? After all, it's no big news that Sirius might have talked with Lily and possibly even within the hearing of Petunia (James and Sirius visiting Lily, for example, or at the wedding). But what *would* be revealing is if that "awful boy" were someone else -- someone who we wouldn't expect. Someone like Snape? Anyway, there's more to guessing that Snape is that "awful boy" than the barest minimum in strict canon text. JKR's comments lead us to that possibility as well. wynnleaf From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Jul 19 12:52:27 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:52:27 -0000 Subject: Can we equate Lily's love protection with Dumbledore's? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155643 Harry received special, magical, protection when his mother, Lily, gave her life to protect him. Can we say the same for Dumbledore? Didn't Dumbledore give his life to protect Harry? Does Harry now have even more magical protection -- this time from Dumbledore? That is, if you subscribe to the theory that DD is really dead :-) Eddie From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 19 19:31:25 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:31:25 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <000b01c6a605$f923d440$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" wrote: > > Marion (who thinks that Percy Weasley is the only healhty member of that whole horrid family) > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Percy, who wrote this lovely letter to Ron urging him to distance himself from Harry because Harry was dangerously unstable. Percy who believed the boy who saved his sister's life got off on a mere technicality. Percy who thought Dolores Umbridge was a delightful woman. Percy who because he had a row with his Dad would not speak to his mum and sent back his Christmas jumper she had knitted especially for him. Percy who when his dad was seriously injured when in hospital did not even sent a postcard. Percy healthy? Why? Gerry From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Jul 19 19:33:42 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:33:42 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155645 wynnleaf JKR was asked, about the time OOTP came out, where Petunia had heard of dementors. JKR said that Petunia overheard a conversation as mentioned in the beginning of OOTP. But the even more interesting thing is that JKR also said, "The reason I am hesitant is because there is more to it than that. As I think you suspect. Correctly, but I don't want to say what else there is because it relates to book 7." So Petunia overhearing a conversation of that "awful boy" mentioning dementors is significant for Book 7. Hm, curiouser and curiouser, don't you think? What could it matter to Book 7 if she overheard James? Or even Sirius? After all, it's no big news that Sirius might have talked with Lily and possibly even within the hearing of Petunia (James and Sirius visiting Lily, for example, or at the wedding). But what *would* be revealing is if that "awful boy" were someone else -- someone who we wouldn't expect. Someone like Snape? Sherry now: On the other hand, the identity of the "awful boy" might not be the significant thing at all. The conversation itself, something in the conversation, something Petunia learned, did or thought, could be the significance of that scene. After all, fans have speculated for so very long now that the boy was Snape, that it wouldn't even be significant anymore. In fact, I'd guess that's actually what a majority of people think at this point, so there'd be no surprise in it. If there's one thing I've learned about JKR it's that she can do something that is expected but do it in a way that is completely shocking, as in the death of Dumbledore. So, I'm not convinced yet that the identity of the boy will be very important in the end, though something else about that scene may well be extremely important. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 19:57:54 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:57:54 -0000 Subject: Accidental Harrycrux : another question / Lily In-Reply-To: <52a.42c5fd8.31eef489@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155646 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > >Carol, still betting that Harry isn't a Horcrux and that he will > defeat Voldemort by possessing him > > Nikkalmati: > I am sure you have expounded on this idea before, but I don't recall exactly > how this works. Do you mean that Harry, having discovered he has the power > of possession, decides to possess LV in the final confrontation - LV is > unable to tolerate the contact with love (just as in the MOM) and voluntarily > exits his body. He thinks he will not die because of his Horcruxes, but SURPRISE > they all have been destroyed and his soul must leave the earth forever. Is > that it? > Nikkalmati (I could see this happening. A bit of a shock for old LV) :>) Carol responds: Yes, exactly. Harry uses Voldemort's own power of possession against him and defeats him through the intolerable power of Love, which is now in Voldemort's blood as well as his own. I don't know exactly how it will work, but possibly Harry will force Voldemort to go through the Veil or Voldemort will choose to do so to rid himself of the unbearable pain. In this scenario Voldemort, like Sirius before him, would be dead, forced to stay behind the Veil (since all his soul bits will already be there--no more Horcruxes to keep him on earth), but Harry will have left his body behind and will be allowed to return using Sirius Black's body. Sirius can finally have the funeral he's been denied and recognition as a hero. Harry can have what passes for a normal life, having finally defeated Voldemort. I think Snape wil play a role in this last scene, but I don't know what it will be. At any rate, we know that Harry acquired *powers* from Voldemort at Godric's Hollow (Dumbledore has said so twice), and Voldemort's most distinctive power other than Parseltongue (which we know Harry has and which will no doubt come into play when he fights Nagini) is possession. Harry *thinks* he can't possess anybody, but I have a feeling that he's wrong and that the power of possession is the key to defeating Voldemort, who after all has "marked [Harry] as his equal." Here's a link to another post/thread where I've discussed it before. A quick search using the Advanced feature of our improved search engine will lead to other posts on the subject if you're interested. Steve (bboy_mn) has some posts on the topic as well. As I see it, a person's soul is his (or her) life force, distinct from his powers and personality. For example, when Diary!Tom starts draining Ginny's soul to bring himself to life, he retains his own powers and identity, not becoming at all like little Ginny, who is a source of *life* to him but nothing else. Similarly, when Quirrell "shares his soul" with Vapor!mort, he's a host to a parasite that sucks out his life force, but he retains his own personality. It's hard to say whether Quirrell's powers are his own or Voldemort's since Voldemort is inside him, but his mind and personality are his own (he takes credit for trying to kill Harry and for pretending to be "p-poor, stuttering P-Professor Quirrell). Also, Vapor!mort used up the *life force* of snakes and other creatures when he possessed them. Certainly he wasn't giving them his powers or using theirs. The creatures die just as Quirrell does when he leaves their bodies. If I'm right that powers are distinct from the soul or life force, no soul bit is necessary for Harry to acquire Voldemort's powers, and we don't need to worry about Harry's soul being contaminated or how he'll destroy the last Horcrux if it's himself. Carol, who thinks Harry!Horcrux is an unnecessary complication that would require more explanation than JKR intends to provide From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 19 13:09:54 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:09:54 -0000 Subject: The 'Seeming' Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155647 > wynnleaf > I haven't seen her mention Collins, but the technique of putting truth in a > disagreeable character's mouth as certainly not only from JKR. In fact, > it's so interesting that so far I *think* that all of Snape's comments that > we have any proof of, one way or the other, have turned out to be true, or > at least there is some strong evidence to support them. I > I'm still wondering who we'll be surprised at in Book 7. Surely not just > Snape. Pippin: There's also the trick of putting unpleasant truths in an agreeable character's mouth. Ask yourself what Lupin might have done if all his self-deprecating comments turned out to be true -- he keeps telling people he's dangerous and untrustworthy. He practically begs them to believe it. But Harry's not listening and neither is most of the readership. There is an awful lot that the narrative does not tell us about Lupin, leaving the reader to fill in the blanks with assumptions and analogies that may or may not be valid. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 20:27:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:27:32 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155648 Steven1965aaa adds: > > > > I have speculated before, without having any canon basis whatsoever (except that Snape's father was a muggle (from Hermione's reseach) who apparently made his wife cower (from pensieve, assuming that Snape was the boy in the memory and those were his parents) that Snape grew up in the muggle world and knew Lily from that time in his life. Wild speculation, I know, but what the heck .... > > > Tonks responded: > > This is an interesting idea, except that I think Snape and Lily were from different social economic groups and may not have lived near each other or gone to the same school. So my guess is that they met at Hogwarts and were both members of the Slug club. Carol adds: Not to mention that little Severus came to school knowing more hexes than most seventh years, which is hard to explain if he grew up in a Muggle household. (He must have practiced using his mother's wand since he wouldn't have had his own till he got his Hogwarts letter.) I think that Tobias must have deserted the family once he discovered that his wife was a witch and his little boy a precocious wizard. (It's also possible that the man in the memory isn't Tobias at all; he could be Grandpa Prince, which would explain why Harry didn't notice that he was dressed as a Muggle.) I agree with Tonks that Severus and Lily met at Hogwarts and were probably both members of the Slug Club, given Slughorn's apparent affection for both of them. Certainly they had Potions classes together and would be aware of each other's proficiency in that particular subject. Whether that would make them friends is another matter entirely. Carol, still thinking that the "awful boy" is James, but aware that the unreliable narrator could be tricking us yet again From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 19 13:26:19 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:26:19 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155649 justcarol67 wrote: > If Harry can cast a nonverbal spell (other than Levicorpus), why is he > shouting his spells at Snape (who wouldn't have to tell him to keep > his mouth shut if he were doing it)? Also, Harry didn't "defeat two > wizards." He hit the Brutal-faced Death Eater *in the back* with the > first Petrificus Totalus. He wasn't fighting him; the DE didn't know > he was there. And we *are* told that Harry didn't have time to raise > his wand before Fenrir Greyback leaped on him, which (along with > Greyback's rancid breath in his face) strongly suggests that Harry was > in no position to cast the spell himself. I don't recall how I interpreted this passage when I first read it. My second and third readings were influenced by those who claim it wasn't Harry who cast the PT. Reading it with an open mind again as the result of this discussion leads me to believe there is no reason why Harry could not have cast the spell. Yes, Fenrir was on him and knocked him down *before* he could raise his wand. It does not say that Harry's arms were pinned helplessly to the ground. It does not say that Harry could not raise his wand *after* being knocked over. It does not say that Harry could not move his wrist enough to point his wand at some part of Fenrir, which is all he would have to do. It might have been someone else who cast the spell. The simplest reading that fits the text is that Harry cast the spell. It could not have been Snape, he and Draco had already disappeared around the corner. Later on Harry tries to cast a non-verbal spell at Snape and Snape blocks it because Harry cannot close his mind any more than his mouth. Harry is *so* not ready to face either Snape or LV. I don't necessarily accept your theory that Harry will defeat LV by possessing him but the text has given us absolutely no reason to believe he could defeat him in a duel. Ken > > JKR has someone shout the spell but she chooses not to identify the > caster. It's most unlikely to be Harry, and certainly you can't state > as fact that he "defeated two wizards" using nonverbal spells when we > don't know any such thing. I do, however, agree with you that Harry > needs to take Snape's advice and cast his spells nonverbally--as snape > has been trying to teach him to do all year. > > As for Fenrir Greyback being a wizard, I think he must be considering > that he's a Death Eater. The narrator mentions his DE robes being > tight across his chest, and he must have had the Dark Mark on his arm > to get through the barrier on the tower stairs. I don't think that > Voldemort would allow a Muggle to be a Death Eater no matter how > vicious he was. Certainly Greyback is part of the WW and has been for > a long time, given his attack on child!Remus some thirty or so years > earlier. And if he were a Muggle, he probably wouldn't even be able to > see Hogwarts. granted, he doesn't seem to use a wand, but he wouldn't > have attended Hogwarts (he's apparently older than Lupin), so he > wouldn't be a fully qualified wizard. He may not even have received a > Hogwarts letter, not because he isn't a wizard but because Hogwarts > didn't accept werewolves in his day. > > Carol, wondering if Greyback is related to dear Delores since they > both have pointy teeth > > Carol > From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Wed Jul 19 13:04:00 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:04:00 -0000 Subject: HBP's Potion book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155650 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: SNIPSNIP > > Carol, who would like to hear a good plot reason for having the > potions hints be the products of a very minor character's mind > AmanitaMuscaria now : I certainly didn't say that 'the > potions hints be the products of a very minor character's mind'. I said that _some_ of them may be. I guess a good reason might be to emphasize the point that Voldemort is very foolish to think he acts alone - everyone stands on others' shoulders. Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 20:59:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:59:22 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155651 Carol earlier: And we *are* told that Harry didn't have time to raise his wand before Fenrir Greyback leaped on him, which (along with Greyback's rancid breath in his face) strongly suggests that Harry was in no position to cast the spell himself. > Ken responded: > I don't recall how I interpreted this passage when I first read it. My second and third readings were influenced by those who claim it wasn't Harry who cast the PT. Reading it with an open mind again as the result of this discussion leads me to believe there is no reason why Harry could not have cast the spell. Yes, Fenrir was on him and knocked him down *before* he could raise his wand. It does not say that Harry's arms were pinned helplessly to the ground. It does not say that Harry could not raise his wand *after* being knocked over. It does not say that Harry could not move his wrist enough to point his wand at some part of Fenrir, which is all he would have to do. It might have been someone else who cast the spell. The simplest reading that fits the text is that Harry cast the spell. It could not have been Snape, he and Draco had already disappeared around the corner. > Carol responds: Let's just say that the unreliable narrator has set us up once again: We don't know who cast that spell, and it looks to me as if Harry is totally helpless and facing death as Fenrir's ugly face comes close to his. We agree that Harry could not have cast a nonverbal spell. I suppose it's possible that he cast a verbal one, but since the narrator says that he felt Greyback's body roll off him, I don't think he's the one who cast it. (If he cast it himself, why wouldn't the narrator say so?) Also, although Snape has rounded the corner, he's also making sure that the DEs are following him, and he could, unknown to Harry, have looked around the corner, shot off that spell, and continued on his way. Tonks says that she heard snape shout something: Harry says that he shouted "It's over." Tonks appears to accept that explanation, but that doesn't mean Snape didn't also shout "Petrificus Totalus!" JKR is very good at providing partial explanations or misdirecting the reader with near-simultaneous actions. Case in point: Harry and Hermione hear a noise behind the shelves. Madam Pince comes out and yells at Harry for "desecrating" the HBP's Potions book. Later we find out that Draco was also behind the shelves, listening to Hermione telling Harry that Filch couldn't detect a love potion discussed as perfume or a cough potion (a bit of knowledge that he uses with regard to the poisoned mead). So I wouldn't rule out Snape as the caster. It could also be an Order member, of course, but why would having his life saved by, say, McGonagall be any big deal? Carol, agreeing with the part of your post that I snipped about Harry needing to learn to cast nonverbal spells From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 19 21:11:52 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:11:52 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <9d4afd760607130330w638adecbi89df62f26a27aa73@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155652 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jennifer Choi" wrote: > which makes me curious as to what level of harm would constitute Muggle > baiting. Hm, I don't think it has anything to do with the level of harm. I would expect Muggle-baiting is using magic maliciously on Muggles because they are Muggles. From the examples we get from canon (shrinking keys, Willy Widdershin's toilets) quote often not even specific Muggles but any Muggle will do. That is not what the twins did. Now I agree that it was wrong and that it caused a lot of panic. But it was not muggle-baiting. Because they did not do it to him because he was a Muggle. They would have done exactly the same if he were a wizard. So yes, it is wrong, just as wrong as beating him up would be. But no it is not muggle-baiting. Gerry From srhchttrsn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 19:40:03 2006 From: srhchttrsn at yahoo.com (Emilynne) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:40:03 -0000 Subject: Can we equate Lily's love protection with Dumbledore's? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ecaplan_52556" wrote: > > Harry received special, magical, protection when his mother, Lily, gave > her life to protect him. Can we say the same for Dumbledore? Didn't > Dumbledore give his life to protect Harry? Does Harry now have even > more magical protection -- this time from Dumbledore? > > That is, if you subscribe to the theory that DD is really dead :-) > Well I don't think it's quite the same thing. DD didn't offer his life as a way to prevent Harry's death. If we are to believe what happened on the tower without any of the other theories then no one knew that Harry was even there because he was frozen underneath the invisibility cloak. When Lily died, she was standing with Harry, visibly protecting him and refusing to let LV have him. LV wasn't present when DD died so who knows if the same magic occurs when its not as obvious. But I am not one to shoot down a theory. Emilynne From srhchttrsn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 19:29:53 2006 From: srhchttrsn at yahoo.com (Emilynne) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:29:53 -0000 Subject: Will Harry be mentioned in Dumbledore's will? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155654 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivian" wrote: > > If this has been asked and answered, please disregard. I have some > trouble keeping up with this. > Here is my question. > Will Dumbledore leave something to Harry? The reason for my concern is > that DD and HP are two of a very few number to know about the > horcruxes. I doubt if the OOTP members are aware of it. If so, the > pensieve might be pretty useful, along with whatever relevant memories > that come with it. I am not entirely sure that we have seen the last > of Fawkes, either. Any thoughts? I'm sure that if Dumbledore had any previous inclination of his "death" which many of us believe he did, then he would have taken the proper precautions to ensure Harry could carry out the search for the Horcruxes and continue in his journey to destroy LV. Otherwise his death would kind of have been in vain, right? Also I think its likely Dumbledore would have informed someone from the Order about the Horcruxes like Mcgonagall or perhaps even Lupin. DD would have wanted to gain insight from his trusted companions. Emilynne From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Wed Jul 19 21:27:12 2006 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:27:12 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes"Message 155645 On the other hand, the identity of the "awful boy" might not be the > significant thing at all. The conversation itself, something in >the conversation, something Petunia learned, did or thought, could >be the significance of that scene. After all, fans have speculated >for so very long now that the boy was Snape, that it wouldn't even >be significant anymore. "K": Whether or not fans have speculated or even guessed correctly would not take away from the significance of Snape visiting Lily. Sherry: > I'm not convinced yet that the identity of the boy will be very >important in the end, though something else about that scene may >well be extremely important. Carol (Message 155648): >still thinking that the "awful boy" is James, but aware that >the unreliable narrator could be tricking us yet again "K": It does appear the identify of the boy and/or something in that scene is important to some extent, at least according to JKR. ------ David Moulds for the News of the World - How does Aunt Petunia know about dementors and all the other magical facts she knows? JKR: Another very good question. She overheard a conversation, that is all I am going to say. She overheard conversation. The answer is in the beginning of Phoenix, she said she overheard Lily being told about them basically. QUESTION: Is that true? JKR: Yes. The reason I am hesitant is because there is more to it than that. As I think you suspect. Correctly, but I don't want to say what else there is because it relates to book 7. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4690800/46908 85.stm ------ "K": I know we've all been over this before but why doesn't JKR just say it's James? There surely wouldn't be any surprise in James visiting Lily BUT it would be a surprise for Harry to learn Snape was visiting her. Personally, I believe both the visiting-awful-boy and the discussion Lily had will be important. What's interesting is what Petunia overheard Lily and that awful boy discussing. What kind of company discusses dementors? An awful boy whom Rowling won't reveal. What do we find out one book later? Snape, who is up to his neck in the dark arts, evidently has a different way of tackling dementors than Harry. Dementors. Who else would visit someone and talk about dementors. ------ Having wasted a lot of time worrying aloud about Apparition, Ron was now struggling to finish a viciously difficult essay for Snape that Harry and Hermione had already completed. Harry fully expected to receive low marks on his, because he had disagreed with Snape on the best way to tackle dementors, but he did not care: Slughorn's memory was the most important thing to him now. HBP-Ch 21-The Unknown Room-pg 448 ----- I believe JKR laid the groundwork in OoP for some type of relationship between Snape and Lily, starting with the awful boy comment at the beginning and following with Snape's worst memory. This continues in HBP as we are told Snape has another way to tackle dementors and we find out Lily was good in Potions. So, what would be so significant about dementors except they suck your soul out. The story revolves around Voldemort and pieces of his soul in objects which must now be destroyed. What if there is one piece of soul residing in a living person? Dark Arts, Horcruxes, Harry, Dementors, Lily/Potions, and Snape/Potions. Fits in place if you ask me. :-> "K" From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 21:34:08 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:34:08 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155656 > >>Jennifer Choi: > > which makes me curious as to what level of harm would constitute > > Muggle baiting. > >>Gerry: > Hm, I don't think it has anything to do with the level of harm. I > would expect Muggle-baiting is using magic maliciously on Muggles > because they are Muggles. > > That is not what the twins did. Now I agree that it was wrong and > that it caused a lot of panic. But it was not muggle-baiting. > Because they did not do it to him because he was a Muggle. They > would have done exactly the same if he were a wizard. > So yes, it is wrong, just as wrong as beating him up would be. But > no it is not muggle-baiting. Betsy Hp: The thing is though, it really *looks* like Muggle-baiting. I agree that the twins would have done the same to a wizard family. (Though of course the outcome wouldn't have been nearly as satisfying.) But actions matter. That's why Arthur blows off their attempt to explain motive. In a case like this it's important for the boys to recognize that their motive doesn't matter. It would be like a couple of white teenagers in the 1950's Southern US burning a cross on the front lawn of a black family to scare a kid they didn't like. They aren't doing it because the boy is black, they just know cross-burning scares him so it's funny. The twins used magic against Dudley because they didn't like him and they knew it would scare him and it would be funny. But it is, in the end, an abuse of power. Dudley and his parents can't fight back, just as the black family in the above analogy couldn't fight back. So despite motivation the twins come across as Muggle-baiting. If Arthur and Molly had been stronger parents they'd have made sure that point sunk in. And probably made the twins write an apology note. Betsy Hp From dontask2much at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 21:36:30 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:36:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: open letter to JKR References: Message-ID: <007101c6ab7b$67164e40$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 155657 > Susan McGee said: > Oh, goodness, but fiction, movies are a very powerful way of working > on our imagination. If they are good literature, good films (meaning > extremely high quality that cause us to suspend disbelief) then they > have REMENDOUS power to change attitudes because they work on the part > of us that is feeling not thinking.....There are a ton of examples, > most recently the DaVinci Code, but books like Gulliver's Travels, > Gone with the Wind, Stranger in a Strange Land..(I'll make a list if > anyone is interested)..... Rebecca now: Fiction and movies can work on some individuals and highlight social issues or present an argument, but the real tools of change typically come from outside these venues - the only books that have ever radically changed anything in societies were books like the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran. For example, Gone With The Wind (which happens to be one of my favorite books) didn't really highlight the plight of slaves during the Civil War, Uncle Tom's Cabin presented that much more effectively if you ask me. The DaVinci Code *is* fiction, and many of the "facts" Dan Brown put forth on his website about it and in interviews are not entirely correct. (And no, I do not subscribe to a particular faith and base my opinion about the book in a very open frame of mind. Even scholarly Elaine Pagels, one of Brown's supporters, acknowledges that.) While I personally get the message of Stranger in a Strange Land, I think it is poorly written and fault Heinlein for his inability to make the reader get emotionally and psychologically involved with the world and characters he created. If an author can't do that, then to me he/she has failed to convey the message properly. You cited Gulliver's Travels - where you aware that it was edited by the publisher because some sections were too overtly inflammatory for the Whig controlled Parliament at the time? Like Swift's publisher, I believe that sometimes *less* detail is far more compelling in this regard. JKR, like other authors before her (CS Lewis, Tolkien, and Pullman) writing epics or coming-of-age fiction, has used allegory effectively to make her views known. Equating bigotry with class or blood prejudice in a fictional world to me is far more effective in swaying reader's opinions or start them thinking on topics such as equality for all rather than depicting a controversial (like it or not, such a thing probably would be so to some people) specific set of real-life people in the series. Rebecca From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 21:43:07 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:43:07 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155658 Gerry wrote: > Hm, I don't think it has anything to do with the level of harm. I would expect Muggle-baiting is using magic maliciously on Muggles because they are Muggles. From the examples we get from canon (shrinking keys, Willy Widdershin's toilets) quote often not even specific Muggles but any Muggle will do. > > That is not what the twins did. Now I agree that it was wrong and that it caused a lot of panic. But it was not muggle-baiting. Because they did not do it to him because he was a Muggle. They would have done exactly the same if he were a wizard. > > So yes, it is wrong, just as wrong as beating him up would be. But no it is not muggle-baiting. Carol responds: Not to beat a dead horse, but why would the only motive for Muggle baiting have to be "because the person is a Muggle"? Fred and George use this point to excuse their actions, but it doesn't mean that they weren't Muggle baiting. Dudley is a Muggle and they know it. He can't do magic or defend himself against it. And they are unquestionably *baiting* him (dropping the candy as bait that they know he'll take). I think the argument that they didn't do it *because* he's a Muggle is their attempt to get themselves off on a technicality. Carol, who agrees with Gerry that their action was wrong whether or not it's technically Muggle baiting From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 21:54:16 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:54:16 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155659 > Betsy Hp: > The > twins used magic against Dudley because they didn't like him and > they knew it would scare him and it would be funny. > Alla: Yes, they did not like Dudley. They did not like him because he is a "great bullying git". I am still not sure why this motive should not matter. Carol: > I think the argument that they didn't do it *because* he's a Muggle is > their attempt to get themselves off on a technicality. Alla: Or truthful statement of their intent. JMO of course, Alla. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 22:06:04 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:06:04 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155661 > >>Steven1965aaa: > No, I am not one of the "war" people, I agree with you on that. Betsy Hp: If we agree that the DA was not actually an army, and that the students at Hogwarts weren't in an all out, no holds barred, shooting war with Umbridge, but were in a slightly less bloody conflict, then I think the twins were great. (OMG, I might have pulled something! ) I totally agree with what Magda says in her post here: > > As much as I think the twins are a lot less > likeable than JKR does, they rose magnificently to the Umbridge > challenge in a way that no one else did. They saw - perhaps > instinctively - that the best way to defeat a total control freak > is to unleash total chaos. > And I agree that their grand exit, far from fleeing the scene, actually boosts the morale of the students still remaining at Hogwarts. > >>Steven1965aaa: > I was just making that point hypothetically, saying even if you > would view it as a "war" against Umbridge, which I thought other > people had suggested earlier, then ... Betsy Hp: Ah, but if we *do* go with the all out war thing, like Eggplant and Alla do... > >>Eggplant: > A illegal study group that risked death and more than held there > own against twice as many experienced and very evil Death Eaters. > That's some "study group". > In a war there is no place for squeamishness, not if you intend to > win. > > >>Alla: > Whether Harry was **looking** for the army or not, he IMO **found** > it. All students who stood with him in MoM were members of the DA. > **A lot** of what they had used there , they learned there IMO. > So to me the **big picture** is there and Marietta to me is still a > traitor, **not** a snitch. > Betsy Hp: Well, then that's an entirely different story. Because now we've got the twins running away as soon as they're threatened, leaving behind the remaining DA members to pick up the slack. And we have Harry and company getting caught by Umbridge because his best trouble makers are gone. And we've got a smaller group at the DoM, because the twins have deserted. If the twins had stayed, if they'd been at the DoM battle maybe Sirius would have lived. For want of a nail the kingdom was lost, etc. And *that* is why deserters and traitors suffer (or used to suffer, anyway, AFAIK) the same punishment (death) when there's a war on. And that is also why if you're going to argue that Marietta actually deserves to be walking around with her face disfigured into the next school year you're leaving the door open for the twins to deserve marks as well. IMO, I think the DA was a cleverly subversive study group, the twins were masters of chaos, and Hermione went *waaay* too far when she came up with her vindictive and vengeful and top-secret punishment. > >>Steven1965aaa: > > I agree that I certainly wouldn't want to get on Hermione's bad > side! But (wanting to see the good) I chalk Rita Skeeter and > Marietta up to Hermione's fierce desire to protect Harry. Betsy Hp: I do think Hermione had the best of intentions. (Honestly, that's the scariest part of this whole thing for me.) But she goes too far, IMO. And she needs to face that and (hopefully) learn from it. > >>Steven1965aaa: > By the way, didn't it tun out that Tin Man had a heart all along? Betsy Hp: Gosh, I have no idea! Um, if he did I guess we could point out that Ron has been by Hermione's side since the beginning? Mostly? (Really, Steven, way to ruin my beautiful little closing note up- thread. ) Betsy Hp From dontask2much at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 22:20:40 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:20:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture References: Message-ID: <016501c6ab81$921d9160$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 155662 > Gerry wrote: >> Hm, I don't think it has anything to do with the level of harm. I > would expect Muggle-baiting is using magic maliciously on Muggles > because they are Muggles. From the examples we get from canon > (shrinking keys, Willy Widdershin's toilets) quote often not even > specific Muggles but any Muggle will do. >> > >> So yes, it is wrong, just as wrong as beating him up would be. But > no it is not muggle-baiting. > > > Carol responds: > Not to beat a dead horse, but why would the only motive for Muggle > baiting have to be "because the person is a Muggle"? Fred and George > use this point to excuse their actions, but it doesn't mean that they > weren't Muggle baiting. Dudley is a Muggle and they know it. He can't > do magic or defend himself against it. And they are unquestionably > *baiting* him (dropping the candy as bait that they know he'll take). > > I think the argument that they didn't do it *because* he's a Muggle is > their attempt to get themselves off on a technicality. > Rebecca now: It's ok Carol, we like whipping the foam to a froth around here. :) Like Alla before me, I do believe that twins were telling the truth and not trying to get off on a technicality - I only have canon to go by here, and we all interpret it differently, or so it would appear. If they only targeted Muggles with their pranks, I would believe it be malicious and wouldn't believe it when Fred responded "indignantly" that they weren't baiting Dudley because he was a Muggle. That said, I suppose it depends on your POV about what Muggle baiting really is. Yes, Dudley is a Muggle and yes, they baited him. Why? Because he IS a great bullying git, not that that makes what they did ok, but it is a reason other than thinking Dudley's a second or fourth class person to whom they can do anything they like. But are they malicious Muggle baiters or torturers (or in some cases, killers) like Voldemort and his Death Eater crew? No, subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless to me. Rebecca From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 22:24:08 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:24:08 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155663 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > The twins used magic against Dudley because they didn't like him > > and they knew it would scare him and it would be funny. > > > >>Alla: > Yes, they did not like Dudley. They did not like him because he is > a "great bullying git". I am still not sure why this motive should > not matter. Betsy Hp: Because the twins are too powerful to throw their weight around like that. It's the same reason that parents across the world explain to their children that not liking someone isn't a good enough reason to hit them. Hmm, analogies are the best way I can think of to explain this. Let me bring up the one I used before: > >>Betsy Hp: > > It would be like a couple of white teenagers in the 1950's Southern > US burning a cross on the front lawn of a black family to scare a > kid they didn't like. They aren't doing it because the boy is > black, they just know cross-burning scares him so it's funny. > Betsy Hp: So would you be okay with the white teenagers using their status as more powerful whites to scare the less powerful black child, if the white teenagers explained that the black child is a "great bullying git"? How about if two sixteen year old boys used their superiour strength to hold down a fourteen year old girl and rub her face in the mud? Would that be okay if they could show that that girl was a "great bullying git"? It's young Christian boys terrorizing a Jewish boy in... some place where the Christian is more powerful than the Jew. It's the wealthy landowner's children slapping down the sharecropper's child. For me the issue has nothing to do with Dudley's past sins against Harry, or for the twins feelings towards Harry. It's all about the twins using their power to take down someone who is helpless against them. At this point in time I honestly doubt the twins were all about the Muggle hate. They just saw a "great bullying git" that they had an opportunity to "teach a lesson too". But they are too powerful to indulge in such behavior. Arthur tries, and fails, to call them on it. And I think the twins suffer because of it. Betsy Hp From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 12:05:24 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:05:24 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <4a6.5251311.31ef0f71@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155664 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: Regardless of what term the twins use it was *not* a loan. > "Fred -- George -- wait a moment". > The twins turned. Harry pulled open his trunk and drew out his Triwizard winnings. > "Take it", he said, and he thrust the sack into George's hand. > "What?" said Fred, looking flabbergasted. > "Take it," Harry repeated firmly. "I don't want it." > "You're mental," said George, trying to push it back at Harry. > "No, I'm not," said Harry. "You take it, and get inventing. It's for the joke shop." > "He is mental," Fred said in an almost awed voice. > "Listen," said Harry firmly. "If you don't take it, I'm throwing it down the drain. I don't want it and I don't need it. But I could do with a few laughs. I've got a feeling we're going to need them more than usual before long." > GoF, page 733, American edition. > > Steven1965aaa: Sandy, you're right. Harry never expresses any expectation at all that they need to pay him back. Harry never calls it a loan. I don't think the Twins have to pay him back. But the Twins do call it a "loan". Why do they do that? IMO this further undercuts the argument some have made here that the Twins are just opportunists who gave Harry the Marauders Map and the "free stuff" from their shop only because he is rich and famous and because they were calculating that they would eventually get something back from him in return. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 22:45:34 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:45:34 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <016501c6ab81$921d9160$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155665 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rebecca" wrote: > Like Alla before me, I do believe that twins were telling the truth and not trying to get off on a technicality - I only have canon to go by here, and we all interpret it differently, or so it would appear. If they only targeted Muggles with their pranks, I would believe it be malicious and wouldn't believe it when Fred responded "indignantly" that they weren't baiting Dudley because he was a Muggle. Steven1965aaa: Lets' look at the evidence: How many examples do we have in the books of the Twins pranking Muggles who are NOT gits? None, I think, but please correct me if I'm wrong (I view the card tricks on the girl in the store as a pick-up line, not a prank intending to make fun of her). How many examples do we have of the Twins pranking wizards who are gits? Well, Umbridge, Montegue, Filch (ok a squib but but a squib who has punishment power over them), punching Malfoy. There are probably more, I just can't remember offhand. I think the pattern is going after gits. The fact that one of those gits they go after happens to be a muggle does not make them muggle haters, IMO, unless you show me some canon to the contrary. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 22:38:24 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:38:24 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155666 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Steven1965aaa: > > No, I am not one of the "war" people, I agree with you on that. > > Betsy Hp: > If we agree that the DA was not actually an army, and that the > students at Hogwarts weren't in an all out, no holds barred, > shooting war with Umbridge, but were in a slightly less bloody > conflict, then I think the twins were great. (OMG, I might have > pulled something! ) > Steven1965aaa: Thanks Betsy, your comments are very enjoyable. IMO this "war" stuff has gotten a bit mixed up in some of these posts (I'm not refering to yours). The real WAR is with Voldemort. The DA is about preparing for that real war. Of course what's happpening with Umbridge is serious and its also connected to bigger things, but its not on the same level as the WAR with Voldemort. The Twins did not desert or commit treason or any such thing in the WAR against Voldemort. Their leaving had nothing to do with the war against Voldemort (although of course you never know, I would have thought that locking Montegue in the vanishing cabinet had nothing to do with it either!). They struck a serious blow in the "struggle" against Umbridge and laid the foundation for the "uprising" against her by the students. Marietta on the other hand betrayed a trust and violated an agreement, and in doing so exposed her "friends" to potential punishments including expulsion. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 22:41:32 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:41:32 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155667 > Gerry wrote: > > Hm, I don't think it has anything to do with the level of harm. I > would expect Muggle-baiting is using magic maliciously on Muggles > because they are Muggles. From the examples we get from canon > (shrinking keys, Willy Widdershin's toilets) quote often not even > specific Muggles but any Muggle will do. > > > > That is not what the twins did. Now I agree that it was wrong and > that it caused a lot of panic. But it was not muggle-baiting. Because > they did not do it to him because he was a Muggle. They would have > done exactly the same if he were a wizard. > > > > So yes, it is wrong, just as wrong as beating him up would be. But > no it is not muggle-baiting. > > > Carol responds: > Not to beat a dead horse, but why would the only motive for Muggle > baiting have to be "because the person is a Muggle"? a_svirn: Yes, that's what I don't understand too. Muggle-baiting means obviously `baiting muggles". That's what they did with Dudley ? baited a Muggle. Whether they did it because they think muggles inferior or themselves superior is another issue altogether. From littleleah at handbag.com Wed Jul 19 22:45:53 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:45:53 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155668 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > Yes, they did not like Dudley. They did not like him because he is > a "great bullying git". I am still not sure why this motive should > not matter. > , > > Alla. Leah, putting her oar in; Dudley is a great bullying git; what's more he's still a great bullying git when the twins have finished with him. He's still having a go at Harry in OOTP, ("Who's Cedric, your boyfriend?"), and beating up ten year olds. He didn't learn anything because the twins' action was not done in response to any such behaviour on Dudley's part at the time; it wasn't explained to him that his bullying was the indirect cause of his tongue almost choking him. It was a bit of revenge from the twins. Compare Ginny and Luna in HBP, when Luna quietly informs Harry that Ginny had stopped two boys from the Transfiguration class from calling Luna 'loony'. We don't hear that there was anything spectacular about this; as it seems to have been in a class, I doubt the dreaded bat bogey hex was employed, just an effective response from Ginny to name-calling at the time. I like the twins- I think they thought their motives were good- it a bit like Hermione and the sneak jinx. She may have wanted to protect the DA but the 'that'll teach 'em element' got in the way. I also know that the twins aren't Voldemort or Malfoy or Greyback, I know who I would want on my side. But this isn't a story where everyone is either very very good or horrid. Most, if not all of the horrid characters once had the choice and potential to be otherwise. Likewise the good characters have within them the potential for hate and destruction. Giving people a let because they're basically ok chaps is not ultimately helping them fulfill their potential- Arthur said what needed to be said. Leah From msmerymac at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 22:56:22 2006 From: msmerymac at yahoo.com (Meredith) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:56:22 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155669 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Szehms" wrote: Scarlett: > The reason the "awful boy" comment could be significant IMO is > because the Snape/ Lily connection rather than the Snape/Petunia > connection. > If Snape came to the Evans home perhaps he and Lily were closer than > has been let on...NOT A LOVE CONNECTION...but a respectful personal > relationship (keeping in mind how socially awkward Snape is I mean > personal in the loosest sense of the word). > > When in HBP Harry wants to know why DD trusted Snape, DD pauses > reflecting if he should tell Harry, we know he decides that he can't > do so, I think DD could not reveal the reason because it involved > Lily. I think Snape's greatest regret involves endangering Lily. Luckie: Great post! This is one of the things I'm most eager to find out about in Book 7. I've always been interested in the James/Lily backstory, Godric's Hollow, etc. Perhaps the backstory is why I love PoA so much, but I'm digressing. I'm sure the list has discussed the possibility of Snape making a UV with Dumbledore, perhaps, in regards to Harry. It's something I came up with last fall, but haven't had a chance to expound about on the list. In OotP, Snape tells Umbridge he has been teaching at Hogwarts for about 14 years - which puts him there either right before or right after the fateful Halloween night at GH. If he started at Hogwarts before the Potters were killed, which he implies when he tells Bellatrix and Narcissa he was doing LV's bidding by being at Hogwarts in the first place, then he was a double agent while James and Lily were still in the Order. Since Dumbledore wasn't the secret- keeper for the Potter, although he volunteered to be, how would he have known about the events at GH soon enough to send Hagrid within perhaps hours? My theory is that Snape knew of the plot to attack the Potters, possibly knowing that Pettigrew was betraying the Order, and informed Dumbledore, but just a little too late. (How Snape and Peter didn't realize that the other was working for the opposite side is another topic... unless Snape is so good that he fooled Peter into thinking that he was really on Voldy's side. Which, of course, might be the truth!) Because of his guilt, Snape makes a UV with Dumbledore. The only alteration to this theory is that Snape was working solely with LV until the Potters' demise, at which point he felt guilty, and therefore turned to the good side, making a UV with Dumbledore, and helping put away a good number of DEs. The UV would, of course, be the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape. How could he not? However, if, as Ron reported, a broken UV means death, I don't think I could see Dumbledore demanding that from Snape, or anyone. Unless Ron was mistaken, or unless Snape demanded it, or some other good reason. A UV to defend Harry, or similar, would explain part of Snape's hatred of Harry, or rather that he sees Harry as a burden. It would explain why he's frustrated at Harry getting into mischief, not doing what he's told, and refusing to catch on when he tries to teach him occlumency and non-verbal spells. Snape's trying to save Harry's neck in order to save his own! This theory, of course, is predicated on an intricate connection between Lily, Snape and Dumbledore. As well as Snape's reasons for agreeing to work for Dumbledore in the first place. And if anyone can point me to any prior threads about this topic, it would be appreciated. ~Luckie, who wonders what would happen if the two Unbreakable Vows Snape made suddenly came into conflict, and he has to chose to save either Harry or Draco. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 23:00:52 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:00:52 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155670 > Betsy Hp: > At this point in time I honestly doubt the twins were all about the > Muggle hate. They just saw a "great bullying git" that they had an > opportunity to "teach a lesson too". But they are too powerful to > indulge in such behavior. Arthur tries, and fails, to call them on > it. And I think the twins suffer because of it. a_svirn: I'm afraid you are giving them too much credit here. The twins may not "hate" muggles (they consider them too unimportant to warrant such strong feelings), but neither they were playing avenging angels. Fred and George have no problem with bullying; in fact, I'd say its one of their favourite pastimes. They "taught Dudley a lesson" not because he is a bully, but because they saw him as an all-to-convenient target. They always prefer weaker targets for their "jokes": it is OK to bait Ron or Percy, but they didn't care to cross Charley, did they? Neville was the most logical choice for testing the Canary Custard, but they took pains to warn Hermione which candies were safe. Prudent men wouldn't want to run afoul with Hermione, but with someone who won't retaliate ? it's quite another matter. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 23:28:46 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:28:46 -0000 Subject: Marietta, Magical Contracts, and that Damned Gleam of Triumph. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155671 Just a thought that was stimulated by the ongoing discussion of Marietta's little acne problem and Hermione's apparent refusal to pass her some magical Clearasil. Magical obligations seem to play a big part in the HP books?from the life debts that Snape and Peter owe, to the Unbreakable Vow, to the magical contract that forced Harry's participation in the Tri-Wizard Tournament, the pesky things keep cropping up, usually with important consequences. Almost as if JKR is trying to tell us something. It seems to be pretty easy to acquire a magical obligation, whether you want one or not. Harry never volunteered for the Tri-Wizard, and I doubt that either Snape or Pettigrew wanted to incur life debts. I wonder if Marietta's pimples are less the result of an easily-lifted (by Hermione) hex, or the result of a penalty clause in a violated magical contract. After all, all of the signers agreed not to "shout about" the DA. If so, then perhaps it would take a concerted effort by most or all of the offended parties (all of the DA members, in this case) to lift the curse, not just Hermione deciding on her own hook that Marietta has suffered enough. I wonder if JKR is holding this back for book 7 because she wants to use it to illustrate something about magical obligations that is important to the resolution of the story arc. Specifically, I wonder if Voldemort owes some sort of magical debt to Harry and/or Peter as a result of their flesh and blood being used in his resurrection. And I wonder what happens if one of them figures out how to call in the debt? Please discuss this, if you have any thoughts. I probably won't be able to contribute much, since I'll be out of town with only sporadic access for the next few weeeks. It's possible that anything interesting will end up (with the originator's permission, and credit given) in a fanfic that I've been noodling about since HBP came out. Amiable Dorsai From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 01:24:54 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:24:54 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155672 > Leah, putting her oar in; >> I like the twins- I think they thought their motives were good- it a > bit like Hermione and the sneak jinx. She may have wanted to protect > the DA > but the 'that'll teach 'em element' got in the way. I also know > that the twins aren't Voldemort or Malfoy or Greyback, I know who I > would want on my side. But this isn't a story where everyone is > either very very good or horrid. Most, if not all of the horrid > characters once had the choice and potential to be otherwise. > Likewise the good characters have within them the potential for hate > and destruction. Giving people a let because they're basically ok > chaps is not ultimately helping them fulfill their potential- Arthur > said what needed to be said. Alla: Actually, I don't have much to disagree with you. As long as we agree that Twins motives were good, I sure understand the argument of criticising their action. It is the dismissal of their motives that makes me confused. Do we know that Twins are liars too? If they state their intent that "Dudley is a great bullying git", what **is** the canon support for dismissing their intent? ( not replying to you, just in general to the thread). I think it is all the question of degree. I understand the criticism of playing prank, I really do, but what I don't understand is turning Twins playing prank on the boy who tormented the kid whom they treat like a brother in the "DE like action". I am glad we agree, I also know whom I would want at my side in the battle. That sure would **not** be Draco Malfoy. IMO of course. Same with Hermione. As long as we are agreeing of Hermione being concerned first and foremost with protecting DA, I have no problem agreeing that her actions were not perfectly **executed**, but Hermione concerned first and foremost with revenge, when she did not even know that betrayal will occur? I am sorry I just don't see it **at all**. So, yeah, nice post. :) JMO, Alla From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 01:29:50 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:29:50 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Wand/ Accidental Harrycrux : another question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155673 > Tonks wrote: > > Here is a thought. Would it have been possible that there were > enchantments on the place such that the secret keeper would have had > to go with the person (LV) in order for the second person (LV) to be > able to get in? zanooda: You mean some protective enchantments in addition to the Fidelius Charm, right? This is an interesting idea, although there is nothing in the books to confirm it (for now). But even if there are no such enchantments, I still believe it's very likely Wormtail was at Godric's Hollow. LV would want to take him along to be sure that it was not a trap. If you have an informant that you don't trust much, wouldn't you want to take him with you for some kind of guarantee? LV doesn't seem to need this precaution because of his Legilimency skill ("The Dark Lord almost always knows when somebody is lying to him"), but he could suspect that the whole thing was some DD's trick, for example that DD altered Pettigrew's memory to lure him (LV) to GH alone. So I think that PP was there, maybe not inside the house, but somewhere around. As for PP not having LV's wand on him when Lupin and Black transformed him (someone asked this question, don't remember who, sorry), I think that he had a lot of opportunities to hide it either between GH and his confrontation with Sirius, or even later, because I doubt that he lived 12 years as a rat without turning into a man even once. > Luna wrote: > > Harry could posses Voldemort and fill him with this Agape > love until Voldemort and the piece of soul in Voldemort's body dies. > If Harry is a Horcrux and if he survives, then the only bit of > Voldemort left would be Harry or Harry's scar. Harry will have to > live with it, this will be his cross. zanooda: But if Harry is a Horcrux, doesn't it mean that LV cannot be truly dead in the scenario that you described? If Harry will still have LV's piece of soul in him after killing LV, as you say, wouldn't he (LV) turn into Vapormot again, waiting for an opportunity to get a new body? This is how I understand it, anyway. Harry's goal is to destroy LV for good, and if he is a Horcrux... I don't believe for a second that Harry will die, so I hope She will find some way around it :-) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jul 20 01:49:54 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:49:54 -0000 Subject: Can we equate Lily's love protection with Dumbledore's? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155674 "ecaplan_52556" wrote: > > Harry received special, magical, protection when his mother, Lily, gave > her life to protect him. Can we say the same for Dumbledore? Didn't > Dumbledore give his life to protect Harry? Does Harry now have even > more magical protection -- this time from Dumbledore? > > That is, if you subscribe to the theory that DD is really dead :-) > Potioncat: I rather thought DD gave his life for Draco. Possibly, he gave it for the Cause/Greater Good. From katbofaye at aol.com Wed Jul 19 23:36:31 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:36:31 -0000 Subject: RE Snape and Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155675 First Snape and Lily cannot be distant cousins. Dumbledore makes it very clear that Harry only has three blood relatives: Petunia, Dudley, and now the new improved Voldemort. To be fair Dumbledore does not make that last one clear. Second Ewwwww it would be so creepy if Harry had to have the Voldy soul piece sucked out of him. I am a believer in the Harry as horcrux theory, but I always thought that meant he would have to sacrifice himself. What an idea. To have a partial kiss from a dementor. Ick and double Ick. Still it is an idea with merit just very icky. katssirius From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jul 20 02:09:04 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:09:04 EDT Subject: The UV (was what really happened on the tower) long Message-ID: <3c0.67d74dd.31f03fc0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155676 >Eggplant >Your theory doesn't explain some things. If Snape is really a good guy how could he be so brain dead dumb as to make that unbreakable vow? >Eggplant >I have heard hundreds of theories trying to explain why Snape made that vow but only one holds water: Snape was only vowing to do what he had every intention of doing anyway, and in fact may have only been repeating a vow he'd already made to Voldemort. Nikkalmati: You're confusing whether it made sense at the time with whether it worked out well. Certainly it turned out to be a mistake, but SS could not have known that at the time. SS made three vital decisions that night. I think we agree that SS was taken by surprise when the sisters turned up on his doorstep. Things would have turned out differently if Bella wasn't there, because he had to worry she could have betrayed both of them to LV as traitors. His first reaction was to agree with Bella that Narcissa should not say anything against the Dark Lord's instructions. He is protecting Narcissa here. He doesn't know if Bella will report her to LV, so he stops her. He then gets up and looks out the window into the empty street. He is not checking to see if Peter is out walking the dog. He is giving himself time to think. He decides he can risk it. Then he turns around and says "I already know" (decision 1) Of course he doesn't have a clue. His purpose is to pump the sisters for information. He can't let the opportunity go by to gain information that could be vital. His next choice is to take the vow. (decision 2). Narcissa puts on a full court press to get him to agree to help Draco, but I don't think saving Draco was more than a minor consideration. What he needed was more information about Draco's task. In addition, he fully expected to use the knowledge he would gain and his position with Narcissa and Draco to thwart the task. He not only would know exactly what Draco was doing, he would be in a position to counter it. The third decision was to agree to part three - to do Draco's task if necessary (decision 3?). I put a question mark because we know by the twitch of the hand (JKR giving us a hint) that he was not expecting part 3 and was unsure what to do. We don't actually know if he had a choice at this point. We saw the red lines circle his and Narcissa's wrists - what if he couldn't stop at this point? What if by agreeing to make the vow, he had agreed to swear to whatever Narcissa proposed? In any case, he either had to go on or he decided the information was worth swearing to do whatever it was. I don't think he would have sworn if he knew Draco was to kill DD. Either SS had no choice but to swear at that point or he made a leap in the dark. Not stupid, a calculated risk. As it turned out, Bella prevented SS from finding out what Draco was doing and prevented him from intervening to stop Draco from succeeding in his task. She talked against Snape to make Draco distrust him and probably helped him make and carry out his plans herself. (I presume DD and SS eventually figured out what Draco was aiming to do and tried to come up with contingency plans.) It makes zero sense for SS to take a potentially dangerous vow to do something he already planned to do. ESESnape or LIDSnape doesn't need Narcissa or Bella's good opinion and if he were prevented or even delayed in carrying out the task he could be dead. What's the gain for the risk? Nikkalmati >Eggplant >In chapter 2 Snape said he helped provide information that caused the death of Sirius Black. If that wasn't true why did he say it? How did he expect to get away with a lie of that magnitude to the two people who know more about the incident than anyone else on planet Earth? Kreature went to Narcissa and told her secret stuff about Sirius, and Bellatrix was the one who actually killed him. Snape would be a absolute fool to say that if it wasn't true. Those two knew the truth and if they thought Snape's boast was full of hot air one or both would have said something, but they did not. Nikkalmati: Bella knew nothing about how Sirius got to the MOM, and that was all that Cissy knew about. LV probably did not tell anyone exactly what he was doing with Harry. Could he tell Bella or Narcissa he wanted to lure Harry out by using his mental connection with Harry? Way too much information to be giving out. SS could easily imply he had given LV information that had led to the development of the plan without either sister knowing anything different. Even DDMSnape could give LV some information about Sirius, because Sirius was supposed to stay at Grimauld Place where he was safe. >Eggplant >Snape never said he was Voldemort's most trusted aid, Narcissa said it, and Bellatrix who didn't like Snape one bit would have certainly challenged that remark if she thought it untrue but she said nothing. Nikkalmati: Cissy was desperate for SS's help. She was flattering him, buttering him up (OOh Severas you are sooo great). He could have claimed to have hung the moon and she would have agreed. I thought Bella did challenge it. >Eggplant > And if Snape was a good guy why didn't he tell Dumbledore about that vow? He thought Snape was only pretending to have made the vow but we readers know better. Nikkalmati: I am confused here. What makes you think DD didn't know? . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jul 20 02:01:47 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:01:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155677 > "K": snip > What's interesting is what Petunia overheard Lily and that awful boy > discussing. What kind of company discusses dementors? An awful boy > whom Rowling won't reveal. > > What do we find out one book later? Snape, who is up to his neck in > the dark arts, evidently has a different way of tackling dementors > than Harry. Dementors. Who else would visit someone and talk about > dementors. Potioncat: It's too bad we neither know when the awful boy talked about Dementors OR how old Petunia is relative to Lily. But someone had reason to discuss Azkaban when Petunia was around, and it's someone she calls a boy rather than a man. It's hard to tell if the "boy" was a Hogwarts student or a young adult. Could be Snape. Could be DE!Snape wanting to "return" and going to Lily first. It's also been mentioned with both Lily and Snape having Muggle relations, they may have known each other. We don't see too much of that in the series---most of the kids arrive at Hogwarts without friends---except of course for Draco. Isn't it a bit interesting that Vernon makes drill bits---a piece of machinery and Snape is somehow associated with some sort of mill. Not all mills are textile. I wonder if the Evans family had some connection to the mill near Spinner's End and Petunia met the dashing young drill bit salesman while working in her father's office one summer. There's a big social difference between the mill owner/mill management and the mill workers. But (at least in the Southern USA) the houses might not be so far away from each other. I wouldn't be surprised if the awful boy was Peter--leave it to Petunia to ferret out a rat. But I don't know why Peter would be discussing Dementors with Lily. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jul 20 02:56:00 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:56:00 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture References: Message-ID: <007201c6aba8$08920300$f586400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155678 festico: > Hm, I don't think it has anything to do with the level of harm. I > would expect Muggle-baiting is using magic maliciously on Muggles > because they are Muggles. From the examples we get from canon > (shrinking keys, Willy Widdershin's toilets) quote often not even > specific Muggles but any Muggle will do. Magpie: But how can they legislate based on motivation? Willy Widdershins could have said he didn't prank the Muggle because he was a Muggle, but because he was annoyed by him, or disliked his hair. It seems like Muggle-baiting must be wrong by Wizard standards either because they actually think it's wrong to Prank Muggles (like the way they presumably disagree with the Black who likes to hunt Muggles) or because it causes danger to Wizards. steven: IMO this further undercuts the argument some have made here that the Twins are just opportunists who gave Harry the Marauders Map and the "free stuff" from their shop only because he is rich and famous and because they were calculating that they would eventually get something back from him in return. Magpie: I don't think that was the argument. It's not that the Twins either love Harry to death as a little brother or they're just using him. It's that the Twins can genuinely like Harry a lot while being opportunists. Steven1965aaa: Lets' look at the evidence: How many examples do we have in the books of the Twins pranking Muggles who are NOT gits? Magpie: No one has ever challenged the fact that the Twins don't Prank Muggles all the time, or that they don't like the way Dudley treated Harry (they also wanted to try out their candy). The point is that for many it's not an issue of what motivations were in their heart, what matters is that this was an abuse of their greater power. No one would deny that Snape picks on Harry because he dislikes him personally and disliked his father personally. That doesn't make not a teacher abusing his power. A Muggle parent in Arthur's position would perhaps be telling their child that no, it's not okay to steal a kid's wheelchair to laugh at him crawling around as long as you weren't doing it just because you hated people who couldn't walk. a_svirn: They always prefer weaker targets for their "jokes": it is OK to bait Ron or Percy, but they didn't care to cross Charley, did they? Magpie: Yes, the Twins are pretty open about their pragmatism. It's usually played for a joke that they know who not to cross-far more often than we see them holding back because someone else is weaker. -m From muellem at bc.edu Thu Jul 20 02:58:35 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:58:35 -0000 Subject: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155679 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" wrote: > > First Snape and Lily cannot be distant cousins. Dumbledore makes it > very clear that Harry only has three blood relatives: Petunia, Dudley, > and now the new improved Voldemort. To be fair Dumbledore does not > make that last one clear. > colebiancardi: of course, I have no canon to support this whatsoever. However, the key word is blood relatives - Not all of your relatives are related to you by blood. My uncle is not blood related to me, he married my mother's sister. And you can have stepcousins ;) I do think the Muggle connection is important; whether it is that they are related in some way, or that their families knew one another in social way. We don't know the backstory of the Evan's or Snape's families - and we may never know, as JKR probably won't tell us the full story anyway. sorry if I threw this thread off topic. colebiancardi.... From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 20 03:16:14 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:16:14 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155680 justcarol67 wrote: > > Let's just say that the unreliable narrator has set us up once again: > We don't know who cast that spell, and it looks to me as if Harry is > totally helpless and facing death as Fenrir's ugly face comes close to > his. We agree that Harry could not have cast a nonverbal spell. I > suppose it's possible that he cast a verbal one, but since the > narrator says that he felt Greyback's body roll off him, I don't think > he's the one who cast it. (If he cast it himself, why wouldn't the > narrator say so?) Ken: You may be right about the unreliable narrator technique. It makes it pretty hard to analyse anything if we (or JKR) get too carried away with it. If you look at the way the words for that spell are inserted into the text they are done in exactly the same fashion as they were on the previous page when Harry manfully shot the DE on the tower in the back with *the exact same spell*. A few pages later when Harry attempts to duel with Snape most (but not all) of his blocked spells are inserted in the same way. In fact his next two spells after the PT are both "Impedimenta". I don't know why he switched but it is a pattern in his spell casting which he then breaks completely in the attempted Snape duel. Immediately after Fenrir is PT'ed the text says "Harry felt Fenrir collapse against him; with a stupendous effort he pushed the werewolf off and onto the floor...." I don't think that language tells us anything about who cast the PT. The narrator does not say that Harry cast it but she doesn't say that Harry felt relieved that someone else had rescued him either. It reads to me like the standard melodramatic fight scene where the hero manages to defeat the villian of the moment at the last possible instant. It'll make a great scene in the movie. > Carol continued: > Also, although Snape has rounded the corner, he's also making sure > that the DEs are following him, and he could, unknown to Harry, have > looked around the corner, shot off that spell, and continued on his > way. I suppose it could have worked that way but when Harry does round that corner Snape isn't visible as far as I can tell although when I just now checked I see that Harry did cast an unspecified spell between his two Impedimenta's. If Snape had returned and saved Harry from Fenrir I don't think he could have been as far ahead of Harry as reported or as close to Draco. You could be right though, it just seems to me that "on further review" of the instant replay that Harry probably handled Fenrir on his own. He's no match for LV or Snape but I think he has the skill and presence of mind to recover from a lesser wizard's initial assult without aid, most of the time. Ken From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 03:20:58 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:20:58 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <007201c6aba8$08920300$f586400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155681 > festico: > > Hm, I don't think it has anything to do with the level of harm. I > > would expect Muggle-baiting is using magic maliciously on Muggles > > because they are Muggles. From the examples we get from canon > > (shrinking keys, Willy Widdershin's toilets) quote often not even > > specific Muggles but any Muggle will do. > > Magpie: > But how can they legislate based on motivation? Willy Widdershins could > have said he didn't prank the Muggle because he was a Muggle, but because he > was annoyed by him, or disliked his hair. It seems like Muggle- baiting must > be wrong by Wizard standards either because they actually think it's wrong > to Prank Muggles (like the way they presumably disagree with the Black who > likes to hunt Muggles) or because it causes danger to Wizards. Alla: I just think that Muggle baiting includes very specific act of causing harm to Muggles, not just any. I cannot support it with canon except the fact that **only** specific acts that Gerry mentioned are called muggle-baiting. That **if** it is true, of course does not make Twins action less wrong, it would be just a technicality ( I have reasons mentioned several times that I don't consider to be a technicality to feel that Twins heart was in the right place), but nevertheless it is the reason for me to not call it muggle -baiting. As someone said, if one thinks that what Twins did was horrible, it can be something worse than Muggle baiting, sort of another crime, but not this one. This is **not** my position, as I mentioned many times, but just saying that it seems to me that "definition", if you wish, legal definition ( which we don't really have, just the examples), seems to be quite narrow. Does anybody call in canon what DE did during the Cup a "muggle- baiting"? I don't remember it, so if nobody does, this is a crime, certainly, very serious one ( what DE did, **not** what Twins did - just making sure that my position is clear, hehe), but does it fall under ** legal** definition of muggle-baiting? I am not sure. Alla From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 03:34:58 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:34:58 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155682 I just had a thought about Snape and the Foe Glass in GOF... I'm assuming the Foe Glass showed Barty Crouch's (the son's) foes and not the Real Mad Eye Moody because I can't imagine RealMoody's foes would ever include Dumbledore. Based on that assumption, does the fact that the Foe Glass showed Snape as a Foe of one of Voldemort's faithful and true Death Eaters at least provide support for the proposition that Snape is DD's man? If Snape was a true follower of Voldemort, why would the Foe Glass show him as a foe of a Death Eater? (In a way, it seems the Foe Glass is the obverse of the Mirror of Erised -- it shows what we desperately do NOT desire -- our foes closing in on us.) Angie From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 03:34:23 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:34:23 -0000 Subject: Marietta, Magical Contracts, and that Damned Gleam of Triumph. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155683 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: . > > Magical obligations seem to play a big part in the HP books?from the life debts that Snape and Peter owe, to the Unbreakable Vow, to the magical contract that forced Harry's participation in the Tri- Wizard Tournament, the pesky things keep cropping up, usually with important consequences. > > Almost as if JKR is trying to tell us something. > > It seems to be pretty easy to acquire a magical obligation, whether > you want one or not. Harry never volunteered for the Tri-Wizard, and I doubt that either Snape or Pettigrew wanted to incur life debts. (Snip)> > I wonder if JKR is holding this back for book 7 because she wants to use it to illustrate something about magical obligations that is > important to the resolution of the story arc. > > Specifically, I wonder if Voldemort owes some sort of magical debt to Harry and/or Peter as a result of their flesh and blood being used in his resurrection. > > And I wonder what happens if one of them figures out how to call in > the debt? > Tonks: Now this is a fantastic idea. I do like it, I do!! I posed the question here once regarding the use of the blood of one that you had murdered. LV has his victim's blood in his body. I really wonder if that doesn't have some bearing on all of this. Lily's blood, the blood of the pure sacrificed one now gives life to LV. There has got to be something in this somehow. But I am at a lost... ?? It must be tied to the blood protection that is saving Harry, but how??? Maybe factored into the life debit somehow?? Tonks_op From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jul 20 03:54:24 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:54:24 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155684 ken: snip If Snape had returned > and saved Harry from Fenrir I don't think he could have been > as far ahead of Harry as reported or as close to Draco. You could > be right though, it just seems to me that "on further review" of > the instant replay that Harry probably handled Fenrir on his own. Potioncat: It could have been Blondy (Big Blond DE). He was casting all sorts of spells that only did damage to the bad guys. (I think he's on our side.) From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 04:08:12 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:08:12 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607192108p5e1d8620w5846f71c30456ba9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155685 Angie wrote: > I just had a thought about Snape and the Foe Glass in GOF... > > I'm assuming the Foe Glass showed Barty Crouch's (the son's) foes and > not the Real Mad Eye Moody because I can't imagine RealMoody's foes > would ever include Dumbledore. > > Based on that assumption, does the fact that the Foe Glass showed Snape > as a Foe of one of Voldemort's faithful and true Death Eaters at least > provide support for the proposition that Snape is DD's man? > > If Snape was a true follower of Voldemort, why would the Foe Glass show > him as a foe of a Death Eater? > > (In a way, it seems the Foe Glass is the obverse of the Mirror of > Erised -- it shows what we desperately do NOT desire -- our foes > closing in on us.) > Kemper now: Crouch Jr views Snape as a foe. I'm sure he knows that Snape was released from any wrong doing based on Dumbledore's word. Even Voldemort thinks Snape is a foe throughout (until Snape returns to him after the TWT), so if Crouch Jr and Voldemort chit chatted about the old times and Snape's name came up, I'm sure it wasn't in a good light. Thus, Snape is a foe. If Voldemort was coming up on Moody!CrouchJr, I wonder what the Foe Mirror would show. Does the Foe Mirror show one's true foes or his perceived foes? Kemper, who believes Snape is a true foe of Voldemort From kjones at telus.net Thu Jul 20 03:36:36 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:36:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44BEFA44.4080800@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155686 katssirius wrote: > Second Ewwwww it would be so creepy if Harry had to have the Voldy soul > piece sucked out of him. I am a believer in the Harry as horcrux > theory, but I always thought that meant he would have to sacrifice > himself. What an idea. To have a partial kiss from a dementor. Ick > and double Ick. Still it is an idea with merit just very icky. > > katssirius KJ writes: I find that idea rather disturbing as well. I think that JKR will let Harry go with dignity and honour rather than have him be kissed by a dementor just so he can live. The books seem to have a "death before dishonour" theme and the phrase, "neither can live while the other survives", doesn't seem to guarantee that either will survive. Sirius could have lived while trapped in the house but chose otherwise. Lily could have chosen to live but did not. What will Harry choose? KJ From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jul 20 04:23:55 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 04:23:55 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155687 Potioncat: > It could have been Blondy (Big Blond DE). He was casting > all sorts of spells that only did damage to the bad guys. > (I think he's on our side.) houyhnhnm: You mean as a DE who was fed up with Voldemort and wanted to see him defeated? All by himself or do you think he had confidants in LV's camp? Obviously he couldn't be an auror in deep cover or anyone with connections to the OotP or he would have found some way to warn Dumbledore of the assault on the castle. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 03:15:39 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:15:39 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155688 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Also, Harry didn't "defeat two wizards." He hit the Brutal-faced > Death Eater *in the back* with the first Petrificus Totalus. He > wasn't fighting him; the DE didn't know he was there. > And we *are* told that Harry didn't have time to raise > his wand before Fenrir Greyback leaped on him > It's most unlikely to be Harry, and certainly you can't state > as fact that he "defeated two wizards" using nonverbal spells when > we don't know any such thing. Mike here: I totally agree with Carol here. Reading the passage, Harry is not knocked to the floor, but more likely pinned against the wall. Greyback slumps "against" him and Harry pushes him off and onto the floor. Not onto him, against him. Harry then immediately *ducks* a curse flying at him. You can't duck if you've just been pinned to the floor seconds before. > Carol again: > As for Fenrir Greyback being a wizard, I think he must be > considering that he's a Death Eater. The narrator mentions his DE > robes being tight across his chest, and he must have had the Dark > Mark on his arm to get through the barrier on the tower stairs. > Certainly Greyback is part of the WW and has been for a long time, > given his attack on child!Remus some thirty or so years earlier. Mike again: On dear Fenrir, I'm with Red Hen on this one, Fenrir was a Muggle. His robes don't fit, like they were borrowed, he doesn't seem to have a wand nor show any magical abilities other than his monthly transformation. No matter what you were before you were bitten a werewolf is, by definition, now a magical creature. Muggles are far more likely to be bitten. Wizards know enough to be wary and/or stay indoors during a full moon, Muggles don't. As for the barrier, it was erected after the four ascended the tower, and Lupin told us it was blasted away before anyone came back down the stairs. Only Snape goes through the barrier on his way up the stairs. So neither Fenrir nor Draco needed a Dark Mark. Finally, Greyback, and the other werewolves, are referred to as *allies* of LV not DEs. And doesn't Lupin tell us that most all werewolves are on LV's *side*, not that they're DEs? And that Greyback wants to create an army of werewolves to overcome the wizards. Doesn't sound like he is a wizard, does it? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 04:34:35 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 04:34:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: <44BEFA44.4080800@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155689 > KJ writes: > > I find that idea rather disturbing as well. I think that JKR will > let Harry go with dignity and honour rather than have him be kissed by a > dementor just so he can live. The books seem to have a "death before > dishonour" theme and the phrase, "neither can live while the other > survives", doesn't seem to guarantee that either will survive. Sirius > could have lived while trapped in the house but chose otherwise. Lily > could have chosen to live but did not. What will Harry choose? Alla: I think that if Harry will be kissed by the Dementor, that would somehow be rather different from ""normal"" dementor kiss, if such even exists, normal I mean. In any event, I certainy don't think that if Harry lives that would be because he would do anything dishonorable just to survive. I predict Harry fully ready to sacrifice himself, but miraculously saved by fate in some way ( don't ask me how), while nobody, especially Harry will think that it is possible. Besides, there are several other possibilities suggested to let Harry as Horcrux live, Dementor kiss is not the only one. I seem to remember Debbie suggested Voldie piece dissappear in a really elegant way, but don't remember the details. :) I think Dementor kiss maybe reserved for Voldie or not. We shall see. Another one was Voldie piece integrating with Harry soul or something like that and becoming "pure" Besides, I am still not sure that Harry **is** a Horcrux, since "untarnished and whole" soul buggs me still. Alla, who sadly realises that Harry's death would be the only plot twist that would make her say good bye to the books. No, I would not throw them away, they gave me too much enjoyment, but I would not reread them, knowing that there is no hope for Harry to survive. From kjones at telus.net Thu Jul 20 05:15:41 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:15:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44BF117D.4020304@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155690 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > Alla, who sadly realises that Harry's death would be the only plot > twist that would make her say good bye to the books. > > No, I would not throw them away, they gave me too much enjoyment, > but > I would not reread them, knowing that there is no hope for Harry to > survive. KJ writes: You are absolutely right, Alla, and I hadn't really considered that before. I read and re-read books until they are dog-eared, but in this instance, what would be the point of going through Harry's life at school again, if he doesn't survive? This series of books has become so much a part of the lives of so many people, for so many years, that the characters are like family members. The ending of these books, whether satisfying, or unsatisfying, is really going to interfere with the usual re-reading of a story. I also could not throw them away, even if she kills Snape, who is my favourite character, but I probably won't read them again either. KJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 05:34:04 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:34:04 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <016501c6ab81$921d9160$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155691 Carol earlier: > > Not to beat a dead horse, but why would the only motive for Muggle baiting have to be "because the person is a Muggle"? Fred and George use this point to excuse their actions, but it doesn't mean that they weren't Muggle baiting. Dudley is a Muggle and they know it. He can't do magic or defend himself against it. And they are unquestionably *baiting* him (dropping the candy as bait that they know he'll take). > > > > I think the argument that they didn't do it *because* he's a Muggle is their attempt to get themselves off on a technicality. > > > > Rebecca now: > > It's ok Carol, we like whipping the foam to a froth around here. :) > > Like Alla before me, I do believe that twins were telling the truth and not trying to get off on a technicality - I only have canon to go by here, and we all interpret it differently, or so it would appear. If they only targeted Muggles with their pranks, I would believe it be malicious and wouldn't believe it when Fred responded "indignantly" that they weren't baiting Dudley because he was a Muggle. That said, I suppose it depends on your POV about what Muggle baiting really is. Yes, Dudley is a Muggle and yes, they baited him. Why? Because he IS a great bullying git, not that that makes what they did ok, but it is a reason other than thinking Dudley's a second or fourth class person to whom they can do anything they like. But are they malicious Muggle baiters or torturers (or in some cases, killers) like Voldemort and his Death Eater crew? No, subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless to me. > > Rebecca > Carol responds: Okay, one more turn of the eggbeater, then. Oops. That metaphor works with beating to a froth, but not with beating dead horses. Moving right along. . . . I agree that the Twins are telling the truth about their motive, but nevertheless, they're trying to rationalize their behavior. He deserved it, therefore it's not Muggle baiting in their view (or therefore it's justified even though Dudley had no way of defending himself). Dudley justifies his beating up ten-year-old Mark Evans but saying that Mark gave him cheek. He's not beating him up because he's a little kid, but because he had what he considers to be a good reason. So I guess, since Dudley had an excuse (or is only fifteen himself), he's not engaging in child abuse, even though the victim is a child, because his reason makes all the difference? Or parents who beat their kids with coat hangers for stealing or using drugs aren't engaging in child abuse, because they had a "good" reason? Sorry. Dudley's a Muggle, and he's being baited, ergo it's Muggle baiting. Or Muggle abuse, if you prefer. Carol, who never said the Twins were malicious or equated them with Death Eaters From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Jul 20 06:43:05 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:43:05 -0000 Subject: open letter to JKR In-Reply-To: <007101c6ab7b$67164e40$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155692 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rebecca" - the only books that have ever radically changed > anything in societies were books like the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran. > For example, Gone With The Wind (which happens to be one of my favorite > books) didn't really highlight the plight of slaves during the Civil War, > Uncle Tom's Cabin presented that much more effectively if you ask me. The > DaVinci Code *is* fiction, and many of the "facts" Dan Brown put forth on > his website about it and in interviews are not entirely correct. (And no, I > do not subscribe to a particular faith and base my opinion about the book in > a very open frame of mind. Even scholarly Elaine Pagels, one of Brown's > supporters, acknowledges that.) While I personally get the message of > Stranger in a Strange Land, I think it is poorly written and fault Heinlein > for his inability to make the reader get emotionally and psychologically > involved with the world and characters he created. If an author can't do > that, then to me he/she has failed to convey the message properly. > > You cited Gulliver's Travels - where you aware that it was edited by the > publisher because some sections were too overtly inflammatory for the Whig > controlled Parliament at the time? Like Swift's publisher, I believe that > sometimes *less* detail is far more compelling in this regard. JKR, like > other authors before her (CS Lewis, Tolkien, and Pullman) writing epics or > coming-of-age fiction, has used allegory effectively to make her views > known. Equating bigotry with class or blood prejudice in a fictional world > to me is far more effective in swaying reader's opinions or start them > thinking on topics such as equality for all rather than depicting a > controversial (like it or not, such a thing probably would be so to some > people) specific set of real-life people in the series. > > Rebecca > Rebecca, I think your challenges to my choices of examples are helpful..I should have thought more before posting my examples. I do not agree that the religious books really changed things..I think they were chronicles of change already having happened. In fact, Uncle Tom's Cabin DID have a HUGE effect on attitudes of people -- fueling the anti-slavery movement. I would also argue that Gone With the Wind reflected and codified the revisionist notion that the slave owners were (mostly) good guys who were treated badly by the conquering Yankees. (there's an excellence book Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen that goes into these issues in much more detail). I like Gone With the Wind much more than Uncle Tom's Cabin despite the fact that I don't like GWWW's politics.....(btw)... Re: the Da Vinci Code..I am aware that he doesn't get a lot of stuff right..what I think he DOES get right is the Church's suppression of the female in all kinds of different ways. Whatever we think about Mary Magdalene, almost everyone thought she was a prostitute despite the fact that that is never stated in the Bible. And, it was not widely known before the DaVinci code, that there is a gospel with her name on it that paints a very different picture of the early church than is in the Bible....my point here is not that the DaVinci Code is wonderful or accurate, but that it has triggered critical thinking about religion. Re, Heinlein's book...it had a major effect on public attitudes about sex and generated a religion that exists to this day... Other examples of books that had major effects on public thinking are Rachel Carson's the Silent Spring and Unsafe at Any Speed... Art both affects and reflects reality...in my humble opinion. Thanks for the opportunity for dialogue. Susan (Harry Potter for Grownups Over 40 is a low volume list..if you're interested please email me at SusanGSMcGee at aol.com) From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 20 07:58:40 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:58:40 -0000 Subject: Blaming Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155693 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > And > their brother Bill is permanently disfigured. I don't think the > twins were going for that outcome either. I have severe difficulties with this kind of reasoning. The twins are not responsible for the disfigurement of Bill. Greyback is. He is the one who did it. If people start to blame other persons for actions of somebody then it is completely arbitrary. Why not blame the maker of the cabinets? The twins could not have stuffed Montague into something which did not exist. Why not blame Arthur and Molly, because if they had not married the twins would not have existed. Why not blame the shopkeeper who could have gone to the aurors but choose the keep his mouth shut and help the DE's? And on and on and on. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 20 08:10:58 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:10:58 -0000 Subject: KarmaRe: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155694 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > That is why some people on this list are concerned about > the way in which Hermione carried out the organization of > Dumbledore's Army. Her unskillful actions led to Dumbledore > leaving the school at a time when they had most need of him. > We don't know yet whether or not there will be further > unpleasant consequences resulting from Hermione's unskillful > actions, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are. > ????? And I thought that DD's leaving the school had everyhting to do with one little sneak who betrayed the DA and with a Ministry going way out of its bounds and purpuses. Great, Marietta is not responsible at all, Umbridge is not responsible at all, the MoM is not responsible at all, it is all Hermione's fault that DD left the school. Sirius was not reckless in going to the MoM b.t.w. He took the same risk all the others did, except that he took the additional risk of getting captured by the aurors. A risk he was aware of and took willingly because he considered Harry's safety more important. The person who was responsible for his death was Bellatrix. I don't have the time to go into the other examples but I think they have nothing to do with karma or karmic justice but everything with selective reading. Gerry Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 20 08:20:59 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:20:59 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155695 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Hang on, are you saying the war was over because the DA had lost? > First of all that would suggest that the war was against Umbridge > and not Voldemort, and second it would suggest that in stirring up > the chaos that got them in trouble in the first place, the twins > were wasting everybody's time. > Then they are not deserters either. Because they did not leave the WW. Because having left school they are now free to join the Order, which they undoubtedly did. You can't have it both ways Betsy Gerry From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 04:48:24 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 04:48:24 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155696 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > Angie said: > > I just had a thought about Snape and the Foe Glass in GOF... > I'm assuming the Foe Glass showed Barty Crouch's (the son's) foes > and not the Real Mad Eye Moody > Based on that assumption, does the fact that the Foe Glass showed > Snape as a Foe of one of Voldemort's faithful and true Death > Eaters at least provide support for the proposition that Snape > is DD's man? > > If Snape was a true follower of Voldemort, why would the Foe Glass > show him as a foe of a Death Eater? Mike here: On the one hand, this could be showing us that Snape is a faithful DE's "Foe", therefore on the side of good (a position I adhere to). Then again, it could be that anybody in the company of Dumbledore, in his present state of mind, would show up as a foe. I bet if Bella was walking with DD at this time, she would show up in the Glass. DD was radiating so much magical aura, I'm actually surprised anybody else even registered. The Foe Glass must be reading intent towards the owner as well as proximity. (I know, blimey, what a waste of parchment :) The problem is, we don't know how a Foe Glass operates and, as Harry tells us, you don't want to rely on them. From rkdas at charter.net Thu Jul 20 11:48:31 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:48:31 -0000 Subject: open letter to JKR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155697 --- SNIPPED> > > > > Rebecca, I think your challenges to my choices of examples are > helpful..I should have thought more before posting my examples. > > I do not agree that the religious books really changed things..I > think they were chronicles of change already having happened. > > In fact, Uncle Tom's Cabin DID have a HUGE effect on attitudes of > people -- fueling the anti-slavery movement. I would also argue that > Gone With the Wind reflected and codified the revisionist notion that > the slave owners were (mostly) good guys who were treated badly by > the conquering Yankees. (there's an excellence book Lies My Teacher > Told Me by James W. Loewen that goes into these issues in much more > detail). I like Gone With the Wind much more than Uncle Tom's Cabin > despite the fact that I don't like GWWW's politics.....(btw)... > > Re: the Da Vinci Code..I am aware that he doesn't get a lot of stuff > right..what I think he DOES get right is the Church's suppression of > the female in all kinds of different ways. Whatever we think about > Mary Magdalene, almost everyone thought she was a prostitute despite > the fact that that is never stated in the Bible. And, it was not > widely known before the DaVinci code, that there is a gospel with her > name on it that paints a very different picture of the early church > than is in the Bible....my point here is not that the DaVinci Code is > wonderful or accurate, but that it has triggered critical thinking > about religion. Jen D. here Do a little more critical thinking about that gospel with Mary Magdelene's name on it. It was written many years after her death. It's a "Gnostic" gospel and is widely discredited as having any connection to principle players of the Gospels. Dan did a wonderful job of repackaging a wide arrary of claims against the Church (the only safe villain in our world save Osama Bin Laden). See "Godspy" a wonderful blog for a great article about Dan's talents. > > Re, Heinlein's book...it had a major effect on public attitudes about > sex and generated a religion that exists to this day... > > Other examples of books that had major effects on public thinking are > Rachel Carson's the Silent Spring and Unsafe at Any Speed... > > Art both affects and reflects reality...in my humble opinion. > > Thanks for the opportunity for dialogue. > > Susan > > (Harry Potter for Grownups Over 40 is a low volume list..if you're > interested please email me at SusanGSMcGee at ...) > Books can change people's minds but I would not see HP root itself any more firmly in the "causes of the day." I want a good story, not a politcally motivated tract. I think JKR has been wise to chose her battles outside of our reality. They speak to our problems and they will speak to the problems of the world in the future (which will be somewhat different, if the past is any guide...) Yes, civilized dialogue is unmatched... Jen D. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 13:25:20 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:25:20 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155698 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Mike here: > On the one hand, this could be showing us that Snape is a faithful > DE's "Foe", therefore on the side of good (a position I adhere to). > >Steven1965aaa: One other thing to add. At the time, Voldemort was characterizing Snape as "one who I believe has left me forever", or something like that. DE's could have therefore viewed him as a foe or at least a potential foe at that point in time. From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Jul 20 13:36:02 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:36:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155699 > Angie said: > > I just had a thought about Snape and the Foe Glass in GOF... > I'm assuming the Foe Glass showed Barty Crouch's (the son's) foes and > not the Real Mad Eye Moody > Based on that assumption, does the fact that the Foe Glass showed > Snape as a Foe of one of Voldemort's faithful and true Death > Eaters at least provide support for the proposition that Snape is DD's > man? > > If Snape was a true follower of Voldemort, why would the Foe Glass > show him as a foe of a Death Eater? Sherry: Fake Moody himself told us that he hates any death eater who walked free. Of course, everyone is supposed to think that is the auror Moody talking, but I think it's literally true for Crouch jr. Of course he hates every death eater who went free, after he got sent to Azkaban by his own father, and he never denied Voldemort, as other did. At this time, he has no reason to believe Snape is anything other than one of those death eaters who got off scott free, and with the solid support of Dumbledore. I'm quite sure Barty considers Snape a foe. I'm not arguing Snape good or bad in this, just why Barty could have considered him an enemy so that Snape would have appeared in the foe glass. Do we know if the glass shows a person's perceived enemies or a person's true enemies? Sherry From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 20 14:09:49 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:09:49 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155700 Meredith wrote: > > ~Luckie, who wonders what would happen if the two Unbreakable Vows > Snape made suddenly came into conflict, and he has to chose to save > either Harry or Draco. > Ken: That is an interesting question which we of course do not have enough information to answer. It is not clear to me that Snape really knew what Draco's mission was when he made the UV with Narcissa. He may have been fishing for information for DD and had to cut that discussion short in order to convince Bellatrix of his loyalty to LV. Snape's hand did twitch just before he made the vow to complete Draco's mission. I imagine that we could come up with dozens of possible reasons for that twitch. Your question suggests to me that one of the possible reasons for the twitch was that he didn't know what Draco's mission was and that by vowing to complete it he may have been vowing to kill Harry. If he had already made a UV to protect Harry he would have either died on the spot or when the two vows came into conflict as they were certain to do, I suppose. That would make anyone twitch. True, at the point he twitched the third clause had not been uttered, if I remember correctly, but at that point he had to know it was coming. If that line of reasoning is true then the fact that he did not die immediately may have told Snape that Harry was not Draco's target and that would have suggested DD as the most probable target. I rather hope that it turns out that this interpretation is correct or at least close to the mark. It would underscore how brave Snape is. He certainly reacts strongly to being called a coward at the end of HBP and I think that this is righteous anger at a false charge. I think that no matter which side he is on he has shown uncommon and often unrecognized bravery. You don't have to be nice to be brave or on the right side. Ken Ken From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 20 14:32:55 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:32:55 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155701 "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > The narrator does not say that Harry > cast it but she doesn't say that Harry > felt relieved that someone else had > rescued him either. Exactly, and if JKR had meant readers to think somebody else besides Harry had cast that spell think how incredibly awkward it would be in the next book: "Gee," Harry said with a puzzled expression on his face, "a thought just popped into my head, 4 months ago somebody saved my life, I would have been dead meat without him or her. I wonder who it was ? I haven't mentioned that incident once or even thought about it since it happened." That is just not going to fly. JKR has over 6 books proved to be an excellent writer especially regarding plot, I don't see why she would suddenly loose all her ability and suddenly turn into a comically inept hack for book 7. justcarol67 wrote: > Let's just say that the unreliable narrator > has set us up once again. If you play the "unreliable narrator" card you can make any theory fit the facts no matter how crazy. But where's the fun in that? Eggplant From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jul 20 14:40:32 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:40:32 -0000 Subject: Blaming Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155702 festuco > I have severe difficulties with this kind of reasoning. The twins are > not responsible for the disfigurement of Bill. Greyback is. He is the > one who did it. If people start to blame other persons for actions of > somebody then it is completely arbitrary. Magpie: I don't think Betsy was saying the Twins were responsible, she was saying that this was one of the results of their stuffing Montague into the cabinet, which is true. Fenrir is the one who mauled Bill, and not only did the Twins not do that, it's not even an outcome the Twins could have reasonably foreseen from their own action. But the two things were connected, and I think JKR meant for that to be seen. It's not karmic justice of any kind, it's actions (even bad actions) having consequences. And since this is fiction with an author creating the results of those actions, I think they do mean something-- just as James' casual bullying of Snape continues to have serious consequences today. It doesn't make James responsible for the way Snape treats Harry. Festuco: Then they are not deserters either. Because they did not leave the WW. Because having left school they are now free to join the Order, which they undoubtedly did. Magpie: Err...I have no interest in seeing the Twins as deserters for their leaving school, but since when did they join the Order? Last I saw they opened a joke shop and made a killing. They weren't at the MoM. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jul 20 15:09:03 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:09:03 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155703 > justcarol67 wrote: > > > Let's just say that the unreliable narrator > > has set us up once again. >Eggplant: > If you play the "unreliable narrator" card you can make any theory fit > the facts no matter how crazy. But where's the fun in that? Potioncat: The fun is, with JKR's unreliable narrator,that you never know when the unreliable narrator is right or when she is wrong; or when you just think she is trying to mislead. No, I don't think your dialogue will happen in book 7. There may be no more comments about the battle at all. Or we may get Tonks commenting on how many hexes that missed her hit someone else. JKR may have been trying to write the chaos of the battle. No one is really sure what's going on, including us in that scene. Unreliable Narrator is a literary devise and there's no doubt it's used here. It would be a mistake not to consider its role as you look at the plot. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 20 15:31:32 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:31:32 -0000 Subject: The UV (was what really happened on the tower) long In-Reply-To: <3c0.67d74dd.31f03fc0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155704 puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > Certainly it turned out to be a mistake, > but SS could not have known that at the time. If Snape was a good man and if his IQ was larger than his shoe size he would NEVER make a vow when he didn't even know what he is vowing to do. Hero or villain I am certain JKR wants her readers to respect Snape and the above scenario would make that imposable. From fascinating enigma and brilliant master spy Snape would become a member of the 3 stooges. > he [Snape] had to worry she [Bella] could > have betrayed both of them to LV as traitors. > [ .]He doesn't know if Bella will report her > to LV, so he stops her. [ ] Then he turns > around and says "I already know" (decision 1) > Of course he doesn't have a clue. Then why wasn't he worried that Bella would tell Voldemort that Snape knew all about the plan? Wouldn't Voldemort wonder how Snape had found out if he hadn't told him. And why would Voldemort tell others about the plan but not his most trusted lieutenant? > What if by agreeing to make the vow, he had > agreed to swear to whatever Narcissa proposed? Then by agreeing to make the vow in the first place Snape has proven himself to be a man of such incompetence and low intelligence that he is no longer an interesting character. > I don't think he would have sworn if he knew > Draco was to kill DD. That's what makes it all so crazy, according to you Snape agreed to make an unbreakable vow and he had no idea what he was going to vow to do. Just try to make a good book with that premise, "dumb" doesn't begin to describe it! > It makes zero sense for SS to take a potentially > dangerous vow to do something he already planned to do. I don't see why. > What's the gain for the risk? If, as I think likely, Snape had already made the exact same vow to Voldemort then there was zero risk in repeating it, and there might be some small gain on getting on the good side of Bella and Narcissa. > I am confused here. What makes you think > DD didn't know? Harry told Dumbledore that Snape had said he made an Unbreakable Vow but it's pretty obvious he didn't believe Snape had really done it. When Draco brought up the same thing Dumbledore responded: "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but" And there is another reason. Like Snape I also assume Dumbledore had a IQ larger that his shoe size and a smart man just doesn't pick as his most trusted aid someone he knows had vowed to be a traitor and to murder you. As I said before real people just don't do things like that. Eggplant From felix_quinn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 14:05:45 2006 From: felix_quinn at yahoo.com (felix_quinn) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:05:45 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155705 > Betsy Hp: > So would you be okay with the white teenagers using their status as > more powerful whites to scare the less powerful black child, if the > white teenagers explained that the black child is a "great bullying > git"? > How about if two sixteen year old boys used their superiour > strength > to hold down a fourteen year old girl and rub her face in the mud? > Would that be okay if they could show that that girl was a "great > bullying git"? >SNIP< Besides the fact that personally believe (as I've said before) that the twins honestly don't mean 'harm' as we're seeing it to anyone, and rather believe that everyone else is enjoying the joke as much as they would have if the joke had been on them, I believe the comparison is slightly unjustified. All the exapmles you gave, although fairly well constructed, are blown out of proportion. If a white child burned a cross in the yard of a black child to scare him (even if the intent had no racial motivation) the specific method the white child had then used was chosen because it was known as a previous method of inspiring fear to black people (by people who DO do it with race in mind) and the white child would then know that the fear would stem from the burning cross being interpreted by the black child and his family as a race-motivated crime. The twins simply pulled a prank (albeit an uncalled for one) the nature of which simply came from them having these sweets, and seeing an opportunity for a joke. The Dursley's, not knowing and not WANTING to know anything about wizards, have no way of even knowing that some people in the WW hate muggles- they _are_ afraid of the wizards, but more for the unknown and 'unnatural' factor- we can safely assume that in the cabin (in SS/PS) if Uncle Vernon had had the chance, he would have shot Hagrid. Would that be wizard baiting? If the Dursley's had had some kind of power or upperhand over the wizards (who they thought of as lesser human beings due to being different and not 'normal') they would most definitely have used it merely for their hate of wizards. I think this is evident by how they treat Harry before he went to Hogwarts- he had no way of fighting back, so they abused him simply for being a wizard. If the twins had, in scaring Dudley, used a method that utilized the very fact that they were wizards (full costume, wands out making a show of it becuase they knew Dudley was afraid of wizards, as the white kid would have known he black one was afraid of the racist movement of the time) then it would have been comparable. As it is, it's simply a prank played on another person. (Not saying I condone it, just that it's being taken slightly out of proportion) There is a marked difference between "baiting a muggle" (defined as baiting a person who just happens to be a muggle, regardless of intent) and "muggle-baiting" (baiting someone specifically because they are a muggle, and using methods that rely on the fear inspired by magic) My example: If I had a CD, legally purchased that was starting to crack and I copied it to a new disc, throwing away or destroying the old one, am I a CD-copier? (excuse weak term, it's for comparison) I might have copied one CD, but was my intent to resell, or cheat the artist out of money due to them? the term "cd-copier" implies a habit or repeat action, with malicious intent. I have then 'copied a CD', as opposed to being a 'CD-copier'. Might just be a technicallity, but an important one when evaluating a person's character according to the action. And anyway, the twins didn't know that the Dursleys were going to refuse all magical help, simply out of their own prejudice against wizards (i.e. all wizards and all magic is bad and dangerous, simply because it is something different to what they accept as 'right' and 'normal'- pretty close to the sentiment of a wizard who hates mudbloods, I think) Felix, who wouldn't have minded baiting a few of the muggles who gave her uphill in school. *evilsnigger* From zehms at aol.com Thu Jul 20 13:50:52 2006 From: zehms at aol.com (Szehms) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:50:52 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155706 Luckie: > Because of his guilt, Snape makes a UV with Dumbledore. The only The UV would, of course, be > the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape. How could he not? However, if, > as Ron reported, a broken UV means death, I don't think I could see > Dumbledore demanding that from Snape, or anyone. Unless Ron was > mistaken, or unless Snape demanded it, or some other good reason. > > A UV to defend Harry, or similar, would explain part of Snape's > hatred of Harry, or rather that he sees Harry as a burden. It would > explain why he's frustrated at Harry getting into mischief, not > doing what he's told, and refusing to catch on when he tries to > teach him occlumency and non-verbal spells. Snape's trying to save > Harry's neck in order to save his own! This theory, of course, is > predicated on an intricate connection between Lily, Snape and > Dumbledore. As well as Snape's reasons for agreeing to work for > Dumbledore in the first place. > > And if anyone can point me to any prior threads about this topic, it > would be appreciated. > > ~Luckie, who wonders what would happen if the two Unbreakable Vows > Snape made suddenly came into conflict, and he has to chose to save > either Harry or Draco. Scarlett replies: I have read theories on UV's involving Snape and Lily rather than DD and Snape...although quite possible, DD's trust in others seems to conflict with the idea that he would require a UV from Snape...but perhaps that is why he is so sure of Snape's loyalty?? I think it could be quite possible that JKR introduces the vow with Narcissa for more than the Draco/Snape plotline...perhaps Snape made another UV with another desperate mother who feared for her son's safety and protection from Lord Voldemort? Could Lily have been desperate enough to ask Snape to protect Harry and enter a UV with her? I agree with you that Snape has been trying to equip Harry...yes his methods are not like Lupin and DD, Snape helps Harry despite the hatred he has for Harry (IMO because his likeness to James who we know was his nemesis AND because he may blame James for Lily's death, he may think that Harry's cavalier (according to Snape) attitude about his safety and rules is reminiscent to James, and thus Harry does not adequately appreciate Lily's sacrifice for him...for that matter The Order and particularly D's sacrifices for Harry). Is Snape helping Harry because he is bound by a UV, or is Snape's guilt about Lily and his loyalty to DD so deep he would help Harry despite his hatred...IMO definitely the latter, we will have to see about the former. At any rate I too await to discover more "back story" about the marauder's, Lily, Petunia and Snape...I do think Petunia could be the one who manifests magical skill late in life....we will see... Scarlett From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jul 19 13:44:49 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:44:49 -0000 Subject: open letter to JKR In-Reply-To: <001401c6a4f4$2985fc20$6501a8c0@con2k6tzno4dge> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155707 Con: Hi, I always wondered whether Madam Hooch was a lesbian ... or could it be that she simply represents the "gym teacher" stereotype? Of course, one might argue that the wizarding community itself is a metaphor for the gay community (or any other misunderstood population). Tinktonks: - I think that Prof. Grubbly-Plank is quite probably gay. There are a few things to indicate this. 1. Smoking a pipe (a stereotypically male action) 2. Being prof. not Madam (although McGonnagal & Sinistra are also Prof. and I don't suspect they are lesbian 3. She has a very hands on and debatably masculine job. I don't think that JKR thinks of peoples sexuality as a big deal (she has a live and let live attitude that accepts people as they are as long as they do not harm others) and therefore may have characters that are in her mind gay, and quite possibly puts hints to this effect in the books, however, I also don't think that it is highly important that she makes the sexuality of all characters known. But I must say that it would rather please me to see Crabbe and Goyle as a couple, they are ALWAYS shown together and didn't take girls to the Yule Ball. Harry assumed that they could not get dates but did not investigate the possibility that they did not WANT a female date. I'm sure that they would be ousted by Malfoy, and indeed the Slytherins. I would like to see that Malfoy rejecting his friends being to his detriment and causing his downfall, reinforcing JKR's lesson about the importance of friendship and loyalty. (Although I think that she has already used Lupin being a werewolf as a metaphor for this senario) Tinktonks - Who is all for Gay/Lesbian rights but doesn't think it should influence JKR's present plans! From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jul 20 16:21:12 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:21:12 -0000 Subject: KarmaRe: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155708 Gerry: > ????? And I thought that DD's leaving the school had > everyhting to do with one little sneak who betrayed the > DA and with a Ministry going way out of its bounds and > purpuses. Great, Marietta is not responsible at all, > Umbridge is not responsible at all, the MoM is not > responsible at all, it is all Hermione's fault that > DD left the school. houyhnhnm: The DA was Hermione's plan therefore she is responsible for the success or failure of the plan. To say that she isn't is like saying that a defeated general is not responsible for a badly thought out campaign. It's the enemy's fault. There are a lot of steps Hermione could have taken to forestall such a betrayal. She could have recruited more carefully in the first place. She could have anticipated the fact that her sneak hex would not give the DAs *advance* warning that one of their members was going to Umbridge and taken steps to correct that deficiency. Marietta's discomfort with what they were doing was evident at the first meeting in the RoR. That meeting took place before the first quidditch match of the year (so probably in October). Marietta didn't betray the DAs to Umbridge until shortly before Easter break. So for five to six months, what is Hermione doing about it? Is she keeping an eye on disaffected members such as Marietta, talking to them, watching them, taking any kind of pro-active steps at all to prevent the DAs' being betrayed? No. She blithely assumes everything is going to go her way just because she wants it to. Gerry: > Sirius was not reckless [...] The person who was responsible > for his death was Bellatrix. houyhnhnm: **************** 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. **************** Swashbuckling, Gryffindorian derring-do. It is Sirius' character in a nutshell. It got him killed. I know there is a deep divide among listees regarding philosophy of action. It don't think it will ever be resolved. There will always be those who say, "I didn't *want* it to turn out this way, therefore it's not my fault." From srhchttrsn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 15:03:43 2006 From: srhchttrsn at yahoo.com (Emilynne) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:03:43 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155709 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > I just had a thought about Snape and the Foe Glass in GOF... > > I'm assuming the Foe Glass showed Barty Crouch's (the son's) foes and > not the Real Mad Eye Moody because I can't imagine RealMoody's foes > would ever include Dumbledore. > > Based on that assumption, does the fact that the Foe Glass showed Snape > as a Foe of one of Voldemort's faithful and true Death Eaters at least > provide support for the proposition that Snape is DD's man? > > If Snape was a true follower of Voldemort, why would the Foe Glass show > him as a foe of a Death Eater? > > (In a way, it seems the Foe Glass is the obverse of the Mirror of > Erised -- it shows what we desperately do NOT desire -- our foes > closing in on us.) > No, I don't believe that conclusively proves that Snape is DD's man. At that time BC Jr. thought that Snape was DD's man, regardless of whether he was or not. BC Jr. was also enemies with many of LV's supposed devoted followers simply because they did not give up as much as he did in order to see his master return to full power. They "deserted" LV because they were too cowardly to face the consequences of their actions as Death Eaters. So even if BC Jr. knew that Snape was still a death eater and was still somewhat loyal to LV, he would continue to see him as an enemy because Snape did not go to Azkaban and give up his life to help his master return to strength. In BC Jr.'s opinion he was the only true and loyal follower and most of the rest were his enemies. That is why at the Quidditch World Cup he sent the dark mark into the air to scare away the "death eaters". All he felt was contempt for the "wannabe" evil-doers. Emilynne From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jul 20 16:04:30 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:04:30 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155710 Scarlett: Is Snape helping Harry because he is bound by a UV, or is Snape's guilt about Lily and his loyalty to DD so deep he would help Harry despite his hatred...IMO definitely the latter, we will have to see about the former. At any rate I too await to discover more "back story" about the marauder's, Lily, Petunia and Snape...I do think Petunia could be the one who manifests magical skill late in life....we will see... (Big snips) Tinktonks - JKR has said on her website that Petunia doesn't show magical ability. I think that Snape had deep feelings for Lily and that is why he resented James so much. I know he lashed out at Lily in the pensieve but I think that was his bitterness talking. I think that whatever the case there is a lot more Snape/Lily plot to come. Tinktonks From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 20 17:20:28 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:20:28 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155711 "gelite67" gelite67 at ... wrote: > does the fact that the Foe Glass showed Snape > as a Foe of one of Voldemort's faithful and > true Death Eaters at least provide support > for the proposition that Snape is DD's man? No. In the first place Harry says in book 5 that you shouldn't trust things like the Foe Glass too much because they can be fooled. In the second place being a foe of Voldemort does not prove you are one of the good guys, not by a long shot. And I must say the fact that Snape murders Dumbledore does not particularly strengthen the theory that Snape is Dumbledore's friend. Eggplant From muellem at bc.edu Thu Jul 20 17:34:03 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:34:03 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155712 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "gelite67" gelite67@ wrote: > > > does the fact that the Foe Glass showed Snape > > as a Foe of one of Voldemort's faithful and > > true Death Eaters at least provide support > > for the proposition that Snape is DD's man? > >Eggplant wrote: > No. In the first place Harry says in book 5 that you shouldn't trust > things like the Foe Glass too much because they can be fooled. In the > second place being a foe of Voldemort does not prove you are one of > the good guys, not by a long shot. And I must say the fact that Snape > murders Dumbledore does not particularly strengthen the theory that > Snape is Dumbledore's friend. > And boy, Harry's been right about everything up to now, hasn't he? I think the Foe Glass shows you who you perceive to be your enemy, not that they really are. And again, in your opinion, it was "murder". I still believe DD's death was for the greater good - which is to save Harry's life so Harry can totally defeat Voldemort and also, not to blow Snape's cover and to install Snape into LV's lair until the defeat of LV. I believe it is something that Snape hated to have to do, that he argued with DD about this task, but DD made him swear to do whatever he(DD) asked Snape to do - just like Dumbledore made Harry swear before entering the cave. The similarity between Snape & Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore are amazing. colebiancardi(who doesn't think Snape, DD or Harry are stupid or dumb. Things are not as they seem - and that IS real life) From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jul 20 13:01:57 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:01:57 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155713 Koinonia: I believe JKR laid the groundwork in OoP for some type of relationship between Snape and Lily, starting with the awful boy comment at the beginning and following with Snape's worst memory. This continues in HBP as we are told Snape has another way to tackle dementors and we find out Lily was good in Potions. Tinktonks: I think that it is very likely that Lily and Snape were both members of the 'Slug Club' and probably met there (as they both had a real aptitude for potions and a lot of potential) I feel it is very possible that their ties began there but I do wonder how they got over the animosity we see in the pensieve. Tinktonks From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 17:45:49 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:45:49 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155714 > >>Betsy Hp: > > So would you be okay with the white teenagers using their status > > as more powerful whites to scare the less powerful black child, > > if the white teenagers explained that the black child is > > a "great bullying git"? > > > >>Felix: > Besides the fact that personally believe (as I've said before) that > the twins honestly don't mean 'harm' as we're seeing it to anyone, > and rather believe that everyone else is enjoying the joke as much > as they would have if the joke had been on them, I believe the > comparison is slightly unjustified. > All the exapmles you gave, although fairly well constructed, are > blown out of proportion. If a white child burned a cross in the > yard of a black child to scare him (even if the intent had no > racial motivation) the specific method the white child had then > used was chosen because it was known as a previous method of > inspiring fear to black people (by people who DO do it with race > in mind) and the white child would then know that the fear would > stem from the burning cross being interpreted by the black child > and his family as a race-motivated crime. > Betsy Hp: Not if the white children were as sheltered as we are expected to believe the twins are. Then they'd have no *idea* that cross- burning is a method used by the Klan. They'd have no idea that the black family of that time period had no hope of recourse. The only thing they'd know is that they didn't like that black child (he's a bully) and that (for some odd reason) cross-burning would scare him. Just as the twins knew (or hoped) that magic (for some odd reason) would scare Dudley. If the parents of those white children were against racism and were worth their salt, they would make clear to their children that even though their *motives* were pure, their *actions* were inexcusable. And probably give the children some punishment and then make them apologize. My analogies were being used to show the *power* difference. The twins used something against which Dudley (and his parents) had no defence. That's what makes their actions wrong. No matter the motive. > >>Felix: > If the twins had, in scaring Dudley, used a method that utilized > the very fact that they were wizards (full costume, wands out > making a show of it becuase they knew Dudley was afraid of > wizards, as the white kid would have known he black one was afraid > of the racist movement of the time) then it would have been > comparable. Betsy Hp: How is your toungue growing so large is no longer fits in your mouth and actually inhibits your breathing *not* an act of magic? > >>Felix: > As it is, it's simply a prank played on another person. (Not > saying I condone it, just that it's being taken slightly out of > proportion) Betsy Hp: No it is not. It is a *magic* prank played against a *Muggle*. And that is what makes all the difference. It's the powerful using their power to prank the weak. > >>Felix: > And anyway, the twins didn't know that the Dursleys were going to > refuse all magical help, simply out of their own prejudice against > wizards... Betsy Hp: Or, based on the screaming and hysterical crying, the Dursleys weren't able to differentiate between "helpful" wizards and "threatening" wizards. Just as that black family wouldn't know which sheriff might listen to their complaint. Again: power against weakness. Betsy Hp From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 20 17:56:10 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:56:10 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155715 "colebiancardi" wrote: > Harry's been right about everything > up to now, hasn't he? No, not about everything, but Harry has proven himself to be more right than any other character in the 6 books, including Dumbledore. Dumbledore was very surprised that Death Eaters had gotten in, but Harry had warned him that something like that might happen when they were away finding the (fake) Horcrux; Harry even pinpointed where the danger was, the Room Of Requirement, and who was behind it, Draco. So Harry told Dumbledore when the danger would happen, where it would come from and who was behind it; but when it did happen just as Harry said it would Dumbledore was surprised. Harry was just a wiser man than Dumbledore. Eggplant From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 19:23:44 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:23:44 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Dumbledore was very surprised that Death Eaters had gotten in, but > Harry had warned him that something like that might happen when they were away finding the (fake) Horcrux; Harry even pinpointed where the > danger was, the Room Of Requirement, and who was behind it, Draco. So > Harry told Dumbledore when the danger would happen, where it would > come from and who was behind it; but when it did happen just as Harry > said it would Dumbledore was surprised. > Steven1965aaa: As Dumbledore said, age errs when it underestimates youth. (or something like that). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 19:29:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:29:32 -0000 Subject: Blood magic (Was: Marietta, Magical Contracts, and that Damned Gleam of Triumph) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155717 > Tonks: > Now this is a fantastic idea. I do like it, I do!! I posed the > question here once regarding the use of the blood of one that you > had murdered. LV has his victim's blood in his body. I really wonder > if that doesn't have some bearing on all of this. Lily's blood, the > blood of the pure sacrificed one now gives life to LV. There has got > to be something in this somehow. But I am at a lost... ?? It must > be tied to the blood protection that is saving Harry, but how??? > Maybe factored into the life debit somehow?? Carol responds: I'd like to take the "blood of an enemy" idea in a slightly different direction. It seems to me that in the Potterverse, magical powers reside in the blood (not the soul). Note that in CoS, the narrator says that the Dursleys were Muggles "(not a drop of magical blood in their veins)" (Am. ed. 3). So Voldemort, in taking the blood of an enemy, and specifically Harry, would be trying to take his enemy's *powers* into himself *through the enemy's blood*. (Obviously, this idea went wrong somewhere, but I'm not concerned with the "gleam" right now.) By the same token, if magic resides in the blood and not the soul, Harry could have acquired some of Voldemort's powers at Godric's Hollow through a drop of blood that entered the lightning-bolt shaped cut on his forehead. Makes at least as much sense as a soul bit entering by the same route--and soul bits encased in Horcruxes seem only to anchor the wizard to the earth, preventing him from dying, rather than reducing his powers. (We're not dealing here with Sauron's One Ring, into which he places "the best part" of the powers "native to him" in order to control the other rings.) Carol, wondering if there's a connection to ancient Druidic blood magic but not knowing enough about the topic to discuss it intelligently From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 20:03:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:03:45 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155718 Meredith wrote: > Because of his guilt, Snape makes a UV with Dumbledore. The only > alteration to this theory is that Snape was working solely with LV > until the Potters' demise, at which point he felt guilty, and > therefore turned to the good side, making a UV with Dumbledore, and > helping put away a good number of DEs. The UV would, of course, be > the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape. How could he not? However, if, > as Ron reported, a broken UV means death, I don't think I could see > Dumbledore demanding that from Snape, or anyone. Unless Ron was > mistaken, or unless Snape demanded it, or some other good reason. > > A UV to defend Harry, or similar, would explain part of Snape's > hatred of Harry, or rather that he sees Harry as a burden. It would > explain why he's frustrated at Harry getting into mischief, not > doing what he's told, and refusing to catch on when he tries to > teach him occlumency and non-verbal spells. Snape's trying to save > Harry's neck in order to save his own! This theory, of course, is > predicated on an intricate connection between Lily, Snape and > Dumbledore. As well as Snape's reasons for agreeing to work for > Dumbledore in the first place. > > And if anyone can point me to any prior threads about this topic, it > would be appreciated. > > ~Luckie, who wonders what would happen if the two Unbreakable Vows > Snape made suddenly came into conflict, and he has to chose to save > either Harry or Draco. > Carol responds: I can't point you to any specific threads on the topic, but the search engine does actually work now if you use the "Advanced" link. I don't think that JKR would have Snape take two Unbreakable Vows, nor do I think that an earlier UV is the reason that Dumbledore trusts Snape. dumbledore believes in choice, and a UV robs the person bound by the UV of choice. Snape was taking a calculated risk with the UV in "Spinner's End," knowing that the UV could kill him, but I don't think DD would have placed him in the position of keeping his word or dying. It seems like Dark Magic to me, with the penalty for breaking the vow being death, and we're told more than once that there are powers Dumbledore is too noble to use. I don't think he'd bind anyone through an Unbreakable Vow any more than he'd use an Unforgiveable Curse (IMO). To the likes of Bellatrix and Narcissa, there's nothing wrong with putting Snape's life at stake, binding him with ropes of fire to do what they want him to do, but surely Dumbledore would extract a promise from Snape in the same way he extracted one from Harry, by applying psychological pressure but not compelling through magic. Dark or not, and I think it is Dark, the UV involves compulsion, and DD is opposed to compulsion. I think he is judging Snape by his choices, not by any forced promise, and he chooses to trust snape based on those choices. Another thing, too. An Unbreakable Vow requires a third person, the Bonder (Bellatrix's role in "spinner's End"). The only person besides Snape in whom we hear Dumbledore express absolute trust is Hagrid, whom he would trust with his life, but whom he would be very foolish to trust with a secret of this magnitude given Hagrid's tendency to let things slip. And I don't think that Hagrid would perform such Dark magic, either, even if he had the power. Carol, imagining rings of fire coming out of Hagrid's umbrella to bind Dumbledore's and Snape's clasped hands From zehms at aol.com Thu Jul 20 19:55:19 2006 From: zehms at aol.com (Szehms) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:55:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155719 > > Tinktonks > - JKR has said on her website that Petunia doesn't show > magical ability. > > I think that Snape had deep feelings for Lily and that is why he > resented James so much. I know he lashed out at Lily in the pensieve > but I think that was his bitterness talking. I think that whatever > the case there is a lot more Snape/Lily plot to come. > > Did JKR say that Petunia would not be the character in book 7 who will reveal some magical ability late in life? If so then perhaps Dudley? I always thought a Dursley would show some magical ability...not necessarily become a witch or wizard...but some sort of surprise magic akin to Harry's hair growing back after being cut...some surprise magic that appears only in a desperate situation...I had imagined dear Dudley in danger and SURPRISE Petunia is able to perform some sort of feat that is magical...that would be the sweetest irony and revenge, for a Dursley to have a bit of magic...I digress... I completely agree with your assessment of Snape...I have always believed that Snape's worst memory was in fact his worst memory not just because he was embarassed by James...but more importantly he was humiliated in front of Lily who he had perhaps some feeling towards. I believed this after OOTP, and this theory seemed even more plausible in HBP when we find that Lily and Snape were the brightest potions students and they were in the Slug club together...also DD's trust of Snape was linked to the Potter's...I believed that JKR is connecting the dots between Snape and Lily, I agree that they may have had a mutual respect for each other and on Snape's part perhaps even a secret crush. I quick theory about Snape and Lily and the Potions Book...has anyone else wondered if Lily wrote in the margins of the book? Initially I thought that the potions book belonged to Lily because of the neat female hand-writing and the cleverness of those writings in the margins and the references Slughorn continually made about her brilliance in Potions. Of course my opinion changed (the first time I read the book before discovering the book was Snape's mothers and then Snape's) when the spells became more dark and the writing appeared more masculine. So we know the book didn't belong to her, but did she ever borrow it? Did Snape let her use it? The importance would be that perhaps another reason for Snape's worst memory ...did Snape share his book with Lily? How did James know how to use one of Snape's own invented spells against him? Did Snape think Lily told James or shared the book with James? Did he view this as a betrayal by Lily? Scarlett From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jul 20 20:06:36 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:06:36 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155720 > Tinktonks: > I think that Snape had deep feelings for Lily and that is why he > resented James so much. I know he lashed out at Lily in the pensieve > but I think that was his bitterness talking. Eddie: Assuming your line of reasoning is right, can you imagine how Snape feels about Harry, the product of James and Lily's marriage? Followed by Harry becoming "The Celebrated Harry Potter." All that and Occlumency too? Yikes! That's a lot of pressure on the man. From srhchttrsn at yahoo.com Wed Jul 19 19:24:09 2006 From: srhchttrsn at yahoo.com (Emilynne) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:24:09 -0000 Subject: The Severan Dynasty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155721 Tinktonks wrote: > > This came up while researching the word Serevus- Ring any bells!!! This is very intriguing... but in this research Septimius Severus is presented as a very influential and strong ruler. He was highly regarded and it is hard to link him to Severus Snape. Emilynne From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 20 21:12:40 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:12:40 -0000 Subject: Blood magic (Was: Marietta, Magical Contracts, and that Damned Gleam of Triu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155722 > Carol wrote: > > By the same token, if magic resides in the blood and not the soul, > Harry could have acquired some of Voldemort's powers at Godric's > Hollow through a drop of blood that entered the lightning-bolt shaped > cut on his forehead. Makes at least as much sense as a soul bit > entering by the same route--and soul bits encased in Horcruxes seem > only to anchor the wizard to the earth, preventing him from dying, > rather than reducing his powers. (We're not dealing here with Sauron's > One Ring, into which he places "the best part" of the powers "native > to him" in order to control the other rings.) > Ken: I recently started reading noted military historian John Keegan's *A History of Warfare* on the train since I've been through HP three times now and there seems little to be gained by a fourth reading at this point. In this book Keegan mentions that since gunpowder became a fixture on the battlefield injuries similar to the one you suggest have been fairly common. Your notion has a basis in RW fact, not just Potterverse theory. LV describes the rebounding AK that hit him as tearing his soul forcibly from his body. We are intended to believe that the incident was accompanied by a blast that reduced the Potter's house to rubble. If we are not mislead by that dratted narrator on this point the effect on LV's body was not unlike that an artillery shell would produce. Of course I now have to return this to another theory about how Harry could have become a horcrux, forgive me. As soon as I read Keegan's comment I had the notion that the pieces of LV's shattered sould may have been flung everywhere and one of them could have created that scar on Harry's forehead when it lodged there. There's something in it for you too, a spray of LV's blood could have (we could confidently say would have) followed it in. With two recent murders to his credit LV's soul would have been in at least three pieces. Who knows how many murders LV had committed without making horcruxes and who knows how long it takes a torn soul to mend, if it ever does? Exactly what would happen to what another has called a confetti soul when it is forcibly expelled from its body? It is a messy situation that begs for an explanation. I wonder if we will get one? Collectively we have a much bigger brain that the author does and we have gone much farther down the road that plumbs the depths of the Potterverse than she has. This is one of the things that SF authors learn to love and hate about their fans. Ken From felix_quinn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 21:15:51 2006 From: felix_quinn at yahoo.com (felix_quinn) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:15:51 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155723 > Betsy Hp: > The only > thing they'd know is that they didn't like that black child (he's a > bully) and that (for some odd reason) cross-burning would scare > him. Just as the twins knew (or hoped) that magic (for some odd > reason) would scare Dudley. > How is your toungue growing so large is no longer fits in your > mouth > and actually inhibits your breathing *not* an act of magic? > No it is not. It is a *magic* prank played against a *Muggle*. And > that is what makes all the difference. It's the powerful using > their power to prank the weak. The point I was trying to make was that although the prank employed magic, it was simply means to an end. I don't think they set out to specifically prank Dudley, I think that they had the toffees, needed to test them, and it occured to them that Dudley (being on a diet, and being the glutton that Harry has painted to them) would definitely eat it. If they had decided to do it to a wizard (whom they knew to be a greedy person, and would also definitely eat it) would it still be *as* wrong? If they had decided that they wanted to prank Dudley, and purposefully set out to find a way to do this and had used a muggle method of pranking him, would that be *worse* than pranking him using magical methods but without the malicious intent? Intent has to come into account when deciding someone's whole character according to one incident. This is where a technicality matters, and becomes more than a mere footnote. In a court case, intent would make the difference between Murder 1 and Manslaughter. The act is never wholly justified, but it does make a difference in judging the act itself. The prank did not rely on the magical element to *scare* Dudley or his parents- the prank (as it were) was (IMO) already conceptualized when they thought of using Dudley- not because he's a muggle and can't fight back, but simply because he was convenient. He was there, and he was unsuspecting. If there had been some other wizard that fulfilled those requirements, I feel pretty sure Dudley wouldn't have been used. Still, not saying it's not a bad thing that they did, it's just that the term and condemnation we're trying to pin on them is unjustified- Call them troublemakers, delinquents, dropouts, whatever- but 'muggle- baiters' imply something that just doesn't fit the situation. Felix, who wishes to offend no one and just stops short of actually raising hand before speaking ;-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 21:42:33 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:42:33 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155724 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > I just had a thought about Snape and the Foe Glass in GOF... > > I'm assuming the Foe Glass showed Barty Crouch's (the son's) foes and > not the Real Mad Eye Moody because I can't imagine RealMoody's foes > would ever include Dumbledore. > > Based on that assumption, does the fact that the Foe Glass showed Snape > as a Foe of one of Voldemort's faithful and true Death Eaters at least > provide support for the proposition that Snape is DD's man? > > If Snape was a true follower of Voldemort, why would the Foe Glass show > him as a foe of a Death Eater? > > (In a way, it seems the Foe Glass is the obverse of the Mirror of > Erised -- it shows what we desperately do NOT desire -- our foes > closing in on us.) > > Angie > Carol responds: I'm going back to the original post here after having read all the responses. First, clearly the Foe Glass shows Barty Jr.'s enemies (real or perceived) rather than the real Mad-Eye Moody's or McGonagall and dumbledore wouldn't show up in it. Second, I don't think anyone doubts that those two are *real* enemies of Crouch!Moody, and Snape's presence with them suggests that he is a real enemy as well. (Certainly, his absence from the Foe Glass would have suggested that he was ESE.) Interestingly, his reflection in the Foe-Glass is wearing the same expression as McGonagall's and Dumbledore's: "Dumbledore . . . pulled [the real Moody] into a sitting positon against the wall beneath the Foe-Glass, in which the reflections of Dumbledore, Snape, and McGonagall were still glaring down upon them all" (683). harry also sees the three of them standing together in the Foe-Glass before they enter the room, after Dumbledore has fired the Stunning spell through the door (679). Snape's reflection is mentioned once without reference to the others (679), surely an indication of its significance. At the time that the three professors enter the room, Snape almost certainly knows that "Moody" is an imposter, almost certainly a DE, or he would not have run with Dumbledore and McGonagall to "Moody's" office. (If he thought it was the real Moody, why would they need to run there together?) He's surprised by the identity of the imposter, whom he believed to be dead ("'Crouch!' Snape said, stopping dead in the doorway. 'Barty Crouch!'" GoF Am. ed. 683), but shows no other reaction to the events, including Dumbledore's blasting through the door and Stunning "Moody." He unquestioningly and quickly follows Dumbledore's orders and listens without apparent reaction to Barty Jr.'s whole story. If he were not Barty Jr.'s enemy, he would surely have found some way out of obeying DD's orders before or after this revelation. He's sent from the scene twice and could have taken those opportunities to rejoin Voldemort permanently since he knew LV was back (or he could have run off like the coward Karkaroff when he first felt the Dark Mark burn). Instead, he returns to LV later, after Fudge has gone, clearly as part of a prearrangement with Dumbledore for just this contingency ("If you are ready, if you are prepared"). In my view, the Foe Glass's revelation that Snape is the enemy of a loyal Death Eater and therefore of Voldemort (which Harry sees but doesn't interpret as significant given his mental and physical anguish at that moment) is corroborated by Snape's revelation of his Dark Mark to Fudge, in front of HRH, McGonagall, Bill and Molly Weasley, and Madam Pomfrey, as incontrovertible evidence that Voldemort is back and returning to power. That incredible act of courage can't be explained (IMO) by anything other than loyalty to Dumbledore and opposition to Voldemort. Snape could have stood back and let Dumbledore do the talking. Instead, he took a great personal risk, revealing his DE past to McGonagall and others to stand by Dumbledore and prove him right. (That courageous action may have backfired, undermining McGonagall's trust in him, but it was a risk he must have felt compelled to take.) At this point, Barty Jr. is already soul-sucked, and Snape's action can't be accounted for in relation to Barty's hatred for Death Eaters who walked free. It doesn't relate to Barty at all but to Voldemort. snape is supporting Dumbledore's contention that Voldemort has returned, trying to remove Fudge's self-imposed blinders. The question is where Snape's loyalties lie, and the Foe Glass and the revelation of the Dark Mark together seem to me to indicate clearly that they lie with Dumbledore. Unfortunately for relations between Harry and Snape in the next two books, Harry doesn't arrive at the same conclusions. Or so it seems to me. Carol, who thinks that the Foe Glass knows an enemy when it sees one and that Snape is LV's enemy as well as Barty Jr.'s From gelite67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 22:39:25 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:39:25 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155725 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > > > I just had a thought about Snape and the Foe Glass in GOF... > > > > I'm assuming the Foe Glass showed Barty Crouch's (the son's) foes and > > not the Real Mad Eye Moody because I can't imagine RealMoody's foes > > would ever include Dumbledore. > > > > Based on that assumption, does the fact that the Foe Glass showed Snape > > as a Foe of one of Voldemort's faithful and true Death Eaters at least > > provide support for the proposition that Snape is DD's man? > > > > If Snape was a true follower of Voldemort, why would the Foe Glass show > > him as a foe of a Death Eater? > > > > (In a way, it seems the Foe Glass is the obverse of the Mirror of > > Erised -- it shows what we desperately do NOT desire -- our foes > > closing in on us.) > > > > Angie > > > Carol responded: > I'm going back to the original post here after having read all the > responses. > > > Carol, who thinks that the Foe Glass knows an enemy when it sees one > and that Snape is LV's enemy as well as Barty Jr.'s Angie again: Wow! I never dreamed of so many responses to this! Like, Carol, I read all of the responses. Interesting theories, all. I can appreciate the theory that Crouch Jr. viewed Snape as a Death Eater who got away and therefore, viewed him as a foe. Who knows, maybe LV complained about Snape to Crouch, Jr., although, I admit there is no canon to support that. Guess it all boils down to whether the Foe Glass sees one's true enemies or one's perceived enemies. I believe the Foe Glass shows one's perceived enemies -- otherwise, it would be omniscient -- it would know not only the true nature of the person possessing the glass, but the true nature of every other person/wizard in the world. And if that's the case, then it WOULD be reliable, would it not? I see no support for that in the canon. Rather, the fact that it is not reliable supports that it sees one's perceived enemies. Perhaps the type of magic that powers the foe glass (or similar objects)is like computers. Garbage in, garbage out. It is only as reliable as the wizard's knowledge of a situation. Wizards are human; therefore the magical objects they create are subject to magical human error. All in all, I think the Foe Glass episode says more about the unreliable nature of the Foe Glass (and perhaps all similar magical "indicators"?) than whether Snape is truly DD's man. If that is the point, I wonder if the theme will rear its ugly head in Book 7? From mros at xs4all.nl Thu Jul 20 22:54:56 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:54:56 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? References: Message-ID: <000901c6ac4f$85bd5710$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155726 Angie: >>>All in all, I think the Foe Glass episode says more about the unreliable nature of the Foe Glass (and perhaps all similar magical "indicators"?) <<< Marion: But if foe glasses only reflect your own preconcieved and prejudiced notions, if they are so unreliable, why have a foe glass at all? They will tell you nothing you don't already believe to be the truth. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Jul 20 23:31:48 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:31:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? In-Reply-To: <000901c6ac4f$85bd5710$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155727 Angie: >>>All in all, I think the Foe Glass episode says more about the unreliable nature of the Foe Glass (and perhaps all similar magical "indicators"?) <<< Marion: But if foe glasses only reflect your own preconcieved and prejudiced notions, if they are so unreliable, why have a foe glass at all? They will tell you nothing you don't already believe to be the truth. Sherry now: My impression of things like the foe glass was that it would tell you if an enemy was approaching. Not that it would tell you who your enemies are, in case you didn't know, just that a person you considered to be an enemy was approaching. So, if Barty perceived that so and so was his enemy, it would show him when or if that person was approaching. A sort of specialized security camera! Sherry From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jul 20 23:34:17 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:34:17 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155728 Mike: > On the one hand, this could be showing us that Snape is a faithful > DE's "Foe", therefore on the side of good (a position I adhere to). *(snip)* > The Foe Glass must be reading intent towards > the owner as well as proximity. Ceridwen: The intent of Snape, McGonagall and Dumbledore at that time was to rescue Harry and thwart Crouch Jr.'s plans, so they were all foes. Their intervention led to his confession by Veritaserum, and ultimately to his soul being sucked by a Dementor. So I think it shows the foes of the owner of the glass, in any given situation. ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jul 20 23:25:05 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:25:05 -0000 Subject: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155729 > Angie again: > > All in all, I think the Foe Glass episode says more about the > unreliable nature of the Foe Glass (and perhaps all similar > magical "indicators"?) than whether Snape is truly DD's man. If that > is the point, I wonder if the theme will rear its ugly head in Book 7? Potioncat: Hold on. It's the narrator that's unreliable, not the Foe Glass---oops wrong thread. I can't get to canon, so I have some questions and impressions. What was the context for Harry saying the Foe Glass wasn't reliable, or did he say Dark Detectors aren't reliable? And when he said that, was he correct? Have we seen unreliable detectors? Seems to me everytime the Sneak-a- Scope went off, there was a baddie around. Of course, everyone looked in the wrong direction. Crouch!Moody turned off one instrument because the castle was full of kids telling lies. (At least that's the reason he gave.) which would mean the instrument was a tad too sensitive. When Harry looked at Crouch!Moody's Foe Glass--the very first time---C! M distracted him away from it. I think he didn't want Harry to see who might show up. When a Foe Glass was showing figures during a DA class, Harry ignored it. Does anyone remember, was that the same lesson that Umbridge caught them? Seems like he should have paid more attention. My point, (assuming I'm remembering this correctly) is that the Detectors are only as good as the wizard who reads it, but they in themselves aren't wrong. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 20 23:48:33 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:48:33 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155730 >>Betsy Hp: > > It is a *magic* prank played against a *Muggle*. And > > that is what makes all the difference. It's the powerful using > > their power to prank the weak. > >>Felix: > The point I was trying to make was that although the prank employed > magic, it was simply means to an end. I don't think they set out to > specifically prank Dudley, I think that they had the toffees, > needed to test them, and it occured to them that Dudley (being on > a diet, and being the glutton that Harry has painted to them) > would definitely eat it. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I think the prank may have been a bit more pre-meditated than that, however, I do agree that this wasn't some much thought about evil plot the twins spent half their summer dreaming up. (Probably spent that time dreaming up the toffees themselves, but that's a totally different thing. ) > >>Felix: > If they had decided to do it to a wizard (whom they knew to be a > greedy person, and would also definitely eat it) would it still be > *as* wrong? Betsy Hp: IMO, no, it wouldn't be as wrong. Because they'd be using magic against someone who could also use magic, and so the power structure wouldn't be the same. > >>Felix: > If they had decided that they wanted to prank Dudley, and > purposefully set out to find a way to do this and had used a > muggle method of pranking him, would that be *worse* than pranking > him using magical methods but without the malicious intent? Betsy Hp: IMO, no, the above scenario would *not* have been worse. Because by not using magic the twins, again, would not be using their difference in power. (Though of course you'd still have the problem of sixteen year olds picking on a fourteen year old, and the problem of two against one... But it would not have been muggle-baiting, anyway.) > >>Felix: > Intent has to come into account when deciding someone's whole > character according to one incident. Betsy Hp: But I'm not trying to decide the character of the twins based on this one moment. I've already stated that I doubt the twins were even thinking about the fact that they were wizards using magic to attack a Muggle. What I am saying is that no matter the motive the fact remains that the twins took advantage of their power to pick on someone without that power. They behaved badly, even if with good(ish) intentions. As their father recognized. > >>Felix: > The prank did not rely on the magical element to *scare* Dudley or > his parents... > Betsy Hp: I really, really don't get this. The prank was successful *only* because it was magic. And the reaction was as large *only* because the victim and his family were Muggle. >>Felix: > If there had been some other wizard that fulfilled those > requirements, I feel pretty sure Dudley wouldn't have been used. Betsy Hp: So? The whole point is that *because* Dudley is a Muggle that particular prank should have *never* been pulled. The power differences were too great. That's the point Arthur tried, and failed, to get across. Wizards *should not* treat Muggles in such a manner *because* Muggles have no defences against it. > >>Felix: > Still, not saying it's not a bad thing that they did, it's just > that the term and condemnation we're trying to pin on them is > unjustified- Call them troublemakers, delinquents, dropouts, > whatever- but 'muggle-baiters' imply something that just doesn't > fit the situation. Betsy Hp: The problem is that though I agree the twins aren't muggle-baiters as a matter of course, *what* they did *was* Muggle-baiting. There's no way around it. Motive cannot explain it away. No matter the excuse you still have two young *wizards* using *magic* to prank a *Muggle*. I do think the amount of condemnation *can* be adjusted, however. While the Death Eaters if caught should have faced at the least very heavy fines and ideally some jail time, the twins should have been grounded for a bit and made to write an apology. > >>Felix, who wishes to offend no one and just stops short of > actually raising hand before speaking ;-) Betsy Hp: You're not offending me. (You know, in case you were worried. ) Betsy Hp From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jul 20 23:42:57 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:42:57 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155731 Felix: > > If the twins had, in scaring Dudley, used a method that utilized > > the very fact that they were wizards (full costume, wands out > > making a show of it becuase they knew Dudley was afraid of > > wizards, as the white kid would have known he black one was afraid > > of the racist movement of the time) then it would have been > > comparable. Ceridwen: Grabbing your quote second-hand, since I can't find the original right off. There is rarely mention made of clothes in the HP books, except when wizards try to dress like Muggles and come out looking like an explosion in Grandma's attic instead. Now, perhaps the twins know how to dress like Muggles - one of them at least must be able to pass, since he's been impressing a Muggle girl in town with his magic tricks - but one of the arguments about the hooked-nose man in Snape's memory is that he might be a wizard because Harry doesn't notice Muggle clothes. How do wizards and their children dress while at home or visiting friends? Do they wear Muggle clothes like jeans and tee-shirts as fanfics suggest? Or do they wear their everyday robes? Still, this question has given me some interesting mental pictures. If the twins, not knowing at the time how to properly dress like Muggles, decided to do so anyway, could poor Dudley have been tongue- tied by two identical wizards dressed in linebacker jerseys complete with shoulder pads, plaid school skirts, and hiking boots? Ceridwen. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri Jul 21 00:00:33 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:00:33 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C01921.9050604@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155732 dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > > I just think that Muggle baiting includes very specific act of > causing harm to Muggles, not just any. I cannot support it with > canon except the fact that **only** specific acts that Gerry > mentioned are called muggle-baiting. I don't get it, are you saying that since this episode didn't cause any harm to Dudley, it can't be called muggle-baiting? But if Dudley waited a bit longer to eat this sweet, if Arthur was not still around, Dudley would be dead. Does not get more harmful than that. They had no way to predict when Dudley will eat it. (For the record - I believe that they targeted Dudley specifically and not any random muggle, and their heart is in the right place, yadda, yadda. Does not make it any better). Irene From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Fri Jul 21 00:28:45 2006 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:28:45 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <44C01921.9050604@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155733 dumbledore11214 wrote: > > > Alla: > > > > I just think that Muggle baiting includes very specific act of > > causing harm to Muggles, not just any. I cannot support it with > > canon except the fact that **only** specific acts that Gerry > > mentioned are called muggle-baiting. > > I don't get it, are you saying that since this episode didn't cause any > harm to Dudley, it can't be called muggle-baiting? > > But if Dudley waited a bit longer to eat this sweet, if Arthur was not > still around, Dudley would be dead. Does not get more harmful than that. > They had no way to predict when Dudley will eat it. > > (For the record - I believe that they targeted Dudley specifically and > not any random muggle, and their heart is in the right place, yadda, > yadda. Does not make it any better). > > Irene Now The Barmaid: I think muggle-baiting requires a certain intent. It seems to me that it is a sort of hate crime. The target must be selected specifically because they are a muggle. Dudley is a target because he is Dudley. It is his behavior and his treatment of Harry that makes him a target. I do not think the seriousness of the act defines whether or not it is muggle-baiting. I think a small act of hate against a muggle would "count" and not every serious act against a muggle would count either. That said, do we know that Dudley would have died? Perhaps the effect of the toffee would have worn off before that happened. Perhaps not. We just do not have any information to prove that either way. --Barmaid From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 01:14:49 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:14:49 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: <44C01921.9050604@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155734 > > Alla: > > > > I just think that Muggle baiting includes very specific act of > > causing harm to Muggles, not just any. I cannot support it with > > canon except the fact that **only** specific acts that Gerry > > mentioned are called muggle-baiting. Irene: > I don't get it, are you saying that since this episode didn't cause any > harm to Dudley, it can't be called muggle-baiting? Alla: Not at all. I am saying that it cannot be called "Muggle baiting" for two reasons. One of them is IMO well enough supported in canon and another one less supported. Additionally of course there is no **definition** of Muggle baiting, so all of it is not very precise, I suppose. First reason is what Twins say why they gave the candy to Dudley - they say **not** because he was a muggle, but because he was a great bullying git. I choose to believe them, since I have no canon supported reason to think of Twins as liars, so to me the **intent** of causing harm to Muggles is absent. One can argue of course that the crime of muggle-baiting does not require intent, but since as far as I remember we don't know one way or another, to me it is quite logical to assume that such crime does require intent by definition. Second reason is that the **acts** which we know called Muggle baiting in canon are not similar to what Twins did IMO. Shrinking keys, etc. I think even in one of Lexicon essays the shrinking keys only are given as example of muggle baiting. Now this is of course an essay, but still I think it at least shows that this trail of thought is possible. This **second** reason is of course a technicality, but it seems to me that in the court of law, I mean **Wisengamot** twins could have gotten off on that technicality. Now, as I said it could be a different crime, if one takes such position, but IMO it is not **muggle - baiting**. I also mentioned earlier that IMO JKR circumstantially supported the idea that only very few acts are included in definition of Muggle baiting, when she mentioned in one of the questions of her WOMBAT that definition of muggle baiting needs to be less stringent. I actually read it initially in completely oposite way, but it now ( for some time now) reads to me that "more acts have to be included in this definition to be punished". Does it make my position clearer? JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 01:13:37 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:13:37 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155735 > >>Gerry: > Then they are not deserters either. Because they did not leave the > WW. Because having left school they are now free to join the > Order, which they undoubtedly did. You can't have it both ways > Betsy Betsy Hp: Exactly my point. Either the DA is an army in the middle of a shooting war, so Marietta deserves to be punished in the manner that she's punished and the twins are deserters and should have been similarly punished. Or the DA is not an army, the twins didn't desert and Marietta's punishment was *waay* over the top. You can't have it both ways. (Though I do agree with Magpie, I don't recall the twins joining the Order, and they certainly didn't help out at the DoM battle, as either DA members or Order members.) Betsy Hp From joanofanarchy at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 20 23:41:34 2006 From: joanofanarchy at sbcglobal.net (joan of anarchy) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:41:34 -0000 Subject: Blood magic (Was: Marietta, Magical Contracts, and that Damned Gleam of Triu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155736 > > Tonks: > > Lily's blood, the blood of the pure sacrificed one now gives > > life to LV. There has got to be something in this somehow. > > But I am at a lost... ?? It must be tied to the blood > > protection that is saving Harry, but how??? Maybe factored > > into the life debit somehow?? > > Carol responds: > I'd like to take the "blood of an enemy" idea in a slightly different > direction. It seems to me that in the Potterverse, magical powers > reside in the blood (not the soul). Note that in CoS, the narrator > says that the Dursleys were Muggles "(not a drop of magical blood in > their veins)" (Am. ed. 3). So Voldemort, in taking the blood of an > enemy, and specifically Harry, would be trying to take his enemy's > *powers* into himself *through the enemy's blood*. This just popped into my head, and I got excited and wanted to share. We know that potions and spells are delicate processes, and messing up a teensy thing can have dire consequences. Messing up a teensy thing can also have varied types of consequences (immediate, delayed, smokey, stinky...). If some of Voldemort is in (or somehow connected to) Harry's blood, then some of Voldemort was used as "blood of an enemy". Since Voldemort is not technically his own enemy (unless you wanna get super philosophical), might this be problematic for the spell? Or, could the spell somehow create a magical karma wherein Voldemort is now magically bound to be his own enemy/ his own downfall? Nobody's Rib, who is enjoying this speculation From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 01:43:29 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:43:29 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155737 > Betsy Hp: > Exactly my point. Either the DA is an army in the middle of a > shooting war, so Marietta deserves to be punished in the manner that > she's punished and the twins are deserters and should have been > similarly punished. Or the DA is not an army, the twins didn't desert > and Marietta's punishment was *waay* over the top. You can't have it > both ways. Alla: Um, if I were to see **any** similarity between what Twins did and what Marietta did, I would agree with you that they should have been punished the same way. But since I don't see **any** similarites, your analogy does not work for me at all. Twins harmed the enemy significantly and then left and Marietta went to enemy and talked, that is how I see it. JMO, Alla. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 02:59:06 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:59:06 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate/ Question to Neri... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155739 > Alla wrote: <>SNIP> > I am still not sure that Harry **is** a Horcrux, since "untarnished > and whole" soul bugs me still. zanooda: There was a great post, by Mike, if I remember right, where he compared LV's bit of soul with a benign tumor. This was very convincing, IMO. I also think LV's piece of soul is not "attached" to Harry's soul, as you say in "Question to Neri...". The LV's piece still has connection to its "mother-soul", and Harry can feel it (headaches, visions, Parseltongue etc), but it doesn't mean this piece became part of Harry's soul. Like you, I have some trouble accepting Harry-as-an accidental Horcrux idea. It is one of my favorite theories, and I think it will explain a lot of things if Harry turns out to be an accidental Horcrux, but I cannot figure out HOW Harry could become one. I mean, the only way it could have happened is if LV cast the Horcrux-creating spell before he attempted to AK Harry. But if the spell must be cast before the killing, how, for example, the ring Horcrux was created? I always assumed that LV made this particular Horcrux with his father's murder, but he couldn't have created it that same night. He did it much later, and it means that the spell was cast long time after the murder. Maybe I'm wrong and LV used some other murder for the ring Horcrux? But how many "significant deaths" are there? Anyway, all this is a big "if" to me, but I still want to write about it, because I'm really taken with the idea. > Alla: > Do you think Dumbledore is lying here? Do you think he does not > know? (about Harry being a Horcrux) zanooda: I think that DD knows, but for how long has he known? This is a very interesting question to me, because if he knew or suspected from the very beginning, he probably feared at first that LV's soul bit will turn Harry into another Tom Riddle Jr. Imagine DD watching Harry from afar, looking for any sign of hanged (or is it hung?) pet rabbits or scared out of their wits Muggle kids, but seeing nothing of the kind. Imagine him waiting for Harry to be Sorted, wondering which House it will be. Imagine his relief when he found out what The Mirror of Erised showed to Harry (only his family and nothing more). It's quite fascinating, actually. > Neri wrote: > in that very paragraph were Dumbledore talks about the Harry's > "untarnished and whole" soul he says it was in spite of" > "temptations", "suffering" and "lure of power like Voldemort's". How > exactly was Harry lured by powers like Voldemort's? zanooda: I also think that DD refers here to LV's soul piece residing in Harry. Otherwise it's not very clear why Harry should be lured by the Dark powers, and what is meant by "temptations". LV offered Harry to join him only once, in PS/SS, and it didn't sound very serious, coming from the back of Quirrell's head. After that LV and DEs didn't send any invitations, they only tried to kill the boy at every opportunity. IMO, DD means that Harry is supposed (logically) to be influenced by LV's bit of soul, but he isn't. He is so pure of heart that the evil thing inside him cannot touch him. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jul 21 03:07:48 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:07:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture References: <07ee01c2b6fb$d0b785d0$0a00a8c0@userqtmj2qaxb3> Message-ID: <008601c6ac72$da6fd850$33b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155740 > Stacy responds: Fred and George were defending their "ickle > brother" Harry from his bullying cousin, not intentionally seeking out a > muggle to torment. Magpie: Whatever they were doing, they're not protecting anyone since Harry is in no danger from Dudley in the scene or in general. If anything they're getting back at Dudley for Harry. They explain they were looking for someone to test the product on and thought Dudley, as a bullying git, is a good candidate. Stacy: > I believe that Dudley was in more danger from being smothered by Petunia, > throwing herself on top of him and yanking on his tongue, than he was from > the toffee. Magpie: If Dudley was smothered to death by Petunia throwing herself on him and yanking his tongue that would make the Twins' Prank deadly. She doesn't just jump on him randomly. Her panic is one of the results of their joke. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 21 04:04:29 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 04:04:29 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155741 > > Alla: > > Not at all. I am saying that it cannot be called "Muggle baiting" > for two reasons. One of them is IMO well enough supported in canon > and another one less supported. Additionally of course there is no > **definition** of Muggle baiting, so all of it is not very precise, > I suppose. > > First reason is what Twins say why they gave the candy to Dudley - > they say **not** because he was a muggle, but because he was a great > bullying git. I choose to believe them, since I have no canon > supported reason to think of Twins as liars, so to me the **intent** > of causing harm to Muggles is absent. Pippin: If the law is against teasing Muggles, (which is one of the defintions of 'bait') then the twins are guilty, letter and spirit, IMO. If you tie a firecracker to a cat's tail, that is cruelty to animals whether you do it because the cat bit your little brother or because you don't like cats. And if your daddy is an animal rights activist he is going to be livid. It wouldn't have been very good for Arthur if someone like Rita Skeeter had found out about what the Twins did. Even though the Twins didn't have any anti-Muggle intent, Rita could certainly have made it sound like they did. Arthur's standing as a champion of Muggle rights could have been damaged severely and *that* would have harmed the Muggle community. He had every right to be angry with the Twins on the Muggles' behalf. The Twins' actions don't take place in a vacuum. As Weasleys, their conduct with Muggles needs to be beyond reproach. But Arthur's attempt to shield the Twins from Molly's wrath shows, I think, that he trusted they weren't going to do any thing like that again. Pippin From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 04:05:23 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 04:05:23 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155742 > > justcarol67 wrote: > > > > > Let's just say that the unreliable narrator > > > has set us up once again. > > >Eggplant: > > If you play the "unreliable narrator" card you can make any theory fit > > the facts no matter how crazy. But where's the fun in that? > > > Potioncat: > The fun is, with JKR's unreliable narrator,that you never know when the > unreliable narrator is right or when she is wrong; or when you just > think she is trying to mislead. Neri: I agree with Eggplant that the unreliable narrator card was overplayed. Originally this argument was that the narrator describes things from Harry's PoV, and therefore it can represent Harry's personal interpretation rather than objective realty. Fair enough. But now people claim that the narrator sneakily avoids describing facts that Harry *must* notice and has no personal reason to avoid describing, like if it was he who hexed Fenrir. This is a completely different thing. Surely nobody here claims that Harry doesn't know if he shouted "petrificus totalus" or not, or that it's a question of PoV? I termed such situations in the past "non-descriptions". This is when the narrator does not describe a detail that Harry must see or know. I pointed out that these non-descriptions are quite common. For example, just one page before Harry hexes Fenrir he also hexes Brutal Face in the same manner, and again it is not described that Harry said the incantation or even that he raised his wand. So technically it's possible that Harry also didn't hex Brutal Face, but for some reason I haven't noticed anybody suggesting it. It's not surprising, really, that we have so many non-descriptions, because the narrator just doesn't have time to describe every detail that Harry knows or does (especially when the pace of the action quickens). But I pointed out that until now JKR had never used a non-description to spring a surprise on Harry and us, and for a good reason, I believe. We were recently reminded about JKR saying that the readers "like to be tricked but not conned". To avoid describing details that Harry knows and later would turn out critical, that would be conning, I believe. When JKR has the trio looking into Borgin and Burke trying to see what object Malfoy is talking about, she writes that the cabinet was obscuring the view. This is tricking the readers ? describing the critical fact in a way that makes the reader overlook it. Failing to mention the cabinet although Harry had seen it, and then using it for Draco's plot ? that would have been conning the readers. Invoking the unreliable narrator for everything is a mistake, IMO. We should remember that the narrator can't take that too far without becoming, well, unreliable. And becoming really unreliable in the eyes of the reader is perhaps the worst thing that can happen to any narrator. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 21 04:19:14 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 04:19:14 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate/ Question to Neri... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155743 > zanooda: > > Like you, I have some trouble accepting Harry-as-an accidental Horcrux > idea. It is one of my favorite theories, and I think it will explain a > lot of things if Harry turns out to be an accidental Horcrux, but I > cannot figure out HOW Harry could become one. > > I mean, the only way it could have happened is if LV cast the > Horcrux-creating spell before he attempted to AK Harry. But if the > spell must be cast before the killing, how, for example, the ring > Horcrux was created? I always assumed that LV made this particular > Horcrux with his father's murder, but he couldn't have created it that > same night. He did it much later, and it means that the spell was cast > long time after the murder. Pippin: Accidental magic can happen without any spell being cast at all if the wizard is frightened or angry. Voldie would certainly have been frightened and angry when his AK spell bounced and came back at him. We're used to seeing this effect only in child wizards, but Voldemort *is* a child in some sense or so we must guess from the form he took in GoF before his re-embodiment. We know that magic which ordinarily takes lots of practice and concentration to learn can be performed by children accidentally. Harry is able to apparate and regrow his hair, both feats that many adult wizards would find difficult to do on purpose. > > > Neri wrote: > > > in that very paragraph were Dumbledore talks about the Harry's > > "untarnished and whole" soul he says it was in spite of" > > "temptations", "suffering" and "lure of power like Voldemort's". How > > exactly was Harry lured by powers like Voldemort's? > > Pippin: I think Dumbledore means the temptation of using his power to get revenge. Harry could have used his powers the way Voldemort did, to get back at anyone who harmed him. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 21 04:34:14 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 04:34:14 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155744 > > Neri: > I agree with Eggplant that the unreliable narrator card was > overplayed. Originally this argument was that the narrator describes > things from Harry's PoV, and therefore it can represent Harry's > personal interpretation rather than objective realty. Fair enough. But > now people claim that the narrator sneakily avoids describing facts > that Harry *must* notice and has no personal reason to avoid > describing, like if it was he who hexed Fenrir. This is a completely > different thing. Surely nobody here claims that Harry doesn't know if > he shouted "petrificus totalus" or not, or that it's a question of PoV? But I pointed out that until now JKR had never used a > non-description to spring a surprise on Harry and us, and for a good > reason, I believe. Pippin: Not true, I'm afraid. The narrator leaves Harry's point of view and follows Hermione as she bumps into Quirrell and attacks Snape, precisely so as to avoid telling us what Harry must know: when his broom stopped bucking. Of course like any trick this kind of deception cannot be used too often or the readers will be annoyed rather than surprised. But if JKR wants to trick and not con us, she has to let us catch her narrator being sneaky now and then, just as she has to let each of her disguised villains tell an obvious lie. Pippin From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Jul 21 04:50:28 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:50:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607202150l8ae46efke6581631bca316c6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155745 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > > > > I just had a thought about Snape and the Foe Glass in GOF... > > ...snip... does the fact that the Foe Glass showed Snape > > as a Foe of one of Voldemort's faithful and true Death Eaters at least > > provide support for the proposition that Snape is DD's man? > > > > If Snape was a true follower of Voldemort, why would the Foe Glass show > > him as a foe of a Death Eater? > > > > Carol responds: > > First, clearly the Foe Glass shows Barty Jr.'s enemies (real or > perceived) rather than the real Mad-Eye Moody's or McGonagall and > dumbledore wouldn't show up in it. Second, I don't think anyone doubts > that those two are *real* enemies of Crouch!Moody, and Snape's > presence with them suggests that he is a real enemy as well. > (Certainly, his absence from the Foe Glass would have suggested that > he was ESE.) > ... snip ... > ... > > Carol, who thinks that the Foe Glass knows an enemy when it sees one > and that Snape is LV's enemy as well as Barty Jr.'s > Kemper now: I don't know... Why wasn't Harry in the Foe Glass? Maybe the FG only shows people whose immediate intentions are to harm/capture/somethinglikethat the person the mirror is working for (can't think of a better word/phrase). If that's the case, what does that say about Snape? Nothing much. He's still the greatest enigmatic character ever written. Kemper, whose personal opinion is that Snape is a true Foe of CrouchJr and LV, Foe Glass or not. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 05:07:48 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:07:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155746 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "B.G." wrote: > > Petunia is a muggle no questions asked. She is a > muggle but......she has met some of Lily's friends and being her nosy > self she spied, listened and learned much. She probably poked around > Lily's room and read her owl mail too. I suppose Lily brought friends home on a holiday. Maybe Snape was one she invited as a friend - I think he is the "horrible boy" Petunia spoke of in POA. Tonks: Just had a thought. Assume that Snape is "that horrible boy" because he was a friend of Lily. So Petunia knows him and he knows her. Would there be a reason in book 7 for Snape to come around the Dursley's home? I am just wondering if we will see a "reunion" and how Petunia will respond. And why would Snape have occassion to go there? It just seems like something waiting to happen. Why else would we be told about the "horrible boy"? Tonks_op From nkersc at hotmail.com Fri Jul 21 06:58:49 2006 From: nkersc at hotmail.com (nataliek2_2000) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:58:49 -0000 Subject: Can we equate Lily's love protection with Dumbledore's? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155747 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ecaplan_52556" wrote: > > Harry received special, magical, protection when his mother, Lily, gave > her life to protect him. Can we say the same for Dumbledore? Didn't > Dumbledore give his life to protect Harry? Does Harry now have even > more magical protection -- this time from Dumbledore? > > That is, if you subscribe to the theory that DD is really dead :-) > Eddie, you hit the nail on the head. This is something I've thought quite a lot about and I feel is one of the more compelling reasons for Dumbledore to sacrifice himself. He knew that Harry was no longer protected by Lily's sacrifice and was vulnerable to LV and also that LV know this. By making the same sacrifice for Harry he would leave the same type of protection for him. Something LV would not know about or understand going back to LV not understanding `Love'. I feel that DD truly does love Harry and that there was a specific purpose to his sacrifice. This was no mere error of judgement by an old and tired man, DD had a specific plan worked out far in advance (hence the gleam) I also feel that this is one of the things DD 'discussed' with Snape just before his death on the tower. Before LV took Harry's blood, LV knew he couldn't touch Harry. Now LV thinks he can act against Harry with impunity as he no longer has that protection. Harry is also now vulnerable outside of Hogwarts as after his next birthday he will no longer be protected at the Dursleys home. DD made powerful magic to protect Harry at this location for 17 years, surely he made provisions or thought about his safety after this time. What LV doesn't count on is Harry is now protected by the sacrifice of the most powerful wizard and the only person LV was ever afraid of. I feel that this will play a great part in the outcome when Harry confronts LV in the next book. Natalie From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 21 08:35:06 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:35:06 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155748 Tinktonks: I think that Snape had deep feelings for Lily and that is why he resented James so much. I know he lashed out at Lily in the pensieve but I think that was his bitterness talking. Eddie: Assuming your line of reasoning is right, can you imagine how Snape feels about Harry, the product of James and Lily's marriage? Followed by Harry becoming "The Celebrated Harry Potter." All that and Occlumency too? Yikes! That's a lot of pressure on the man. Tinktonks: I think that is why Snape over reacted so badly when he found Potter in the pensieve. There were memories of Lily in there and he did not want them found out. It would make a lot of sense as to why Snape resents Harry, why he is always making nasty comments about James. I'm sure that Snape called Lily a mudblood because he knew of feelings for James. It may also explain why Snape turned to the DE's, tas the shunned of society, the unloved (as LV was unloved) but turned spy when he found out that Lily was to be hurt. For despite her rejection of him he still loved her and wanted to protect her. If Lily gave her life to save Harry it is no wonder Snape despises him, or that he overreacts when Harry is flippant about getting into angerous situations. Would you want to see the life of the woman you loved sacrificed in vain? Tinktonks - who just loves throwing theories out there! From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 12:53:28 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:53:28 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155749 > > Neri: > > But I pointed out that until now JKR had never used a > > non-description to spring a surprise on Harry and us, and for a good > > reason, I believe. > > Pippin: > Not true, I'm afraid. The narrator leaves Harry's point of view and follows > Hermione as she bumps into Quirrell and attacks Snape, precisely so as > to avoid telling us what Harry must know: when his broom stopped > bucking. > Neri: I'm not sure what you mean. The critical plot fact here is when Harry's broom stops bucking *in relation* to the events of Quirrell knocked off his seat and Snape catching fire. Are you saying that Harry, who was busy hanging for his life by one hand high above the stands, could notice Quirrell or Snape? The principle of the non-description is that the hero is not allowed to have the advantage on us of knowing critical things that narrator doesn't tell us. The narrator isn't obliged to describe everything the hero knows (she can't do it anyway for technical reasons) but she is obliged to describe everything the hero knows *that is of importance*. And of course, she isn't obliged to tell us anything the hero doesn't know, although she sometimes does out of kindness of her heart . So leaving Harry's PoV in this incident wasn't being unreliable. On the contrary ? it allowed us to see many things that we couldn't have seen by staying with Harry's PoV all the time. The narrator was being fair with us. Neri From zehms at aol.com Thu Jul 20 23:05:56 2006 From: zehms at aol.com (Szehms) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:05:56 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155750 Carol wrote: > nor do I think that an earlier UV is the reason that Dumbledore trusts > Snape. dumbledore believes in choice, and a UV robs the person bound > by the UV of choice. Scarlett replies: Great point! A UV does appear to be a force of dark magic...I think DD trusted Snape completely and Snape proved himself to DD, I think Snape would protect Harry because of his loyalty to DD (and perhaps because he cared for Lily and felt guilty for being part of the reason that she was hunted and murdered by LV) he did not need to enter a UV with Lily or DD. I agree...DD believes too much in choice he wouldn't require a UV. Scarlett From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Jul 21 13:51:13 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 06:51:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607210651j7dc87e04x50b705b22a1260f6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155751 > > > Neri: > > > > > But I pointed out that until now JKR had never used a > > > non-description to spring a surprise on Harry and us, and for a good > > > reason, I believe. > > > > Pippin: > > Not true, I'm afraid. The narrator leaves Harry's point of view and > follows > > Hermione as she bumps into Quirrell and attacks Snape, precisely so as > > to avoid telling us what Harry must know: when his broom stopped > > bucking. > > > > > Neri: > I'm not sure what you mean. The critical plot fact here is when > Harry's broom stops bucking *in relation* to the events of Quirrell > knocked off his seat and Snape catching fire. Are you saying that > Harry, who was busy hanging for his life by one hand high above the > stands, could notice Quirrell or Snape? > > ... snip ... > > So leaving Harry's PoV in this incident wasn't being unreliable. On > the contrary ? it allowed us to see many things that we couldn't have > seen by staying with Harry's PoV all the time. The narrator was being > fair with us. > Kemper now: Harry may have noticed Snape and Quirrell, but he wouldn't have noticed Hermione lighting Snapes robes. The narrator was not being fair. She was intentionally unreliable in order to misdirect and set up the reader to believe as wrongly as Harry believes that Snape is the bad guy. Sorry to pull out the Unreliable Narrator card, but come on, it's so obvious. Kemper, who believes the narrator continues to be intentionally unreliable though the story, though the intention is much more subtle (e.g., The Lightning-Struck Tower) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catwomanlg_50 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 04:48:50 2006 From: catwomanlg_50 at yahoo.com (catwomanlg_50) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 04:48:50 -0000 Subject: Who will die next???? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155752 I recently saw a new report on ABC News. J.K. Rowling had announced that in addition to answering all questions in her last & final HP book--she is going "to kill off some major characters and won't reveal who because she doesn't want to receive hate mail".. Now, are there any guesses as to whom she is referring?? Well, I for one, hope it's not HARRY, HERMIONE OR RON. However, it could be Snape, Draco Malfoy, Hagrid, or Ginny Weasley. Or how about the Weasley parents?? They are a good bet because you-know-who hates them and he already killed Harry's parents. He made poor Neville's folks go mad. Also, I believe in the last book, Arthur Weasley became head of the Magic Headquarters. (Sorry, I forgot the entire name). I believe they were also good friends to Harry's parents as well so, my I think they will be next. I hope she'll make Harry the new Headmaster of Hogwarts. I think Dumbledore was personally training him for that purpose. What do y'all think?? Who do you think will die next? Rumor has it that Sirius Black is not dead & will definitely be back in the last book?? Let's hear some other opinions------what say you? HARRY STILL LIVES ON!!! catwomanlg. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 14:35:41 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:35:41 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: <700201d40607210651j7dc87e04x50b705b22a1260f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155753 > Kemper now: > Harry may have noticed Snape and Quirrell, but he wouldn't have noticed > Hermione lighting Snapes robes. > > The narrator was not being fair. She was intentionally unreliable in order > to misdirect and set up the reader to believe as wrongly as Harry believes > that Snape is the bad guy. > > Sorry to pull out the Unreliable Narrator card, but come on, it's so > obvious. > > Kemper, who believes the narrator continues to be intentionally unreliable > though the story, though the intention is much more subtle (e.g., The > Lightning-Struck Tower) Neri: You are using the term "Unreliable Narrator" in the same meaning of "sneaky narrator", but this wasn't the original meaning of this term, at least the way I understood it. The original meaning was that the narrator can adopt Harry's subjective PoV instead of telling us objective facts. In the bucking broom incident what happens is exactly the opposite ? the narrator becomes *less* subjective by describing events from several points of view, instead of sticking with Harry's. Of course the narrator is being sneaky here. My point is that there's fair sneakiness and unfair sneakiness, and JKR was sneaky in a fair way: she told us everything important that her hero had seen and even more. She didn't have the hero know or see important things that we weren't told about. She didn't describe an incantation being said as if by the hero, and later told us that it wasn't him. That IMO would be unfair sneakiness, or in JKR's words conning the reader. Neri From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 14:35:59 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:35:59 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155754 > Alla: > First reason is what Twins say why they gave the candy to Dudley - > they say **not** because he was a muggle, but because he was a great > bullying git. I choose to believe them, since I have no canon > supported reason to think of Twins as liars, so to me the **intent** > of causing harm to Muggles is absent. a_svirn: For one thing, they lie to their parents pretty often when it comes to covering for their pranks and their inventions. For another, of course they did intend harm ? they brought their toffees to the muggle household specifically for that reason. > Alla: > One can argue of course that the crime of muggle-baiting does not > require intent, but since as far as I remember we don't know one way > or another, to me it is quite logical to assume that such crime does > require intent by definition. a_svirn: I don't understand this logic at all. By definition muggle-baiting means baiting muggles. To bait according to my dictionary means among other thing: "To persecute or harass with persistent attacks (*a person more or less unable to escape* [emphasis mine ? a_svirn]); to worry or torment in an exasperating manner, esp. from a wanton or malicious desire to inflict pain." That's exactly what the twins did ? harassed, worried and torment a person from wanton and malicious desire to inflict if not pain, at least panic. A person that was unable to escape because he was a Muggle and they were wizards. In other words, they baited a Muggle. From random832 at gmail.com Fri Jul 21 14:47:04 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:47:04 -0400 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40607210651j7dc87e04x50b705b22a1260f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607210747h2dd2612as7e418b40e781cd9a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155755 > Neri: > Of course the narrator is being sneaky here. My point is that there's > fair sneakiness and unfair sneakiness, and JKR was sneaky in a fair > way: she told us everything important that her hero had seen and even > more. She didn't have the hero know or see important things that we > weren't told about. She didn't describe an incantation being said as > if by the hero, and later told us that it wasn't him. That IMO would > be unfair sneakiness, or in JKR's words conning the reader. I think that using Harry's point of view to deliberately misdirect in some instances (like by saying James was the one who told Lily [in front of Petunia] about Dementors) might cross the line into "unfair sneakiness" -- Random832 From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 21 14:48:09 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:48:09 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155756 > > Neri: > I'm not sure what you mean. The critical plot fact here is when > Harry's broom stops bucking *in relation* to the events of Quirrell > knocked off his seat and Snape catching fire. Pippin: Yes, and that is exactly what the narrator is ambiguous about. Here's the quote, with my comments in brackets. [We're in the stands] 'Come on Hermione," Ron muttered desperately. [We shift to Hermione] Hermione had fought her way across to the stand where Snape stood and was not racing along the row behidn him: she didn't even stop to say sorry as she knocked Professor Quirrell headfirst into the row in front. Reaching Snape, she crouched down, pulled out her wand and whispered a few, well chosen words. Bright blue flames shot from her wand on to the hem of Snape's robes. It took perhaps thirty seconds for Snape to realise that he was on fire. A sudden yelp told her that she had done her job. Scooping the fire off him into a little jar in her pocket she scrambled back along the row -- Snape would never know what happened. [PoV is ambiguous] It was enough. Up in the air, Harry was suddenly able to clamber back onto his broom. [We're back in the stands] 'Neville, you can look!' Ron said. Neville had been sobbing into Hagrid's jacket for the last five minutes. On first reading, it seems as though we are still watching over Hermione's shoulder and she saw Harry suddenly able to climb back onto his broom as she scrambled back along the row. On second reading, it's clear that the narrative perspective shifted *again* because we know that Harry's broom would have stopped bucking at least thirty seconds before Snape reacted. Sneaky. Pippin From riyo at verizon.net Fri Jul 21 14:54:04 2006 From: riyo at verizon.net (tiiana) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:54:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Who will die next???? Message-ID: <29635628.1259441153493644947.JavaMail.root@vms061.mailsrvcs.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155757 catwomanlg: >I recently saw a new report on ABC News. J.K. Rowling had >announced that in addition to answering all questions in her last & >final HP book--she is going "to kill off some major characters and >won't reveal who because she doesn't want to receive hate mail".. tiiana: I can't even guess who she's going to kill off because a lot of predictions I have made in the past turned out wrong. I have my opinions on who I would like to bite the dust, but I don't want to try to predict who's going to die because, hey, I just don't know. catwomanlg: > I hope she'll make Harry the new >Headmaster of Hogwarts. I think Dumbledore was personally training >him for that purpose. tiiana: I don't think Harry will be Headmaster, especially at his young age because he's just too young and, other than teaching defensive magic for the DA, he's not a teacher. He'll have a long way to go before he can be truly qualified as a Headmaster. catwomanlg: > Rumor has it that Sirius Black is not dead & will >definitely be back in the last book?? tiiana: IIRC, JKR already shot down that theory. ~~~tiiana -<--{@ From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 21 14:53:44 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:53:44 -0000 Subject: Who will die next???? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155758 Catwomanlg: I recently saw a new report on ABC News. J.K. Rowling had announced that in addition to answering all questions in her last & final HP book--she is going "to kill off some major characters and won't reveal who because she doesn't want to receive hate mail".. Snip Tinktonks - Personally (and very sadly in my opinion) I think the Weasley twins will be the ones to go. I love them very very much and I think that they are the characters that will receive most hate mail with their demise (IF I COULD GET MY HANDS ON A HOWLER!!!!) But maybe JKR is just being a very good sales woman and increasing the interest by saying this! Tinktonks From loptwyn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 14:13:35 2006 From: loptwyn at yahoo.com (Alice) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:13:35 -0000 Subject: Hagrid,Dumbledore,Snape, UV and pink umbrella In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155759 > Carol, imagining rings of fire coming out of Hagrid's umbrella to bind > Dumbledore's and Snape's clasped hands > Alice: And a *pink* umbrella at that! (poor Snape; somehow can't imagine him tolerating such an indignity...) From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Jul 21 15:38:31 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:38:31 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155760 Pippin: > we know that Harry's broom would have stopped bucking at least > thirty seconds before Snape reacted. Eddie: Maybe. That's assuming the broom stopped bucking IMMEDIATELY after Hermione push Quirrel. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 15:17:58 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:17:58 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: <007201c6aba8$08920300$f586400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155761 > Magpie: > But how can they legislate based on motivation? Willy Widdershins could > have said he didn't prank the Muggle because he was a Muggle, but because he > was annoyed by him, or disliked his hair. It seems like Muggle- baiting must > be wrong by Wizard standards either because they actually think it's wrong > to Prank Muggles (like the way they presumably disagree with the Black who > likes to hunt Muggles) or because it causes danger to Wizards. > Easy, happens all the time. All hate crime legislation is based on motivation, meaning that an assault, for example, is a hate crime if you can prove that it was carried out as a result of a pattern of racial/ethnic/homophobic hatred as opposed to a more standard desire for personal revenge or robbery. For that matter, conspiracy laws are also based on intent and motivation. That is, they are based on what you intended and were motivated to do, and the basis of your plans. Now, both conspiracy and hate crimes are notoriously hard to prosecute, because motivation and intent are very difficult to prove. But they are prosecuted every day, and successfully, and the laws under which those prosecutions take place are of long standing. I'm afraid that laws based on motivation are a very old story, going all the way back to the medieval and ancient worlds. The WW has plentiful historical precedent if it invokes such distinctions. Lupinlore From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Jul 21 17:05:56 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:05:56 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155763 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > Exactly my point. Either the DA is an army in the middle of a > shooting war, so Marietta deserves to be punished in the manner that > she's punished and the twins are deserters and should have been > similarly punished. Or the DA is not an army, the twins didn't desert > and Marietta's punishment was *waay* over the top. You can't have it > both ways. > > (Though I do agree with Magpie, I don't recall the twins joining the > Order, and they certainly didn't help out at the DoM battle, as either > DA members or Order members.) > > Betsy Hp Marietta made it impossible for the DA to learn the necessary defence against LV. She is a snitch. The twins quit school while making a fool of Umbridge, thereby giving heart to everybody while the DA had ceased to exist because of Marietta. That makes what the twins did heroic and makes what Marietta did betrayal. Gerry > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 17:10:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:10:41 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155764 Neri wrote: > now people claim that the narrator sneakily avoids describing facts that Harry *must* notice and has no personal reason to avoid > describing, like if it was he who hexed Fenrir. This is a completely > different thing. Surely nobody here claims that Harry doesn't know if he shouted "petrificus totalus" or not, or that it's a question of PoV? > > I termed such situations in the past "non-descriptions". This is when the narrator does not describe a detail that Harry must see or know. I pointed out that these non-descriptions are quite common. For example, just one page before Harry hexes Fenrir he also hexes Brutal Face in the same manner, and again it is not described that Harry said the incantation or even that he raised his wand. So technically it's possible that Harry also didn't hex Brutal Face, but for some reason I haven't noticed anybody suggesting it. > > It's not surprising, really, that we have so many non-descriptions, > because the narrator just doesn't have time to describe every detail > that Harry knows or does (especially when the pace of the action > quickens). But I pointed out that until now JKR had never used a > non-description to spring a surprise on Harry and us, and for a good > reason, I believe. We were recently reminded about JKR saying that the readers "like to be tricked but not conned". To avoid describing > details that Harry knows and later would turn out critical, that would be conning, I believe. When JKR has the trio looking into Borgin and Burke trying to see what object Malfoy is talking about, she writes that the cabinet was obscuring the view. This is tricking the readers ? describing the critical fact in a way that makes the reader overlook it. Failing to mention the cabinet although Harry had seen it, and then using it for Draco's plot ? that would have been conning the readers. > > Invoking the unreliable narrator for everything is a mistake, IMO. We should remember that the narrator can't take that too far without > becoming, well, unreliable. And becoming really unreliable in the eyes of the reader is perhaps the worst thing that can happen to any narrator. > Carol responds: You're misunderstanding the concept. It isn't Harry who's fooled, at least not in this case (though he's certainly mistaken in the case of Draco listening behind the shelves in the library). It's the reader who's left up in the air. The probabality, in fact near-certainty, that Harry shouts the first Petrificus Totalus, the one that freezes Brutal-Face (Yaxley?), makes some readers *assume* that he cast the second one as well. But I don't think it's a matter of the narrator "not having time" to present every detail. How long would it take to say/write/type "Harry said" (or more likely "Harry gasped"? About two seconds. Nope. It's information that we could have been given but which is withheld from us and which may or may not be important. Notice that JKR has Tonks and Harry discussing the words that snape shouted as he was leaving. Why bring that up if all he shouted was "It's over"? The two puzzle pieces may or may not fit together, but we shouldn't dismiss them as unimportant because we don't want them to mean anything. The narrator is misleading us in a variety of ways, in this case by omitting important information (your "non-descriptions"). The so-called Harry filter is only one weapon in the unreliable narrator's arsenal. And of course, JKR herself is behind it. In addition to having the narrator misreport or omit information, she uses other narrative strategies to keep us misinformed or uninformed about things like Snape's motives. She interrupts her characters just as they're about to impart important information, keeps actions that might have saved the day from taking place (for example, Trelawney reporting what happened in the RoR or Harry going to Snape for help because Rosmerta shows them the Dark Mark), and having dumbledore die without telling Harry the supposedly exciting story of the ring Horcrux. The unreliable narrator is not an invention of Snape fans. It's a literary device that JKR is taking full advantage of. The "Harry filter" is part of it--an important part--but it's not all there is. And what makes the unreliable narrator most effective is that he or she *is not always* unreliable, so many readers get in the habit of believing him or her, or the unreliability (Harry was going to die from the pain) is revealed immediately and the reader realizes that that particular instance is only the "Harry filter." But JKR is sneaky. Dismiss the unreliable narrator if you will, but prepare to be surprised in book 7. JKR is always dropping tiny clues and red herrings, as I'm sure you admit. But she's also constantly misdirecting us. And withheld information, whether it's Dumbledore or the narrator who's withholding it, is one of her favorite strategies. Carol, who wants to know, for example, who Imperio'd Rosmerta since neither Draco nor Dumbledore tells us From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jul 21 17:21:46 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:21:46 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155765 Lupinlore: > Now, both conspiracy and hate crimes are notoriously hard to > prosecute, because motivation and intent are very difficult to > prove. But they are prosecuted every day, and successfully, and the > laws under which those prosecutions take place are of long standing. > > I'm afraid that laws based on motivation are a very old story, going > all the way back to the medieval and ancient worlds. The WW has > plentiful historical precedent if it invokes such distinctions. Magpie: Yes, you're right that intention always plays a part in how something is prosecuted (Harry's own trial focuses on whether his illegal use of magic was okay or not based on intent--did he use it in an emergency to protect himself?). But that, imo, is not what this discussion is about. We have this word to call crimes committed against Muggles, Muggle-baiting. Even if Wizards wouldn't call something Muggle-baiting if it wasn't specifically racially oriented (like a hate crime, which I would think would suggest a whole class of crimes against Muggles, not just baiting them with Magic) what's the distinction? With something like a hatecrime, for instance, there's still got to be a crime committed; it's not the intent that's punished. Harboring racist thoughts isn't a crime, the murder is. If a white person murders a black person, an argument over whether it's a hate crime relies on "hate crime" being a word that describes the motivation connected to the crime. But does Muggle-baiting do that? And if it doesn't, why not? And what is this instead? And why doesn't that word have weight like Muggle- baiting? In canon the same argument is laid out. Arthur claims this is the kind of thing he fights against, the Twins claim it isn't since they didn't do it because he was a Muggle and Arthur says that's not the point. The list seems to disagree along the same lines: but they didn't do it because he was a Muggle/that's not the point. It's gotten focused on the word Muggle-baiting but it seems like that's sort of a cover for the real question, which is whether or not it's, for lack of a better word, bigotry-a subject the books are very interested in. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like that's the whole reason we're disagreeing over the word, because it's so clearly connected to something like discrimination. It's not like the word itself really matters since it's a made-up word about made-up people with no connection to our lives. As has been pointed out, if you look at what the words mean in the dictionary (as opposed to imagining how this word is understood in Rowling's fictional world) it fits. Dudley is a Muggle and what the twins are doing is baiting. -m From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Jul 21 17:37:26 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:37:26 -0000 Subject: KarmaRe: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155766 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Gerry: > > > ????? And I thought that DD's leaving the school had > > everyhting to do with one little sneak who betrayed the > > DA and with a Ministry going way out of its bounds and > > purpuses. Great, Marietta is not responsible at all, > > Umbridge is not responsible at all, the MoM is not > > responsible at all, it is all Hermione's fault that > > DD left the school. > > houyhnhnm: > > The DA was Hermione's plan therefore she is responsible > for the success or failure of the plan. To say that > she isn't is like saying that a defeated general is > not responsible for a badly thought out campaign. > It's the enemy's fault. Gerry That is completely different. In this case the DA was hugely succesful but they were betrayed. > > There are a lot of steps Hermione could have taken to > forestall such a betrayal. She could have recruited > more carefully in the first place. She could have > anticipated the fact that her sneak hex would not > give the DAs *advance* warning that one of their > members was going to Umbridge and taken steps to > correct that deficiency. Gerry So that makes Hermione responsible for the betrayal instead of Marietta? I think for a sixteen year old schoolgirl Hermione did a very good job. No it was nog good enough. But that does not make her responsible for Marietta's betrayal. > > Marietta's discomfort with what they were doing was > evident at the first meeting in the RoR. That meeting > took place before the first quidditch match of the year > (so probably in October). Marietta didn't betray the > DAs to Umbridge until shortly before Easter break. So > for five to six months, what is Hermione doing about it? > Is she keeping an eye on disaffected members such as > Marietta, talking to them, watching them, taking any > kind of pro-active steps at all to prevent the DAs' > being betrayed? No. She blithely assumes everything > is going to go her way just because she wants it to. Gerry: Was Marietta disaffected? Did she talk about it? Did she mention it? And how should Hermione have kept an eye on her? Or on Smit, who we do see as being disaffected? They are in different houses. Should Hermione have made her own spy network? > > Gerry: > > > Sirius was not reckless [...] The person who was responsible > > for his death was Bellatrix. > > houyhnhnm: > > **************** > 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. > **************** > > Swashbuckling, Gryffindorian derring-do. It is Sirius' > character in a nutshell. It got him killed. > Gerry Blaming the victim. Sorry but I get rather angry with this sort of reasoning. Because I've seen it in the past: she should have dressed differently, she should not have walked there, etc. etc. Or: she should not have made me angry (how many abusers use this kind of reasoning?) Yes, maybe he would not have been killed otherwise, but still Bellatrix is murderer. > I know there is a deep divide among listees regarding > philosophy of action. It don't think it will ever be > resolved. There will always be those who say, "I didn't > *want* it to turn out this way, therefore it's not my fault." > That is completely different. A person is responsible for his own actions, not for the actions of another person. The person who does the deed is the one responsible for them. Yes, there were things that Hermione could have done better, that still makes Marietta responsible for the betrayal because she did the deed. Yes, Sirius could have fought more cautious, still Bellatrix went for the kill. Gerry From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 21 16:12:43 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:12:43 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155767 Magpie: But how can they legislate based on motivation? Willy Widdershins could have said he didn't prank the Muggle because he was a Muggle, but because he was annoyed by him, or disliked his hair. It seems like Muggle- baiting must be wrong by Wizard standards either because they actually think it's wrong to Prank Muggles (like the way they presumably disagree with the Black who likes to hunt Muggles) or because it causes danger to Wizards. Tinktonks - If i were to play a practical joke on a friend of a friend and unknown to me he was gay, would that mean I was gay baiting? Ok so how about if I knew he was gay but I did it because he had told nasty lies about my best friend? Would I be gay baiting then? By your reasoning the twins aren't alowed to dislike Dudley, because he is a muggle but if he was a wizard they could hate him as much as they like! Do Harry and Draco wizard bait? No. They do what they do because of a clash of personality. The idea of being racist is not hating someone who is black, it is hating someone BECAUSE they are black. By the same definition the twins are not biggots, they play a trick on Dudley who happens to be a muggle, not BECAUSE he is a muggle. I think people are being utterly unfair to Fred and George. They have shown no malicious intent towards any muggle because they are a muggle, just played a trick, (which granted was dangerous, selfish and badly thought through) but was NOT muggle baiting! Tinktonks ? Who says give Fred and George a break! From zehms at aol.com Thu Jul 20 15:09:24 2006 From: zehms at aol.com (Szehms) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:09:24 -0000 Subject: Snape and Petunia/ Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155768 "K": > It does appear the identify of the boy and/or something in that > scene is important to some extent, at least according to JKR. ------ > > I know we've all been over this before but why doesn't JKR just > say it's James? There surely wouldn't be any surprise in James > visiting Lily BUT it would be a surprise for Harry to learn Snape > was visiting her. Scarlett replies: I had not read that interview before...I think it is even more clear that the "awful boy" was not James.... I agree that this will be important in book 7... As I posted earlier I also think Snape is that "awful boy" ********************************************************************* "K": > What's interesting is what Petunia overheard Lily and that awful > boy discussing. What kind of company discusses dementors? An awful > boy whom Rowling won't reveal. > > What do we find out one book later? Snape, who is up to his neck > in the dark arts, evidently has a different way of tackling > dementors than Harry. Dementors. Who else would visit someone and > talk about dementors. > So, what would be so significant about dementors except they suck > your soul out. The story revolves around Voldemort and pieces of > his soul in objects which must now be destroyed. What if there is > one piece of soul residing in a living person? Dark Arts, > Horcruxes, Harry, Dementors, Lily/Potions, and Snape/Potions. Fits > in place if you ask me. :-> Scarlett replies: Very interesting point on dementors!!! I had not previously noticed that passage in which Snape has another way to deal with dementors....good catch....I agree that there may be a clue here... I don't know if you're familiar with the RED HEN website, but she wrote an article last year about Harry as a horcrux, she hinted that perhaps a 'dementor's kiss' could be used to destroy a horcrux. It seems a dementor could quite easily suck the soul out of an object...maybe that is one method by which Harry can destroy a horcrux object... The more complicated question is will Harry or LV attempt to use a dementor to retrieve a soul from each other? A dementor can suck the soul out and leave a person alive, but if Harry has a piece of LV, how can a dementor retrieve that piece and still leave Harry's soul intact? Perhaps LV could attempt to get his soul out of Harry. If Harry were a horcrux, would not Voldemort have only to destroy Harry's soul to reclaim Harry as a horcrux? Then it wouldn't matter if Harry was filled with love.... But how can he destroy Harry's soul and still retain the portion necessary for him? Interesting questions.... Scarlett From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Jul 21 18:02:22 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:02:22 -0000 Subject: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155769 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: OK, a question to muddle the water even further : ), meant for everybody who thinks what the twins did was Muggle baiting or the same as what the DE's did at the campsite. How to call what Harry did to aunt Marge? aunt Marge is a Muggle. Harry used magic on her, and not to bait her. Surperior force, willfully. Is that Muggle torture? Is that the same or worse as the DE's did at the campsite? Why? or why not? Gerry From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Jul 21 18:00:42 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:00:42 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155770 Neri > > Of course the narrator is being sneaky here. My point is that there's > fair sneakiness and unfair sneakiness, and JKR was sneaky in a fair > way: she told us everything important that her hero had seen and even > more. She didn't have the hero know or see important things that we > weren't told about. She didn't describe an incantation being said as > if by the hero, and later told us that it wasn't him. That IMO would > be unfair sneakiness, or in JKR's words conning the reader. wynnleaf I'm not quite sure I understand something about what you're saying. Are you saying that this is just something *JKR* wouldn't do? Or are you saying there's some sort of literary rule that the narrator wouldn't be this "unfair," as you put it? Because there's no such rule. Who-dunnit detective books do it constantly. It's all over Sherlock Holmes storys -- he investigates a crime scene, but doesn't reveal what all he discovered until the "all is revealed" ending. So are you simply saying that JKR wouldn't do this, or that it's not her practice to do it? Neri We were recently reminded about JKR saying that the readers "like to be tricked but not conned". To avoid describing details that Harry knows and later would turn out critical, that would be conning, I believe. wynnleaf Well, like I said, it's a common practice with a lot of well-loved mystery/detective books. And JKR has not broken faith with the readers by using it. Casual readers will enjoy the surprise without much question. In-depth readers, who search for clues, figure out a lot of the unreliable narrator moments ahead of time, or, if they don't get them quite right, at least those readers are aware that they are likely to be tricked (nicely, of course). Hopefully, we'll *all* get some surprises from JKR's unreliable narrator that *none* of us have thought of yet. Some readers, attempting to discover what's really going on, might not like the idea of an unreliable narrator, because it may interfere with how they interpret the books. But that doesn't mean JKR won't use it. An important aspect of the unreliable narrator tricks is that once we've read all the books, we still have to able to re-read the books and it all make sense in the light of what we'll then know. Because of that, the unreliable narrator can't actually flat-out lie to the reader. The deception has to be subtle enough to persuade the reader to believe one thing, while leaving plenty of room for something completely different to be going on. The example of the cursed broom in PS/SS is a good one. I believe the supposedly stunned Flitwick is an example. Snape tells the girls outside the room that Flitwick "collapsed." Later, when Harry and others reveiw the evenings events, Hermione comments that Snape must have stunned Flitwick. But later, when we see Flitwick again, the *narration* refers to his "collapse." If it turns out that Snape did not stun Flitwick (which either ESE or DDM Snape could have done), we will be able to read these sections over and they'll still all make sense, because the narration will not have directly lied to us. Carol, am I right about the last couple of paragraphs? I can't think of examples where narration, outside of directly using a character's pov, outright lies to us. wynnleaf From mathias_forseti at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 04:28:07 2006 From: mathias_forseti at yahoo.com (Mathias Forseti) Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: <4484D9F2.7010801@telus.net> Message-ID: <20060721042807.30886.qmail@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155771 Neri: > Dumbledore thought that Voldemort *was* dumb enough to make a living > horcrux, and we have JKR's word that Dumbledore's guesses are never > far from the truth. Of course, the theory of Horcrux!Harry works > regardless of Nagini being one, and I certainly agree that this was a > plot device for suggesting this possibility to us. > > However, if Voldemort wasn't aware that Harry became a Horcrux, then > after the graveyard he'd believe that he's still one Horcrux short of > his goal of six. Do you see him giving up on completing his precious > project for no good reason? Dumbledore didn't, and I don't either. > Besides, Book 7 would be more fun if Nagini is a Horcrux. I just thought of something about this Harry-Horcrux theory. At the end of Order of the Phoenix we know LV couldn't possess Harry long because Harry was filled with love, the emotion that LV detests. For this sole reason I don't think Harry is a Horcrux. Ginny was partially possessed by LV in Book 3, but the Horcrux was not in her body. Plus LV even said that when he possessed animals they were shortlived because he would suck the life right out of them. I would think that Harry would have been greatly weakened already and with the sole fact I said earlier. Mathias From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 18:26:24 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:26:24 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes /Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155772 > Tinktonks - > The idea of being racist is not hating someone who is black, it is > hating someone BECAUSE they are black. By the same definition the > twins are not biggots, they play a trick on Dudley who happens to be > a muggle, not BECAUSE he is a muggle. Alla: Well said. I mentioned several times in the past that I grew up experiencing what antisemitism is, just as vast majority of jewish kids and adults in former Soviet Union, so I have no tolerance for that whatsoever. But does it mean that I would call two non jewish kids playing a prank on jewish kid who mercilessly bullied their younger brother an act of antisemitism? Of course not, ever. Unless of course I will have reasons to suspect that this was one of the reasons why prank was played, which in Twins' case I do not. I guess it all comes down to us not knowing for sure whether intent is required for muggle-baiting or not. Honestly, I cannot imagine how it cannot be. IMO of course. Gerry: > OK, a question to muddle the water even further : ), meant for > everybody who thinks what the twins did was Muggle baiting or the same > as what the DE's did at the campsite. How to call what Harry did to > aunt Marge? aunt Marge is a Muggle. Harry used magic on her, and not > to bait her. Surperior force, willfully. Is that Muggle torture? Is > that the same or worse as the DE's did at the campsite? Why? or why not? Alla: Heee, yes, poor Marge. Can we have some more baiting of her, please? :) Yes, by this rationale which I don't share it would have been Muggle- baiting IMO, except wasn't this not planned at all? Just burst of provoked anger? I mean, I suppose we should consider it crime of passion, hehe. JMO, Alla From divya_thomas1 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 13:49:12 2006 From: divya_thomas1 at yahoo.com (divya_thomas1) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:49:12 -0000 Subject: Lily's protection VS DD's Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155773 This theory is entirely possible but for the fact that Snape killed Dumbledore. Remember that it was LV that killed Harry's mother and so he got protected against LV and everybody else could kill him. now presuming that DD has provoked a similar kind of magic Harry would only be protected against Snape and not LV. This brings another theory to speak of : Would Snape suffer the same consequences as that of LV and if he has a horcrux placed then the whole story will be sort of repeated again. So the point arises whether the book will conclude or leave as one of those Robin Cook books which leave the conclusion for the reader to decide.................................................... divya_thomas1 From jycmutoni at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jul 21 14:25:56 2006 From: jycmutoni at yahoo.co.uk (jycmutoni) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:25:56 -0000 Subject: Will Harry be mentioned in Dumbledore's will? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155774 "Vivian" wrote: > > Will Dumbledore leave something to Harry? The reason for my > > concern is that DD and HP are two of a very few number to know > > about the horcruxes. I doubt if the OOTP members are aware of > > it. If so, the pensieve might be pretty useful, along with > > whatever relevant memories that come with it. I am not entirely > > sure that we have seen the last of Fawkes, either. "Emilynne" wrote: > I'm sure that if Dumbledore had any previous inclination of > his "death" which many of us believe he did, then he would have > taken the proper precautions to ensure Harry could carry out the > search for the Horcruxes and continue in his journey to destroy LV. > Also I think its likely Dumbledore would have informed someone from > the Order about the Horcruxes like Mcgonagall or perhaps even Lupin. > DD would have wanted to gain insight from his trusted companions. When HP confronted DD about trusting Snape, DD seemed to have believed that Snape had changed from his old ways. This is further supported when (after the mission for the Horcruxe-locket) he askes HP to get Snape for help. I have a feeling he might have informed Snape about the Horcruxes and this would obiviously be to LV's advantage if Snape mentions that DD had knowledge about this. LV knows that HP and DD had a strong bond and perhaps that was why he needed to have DD killed in order to have HP weakened. From this, therefore, I think that DD might have left Harry other means (i.e posessions) of getting to the Horcruxes instead of anything that is in the school and particularly anything in his office because he might not have wanted anyone else (even from the order) other than HP or Snape to have such information or instrumental links to guide them to what he considered HP's most important strength over LV. Joyce From srhchttrsn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 18:45:02 2006 From: srhchttrsn at yahoo.com (Emilynne) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:45:02 -0000 Subject: Lily's protection VS DD's Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155775 divya_thomas1 wrote: > Would Snape suffer the same consequences as that of LV and if he > has a horcrux placed then the whole story will be sort of repeated > again. So the point arises whether the book will conclude or leave > as one of those Robin Cook books which leave the conclusion for the > reader to decide.................................................... The same thing won't happen to Snape because as far as we know he isn't involved in the whole business of splitting his soul. We've seen others perform AV (like in GoF) and their soul didn't split. I think we would have had some inclination at this point if SS was involved with Horcruxes in any way. Emilynne From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jul 21 19:06:50 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:06:50 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155776 Gerry: > OK, a question to muddle the water even further : ), meant for > everybody who thinks what the twins did was Muggle baiting or the same > as what the DE's did at the campsite. How to call what Harry did to > aunt Marge? aunt Marge is a Muggle. Harry used magic on her, and not > to bait her. Surperior force, willfully. Is that Muggle torture? Is > that the same or worse as the DE's did at the campsite? Why? or why not? Magpie: Interesting comparison, given it seems it contains all the things that keep getting added to the Twins scene when they're not there. Harry is provoked, and up until the moment his Magic bursts from him is the person with the least power in the scene. He tries to ignore the provocation. He's in a state of emotional distress and doesn't even consciously hex her iirc. So less power imbalance, more self- defense and less intent to perform magic, much less perform it on a Muggle. > Tinktonks > By your reasoning the twins aren't alowed to dislike Dudley, because > he is a muggle but if he was a wizard they could hate him as much as > they like! Do Harry and Draco wizard bait? No. They do what they do > because of a clash of personality. Magpie: Rubbish. I have not said anything about the Twins not being allowed to dislike Dudley--that's a strawman. I said they are taking advantage of their status as Wizards over his as a Muggle. Since Harry and Draco are both wizards it obviously erases the very power imbalance being described. Tinktonks: > The idea of being racist is not hating someone who is black, it is > hating someone BECAUSE they are black. Magpie: Yes, this is the concept you keep trying to frame the question with, and I keep refuses to agree to it. I know that hating a racism means hating a black person because they are black. We're not talking about what they think or what they feel, but what they do. Tinktonks: By the same definition the > twins are not biggots, they play a trick on Dudley who happens to be > a muggle, not BECAUSE he is a muggle. > > I think people are being utterly unfair to Fred and George. They > have shown no malicious intent towards any muggle because they are a > muggle, just played a trick, (which granted was dangerous, selfish > and badly thought through) but was NOT muggle baiting! Magpie: And I continue to disagree with you and do not see myself as being unfair to Fred and George because of it. Wizards have super powers that Muggles do not have. That is the *definition* of what they are. Taking advantage of those super powers is an abuse of power against a Muggle in a way it is not against a Wizard. The way I would frame it using your analogy about racism would be to say that okay, a white person does not hate all black people. But he hates a particular one because the guy is a bully. Does that mean that if he chooses to expess his hatred of that black person by using that inequality against him, it's not racist? Because by using Magic they are using the dividing line between Wizard and Muggle to their advantage--in order to test their joke product for Wizards. > > Tinktonks ? Who says give Fred and George a break! -Magpie, who thinks Fred and George don't need a break because a) They're fictional b) If they weren't fictional as two kids who just played a prank on another kid there's no reason to treat them with extra sensitivity and c) We're having a discussion about something a bit bigger than Fred and George needing a break or not, which is why the thread gets a lot of replies. It's not like the books series doesn't seem to encourage people to think about exactly this kind of thing. From srhchttrsn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 18:53:32 2006 From: srhchttrsn at yahoo.com (Emilynne) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:53:32 -0000 Subject: Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: <20060721042807.30886.qmail@web39104.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155777 Neri: > > Dumbledore thought that Voldemort *was* dumb enough to make a > > living horcrux, and we have JKR's word that Dumbledore's guesses > > are never far from the truth. Mathias: > I just thought of something about this Harry-Horcrux theory. At > the end of Order of the Phoenix we know LV couldn't possess Harry > long because Harry was filled with love, the emotion that LV > detests. For this sole reason I don't think Harry is a Horcrux. > Ginny was partially possessed by LV in Book 3, but the Horcrux was > not in her body. Plus LV even said that when he possessed animals > they were shortlived because he would suck the life right out of > them. I would think that Harry would have been greatly weakened > already and with the sole fact I said earlier. I don't know.... If Harry became a Horcrux when he was a baby and grew up as LV's Horcrux while LV was in an incredibly weakened state, then the same rules may not apply. Harry has had time to adapt and acclimate his body to harboring part of someone else's soul. Babies adapt and change quicker and it's easier for them to alter their needs and behaviors than it is for a grown child. This would definitely explain why Harry was always so in tune with LV and his feelings. Emmy From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 19:29:31 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:29:31 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155778 > Pippin: > Yes, and that is exactly what the narrator is ambiguous about. > Here's the quote, with my comments in brackets. > > Pippin > Neri: Like I wrote to Kemper, of course it's sneaky, but it's not a non- description the way I defined it. I defined non-description as something that the hero *must* see or know, and yet the narrator doesn't describe. Harry wasn't in a position to judge the timing relation between Quirrell being knocked, Snape realizing he's on fire and the broom stop bucking, so it isn't a non-description. Say even that in this special case we generalize my definition to Ron and Hermione too. Can we say that one of them must have noticed that relation? Hermione's attention was probably on Snape until he gave that yelp, so she could easily miss it. Ron on the stands was far from both Snape and Harry, he had to divide his attention between the two and he's the least observant in the trio. I'd say there's a very good chance he missed it. We also don't know how much time it took Harry to clamber to his broom after it stopped bucking, but it could easily be 30 seconds. The narrator is being ambiguous, but that's her constitutional right. The point is that she's not *more* ambiguous than what each of her characters knows. There's a long way from this situation to Harry not knowing if he said the incantation "petrificus totalus" or not. > Carol responds: > You're misunderstanding the concept. It isn't Harry who's fooled, at > least not in this case (though he's certainly mistaken in the case of > Draco listening behind the shelves in the library). It's the reader > who's left up in the air. Neri: Harry is fooled because he doesn't investigate who said the incantation. The readers are fooled because they don't even know if Harry doesn't investigate because he said the incantation himself. Until now JKR has never used such lowly methods to trick us. > Carol: > But I don't > think it's a matter of the narrator "not having time" to present every > detail. How long would it take to say/write/type "Harry said" (or more > likely "Harry gasped"? About two seconds. Neri: Two seconds are not an insignificant time when describing a fast action sequence. But anyway it would be more than two seconds because there are many other things that aren't described. Describing each one might take only a second, but describing all of them would take several minutes, and each such missing detail can be used to build a conspiracy theory on it. This is why fooling us with non-descriptions is unfair. Because there's a huge number of them. > Carol: > The narrator is misleading us in a variety of ways, in this case by > omitting important information (your "non-descriptions"). Neri: There's a fine distinction here. Just omitting important information isn't "tricking" the reader, as JKR calls it. Anybody can mislead the reader by simply withholding information. You don't have to be a good writer for that. *Tricking* the readers is giving them the required information in a way that causes them to overlook it, and this is much more difficult to do. > wynnleaf > > I'm not quite sure I understand something about what you're saying. > Are you saying that this is just something *JKR* wouldn't do? Or are > you saying there's some sort of literary rule that the narrator > wouldn't be this "unfair," as you put it? Neri: It's JKR who said the readers like to be tricked but not conned. The question is what are her standards for conning. We can't know that for sure, of course, but I'm pointing out that in six books she had never used a non-description to fool Harry and us. This suggests she thinks it's unfair. Several days ago you mentioned Emma as JKR's standard for mystery writing, so lets see how this principle works there. Emma (and us) think Harriet is in love with Churchill because Harriet hinted that this man saved her. Churchill had just saved her from the gypsies so we think she means him. But in fact this is a red herring and Harriet actually means Knightly who asked her for a dance when nobody else did. Had the narrator failed to tell us before that Knightly asked Harriet for a dance, that wouldn't be a fair tricking of the reader, but of course the narrator did write that Emma noticed it. Had the narrator told us that Emma noticed "someone" asking Harriet for a dance that would be a non-description: Emma would know who that man really was but the reader wouldn't. BTW, it was some time since I've last read Emma, but I'd be very surprised if you can find a single case of Austen using a non-description to fool the reader. Neri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 19:46:49 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:46:49 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155779 > Tinktonks: > > > The idea of being racist is not hating someone who is black, it is > > hating someone BECAUSE they are black. > > Magpie: > Yes, this is the concept you keep trying to frame the question with, > and I keep refuses to agree to it. I know that hating a racism > means hating a black person because they are black. We're not > talking about what they think or what they feel, but what they do. > Alla: Sorry, but I am **definitely** talking about what Twins think or feel. I take it that for you this action itself constitutes Muggle baiting and Twins' intent does not matter. (I hope that after so many rounds I got the gist of your argument right, but please correct me if I did not). Unless JKR clarifies it and states that **this** action, or I will even take a **similar** prank on Muggle constitutes muggle-baiting, I will continue to make my determination based on Twins' intent, which IMO is non-existent. I mean, they sure intended to prank Dudley, they did not intended to prank Dudley because he is a Muggle. That is why IMO Tinktonks' analogy is so spot on . > Magpie: > And I continue to disagree with you and do not see myself as being > unfair to Fred and George because of it. Wizards have super powers > that Muggles do not have. That is the *definition* of what they > are. Taking advantage of those super powers is an abuse of power > against a Muggle in a way it is not against a Wizard. The way I > would frame it using your analogy about racism would be to say that > okay, a white person does not hate all black people. But he hates a > particular one because the guy is a bully. Does that mean that if > he chooses to expess his hatred of that black person by using that > inequality against him, it's not racist? Because by using Magic they > are using the dividing line between Wizard and Muggle to their > advantage--in order to test their joke product for Wizards. Alla: I would say that it would totally depend how exactly white person would choose to express his hatred of the black person. If as I said that would be white boy playing prank on the black boy because the black boy is a bully and continuously tormented the white boy younger brother for years, then **No** it is not racism or antisemitism to me. If the stakes are higher than that, I don't know, since I am not familiar enough with the hystoric realities to say for sure, but since I am on much firmer ground about antisemitism, then I would again say NO, it would not be. That is the way I see it anyways. Should jewish bully be spared from a prank by non-jews, whose little brother he "hunted" for years just because he is a jew? Not in my book. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 21 20:23:10 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:23:10 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155780 > > Pippin: > > Yes, and that is exactly what the narrator is ambiguous about. > > Here's the quote, with my comments in brackets. > > > > Pippin > > > > Neri: > Like I wrote to Kemper, of course it's sneaky, but it's not a non- > description the way I defined it. I defined non-description as > something that the hero *must* see or know, and yet the narrator > doesn't describe. Harry wasn't in a position to judge the timing > relation between Quirrell being knocked, Snape realizing he's on fire > and the broom stop bucking, so it isn't a non-description. > Pippin: But whether the character must know is blurred in this case. We think, on first reading, that we are watching Harry up in the air from Hermione's point of view and that she saw him get control of his broom as she scrambled back along the row of seats. Of course Hermione would know that she didn't see it, but the unannounced shift in pov conceals that from the reader. We later learn that the hex ended when Quirrell's eye contact was broken, which happened some time earlier, so the narrator has shifted away from Hermione's point of view and back in time, but this is only apparent later on. Meanwhile, we're fooled about what Hermione knows. The narrator hasn't lied, but she let us assume Hermione saw what the narrator saw, and that's not the case. It's the same with that petrificus curse. Harry of course knows whether he said the curse or not, and he may or may not know who did say it. But the narrator doesn't tell us that he knows, it only lets us assume that he does. On revisiting the situation, which must be done because we don't know what happened to Greyback after he fell to the floor, Harry can easily say in fact he doesn't know who did it. The narrative, although it seems to indicate that Harry said the curse, actually supports either reading, just as the narrative in PS/SS let us think that Hermione saw Harry get control of his broom, but actually also supports the reading that she didn't see it. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jul 21 20:27:48 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:27:48 -0000 Subject: KarmaRe: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155781 Gerry: > In this case the DA was hugely succesful but > they were betrayed. houyhnhnm: *Hugely* successful? In what way were they hugely successful? The Trio acquired two additional allies: Neville and Luna. What did they achieve by inviting 25 students, many of whom they barely knew. Someone was bound to turn traitor. None of the others showed up the next year to fight the Death Eaters. Some of them may yet contribute to success in the final battle, but then they've also had a real DADA professor in the meantime, so who's to say it will be due to their participation in DA. On the other hand, if the DA had never been formed, Dumbledore would not have been forced to leave the school at a time when they needed him most. Dumbledore might have been able to sort out the Occlumency fiasco if he'd been around. Harry might never have been lured to the Ministry, and Sirius might still be alive. Gerry: > I think for a sixteen year old schoolgirl Hermione did a > very good job. houyhnhnm: This is the standard excuse that is trotted out every time there is an argument over whether or not one of the "good' guys did something wrong. They're only kids. Well, then maybe they should stay out of the action and let the adults handle it. Gerry: > Was Marietta disaffected? Did she talk about it? > Did she mention it? houyhnhnm: At the very first meeting, Cho told Harry that Marietta's parents had *forbidden* her to do anything to upset Umbridge. That should have been a red flag. You're probably going to say that since she didn't tell Hermione that lets Hermione off the hook. I say that when Hermione decided to invite a couple of dozen students she hardly knew to engage in a clandestine activity, she should have made it her business to know what was going on with each of them. Gerry: > Blaming the victim. Sorry but I get rather angry with > this sort of reasoning. Because I've seen it in the past: > she should have dressed differently, she should not have > walked there, etc. etc. Or: she should not have made me > angry (how many abusers use this kind of reasoning?) houyhnhnm: You're talking about blame. I'm talking about responsibility. How satisfying would it be to be able to blame the bad guys if Voldemort were to win the war. It seems like it would be a lot better to keep that from happening. The blame game is a loser's strategy. (And yes, I have been mugged. However psychologically satisfying it was to blame the criminal, it didn't get me my purse or my credit back. I wanted to make sure it never happened again, so I did look at how my carelessness may have contributed to the incident.) Gerry: > A person is responsible for his own actions houyhnhnm: Exactly From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Jul 21 19:34:45 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:34:45 -0000 Subject: Lily's protection VS DD's Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155782 divya_thomas1: > This theory is entirely possible but for the fact that Snape killed > Dumbledore. Remember that it was LV that killed Harry's mother and so > he got protected against LV and everybody else could kill him. Eddie: Maybe I'm not up on my canon, but I don't recall anybody saying that Lily's protection only worked against Voldemort. Could somebody help out with a citation? Thanks. From elmstreetschool at cox.net Fri Jul 21 21:20:28 2006 From: elmstreetschool at cox.net (dana) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:20:28 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lily and Levicorpus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155783 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spookedook" wrote: > > Tinktonks: I think that is why Snape over reacted so badly when he > found Potter in the pensieve. There were memories of Lily in there and > he did not want them found out. It would make a lot of sense as to why > Snape resents Harry, why he is always making nasty comments about > James. I'm sure that Snape called Lily a mudblood because he knew of > feelings for James. It may also explain why Snape turned to the DE's, > tas the shunned of society, the unloved (as LV was unloved) but turned > spy when he found out that Lily was to be hurt. For despite her > rejection of him he still loved her and wanted to protect her. What if James pursued Lily only because she and Snape were seeing each other? It would fit with what we know of his character. Rereading the last two books, I am more convinced that Snape held deep feelings for Lily, and I think it was a reciprocal (if secret) relationship. We know from Slughorn that Lily Evans was extroardinary at potions. I think that Snape would have found her irresistible, despite her being a muggle. If they were friends (or more) and shared ideas, some of the suggestions in the book were probably her inventions (Slughorn seems to think so). Lily might have innocently shared some of Severus' curses with her housemates, and James Potter found it amusing to use Snape's own curse to humiliate him in front of his "girlfriend". A mortified Snape assumed he'd been betrayed and lashed out at her. Her comments were equally rash, and the divide between them became irreparable. Snape's mistake would have certainly compelled him to master his emotions after this experience, and to keep his feelings hidden. His bitterness probably drew him into the Death Eaters. Meanwhile Lily would have begun seeing James, maybe at first vindictively and later out of a genuine affection. They eventually married, either in the hasty fashion described by Molly Weasley, or because Lily was pregnant with Harry. Snape hates Harry so much because his appearance is a constant reminder of the enemy who casually destroyed his chance at love, and an accusation of his own deadly mistakes. Lily's eyes in James' face. I also think that JKR has been pointing to the fact that someone from Gryffindor will have to make an alliance with someone from Slytherin. The hat has said it twice now. I think it might be Malfoy. Dana From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jul 21 21:32:34 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:32:34 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155784 > Alla: > > Sorry, but I am **definitely** talking about what Twins think or > feel. I take it that for you this action itself constitutes Muggle > baiting and Twins' intent does not matter. (I hope that after so > many rounds I got the gist of your argument right, but please correct > me if I did not). > > Unless JKR clarifies it and states that **this** action, or I will > even take a **similar** prank on Muggle constitutes muggle-baiting, I > will continue to make my determination based on Twins' intent, which > IMO is non-existent. > > I mean, they sure intended to prank Dudley, they did not intended to > prank Dudley because he is a Muggle. That is why IMO Tinktonks' > analogy is so spot on . > Pippin: So, if Arthur finds that someone has given their Muggle neighbors shrinking keys, that is not enough to establish Muggle-baiting, he also has to prove that it was done because the victims were Muggles, and not, say, because they were playing their stereo all night? That doesn't sound very likely. Hate crimes are usually things that are illegal anyway but are considered worse because they're committed against a protected group. For example, it's vandalism to write on any wall, but writing anti-Semitic graffiti might be a hate crime. Now, if it were illegal for wizards to play magical pranks in any case, then playing magical pranks on Muggles could be a hate crime if it was done to spread fear among Muggles or Muggle sympathizers, and the intent to do so would be important. But it's not illegal for wizards to play magical pranks on one another, harmful as they might be, as in the case of those spiked cauldron cakes (which Ron picked up off the floor very much as Dudley did.) The Twins sell their joke items openly. What is illegal is for wizards to play magical pranks on Muggles, and as far as we know, the name of that crime is Muggle- baiting. . Of course there has to be intent, but the only intent established in canon is to play a prank on Muggles, not to hate them, IMO. The shrinking keys, which are unequivocally Muggle-baiting, don't sound like a hate crime. The intent can hardly be to spread fear or send a message, since in most cases the Muggles never even know they've been pranked. Nor would shrinking keys send a message to Muggle sympathizers that their days are numbered. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 21:35:02 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:35:02 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155785 > >>Tinktonks: > > The idea of being racist is not hating someone who is black, it > > is hating someone BECAUSE they are black. > >>Magpie: > > Yes, this is the concept you keep trying to frame the question > > with, and I keep refuses to agree to it. > > > > We're not talking about what they think or what they feel, but > > what they do. > >>Alla: > Sorry, but I am **definitely** talking about what Twins think or > feel. I take it that for you this action itself constitutes Muggle > baiting and Twins' intent does not matter. Betsy Hp: Exactly!!! Yes, yes, yes!! *Motive*, in this case, is *meaningless*!!! No one who thinks the twins did a bit of muggle- baiting *cares* what the twins feelings were in the matter, we're talking about their *actions*. (Sorry for the emotion. I feel like this has been stated several times already so I'm very excited that it's finally being understood. ) The twins don't hate muggles, from everything we're shown. But in this scene they do take part in Muggle-baiting. > >>Alla: > Unless JKR clarifies it and states that **this** action, or I will > even take a **similar** prank on Muggle constitutes muggle- > baiting, I will continue to make my determination based on Twins' > intent, which IMO is non-existent. Betsy Hp: Frankly, I think JKR is too clever to come right out and say "this is what this scene is." I think she's purposefully set up a tiny little ethical dilemma for everyone to work out on their own. I think she does this quite a bit, which is why there is so much for us to discuss. Though we *do* have Arthur, who specifically works to stop the mistreatment of muggles, not only telling his sons that this is what they did, but that their intentions do not matter. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155772 > >>Alla: > Well said. I mentioned several times in the past that I grew up > experiencing what antisemitism is, just as vast majority of jewish > kids and adults in former Soviet Union, so I have no tolerance for > that whatsoever. > But does it mean that I would call two non jewish kids playing a > prank on jewish kid who mercilessly bullied their younger brother > an act of antisemitism? Of course not, ever. Unless of course I > will have reasons to suspect that this was one of the reasons why > prank was played, which in Twins' case I do not. > Betsy Hp: How would you feel if the prank played consisted of attaching a note saying "Dirty Jew" to the back of that child's shirt? Would the excuse, "We didn't do it *because* he's a Jew" work for you? IOWs if the prank specifically took advantage of the fact that the child is Jewish and the prankers are not, would you still think it okay? Because the twins specifically target the fact that Dudley is a Muggle. They don't just prank him, they use magic to do so. And that is what makes Arthur so angry and that is what turns the prank into Muggle-baiting, IMO. > >>Gerry: > > > > How to call what Harry did to aunt Marge? aunt Marge is a > > Muggle. Harry used magic on her, and not to bait her. Surperior > > force, willfully. > > > >>Magpie: > Interesting comparison, given it seems it contains all the things > that keep getting added to the Twins scene when they're not there. > Harry is provoked, and up until the moment his Magic bursts from > him is the person with the least power in the scene. He tries to > ignore the provocation. He's in a state of emotional distress and > doesn't even consciously hex her iirc. So less power imbalance, > more self-defense and less intent to perform magic, much less > perform it on a Muggle. Betsy Hp: I agree with Magpie. Harry didn't willfully hex Aunt Marge; he didn't even have his wand. This was an unconscious response to extreme provocation. And it was very much an accident. So no, this incident is not one of Muggle-baiting, IMO. Betsy Hp From juli17 at aol.com Fri Jul 21 21:42:05 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:42:05 -0400 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: <1153506485.18297.95804.m31@yahoogroups.com> References: <1153506485.18297.95804.m31@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C87B25A4B36D6C-3DC-647D@FWM-D02.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155786 Magpie wrote: In canon the same argument is laid out. Arthur claims this is the kind of thing he fights against, the Twins claim it isn't since they didn't do it because he was a Muggle and Arthur says that's not the point. The list seems to disagree along the same lines: but they didn't do it because he was a Muggle/that's not the point. It's gotten focused on the word Muggle-baiting but it seems like that's sort of a cover for the real question, which is whether or not it's, for lack of a better word, bigotry. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like that's the whole reason we're disagreeing over the word, because it's so clearly connected to something like discrimination. It's not like the word itself really matters since it's a made-up word about made-up people with no connection to our lives. As has been pointed out, if you look at what the words mean in the dictionary (as opposed to imagining how this word is understood in Rowling's fictional world) it fits.Dudley is a Muggle and what the twins are doing is baiting. Julie: I agree that "muggle baiting" is just a made up term, and whether it officially fits Fred and George's actions is beside the point. Either you agree with Arthur on that fact: that the twins were wrong to use magic against a Muggle *whatever* their motivation. Or you think they were justified because Dudley has bullied Harry on a regular basis. (I agree with Arthur. And additonally again, two wrongs never make a right--i.e., Fred and George using superior force--magic--to bully Dudley is stooping to Dudley's own bullying tactics, and when has that ever been a good thing?). However, their actions aren't as bad as the DEs, because motivation does make a difference too. Fred and George wanted to punish Dudley for his previous actions, even if it wasn't their place, and they used unfair tactics (magic against someone with no defences against it). The DEs intended to humiliate and hurt the Muggles they mistreated simply for the fun of it though the Muggles had done nothing to them or anyone else. Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 21:48:24 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:48:24 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155787 > Betsy Hp: > Exactly!!! Yes, yes, yes!! *Motive*, in this case, is > *meaningless*!!! No one who thinks the twins did a bit of muggle- > baiting *cares* what the twins feelings were in the matter, we're > talking about their *actions*. (Sorry for the emotion. I feel like > this has been stated several times already so I'm very excited that > it's finally being understood. ) > > The twins don't hate muggles, from everything we're shown. But in > this scene they do take part in Muggle-baiting. Alla: Hehe. Well, yes, it is the main disagreement it seems. At the very least we do **not** know IMO that in the crime of muggle baiting the motive is meaningless. > Betsy Hp: > How would you feel if the prank played consisted of attaching a note > saying "Dirty Jew" to the back of that child's shirt? Would the > excuse, "We didn't do it *because* he's a Jew" work for you? IOWs if > the prank specifically took advantage of the fact that the child is > Jewish and the prankers are not, would you still think it okay? > Because the twins specifically target the fact that Dudley is a > Muggle. They don't just prank him, they use magic to do so. And > that is what makes Arthur so angry and that is what turns the prank > into Muggle-baiting, IMO. Alla: Well, yes of course if there would be the slightest reason to think that this child is targeted **because** he is a jew, not just because he is a bully, I would be very angry. But that is my point. I do not see any reason to think that Dudley was targeted **because** he was a Muggle, but because he is a bully and that does not make me angry at all. I mean, I understand the criticising of playing a prank per se, but **not** playing a prank on Dudley, if that makes sense. Just as I do not want the bully to get away from the prank just because he happens to be a Jew, I don't buy the argument that Twins are not allowed to play a prank on Dudley because he happens to be a Muggle. Now, if it was an indication that Dudley was targeted because he was a Muggle, that may be a different story. But I do not see it at all. JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jul 21 22:04:11 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:04:11 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155788 > Alla: > I would say that it would totally depend how exactly white person > would choose to express his hatred of the black person. Magpie: Yes, so would I. That's what I'm talking about. Alla: > that would be white boy playing prank on the black boy because the > black boy is a bully and continuously tormented the white boy younger > brother for years, then **No** it is not racism or antisemitism to me. Magpie: Or, to describe the Twins' situation, they are two white boys who have invented a new pranking thing and want to try it out, but can't do it at home. They are going somewhere and their little brother is taking his friend. They realize that if they accompany their father to the little brother's friend's house to pick him up also there will be the black kid who used to bully their younger brother's friend for years, up until a few years ago. They think he will be a good target. Oh, and this particular prank is based around something familiar to white people and threatening to black people. Alla:> > Should jewish bully be spared from a prank by non-jews, whose little > brother he "hunted" for years just because he is a jew? Not in my > book. Magpie: That avoids the nature of the Prank and the Power imbalance. The Jew isn't being spared a Prank because he's a Jew, he's being spared an anti-Semitic prank because he's a Jew. A prank that targets his weakness as a Jew--regardless of whether the person targetted him only because he's a Jew. > Betsy Hp: > How would you feel if the prank played consisted of attaching a note > saying "Dirty Jew" to the back of that child's shirt? Would the > excuse, "We didn't do it *because* he's a Jew" work for you? IOWs if > the prank specifically took advantage of the fact that the child is > Jewish and the prankers are not, would you still think it okay? Alla: Well, yes of course if there would be the slightest reason to think that this child is targeted **because** he is a jew, not just because he is a bully, I would be very angry. Magpie: So as long as you felt that the kids did not target the kid because he was a Jew, you wouldn't consider it anti-Semitic that they decided to prank the Jewish kid they didn't like by putting a DIRTY JEW sign on his back? Or would the fact that they went for that prank suggest a latent anti-Semitism that was already there but they just didn't have cause to act on as long as the Jew was a nice guy their view? Of course the Twins would rather just think it's about not pranking Muggles because they're Muggles--they have no interest in doing that. That's an easy temptation to avoid. It's not even a temptation. Respecting the dignity of others--especially someone weak but not innocent? Really examining themselves and their attitudes about others? That's a challenge. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 22:18:01 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:18:01 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155789 > Alla:> > > > Should jewish bully be spared from a prank by non-jews, whose > little > > brother he "hunted" for years just because he is a jew? Not in my > > book. > > Magpie: > That avoids the nature of the Prank and the Power imbalance. The Jew > isn't being spared a Prank because he's a Jew, he's being spared an > anti-Semitic prank because he's a Jew. A prank that targets his > weakness as a Jew--regardless of whether the person targetted him > only because he's a Jew. Alla: No, it does not avoid anything because I don't see that what twins did as analogy to targeting Jew because he is a jew. I see it as analogy (maybe) as targeting bully who just happens to be a Jew. > Magpie: > So as long as you felt that the kids did not target the kid because > he was a Jew, you wouldn't consider it anti-Semitic that they decided > to prank the Jewish kid they didn't like by putting a DIRTY JEW sign > on his back? Alla: Eh, No, this was how Betsy analogised the prank, I don't see anything close to this analogy in what twins did. I said it many times, but if we continue with this analogy, what Twins did as targeting the kid, who is a big bullying git and just **happens to be a Jew** and him being a jew has **nothing** to do with the reason he is being pranked. So, again for me Betsy's analogy does not work, that is all. Magpie: Or would the fact that they went for that prank suggest > a latent anti-Semitism that was already there but they just didn't > have cause to act on as long as the Jew was a nice guy their view? Alla: Huh? So are you saying after all that Twins do hate Muggles and just do not act on it? I am not sure I understand. Because no, the fact that they went for the Prank to me means **only** that they wanted to teach a lesson to the bully,who was tormenting their little brother for years. To me that is **all** that was there. Magpie: > Of course the Twins would rather just think it's about not pranking > Muggles because they're Muggles--they have no interest in doing > that. That's an easy temptation to avoid. It's not even a > temptation. Respecting the dignity of others--especially someone > weak but not innocent? Really examining themselves and their > attitudes about others? That's a challenge. Alla: They have no interest in pranking Muggles, they have **never** in canon pranked any Muggle as far as we are aware. They said that they pranked Dudley because he is a bullying git, but the argument is that they are guilty of muggle - baiting? Okay. I think I have reached agree to disagree point in the debate. Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 22:18:03 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:18:03 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155790 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Exactly my point. Either the DA is an army in the middle of a > > shooting war, so Marietta deserves to be punished in the manner > > that she's punished and the twins are deserters and should have > > been similarly punished. Or the DA is not an army, the twins > > didn't desert and Marietta's punishment was *waay* over the > > top. You can't have it both ways. > > > >>Alla: > Um, if I were to see **any** similarity between what Twins did and > what Marietta did, I would agree with you that they should have > been punished the same way. > Betsy Hp: If it's a shooting war the similarity is that both acts weaken the DA army. Marietta weakens it by betraying its meeting location to the enemy. The twins weaken it by removing two of the DA army's stronger soliders (themselves) from the battlefield. That's actually why treason and desertion are often punished in similar ways (I think, anyway). They both play *major* havoc on an army's readiness to fight. Though I'm not saying that treason and desertion are the *exact* same thing. Just that they are both frowned on by fighting forces throughout the world. > >>Gerry: > Marietta made it impossible for the DA to learn the necessary > defence against LV. She is a snitch. The twins quit school while > making a fool of Umbridge, thereby giving heart to everybody while > the DA had ceased to exist because of Marietta. That makes what > the twins did heroic and makes what Marietta did betrayal. Betsy Hp: Ah, but see you're not talking shooting war here. You're talking subversive study group and giving the nasty headmistress a hard way to go. That's how I see it too. So yes, Marietta is a snitch and the twins were great. (I cannot give them heroic, sorry, I can only stretch so far. ) But in that case, leaving a girl disfigured for such a great length of time for just being a snitch is a rather cruel form of vengence, IMO. And Hermione needs to realize that. She should be above such vicious acts of cruelty, IMO. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155766 > >>Gerry > Blaming the victim. Sorry but I get rather angry with this sort of > reasoning. Because I've seen it in the past: she should have > dressed differently, she should not have walked there, etc. etc. > Or: she should not have made me angry (how many abusers use this > kind of reasoning?) > Betsy Hp: I pulled this comment from another thread, but this is exactly what I see happening in the Hermione/Marietta discussions. I say what Hermione did was horribly underhanded and cruel and I get told, "Well, Marietta deserved it!" (Which always makes me wonder if teachers are out there with purple markers writing "Snitch" on the faces of children who tell tales, since disfigurment is such a popular disciplinary tool all of a sudden. ) Yes, Marietta snitched on the other students. Just as yes, that woman's skirt was really short, or yes, your girlfriend did burn your dinner. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the over-the-top punishment being handed out. Okay, so Marietta gets a giant "Snitch" written across her face in purple zits. There's no hiding that and while it isn't preventative it certainly means everyone knows who the tattle-tale was. But I raised an eyebrow when Marietta was forced to wear a ski-mask on the train ride home, a month or so later (IIRC). And it *really* bugged me when she showed up caked in makeup with the "Snitch" zits still showing through the next year. Talk about beating a dead horse. And then chopping it up. And then beating the chopped up pieces. And then feeding it to a dog. And then beating the dog. I mean *come on*! She's the Snitch. Yes, thank you, Hermione, we're all aware of it now. Everyone in the school is aware of it as are Marietta's parents and anyone who may have dropped by the family home over Summer break. (I seriously doubt Marietta left the house, except maybe to go to St. Mungos.) I think the lesson has been driven home now. Even the "Hermione's a total psycho if you cross her. Um, best to not get involved in anything she's involved in. In fact, best not to even cross her path if you can help it." lesson. (One I'm not sure will serve Harry well if the Sorting Hat is at all correct.) The person I'm concerned about is Hermione. I think she's heading in a bad direction and needs to be checked. Betsy Hp From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 22:27:43 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:27:43 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: <8C87B25A4B36D6C-3DC-647D@FWM-D02.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155791 > Julie: > However, their actions aren't as bad as the DEs, because > motivation does make a difference too. Fred and George wanted > to punish Dudley for his previous actions, even if it wasn't > their place, and they used unfair tactics (magic against someone > with no defences against it). The DEs intended to humiliate and > hurt the Muggles they mistreated simply for the fun of it though > the Muggles had done nothing to them or anyone else. > a_svirn: Did they invent those Ten-Tongue-Toffees specifically for the reason of punishing Dudley? I rather think they did it because they thought it was fun. They also had a hunch that lots of their peers would find it fun too and they would make good profit. The twins find making people frightened and humiliated funny. They found it particularly hilarious when the whole muggle family was humiliated and went frantic with panic. How come their notion of fun is so very different from that of Death Eaters'? From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 22:36:11 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:36:11 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155792 > Pippin: > But whether the character must know is blurred in this case. We > think, on first reading, that we are watching Harry up in the > air from Hermione's point of view and that she saw him get > control of his broom as she scrambled back along the row of > seats. > Neri: OK, so it isn't a non-description but because of the ambiguous shifts in PoV it isn't clear from the beginning that it isn't a non- description. > Pippin: > It's the same with that petrificus curse. Harry of course knows > whether he said the curse or not, and he may or may not know > who did say it. But the narrator doesn't tell us that he knows, > it only lets us assume that he does. > Neri: It's not the same at all. As you say Harry at the very least *must* know if it's him or somebody else, and in addition there aren't any ambiguous shifts in PoV here. So whatever you insist on calling the broom incident, the petrificus incident is still a much more simple and clear-cut case of non-description. > Pippin: > On revisiting the situation, which must be done > because we don't know what happened to Greyback after he > fell to the floor, Harry can easily say in fact he doesn't know > who did it. Neri: We know for certain that Greyback was hit by the petrificus totalus, so I don't see how not knowing what happened to him later has any bearing on the question whether it was Harry or somebody else who got him. BTW, what happened to Greyback is another non-description, because Harry at the very least must know if he was caught or not, while we weren't given that information. So I guess it is possible here to take the petrificus non-description and the Greyback non-description, combine them in some roundabout way and come up with a theory that is firmly based on things that we *don't* know. And of course, since the number of non-descriptions is huge and the number of possible ways to combine them would be astronomical, practically any theory could be "supported" this way. I sure hope JKR isn't that unreliable. Neri From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 21 23:02:50 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:02:50 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155793 > >>Magpie: > > So as long as you felt that the kids did not target the kid > > because he was a Jew, you wouldn't consider it anti-Semitic that > > they decided to prank the Jewish kid they didn't like by putting > > a DIRTY JEW sign on his back? > >>Alla: > Eh, No, this was how Betsy analogised the prank, I don't see > anything close to this analogy in what twins did. Betsy Hp: Hmm, that's actually *exactly* how I meant to present that analogy. So wasn't as clear as I wanted to be, so let me try again. Okay, so we're in Russia, and the Dursleys are Jews. They've been given Harry, a Christian, to care for and they treat him badly and their son, Dudley, bullies him. Two older friends of Harry, Christians themselves, Fred and George, decide they're going to get back at Dudley for bullying Harry. Since they live in an area where Jews are bullied by Christians in general, they decide that it'll be funny to attach a sign saying "Dirty Jew" to Dudley's back. They are specifically using the fact that as Christians they are more powerful, and they are specifically using the fact that Dudley is Jewish to give him a bit of pay back. And they think it's funny. Their father has worked to try and improve relations between Jews and Christians and he's furious when he sees what his sons have done. He tries to help the Dursleys remove the sign, but as they're Jewish and are terrified by Christians (based on past experience) they throw things at him and try and shelter Dudley from him. The twins explain to their father that they didn't put that sign on Dudley *because* he's Jewish, they were just thinking of Harry. Their father rages, "That's not the point!" But the rest of the family laughs because they don't like these particular Jews anyway. > >>Alla: > I said it many times, but if we continue with this analogy, what > Twins did as targeting the kid, who is a big bullying git and just > **happens to be a Jew** and him being a jew has **nothing** to do > with the reason he is being pranked. > Betsy Hp: The thing is though, the prank in the analogy *depends* on Dudley being Jewish. If the twins in the analogy pasted a "Dirty Jew" sign on the back of a Christian kid, the reaction would be totally different. Just as, if the Potterverse twins slipped a wizard kid the ton-tongue toffee, the reaction would be totally different. The prank *depended* on Dudley being a Muggle. That's why I see it as Muggle-baiting. Just as the Christian twins should *not* have used the fact that Dudley is Jewish and they are Christian to prank him, the Potterverse twins should *not* have used the fact that Dudley is Muggle and they are Wizards to prank him. There is too big of a power differential there for it to be ethical to used so lightly. > >>Magpie: > > Or would the fact that they went for that prank suggest a latent > > anti-Semitism that was already there but they just didn't have > > cause to act on as long as the Jew was a nice guy their view? > >>Alla: > Huh? So are you saying after all that Twins do hate Muggles and > just do not act on it? I am not sure I understand. > Betsy Hp: It does bother me that *everyone* in the Weasley family laughed about the Prank. (Especially Bill. Et tu, Bill? etc. ) I think it's indicitive of the entire WW, however. Muggles are all a tiny bit lesser-than. Poor Arthur is really fighting an unhill battle, without even family support. > >>Julie: > > However, their actions aren't as bad as the DEs, because > motivation does make a difference too. Fred and George wanted > to punish Dudley for his previous actions, even if it wasn't > their place, and they used unfair tactics (magic against someone > with no defences against it). The DEs intended to humiliate and > hurt the Muggles they mistreated simply for the fun of it though > the Muggles had done nothing to them or anyone else. Betsy Hp: The gradation is where the motivation comes in, I agree. The twins aren't at Death Eater level. Though I don't think JKR wrote that scene so quickly after the prank by mistake. There's a definite echo, IMO, and I think JKR does it quite deliberately. Two ends of a slippery slope. > >>a_svirn: > > The twins find making people frightened and humiliated funny. Betsy Hp: And that, in a nutshell, is why I'm not a big fan of the twins. > >>a_svirn: > They found it particularly hilarious when the whole muggle family > was humiliated and went frantic with panic. How come their notion > of fun is so very different from that of Death Eaters'? Betsy Hp: Oh, the Death Eaters would have found the Dursley family's panic *hilarious*, which, frankly, should be a bit of a warning sign, IMO. And it's this bullying behavior that worries me about the twins. However, they don't have a fanatical hatred for muggles. Not that I've seen, anyway. Just the usual run-of-the-mill wizards contempt for all things Muggle. Which, again, is why Arthur (who even shares that contempt, I think it is rather insidious) is facing such an uphill battle with his anti-muggle-baiting laws. Betsy Hp From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jul 22 00:26:32 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:26:32 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155794 > > Carol notes: > You may be thinking of the first Petrificus Totalus, which Harry casts > from behind at the "brutal-faced Death Eater" (Yaxley?). But the > second Petrificus Totalus, the one that saves Harry from Fenrir > Greyback, is cast by an unidentified person who can't be Harry because > Harry is pinned down and can't move: > > "As Harry plunged after them, one of the fighters detached themselves > from the fray and flew at him. It was the werewolf, Fenrir. He was on > top of Harry before Harry could raise his wand: Harry fell backward, > with filthy matted hair in his face, the stench of sweat and blood > filling his nose and, hot greedy breath at his throat-- > > "'Petrificus Totalus!' > > "Harry felt Fenrir collapse against him; with a stupendous effort he > pushed the werewolf off and onto the floor. . . ." (HBP Am. ed. 598). wynnleaf I particularly recall this passage from the first time I read HBP. I thought it was confusing. As I was picturing the action, I just wasn't picturing Harry doing the petrificus totalus. I assumed it was someone else. But then, the action progressed and I couldn't figure out who it was. Later, as I re-read it several times, I decided it had to be Harry, because there wasn't anyone else and surely he'd have noticed if it was Snape. I thought of it as an editing problem, except that there are really very few editing problems of that nature in the books. But I agree, it could very well be misdirection from the narrator. A funny thing. Just as I was writing the above paragraph, I decided to read that quote above to my husband (avidly on the ESE Snape side). I said, "you know, I think this is confusing," and read the passage to him. And he said, "Oh, it's not confusing at all. Someone else fired that petrificus to help Harry." So I said, "But who else was around just then except DE's and Snape?" My husband was a bit put out. :D wynnleaf From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Sat Jul 22 01:13:28 2006 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (vivamus42) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:13:28 -0000 Subject: Harry a Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155795 But if the horcrux is actually the SCAR, it fits. LV would never have intentionally made Harry a horcrux, but the scar could have become one by accident. My apologies if this has been beaten to death in here; it has been a long time since I've had time to read. IF LV wanted killing Harry (killing a baby certainly would qualify, wouldn't it?) to seal the seventh horcrux, then all the other parts of the magic must have already been ready. He probably had an object of special significance already with him in the Potters' house, and he had probably done all sorts of powerful magic to prepare for it. If the horrific, soul-splitting act to create the horcrux was fulfilled when LV tried to kill Harry, then it would explain why LV's soul was "ripped from [his] body," and put into the scar, instead of the special object he had brought. It would explain Parseltongue, and a number of other things coming from the scar -- particularly Harry being able to connect with LV, and vice versa. It would also imply that, in the ruins of Godric's Hollow, there is probably some very valuable object, left there on that night. Vivamus --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Emilynne" wrote: > > Neri: > > > Dumbledore thought that Voldemort *was* dumb enough to make a > > > living horcrux, and we have JKR's word that Dumbledore's guesses > > > are never far from the truth. > > Mathias: > > I just thought of something about this Harry-Horcrux theory. At > > the end of Order of the Phoenix we know LV couldn't possess Harry > > long because Harry was filled with love, the emotion that LV > > detests. For this sole reason I don't think Harry is a Horcrux. > > Ginny was partially possessed by LV in Book 3, but the Horcrux was > > not in her body. Plus LV even said that when he possessed animals > > they were shortlived because he would suck the life right out of > > them. I would think that Harry would have been greatly weakened > > already and with the sole fact I said earlier. > > > > > I don't know.... If Harry became a Horcrux when he was a baby and > grew up as LV's Horcrux while LV was in an incredibly weakened > state, then the same rules may not apply. > > Harry has had time to adapt and acclimate his body to harboring part > of someone else's soul. Babies adapt and change quicker and it's > easier for them to alter their needs and behaviors than it is for a > grown child. > > This would definitely explain why Harry was always so in tune with > LV and his feelings. > > Emmy > From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 00:20:40 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:20:40 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155796 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > > Pippin: > > But whether the character must know is blurred in this case. We > > think, on first reading, that we are watching Harry up in the > > air from Hermione's point of view and that she saw him get > > control of his broom as she scrambled back along the row of > > seats. > > > > Neri: > OK, so it isn't a non-description but because of the ambiguous > shifts in PoV it isn't clear from the beginning that it isn't a > non-description. Mike now: Here is a non-description without shifting POV: Harry knows he didn't spike Ron's pumpkin juice with Felix, yet we are led to believe he did, until we reach the locker room scene after the match. In fact the narrator tells us that Harry thinks, "Hermione had never really understood what a serious business Quidditch was" (p.293,US) and Harry mutters, "That's right, Smith, he is" (p.296,US). The unreliable narrator is telling the story from Harry's POV and yet we don't know that Harry didn't really spike the juice. Further, we are treated to comments and musings the lead us further to believe the spiking occurred. This is clearly a case of trickery on JKR's part wherein we do find out that she *conned* us purposely. Harry knows, we are in Harry's POV, we don't know. > > > Pippin: > > It's the same with that petrificus curse. Harry of course knows > > whether he said the curse or not, and he may or may not know > > who did say it. But the narrator doesn't tell us that he knows, > > it only lets us assume that he does. > > > > Neri: > It's not the same at all. As you say Harry at the very least > *must* know if it's him or somebody else, and in addition there > aren't any ambiguous shifts in PoV here. Mike again: But in the long run, how important is it? Even if it was Snape, it's only a small positive in a sea of negatives from Harry's POV. Not nearly enough to affect Harry without a lot more proof of DDM!Snape. If it was Neville (seemingly, the only non-engaged good guy) there doesn't seem to be a need among the former DA 'lags' to thank each other for their help. We sure don't see much of it in the aftermath of the battle in the MoM. Besides, JKR might not think it important to mention that Harry stopped by Neville's bed in the hospital wing and give him a quick 'thanks'. IMO, this is an easily ommitted scene with little to no impact on the story. Mike, thinking it was Neville who PTed Fenrir and was thanked later by Harry. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jul 22 02:37:12 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:37:12 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155797 > Mike, thinking it was Neville who PTed Fenrir and was thanked later > by Harry. Potioncat: Drat double drat! I was going to bring up the Felix bit as soon as I came home. Beat me to it, you did. Neri may be right, you know. It may not be the clue we think it is--- but I'm still going with it. I think it was either Snape or Blondie. I've a few more knuts on Blondie. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 02:41:25 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:41:25 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155798 > > >>Alla: > > Eh, No, this was how Betsy analogised the prank, I don't see > > anything close to this analogy in what twins did. > > Betsy Hp: > Hmm, that's actually *exactly* how I meant to present that analogy. > So wasn't as clear as I wanted to be, so let me try again. Alla: No, you were very clear. I probably was not. I just do not see that your analogy below reflects what happens in the book **at all**. I particularly do not **see** what Twins did to Dursley as having **any** antisemitic or racist undertones. Betcy Hp: > Okay, so we're in Russia, and the Dursleys are Jews. They've been > given Harry, a Christian, to care for and they treat him badly and > their son, Dudley, bullies him. Two older friends of Harry, > Christians themselves, Fred and George, decide they're going to get > back at Dudley for bullying Harry. Since they live in an area where > Jews are bullied by Christians in general, they decide that it'll be > funny to attach a sign saying "Dirty Jew" to Dudley's back. Alla: Just for the sake of clarity ( not very relevant here, but still), that everybody else hates or ot least dislikes Jews, the majority would be atheistic population, because even though orthodox christian was **officially** sort of accepted, practicing **any** religion was not encouraged, at least when I was growing up, so many different branches of christianity were not officially liked either. So, back to Twins. I find your analogy flawed, for the simple reason that I don't remember Twins to attach any signs to Dudley, saying **Dirty Muggle**, if we take your analogy literally, and if we take it less literally, I see no indication whatsoever that prank was played because Dudley was a muggle, I think Twins would have played this prank on anybody, Muggle or Wizard alike. I am sorry, I really am feeling that I repeating myself for upteenth time. I doubt I will be up for clarifying my position again. Is it clear enough? Your analogy was presented clear, it just it falls absolutely flat for me - since I see very little if any similarities between it and what really happened on the page. Betsy Hp: > They are specifically using the fact that as Christians they are > more powerful, and they are specifically using the fact that Dudley > is Jewish to give him a bit of pay back. And they think it's funny. Alla: Yes, and I don't see that Twins **are** using the fact that they are Wizards. Betsy Hp: > The twins explain to their father that they didn't put that sign on > Dudley *because* he's Jewish, they were just thinking of Harry. > Their father rages, "That's not the point!" But the rest of the > family laughs because they don't like these particular Jews anyway. Alla: Um, yes, any **sign** on Dudley and your analogy would become easier for me to see. :) > Betsy Hp: > The thing is though, the prank in the analogy *depends* on Dudley > being Jewish. If the twins in the analogy pasted a "Dirty Jew" sign > on the back of a Christian kid, the reaction would be totally > different. Alla: Yes, in the **analogy**, not in the books IMO. Twins in the books the way I see it, wanted to teach a lesson to the bully, who happened to be Muggle, without caring that he is a Muggle. Ignorance of the reaction Muggles may have to the Prank, I can at least **try** to see, but **any** kind of intent to target Muggle? Sorry, I just don't. Betsy Hp: > The prank *depended* on Dudley being a Muggle. That's why I see it > as Muggle-baiting. Alla: But how did it depend on Dudley being a Muggle? Would not have wizard got the same tongue? Wouldn't it had been fixed just as Arthur would have done? We went into fignting analogies, but this prank does not **imply** that whoever is a victim of the prank **should** fight back, it just supposed to be fixed , one way or another. > Betsy Hp: > Oh, the Death Eaters would have found the Dursley family's panic > *hilarious*, which, frankly, should be a bit of a warning sign, > IMO. And it's this bullying behavior that worries me about the > twins. However, they don't have a fanatical hatred for muggles. > Not that I've seen, anyway. Alla: I don't remember examples that twins have **any** kind of hatred for Muggles. JMO, Alla. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 02:57:15 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:57:15 -0000 Subject: Harry a Horcrux? muggle baiting vs. muggle torture/Lily's protection VS DD's Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155799 > Mathias wrote: > just thought of something about this Harry-Horcrux theory. At the end > of Order of the Phoenix we know LV couldn't possess Harry long because > Harry was filled with love, the emotion that LV detests. For this sole > reason I don't think Harry is a Horcrux. zanooda: Why not? LV couldn't possess Harry and had to flee his body, but LV's piece of soul cannot do the same, if it is bound to Harry's body by the Horcrux-creating spell or some other magic. It is probably constant torture for this bit of soul, to be surrounded by all this love without a possibility of escape. No wonder it just sits there, all weak and alone, not daring to try anything. It cannot possess Harry, because Harry's "untarnished and whole" soul is stronger than small and mutilated "intruder". > Gerry wrote: > How to call what Harry did to aunt Marge? aunt Marge is a Muggle. > Harry used magic on her, and not to bait her. Surperior force, > willfully. zanooda: I always thought that Harry blowing up Aunt Marge was an uncontrolled outburst of magic. He didn't use his wand, he didn't cast any spell. He was just "bursting" with anger at the time, and his anger somehow manifested itself in "bursting" Aunt Marge (almost). I'm not trying to argue your point about muggle-baiting, on the contrary, I tend to agree with you. I just think your example doesn't fit here. > Eddie: > Maybe I'm not up on my canon, but I don't recall anybody saying that > Lily's protection only worked against Voldemort. Could somebody help > out with a citation? Thanks. zanooda: Here is one: "While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort". It's from OotP, "The lost prophecy" chapter. There may be more, but I'm in the process of moving, and OotP was the only book I could find at the moment. Hope it helps :-) From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jul 22 03:26:21 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:26:21 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155800 > > > Carol responds: > You're misunderstanding the concept. It isn't Harry who's fooled, at > least not in this case (though he's certainly mistaken in the case of > Draco listening behind the shelves in the library). It's the reader > who's left up in the air. > > The probabality, in fact near-certainty, that Harry shouts the first > Petrificus Totalus, the one that freezes Brutal-Face (Yaxley?), makes > some readers *assume* that he cast the second one as well. But I don't > think it's a matter of the narrator "not having time" to present every > detail. How long would it take to say/write/type "Harry said" (or more > likely "Harry gasped"? About two seconds. Nope. It's information that > we could have been given but which is withheld from us and which may > or may not be important. Notice that JKR has Tonks and Harry > discussing the words that snape shouted as he was leaving. Why bring > that up if all he shouted was "It's over"? The two puzzle pieces may > or may not fit together, but we shouldn't dismiss them as unimportant > because we don't want them to mean anything. wynnleaf Another important thing to keep in mind is that often the author is *not* incorporating these bits (like Tonks and Harry discussing the words shouted), in order to leave clues so the reader can suspect something. The purpose is so that when the truth comes out in the end, the reader can't feel that it came totally out of the blue. The reader has to be able to re-read and think "oh yeah, I see it there, and there, and there." Like I said in another post, the narrator is not directly lying to the reader. The author must make sure that a re-read makes sense with the final revelations. The reader wants to sense that there really *were* clues there, but he/she just didn't see it. On a re-read, those clues should start to stand out. But the author doesn't want to give away the surprises. So the author isn't leaving clues so you'll figure it out. The author is writing so that you *won't* figure out the truth, but the narrative will still make sense when you do know the truth. You have to be able to re-read and both see how you got tricked in the first place, but be able to see the clues that you missed. The object isn't to write clues that the reader picks up on, but to write sort of touch-stones so that the truth makes sense in re-reads. You don't want the surprise to come across like some sort of out-of-the-blue revelation. You want the person to think "why didn't I *see* it?" That's the point of the unreliable narrator -- to trick you, not to give you clues you can spot. If there weren't thousands of readers putting the books under a microscope for literally years at a time, we wouldn't pick up on these things. It may be that the petrificus totalus example doesn't turn out to be one of these instances. But if it *does,* then we'll be able to re-read and think, "oh yeah, I see that now." carol > The unreliable narrator is not an invention of Snape fans. wynnleaf That's right. Hopefully the essay I posted on "A 'Seeming' Reality," (about Austen's books) makes it clear that we're talking about a commonly used device in writing. wynnleaf From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jul 22 03:53:21 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:53:21 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta, Magical Contracts, and that Damned Gleam of... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155801 Tonks: Now this is a fantastic idea. I do like it, I do!! I posed the question here once regarding the use of the blood of one that you had murdered. LV has his victim's blood in his body. I really wonder if that doesn't have some bearing on all of this. Lily's blood, the blood of the pure sacrificed one now gives life to LV. There has got to be something in this somehow. But I am at a lost... ?? It must be tied to the blood protection that is saving Harry, but how??? Maybe factored into the life debit somehow?? Nikkalmati: Well, the simple answer is that having Harry's blood in him will prevent LV from harming Harry. Someone earlier (sorry I don't recall who made this observation) pointed out that the Dursleys cannot harm Harry. If I recall the examples were that Vernon tried to choke Harry and Petunia threw something at him, both without effect. Therefore, some part of DD's protection kept Harry from being hurt by his blood relatives. LV may now come into this category. (Yes, I know Dudders has beaten Harry up at some time. Maybe he is an exception because he is a child or the harm wasn't great enough. And, yes, we have to make a special case for Uncle Vernon because he is not a "blood" relative, but it is a thought). Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 04:04:46 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 04:04:46 -0000 Subject: FIrst Headmaster/Headmistress of Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155802 Have we ever been told who was the first Headmaster/Headmistress of Hogwarts? The reason I am wondering about this takes us back to the 4 houses being the 4 elements. We know that the 5th element is Love. We know that the 4 elements must work together and the 5 element is the one that binds the others into a powerful force. It might be very important to know who was the first Headmaster during the time of the founders. I have noticed that the 4 heads of house seem to get along well. It is the students of Slytherin that seem to have some problems with the other houses. If the 4 heads of houses work together well and DD as headmaster represents the force of Love, this could be what keeps the school going. Again I think that there is some metaphysical reason that LV wants his soul in objects from each of the houses. And it follows that it is a good thing that he has never had all 4 houses. He does not have Gryffindor. Harry as the Love force in the final battle must unite the 4 houses to produce the power necessary to distroy LV. This is a theory, of course. I looked at the Lexicon, but did not see any reference to the first Headmaster. I think it might be important. Does anyone have any ideas?? Merlin comes to mind, but I really don't think it is him. But this brings me to ask, how did the Order of Merlin award come into being? Are we ever told that either? Tonks_op From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jul 22 04:17:29 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:17:29 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Does the Foe Glass Prove Snape = DD's Man? Message-ID: <3c8.5ca50b0.31f300d9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155803 Angie: >>>All in all, I think the Foe Glass episode says more about the unreliable nature of the Foe Glass (and perhaps all similar magical "indicators"mag<<< Marion: But if foe glasses only reflect your own preconcieved and prejudiced notions, if they are so unreliable, why have a foe glass at all? They will tell you nothing you don't already believe to be the truth. Nikkalmati: It seems to me that most magical objects are spelled to tell the truth, i.e. Mirror of Eresed, sneakascope. What good is a Foe Glass that just reflects your own ideas of who is your enemy? I agree that the Foe Glass shows those who mean to do you harm, not those whom you fear. If Snape had not been an enemy of Barry Jr., he would not have appeared in the mirror (kind of like a vampire can't be seen in a mirror), regardless of whether Barry Jr. liked him or whether LV thought he was faithful. The mirror was telling us that he was no friend of Barry's. Harry may be discounting the mirror so that he does not have to believe in it. Nikkalmati . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jul 22 04:33:05 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:33:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) References: Message-ID: <00ec01c6ad47$ee0e5dc0$f760400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155804 Alla: > > They have no interest in pranking Muggles, they have **never** in > canon pranked any Muggle as far as we are aware.They said that they > pranked Dudley because he is a bullying git, but the argument is > that they are guilty of muggle - baiting? Magpie: Of course they have pranked a Muggle. They pranked Dudley. In another thread there's a lot of discussion of Jane Austen's Emma, a book JKR apparently loves. So surely she's familiar with the most famous scene in it, where Emma goes on an outing and thoughtlessly makes a joke at the expense of silly Mrs. Bates. Mr. Knightley confronts her about just how cruel it was to do that. He recognizes that Emma made the remark to Mrs. Bates not because she was a poor spinster whose position in society was below Emma's, but because she's silly and never shuts up. He does not accuse Emma of insulting her out of snobbery. He scolds her for abusing the power of her own exalted position. It would be okay for her to say something like that if Mrs. Bates were not in the weakened position she is. When you have been blessed with great power, and want to be a good person, you have to be doubly careful about what you do to others. Because maybe you, as the powerful person, have the luxury of forgetting about the inequality for a while, but people with less power can't do that. Emma didn't set out to decimate Mrs. Bates, but she did. That is what the Twins do with Dudley. They don't get to use Magic against Muggles without it counting just because they're not primarily concerned with his being a Muggle. He never "just happens to be a Muggle" once they pull out their wands. Notice the Dursleys never forget the difference between them and the Weasleys in the scene. They're being rude themselves, of course, (though it's the Wizards doing all the real physical damage) but as the weaker people their behavior carries a completely different weight. And Emma just makes a funny remark about how much Mrs. Bates talks. Mrs. Bates is rolling around on the floor gagging while Jane panics and screams. And to be honest, I can't help but feel that the Twins don't really come across as great as they are claimed to be in defense, because if they are that great why are there so often subtle little changes to make the whole thing more heroic? For instance: Alla: Because no, the fact that they went for the Prank to me means **only** that they wanted to teach a lesson to the bully,who was tormenting their little brother for years. To me that is **all** that was there. Magpie: They don't don't go for the prank only to teach Dudley a lesson. They have created these ten tongue toffees because they like practical jokes and they want to sell them and make money. They want to test them on someone. They test them on Dudley. They enjoy the results. They are not just trying to teach Dudley a lesson any more than Slughorn opens the bottle of wine because he really wants to give Ron a birthday present. It's not like they're just making a moral point here. It's fun. Nor is Harry their little brother. I know that's supposed to say something nice about their relationship, but it's a sentimental distortion of their relationship. Harry is Ron's friend, and the Twins like him too. He's a friend of the family, but the distinction between him and actual family is never missed by anyone in the books. The Twins are not driven by brotherly outrage or concern. They're just playing a prank they enjoy, that they think Harry, a kid they like, will also enjoy. -m From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jul 22 05:05:40 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:05:40 EDT Subject: The UV Message-ID: <597.12ef19a.31f30c24@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155805 >Eggplant >If Snape was a good man and if his IQ was larger than his shoe size he would NEVER make a vow when he didn't even know what he is vowing to do. Hero or villain I am certain JKR wants her readers to respect Snape and the above scenario would make that imposable. From fascinating enigma and brilliant master spy Snape would become a member of the 3 stooges. >Then by agreeing to make the vow in the first place Snape has proven himself to be a man of such incompetence and low intelligence that he is no longer an interesting character. Nikkalmati: You can say it various ways and over and over, but that does not make it true. It was not stupid to take the UV, if he had a strong enough reason to do so. The information about Draco's task was potentially vital, worth risking his life to discover. When he agreed to take the vow, he did not think it would encompass more than protecting Draco. He underestimated Narcissa. >Eggplant >Then why wasn't he worried that Bella would tell Voldemort that Snape knew all about the plan? Wouldn't Voldemort wonder how Snape had found out if he hadn't told him. And why would Voldemort tell others about the plan but not his most trusted lieutenant? Nikkalmait: SS convinced her he did know, so why would she expose her ignorance and make LV angry by questioning his actions. "Excuse me, my lord, but did you really tell Snape about the plan?" I don't think that would go over well, especially since, after the MOM, Bella herself was not very well positioned. Also, by taking the UV he made it impossible for Bella to go to LV without admitting she had taken part in a conspiracy against him. I don't think LV has a Most Trusted Lieutenant. He is very secretive and plays one DE against another IMO. Nikkalmati >Eggplant >That's what makes it all so crazy, according to you Snape agreed to make an unbreakable vow and he had no idea what he was going to vow to do. Just try to make a good book with that premise, "dumb" doesn't begin to describe it! Nikkalmati: Snape thought he knew what he was going to be promising: to protect Draco. Part three was a surprise. Either it was literally too late to back out or he had invested too much in the little charade to change his mind. Nikkalmati >Eggplant >If, as I think likely, Snape had already made the exact same vow to Voldemort then there was zero risk in repeating it, and there might be some small gain on getting on the good side of Bella and Narcissa. Nikkalmati: Like he really needs the sisters' help! No I don't think LV needs an unbreakable vow. If a DE doesn't do what he is told LV will kill him personally and enjoy it so much more. Nikkalmati >Eggplant Harry told Dumbledore that Snape had said he made an Unbreakable Vow but it's pretty obvious he didn't believe Snape had really done it. When Draco brought up the same thing Dumbledore responded: "Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but" And there is another reason. Like Snape I also assume Dumbledore had a IQ larger that his shoe size and a smart man just doesn't pick as his most trusted aid someone he knows had vowed to be a traitor and to murder you. As I said before real people just don't do things like that. Nikkalmati: I don't find it obvious. (By "he" do you mean DD or HP?). DD is trying to tell Draco that there is more to Snape's concern that the UV, not that the UV doesn't exist. DD had already picked SS as his most trusted aide long before the UV. Because SS told him about the UV (and because DD did not believe there had been any intent to be a traitor or to murder DD IMHO), he had no reason to change his opinion of SS. Nikkalmati __._,_.__ . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 06:07:01 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What really happened on the tower. Message-ID: <20060722060701.70973.qmail@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155806 > Carol notes: > You may be thinking of the first Petrificus Totalus, which Harry casts > from behind at the "brutal-faced Death Eater" (Yaxley?). But the > second Petrificus Totalus, the one that saves Harry from Fenrir > Greyback, is cast by an unidentified person who can't be Harry because > Harry is pinned down and can't move: > > "As Harry plunged after them, one of the fighters detached themselves > from the fray and flew at him. It was the werewolf, Fenrir. He was on > top of Harry before Harry could raise his wand: Harry fell backward, > with filthy matted hair in his face, the stench of sweat and blood > filling his nose and, hot greedy breath at his throat-- > > "'Petrificus Totalus!' > > "Harry felt Fenrir collapse against him; with a stupendous effort he > pushed the werewolf off and onto the floor. . . ." (HBP Am. ed. 598). >wynnleaf >I particularly recall this passage from the first time I read HBP. I >thought it was confusing. As I was picturing the action, I just >wasn't picturing Harry doing the petrificus totalus. I assumed it was >someone else. But then, the action progressed and I couldn't figure >out who it was. Later, as I re-read it several times, I decided it >had to be Harry, because there wasn't anyone else and surely he'd have >noticed if it was Snape. I thought of it as an editing problem, >except that there are really very few editing problems of that nature >in the books. But I agree, it could very well be misdirection from >the narrator. >A funny thing. Just as I was writing the above paragraph, I decided >to read that quote above to my husband (avidly on the ESE Snape side). >I said, "you know, I think this is confusing," and read the passage >to him. And he said, "Oh, it's not confusing at all. Someone else >fired that petrificus to help Harry." So I said, "But who else was >around just then except DE's and Snape?" My husband was a bit put >out. :D >wynnleaf DA Jones Here: Odd Idea. Let me see if it has wings. The first PT and the second if they were fired by someone would most likely have to be by someone with an invisibility cloak. The only other one in canon is the one Mad Eye Moody owns. Where was Mad Eye during this book? He certainly seems to have disapeared. Perhaps it was Mad Eye who saved Harry? Was Mad Eye on top of th tower perhaps as DD witness to Snape's actions so Snape could be cleared latter? --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 06:36:07 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (aceworker) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 06:36:07 -0000 Subject: Lily's Blood Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155807 At Godrics Hollow perhaps Lily had cast some sort of ancient old magic spell on Harry before Voldermort attacked her that made it so that no one could kill Harry except someone of "Harry's blood". Which is why Lily wanted Voldermort to kill her. Once she was dead she could guarantee that Voldermort could not kill Harry by possessing her. So when Voldemort tried to kill Harry his AK backfired because he could not kill Harry as he was not of "Harry's blood". Voldemort knew he could not defeat Harry until he was of "Harry's blood" which is why he used Harry's blood in his resurrection in GOF and why he then tried immediately to kill him. It would have almost guaranteed him immortality against all but accident.(Since there are not other known Potters) It also guarantees that he can not be killed by any other person except for Harry as he is also now of Harry's blood. It is as if he were Harry's twin. They not only have twin wands, but twin blood. Which explains Dumbledore's gleam because it ensures that Voldemort will have to carry out the prophecy. Which means they can plan for it. Perhaps unknown to Voldemort there is another of "Harry's blood". If DD is related to Harry then could it be Aberforth? Nah. Could Neville actually be Harry's twin somehow? Or perhaps the Weasleys have become so close to Harry that they are know his familly and of his "blood" so a Weasley such as Ginny or Ron or even Hermione could finish off Voldemort. Are the Dursleys of Harry's blood? Is there a reason JKR had Dudley learn boxing. Not that I think it is likely, but is Dudley the muggle the true savior of the wizarding world? Can you imagine Dudley putting Voldemort down for the final count? Maybe Dudley is the "other" who has to decide between Harry and Voldemort? That would be the twists of all twists wouldn't it? The Dursley's start the series maybe then end it with another scene from Vernon's POV. Another scene of celebration as we fade to black For Voldemort quite literally. DA Jones From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jul 22 07:43:37 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 07:43:37 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155808 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > It's not like the word itself really matters since it's a made-up > word about made-up people with no connection to our lives. As has > been pointed out, if you look at what the words mean in the > dictionary (as opposed to imagining how this word is understood in > Rowling's fictional world) it fits. Dudley is a Muggle and what the > twins are doing is baiting. > > -m > OK, because nobody answered in my first post: Marge is a Muggle and what Harry did was torture/baiting. Correct yes/no? Why? Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jul 22 08:29:04 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:29:04 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155809 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > Magpie: > Interesting comparison, given it seems it contains all the things > that keep getting added to the Twins scene when they're not there. > Harry is provoked, and up until the moment his Magic bursts from him > is the person with the least power in the scene. He tries to ignore > the provocation. He's in a state of emotional distress and doesn't > even consciously hex her iirc. So less power imbalance, more self- > defense and less intent to perform magic, much less perform it on a > Muggle. > Gerry "She deserved it," said Harry breathing fast 'She deserved what she got." Harry refuses to put it right. He can but he does not. He is certainly taking advantage of his status as a wizard now. > Magpie: > Rubbish. I have not said anything about the Twins not being allowed > to dislike Dudley--that's a strawman. I said they are taking > advantage of their status as Wizards over his as a Muggle. Since > Harry and Draco are both wizards it obviously erases the very power > imbalance being described. > Gerry Just as Harry over aunt Marge. > > Magpie: > And I continue to disagree with you and do not see myself as being > unfair to Fred and George because of it. Wizards have super powers > that Muggles do not have. That is the *definition* of what they > are. Taking advantage of those super powers is an abuse of power > against a Muggle in a way it is not against a Wizard. The way I > would frame it using your analogy about racism would be to say that > okay, a white person does not hate all black people. But he hates a > particular one because the guy is a bully. Does that mean that if > he chooses to expess his hatred of that black person by using that > inequality against him, it's not racist? Because by using Magic they > are using the dividing line between Wizard and Muggle to their > advantage--in order to test their joke product for Wizards. > Gerry Harry used his superior powers on Aunt Marge. Aunt Marge in the past has used her superior powers over Harry (setting the dog on her and even now she has superior physical powers). Is the situation really that oneven? Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jul 22 08:44:54 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:44:54 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: <00ec01c6ad47$ee0e5dc0$f760400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155810 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > > Magpie: > He does not accuse Emma of insulting her out of snobbery. He scolds her for > abusing the power of her own exalted position. It would be okay for her to > say something like that if Mrs. Bates were not in the weakened position she > is. When you have been blessed with great power, and want to be a good > person, you have to be doubly careful about what you do to others. Because > maybe you, as the powerful person, have the luxury of forgetting about the > inequality for a while, but people with less power can't do that. Emma > didn't set out to decimate Mrs. Bates, but she did. > > That is what the Twins do with Dudley. They don't get to use Magic against > Muggles without it counting just because they're not primarily concerned > with his being a Muggle. He never "just happens to be a Muggle" once they > pull out their wands. Notice the Dursleys never forget the difference > between them and the Weasleys in the scene. OK next example: What about Dumbledore's behaviour at the Dursley's. Forcing entry, forcing them to sit on the couch, having the glasses of mead float around their heads. Was that teaching them a lesson? Was that Muggle baiting? Because the Dursleys are Muggles and Dumbledore has superiour powers. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jul 22 08:53:29 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:53:29 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155811 > Magpie: > And I continue to disagree with you and do not see myself as being > unfair to Fred and George because of it. Wizards have super powers > that Muggles do not have. That is the *definition* of what they > are. Taking advantage of those super powers is an abuse of power > against a Muggle in a way it is not against a Wizard. The way I > would frame it using your analogy about racism would be to say that > okay, a white person does not hate all black people. But he hates a > particular one because the guy is a bully. Does that mean that if > he chooses to expess his hatred of that black person by using that > inequality against him, it's not racist? Because by using Magic they > are using the dividing line between Wizard and Muggle to their > advantage--in order to test their joke product for Wizards. Gerry You are being inconsistent here. If motive does not matter, than it does not matter. If it does not matter that Fred and George use magic on Dudley because he is a bully, it is equally unimportant that the toffee they use is also a test for their joke shop. If the last suddenly does matter, you have to prove that that was the reason why they gave Dudley the opportunity to eat it, and why their comment: that they gave it because he was a bullying git was not the reason. Gerry From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Jul 22 09:27:31 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:27:31 -0000 Subject: Will Harry be mentioned in Dumbledore's will? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155812 > "Vivian" wrote: > > > Will Dumbledore leave something to Harry? The reason for my > > > concern is that DD and HP are two of a very few number to know > > > about the horcruxes. I doubt if the OOTP members are aware of > > > it. If so, the pensieve might be pretty useful, along with > > > whatever relevant memories that come with it. I am not > > > entirely sure that we have seen the last of Fawkes, either. > > "Emilynne" wrote: > > I'm sure that if Dumbledore had any previous inclination of > > his "death" which many of us believe he did, then he would have > > taken the proper precautions to ensure Harry could carry out the > > search for the Horcruxes and ... destroy LV. > > Also I think its likely Dumbledore would have informed someone from > > the Order about the Horcruxes like Mcgonagall or perhaps even Lupin. > > DD would have wanted to gain insight from his trusted companions. > > > Joyce > When HP confronted DD about trusting Snape, DD seemed to have believed that Snape had changed from his old ways. This is further supported when (after the mission for the Horcruxe-locket) he askes HP to get Snape for help. I have a feeling he might have informed Snape about the Horcruxes and this would obiviously be to LV's advantage if Snape mentions that DD had knowledge about this. LV knows that HP and DD had a strong bond and perhaps that was why he needed to have DD killed in order to have HP weakened. From this, therefore, I think that DD might have left Harry other means (i.e posessions) of getting to the Horcruxes instead of anything that is in the school and particularly anything in his office because he might not have wanted anyone else (even from the order) other than HP or Snape to have such information or instrumental links to guide them to what he considered HP's most important strength over LV. > > > aussie: DD's will? Good question! - Pensieve? Not sure if WW allows that - way too personal for wizards to inherit to others. Even if it was possible, I'd prefer to think that the Hog's Head Barman is DD's lost brother and Harry has to talk to him to get such intimate details. - Fawkes? And create rivalry with Hedwig? Doubtful (unless Hedwig gets killed in Book 7). But we may see her again. - Gryffindore's Sword? Not only did it feature before, but HP makes note of it in DD's office. Of course, if Nagini is a temporary Horcrux till LV finds a good Gryffindor artifact, then the holder of the sword would be live bait to attrack LV. - Slytherin's cracked ring? Now that would be a nice ace up his sleeve to scare LV in his last battle. And telling OOTP members about LV Horcruxes? - Snape? No. The pendant did not have extra protection that LV would have put there if he knew the Horcruxes were being eliminated. - McGonagall? No. She asked HP where DD was going. - Lupin has been in a deep undercover position. That is now finished now that Greyback saw him with the OOTP in Hogwarts. DD wouldn't have told him as he was going into a vulnerable mission, and didn't get the chance to after. - Other OOTP members? Moody is the best, but is he too gun-ho? So who else knows for insurance incase HP reaches his expiry date before all the Horcruxes are found? Ron and Hermione. DD would want someone either too skilled for the DE to get information out of them (Neville's parents are proof, that type of person would not exist) or someone flying below LV's radar. Someone he would not expect. Ron and Hermione are perfect. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jul 22 09:30:10 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:30:10 -0000 Subject: KarmaRe: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155813 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > Gerry: > > > In this case the DA was hugely succesful but > > they were betrayed. > > houyhnhnm: > > *Hugely* successful? In what way were they hugely > successful? The Trio acquired two additional allies: > Neville and Luna. What did they achieve by inviting > 25 students, many of whom they barely knew. Someone > was bound to turn traitor. None of the others showed > up the next year to fight the Death Eaters. Some of > them may yet contribute to success in the final battle, > but then they've also had a real DADA professor in the > meantime, so who's to say it will be due to their > participation in DA. Gerry The DA members learned a lot. Especially for the fifth years this meant succes on their OWLS. The rest had almost a year of real DADA lessons instead of the rubbish Umbridge taught. That was why it was formed. And Harry did very, very well. > > On the other hand, if the DA had never been formed, > Dumbledore would not have been forced to leave the > school at a time when they needed him most. Dumbledore > might have been able to sort out the Occlumency fiasco > if he'd been around. Harry might never have been lured > to the Ministry, and Sirius might still be alive. > > Gerry If, when etc. DD explained why he kept his mouth shut. There is no indication at all that he would have changed that policy because of the Occlumency fiasco. If he really wanted Harry warned why Occlumency was so important he could have found a way. He needed not be in school for that. > houyhnhnm: > > This is the standard excuse that is trotted out every > time there is an argument over whether or not one of the > "good' guys did something wrong. They're only kids. > Well, then maybe they should stay out of the action and > let the adults handle it. Action as seeing that they get a decent education? The adults did not much for that, so waiting for them to handle it is not a realistic option. As far as Harry is concerned, he knows kids get targeted by DE's so it is important that they know how to defend themselves. > > Gerry: > > > Was Marietta disaffected? Did she talk about it? > > Did she mention it? > > houyhnhnm: > > At the very first meeting, Cho told Harry that Marietta's > parents had *forbidden* her to do anything to upset Umbridge. > That should have been a red flag. You're probably going to > say that since she didn't tell Hermione that lets Hermione > off the hook. I say that when Hermione decided to invite > a couple of dozen students she hardly knew to engage in a > clandestine activity, she should have made it her business > to know what was going on with each of them. Gerry So, because parents forbid something this should be a red flag? Children are not the extension of their parents, they have minds of their own. Were Fred, George and Ron allowed to take Arthur's car to get Harry? Hermione is not a general in a war who has had years of study. She is somebody who did a very good first attempt. I'm sure she learned a lot. > > Gerry: > > > Blaming the victim. Sorry but I get rather angry with > > this sort of reasoning. Because I've seen it in the past: > > she should have dressed differently, she should not have > > walked there, etc. etc. Or: she should not have made me > > angry (how many abusers use this kind of reasoning?) > > houyhnhnm: > > You're talking about blame. I'm talking about responsibility. > How satisfying would it be to be able to blame the bad guys > if Voldemort were to win the war. It seems like it would > be a lot better to keep that from happening. The blame game > is a loser's strategy. (And yes, I have been mugged. However > psychologically satisfying it was to blame the criminal, it > didn't get me my purse or my credit back. I wanted to make > sure it never happened again, so I did look at how my > carelessness may have contributed to the incident.) Gerry Blaming the criminal has nothing to do with psychological satisfaction. The criminal did the deed. That is why criminals get punished. The fault is always with the criminal. Your way of reasoning is a very dangerous one. In some cases it is clear cut. If I leave my handbag open, I am in more danger from pickpockets. It is my responsibility to zip my handbag. But it is not my responsibility that if I walk home from work at 11 p.m. that somebody cycles up behind me and tries to rip my bag from my shoulder. Hermione did a very good job and Marietta is a very nasty person. She could just have stepped out, she could have said no in the beginning. She wanted to ingratiate herself with Umbridge at the cost of a lot of people including her best friend. I think a normal decent person would have to experience such behaviour to believe anybody capable of that. I'm sure neither Harry, Ron or Hermione will make that kind of mistake again. I just read the pages again, and to me it is clear the pustules are fading and that is the reason why nobody did anything to make them go away. Adequate punishement, fitting the crime. Gerry From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sat Jul 22 09:31:00 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:31:00 -0000 Subject: Snape Lovers beware Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155814 aussie: IMO, Snape witnessed enough to know Peter Pettigrew was Scabbers, the rat, in the Shrieking Shack. Since POA, we learnt more things about Snape that makes this more likely. He is a spy that survived a very long time. He knows how to be quiet and listen when needed. He is spying on his long term rivals, Black and Lupin. So why did an experienced spy with an excellent chance here to get long hidden secrets speak up as early as he did? SNAPE'S MOTIVE Peter must know something about Snape and Snape knows it. Snape had to keep Peter quiet. It would have to be DE related. For some time, I've believed Snape recruited Pettigrew to the DE. That would have been some time before James and Lily died. Of course, there could have been something else that had happened since then. After all, Snape would still have to explain how come Black went to Azkaban if Snape knew Pettigrew was a DE. Also the question comes up if Snape recognised Scabbers when he was Percy's pet. How long had Snape hidden DE facts? THE EVIDENCE Read POA Chapters 17 - 19 from Snape's point of view. What did he hear? What did he see? Canon recap: HOW SNAPE GOT THERE We know Snape saw Lupin on the Map go through the tunnel under the Whomping Willow. He said he was in Lupins office to help with the Wolfsbane Potion when he saw the map on the desk. That is the way Lupin would go as a student when a full moon was coming. Snape may have assumed Lupin needed the potion to control himself. Lupin saw Peter go through the tunnel with Black, but Harry and Hermione were slowed down by the Whomping Willlow. Then they were cautious when they entered the Shack. That delay helped Lupin come before they hurt Black. There was a lot of shouting and accusing, especially after finding out Lupin was a werewolf. This delay helped Snape enter the Shack. Now back to snape's experience. Snape found Harry's invisibility cloak near the tunnel entrance. Now he knows students are in there, so he wants to enter cautiously but quickly to save them from a werewolf if need be. Snape sneaks into the Shrieking Shack under the invisibility cloak. WHAT THINGS SNAPE SAW / HEARD Noise travelled pretty well inside the shack. Harry and Hermoine heard creaking floor boards from up stairs and when they go upstairs, they could hear the Crookshanks purring. When Lupin arrived, the trio heard muffled footsteps downstairs and called to Lupin. So what did Snape hear before the door creaked open? He crept up the stairs, since no-one heard footsteps like Lupins. Snape may have been downstairs when Ron shouted, "HE'S NOT PETER, HE'S SCABBERS!" Also, while Snape was outside the door, Hermione said, "Scabbers can't be Pettigrew ... Pettigrew's name wasn't on the list (of animagi)." Inside the room, (the door in the room creaks open as our signal when Snape under the invisibility cloak turns up) Snape would see Black sitting on the edge of the bed with Ron holding his pet rat. Harry was in another part of the room (where he later could move to block Snape leaving the door). The trio looked at Lupin as he spoke, but Black was "watching Scabbers every desperate move." Lupin was telling the trio background known fully only by the Maunderers. He said, "Three great friends ... became animagi" "Peter was the smallest" "Peter is Wormtail" If Snape didn't know the rat's name, the squeaking and wrestling in Ron's grasp would have made it obvious. Scabbers was making more noise than Ron. Snape could not look at the bed and not notice the rat. Unless Snape already knew what was going to be said, he should have shown the patience of a spy and gathered more information. If Ron could wait with a broken leg, what prompted Snape to interrupt? AFTER SNAPE TAKES CLOAK OFF After Snape pulls the cloak off, 3 people try to point out the Rat. - "(Sirius) is innocent" // Lupin is roped; - "But if there was a mistake" // Hermione is threatened with expulsion; - "bring the rat up to the castle" // Black is threatened with the Dementor's Kiss. Snape had the opportunity and ability to realise Scabbers the Rat was Peter Pettigrew, the wizard Black was meant to have killed 12 years before. So why didn't he want that information to be proven? Like Lupin, the embarrassing facts may not have been important for DD or the OOTP to know from Snape's biased opinion. The only one effected, that he could see, was Sirius Black. Peggy and Carol have written about that time recently. I noticed from their posts that at no time before Snape starts to move for the door does Snape offer any wolfsbane potion to Lupin or even suggests that he has any with him. Aussie, hoping I haven't made too many enemies From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Jul 22 10:05:23 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 06:05:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What really happened on the tower. Message-ID: <426.749e128.31f35263@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155815 In a message dated 7/22/2006 2:07:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, aceworker at yahoo.com writes: DA Jones Here: Odd Idea. Let me see if it has wings. The first PT and the second if they were fired by someone would most likely have to be by someone with an invisibility cloak. The only other one in canon is the one Mad Eye Moody owns. Where was Mad Eye during this book? He certainly seems to have disapeared. Perhaps it was Mad Eye who saved Harry? Was Mad Eye on top of th tower perhaps as DD witness to Snape's actions so Snape could be cleared latter? --------------------------------- Sherrie here: If Mad-Eye (or Neville, who I've also seen nominated) was on top of the tower at that point, I'd run a check of their left arms. There was a barrier there - the only people who could get through it were those who wore the Dark Mark. That leaves us with Severus, The Big Blonde Dude, or a random spell that missed its true mark and just HAPPENED to hit Greyback at the right moment. No, I don't think it was Harry, either vrbl or nvbl - either way, he'd have had to move his wand, which the narrator tells us he was unable to do at that point. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jul 22 11:52:50 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:52:50 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155816 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > But in that case, leaving a girl disfigured for such a great length > of time for just being a snitch is a rather cruel form of vengence, > IMO. And Hermione needs to realize that. She should be above such > vicious acts of cruelty, IMO. That is if you believe Marietta made a mistake. Marietta never said she did. Cho said so. Marietta does nothing, keeps her mouth shut and never even approaches Harry again. I don't think she made a mistake, she wanted to ingratiate herself with Umbridge. She knew the decree, she knew how Trelawny - a teacher - was treated by Umbridge. She knew everybody or at least somebody could be expelled and she knew what expulsion means: being forbidden to use magic. Knowing all that and still going to Umbridge is vicious, cruel and vile. > Betsy Hp: > I pulled this comment from another thread, but this is exactly what > I see happening in the Hermione/Marietta discussions. I say what > Hermione did was horribly underhanded and cruel and I get > told, "Well, Marietta deserved it!" (Which always makes me wonder > if teachers are out there with purple markers writing "Snitch" on > the faces of children who tell tales, since disfigurment is such a > popular disciplinary tool all of a sudden. ) Gerry This is not about telling tales. This is about wilfully bringing others including the person who is your best friend in danger. Yes Hermionde made the hex. Yes it was not particularly nice. And I don't think it comes even close to what Marietta did. > > Yes, Marietta snitched on the other students. > woman's skirt was really short, or yes, your girlfriend did burn > your dinner. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking > about the over-the-top punishment being handed out. > I think that is the big difference: What Marietta did cannot be compared to normal tale-telling. Because the consequences - which Marietta knows - are so much bigger. It is not telling tales it is betrayal. > The person I'm concerned about is Hermione. I think she's heading > in a bad direction and needs to be checked. > I don't think so at all. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jul 22 11:59:23 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:59:23 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155817 > OK, because nobody answered in my first post: Marge is a Muggle and > what Harry did was torture/baiting. Correct yes/no? Why? > > Gerry > Oops, I was too hasty, please ignore. Gerry From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jul 22 12:08:04 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:08:04 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155818 Gerry: > OK, because nobody answered in my first post: Marge is a Muggle and what Harry did was torture/baiting. Correct yes/no? Why? Ceridwen: Actually, two or three people have already answered, though with a slight lag in posts being sent and the same posts making it to the board at times, you may not have noticed them. Upshot of the ones I have read this morning is, this is a classic case of 'accidental magic' along the same lines as Harry's hair growing back after Petunia clipped it, or Harry flying (or apparating?) to the roof of the school to get away from his tormentors. He did not purposely target Aunt Marge even though he was very angry with her. He did not use his wand, he did not use some other magical artifact. His anger at what she was saying about his mother was enough to provoke an unintended magical occurrence. And adding: Even after the Marge incident, the magical Obliviator S.W.A.T. team came out, deflated Marge, and modified Muggle memories while Harry had an interview with Fudge, who was, at the time, trying to get on Harry's good side so discounted what had been done. Maybe you should have asked about Harry's intentional use of magic in front of a Muggle when the Dementors attacked him while he and Dudley were walking home. Harry was called before the Wizengamot and nearly expelled from Hogwarts. The only thing that saved him was the (to Wizards) nearly worthless testimony from a Squib, that Dementors really were present. Merely using magic in front of a Muggle was enough to get Harry dragged into court. Ceridwen. From kellymolinari at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 12:13:54 2006 From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:13:54 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lily and Levicorpus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155819 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dana" wrote: > I also think that JKR has been pointing to the fact that someone from Gryffindor will have to make an alliance with someone from Slytherin. The hat has said it twice now. I think it might be Malfoy. > > Dana Kelly now: If a Gryffindor/Slytherin alliance is needed in order to defeat Voldemort we already have the perfect set up between Harry and Snape. Sooner or later Harry is going to have to realize that he will need help. Like it or not Snape is the most able to do this. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 12:46:20 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:46:20 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155820 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Gerry: > > OK, because nobody answered in my first post: Marge is a Muggle and > what Harry did was torture/baiting. Correct yes/no? Why? >Steven1965aaa: To push the same point a little further, how about Dumbledore's visit to the Dursleys in HBP? While he was certainly polite about it he bullied them into permitting him to "trespass" on their hospitality. He went inside without being invited, saying let us assume you have invited me inside... I think it was clear they wanted him to leave, but instead he stayed. He also seemed to be enjoying himself, even with respect to the glasses hitting them on the heads. Muggle Baiting??? Steven1965aaa, tongue planted in cheek From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 13:21:39 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:21:39 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155821 > a_svirn: > They found it > particularly hilarious when the whole muggle family was humiliated > and went frantic with panic. How come their notion of fun is so very > different from that of Death Eaters'? AD: I don't know. Have the Death Eaters in question ever found their 12-year-old friend and teammate locked in a room with bars on the window? Have they ever ripped the bars off themselves, then found an innocent owl padlocked in a cage, unable to fly, to hunt, or even to stretch her wings? Have they ever picked the locks on their friend's bedroom door? Have they seen the catflap though which he was fed cold soup? Have they crept through his darkened house to find the cupboard in which his school things were locked away? The cupboard he slept in for most of a decade? Have they witnessed the contempt with which his "family" regards their friend? Seen those very well-off people dress him in ill-fitting castoffs? Have they heard tales of Harry-hunting? Of barren birthdays and cheerless Christmasses? Have they? Amiable Dorsai From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Jul 22 13:27:16 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 06:27:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Lily and Levicorpus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155822 Kelly now: If a Gryffindor/Slytherin alliance is needed in order to defeat Voldemort we already have the perfect set up between Harry and Snape. Sooner or later Harry is going to have to realize that he will need help. Like it or not Snape is the most able to do this. Sherry now: I firmly believe it will be the young people who will bring about the downfall of Voldemort, and that it will be the young people who will unite the houses, if that is going to happen. As I also believe Draco will be one who is redeemed, if JKR is going that way, I think it will be Draco and Harry who bring about the Gryffindor/Slytherin uniting in the process. In a way, the entire six years of dislike between Draco and Harry would be a brilliant background to bring about this change. Harry saw that Draco began to lower his wand on the tower, that Draco could not murder Dumbledore. I can't imagine any scenario under which Harry would ever trust Snape, but I don't believe in greater good murders of generals by lieutenants either. And I never liked Draco till I started feeling compassion for him during moments in HBP, So I'm not suggesting this Draco and Harry ability to learn to work together from the view of a Draco fan. I just think it's been telegraphed by Draco and Harry on the tower at the end of HBP. I also think, from JKR comments I read once--wish I could find it again--that the author is focusing more on the young characters than the adults. Yes, unfortunately, Snape will have a role to play somehow, for good or ill, but I predict it will be Draco who will work with Harry to defeat Voldemort. Not that they will become best buddies or anything else. Just that they will put aside their dislike to work together for the sake of their world. Now that's the sort of greater good scenario I can believe and would like to see. sherry ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/s4wxlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Wondering what to do this summer? Go to Patronus 2006 (http://www.patronus.dk/2006) or, if you're already registered for Lumos (http://www.hp2006.org), meet up with other HPfGU members there! Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST _READ Yahoo! Groups Links From random832 at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 06:03:59 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:03:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607212303m532bee5i1422ff8dd681d9eb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155823 > Pippin: > What is illegal is for wizards to play magical pranks on > Muggles, and as far as we know, the name of that crime is Muggle- > baiting. . Of course there has to be intent, but the > only intent established in canon is to play a prank on Muggles, > not to hate them, IMO. The question is, for what purposes are muggle relatives of wizards who know about magic considered "muggles" - clearly they're not in at least one case, that of the international statute of wizarding secrecy. Might there be more? -- Random832 From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jul 22 15:21:54 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:21:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) References: Message-ID: <005601c6ada2$92ef95c0$9b86400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155824 > Gerry > "She deserved it," said Harry breathing fast 'She deserved what she got." > > Harry refuses to put it right. He can but he does not. He is certainly > taking advantage of his status as a wizard now. Magpie: I don't remember that he can put it right (ironically, that would probably get him in trouble again, because he's not allowed to use Magic at all, though he should get off in that case because he would be helping her). But regardless, Magic has been used on a Muggle and that is against the law. This particular bit of Magic was done unintentionally by Harry. He's not sorry after the fact and does nothing himself to undo it, but he did not do it intentionally. It happened. The right thing for Harry to do would be to undo it, but he chooses not to use his powers to help Marge (if he can). Nor does he use any Magic after that. He just leaves the scene. I don't think there's any rules about how Wizards have to help Muggles. Harry's not making the good or kind choice in refusing to help, but did not make the choice to hex Marge. Similarly, I think Hagrid's crime would be giving Dudley the pig's tail while trying to turn him into a pig. It would have been nicer of him to undo it afterwards, but his not doing that is a slightly different decision than doing it in the first place. > Gerry > Harry used his superior powers on Aunt Marge. Aunt Marge in the past > has used her superior powers over Harry (setting the dog on her and > even now she has superior physical powers). Is the situation really > that oneven? Magpie: Marge did not just use her superior powers on Harry "in the past," she was using them on him at the time. And Magic in turn burst out of Harry--his powers used themselves. Magic has been used on a Muggle, which is a wrong. A wrong which happened by accident, in a spontaneous defense, for which Harry was not consciously responsible. Gerry: OK next example: What about Dumbledore's behaviour at the Dursley's.Forcing entry, forcing them to sit on the couch, having the glasses of mead float around their heads. Was that teaching them a lesson? Was that Muggle baiting? Because the Dursleys are Muggles and Dumbledore has superiour powers. Magpie: I think it was Muggle-baiting, intentionally terrorizing them with Magic. He may have described it as teaching them a lesson, but he's teaching it through Muggle-baiting. I don't think anyone would deny he's teasing and intimidating them with Magic. The only disagreement in canon (as with the Twins) is whether it's good of him to do because they deserve it or not. I think he's also being careful in not hexing them--he can say he didn't do anything to them, just gave them mead and offered them a chair, but the intention seems clear enough. Rather sneaky of him. For some people this saved Dumbledore as a character for him, because he finally went after the Dursleys. For others this scene sunk the character in their estimation. Gerry You are being inconsistent here. If motive does not matter, than it does not matter. If it does not matter that Fred and George use magic on Dudley because he is a bully, it is equally unimportant that the toffee they use is also a test for their joke shop. Magpie: I am not being inconsistent. First, I did not say motive did not matter. Motive is a perfectly valid thing to talk about--and it can make a serious difference if there's a question of self-defense. I just said that motive does not necessarily make something not Muggle-baiting. It can make something not Muggle-baiting, imo, in a true self-defense situation for instance. I don't think the Twins' motive in this case makes it not Muggle-baiting. If we are going to talk about the Twins' motive, which is a valid thing to talk about since it's part of canon too, I'd just assume talk about what's actually in canon. Festuco: If the last suddenly does matter, you have to prove that that was the reason why they gave Dudley the opportunity to eat it, and why their comment: that they gave it because he was a bullying git was not the reason. Magpie: Iirc, it's the reason they give. They first want to hear how the toffee worked, etc. It's a joke and so hilarious (they are consistently shown to love pranking people). When Arthur yells about his being a Muggle then they say they chose him because he's a great bullying git. Both reasons come into play, which I tried to say. They' say they've been looking for someone to test their products on--that's canon. They say they gave them to Dudley because he's a git. That's canon too. I think Weasley's Wizard Wheezes is shown throughout canon to be the dominant motivation for the Twins, more so than any on-going anguish over little Harry's sufferings of the past. And of course there's also the ongoing fact that they like to prank people. Either way they planned and carried out a prank on a Muggle. One they had reason to think was a jerk and who himself bullies smaller Muggles. -m From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jul 22 11:57:12 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:57:12 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155825 I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed before but I was just re- reading HBP and it jumped out at me that Snape's mum attended Hogwarts at around the same time as Tom Riddle.This makes me wonder whether there is a link between the two. Even if they could be related somehow? Just thought I'd throw it out there! Any theories??? Tinktonks From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Jul 22 15:37:34 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:37:34 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was ... uh, I forget, surely it was something....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155826 > Ceridwen wrote: > > And adding: Even after the Marge incident, the magical Obliviator > S.W.A.T. team came out, deflated Marge, and modified Muggle memories > while Harry had an interview with Fudge, who was, at the time, trying > to get on Harry's good side so discounted what had been done. > Ken: Oh, yeah, obliviating, that is what I was trying to remember. For me to spend so much time discussing the ton tongue toffee prank on a spoiled bully who has had several years to wrap his pea brain around the fact that his live in cousin is a wizard and who's own mother should have helped him deal with this his entire life is to strain at a gnat while swallowing the camel that is the practice of obliviation. I don't hear anyone who is so bent out of shape by this "muggle-baiting" candy expressing any outrage at this staple of the wizarding world that is a million times worse. Is there anything more precious to you than your experiences, your memories, your intellect? Is it not the human mind, more than anything else, that sets us apart from other animals? By what right does the WW tamper with the minds of muggles? How dare Arthur berate his sons for a prank when he condones this kind on attack on those most precious minds of his fellow human beings on a daily basis? Magical or not, a prank is just a prank. The WW's attitude towards muggles is HORRIBLE, from top to bottom. It isn't just Death Eaters, it is EVERYONE! Even DD is infected by it. Even Hermione is adopting it. This concern over the toffee is an example of "zero tolerance" thinking. Don't you see what it has done to you, and does to you in the real world too? It focuses your mind so strongly on tiny details that you lose sight of the big picture. If ton tongue toffees really existed the company that made them would also make a fortune selling them to boys Dudley's age who would gladly eat them themselves as often as they used them to prank someone else. The toffee prank is not an incident worthy of our consideration, not when the WW maintains its culture by raping and pillaging the minds of innocent muggles. *THAT* is the skeleton hidden in the WW's closet. This whole notion that I know better than you what is good for you so I am going to modify your memory so that you don't remember anything inconvenient, err, I mean unpleasant, is totally abhorrent to me. It is monstrous really. I'm sorry, very, very sorry but we muggles have to deal with so many unpleasant facts of life and have done so with great resilience for millenia. I need a wizards help to deal with the emotional pain of a shrinking key or a backed up toilet? The notion that I might pester you a bit too often for help repairing a broken glass is your excuse for assulting my mind? A ton tongue toffee? Heck, I'd eat one of those myself if I needed a good laugh or thought someone else did! The Twins are the least of the muggle's problems and if they live I bet they expand their joke shop business into the muggle world with great success. Ken From harryp at stararcher.com Sat Jul 22 12:53:00 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:53:00 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155827 In the hands of a good author -- and JKR is good -- the unreliable narrator would be just like life: full of surprises and yet, looking back on what came before, should not have been totally unexpected. Eddie From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jul 22 16:24:49 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:24:49 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was ... uh, I forget, surely it was something....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155828 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > The toffee prank is not an incident worthy of our consideration, > not when the WW maintains its culture by raping and pillaging the > minds of innocent muggles. *THAT* is the skeleton hidden in the WW's > closet. This whole notion that I know better than you what is good for > you so I am going to modify your memory so that you don't remember > anything inconvenient, err, I mean unpleasant, is totally abhorrent to > me. It is monstrous really. > But that is not the reason they modify memories. They modify a Muggle memory to make him forget anything related to magic in order to keep the WW a secret. Now I agree, I think it is horrible to do so. I agree they feel condescending towards Muggles. But nobody says that Obliviation happens because it is good for the Muggle. Gerry From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jul 22 16:28:41 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:28:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hate crimes (was ... uh, I forget, surely it was something....) References: Message-ID: <007201c6adab$e8bf45a0$9b86400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155829 > Ken: > For me to spend so much time discussing the ton tongue toffee prank > on a spoiled bully who has had several years to wrap his pea brain > around the fact that his live in cousin is a wizard and who's own > mother should have helped him deal with this his entire life is to > strain at a gnat while swallowing the camel that is the practice of > obliviation. I don't hear anyone who is so bent out of shape by this > "muggle-baiting" candy expressing any outrage at this staple of > the wizarding world that is a million times worse. Magpie: Actually, many of us do express outrage at memory-charms. I think it's one of the reasons it's impossible for Wizards to treat Muggles with respect--they regularly decide when it's okay to violate their minds "for their own good." It's a total abuse of power and a violation and, I agree, permeates the entire culture. Even Hermione has developed a maternalistic attitude towards her parents. I think the reason the Toffee incident is because people think there's one obvious way to read the scene and then it turns out people actually have different opinions on it. There's a number of incidents like this, I think, and they usually center around the same kind of thing--some kind of punishment or place where somebody "deserved it." This is something that the books themselves seem to turn on, so I don't think it's a strange thing. Ken Hutchinson: This concern over the toffee is an example of "zero tolerance" > thinking. Don't you see what it has done to you, and does to you in > the real world too? It focuses your mind so strongly on tiny details > that you lose sight of the big picture. Magpie: It's not zero tolerance thinking--I think that's intentionally exaggerating the position of the other side to make it less credible. It's not like anyone is saying the Twins should be put in jail or that this makes them Death Eaters. It's just saying how one views what's actually going on in the scene. If anything is asked of the Twins it's just that they think about what they did a different way--which is what their own father tells them to do in canon. Granted as a Muggle I seem to have less tolerance about wizards giving Muggles what they deserve than some other Muggles on this list, at least when it comes to myself. You also seem to find practical jokes mostly funny and I don't--common difference in taste. (It may also be connected to who a reader identifies with in the scene, the Muggles because they are Muggles or the Wizards because they are the heroes.) This just turned out to be a scene in a book that generates discussion. Plenty of people are tying the incident into the bigger picture--which includes tying the casual punishment of Muggles with Magic to the casual mind-rape of Muggles with Magic. Ken: The toffee prank is not an incident worthy of our consideration, > not when the WW maintains its culture by raping and pillaging the > minds of innocent muggles. Magpie: It's not worthy of our consideration, but I notice you, like everyone else, are happy to tell us how we should consider it: Nothing to see here. It's funny. Boys will be boys. The Twins' view of things is to be agreed with; Arthur's anger should be dismissed as exaggerated and because it's hypocritical. Ken: > A ton tongue toffee? Heck, I'd eat one of those myself if I needed a > good laugh or thought someone else did! The Twins are the least of > the muggle's problems and if they live I bet they expand their joke > shop business into the muggle world with great success. Magpie: So you see the toffee as unrelated to the memory charms while some of us see it as more related, even if it's less serious. Seems to me that explains why the toffee incident is not something unworthy of our consideration. Nobody who is merely saying that yes, they think this is Muggle-baiting, has claimed the Twins are anywhere near the biggest problem to Muggles. As an aside, I think the memory charms are far more sinister myself, of course. The people at the QWC are wandering around wishing people Happy Christmas and Arthur seems to think it's cute--something I doubt he'd use to describe the Longbottoms' own mentally damaged state. However, the reason that I wind up talking endlessly about the Toffee (having the same conversation over and over for years) is because it keeps getting brought up and characterized in a way I disagree with. When that happens I say that I read it differently. Especially when things seem to be getting distorted. I don't consider it more of a major scene in canon than anyone else does, it just happens to be a scene that people read differently. And as Betsy pointed out, it's a scene that kicks off the book that introduces many of the forms of cruelty that become more important later on. Cruelty that it seems to me later books show is not really as meaningless as the incident is laid out to be. We've seen in canon pranks that go awry, that have consequences, that aren't so funny in retrospect. Honestly, this just seems like the last series in the world where this kind of thing doesn't matter. It sometimes seems like exactly what makes the WW tick. -m From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jul 22 16:40:19 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:40:19 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: <20060722060701.70973.qmail@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, career advisor wrote: > > > > Carol notes: > > You may be thinking of the first Petrificus Totalus, which Harry casts > > from behind at the "brutal-faced Death Eater" (Yaxley?). But the > > second Petrificus Totalus, the one that saves Harry from Fenrir > > Greyback, is cast by an unidentified person who can't be Harry because > > Harry is pinned down and can't move: > > > > "As Harry plunged after them, one of the fighters detached themselves > > from the fray and flew at him. It was the werewolf, Fenrir. He was on > > top of Harry before Harry could raise his wand: Harry fell backward, > > with filthy matted hair in his face, the stench of sweat and blood > > filling his nose and, hot greedy breath at his throat-- > > > > "'Petrificus Totalus!' > > > > "Harry felt Fenrir collapse against him; with a stupendous effort he > > pushed the werewolf off and onto the floor. . . ." (HBP Am. ed. 598). > wynnleaf If this piece of text is actually a bit of misdirection by the narrator, where we're expected to think the petrificus totalus is by Harry, but really it's someone else -- then there will have to be some time in Book 7 when the "truth comes out." While I can envision many scenarios for other suspected misdirections in which the "truth comes out" in Book 7, I find it hard to come up with a reason for why the reader would ever learn that someone else performed that particular PT. It seems to me that Harry would have to, for some reason I can't yet conceive, decide to review those events in a pensieve. Why would he do that? I can't see why he'd start to wonder about events in order to want to re-evaluate them. And the rest of the witnesses were all DE's, or Snape. The only reason to do a misdirection here would be if the person that performed the PT needed to be kept secret from the reader. But the secret has to be divulged eventually, and this incident seems unlikely to be the kind to be addressed again. It wouldn't be an unreliable narrator piece of misdirection if we're never going to find out the truth. But I can't think of any reason why we *would* find out more about this incident. While JKR could probably come up with something, I can't quite imagine a scenario. Any ideas? wynnleaf From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 17:01:22 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:01:22 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155831 > Mike now: > Here is a non-description without shifting POV: Harry knows he > didn't spike Ron's pumpkin juice with Felix, yet we are led to > believe he did, until we reach the locker room scene after the > match. In fact the narrator tells us that Harry thinks, "Hermione > had never really understood what a serious business Quidditch was" > (p.293,US) and Harry mutters, "That's right, Smith, he is" > (p.296,US). > > The unreliable narrator is telling the story from Harry's POV and > yet we don't know that Harry didn't really spike the juice. Further, > we are treated to comments and musings the lead us further to > believe the spiking occurred. This is clearly a case of trickery on > JKR's part wherein we do find out that she *conned* us purposely. > Harry knows, we are in Harry's POV, we don't know. Neri: Yes, you found the example I mentioned as a special exception in the post were I first suggested the term "non-description": http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148445 As I wrote there, it is indeed a non-description used to fool the reader, but it is not used to fool *Harry*. In fact it is Harry here who is fooling the reader. It's an exception that in a sense only strengthen my suggestion, that JKR considers it unfair to fool both Harry and the reader with non-descriptions. This example shows that she is quite able to employ a non-description in a very purposeful way. She certainly has that tool in her arsenal. She just never uses it to spring a surprise on both Harry and us. In that post I issued the challenge of finding an "unfair" non-description, that is, a non-description that is used to fool both the hero and the reader. See also: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148501 where I answered some other counter-examples raised by other listees. Since no clear-cut counter-example was yet found in six books I guess I'll now have to extend the challenge to Austen's books as well . Neri From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Jul 22 17:12:07 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:12:07 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155832 > Neri: > Yes, you found the example I mentioned as a special exception in the > post were I first suggested the term "non-description": > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148445 > > As I wrote there, it is indeed a non-description used to fool the > reader, but it is not used to fool *Harry*. In fact it is Harry here > who is fooling the reader. It's an exception that in a sense only > strengthen my suggestion, that JKR considers it unfair to fool both > Harry and the reader with non-descriptions. This example shows that > she is quite able to employ a non-description in a very purposeful > way. She certainly has that tool in her arsenal. She just never uses > it to spring a surprise on both Harry and us. > > In that post I issued the challenge of finding an "unfair" > non-description, that is, a non-description that is used to fool both > the hero and the reader. See also: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148501 > where I answered some other counter-examples raised by other listees. > Since no clear-cut counter-example was yet found in six books I guess > I'll now have to extend the challenge to Austen's books as well . > > Neri > wynnleaf, First, many of us don't consider these "unfair." Second, you originally said JKR didn't do this, now you say that there are "fair" exceptions. Then you ask for "clear-cut" examples of "unfair" situations. The PT *is* an example. If it was "clear-cut" it wouldn't be misdirection at all and would be a failure on JKR's part to deceive us. These things don't become clear-cut until after they've been explained in a "The Truth Comes Out" sort of scene, which can't happen until Book 7. You were also given an example from the cursed broom scene in PS/SS, but I guess you don't consider it "clear-cut." Many, however, do consider it clear-cut and not unfair at all. It is simply your own preference for how you care to be surprised and for how you do not wish to be surprised, that is moving you to label this form of misdirection "unfair." I have not seen any particular literary tradition that considers this method "unfair." wynnleaf From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jul 22 17:13:07 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:13:07 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155833 Tinktonks: > I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed before but > I was just re-reading HBP and it jumped out at me that Snape's > mum attended Hogwarts at around the same time as Tom Riddle. > This makes me wonder whether there is a link between the two. houyhnhnm: I am highly suspicious about the assumption that Eileen Prince attended Hogwarts in the 1940s. In fact I am highly suspicious about everything relating to the Half Blood Prince even though the mystery appears to have been cleared up at the end of book 6. It's not that I have an alternative theory. It's just that bearing in mind the current discussion about the unreliable narrator device, I can't help thinking about the extent to which the reader has been manipulated with respect to the HBP. First there was the "small, cramped handwriting". Oho! I got that. It was easy. A little too easy? Then, at the Weasleys' during Christmas break, Lupin pointed Harry to the publication date "nearly" fifty years ago. Then there was the way Snape honed in on Harry's possession of the HBP's potion book, as if he were already suspicious (because it was his). But we never got to find out for sure because Harry hid the book in the RoR. Hermione discovered a "very old" newspaper article about an Eileen Prince who was captain of the Gobstones team. Then we had Snape shouting, "It was I who invented them--I, the Half-Blood Prince!" Finally, Hermione: It's just that I was right about Eileen Prince once owning the book. You see ... she was Snape's mother!" It's as perfect as a syllogism. Who wouldn't draw the same conclusion as Hermione, and from there, make the further deduction that Eileen Prince was a contemporary of Tom Riddle. So certain was I of this series of logical deductions that I "remembered" that the date of publication of the Gobstones article was 1945. However when I went back to check (because of a discussion on the list) there was no date for that article or for the marriage announcement. What seems as logical as a geometry a proof is really a series of temptations to leap to a conclusion. I'm not trying to advance a theory that it was not Snape who fled across the lawn, because I don't see how that could work. I'm looking at it from the other end, the extent to which the reader is tempted into making one assumption after another. There's just an awful lot of manipulation going on it seems to me. Even the *proof* that Snape is the HBP is based on a circular argument: We know Snape was the HBP because he claimed it during the Flight of the Prince and we know that it was really Snape (and not someone polyjuiced to look like Snape) because he admitted that he was the HBP. There are all sorts of simple explanations for why Snape had a fifty years old textbook, including the fact that it belonged to his mother who purchased it new fifty years ago. She may also have attended Hogwarts many years later with a used book for NEWT potions, or the book may never have been hers at all. OR there's the possibility that we have been set up for a really big shocker. I, for one, am keeping my fingers crossed. The fact that I can't imagine, at this point, how Rowling will pull it off, will make it all the tastier when the time comes. From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jul 22 13:45:20 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:45:20 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155834 a_svirn: They found it particularly hilarious when the whole muggle family was humiliated and went frantic with panic. How come their notion of fun is so very different from that of Death Eaters'? AD: I don't know. Have the Death Eaters in question ever found their 12-year-old friend and teammate locked in a room with bars on the window? Have they ever ripped the bars off themselves, then found an innocent owl padlocked in a cage, unable to fly, to hunt, or even to stretch her wings? Have they ever picked the locks on their friend's bedroom door? Have they seen the catflap though which he was fed cold soup? Have they crept through his darkened house to find the cupboard in which his school things were locked away? The cupboard he slept in for most of a decade? Have they witnessed the contempt with which his "family" regards their friend? Seen those very well-off people dress him in ill- fitting castoffs? Have they heard tales of Harry-hunting? Of barren birthdays and cheerless Christmasses? Have they? Tinktonks: I think the whole argument comes down to reason. What reason did the DE's have? None, except entertainment. What reason did F&G have? All those listed above. I am not saying that their reasons are acceptable (Mainly because I will probably get drawn in to a long and pointless disagreement with people who's point of view wil always differ from my own, and neither point will be reconcilled) what I am saying is that they had reason. Muggle baiting is for pleasure. Not for any purpose or in response to any wrong done. It is pure voyeristic enjoyment of suffering, whats more it is done by cowards who enjoy hurting anyone who they feel they can get away with hurting. This is NOT F&G's motivation and we see nothing suggesting that they have anything like those character traits. I have seen nobody criticising Zonko's for selling biting teacuos even though they could be used for muggle-baiting in the wrong hands. So why should F&G be persecuted for what others decide to do with their products? Anything can be abused? Should we all be deprived of water because someone may use it to drown another? F&G believed that their actions were justified or not (whether you agree or not) and that is the difference. Tinktonks - Who thinks that this debate will never be resolved and should be laid to rest, for nobody is going to change their minds and it is spreading contempt between members rather than friendship and enjoyable debate which we all enjoy so much and which this brilliant site was designed for. From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jul 22 17:28:18 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:28:18 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was ... uh, I forget, surely it was something....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155835 Ken: > For me to spend so much time discussing the ton tongue > toffee prank on a spoiled bully who has had several years > to wrap his pea brain around the fact that his live in cousin > is a wizard and who's own mother should have helped him deal > with this his entire life is to strain at a gnat while > swallowing the camel that is the practice of obliviation. > I don't hear anyone who is so bent out of shape by this > "muggle-baiting" candy expressing any outrage at this > staple of the wizarding world that is a million times worse. houyhnhnm: Absolutely. No argument from me. The biggest Prank of all is on the reader, enticed to escape into a delightful magical fantasy world which turns out to be a nightmarish dystopia. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jul 22 17:42:18 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:42:18 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155836 > > Tinktonks: > > > I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed before but > > I was just re-reading HBP and it jumped out at me that Snape's > > mum attended Hogwarts at around the same time as Tom Riddle. > > This makes me wonder whether there is a link between the two. Potioncat: Well, Tinktonks, I'm very interested in Eileen, but not many others are. Here's what I worked out for her. Keep in mind I'm using JKR's clues and we know how precise she is and, I'm no better! I make Eileen younger than Riddle. Here's my logic: HBP is set in school year 1996-1997. Fifty years ago is 1946-1947. Eileen looks 15 in her picture, so would have been born in 1931-1932. She was between 27--29 when Severus was born depending on whether he was born in 1959 or 1960. According to other sources, McGonagall was born in 1925 and Riddle was born in 1926 or 1927. So, yes there would have been some overlap with those 2. The other DE names from that period could be closer to Eileen's age. I was very comfortable with this information and was ready to post until I saw the next post on the thread: > houyhnhnm: > > I am highly suspicious about the assumption that Eileen > Prince attended Hogwarts in the 1940s. In fact I am highly > suspicious about everything relating to the Half Blood > Prince even though the mystery appears to have been cleared > up at the end of book 6. It's not that I have an alternative > theory. It's just that bearing in mind the current discussion > about the unreliable narrator device, I can't help thinking > about the extent to which the reader has been manipulated > with respect to the HBP. > snip > OR there's the possibility that we have been set up for > a really big shocker. I, for one, am keeping my fingers > crossed. The fact that I can't imagine, at this point, > how Rowling will pull it off, will make it all the tastier > when the time comes. Potioncat: Oh, my. You could be right. Now I have to go give that some thought--- and after all that math too! (I really wish I could say something stronger than "Oh, my", but I have a reputation to uphold.) Here's a link to an essay about Eileen for those who are interested: http://www.fictionalley.org/authors/jotwo/COE01.html From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Jul 22 17:56:44 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:56:44 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155837 wynnleaf: > It wouldn't be an unreliable narrator piece of misdirection > if we're never going to find out the truth. But I can't think > of any reason why we *would* find out more about this incident. > While JKR could probably come up with something, I can't quite > imagine a scenario. > Any ideas? houyhnhnm: If Snape is DDM and if Harry needs Snape's help to defeat Voldemort AND if Snape was the one to cast the freezing charm that saved Harry from Fenrir, then Harry's realizing that fact could be the discrepant event that causes him to start re-evaluating his opinion of Snape. Something is going to have to happen to make Harry change his mind . There are two things that make me suspicious of the second Petrificus Totalus. One is the fact that it is so much like the first one that the temptation is overwhelming to assume that the caster is the same in both cases. And yet the circumstances are just ambiguous enough to make it plausible if that turns out not to be the case. The other thing is Harry's peculiar lack of ability to recognize voices, pointed out to us by the fact that he hears Petunia's howler from Dumbledore, but doesn't recognize that it was DD's voice until DD tells him a year later. I agree that if it wasn't Snape who froze Fenrir Greyback, then it is not significant who did and we are not likely to hear any more about it. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jul 22 17:56:45 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:56:45 -0000 Subject: Prince? Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155838 >Potioncat: > Here's a link to an essay about Eileen for those who are interested: > > http://www.fictionalley.org/authors/jotwo/COE01.html > Potioncat: I just noticed that your subject has Pince rather than Prince. It looks like something I would do, but just in case that's not a mistake, I'd like to say I do not think Eileen Prince and Irma Pince are the same person. Glad we don't have the 3 post rule any more. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jul 22 19:25:38 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:25:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur References: Message-ID: <00c501c6adc4$9dc70920$9b86400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155839 > Tinktonks: > Muggle baiting is for pleasure. Not for any purpose or in response to > any wrong done. It is pure voyeristic enjoyment of suffering, whats > more it is done by cowards who enjoy hurting anyone who they feel > they can get away with hurting. This is NOT F&G's motivation and we > see nothing suggesting that they have anything like those character > traits. Magpie: Why can't it be both? Because I have to admit I find it odd to say that two characters whose favorite thing in the world is practical jokes are strangers to voyeuristic enjoyment of suffering. They're not getting off on watching peoples' limbs hacked off or crucio-ing people to hear them scream. They like making peoples' tongues swell, sending them dragon dung at work and covering them with boils. But how is giving someone boils because it's funny not taking voyeuristic enjoyment in suffering? What are they taking pleasure in after the Dudley prank if not the enusing panic etc. of the family? And who doesn't enjoy someone's suffering more when they have reason to dislike that person? Spookedook: > So why should F&G be persecuted for what others decide to do with > their products? Anything can be abused? Should we all be deprived of > water because someone may use it to drown another? Magpie: I don't think they are persecuted. Canonically, aside from threats to their family members the Twins have had incredible good luck throughout the series, skipping from one good fortune to another. I don't think they would be responsible for a wizard using their products on Muggles. However, I also don't have a problem with assuming that someone who makes something that hurts people does accept the responsibility that it might hurt someone. I think there can be a balance between blaming the manufacturer for anything someone does with their product, especially stuff that's obviously not what the products was intended/advertised as, and not having any thought at all for actions that follow from your own. They don't have to think along those lines. It doesn't make them Death Eaters not to do so. But I do think it's a natural next step of development--one that the books seem to be heading towards. (I hope they are, anyway.) Is it so important that Fred and George not feel for any prank victim at all? Because that doesn't seem like too much of a sacrifice to me. Staying in knee-jerk defensive mode, never questioning themselves...it's hard for me to imagine them as adults that way. I don't think it will be a huge failure if the Twins just continue on having the joke shop and providing weapons. But I don't know that that that would represent any sort of ideal in the author's eyes, or that it would make them as ultimately happy as they could be. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jul 22 20:32:01 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:32:01 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155840 > wynnleaf > > If this piece of text is actually a bit of misdirection by the > narrator, where we're expected to think the petrificus totalus is by > Harry, but really it's someone else -- then there will have to be some > time in Book 7 when the "truth comes out." > > > It wouldn't be an unreliable narrator piece of misdirection if we're > never going to find out the truth. But I can't think of any reason > why we *would* find out more about this incident. While JKR could > probably come up with something, I can't quite imagine a scenario. > > Any ideas? > Pippin: It all depends on what happened to Greyback. If he's been captured, then we aren't likely to revisit this incident and the easy assumption that Harry cast the spell is most likely correct. But if Fenrir got away, then things could be a lot more interesting. I agree that Harry must know whether Fenrir was captured or not. But if he hasn't realized that all the DE's were accounted for, he could suppose that Fenrir got help and escaped back through the RoR. Meanwhile, the Order, not knowing that Fenrir was struck down, would assume that he escaped with Snape. Harry is the only one who pursues the DE's to the gate, so he alone knows how many escaped that way. The corridor was dark and curses were flying everywhere. Harry (and the caster, if it is a different person) could be the only ones aware that Fenrir had gone down. if there is a traitor in the Order, that person might have zapped Fenrir in order to save Harry for Voldemort, concealed the werewolf and then arranged his escape. It would have to be McGonnagal, Tonks or Lupin. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 21:40:41 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:40:41 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155841 > >>Betsy Hp: > > But in that case, leaving a girl disfigured for such a great > > length of time for just being a snitch is a rather cruel form of > > vengence, IMO. And Hermione needs to realize that. She should > > be above such vicious acts of cruelty, IMO. > >>Gerry: > That is if you believe Marietta made a mistake. > Betsy Hp: Erm, no, actually, my dislike of Hermione's actions has nothing whatsoever to do with Marietta. That's why it frustrates me when the conversation is contantly turned to what Marietta did. Frankly, I dislike disfigurment as a punishment. And it's hard for me to continue to think of a character as basically good when they are able to do such a thing without a second thought. For me it's all about *Hermione's* actions. > >>Gerry: > I don't think she made a mistake, she wanted to ingratiate herself > with Umbridge. She knew the decree, she knew how Trelawny - a > teacher - was treated by Umbridge. She knew everybody or at least > somebody could be expelled and she knew what expulsion means: > being forbidden to use magic. Knowing all that and still going to > Umbridge is vicious, cruel and vile. Betsy Hp: Okay, so how does that make Hermione being vicious, cruel and vile in return a *good* thing? Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 22:30:49 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:30:49 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was ... uh, I forget, surely it was something....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155842 > >>Ken: > > For me to spend so much time discussing the ton tongue toffee > > prank on a spoiled bully who has had several years to wrap his > > pea brain around the fact that his live in cousin is a wizard > > and who's own mother should have helped him deal with this his > > entire life is to strain at a gnat while swallowing the camel > > that is the practice of obliviation. I don't hear anyone who is > > so bent out of shape by this "muggle-baiting" candy expressing > > any outrage at this staple of the wizarding world that is a > > million times worse. > >>Magpie: > Actually, many of us do express outrage at memory-charms. I think > it's one of the reasons it's impossible for Wizards to treat > Muggles with respect--they regularly decide when it's okay to > violate their minds "for their own good." It's a total abuse of > power and a violation and, I agree, permeates the entire culture. > Even Hermione has developed a maternalistic attitude towards her > parents. Betsy Hp: That's exactly the reason to *focus* on the toffee incident, IMO. It's indicitive of the WW's mindset. And it beautifully shows how *easy* it is to slide into the "might makes right" viewpoint. The Dursleys are drips and three years ago Dudley bullied Harry. That gives the twins the right to use magic on them for their own amusement. Might makes right. (Which is, actually, why I'm sure Dudley felt he had the right to keep Harry humble through his own bullying. Vicious circle, etc.) Absolutely the obliviates are a problem. The condescension in the first chapter in HBP is another problem. If the WW and the Muggle world went to war, I'd totally support the Muggles. (Though to be fair, the wizards having already lost the last war are in a position of constant crisis. They live in hiding and fear of exposure. Can't be a comfortable way to live, and it's certainly not a way to encourage progress. Probably why the WW is pretty firmly stuck in the dark ages.) > >>houyhnhnm: > > The biggest Prank of all is on the reader, enticed to escape > into a delightful magical fantasy world which turns out to be a > nightmarish dystopia. Betsy Hp: Odd, isn't it? And the strange thing is I cannot see JKR solving this issue by the end of book 7. I'm sure most things will be tied up (Voldemort dead, Hogwarts united, etc.) but the WW will probably remain a brutal and dark place to live. Betsy Hp From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 23:05:00 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:05:00 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155843 > AD: > I don't know. > > Have the Death Eaters in question ever found their 12-year-old friend > and teammate locked in a room with bars on the window? > > Have they ever ripped the bars off themselves, then found an innocent > owl padlocked in a cage, unable to fly, to hunt, or even to stretch > her wings? > > Have they ever picked the locks on their friend's bedroom door? Have > they seen the catflap though which he was fed cold soup? > > Have they crept through his darkened house to find the cupboard in > which his school things were locked away? The cupboard he slept in > for most of a decade? > > Have they witnessed the contempt with which his "family" regards > their friend? Seen those very well-off people dress him in ill- > fitting castoffs? > > Have they heard tales of Harry-hunting? > > Of barren birthdays and cheerless Christmasses? > > Have they? > > > Tinktonks: > I think the whole argument comes down to reason. What reason did the > DE's have? None, except entertainment. What reason did F&G have? All > those listed above. a_svirn: First, when it comes to reasons, they had none of the above. Dudley is in no way responsible for barren Christmases, cheerless birthdays, cast-offs and the like. His parents are the ones responsible for the abuse. He was indeed responsible for the bullying bit, but that was water under the bridge by the time of the Toffee incident. Moreover, he had already been "punished" for that by Hagrid. Second, the Twins simply do not make convincing avenging angels. They are not averse to bullying themselves; they find humiliating people and giving them scare funny. So much so in fact, that they found a way to combine business and pleasure selling things like Ten- Tongue-Toffee (and much more dangerous stuff) to anyone who would buy it. It's not like they had invented the whole thing with the revenge for Harry's miserable childhood in mind. They invented them in order to a) frighten and humiliate anyone available because they find it funny, and b) to make a good profit since they knew they are not the only ones who would find it funny. And that's exactly a kind of joke that would appeal to the Death Eaters who frightened and humiliated the muggle family at the World Cup. > > Tinktonks: > I have seen nobody criticising Zonko's for selling biting teacuos > even though they could be used for muggle-baiting in the wrong hands. > So why should F&G be persecuted for what others decide to do with > their products? Anything can be abused? Should we all be deprived of > water because someone may use it to drown another? > a_svirn: Anything can be abused, but some things are designed specifically for the reason to cause harm. Your water analogy is not appropriate. We can't live without water, but we certainly can live without love potions and ten-tongue toffees, just like we can live without Spanish Boots, rakes and poisons. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 22:39:08 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:39:08 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155844 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: >> Mike wrote: >> Harry knows he didn't spike Ron's pumpkin juice with >> Felix, yet we are led to believe he did, until we reach the >> locker room scene after the match. > > Neri: > Yes, you found the example I mentioned as a special exception in > the post where I first suggested the term "non-description": > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148445 Mike now: Ok Neri, I went back and checked the post you're talking about. Here is the paragraph from that post: "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." "a tacit agreement that she has to describe anything *relevant* that Harry sees." So let's compare the two scenes side-by-side (assume JKR cheats us): Harry knows who cursed Sirius = Harry knows if the juice is spiked We believe Bella did it = We believe Harry spiked it It was really Lupin who did it = Harry really didn't do it In neither case is Harry surprised by the outcome because he knows the truth. But in the case of Lupin cursing Sirius, you said you would feel cheated. Yet you don't feel cheated that for an entire chapter we are lead to erroneously believe that Harry spiked Ron's juice. Yes, I know the degree of importance is not equal, but we are talking about literary devices, aren't we? Does she need to use this "non-description" device to make the chapter work? Yes. But you have to admit that this is JKR *cheating* us, while we are in Harry's POV. > Neri again: > In that post I issued the challenge of finding an "unfair" > non-description, that is, a non-description that is used to fool > both the hero and the reader. See also: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148501 > where I answered some other counter-examples raised by other > listees. Mike again: OK, this is the only one I could think of. Bertha Jorkins emerges from LV's wand and tells Harry "don't let go". The unreliable narrator describes the three 'shadows' circling Harry and LV, whispering stuff. Then Lily comes out of the wand. Nothing is described as emitting from the wand between Bertha and Lily's emergences. What happened to the AK (or whatever it was) that LV used on Harry? He just described being ripped from his body and pain beyond pain. We are lead to believe that the crucios are manifested by 'priori incantatum' as emissions of screams of pain. Even if you don't adhere to the belief that the rebounded 'AK' killed LV's body and that his body should have appeared as the rest did, at least we should have gotten a scream from "pain beyond Pain". Haven't we and Harry been treated to a non-description? Does anyone believe LV endured pain beyond pain without a peep? Doesn't knowing what happened after Lily's death seem like something that JKR does not want to release, yet we and Harry should have gained some insight during this whole priori incatatum scene? Maybe not necessarily fooling us, but surely keeping us in the dark when we should have been enlightened if she is "playing by the rules" that she made up regarding priori incatatum. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 22 23:59:33 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:59:33 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was ... uh, I forget, surely it was something....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155845 > Ken: > If ton tongue toffees really existed the company that made them would > also make a fortune selling them to boys Dudley's age who would gladly > eat them themselves as often as they used them to prank someone > else. a_svirn: I seriously doubt that. Even supposing that they'd know how to reverse the jinx, they'd still look ridiculous and disgusting with a swollen tongue falling from their mouths and drooling all over the place. Not many teenagers would want to be seen in such a state. > Ken: > A ton tongue toffee? Heck, I'd eat one of those myself if I needed a > good laugh or thought someone else did! a_svirn: Noble of you. For myself, I don't find it funny. > Ken: The Twins are the least of > the muggle's problems and if they live I bet they expand their joke > shop business into the muggle world with great success. a_svirn: You may be right. In fact, I'd say it's a fairly reasonable assumption to make. It does not, however, make it all right for the twins to use magic for hurting and humiliating muggles. Success is not a yardstick when it comes to ethical issues. From mros at xs4all.nl Sat Jul 22 22:51:14 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 00:51:14 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hate crimes (was ... uh, I forget, surely it was something....) References: Message-ID: <000a01c6ade1$562797c0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155846 > >>houyhnhnm: > > The biggest Prank of all is on the reader, enticed to escape > into a delightful magical fantasy world which turns out to be a > nightmarish dystopia. >Betsy Hp: Odd, isn't it? And the strange thing is I cannot see JKR solving this issue by the end of book 7. I'm sure most things will be tied up (Voldemort dead, Hogwarts united, etc.) but the WW will probably remain a brutal and dark place to live.< Marion: Odd it might be, but it is certainly deliberate. From a interview with Time magazine in 2005: "Granted, Rowling's books begin like invitations to garden-variety escapism: Ooh, Harry isn't really a poor orphan; he's actually a wealthy wizard who rides a secret train to a castle, and so on. But as they go on, you realize that while the fun stuff is pure cotton candy, the problems are very real--embarrassment, prejudice, depression, anger, poverty, death. "I was trying to subvert the genre," Rowling explains bluntly. "Harry goes off into this magical world, and is it any better than the world he's left? Only because he meets nicer people. Magic does not make his world better significantly. The relationships make his world better. Magic in many ways complicates his life."" http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Sun Jul 23 00:52:33 2006 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (ivogun) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 00:52:33 -0000 Subject: Structure of the Seven books (Long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155847 Rowling has made it known that she has an overall plan for all seven books. Much of the planning involves keeping the events of the plot straight, but I think to some degree she may be utilizing a classical design where the first book mirrors the last, the second book mirrors the next to last, the third book mirrors the third from the last, and the forth is a pivotal book or climax. Variations of this structure can be noted in all sorts of literature ranging from Bible and other mid-eastern literature, classical plays, Shakespeare, poetry etc. al. I see a lot mirror images or parallels between book two (COS) and book six (HBP). There are several parallels with Hagrid in these books. IN COS, we learn that Hagrid hatches Aragog, sets him free and thinks the spiders are his friends. In HBP, Hagrid buries Aragog, after kidnapping a dead/dying Aragog, and learns that the spiders are not his friends. In COS, Hagrid is taken from his hut, while in HBP; the hut is taken away (burned up) from Hagrid. Likewise there are mirror images between the two books that involve the Malfoys. In COS, Lucius Malfoy is a haughty, powerful trustee of Hogwarts. In HBP, Lucius is grateful to be a powerless, but safe prisoner. In COS, Harry and Ron use polyjuice potion (made by Hermione) to become Crabbe and Goyle in order to spy on Draco. Draco admits to them during this event that he wants to help the Dark Lord. In the HBP, Crabbe and Goyle use polyjuice potion (made by Draco?) In HBP, Harry discovers that Draco is bound to help the Dark Lord, but that now Draco doesn't want to help Voldemort anymore. In COS, Myrtle likes Harry who only tolerates her; however, in HBP, Myrtle likes Draco who surprisingly seems to like her. In both books, there are parallels with Harry. In both books Harrry enters dangerous, magically protected caves--in COS it is the chamber of secrets, and in HBP, it is the cave. Both events seem to have symbolic meanings beyond just the literal. In COS, Harry frees a house-elf, but in HBP Harry becomes a master of a house-elf. At the end of COS, Dumbledore speaks to Harry in McGonagall's office, while in HBP, it's McGonagall who talks to Harry in Dumbledore's office. There are a few mirror images with Harry that include Ginny a bit too. In COS, it is an old schoolbook (Tom Riddle's diary) that almost kills Ginny and Harry. In HBP, it's another old schoolbook that helps make Harry an excellent student in potions. In COS, Ginny is in love with Harry. In HBP, Harry realizes he loves Ginny. In COS, the DOA teacher (Lockhart) is a show-off and a publicity seeker. In HBP, the DOA teacher (Slughorn), has been in hiding for a year before the start of the book and would prefer to work behind the scenes. Fawkes, Tom Riddle, and Griffindor's sword are featured in both. In both book, it is Harry's loyalty and obedience to Dumbledore that saves Harry's life (in the chamber in COS and on the tower in HBP.) I also see a few parallels between book three (PoA) parallels with book five (OotP). In PoA, Harry finds Sirius and learns of the marauders (secret group). In OotP, Harry loses Sirius and learns of the Order of the Phoenix (another secretive group. In PoA, Sirius escapes prison. In OotP, Hogwarts becomes a prison. In PoA, Lupin is the best DOA teacher that Harry ever had. In OotP, Umbridge is the worst DOA teacher that Harry has ever had. In PoA, the hippogriff bites Draco. In OotP, it is the same hippogriff that is hurt. And of course, dementers attack Harry in both PoA and OotP, and Harry's Patronus are important in both books too. Both PoA and OotP portray treacherous and loyal individuals. In POA, we find that Sirius (falsely accused of betraying the Potters) and Pettigrew (an opportunistic snitch--a rat). In OotP, Umbridge should have been accused of traitor (but wasn't) and Marietta who was pressured into a betrayal. In PoA, Neville gains a bit of confidence with Snape in the Bogart class. In OotP, Neville faces Bella (who tortured his parents into madness) with a surprising amount of confidence. Of course, since book seven is not yet written so the parallels between the two books are unknown, but I think the assumptions that parallels exist between the two books gives rise for interesting speculation. Finally, book four (GOF), which in this structure should be a climax, a crisis, a turning point or the book where the most import theme is emphasized. But which? One possible contender could be unity. The houses of Hogwarts unite (in the contest against other schools) and everyone (in all houses and all the visitors) remain at Hogwarts for Christmas. More likely, it is something from the graveyard scene. It could be facing death, or perhaps it is the duel between Voldemort and Harry where Harry and his wand win over Voldemort. Not exactly sure, but I guess, I should reread GoF. From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Jul 23 01:33:12 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 01:33:12 -0000 Subject: Who will die next???? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155848 > catwomanlg_50" wrote: > > I recently saw JKR is going "to kill off some major characters and > won't reveal who because she doesn't want to receive hate mail".. > > Now, are there any guesses as to whom she is referring?? Well, I for > one, hope it's not HARRY, HERMIONE OR RON. However, it could be > Snape, Draco Malfoy, Hagrid, or Ginny Weasley. Or how about the > Weasley parents?? aussie: catwoman, join in the opinion poll and see the what everyone else has voted http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280239 0-1% Hermione Flitwick &/or Sprout Seamus &/or Dean Patil twin &/or twins Grawp Bill &/or Fleur Arthur Weasley Dudley 2-5% Ginny McGonagall Mad-Eye Lupin Tonks Scrimgeour Fred &/or George Charlie Weasley 6-10% Ron Neville Luna Percy Mr &/or Mrs Dursley Snape over 10% Hagrid (no! Not Hagrid!) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 02:55:56 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:55:56 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155849 > a_svirn: > > First, when it comes to reasons, they had none of the above. Dudley > is in no way responsible for barren Christmases, cheerless > birthdays, cast-offs and the like. His parents are the ones > responsible for the abuse. He was indeed responsible for the > bullying bit, but that was water under the bridge by the time of the > Toffee incident. Moreover, he had already been "punished" for that > by Hagrid. > Alla: Where is it stated in canon that by the time of GoF Dudley was not bullying Harry any more? Harry hunting or something else? I mean, in OOP Harry sure has no problem talking back to Dudley, not that it stops Dudley from mocking Harry's nightmares, but I don't remember Harry stating that Dudley stopped at all. Could be wrong obviously. But Dudley's bullying definitely seems to be fresh in Harry's mind at the beginning of GoF, IMO. ""We'll get it," said Fred at once. Winking at Harry, he and George left the room. They knew where Harry's bedroom was, having once rescued him from it in the dead of night. Harry suspected that Fred and George were hoping for a glimpse of Dudley; they had heard a lot about him from Harry." They heard a lot about him from Harry. I am guessing Harry did not describe Dudley's actions in very flattering words. Also when Fred says that they gave candy to Dudley because he is a bully and asks Harry to confirm, Harry's answer is "Yeah, he is, Mr. Weasley," said Harry earnestly. Not, he **was**, but he **is**, so to me it is not proven that Dudley's bullying is water under the bridge at the time of GoF. JMO of course, Alla, who wants to express her agreement with Amiable Dorsai once again. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 04:09:22 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 04:09:22 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155850 > >>a_svirn: > > > > He was indeed responsible for the bullying bit, but that was > > water under the bridge by the time of the Toffee incident. > > Moreover, he had already been "punished" for that by Hagrid. > > > >>Alla: > Where is it stated in canon that by the time of GoF Dudley was not > bullying Harry any more? Harry hunting or something else? > Betsy Hp: I think that's made clear in CoS when Dudley tries to verbally taunt Harry for a lack of birthday cards, but Harry easily scares him off by babbling some nonsense "magic" words, that the power structure has changed since PS/SS. Honestly I think the pressure is on anyone trying to prove that Dudley *continues* to bully Harry after PS/SS to provide canon. It's hard to prove a negative after all. Can you provide canon proving that Harry *doesn't* dress in a pink tutu on Wednesday nights up in the dorms, for example? > >>Alla: > I mean, in OOP Harry sure has no problem talking back to Dudley, > not that it stops Dudley from mocking Harry's nightmares, but I > don't remember Harry stating that Dudley stopped at all. Betsy Hp: Harry asked for it at that point. He purposefully approached Dudley to give him some crap and Dudley pushed back. Again, does Harry ever state that he doesn't like wearing pink tutus? > >>Alla: > > Also when Fred says that they gave candy to Dudley because he is a > bully and asks Harry to confirm, Harry's answer is > "Yeah, he is, Mr. Weasley," said Harry earnestly. > Not, he **was**, but he **is**, so to me it is not proven that > Dudley's bullying is water under the bridge at the time of GoF. Betsy Hp: Oh, Dudley's still a *bully*. We see that in OotP when he and his friends are fresh from bullying Mark Evans (iirc). But what we never see after PS/SS is Dudley bullying *Harry*. As Hagrid and then later the twins make clear, wizards are more powerful than muggles. But of course, none of that means that Fred and George didn't use their magical ability to toy with Dudley. Which means none of this changes the fact that there was a bit of muggle baiting going on. Betsy Hp From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 04:42:11 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 04:42:11 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155852 > wynnleaf: > > First, many of us don't consider these "unfair." Neri: I use "unfair" here according to my very personal definition, as shorthand for "a non-description that is used to fool the hero and the reader". > wynnleaf: > Second, you > originally said JKR didn't do this, now you say that there are "fair" > exceptions. Then you ask for "clear-cut" examples of "unfair" > situations. Neri: In my original post on the subject http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148445 I defined "non-description" as something that the hero must know or see, and yet the narrator doesn't describe. In that same post I mentioned that the only example I know of JKR using a non-description to fool the reader is a very special case in which it is the hero himself who fools the reader (the Felix Felicis incident). Still in that same first post I invented the term "unfair non-description" for a non-description that the narrator uses to fool *both* the hero and the reader, and pointed out that JKR seems to avoid them. I asked for any counterexamples and none were found yet. JKR uses non-descriptions all the time (she must, because she can't describe everything Harry sees or knows). She also fools Harry and the readers several times per book. Simple probability considerations would suggest that she'd sometimes combine the two and fool us by using non-descriptions. She did use a non-description in a very purposeful way to enable Harry fool us himself. Yet until now she has never has never fooled *both* the reader and Harry using a non-description. This suggests to me that she also considers it unfair. > wynnleaf: > The PT *is* an example. If it was "clear-cut" it > wouldn't be misdirection at all and would be a failure on JKR's part > to deceive us. These things don't become clear-cut until after > they've been explained in a "The Truth Comes Out" sort of scene, which > can't happen until Book 7. Neri: The PT is certainly an example of a non-description, but it would only become an example of what I call an "unfair" non-description if JKR will use it to fool the readers and tell us that, for example, it was Snape who cursed Greyback. This is yet unresolved (and perhaps there's nothing to resolve). But in six books there are many examples of JKR tricking us that *were* resolved. Why aren't any of them based on non-descriptions? > wynnleaf: > You were also given an example from the > cursed broom scene in PS/SS, but I guess you don't consider it > "clear-cut." Many, however, do consider it clear-cut and not unfair > at all. Neri: Again, my original definition for a non-description was "something the hero *must* see or know and yet it is not described". You can't say that Harry must have seen that his broom stopped bucking before Snape caught fire. Therefore according to my original definition the broom incident isn't a non-description. (The whole "clear-cut" thing only referred to a case in which we change my definition ad hoc for the broom incident by generalizing it to Ron and Hermione too, because other listees felt that the changes in PoV should warrant it. But if we stay with my original definition then the broom incident simply isn't a non-description.) > wynnleaf: > It is simply your own preference for how you care to be > surprised and for how you do not wish to be surprised, that is moving > you to label this form of misdirection "unfair." I have not seen any > particular literary tradition that considers this method "unfair." > Neri: The "unfair" is indeed my own private label, a shorthand for "a non-description used to fool the hero and the reader". However, I show that JKR hasn't used it until now. It was you who reminded us about JKR's words that "the readers like to be tricked but not conned". You also reminded us that JKR referred to "Emma" as her standard for mystery writing. So had Austen ever used a non-description to fool the hero and reader in Emma? If you can't find such a case, it suggests that this is one of the things that JKR considers as "conning the reader", and that she appreciates Austen, among other reasons, for not using it. > Mike now: > > So let's compare the two scenes side-by-side (assume JKR cheats us): > Harry knows who cursed Sirius = Harry knows if the juice is spiked > We believe Bella did it = We believe Harry spiked it > It was really Lupin who did it = Harry really didn't do it > > In neither case is Harry surprised by the outcome because he knows > the truth. Neri: I'm not sure I understand you comparison. If we assume JKR fools us (as in an ESE!Lupin scenario) then Harry *doesn't* know who cursed Sirius. He believes with us that it was Bella, but it was actually ESE!Lupin, and Harry would be extremely surprised to learn it. This is a very different situation from the Felix Felicis case, where Harry knows the truth all along. > Mike again: > OK, this is the only one I could think of. Bertha Jorkins emerges > from LV's wand and tells Harry "don't let go". The unreliable > narrator describes the three 'shadows' circling Harry and LV, > whispering stuff. Then Lily comes out of the wand. Nothing is > described as emitting from the wand between Bertha and Lily's > emergences. > > What happened to the AK (or whatever it was) that LV used on Harry? > He just described being ripped from his body and pain beyond pain. > We are lead to believe that the crucios are manifested by 'priori > incantatum' as emissions of screams of pain. Even if you don't > adhere to the belief that the rebounded 'AK' killed LV's body and > that his body should have appeared as the rest did, at least we > should have gotten a scream from "pain beyond Pain". Haven't we and > Harry been treated to a non-description? Neri: By definition, we and Harry can't be treated to a non-description. My definition of a non-description is something that Harry does see but we don't. This isn't the case here. Yes, some things were absent that perhaps shouldn't be, but Harry hadn't seen them as well. Therefore it's not a non-description. Here's a trivial example of a non-description, just to make things clearer: Does Snape has a beard? Harry must see if he has or hasn't, but the narrator never tells us. Therefore it's a non-description. > Mike again: > Doesn't knowing what happened after Lily's death seem like something > that JKR does not want to release, yet we and Harry should have > gained some insight during this whole priori incatatum scene? Maybe > not necessarily fooling us, but surely keeping us in the dark when > we should have been enlightened if she is "playing by the rules" > that she made up regarding priori incatatum. > Neri: It's quite possible that JKR is either cheating here or has made some mistake. It won't be the first time (she already corrected the priori incantatum order) and she admitted that GoF was rushed to print. But this still remains to be seen, and in any case, even if she cheated here it wasn't by using a non-description the way I defined it. Neri From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jul 23 04:42:18 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 04:42:18 -0000 Subject: RoR/InvisiCloak/uglybaby!LV/2wayMirror/Hooch/MuggleClothes/Marietta/Merlin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155853 Ken Hutchinson wrote in : << I think the supposed secrecy of the RoR is quite possibly the most implausible element of the Potterverse. A castle full of teenagers desperate for some privacy.... No, this would be the most well known room in the castle. They just wouldn't call it the room of requirement ;-) >> They would call it the Come-and-Go Room, as the House Elves do. ;) Amanita Muscaria wrote in : << Perhaps the cloak wasn't _bought_ by James, but was found? In the ROR, or elsewhere in Hogwarts? Perhaps it 'belongs' to Hogwarts, not James... >> http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-aol-chat.htm says <> Has it been mentioned recently that Quick Quotes Quill is a search engine of all JKR's interviews that are archived on-line? http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/index2.html Tonks_op wrote in : << Now he did not have a real body until the graveyard. But he did have that weird baby body, and that is a mystery as to how that came into being. I can't remember or maybe we are never told, how he went from a disembodied spirit to some strange entity that was not a real body. >> >From Voldemort's speech in the Graveyard in GoF: << "Wormtail's body, of course, was ill-adapted for possession, as all assumed him dead, and would attract far too much attention if seen. However, he was the able-bodied servant I needed, and, poor wizard though he is, Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body I would be able to inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth ... a spell or two of my own invention ... a little help from my dear Nagini," ? Voldemort's red eyes fell upon the continually circling snake ? "a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided ... I was soon returned to an almost human form, and strong enough to travel." >> Not having italics in my e-mail, let me repeat the sentence that needs emphasis "Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own". Voldemort's speech certainly doesn't say that Bertha Jorkins provided him with more than information, but I believe her poor moribund body was a necessary ingredient for making his uglybaby body. Either by using pieces of it to make like a Frankenbaby, or by using her womb to grow one. Cassie Ferris wrote in : << Though in case of the mirrors, their NOT appearing again would not make any sense, since they never played any part at all and it is unclear why to introduce them in the first place if not to use later. As for emotional impact, Harry could just as well brood over any other memorabilia given to him by Sirius instead. >> No, the mirrors inspired Harry to feel a bitterly ironic guilt that no other souvenir of Sirius would have done. Because if Harry had *remembered* the mirrors, he could have used them to contact Sirius to check whether Sirius was safe at home, without all that mess with Umbridge's fireplace, and the mirror would not have been answered by Kreacher, as the fireplace was, so Kreachur wouldn't have been able to deceive him into going to MoM, and maybe Sirius always carried the mirror with him in hope of receiving a call, in which case he would have answered from Buckbeak's bedroom, so Harry couldn't even have argued that no one answered so that proved that Sirius was being tortured at the Ministry. So if Harry had remembered the mirrors, he probably wouldn't have gone to MoM, and if Harry hadn't gone to MoM, Sirius wouldn't have died. Thus Harry's feeling of guilt, that he tries to drown out by accusing Snape. The irony part of it is that the reason he forgot the mirrors was that he was determined not to use them, and the reason he was determined not to use them was that he was determined that he wouldn't contact Sirius in any way that might lure Sirius out of his house into danger. Thus the motive led to action that caused the exact opposite of the motive. Con Collins wrote in : << I always wondered whether Madam Hooch was a lesbian ... >> I have long felt certain, starting well BEFORE the movies, that McGonagall and Hooch are long time partners. I suppose that Hooch used to be a professional Quidditch player, and when she retired, Dumbledore kindly hired her for the Flying teacher position so that she and McGonagall could live together in their quarters in Hogwarts Castle. The only canon support I have is 'but it's so *obvious*!', which apparently it isn't, considering the number of people who mysteriously believe that Pomfrey is McG's partner or that Sprout is Hooch's partner. Ceridwen wrote in : << There is rarely mention made of clothes in the HP books, except when wizards try to dress like Muggles and come out looking like an explosion in Grandma's attic instead. (snip) How do wizards and their children dress while at home or visiting friends? Do they wear Muggle clothes like jeans and tee-shirts as fanfics suggest? Or do they wear their everyday robes? >> There seems to be a big generational difference in wizard clothing. The younger ones wear jeans and tee-shirts except when compelled to wear school uniform or formal wear, up to Bill first appearing in GoF in 'His clothes would not have looked out of place at a rock concert, except that Harry recognised his boots to be made, not of leather, but of dragon hide.' The older ones wear robes all the time except when they deliberately try to disguise themselves as Muggles. Earlier in GoF, when Harry is waiting for the Weasleys to arrive to take him away, Vernon growls about hoping they'll dress decently so as not to shock the neighbors and 'Harry felt a slight sense of foreboding. He had rarely seen Mr or Mrs Weasley wearing anything that the Dursleys would call "normal". Their children might don Muggle clothing during the holidays, but Mr and Mrs Weasley usually wore long robes in varying states of shabbiness.' I think this change occured quickly, as a result of Voldemort having been blown away by baby Harry and Lily's sacrifice. THe Ministry was rounding up DEs to send to Azkaban, so people were eager to demonstrate how much they opposed LV and loved Muggles, so they encouraged their children to invite Muggle-born classmates to visit them at home and to accept return invitations, where the children learned to wear Muggle clothing straight from Muggles. People like the Malfoys would not have deigned to be polite to Muggles or to wear Muggle clothing, but when jeans are considered 'what all the cool kids are wearing' instead of considered 'what Muggles wear', they would wear jeans they bought at wizard boutiques, either imported from Muggle shops or manufactured by wizards in imitation of the originally Muggle style. << Still, this question has given me some interesting mental pictures. If the twins, not knowing at the time how to properly dress like Muggles, decided to do so anyway, could poor Dudley have been tongue-tied by two identical wizards dressed in linebacker jerseys complete with shoulder pads, plaid school skirts, and hiking boots? This is a forbidden 'LOL' post. Betsy Hp wrote in : << (Which always makes me wonder if teachers are out there with purple markers writing "Snitch" on the faces of children who tell tales, >> NOT teachers. Teachers WANT kids to tattle. And I approve of the teachers' motives when they want to find out who set fire to the school or beat a fellow student unconscious. Tonks_op wrote in : << Have we ever been told who was the first Headmaster/Headmistress of Hogwarts? >> Not in the books. What we were told seems to me to mean that at the beginning the Founders were all equals and not one was HEAD. So I suppose that the first Headmaster was the last Founder left standing. << Merlin comes to mind, but I really don't think it is him. >> Hogwarts was founded 'over a thousand years ago', but it seems we all take that as 'a little' over 1000 years before CoS, therefore sometime in the 900s. I've always believed that Merlin was in the 500s, so he would have been gone (dead or trapped in his cave) long before the Founding. << But this brings me to ask, how did the Order of Merlin award come into being? Are we ever told that either? >> The Lexicon says "The Order of Merlin is a great honor, bestowed on wizards who have demonstrated their devotion to the principles of living harmoniously with Muggles. The Order was created by Merlin, the famous wizard of the Middle Ages, to pass laws against using magic against Muggles." Apparently that comes from Merlin's Famous Wizard Card. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 04:53:58 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 04:53:58 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? /Dudley bullies Harry at the time of GoF or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155854 ?? Betsy Hp: > I think that's made clear in CoS when Dudley tries to verbally taunt > Harry for a lack of birthday cards, but Harry easily scares him off > by babbling some nonsense "magic" words, that the power structure > has changed since PS/SS. Alla: How does it changed if Harry is still locked in the room and almost starved? Harry is still powerless, IMO. ?? Edited to add that what I was trying to say is that Dudley's bullying IMO does not exist in vacuum, but tied to his parents' abuse of Harry. All that Dudley has to do if he feels that, I don't know Harry is scaring him too much is to complain to his parents and Harry would be dealt with. I mean, you are not arguing that Harry has any power over Dudleys after PS/SS? Like in GoF for example, Harry is starved **because** Aunt Petunia wants to keep Dudley morale high by making sure that he eats more than Harry, etc. ?? So, as I said below I am not convinced that Dudley stopped bullying Harry, but even if he stopped doing it himself, he still has his parents to **ask** to bully and abuse Harry and as we know whatever Dudley wants, Dudley gets. He still gets to bully Harry **through** his parents IMO, so what I was replying to originally - Dudley's bullying of Harry is never water under the bridge IMO till he has this possibility. ?? Moreover, even in HBP Harry ( narrator through him) comments that experience taught him to stay out of Vernon's hands reach, so I feel pretty safe assuming that even at that time some sort of physical abuse occurred. > Honestly I think the pressure is on anyone trying to prove that > Dudley *continues* to bully Harry after PS/SS to provide canon. > It's hard to prove a negative after all. Can you provide canon > proving that Harry *doesn't* dress in a pink tutu on Wednesday > nights up in the dorms, for example? Alla: Sorry, but I don't think so. For years, Dudley's bullying is something that Harry has to live with every day, I think that if Dudley stopped bullying him, that would have been something so unusual that Harry/or narrator through Harry would made some sort of comment. > Betsy Hp: > But of course, none of that means that Fred and George didn't use > their magical ability to toy with Dudley. Which means none of this > changes the fact that there was a bit of muggle baiting going on. Alla: I am not convinced that this is JKR's definition of muggle-baiting, I am sorry. If JKR ever gives us clear definition of what muggle-baiting means and if that includes playing pranks on muggles without intent to target muggles, then yes, I will agree with you. And actually even Arthur **never** calls what Twins did **muggle- baiting**, he just says that it undermines the relationship between Wizards and Muggles, no? Those relationships could be undermined by many ways, not only **muggle-baiting**. JMO, Alla. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 04:56:05 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 04:56:05 -0000 Subject: Union of Opposites - Gryffindor/Slytherin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155855 We are continuing the adventure of learning Alchemy 101. As I mentioned before, this subject is very difficult to understand. But here is a bit that makes some sense in relation to the Houses of Gryffindor and Slytherin. Here is a small part of an ancient alchemical poem called "Rosarium Philosophorum" We are as one united naturally, with master ease the mountain swallowed down, the four came forth, one yet again to be, in our complete and more than perfect stone. And six in trinity bethought, to an essential substance brought Carl Jung explains this as the 4 elements united back into the one that formed them. (Think of the 4 houses) He goes on to say that the 6 is a doubling of the trinity which makes the sign that we would recognizes as the sign of David. But in alchemy the "upper triangle is fire and the lower is water". Fire and water are opposites. Jung goes on to say: "Where fire and water become one, there is a unio oppositorum, which is really an image of God, for god is the union of opposites. Fire is in itself a uniter of opposites and it is a very ancient image for God." Jung says that this union of opposites bring healing. It brings not only physical healing, but a deeper healing. So it would appear from this that Harry and Draco must unite. The fire (Gryffindor) and the water (Slytherin) must come together. Again I think that there also has to be a female principle there as well, so we would have Harry and Ginny and Draco and ?? Or do we need 3? That would make even more sense since we have the trinity in HRH. (And the formula is for a doubling of a trinity.) Then we need a trinity from Slytherin that includes at least one female. Who would they be? Now a bit about the stone itself. Again the ideas here are very ancient, and very foreign to our modern mind. The stone itself is alive. It is in itself a union of all opposites and appears in the ancient writings as a creature that has a crown and wings. It begets itself and returns to itself in some sort of cycle. The image the writing invokes reminded me of a Phoenix. Jung says that the man who "knows himself" is the only one who can create the stone. Since we know that the HP series is both the hero's quest and a coming of age story, this too would fit. It is possible that in destroying LV, Harry will create his own philosophers stone. I still have a little over 1 volume of this stuff to read. When I sort out more of it I will post again. Tonks_op From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Jul 23 10:03:10 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:03:10 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155856 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > I think that's made clear in CoS when Dudley tries to verbally taunt > Harry for a lack of birthday cards, but Harry easily scares him off > by babbling some nonsense "magic" words, that the power structure > has changed since PS/SS. > Gerry Not really. It had changed until the dinner party where Dobby smashed a pudding. Then Harry got the letter that stated that as an underage wizard he was not allowed to do magic. This resulted in Uncle Vernon locking him up in his room. From this I assume Dudley also continued with is normal behaviour towards Harry Gerry From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Jul 23 10:47:50 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:47:50 -0000 Subject: FIrst Headmaster/Headmistress of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155857 > "Tonks" wrote: > > Have we ever been told who was the first Headmaster/Headmistress of > Hogwarts? > > I looked at the Lexicon, but did not see any reference to the first > Headmaster. I think it might be important. Does anyone have any > ideas?? > aussie: In answering Hermione's question about the origin of the Chamber of Secrets, Prof Binn's (not McG as in the movie) said the 4 founders worked together for years until "a serious arguement" (for Prof Binn's that may have been a civil war) between Slytherin and Gryffindor. That is when Salazar left ... etc, etc and the COS became a legend until Slytherin's heir opened the COS. Now, remember, this is 1000 years ago. Were feudal systems more acceptable back then? "Presidents" were as well known as "Coca Cola" 1000 years ago. (The experience of Emporer Charlomagne and his next 2 generations of heirs, had a violent end after about 120 years, 800AD - 919AD) So to have one supreme ruler, or headmaster, may not have been normal nor desirable at the time Hogwarts was founded. The actual first headmaster may have been decades or centuries after the founding of the school. From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sun Jul 23 11:23:42 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:23:42 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155858 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > >> Mike wrote: > >> Harry knows he didn't spike Ron's pumpkin juice with > >> Felix, yet we are led to believe he did, until we reach the > >> locker room scene after the match. > > > > Neri: > > Yes, you found the example I mentioned as a special exception in > > the post where I first suggested the term "non-description": > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148445 > > Mike now: > Ok Neri, I went back and checked the post you're talking about. Here > is the paragraph from that post: > > "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." "a tacit agreement that she has to > describe anything *relevant* that Harry sees." > > So let's compare the two scenes side-by-side (assume JKR cheats us): > Harry knows who cursed Sirius = Harry knows if the juice is spiked > We believe Bella did it = We believe Harry spiked it > It was really Lupin who did it = Harry really didn't do it > > In neither case is Harry surprised by the outcome because he knows > the truth. But in the case of Lupin cursing Sirius, you said you > would feel cheated. Yet you don't feel cheated that for an entire > chapter we are lead to erroneously believe that Harry spiked Ron's > juice. Yes, I know the degree of importance is not equal, but we are > talking about literary devices, aren't we? Does she need to use > this "non-description" device to make the chapter work? Yes. But you > have to admit that this is JKR *cheating* us, while we are in > Harry's POV. > Renee: Neri isn't the only one who would feel cheated if it turned out to be Lupin who killed Sirius in the case that Harry had seen who did it. I would feel cheated, too, because nothing in the final chapters of of OotP, or in HBP, indicates that Harry "knows" anything of the kind. If he did, it would be completely out of character for him to interact with Lupin the way he does after the MOM, and therefore ridiculously bad writing. JKR omitting to tell us Harry never spiked Ron's juice is not bad writing. It's an isolated incident, the results are described and dealt with fairly soon after it happens and no one's acting out of character. To me, it's an obvious case of "tricking but not conning". The cheating in the case of Sirius's death would not reside in the non-description itself, but in the way Harry's knowledge *has no consequences at all in canon after the event*. If Harry weren't the POV character, the narrator could get away with such a thing, but he is. Also, what you overlook in Neri's statement is the word "relevant". Looking at the big picture, Harry spiking Ron's juice is of very minor relevance, compared to Sirius's death. These two cases can't be compared. Renee From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Jul 23 13:16:09 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:16:09 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FIrst Headmaster/Headmistress of Hogwarts Message-ID: <58c.14744ea.31f4d099@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155859 In a message dated 7/23/2006 6:48:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au writes: Now, remember, this is 1000 years ago. Were feudal systems more acceptable back then? "Presidents" were as well known as "Coca Cola" 1000 years ago. ============== Sherrie here: Feudalism was THE system in Britain a millennium ago. Viking raids still took place, too - it was a dangerous time, the ninth and tenth centuries. Communications were limited, to be kind, and kings would have had a hard time of it trying to rule the whole island. (Of course, it wasn't even really one kingdom then, was it? Even Wales was divided up into separate kingdoms, some of them about the size of a bus route.) Here's a link to an excellent site on feudalism: _http://www.ku.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/feudalism.html_ (http://www.ku.edu/kansas/medieval/108/lectures/feudalism.html) The Scots, of course, had the clan system. Sherrie (history buff, even if it's NOT WBTS! ) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 13:15:00 2006 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 06:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060723131500.77234.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155860 > OK next example: What about Dumbledore's behaviour at the > Dursley's. > Forcing entry, forcing them to sit on the couch, having the glasses > of > mead float around their heads. Was that teaching them a lesson? Was > that Muggle baiting? Because the Dursleys are Muggles and > Dumbledore has superiour powers. > > Gerry Yes, it was muggle-baiting (and one of the reasons I didn't care for that scene since it seemed out of character for Dumbledore). Yes, he was teaching them a lesson - although a lesson that was almost irrelevant as it came so late in the series. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jeopardy18 at comcast.net Sun Jul 23 02:49:34 2006 From: jeopardy18 at comcast.net (seanmulligan2000) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:49:34 -0000 Subject: Traitors and Deserters (was:Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155861 > Betsy Hp: > Okay, so how does that make Hermione being vicious, cruel and vile > in return a *good* thing? > > It is only a word. It is not carved into her head such as with a blood quill. seanmulligan From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jul 23 14:43:35 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:43:35 -0000 Subject: What really happened on the tower. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155862 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > > > > wynnleaf > > If this piece of text is actually a bit of misdirection by the > narrator, where we're expected to think the petrificus totalus is by > Harry, but really it's someone else -- then there will have to be some > time in Book 7 when the "truth comes out." > > While I can envision many scenarios for other suspected misdirections > in which the "truth comes out" in Book 7, I find it hard to come up > with a reason for why the reader would ever learn that someone else > performed that particular PT. It seems to me that Harry would have > to, for some reason I can't yet conceive, decide to review those > events in a pensieve. Why would he do that? I can't see why he'd > start to wonder about events in order to want to re-evaluate them. > And the rest of the witnesses were all DE's, or Snape. The only > reason to do a misdirection here would be if the person that performed > the PT needed to be kept secret from the reader. But the secret has > to be divulged eventually, and this incident seems unlikely to be the > kind to be addressed again. > > It wouldn't be an unreliable narrator piece of misdirection if we're > never going to find out the truth. But I can't think of any reason > why we *would* find out more about this incident. While JKR could > probably come up with something, I can't quite imagine a scenario. > > Any ideas? > > colebiancardi: The only way that I can think of is that someone, perhaps Hermoine, asks Harry to review what happened that night on the Tower - to place his memories in the Pensive. The Pensive will not corrupt nor tell the POV of the person, it shows without bias. That is if Harry would concede to letting his memories be viewed by Hermoine. I think one of the things that is fueling Harry is his hatred, which HE must let go, IMHO, in order to defeat LV. I know that some want a bloody murder-fest in book 7; I doubt JKR will do that. I don't believe that is the message she wants to give. She has stressed love and compassion and that will be the message she would want her readers to have in book 7. but I could be wrong.... colebiancardi From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jul 23 15:01:12 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:01:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur References: Message-ID: <005d01c6ae68$d7737e20$1f9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155863 > Gerry > Not really. It had changed until the dinner party where Dobby smashed > a pudding. Then Harry got the letter that stated that as an underage > wizard he was not allowed to do magic. This resulted in Uncle Vernon > locking him up in his room. From this I assume Dudley also continued > with is normal behaviour towards Harry Magpie: You shouldn't assume that imo. Dudley always finds ways to get in little digs and taunts at Harry, but I think it's pretty clear he no longer bullies him the way he did before, regardless of knowing Harry's not allowed to do magic at home. Iirc, in OotP that's the whole point of Harry's taunting Dudley--he knows Dudley can't treat him the way he would treat any other kid, so is hoping to make Dudley look foolish when he can't explain to his friends why he's holding back on Harry. He's a ticking time bomb as far as the Dursleys are concerned. Harry is always treated badly at the Dursleys. Iirc in GoF they're pretending he don't exist, which is fine with him. But she's not having her hero beaten up regularly once he becomes a Wizard--good choice on her part. If she did decide to have Dudley actually physically assault Harry I've no doubt we'd hear about it. > Betsy Hp: > Okay, so how does that make Hermione being vicious, cruel and vile > in return a *good* thing? Seanmulligan: It is only a word. It is not carved into her head such as with a blood quill. Magpie: Err...relevence? If forced to choose at gunpoint I'd choose the scar. As would JKR, I think, since she gave Harry such a scar and it's pretty cool by HBP. No way she would ever allow her hero to have pustules spelling out anything on his face (on his own "lovely, clear skin"). Though the fact that this is what we're reduced to comparing suggests there's some serious stuff going on on both sides. It's only a word--that's generally what a brand is. Ironically (at least I thought so in reading OotP), Hermione makes a similar comparison. When Harry has an instinctive reaction to her saying she got the idea from the coins from the Dark Mark she counters that her coins don't mark peoples' skin, as if this is significant. Couldn't help but later think that actually she did mark the skin. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 15:35:52 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:35:52 -0000 Subject: Structure of the Seven books (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155864 ivogun: > Rowling has made it known that she has an overall plan for all seven books. Much of the > planning involves keeping the events of the plot straight, but I think to some degree she > may be utilizing a classical design where the first book mirrors the last, the second book > mirrors the next to last, the third book mirrors the third from the last, and the forth is a > pivotal book or climax. zgirnius: This is a n interesting idea. ivogun: > I see a lot mirror images or parallels between book two (COS) and book six (HBP). zgirnius: Yes, definitely, I'm snipping 'em all... ivogun: > I also see a few parallels between book three (PoA) parallels with book five (OotP). zgirnius: Arguably, I see more parallels between Books 1 and 5. ivogun: > In OotP, Harry loses > Sirius and learns of the Order of the Phoenix (another secretive group. In PoA, Sirius > escapes prison. In OotP, Hogwarts becomes a prison. Zgirnius: Can't match PS/SS to those ivogun: In PoA, Lupin is the best DOA > teacher that Harry ever had. In OotP, Umbridge is the worst DOA teacher that Harry has > ever had. zgirnius: Of course, in PS/SS Harry's teacher is possessed by Voldemort, ans totally ineffective, which is pretty bad... ivogun: In PoA, the hippogriff bites Draco. In OotP, it is the same hippogriff that is hurt. > And of course, dementers attack Harry in both PoA and OotP, and Harry's Patronus are > important in both books too. Zgirnius: Can't match those either. ivogun: > Both PoA and OotP portray treacherous and loyal individuals. In POA, we find that Sirius > (falsely accused of betraying the Potters) and Pettigrew (an opportunistic snitch--a rat). In > OotP, Umbridge should have been accused of traitor (but wasn't) and Marietta who was > pressured into a betrayal. zgirnius: In PS/SS we have "The Man with Two Faces" and Snape as our treacherous and loyal individuals. ivogun: > In PoA, Neville gains a bit of confidence with Snape in the Bogart class. In OotP, Neville > faces Bella (who tortured his parents into madness) with a surprising amount of > confidence. zgirnius: In PS/SS Neville wins the House Cup for Gryffindor, for his courageous attempt to stand up to his friends. And now, onto my additional Book 1/Book 5 parallels: -In both, Voldemort is after a magical object which only Harry may remove from its protections. (The whole main story of the books is the same!) -In both, Harry is kept in the dark about the object by Dumbledore and the other adults. -In both, Harry (unwisely) does so, though based on the information Harry has his decision is reasonable. -In both, Voldemort is nonetheless defeated and fails to attain his end. Dumbledore comes to the rescue in both. -In both, Harry (incorrectly?? Jury is out to some extent for OotP, though I know what I think) believes Snape is in league with the bad guy. -In both, Harry falls into disfavor. (PS/SS over the loss of points rescuing Norbert, in OotP owing to the Daily Prophet's smear campaign painting him as delusional or a liar.) -In both, Harry learns more about his parents, and sees them. (PS/SS- that they were wizards, were killed by Voldemort, and about his mother's sacrifice, and sees them in the Mirror. In OotP, sees James and Lily in Snape's Pensieve memory). -On both Harry learns important pieces of Snape's backstory: the prank and his rivalry with James in PS/SS, more on that rivalry and (though Snape is not named until book 6) Snape's overhearing of the Prophecy. Ivogun: > Of course, since book seven is not yet written so the parallels between the two books are > unknown, but I think the assumptions that parallels exist between the two books gives rise > for interesting speculation. Zgirnius: Care to speculate? I'll go for it. Assuming Book 3 is the correct model and not 5, I will make the following predictions: -Dementors will play a role in the events leading up to the ultimate climax of the series. -Harry will have to deal in Book 7 with a fugitive murderer/traitor, who may not be what he seems (). From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sun Jul 23 16:03:30 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:03:30 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: <20060723131500.77234.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155865 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > > > OK next example: What about Dumbledore's behaviour at the > > Dursley's. > > Forcing entry, forcing them to sit on the couch, having the glasses > > of > > mead float around their heads. Was that teaching them a lesson? Was > > that Muggle baiting? Because the Dursleys are Muggles and > > Dumbledore has superiour powers. > > > > Gerry > > > Yes, it was muggle-baiting (and one of the reasons I didn't care for > that scene since it seemed out of character for Dumbledore). Yes, he > was teaching them a lesson - although a lesson that was almost > irrelevant as it came so late in the series. > > Magda > Renee: Ah, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this Dumbledore was OOC here. The problem is, once JKR decided to have DD teaching the Dursleys a lesson, muggle-baiting according to the broadest definition (the one that defines the twins' Ton-tongue action as such) became unavoidable. Whatever DD could have done, given the fact that he's a wizard, it would always be a magical person's action against non-magical people. In other words, the imbalance of power would always have a magical component: every adult wizard has an unfair advantage over every muggle in a situation of non-peaceful interaction. The fact that the Dursleys are afraid of magic only increases the imbalance; a mere threat would have scared the hell out of them, and I don't see how that would have been any better, morally speaking. It would have been interesting to see DD solve this problem in a creative way that would not include any form of muggle-baiting. As it is, we are having the epitome of goodness engaging in illegal behaviour according to wizarding law - if the broadest definition of Muggle-baiting is correct. Somehow, I doubt this was JKR's intention with this scene; I have the nagging feeling we're merely supposed to laugh at the Dursleys and think they're getting their just deserts. So perhaps the definition of Muggle-baiting should be narrowed a bit. Is it such a problem to call the twins' action wrong without labeling it as Muggle-baiting? Isn't this exactly what Arthur does? The alternative, IMO, is that JKR would have created a law that she doesn't take too seriously herself. Renee From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jul 23 16:37:21 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:37:21 -0000 Subject: Order of Merlin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155866 Catlady wrote: > The Lexicon says "The Order of Merlin is a great honor, bestowed on > wizards who have demonstrated their devotion to the principles of > living harmoniously with Muggles. The Order was created by Merlin, the > famous wizard of the Middle Ages, to pass laws against using magic > against Muggles." Apparently that comes from Merlin's Famous Wizard Card. Potioncat: I wonder where the Lexicon got that? We aren't told much in canon, but that doesn't fit with what we know. Doesn't Lockhart have an Order of Merlin? Seems like the wizard who invented the Self-Stirring Cauldron has one too. Wasn't it hinted that Snape would get one for capturing Black? What does any of that have to do with Muggle Relations? From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jul 23 16:35:04 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:35:04 -0000 Subject: Union of Opposites - Gryffindor/Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155867 Tonks: > Fire and water are opposites. Jung goes on to say: > "Where fire and water become one, there is a unio > oppositorum, which is really an image of God, for > god is the union of opposites. Fire is in itself a > uniter of opposites and it is a very ancient image for God." > Jung says that this union of opposites bring healing. > It brings not only physical healing, but a deeper healing. > So it would appear from this that Harry and Draco must > unite. The fire (Gryffindor) and the water (Slytherin) > must come together. Again I think that there also has > to be a female principle there as well, so we would > have Harry and Ginny and Draco and ?? Or do we need 3? houyhnhnm: The third should be a Ravenclaw because Air is the mediator between Fire and Water. Perhaps it will be Luna who has already shown such an inclination in her attitude towards Ron and Hermione in HBP15. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jul 23 17:00:46 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 23 Jul 2006 17:00:46 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/23/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1153674046.16.20869.m25@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155868 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday July 23, 2006 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Event Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From random832 at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 16:52:12 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:52:12 -0400 Subject: Arthur right or not? /Dudley bullies Harry at the time of GoF or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607230952m6c7311e8v148e7cff26746997@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155869 >Betsy Hp: > > I think that's made clear in CoS when Dudley tries to verbally > taunt > > Harry for a lack of birthday cards, but Harry easily scares him > off > > by babbling some nonsense "magic" words, that the power structure > > has changed since PS/SS. > > Alla: > > How does it changed if Harry is still locked in the room and almost > starved? Harry is still powerless, IMO. I think we're all forgetting that the summer before the second year is _unique_ in that the Dursleys believe that Harry can use magic. This is no longer the case after the owl about underage magic. -- Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 16:54:37 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:54:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607230954y8a26d47l894979d0b2b405e6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155870 > Neri: > Still in > that same first post I invented the term "unfair non-description" for > a non-description that the narrator uses to fool *both* the hero and > the reader, and pointed out that JKR seems to avoid them. I asked for > any counterexamples and none were found yet. I think it's a lot more fair if we're fooled because Harry is fooled (it's not a "non-description" if it really is a misconception Harry has for one reason or another) than if we have a false impression that anyone who was actually there never could have gotten. -- Random832 From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 19:55:37 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:55:37 -0000 Subject: Structure of the Seven books / and a bit of Alchemy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155871 > ivogun: > > Rowling has made it known that she has an overall plan for all > seven books. Much of the planning involves keeping the events of the plot straight, but I think to some degree she may be utilizing a classical design where the first book mirrors the last, the second book mirrors the next to last, the third book mirrors the third from the last, and the forth is a pivotal book or climax. > Tonks: You may be right. As I venture into the study of Alchemy it does look like there could be some connection of book 1 and 7. In book 1: Harry is a child. Harry does not know who and what he is. The Stone is destroyed In book 7: Harry will be a man Harry will know himself (a necessary step in creating the stone.) I predict that Harry will create the stone. Now we venture into the world of Wild Prediction! In book 1, we have Ron's sacrifice. In my Alchemy studies I jumped ahead a bit to a picture. And if I place the characters from HP in this picture.. well it does not look good for Ginny. Instead of the red haired Ron, it will be Ginny who dies, not a figurative death, but a real death. The picture in the Alchemy book if interpreted by HP standards would show Sirius, DD, and Fawkes. They are crowning Ginny. Ginny has gone to the world beyond in her body, just as Sirius has done. This is part of the making of the stone. On a side note: The symbolism of the 2 snakes going in different directions is an Alchemical symbol. I haven't sorted it all out yet. Surprising still is the part of the prophesy "one must die at the hand of the other " In Alchemy there is something called "Saturn" which is a dark thing, or in Christian terms, evil. It must be killed. That is the term that they use "killed", before you can create the stone. Again I haven't quite gotten an understanding of it all. It is a chemical process which is symbolic. The real process is spiritual and according to Carl Jung psychological. I think we will see Potions coming into play in book 7. Very *advance* potion making!! Remember we also need the joining of fire(Gryffindor) and water (Slytherin), for the potion to work. Tonks_op From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 20:09:16 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:09:16 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155872 > Alla: > > Where is it stated in canon that by the time of GoF Dudley was not > bullying Harry any more? a_svirn: Where it says that he does? Find me one instance of Dudley bullying Harry after he started Hogwarts. The quote you cited proves nothing. When the twins had rescued Harry two years prior it sure hadn't been from bullying. Hurry was abused by his Uncle at the time, not by Dudley. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 20:40:19 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:40:19 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? /Dudley bullies Harry at the time of GoF or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155873 > Alla: > Dudley's > bullying IMO does not exist in vacuum, but tied to his parents' > abuse > of Harry. All that Dudley has to do if he feels that, I don't know > Harry is scaring him too much is to complain to his parents and > Harry would be dealt with. I mean, you are not arguing that Harry > has any power over Dudleys after PS/SS? > Like in GoF for example, Harry is starved **because** Aunt > Petunia wants to keep Dudley morale high by making sure that he eats > more than Harry, etc. > a_svirn: That's stretching the definition of bullying along with the notion of responsibility too far. Dudley did not *ask* for his diet. Quite the contrary. Also we have nothing whatsoever in canon to assume that *starving* Harry was his idea. On the contrary, the narrator states quite clearly that it was Petunia who came up with the notion. Of course, narrators are unreliable lot, but I just don't see the point of lying about the whole thing. Moreover, Harry is not the only one who are being *starved*. Vernon is in the same leaky boat. Do you think he is being *starved*, because Dudley wanted to bully his Daddy? From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 20:44:28 2006 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:44:28 -0000 Subject: Structure of the Seven books (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155874 Wow that's a lot of theorizing. However, one of the things that I've always felt was important in GOF is that we never 'see' that kiss that Barty Jr. supposedly got from the dementors. We hear about it...and how many times have we been led down the garden path with that kind of information. If Barty Jr. is still alive...and infiltrates Hogwarts again, whether it's as a student - which seems the most likely - or not, then Harry could be set up quite nicely by Voldemort. This leads to a lot of other questions...such as - who would be able to be close enough to Harry to make a difference. Which student might Barty change into? Just a thought... KathyO --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ivogun" wrote: > > Rowling has made it known that she has an overall plan for all seven books. Much of the > planning involves keeping the events of the plot straight, but I think to some degree she > may be utilizing a classical design where the first book mirrors the last, the second book > mirrors the next to last, the third book mirrors the third from the last, and the forth is a > pivotal book or climax. Variations of this structure can be noted in all sorts of literature > ranging from Bible and other mid-eastern literature, classical plays, Shakespeare, poetry > etc. al. > > I see a lot mirror images or parallels between book two (COS) and book six (HBP). > > There are several parallels with Hagrid in these books. IN COS, we learn that Hagrid > hatches Aragog, sets him free and thinks the spiders are his friends. In HBP, Hagrid buries > Aragog, after kidnapping a dead/dying Aragog, and learns that the spiders are not his > friends. In COS, Hagrid is taken from his hut, while in HBP; the hut is taken away (burned > up) from Hagrid. > > Likewise there are mirror images between the two books that involve the Malfoys. In COS, > Lucius Malfoy is a haughty, powerful trustee of Hogwarts. In HBP, Lucius is grateful to be a > powerless, but safe prisoner. In COS, Harry and Ron use polyjuice potion (made by > Hermione) to become Crabbe and Goyle in order to spy on Draco. Draco admits to them > during this event that he wants to help the Dark Lord. In the HBP, Crabbe and Goyle use > polyjuice potion (made by Draco?) In HBP, Harry discovers that Draco is bound to help the > Dark Lord, but that now Draco doesn't want to help Voldemort anymore. In COS, Myrtle > likes Harry who only tolerates her; however, in HBP, Myrtle likes Draco who surprisingly > seems to like her. > > In both books, there are parallels with Harry. In both books Harrry enters dangerous, > magically protected caves--in COS it is the chamber of secrets, and in HBP, it is the cave. > Both events seem to have symbolic meanings beyond just the literal. In COS, Harry frees a > house-elf, but in HBP Harry becomes a master of a house-elf. At the end of COS, > Dumbledore speaks to Harry in McGonagall's office, while in HBP, it's McGonagall who > talks to Harry in Dumbledore's office. > > There are a few mirror images with Harry that include Ginny a bit too. In COS, it is an old > schoolbook (Tom Riddle's diary) that almost kills Ginny and Harry. In HBP, it's another old > schoolbook that helps make Harry an excellent student in potions. In COS, Ginny is in love > with Harry. In HBP, Harry realizes he loves Ginny. > > In COS, the DOA teacher (Lockhart) is a show-off and a publicity seeker. In HBP, the DOA > teacher (Slughorn), has been in hiding for a year before the start of the book and would > prefer to work behind the scenes. > > Fawkes, Tom Riddle, and Griffindor's sword are featured in both. In both book, it is Harry's > loyalty and obedience to Dumbledore that saves Harry's life (in the chamber in COS and on > the tower in HBP.) > > I also see a few parallels between book three (PoA) parallels with book five (OotP). > > In PoA, Harry finds Sirius and learns of the marauders (secret group). In OotP, Harry loses > Sirius and learns of the Order of the Phoenix (another secretive group. In PoA, Sirius > escapes prison. In OotP, Hogwarts becomes a prison. In PoA, Lupin is the best DOA > teacher that Harry ever had. In OotP, Umbridge is the worst DOA teacher that Harry has > ever had. In PoA, the hippogriff bites Draco. In OotP, it is the same hippogriff that is hurt. > And of course, dementers attack Harry in both PoA and OotP, and Harry's Patronus are > important in both books too. > > Both PoA and OotP portray treacherous and loyal individuals. In POA, we find that Sirius > (falsely accused of betraying the Potters) and Pettigrew (an opportunistic snitch--a rat). In > OotP, Umbridge should have been accused of traitor (but wasn't) and Marietta who was > pressured into a betrayal. > > In PoA, Neville gains a bit of confidence with Snape in the Bogart class. In OotP, Neville > faces Bella (who tortured his parents into madness) with a surprising amount of > confidence. > > Of course, since book seven is not yet written so the parallels between the two books are > unknown, but I think the assumptions that parallels exist between the two books gives rise > for interesting speculation. > > Finally, book four (GOF), which in this structure should be a climax, a crisis, a turning > point or the book where the most import theme is emphasized. But which? One possible > contender could be unity. The houses of Hogwarts unite (in the contest against other > schools) and everyone (in all houses and all the visitors) remain at Hogwarts for Christmas. > More likely, it is something from the graveyard scene. It could be facing death, or perhaps > it is the duel between Voldemort and Harry where Harry and his wand win over Voldemort. > Not exactly sure, but I guess, I should reread GoF. > From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Jul 23 21:42:54 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:42:54 -0000 Subject: The UV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155875 puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > It was not stupid to take the UV, if he > had a strong enough reason to do so. > The information about Draco's task was > potentially vital, worth risking his > life to discover. Snape already knew about Draco's task, and if he didn't and he really was as heroic as you say he was then why did he interrupt the woman right when she was about to spill the beans? And it wasn't his life he was risking, it was Dumbledore's. > When he agreed to take the vow, he > did not think it would encompass more > than protecting Draco. In other words you think Snape was a very very stupid man, and in one stroke Snape becomes about as deep as Doctor Evil was in the Austin Powers movies. > DD had already picked SS as his most > trusted aide long before the UV. > Because SS told him about the UV > (and because DD did not believe there > had been any intent to be a traitor > or to murder DD IMHO), he had no reason > to change his opinion of SS. NO REASON?! Intent doesn't enter into it, Dumbledore had found a man who now had no choice but to become a traitor to the cause and to try to murder the leader of the good guys, and Dumbledore still trusts this fantastic idiot? Dumbledore would have to be even dumber than Snape, and that's saying something! Put yourself in JKR's shoes and try to write a book based on that foundation that readers won't howl at with unintended laughter. Try to write a good book with such moronic characters. Go ahead, try, I dare you. Eggplant From muellem at bc.edu Sun Jul 23 21:53:13 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:53:13 -0000 Subject: The UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155876 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > NO REASON?! Intent doesn't enter into it, Dumbledore had found a man > who now had no choice but to become a traitor to the cause and to try > to murder the leader of the good guys, and Dumbledore still trusts > this fantastic idiot? Dumbledore would have to be even dumber than > Snape, and that's saying something! Put yourself in JKR's shoes and > try to write a book based on that foundation that readers won't howl > at with unintended laughter. Try to write a good book with such > moronic characters. Go ahead, try, I dare you. > colebiancardi: I have the feeling you will be sorely disappointed in book 7, if that is your viewpoint, if Snape is DDM. Moronic characters? I don't think so. If you read anything in the spy genre, those double agents do the same things as Snape(even worse things, quite frankly) and they are not moronic characters, but deeply conflicted characters. I doubt many people will "howl" with laughter if Snape turns out to be DDM, even if they are currently in the ESE!Snape or OFH!Snape camp. colebiancardi (who can live with ESE!Snape if that is the way JKR writes it, but has the feeling, based on JKR's comments about book 6 & 7 should be read as one novel, not two, that Snape is forever DDM) From random832 at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 17:14:37 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:14:37 -0400 Subject: Order of Merlin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607231014r7d4ef4fcs1ca3539ac605f14a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155877 On 7/23/06, potioncat wrote: > > Catlady wrote: > > The Lexicon says "The Order of Merlin is a great honor, bestowed on > > wizards who have demonstrated their devotion to the principles of > > living harmoniously with Muggles. The Order was created by Merlin, the > > famous wizard of the Middle Ages, to pass laws against using magic > > against Muggles." Apparently that comes from Merlin's Famous Wizard > Card. > > > Potioncat: > I wonder where the Lexicon got that? We aren't told much in canon, but > that doesn't fit with what we know. Doesn't Lockhart have an Order of > Merlin? Seems like the wizard who invented the Self-Stirring Cauldron > has one too. Wasn't it hinted that Snape would get one for capturing > Black? What does any of that have to do with Muggle Relations? It cites the EA chamber of secrets game. I don't think that counts as canon, regardless, and seems to contradict it. I read "order of merlin" as being a wizard equivalent of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_British_Empire , as so many other things have "wizard equivalents" like that. -- Random832 From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 19:29:01 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:29:01 -0000 Subject: Order of Merlin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155878 > > Potioncat: > I wonder where the Lexicon got that? We aren't told much in canon, but > that doesn't fit with what we know. Doesn't Lockhart have an Order of > Merlin? Seems like the wizard who invented the Self-Stirring Cauldron > has one too. Wasn't it hinted that Snape would get one for capturing > Black? What does any of that have to do with Muggle Relations? bridge13219: I'm assuming the information came from the Famous Wizard cards, which JKR wrote, so they're as good as canon, right? I suppose Lockhart, by supposedly doing away with dark creatures, benefitted Muggles (and hence muggle relations). As for Snape, Black was supposed to be a danger to Muggles, so I guess that's where that would have come from. As for the self-stirring cauldron inventor, I guess even in the WW the original purpose behind an award can get lost (Academy Awards anyone?) From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 20:26:59 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060723202659.69308.qmail@web52715.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155879 Alla: > Where is it stated in canon that by the time of GoF Dudley was not > bullying Harry any more? a_svirn: Where it says that he does? Find me one instance of Dudley bullying Harry after he started Hogwarts. The quote you cited proves nothing. When the twins had rescued Harry two years prior it sure hadn't been from bullying. Hurry was abused by his Uncle at the time, not by Dudley. K_,_.___ . Katie replies (after staying silent, but lurking in this thread for days): In my opinion, I don't care what the Dursleys do or don't do. They are repugnant, bigoted, small-minded jerks. They are rude, self-absorbed, and ignorant. I don't care if Dudley never so much as made an ugly face at Harry after he was accepted at Hogwarts...I thought the ton-tongue taffy incident was hilarious and deserved. There has been much talk in this thread of the twins being malicious or enjoying people getting tortured...That's just silly. (In my always humble opinion) Dudley is a jerk, Fred and George are clowns, and they played a joke on him...that they also would have played on wizard, as the Wizarding Wheezes are intended for wizards' use. It has nothing to do with him being a Muggle...it has to do with him being a prat, as F&G say themselves to their dad after the incident. And obviously JKR thinks the twins are good blokes - silly and goofy - but good. She didn't write them as nasty people, just as people that carry on all the time...and I know plenty of people who can't take anything seriously...but they're not bad people. As I see it: Dudley and Dursleys = BAD Twins and Weasleys = GOOD End of story. Just my opinion, Katie From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jul 23 23:13:27 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:13:27 -0000 Subject: The UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155880 eggplant: > Snape already knew about Draco's task, and if he didn't and he really > was as heroic as you say he was then why did he interrupt the woman > right when she was about to spill the beans? And it wasn't his life he > was risking, it was Dumbledore's. zgirnius: Actually, the way we are told the Unbreakable Vow works, Snape has a choice about whether to fulfil it or not. It is not a magical compulsion like an Imperius Curse, but a magical contract, like the Goblet of Fire with a stiff penalty clause (what is it with fires and contracts, anyway?). So Snape WAS risking his life by taking it (because, as they say, sh*t happens, so any part of the Vow was a potential danger) and he may have been especially risking it by agreeing to a third clause he had no intention of honoring. Eggplant: > In other words you think Snape was a very very stupid man, and in one > stroke Snape becomes about as deep as Doctor Evil was in the Austin > Powers movies. zgirnius: I agree he likely knew what he was in for when he agreed to the third clause of the Vow (which, in case you recall our discussions of a year ago, is a change in my position...). But it seems to me that he made it quite clear he wanted to HELP Draco, and not DO THE TASK FOR HIM, in the conversation which led into the Vow. So when he agreed in principle to take a Vow, and up until Narcissa started her hedging about of the final clause with weasel-phrases, he may very well have expected he would be asked to swear to watch over, protect, and help Draco (help him right into a nice Order-provided witness protection program, perhaps?) eggplant: > NO REASON?! Intent doesn't enter into it, Dumbledore had found a man > who now had no choice but to become a traitor to the cause and to try > to murder the leader of the good guys, and Dumbledore still trusts > this fantastic idiot? zgirnius: Where do you get this idea that Snape would have no choice? From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Jul 24 00:39:42 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:39:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia Message-ID: <24d.eea646b.31f570ce@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155881 > > Alla: > > > Alla, who sadly realises that Harry's death would be the only plot > > twist that would make her say good bye to the books. > > > > No, I would not throw them away, they gave me too much enjoyment, > > but > > I would not reread them, knowing that there is no hope for Harry to > > survive. > > KJ writes: > > You are absolutely right, Alla, and I hadn't really considered > that before. I read and re-read books until they are dog-eared, but in > this instance, what would be the point of going through Harry's life at > school again, if he doesn't survive? This series of books has become so > much a part of the lives of so many people, for so many years, that the > characters are like family members. The ending of these books, whether > satisfying, or unsatisfying, is really going to interfere with the usual > re-reading of a story. I also could not throw them away, even if she > kills Snape, who is my favourite character, but I probably won't read > them again either. > > KJ > > > > > Sandy: I will third this. I have said repeatedly, over and over again, that if Harry does not survive I am done with it. I wouldn't throw the books away either. I never throw a book away unless I have worn it out and have to replace it. I would not get rid of the books either. But I would never read them again, or anything else JKR writes, not that I intend to read anything else she writes anyway. I just couldn't read all the awful things that Harry has gone through knowing that he dies in the end. It's hard seeing Harry go through all of this, but there is such hope for his future. That is what these books are all about for me; hope for the future. If Harry dies that hope has been shattered and there is no point in going through all of it again.. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 00:25:22 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:25:22 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > Neri: > I use "unfair" here according to my very personal definition, as > shorthand for "a non-description that is used to fool the hero and > the reader". > I defined "non-description" as something that the hero must know or > see, and yet the narrator doesn't describe. > Still in that same first post I invented the term "unfair > non-description" for a non-description that the narrator uses to > fool *both* the hero and the reader, and pointed out that JKR > seems to avoid them. > Yet until now she has never has never fooled *both* the reader > and Harry using a non-description. This suggests to me that she > also considers it unfair. Mike now: I lined up these parts of your post to try and drill it (using a Dursley drill bit) into my head. I think I've got it, let's see if I do. For the "unfair" to kick in, it's not only we the reader who must be tricked, but Harry must be "fooled" also, when she utilizes a "non-description". Is that right, Neri? > Neri: > If we assume JKR fools us (as in an ESE!Lupin scenario) then Harry > *doesn't* know who cursed Sirius. He believes with us that it was > Bella, but it was actually ESE!Lupin, and Harry would be extremely > surprised to learn it. > By definition, we and Harry can't be treated to a non-description. > My definition of a non-description is something that Harry does > see but we don't. Mike again: This is where I'm still hazy. How can Harry be fooled if the definition includes him knowing? IOW, is it "unfair" if later on Harry walks up to Lupin and says, 'I know it was you who cursed Sirius', or only if Lupin surprises Harry by admitting, 'I was the one who got Sirius'? If it's the first case, we weren't *both* fooled. But if is the second case, then Harry doesn't know. How could we possibly *get* an "unfair non-description"? How can we *both* be fooled and have the hero *know* the non-description at the same time? I'm beginning to see why nobody has given you a valid example, by definition you can't have one. > Neri: > It's quite possible that JKR is either cheating here or has made > some mistake. It won't be the first time (she already corrected > the priori incantatum order) and she admitted that GoF was rushed > to print. But this still remains to be seen, and in any case, even > if she cheated here it wasn't by using a non-description the way I > defined it. Mike finishing off: I submit that it was a non-description. IMO, something must have come out of LV's wand, representing the AK thrown at Harry, between Bertha and Lily. Further, I submit that Harry would have seen/heard it, but it wasn't described to us the reader. Cheating or mistake, I still think this qualifies as a non-description. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 23:57:10 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:57:10 -0700 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607230954y8a26d47l894979d0b2b405e6@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50607230954y8a26d47l894979d0b2b405e6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0607231657l14681cd4mfbe307baff143852@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155883 Mike says: In neither case is Harry surprised by the outcome because he knows the truth. But in the case of Lupin cursing Sirius, you said you would feel cheated. Yet you don't feel cheated that for an entire chapter we are lead to erroneously believe that Harry spiked Ron's juice. Yes, I know the degree of importance is not equal, but we are talking about literary devices, aren't we? Does she need to use this "non-description" device to make the chapter work? Yes. But you have to admit that this is JKR *cheating* us, while we are in Harry's POV Lynda says: No, I do not have to admit that JKR is cheating here. She's writing the books and she can decide in what manner she wants to do so. I didn't feel cheated with the above scene at all, for one thing, having read five other books by the same author, I did not really think that Harry would put real Felix Felicis into Ron's juice! So I wasn't surprised by the eventual outcome.. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 24 01:20:34 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:20:34 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155884 > > > OK next example: What about Dumbledore's behaviour at the > > > Dursley's. > > > Forcing entry, forcing them to sit on the couch, having the glasses > > > of mead float around their heads. Was that teaching them a lesson? Was > > > that Muggle baiting? Because the Dursleys are Muggles and > > > Dumbledore has superiour powers. > > > Magda: > > Yes, it was muggle-baiting (and one of the reasons I didn't care for > > that scene since it seemed out of character for Dumbledore). Yes, he > > was teaching them a lesson - although a lesson that was almost > > irrelevant as it came so late in the series. > > > Renee: > Ah, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this Dumbledore was OOC > here. > > The problem is, once JKR decided to have DD teaching the Dursleys a > lesson, muggle-baiting according to the broadest definition (the one > that defines the twins' Ton-tongue action as such) became unavoidable. > Whatever DD could have done, given the fact that he's a wizard, it > would always be a magical person's action against non-magical people. Pippin: I don't think it was OOC for Dumbledore to be harsh. Dumbledore kicks Barty Jr over on his back. Sometimes his feelings do get the better of him. But I don't think it's Muggle-baiting either. It strikes me that the Muggle-baiting laws are for situations where the Statute of Secrecy doesn't apply because ordinarily the Muggles wouldn't know or would never admit that they were given a magical object. The Twins' case is ironic, because the one time that Arthur has a Muggle witness who could testify that he was fooled by an enchanted object, it's his own sons that are the culprits. Arthur prefers, naturally to let these offenders off with a warning. But Dumbledore wasn't tricking the Dursleys into accepting objects that they didn't know were enchanted. They certainly knew that their sofa and the drinks were being magicked. What about the Statute of Secrecy? We know that wizards are allowed to use magic and even force entry into Muggle homes when arranging for a wizard child to attend Hogwarts, at least until the child has been retrieved, per Hagrid in PS/SS, and Dumbledore enchanting the orphanage director. I'd guess that by shrewdly arranging that Harry would be unprepared for his visit, Dumbledore was able to take advantage of a loophole in the law. Pippin From rkdas at charter.net Mon Jul 24 01:21:37 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:21:37 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: <24d.eea646b.31f570ce@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155885 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: > > > > > > > Alla: > > > > > Alla, who sadly realises that Harry's death would be the only plot > > > twist that would make her say good bye to the books. > > > > > > No, I would not throw them away, they gave me too much enjoyment, > > > but > > > I would not reread them, knowing that there is no hope for Harry to > > > survive. > > > > KJ writes: > > > > You are absolutely right, Alla, and I hadn't really considered > > that before. I read and re-read books until they are dog-eared, but in > > this instance, what would be the point of going through Harry's life at > > school again, if he doesn't survive? This series of books has become so > > much a part of the lives of so many people, for so many years, that the > > characters are like family members. The ending of these books, whether > > satisfying, or unsatisfying, is really going to interfere with the usual > > re-reading of a story. I also could not throw them away, even if she > > kills Snape, who is my favourite character, but I probably won't read > > them again either. > > > > KJ > > > > Hi guys, Don't throw in the towel just yet. There are all sorts of things that could happen but I am willing to bet that JKR will end the series in a way that will be poignant yet you'll still want to read the books again. Did you ever read LOTR? I was floored by the ending. Just flattened like a pancake. I cried and ranted and was so angry. I felt so cheated. But an overwhelming desire to understand the ending drove me to read the books again, to see the fore-shadowing, to understand why the book had to end that way. I know JKR will make what ever she does be ultimately right and believable and you will not want to throw away your books or dispose of them in any violent and unnecessary mechanized manner. Hold on. Jen D. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 24 01:25:14 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:25:14 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Structure of the Seven books (Long) Message-ID: <525.5e591900.31f57b7a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155886 miamibarb Finally, book four (GOF), which in this structure should be a climax, a crisis, a turning point or the book where the most import theme is emphasized. But which? One possible contender could be unity. The houses of Hogwarts unite (in the contest against other schools) and everyone (in all houses and all the visitors) remain at Hogwarts for Christmas. More likely, it is something from the graveyard scene. It could be facing death, or perhaps it is the duel between Voldemort and Harry where Harry and his wand win over Voldemort. Not exactly sure, but I guess, I should reread GoF. Nikkalmati: I noted in the interview that accompanied POA (media not named) Jo and the director discussed why she would not let him put a graveyard next to Hagrid's hut. She said something to the effect that the graveyard for the castle or in the castle was elsewhere. Wh have not seen any graveyard at Hogwarts. If it exists, maybe that is the location of the Final Battle. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 24 01:42:35 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:42:35 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0607231657l14681cd4mfbe307baff143852@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155887 > > Mike says: In neither case is Harry surprised by the outcome because he > knows > the truth. But in the case of Lupin cursing Sirius, you said you > would feel cheated. Yet you don't feel cheated that for an entire > chapter we are lead to erroneously believe that Harry spiked Ron's > juice. Yes, I know the degree of importance is not equal, but we are > talking about literary devices, aren't we? Does she need to use > this "non-description" device to make the chapter work? Yes. But you > have to admit that this is JKR *cheating* us, while we are in > Harry's POV > Lynda says: > No, I do not have to admit that JKR is cheating here. She's > writing the books and she can decide in what manner she wants to do so. I > didn't feel cheated with the above scene at all, for one thing, having read > five other books by the same author, I did not really think that Harry would > put real Felix Felicis into Ron's juice! So I wasn't surprised by the > eventual outcome.. > wynnleaf Does this mean, Lynda, that if I am not surprised if Harry turns out not to have PT'd Fennir, that JKR wasn't cheating? I mean, I didn't really think Harry did that PT. So if *I* don't feel cheated, is JKR in the clear? My point is simply that what's "cheating" is in the eye of the beholder. There's no literary imperative that says that JKR can't use this device -- even in the situation of the PT on Fennir. And if JKR did it some places -- and perhaps you felt it wasn't cheating there -- and then JKR does it with the PT on Fennir, and *I* don't think it's cheating..... Well, hopefully you get the idea. The real person who will decide what's cheating her readers and what's not is JKR. wynnleaf, who looks forward to all manner of surprises From arwenrjl at aol.com Sun Jul 23 22:45:35 2006 From: arwenrjl at aol.com (arwengryffin) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:45:35 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155888 > > houyhnhnm: > > And when did Gryffindor morph into the House for those > > who Do The Right Thing? That is really being Gryffindor-centric. > > > > Dung: > No, absolutely, I didn't mean to imply that (though looking back I > realise I may have inadvertantly done so). Dung & Houynhnm, I just had to respond to some of these comments about my house. We are told that Gryffindors are courageous. We are also told that they are noble and chivalrous. This does suggest they have strong values and morals, a sence of right and wrong. Obviously, it goes wrong sometimes, i.e. Peter Pettigrew. Also, everyone in the House does not necessarily have the same talent level. There are different degrees. Not every Gryffindor is another DD, but I do think in general they try - try to do the right thing. I also do not understand the bias against the twins. Pranksters? Yes, absolutely but Slytherins no. Remember the Marauders were pranksters, too but James, Sirius, and Remus are not evil. They are heroes. The twins have helped and supported Harry remember. I am not questioning what side they are on. Thanks. - Arwen From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 24 02:37:07 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:37:07 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happene... Message-ID: <473.31a5880.31f58c53@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155889 .wynnleaf >Does this mean, Lynda, that if I am not surprised if Harry turns out not to have PT'd Fennir, that JKR wasn't cheating? I mean, I didn't really think Harry did that PT. So if *I* don't feel cheated, is JKR in the clear? >My point is simply that what's "cheating" is in the eye of the beholder. There's no literary imperative that says that JKR can't use this device -- even in the situation of the PT on Fennir. And if JKR did it some places -- and perhaps you felt it wasn't cheating there -- and then JKR does it with the PT on Fennir, and *I* don't think it's cheating....ch Nikkalmati: I guess that the Fennir PT situation is a potential clear-cut non-description. If Harry did the PT, he knows it and we don't. No non-description cheat. If Harry did not do the PT, he does not know who did it and we don't either. If the PT turns out to be important in Book 7, we both have been fooled? Is this right? Nikkalmati (having trouble getting her mind around this concept) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 24 02:50:09 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:50:09 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will Harry be mentioned in Dumbledore's will? Message-ID: <503.45279e00.31f58f61@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155890 >aussie >Slytherin's cracked ring? Now that would be a nice ace up his sleeve to scare LV in his last battle. Nikkalmati: This comment made me wonder: Why did DD wear the cracked Gaunt heirloom ring on his hand in the first part of HBP? Wouldn't it be seen by DE children or any other spy at Hogwarts and reported to LV along with the information that DD had injured his hand? Isn't this alerting LV that his Horcruxes are under attack? In fact, SS confirms to Bella that DD's hand is injured at Spinners End, so LV must have heard of the accident. Does DD want LV to know that DD is on to him or is DD just taking a big risk? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 24 02:55:44 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:55:44 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] KarmaRe: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture Message-ID: <3f8.55a33c00.31f590b0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155891 >Gerry >Hermione did a very good job and Marietta is a very nasty person. She could just have stepped out, she could have said no in the beginning. She wanted to ingratiate herself with Umbridge at the cost of a lot of people including her best friend. I think a normal decent person would have to experience such behaviour to believe anybody capable of that. I'm sure neither Harry, Ron or Hermione will make that kind of mistake again. Nikkalmati: I wonder why Cho is still loyal to Marietta even choosing her over Harry! We have not seen why, but I think this is Jo's way of showing us that Marietta is not a complete loss. She must have some good qualities. Otherwise, I would agree totally with Gerry that Marietta is a very nasty person. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 02:58:25 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:58:25 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0607231657l14681cd4mfbe307baff143852@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > Lynda says: > No, I do not have to admit that JKR is cheating here. > I didn't feel cheated with the above scene at all, for one thing, > having read five other books by the same author, I did not really > think that Harry would put real Felix Felicis into Ron's juice! > So I wasn't surprised by the eventual outcome.. Mike responds: I guess I didn't leave enough of the preceeding post up-thread, sorry. I was referring to cheating with regards to the literary device that Neri posted, not cheating on the story-line. I wouldn't be reading and writing posts on this site if I wasn't enamoured with Harry Potter and JKR's writing. I thoroughly enjoy being tricked by JKR and I always am because of the way I read the books. I allow myself to be in the moment, so I'm always the last one to know what's going on. That way I'm always surprised by anything that JKR intended to be a surprise :-) I reserve my analytical reading for my fourth to sixth rereads. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 24 03:34:43 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:34:43 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155893 > > Renee: > Neri isn't the only one who would feel cheated if it turned out to be > Lupin who killed Sirius in the case that Harry had seen who did it. I > would feel cheated, too, because nothing in the final chapters of of > OotP, or in HBP, indicates that Harry "knows" anything of the kind. If > he did, it would be completely out of character for him to interact > with Lupin the way he does after the MOM, and therefore ridiculously > bad writing. Pippin: I agree, but the narrator does not make it clear that Harry saw who did it. It does establish that both Lupin and Bella were standing in front of Harry and so could have blocked his view of the spell being cast. I think JKR's definition of 'tricked but not conned' doesn't refer to anything so specific as Neri's 'non-description'. I think she simply means that while both play on human gullibility, the con artist never allows her victims to doubt, while the trickster freely admits that she's trying to fool you and plays a game of 'catch me if you can.' Rowling uses many devices to trick the reader, but AFAIK, she never uses a device in a plot twist that she hasn't already demonstrated to the reader. I observe the following: No magic has ever been used in a plot twist before it was explained to the reader. (animagi, polyjuice potion, portkeys) No improbable event has ever occurred as a plot twist that wasn't shown to occur before. ( Hagrid tells us that it was hard to know which wizards you met were trustworthy, setting up Quirrell's surprise. Voldemort's death is pronounced to be codswallop, setting up Peter and Barty. Sirius escapes from Azkaban before Barty does. Snape gives fake veritaserum to Umbridge before Harry gives fake felix to Ron.) No character has been revealed to be innocent in a plot twist whose character was not previously vouched for. (Hagrid vouched for Snape in PS/SS, Madame Rosmerta vouched for Sirius in PoA.) No character has ever been revealed as guilty in a plot twist who was not previously challenged. (Snape challenged Quirrell, Dumbledore challenged Riddle, Crookshanks challenged Scabbers, McGonagall challenged Fake!Moody.) No character (including the narrator) has been revealed to have deceived the hero or the reader in a plot twist who had not previously appeared to be unreliable. That Harry would mistake the origin of a hex that happened right in front of him is an improbable event, but to determine whether it is possible according to the rules above, we need only ask if such an improbable event has already occurred in canon. Of course it has, when a whole street full of Muggles thought they had observed Sirius hexing Peter. Hermione also mistook the origin of the broomstick hex, so this is not an error limited to Muggles. The same incidents also allow the device of the narrator letting us presume that a character has observed something when he hasn't. Pippin From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 24 03:53:42 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 03:53:42 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155894 Arwen: > I just had to respond to some of these comments about > my house. We are told that Gryffindors are courageous. > We are also told that they are noble and chivalrous. houyhnhnm: But they are not *better* than the other houses. The Gyffindor way of approaching life is one way of being a good person. It is also one way of being a not so good person (impulsive, reckless, arrogant). Being loyal and hardworking is another way of being a good person. Creating new knowledge through intellectual endeavor is another. Likewise there are other ways of being a not so good person, such as being clannish and hidebound or cold, aloof, and disconnected from the problems of other people. Some see the Potter books as a story of good guys versus bad guys. I see them as being ultimately about harmony versus disharmony or balance versus imbalance. I think this is what Rowling is trying to prepare her readers for by having the Sorting Hat call for unity of the four Houses, by showing us the flaws and mistakes of the heroes and their friends, and by telling us in interview that the four Houses represent the four elements (none of which is any better than another; all are necessary to life). This how I think the story will end: Not with "good" Gryffindors beating "bad" Slytherins, but with Voldemort defeated by all four "personality types" of the WW working together in harmony. Book 7 will tell. Fancy a flutter? BTW, you wrote "my house". Was that a typo, a Freudian slip, or do you mean that you identify so strongly with Gryffindor House you feel as if you were in it? See, not everybody does. Because there are all types of people who read the books, just as there are all types of people in the RW. If I try to imagine myself into the Potterverse, I don't see myself being sorted into Gryffindor at all. So I like to look at the way the Gryffindors might appear to the other Houses. That makes the imaginative experience much richer for me than if I were to try and force myself into identifying with characters who are not like me just because they are the heroes. We're not all ESFPs. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 24 04:01:32 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:01:32 -0000 Subject: Will Harry be mentioned in Dumbledore's will? In-Reply-To: <503.45279e00.31f58f61@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155895 Nikkalmati: > This comment made me wonder: Why did DD wear the cracked > Gaunt heirloom ring on his hand in the first part of HBP? > Wouldn't it be seen by DE children or any other spy at > Hogwarts and reported to LV along with the information > that DD had injured his hand? houyhnhnm: I think he wore it the night he collected Harry in order to get a point across to Slughorn. Iirc, the ring is next mentioned lying on one of the spindle-legged tables in DD's office. I don't think he wore it at Hogwarts. From kjones at telus.net Mon Jul 24 04:21:13 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:21:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C44AB9.4070204@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155896 susanbones2003 wrote: > Hi guys, > Don't throw in the towel just yet. There are all sorts of things that > could happen but I am willing to bet that JKR will end the series in > a way that will be poignant yet you'll still want to read the books > again. Did you ever read LOTR? I was floored by the ending. Just > flattened like a pancake. I cried and ranted and was so angry. I felt > so cheated. But an overwhelming desire to understand the ending drove > me to read the books again, to see the fore-shadowing, to understand > why the book had to end that way. I know JKR will make what ever she > does be ultimately right and believable and you will not want to > throw away your books or dispose of them in any violent and > unnecessary mechanized manner. > Hold on. > Jen D. KJ writes: I wouldn't re-read the books because of disappointment with the ending, or dissatisfaction with the ending, at least I am trusting that JKR will ensure that doesn't happen. It is more likely to be a case of a book or series of books that are so complete in themselves, tell the story so well, and end the story with such finality, that there is no need to re-live it. I also read LoTR, once in my high school days, with little understanding of it. When I read it thirty years later, it was with greater understanding. It had the perfect ending, and no questions unanswered. I can safely say that I will not read it again. It has nothing more to tell me. If JKR does her job correctly, regardless, of the ending, the story will be finished. We can not go back to the innocence of PS/SS because we have a much more educated view of the WW. We all re-read the books now looking for clues, and looking for answers.Once we have those answers, I think most of us will keep the books as an enjoyable journey, without having to make the same journey over and over. I certainly would not burn, shred, slice or dice them as has been threatened by some. Regardless of the ending, it has been a great ride. KJ From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jul 24 05:46:42 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:46:42 EDT Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v Message-ID: <579.1e035ed.31f5b8c2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155897 Katie replies (after staying silent, but lurking in this thread for days): In my opinion, I don't care what the Dursleys do or don't do. They are repugnant, bigoted, small-minded jerks. They are rude, self-absorbed, and ignorant. I don't care if Dudley never so much as made an ugly face at Harry after he was accepted at Hogwarts...I thought the ton-tongue taffy incident was hilarious and deserved. Julie: I don't care about the Dursleys either. And I don't care about Marietta. Whatever happens to them, they aren't characters in which I've invested much emotion or any great expectations. Their general bad behavior doesn't concern me, as it is expected. Should they improve, fine, but should they not--eh. I DO however care about the Weasley twins, about Harry, Hermione, and all the other "good guys." I've invested emotion in them, it matters to me how their behavior reflects on them. That's why I've sometimes criticized their actions; not because they're comparable to DEs or to Umbridge, but because they're NOT. Thus I want their behavior to rise above, even when I know they too are only human ;-) Katie: There has been much talk in this thread of the twins being malicious or enjoying people getting tortured...That's just silly. (In my always humble opinion) Dudley is a jerk, Fred and George are clowns, and they played a joke on him...that they also would have played on wizard, as the Wizarding Wheezes are intended for wizards' use. It has nothing to do with him being a Muggle...it has to do with him being a prat, as F&G say themselves to their dad after the incident. Julie: I don't think anyone's called Fred and George liars, or doubted that they played the prank on Dudley because he'd bullied Harry rather than because he's a Muggle. The point was whether Fred and George were misusing their magic or not. (As far as liking to see people being tortured, I agree that is a bit of an extreme term. But they certainly enjoy watching their prank victims being discomforted, physically or emotionally. And pranks can be fun to watch, even hilarious. Unless the prank is being played on you, of course!) Katie: And obviously JKR thinks the twins are good blokes - silly and goofy - but good. She didn't write them as nasty people, just as people that carry on all the time...and I know plenty of people who can't take anything seriously...but they're not bad people. Julie: I agree that Fred and George aren't bad people, and JKR isn't writing them that way at all. I do think however that she is writing them as human, meaning they can sometimes be insensitive to the pain they may inadvertently cause in the name of good fun (I'm not speaking just of Dudley here, but of "first years" who are often their victims simply because they are first years). Katie: As I see it: Dudley and Dursleys = BAD Twins and Weasleys = GOOD Julie: And I see the varying shades of grey known as being human. Certainly Dudley and the Dursleys frequently act on their worst instincts, and are very unpleasant people. But even the most unpleasant people are not ALL bad--Petunia and Vernon do love Dursley, for instance, even if they don't realize what their brand of smothering love is doing to him. As for the Weasleys, they are indeed good people. But good people are not GOOD in the sense of never doing wrong. Even the best people sometimes act on their worst instincts, hurting others out of anger, jealousy, or indifference. They wouldn't be human otherwise, they'd be tediously boring saints. And that has been one of JKR's central themes, IMO, showing the shades of grey in *everyone*, but emphasizing that grey in the good characters. Thus the pensieve incident, where the Mauraders act quite badly. I believe we are also supposed to realize that the twins sometimes go too far, that Harry unwisely lets his anger control him, that Hermione's self-complacency may be her downfall. It would be a pretty boring journey for our heroes if they didn't grow and learn from their mistakes, if they didn't admit their weaknesses and work to overcome them. That *is* the journey, really. Oh, and regarding the specific ton-tongue taffy incident, Arthur is also a Weasley, thus a good person. In that scene, I ask again, was he right or wrong to chastise Fred and George for misusing magic on a Muggle? Was he being a conscientious father trying to instill a strong moral code in his sons, or is he just a boring old fuddy duddy who can't see a good, clean joke when it's in front of his face? Julie, who thinks Arthur is one of the "goodest" of the good guys [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jul 24 06:04:14 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:04:14 EDT Subject: Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia Message-ID: <308.4f8b2700.31f5bcde@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155898 > > Alla: > > > Alla, who sadly realises that Harry's death would be the only plot > > twist that would make her say good bye to the books. > > > > No, I would not throw them away, they gave me too much enjoyment, > > but > > I would not reread them, knowing that there is no hope for Harry to > > survive. > KJ writes: > > You are absolutely right, Alla, and I hadn't really considered > that before. I read and re-read books until they are dog-eared, but in > this instance, what would be the point of going through Harry's life at > school again, if he doesn't survive? This series of books has become so > much a part of the lives of so many people, for so many years, that the > characters are like family members. The ending of these books, whether > satisfying, or unsatisfying, is really going to interfere with the usual > re-reading of a story. I also could not throw them away, even if she > kills Snape, who is my favourite character, but I probably won't read > them again either. > Sandy: I will third this. I have said repeatedly, over and over again, that if Harry does not survive I am done with it. I wouldn't throw the books away either. I never throw a book away unless I have worn it out and have to replace it. I would not get rid of the books either. But I would never read them again, or anything else JKR writes, not that I intend to read anything else she writes anyway. I just couldn't read all the awful things that Harry has gone through knowing that he dies in the end. It's hard seeing Harry go through all of this, but there is such hope for his future. That is what these books are all about for me; hope for the future. If Harry dies that hope has been shattered and there is no point in going through all of it again.. Julie: I will fourth this, even though I am 99.9999% certain JKR will not kill off Harry, and that too many fans are getting up in arms about the horror of something that hasn't happened yet, and isn't going to happen--IMO ;-) I am curious though that you intend never to read anything else JKR writes, Sandy. I know you don't like her as a person, but if I didn't read books by authors I probably wouldn't much like as people, that might be somewhat limiting! What if JKR writes another book as fascinating and inspired as the Harry Potter saga? You really won't read it? Just trying to understand your position, Julie (who thinks Tom Cruise is a complete nutcase as a person but still enjoyed the recent MI3 movie) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Jul 24 04:48:52 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:48:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: <44C44AB9.4070204@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155899 KJ writes: I wouldn't re-read the books because of disappointment with the ending, or dissatisfaction with the ending, at least I am trusting that JKR will ensure that doesn't happen. It is more likely to be a case of a book or series of books that are so complete in themselves, tell the story so well, and end the story with such finality, that there is no need to re-live it. I also read LoTR, once in my high school days, with little understanding of it. When I read it thirty years later, it was with greater understanding. It had the perfect ending, and no questions unanswered. I can safely say that I will not read it again. It has nothing more to tell me. If JKR does her job correctly, regardless, of the ending, the story will be finished. We can not go back to the innocence of PS/SS because we have a much more educated view of the WW. We all re-read the books now looking for clues, and looking for answers.Once we have those answers, I think most of us will keep the books as an enjoyable journey, without having to make the same journey over and over. I certainly would not burn, shred, slice or dice them as has been threatened by some. Regardless of the ending, it has been a great ride. KJ Sherry now: But I do reread for the fun, for the innocence and all the rest. I actually do not try to find clues or try too hard to figure out the plot. I would be horrified to guess it before the last book, though I always try to beat the author to figuring it out before the end. I guessed very early that Sirius Black was not trying to kill Harry and guessed part way through that moody was the person who put Harry's name in the goblet of fire. However, where she shocked me was Scabbers in POA, and the true identity of moody in GOF. I expected Dumbledore to die in HBP, but was utterly struck speechless by the how he died. Yet still I reread, just for the fun, for the magic, for the laughs, for the relationships. Because the characters have become friends, and because I like Harry and want to visit with him again. That's why I am an avid rereader of books, for the fun, for the characters. I reread anything I enjoy. I even reread mysteries. I reread LOTR at least once every two years. However, if Harry dies, I won't be able to ever read them again, because no matter how it is done, it will be too painful to know that this poor kid, who had so much unhappiness in his life never got to be happy. After all, at the end of the action, he will still only be 17, not like Frodo in LOTR who was an adult after all. And Frodo wasn't necessarily the main character, though he was one of the main characters. For example, I can't read OOTP, because knowing that Sirius is going to die is too upsetting for me. Not only do I love the character of Sirius, but his fate is so dreadful, being in prison, at the mercy of dementors for a crime he never committed, then dying before his name was cleared and before he could do anything for his godson. no, I don't mean like give him anything, but before he could fulfill the parental role. So, even when I do try to read that book, I have to stop well before the ending. I can't bear to think of Harry's pain in those moments. So, if Harry dies in the end, no matter how well written the ending is--and I expect it will be well written--I will never be able to read the books again, because I can't handle endings without hope. A book's ending doesn't always have to be happy, but there has to be hope. So, for me, an avid and constant rereader, to the point that I can read my favorite mysteries many times, I just couldn't do it. That doesn't in any way mean that it hasn't been a great ride, going through these books, and I'll always love books 1 through 3, but just couldn't read them again if we lose Harry. Sherry From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 02:31:39 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:31:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: <24d.eea646b.31f570ce@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155900 > Sandy: > I will third this. I have said repeatedly, over and over again, > that if Harry does not survive I am done with it. I wouldn't throw > the books away either. > But I would never read them again, or anything else JKR writes, > not that I intend to read anything else she writes anyway. > I just couldn't read all the awful things that Harry has gone > through knowing that he dies in the end. It's hard seeing Harry go > through all of this, but there is such hope for his future. > That is what these books are all about for me; hope for the future. > If Harry dies that hope has been shattered and there is no point > in going through all of it again.. Mike: I fourth it. Not that I think she'll go there. But, I also really hope she's not intending to give us a big reunion in 'heaven' a la C.S. Lewis and Narnia. When I got to that point of that series, I was dumbfounded. All I could think about was there was a 14-16? year old girl (Susan) left on earth with her entire family wiped out. Then Lewis proceeds to denegrate her for caring about becoming a young woman, taking her place in society. I felt so bad for Susan and I was utterly disgusted with Lewis. BTW, on July 16, 2005 at 1:30 am I was walking out of Barnes and Noble with my copy of HBP when I overheard a couple of teenagers, talking loudly, say,"Dumbledore dies... around page 600". Boy was I miffed. I don't know how they knew, heard from someone in England? I don't want this to happen again for book 7. Anybody got any suggestions can email me off list. Thanks :-) From vinkv002 at planet.nl Mon Jul 24 10:02:54 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:02:54 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155901 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > >> Pippin: > > > It strikes me that the Muggle-baiting laws are for > situations where the Statute of Secrecy doesn't apply because > ordinarily the Muggles wouldn't know or would never admit that > they were given a magical object. The Twins' case is ironic, because > the one time that Arthur has a Muggle witness who could testify that he > was fooled by an enchanted object, it's his own sons that are the culprits. > Arthur prefers, naturally to let these offenders off with a warning. Renee: Which to me raises the question: is it Muggle baiting when the Muggles both 1) know they're dealing with wizards and magic; and 2) have the chance to avoid the object and remain unaffected? Many people argue that Dudley was on a diet and therefore sorely tempted to eat the toffee. In itself, this is true. Does that mean he was helpless? I don't think so. This series is about choices. The whole point of a diet is that you change your eating habits and learn some self-restraint. If it was impossible to resist temptation, no diet would ever work. IMO, unless Dudley had no free will whatsoever, he is partly to blame for the predicament he gets himself in. And it's not as if he's completely unsuspecting: he knows he's dealing with wizards here. That doesn't mean the Twins go scot-free. Arthur's anger is justified: his sons have just confirmed the Dursleys' idea that magic is nasty and wizards are untrustworthy. But I the fact that Dudley chooses to pick up a possibly magical object of his own free will may change this incident from outright Muggle baiting into something else. Renee From vinkv002 at planet.nl Mon Jul 24 10:19:04 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:19:04 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155902 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > > > > > wynnleaf > > > > My point is simply that what's "cheating" is in the eye of the > beholder. There's no literary imperative that says that JKR can't use > this device -- even in the situation of the PT on Fennir. And if JKR > did it some places -- and perhaps you felt it wasn't cheating there -- > and then JKR does it with the PT on Fennir, and *I* don't think it's > cheating..... Well, hopefully you get the idea. The real person who > will decide what's cheating her readers and what's not is JKR. > > wynnleaf, who looks forward to all manner of surprises Renee: Saying that what's "cheating" is in the eye of the beholder, and that the real person who will decide what's cheating her readers is JKR, is a contradiction. If I feel cheated, there's no way JKR can decide that I'm not; she can only say she didn't mean to cheat. Her ideas of what constitutes cheating may differ from mine, but that doesn't mean mine are invalid. So, yes, what's cheating is in the eye of the beholder, therefore it's *not* up to JKR to decide. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Jul 24 11:56:47 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:56:47 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155903 > > Alla: > > > > Where is it stated in canon that by the time of GoF Dudley was not > > bullying Harry any more? > > a_svirn: > Where it says that he does? Find me one instance of Dudley bullying > Harry after he started Hogwarts. Dung: Some relevant canon for the whole discussion which has splintered into many threads: OotP chapter 1, p15 (UK) "The Noble Sport", as Uncle Vernon called it, had made Dudley even more formidable than he had seemed to Harry <> but he still didn't think that Dudley learning to punch harder and more accurately was cause for celebration. (<>) HBP chapter 10, p195 (UK) "And so what? Morfin gave a Muggle a bit of what was coming to him - what about it then?" "Morfin has broken wizarding law," said Ogden sternly. "*Morfin has broken wizarding law*." Gaunt imitated Ogden's voice, making it pompous and singsong. Morfin cackled again. "He taught a filthy Muggle a lesson, that's illegal now, is it?" "Yes," said Ogden. "I'm afraid it is." HBP chapter 10, p197 (UK) "[...]Morfin performed a jinx or hex on the said Muggle, causing him to erupt in highly painful hives." Morfin giggled. "*Be quiet, boy*," snarled Gaunt in Parseltongue, and Morfin fell silent again. "And so what if he did, then?" Gaunt said definatly to Ogden. "I expect you've wiped the Muggle's filthy face clean for him, and his memory to boot -" "That's hardly the point, is it, Mr Gaunt?" said Ogden. "This was an unprovoked attack on a defenceless -" "Ar, I had you marked out as a Muggle-lover the moment I saw you," sneered Gaunt and he spat on the floor again. Now before everyone yells at me for claiming an invalid comparison, let me just point something out: Morfin may well have had nothing but contempt for Muggles, but I think we're led to believe that the reason he hexed Tom Riddle was that his sister was in love with him. HBP chapter 10, p199 (UK) "*But I got him, father!" cackled Morfin. "I got him as he went by, and he didn't look so pretty with hives all over him, did he, Merope?*" So if Morfin didn't hex Tom *because* he was a Muggle, does that make it ok? Dung. Personally agreeing with both Arthur and Ogden. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jul 24 11:57:00 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:57:00 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155904 > Renee: > Which to me raises the question: is it Muggle baiting when the Muggles > both 1) know they're dealing with wizards and magic; > and 2) have the chance to avoid the object and remain unaffected? Pippin: Of course it is, just as it would still be mugging even if you know the people approaching you are potential muggers and you could have gone down another street. The toffees are a common object, just like the keys in our iconic example, which a Muggle would have no reason to think would be mischievous, so arranging for them to fall into Muggle hands is, I believe, Muggle-baiting. Dudley would never have eaten the candy if he had known it was enchanted. He is not aware of the twins' reputation as pranksters. He doesn't even know that wizard candy is usually enchanted in some way. He has no reason to suspect that the candy he picked up, which Fred pretended to drop by accident (he even scoops them up anxiously before he leaves) is going to do something nasty to him. Of course he should have known that it is unwise to take candy from strangers, wizard or no. But risky behavior is not the same as consent. Pippin From mros at xs4all.nl Mon Jul 24 08:17:03 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:17:03 +0200 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happene... References: <473.31a5880.31f58c53@aol.com> Message-ID: <000d01c6aef9$8bc597b0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155905 Nikkalmati (having trouble getting her mind around this concept): >>I guess that the Fennir PT situation is a potential clear-cut non-description. If Harry did the PT, he knows it and we don't. No non-description cheat. If Harry did not do the PT, he does not know who did it and we don't either. If the PT turns out to be important in Book 7, we both have been fooled? Is this right?<< Marion: Did you ever read the mystery novels of Agatha Christie? She used the Unreliable Narrator quite often. The UN was what was *fun* about those whodunnits. You'd had, for instance, a murder in a closed environment and seven suspects, all with motive and alibis and several were lying. Some were lying to protect someone else, one of them was lying because he or she was the murderer. The narrator cannot outright lie, that *would* be cheating, nor can the narrator straight out tell you the truth, then there would be no story. The narrator *can*, however, omit, evade, subtly present things in such a way that the reader is completely bamboozled. Agatha pulled her best and biggest Unreliable Narrator trick in her most famous book, 'The Murder of Roger Ackroyd'. For those who've never read it and still want to I'm going to insert some spoiler space. S P O I L E R S P A C E In the 'Murder of Roger Ackroyd' the narrator is one of the characters; a neighbour of the detective Hercule Poirot who befriends him and helps him in his investigation of the murder on Ackroyd. This narration in diary form is nothing new, but in this book the narrator confessed in the last chapter to be the murderer himself. And nowhere in the narration does he outright lie. A part of Christie's readers were outraged. It was unfair, they cried. It was cheating, they ranted. They completely missed the point. People read mystery novels the way they watch conjurers and magicians. The magician that shows that he didn't really put the signed folded up banknote into his left fist (which then 'magically disappeared) but with some slight-of-hand hid it in his cupped right hand doesn't get the applaus, but the magician who does this and then shows that the banknote which he so-called kept hidden in his right hand is actually a blanc note and the signed banknote turns out to be in the coatpocket of someone in the audience, *that* one gets the applaus. Because we know that the so-called 'clumsy hiding' was actually a very clever way of diverting our attention. The Unreliable Narrator is the literary form of the stage magician's slight-of-hand-in-full-view. If it is done well, the reader will be delighted for being played the fool, just like the audience of the magician. He or she will think, "I could have known that, it was right in front of me in the text, if my attention hadn't been so cleverly diverted." On a related note (although it has nothing to do with HP), I can really recommend the novel 'The Secret History' by Donna Tartt. It starts right out with a murder. We know who committed the murder and the narrator is one of them. During the book the narrator (called Richard) tells us why the murder was committed and its aftermath. The Unreliable Narrator plays a part in this too, not because Richard lies in any way or tries to hide anything, but because Richard loves his friends, the murderers, in such a way that he cannot portray them as anything but wonderfull, erudite, excentric and special. They stick out of their environment of pillpopping partying collegestudents in such a way that the reader cannot help fall under their spell, as indeed did the narrator. During the book you start to agree with them. Yes, you think, Bunny really had to die. If you had been there, part of the group like Richard, you'd have helped as well. And then it all fall apart and you, like the narrator, find out that the friends aren't so glorious as you'd imagined them to be and the they, and you (if only in spirit), have Murdered One Of Your Friends! Yes, he was an irritating person, but the group coldly plotted to kill him and there is *no* excuse for that. And yet you cannot help but love these characters because, murderers though they may be, flawed as they might be, they *were* special. I cannot help but thinking that JKR is pulling a same stunt on us. The books handle such concepts as racism and prejudice, and I think we'll see that in book 7, in order to become the hero he wants to be, Harry must face his *own* prejudices and not just him, the *readers* who have followed Harry on his journey will be forced to adjust their views as well. The Unreliable Narrator is just the device to show us how easy it is to think in terms of black and white and how easy it is to be mistaken about those colours. Nothing unfair about that. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 11:00:22 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:00:22 -0400 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: <579.1e035ed.31f5b8c2@aol.com> References: <579.1e035ed.31f5b8c2@aol.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607240400q3f40dddes581677867dd9dfe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155906 > Julie: > Oh, and regarding the specific ton-tongue taffy incident, Arthur is > also a Weasley, thus a good person. Doesn't follow at all, witness Percy. > Julie: > In that scene, I ask again, was > he right or wrong to chastise Fred and George for misusing magic > on a Muggle? Was he being a conscientious father trying to instill a > strong moral code in his sons, or is he just a boring old fuddy duddy > who can't see a good, clean joke when it's in front of his face? > > Julie, who thinks Arthur is one of the "goodest" of the good guys Regardless of how "good" he is w.r.t. opposing the side of evil, he's in his own way more anti-muggle than anyone else I've seen in the books. -- Random832 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 13:42:00 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:42:00 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...)/Arthur is right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155907 > houyhnhnm: > > But they are not *better* than the other houses. The > Gyffindor way of approaching life is one way of being > a good person. It is also one way of being a not so > good person (impulsive, reckless, arrogant). Being > loyal and hardworking is another way of being a good > person. Creating new knowledge through intellectual > endeavor is another. Likewise there are other ways of > being a not so good person, such as being clannish and > hidebound or cold, aloof, and disconnected from the > problems of other people. > > Some see the Potter books as a story of good guys versus > bad guys. I see them as being ultimately about harmony > versus disharmony or balance versus imbalance. I think > this is what Rowling is trying to prepare her readers for > by having the Sorting Hat call for unity of the four Houses, > by showing us the flaws and mistakes of the heroes and > their friends, and by telling us in interview that the > four Houses represent the four elements (none of which > is any better than another; all are necessary to life). > > This how I think the story will end: Not with "good" > Gryffindors beating "bad" Slytherins, but with Voldemort > defeated by all four "personality types" of the WW working > together in harmony. Book 7 will tell. Fancy a flutter? Alla: I agree - the story **is** very likely to end with all four houses beating Voldemort together, but that does not IMO change the fact that Gryffindor **is** JKR's favorite house, that she values courage per her words more than any **other** virtue, therefore she put the most of **good** guys (as I see it) in Gryffindor. I am not a big fan of House system, I think it is rather superficial division of kids, who often have qualities of different houses in themselves, but I think that yes, JKR absolutely loves **Gryffindor ways** of being good person more than **saving their necks** way. So, what I am trying to say is that I think she will absolutely show House Unity, but the vast majority of her heroes will still be in Gryffindor and I find it to be very telling, IMO. > Dung: > Some relevant canon for the whole discussion which has splintered into > many threads: >> HBP chapter 10, p195 (UK) > HBP chapter 10, p197 (UK) >> > Now before everyone yells at me for claiming an invalid comparison, > let me just point something out: Morfin may well have had nothing > but contempt for Muggles, but I think we're led to believe that the > reason he hexed Tom Riddle was that his sister was in love with him. > > HBP chapter 10, p199 (UK) > "*But I got him, father!" cackled Morfin. "I got him as he went by, > and he didn't look so pretty with hives all over him, did he, > Merope?*" > > So if Morfin didn't hex Tom *because* he was a Muggle, does that > make it ok? Alla: I still find your comparison to be problematic, for the reason you said yourself. Morfin has **nothing** that contempt for the Muggles in general, that is clear in canon ( to me anyways), so no matter how many times he would say that he hexed Tom Riddle because his sister was in love with him, I cannot discount the idea that the contempt for Muggles in general is **also** there as a motive, **not** just contempt for Tom Riddle as a person, who happens to be a Muggle. I do **not** see anywhere in canon that Twins have contempt for Muggles in general ( I mean, whole WW does, I suppose, but I am convinced that Weasleys have the least contempt than anybody in WW we had been shown so far), I **only** see them showing contempt for Dudley who happens to be a Muggle. But let's take your example a bit further. If I had no reason to suspect that Morfin had contempt for the Muggles in general, but only hexed Tom Riddle because his sister loved him, then no, it would not be Okay, but I would not call it **Muggle-baiting** either. It could be crime worse than Muggle-baiting, I am sure Morfin would have no problem killing Tom for example, but not Muggle baiting. IMO. Julie: > Oh, and regarding the specific ton-tongue taffy incident, Arthur is > also a Weasley, thus a good person. In that scene, I ask again, was > he right or wrong to chastise Fred and George for misusing magic > on a Muggle? Was he being a conscientious father trying to instill a > strong moral code in his sons, or is he just a boring old fuddy duddy > who can't see a good, clean joke when it's in front of his face? Alla: Of course he is right, he is right to criticise his sons for playing prank that could have went wrong, but his sons are also right, if that makes sense. Molly also criticises Twins and Ron for taking a car to save Harry. Is she right to do so? Sure, she is. Do I applaud Twins and Rona dn hope they would do it again if necessity arises? Totally. Oh, and I keep trying to find where Arthur calls what twins did **Muggle-baiting** and cannot. > > Julie, who thinks Arthur is one of the "goodest" of the good guys Alla, who also adores Arthur. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 24 13:45:44 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:45:44 -0000 Subject: Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155908 > Mike: > BTW, on July 16, 2005 at 1:30 am I was walking out of Barnes and > Noble with my copy of HBP when I overheard a couple of teenagers, > talking loudly, say,"Dumbledore dies... around page 600". Boy was I > miffed. I don't know how they knew, heard from someone in England? I > don't want this to happen again for book 7. Anybody got any > suggestions can email me off list. Thanks :-) Potioncat: Oh, I think we should keep this discussion on list. (Unless the Elves tell us to take it to OT Chatter.) I've had two Spoiler situations--both involving Snape, oddly enough. Someone let it slip that Snape wasn't the bad guy in SS/PS. That particular person is an idiot anyway. I'm not sure he even realized he'd revealed anything. Just before HBP came out, I visited a HP site--one that was had very strict spoiler policies. Someone had logged on as "Snape-kills- Dumbledore." I was shocked. Then I thought, "They're just guessing." I was really mad later when I understood that person had done it on purpose and was simply a jerk. I don't know how you can protect yourself from idiots and jerks. But I had prepared several things to say at the bookstore if anyone was talking too much. Of course, once you hear something, that's it. Has anyone ordered the book to be delivered? Does it come quickly on release day? From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 24 14:01:34 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:01:34 -0000 Subject: House Pride (wasRe: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...)/Arthur is right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155909 > Alla: > > I agree - the story **is** very likely to end with all four houses > beating Voldemort together, but that does not IMO change the fact > that Gryffindor **is** JKR's favorite house, that she values courage > per her words more than any **other** virtue, therefore she put the > most of **good** guys (as I see it) in Gryffindor. Potioncat: I agree with Alla, but with a twist. I think the four Houses "should" be valued equally. All of them have virtues and qualities that are important. It could be hoped that every student has qualities of each house. But even though McGonagall says, "Each house has its own noble history and each has produced outstanding witches and wizards." I don't think she means it. I'm pretty sure that JKR doesn't mean it. Or rather, she silently adds, "but Gryffindor has the best and the most." This is a case where I disagree with the author. Not so much that I don't enjoy the story, and that I don't cheer for courage. I think every student must think his house is the best one of the four. I think every student must cherish her own house qualities. From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 14:13:43 2006 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060724141343.59136.qmail@web55101.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155910 Potioncat: I've had two Spoiler situations--both involving Snape, oddly enough. [Two examples pruned] akh interjects: So far I've been spared, but my boyfriend, who buys the books and watches the movies but hasn't yet started the books, heard about Dumbledore and was furious. I think he was particularly galled because it was his best friend's daughter who announced it to him. As far as I know he's been spared the news about Sirius so far, but who knows how long that will last, given the media's penchant for dropping this information casually into an article s about the movies and books. I've been rather startled by that more than once. Potioncat again: Has anyone ordered the book to be delivered? Does it come quickly on release day? akh: I ordered the fifth book through Amazon.com, and they guaranteed release-day delivery. My friend who lived in a Chicago suburb at the time received it from FedEx around 9:00 a.m.; my boyfriend, who at the time lived in a downtown neighborhood of Chicago received it about 11:00 a.m., and I got mine in a far-north neighborhood of Chicago at about 1:00 p.m. That gave Bob (bf) a couple of hours to gloat, but otherwise it worked out well. I did see two trucks drive by my house (which I suspect had others' books being delivered), which leads me to ponder the wisdom of FedEx's delivery routes, but that's another issue altogether. Interestingly, I've ordered the UK edition from Amazon.co.uk for the fifth and sixth books, and I've gotten those within a couple of days of the release, so they're very efficient, too. akh, who's still trying to decide whether to go to the midnight madness or do Amazon.com again. Sadly, there's plenty of time to make up my mind... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 24 14:18:05 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:18:05 -0000 Subject: The UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155911 "colebiancardi" wrote: > If you read anything in the spy genre, > those double agents do the same things > as Snape(even worse things, quite frankly) > and they are not moronic characters, > but deeply conflicted characters. Have you ever read a spy novel where the loyal spy tells the President of the United stated that he's going to assassinate him, and the President said it's a brilliant idea and still trusts him 100%, and then the spy actually does it and kills the President? I haven't. And if Snape and Dumbledore behaved in the way you suggest then they are not deeply conflicted, they are deeply brain damaged. Eggplant From sydpad at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 14:42:23 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:42:23 -0000 Subject: House Pride (wasRe: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...)/Arthur is right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155912 > Potioncat: > I think the four Houses "should" > be valued equally. All of them have virtues and qualities that are > important. It could be hoped that every student has qualities of each > house. > > But even though McGonagall says, "Each house has its own noble > history and each has produced outstanding witches and wizards." I > don't think she means it. I'm pretty sure that JKR doesn't mean it. > Or rather, she silently adds, "but Gryffindor has the best and the > most." Something to bear in mind is the so-called "Pygmalion Effect", the phenomenon of self-fullfilling expectations. There was a famous experiment where teachers were randomly told one class was 'gifted' and one class of similar students were 'slow'. Huge differences in performance where of course what resulted. It's a very well-known experiment and I'd be surprised if JKR, who was a teacher after all, would be unaware of it. (write-up here: http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel_schugurensky/assignment1/1968rosenjacob.html). It's hard to think of a more classic scenario that would produce such an effect than to put a hat on an 11-year-old, tell them it's a magic hat that knows who they really are inside, and then tell some of them that they are brave and good and some of them that they are cunning and selfish. Of course it's going to result in different behaviours. And it's further reinforced by the evident importance given to where one's family traditionally goes. And this is a pattern that the entire community has been living with for over a thousand years. Perhaps the most damaging thing was Salazar Slytherin leaving the school, which left the rival houses to tell the story of what happened with no version left for the Slytherin kids to tell themselves except for whatever negative version they were told by the other three houses. This is why I think it's going be be so important to the narrative that we somehow find out what really happened when the Founders split. I think the difference between the 'official' version in the history book, and the Sorting Hat's version, is cuing the reader that there is something to be discovered there, that can finally heal that rift, by knocking some of the complacency out of the Gryffindors, and correcting the corrosive and self-fullfilling attitude that Slytherin kids are somehow warped. A more positive story would give them some higher expectations to live up to. -- Sydney From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Jul 24 15:03:12 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:03:12 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > So if Morfin didn't hex Tom *because* he was a Muggle, does that > make it ok? > No, but it is not Muggle-baiting either. Gerry From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 24 15:15:27 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:15:27 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155914 > > wynnleaf > > My point is simply that what's "cheating" is in the eye of the > > beholder. There's no literary imperative that says that JKR can't use > > this device -- even in the situation of the PT on Fennir. And if JKR > > did it some places -- and perhaps you felt it wasn't cheating there -- > > and then JKR does it with the PT on Fennir, and *I* don't think it's > > cheating..... Well, hopefully you get the idea. The real person who > > will decide what's cheating her readers and what's not is JKR. > > > > wynnleaf, who looks forward to all manner of surprises > > Renee: > > Saying that what's "cheating" is in the eye of the beholder, and that > the real person who will decide what's cheating her readers is JKR, is > a contradiction. If I feel cheated, there's no way JKR can decide that > I'm not; she can only say she didn't mean to cheat. Her ideas of what > constitutes cheating may differ from mine, but that doesn't mean mine > are invalid. > So, yes, what's cheating is in the eye of the beholder, therefore it's > *not* up to JKR to decide. wynnleaf I was obviously not clear. We can decide for ourselves when we personally feel cheated. However, my version of "cheating" or your version of "cheating" isn't what JKR is going to go by -- it's her own that she uses when she decides how do accomplish her plot twists and surprises. So you, or I, or someone else thinking this or that is "cheating" hasn't got any bearing at all on whether or not JKR will do it. wynnleaf From muellem at bc.edu Mon Jul 24 15:40:38 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:40:38 -0000 Subject: The UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155915 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "colebiancardi" wrote: > > > If you read anything in the spy genre, > > those double agents do the same things > > as Snape(even worse things, quite frankly) > > and they are not moronic characters, > > but deeply conflicted characters. > > Have you ever read a spy novel where the loyal spy tells the President > of the United stated that he's going to assassinate him, and the > President said it's a brilliant idea and still trusts him 100%, and > then the spy actually does it and kills the President? I haven't. > > And if Snape and Dumbledore behaved in the way you suggest then they > are not deeply conflicted, they are deeply brain damaged. > > dumbledore is not the "president" or even the leader of the Wizarding World, nor even the person who will defeat LV, so that comparison is off base. Narcissa snuck into the UV to have Snape complete Draco's task, which wasn't what Snape had in mind, probably, when he agreed to take the UV. However, all things considered, he wasn't sure who the task was supposed to kill - many people, including myself, thought it was Harry that Draco was supposed to kill. Did Snape know it was Dumbledore that Draco was supposed to kill when he took the UV? I don't know; probably not is my uneducated guess Obviously, Dumbledore STILL trusted Snape throughout HBP. Even when Harry was forced to poisan DD, Dumbledore ASKED for Snape. Wouldn't let Harry call anyone else. So, the big question, which hopefully will be answered in book 7, is why DD trusted Snape, even with the UV, to the end. Since DD KNEW about the UV when Harry told him about it, Snape must have told Dumbledore everything about that vow. You may think those 2 characters are brain dead; I think they were making plans on how to win the WAR, not just one battle. Having Dumbledore around in book 7 would have been nice, but obviously it is not necessary - even DD stated he was not as important as Harry. Harry lives to win the WAR and that is what DD would have wanted. colebiancardi From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 16:57:55 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:57:55 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155916 > Nikkalmati: > I guess that the Fennir PT situation is a potential clear-cut > non-description. If Harry did the PT, he knows it and we don't. No non-description cheat. > If Harry did not do the PT, he does not know who did it and we don't either. > If the PT turns out to be important in Book 7, we both have been fooled? > Is this right? Neri: Yes, that is right. Note that we and Harry would be fooled in different ways. Harry would be fooled because he was stupid enough not to find out who did curse Greyback. We would be fooled because we didn't even get the information Harry got, so we didn't have a fair chance to prove ourselves smarter than Harry. > Mike now: > > For the "unfair" to kick in, it's not only we the reader who > must be tricked, but Harry must be "fooled" also, when she utilizes > a "non-description". Is that right, Neri? Neri: Yes, and I hasten to add, only "unfair" by my own private definition, although it seems to coincide with JKR's. > Mike again: > > This is where I'm still hazy. How can Harry be fooled if the > definition includes him knowing? IOW, is it "unfair" if later on > Harry walks up to Lupin and says, 'I know it was you who cursed > Sirius', or only if Lupin surprises Harry by admitting, 'I was the > one who got Sirius'? Neri: Ah, I see the confusion. When I say "Harry knows" I don't mean he knows the solution to the mystery. I mean he knows the clue. For example, in the PT case he at least should know if it was he who cursed Greyback or somebody else. This is still a long way from knowing the answer to the mystery of who cursed Greyback (assuming there is one). > Mike finishing off: > > I submit that it was a non-description. IMO, something must have > come out of LV's wand, representing the AK thrown at Harry, between > Bertha and Lily. Further, I submit that Harry would have seen/heard > it, but it wasn't described to us the reader. Cheating or mistake, I > still think this qualifies as a non-description. > Neri: I think calling it a non-description would be a confusion of terms. If according to JKR rules something should have come out of the wand but didn't (which I'm still not convinced) then it is a flint, or it is an actual case of JKR cheating us, but it doesn't fit my definition of "non-description". > Random832: > I think it's a lot more fair if we're fooled because Harry is fooled > (it's not a "non-description" if it really is a misconception Harry > has for one reason or another) than if we have a false impression that > anyone who was actually there never could have gotten. Neri: Er... sorry, I've lost you. Could you clarify that? > Pippin: > I think JKR's definition of 'tricked but not conned' doesn't refer to > anything so specific as Neri's 'non-description'. I think she simply > means that while both play on human gullibility, the con artist > never allows her victims to doubt, while the trickster freely admits > that she's trying to fool you and plays a game of 'catch me if you > can.' Rowling uses many devices to trick the reader, but AFAIK, > she never uses a device in a plot twist that she hasn't already > demonstrated to the reader. I observe the following: > Neri: Ah, now I feel we are on the way for making some useful generalizations that can be tested immediately. > Pippin: > No magic has ever been used in a plot twist before it was explained > to the reader. (animagi, polyjuice potion, portkeys) > Neri: I generally agree but there seems to be some notable exceptions. First, Voldemort coming out of the back of Quirrell's head when the possibility of possession wasn't mentioned (let alone explained) before. Second, Hermione's time turner when the possibility of time travel wasn't mentioned before. However, both possession and time travel are known plot devices outside the Potterverse, and in both cases there were additional clues (Quirrell's turban and Hermione going to more than one lesson at the same time) so I tend to agree. > Pippin: > No improbable event has ever occurred as a plot twist that wasn't > shown to occur before. ( Hagrid tells us that it was hard to know > which wizards you met were trustworthy, setting up Quirrell's > surprise. Voldemort's death is pronounced to > be codswallop, setting up Peter and Barty. Sirius escapes from > Azkaban before Barty does. Snape gives fake veritaserum to Umbridge > before Harry gives fake felix to Ron.) > Neri: I don't think the plot twist of the accidental priori incantatum was shown to occur before. However, it wasn't the solution for an official mystery, so I tend to agree. > Pippin: > No character has been revealed to be innocent in a plot twist > whose character was not previously vouched for. (Hagrid vouched > for Snape in PS/SS, Madame Rosmerta vouched for Sirius in PoA.) > Neri: Hmm. Who vouched for Dobby in CoS? Well, you certainly can say that he vouched for himself, but that's kind of stretching it, isn't it? > Pippin: > No character has ever been revealed as guilty in a plot twist who was > not previously challenged. (Snape challenged Quirrell, Dumbledore > challenged Riddle, Crookshanks challenged Scabbers, McGonagall > challenged Fake!Moody.) > Neri: Who challenged Ginny in CoS? > Pippin: > No character (including the narrator) has been revealed to have deceived > the hero or the reader in a plot twist who had not previously appeared to > be unreliable. > Neri: Well, I'm not sure that saying much because I have trouble thinking of any characters (including Ron and Hermione) that *weren't* found to be unreliable at least once in the series. Perhaps only very minor characters like Sprout or Flitwick, who simply never played any significant role in the plot. Also, I think the narrator is a case for herself, she is not like any other character out there. Are you saying that, since the narrator had deceived the hero and the reader several times in the past, she is now allowed to do *anything*, because she gave us "fair warning" that she's unreliable? This would contradict the rules you are trying to formulate here, which suggest that the narrator did accept certain limitations upon herself. > Pippin: > That Harry would mistake the origin of a hex that happened > right in front of him is an improbable event, but to determine whether > it is possible according to the rules above, we need only ask if such > an improbable event has already occurred in canon. Of course it has, > when a whole street full of Muggles thought they had observed Sirius > hexing Peter. Hermione also mistook the origin of the broomstick > hex, so this is not an error limited to Muggles. Neri: There weren't any jets of light involved in those cases, though, which made them much less improbable. In fact both these mistakes were very probable under the situation. > Pippin: > The same incidents also allow the device of the narrator letting us > presume that a character has observed something when he hasn't. > Neri: I think you generalize too much from too specific cases. The deceived characters in these two cases weren't the hero, and the narrator doesn't tell us directly what they see and think. Some of your proposed rules boil down to "wherever the narrator casts any doubt ? anything goes". However, since JKR excels in releasing large schools of red herrings, and since your standards for casting doubt are quite permissive, then in practice your rules boils down to just "anything goes". Please forgive me for wanting to be a bit more specific than that . I am very interested in your rule that no magic has ever been used in a plot twist before it was explained to the reader. It needs reformulating, but here I feel we are approaching something a bit more accurate. Neri From penhaligon at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 17:19:17 2006 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:19:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <007901c6af45$4c63f020$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> No: HPFGUIDX 155917 > Neri: > Yes, that is right. Note that we and Harry would be fooled in > different ways. Harry would be fooled because he was stupid > enough not to find out who did curse Greyback. We would be > fooled because we didn't even get the information Harry got, > so we didn't have a fair chance to prove ourselves smarter than Harry. Harry stupid? In the middle of battle, Harry was supposed to stop everything and ask about who cast the spell? Now that would be stupid. Panhandle From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 13:19:00 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:19:00 -0000 Subject: Will Harry be mentioned in Dumbledore's will? In-Reply-To: <503.45279e00.31f58f61@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155918 > Nikkalmati: > This comment made me wonder: Why did DD wear the cracked Gaunt heirloom > ring on his hand in the first part of HBP? bridge13219: I don't think DD was wearing the ring once school started. It was just mentioned as being in his office once Harry's lessons with DD started. I tend to think DD wore it to Slughorn's, because Slughorn would recognize it and what it implied. I have also thought Slughorn will be important in the last book; he knows more than he's willing to admit. From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 15:54:31 2006 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: House Pride (wasRe: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...)/Arthur is right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060724155431.56880.qmail@web61321.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155919 Sydney wrote: Something to bear in mind is the so-called "Pygmalion Effect", the phenomenon of self-fullfilling expectations. There was a famous experiment where teachers were randomly told one class was 'gifted' and one class of similar students were 'slow'. Huge differences in performance where of course what resulted. It's a very well-known experiment and I'd be surprised if JKR, who was a teacher after all, would be unaware of it. (write-up here: http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel_schugurensky/assignment1/1968rosenjacob.html). It's hard to think of a more classic scenario that would produce such an effect than to put a hat on an 11-year-old, tell them it's a magic hat that knows who they really are inside, and then tell some of them that they are brave and good and some of them that they are cunning and selfish. Of course it's going to result in different behaviours. Joe: Of course in a world with magic it could have nothing to do with real world issues. The Sorting Hat could "just know" what the kids are like and be right about it. I think we always want for their to be a real world reason for everything in the HP universe and as such we tend to read more into a lot of things in the book that are meant to be taken at face value. JKR has has shown that House values don't always translate into good or evil with Peter Pettigrew and yet I don't think the fact that most of the DE's are Slytherins can be attributed to the Hat saying you belong in a House reknowned for cunning. In fact unless we know how the Hat knows what it knows everything is almost certainly evidence free speculation, enjoyable as it might be. Joe From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 17:39:56 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:39:56 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...)/Arthur is right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155920 > Alla: > I do **not** see anywhere in canon that Twins have contempt for > Muggles in general ( I mean, whole WW does, I suppose, but I am > convinced that Weasleys have the least contempt than anybody in WW we > had been shown so far), I **only** see them showing contempt for > Dudley who happens to be a Muggle. > > But let's take your example a bit further. If I had no reason to > suspect that Morfin had contempt for the Muggles in general, but only > hexed Tom Riddle because his sister loved him, then no, it would not > be Okay, but I would not call it **Muggle-baiting** either. > > It could be crime worse than Muggle-baiting, I am sure Morfin would > have no problem killing Tom for example, but not Muggle baiting. IMO. Alla: Oy, sorry to reply to myself, but I realised that I picked the wrong word right away, but had to run. So, no, I don't think Twins show contempt to Muggles in general **at all**, the word I wanted to use is probably **patronising** a bit, that is what Arthur does too, IMO, but to me it does not translate at all in the desire to target muggles to hurt them. Alla, sorry to waste her post on this, but wanted to clarify. From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 14:12:29 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:12:29 +1200 (NZST) Subject: 2wayMirror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060724141229.44070.qmail@web38310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155921 Catlady wrote: No, the mirrors inspired Harry to feel a bitterly ironic guilt that no other souvenir of Sirius would have done. if Harry had remembered the mirrors, he probably wouldn't have gone to MoM, and if Harry hadn't gone to MoM, Sirius wouldn't have died. Cassy: Isn't it a bit cruel on the part of the author to do this to a character? To lay on a child a burden of knowing that not only he was a cause of his godfather's death, but that that death could be so easily prevented? I mean, if it was not for the mirrors, Harry at least could be thinking something along the lines of: "at least I honestly believe Sirius in danger and did everything in my power to save him, facing such odds and dangers on the way..." By the way, I was really amazed how soon Harry recovered from his loss. merely two weeks passed between the end of Ootp and the beginning of HBP and he already managed to put Sirius's death behind him. From random832 at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 10:46:25 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 06:46:25 -0400 Subject: Order of Merlin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607240346j68e7c936p768339fd60f8c565@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155922 > > Potioncat: > > I wonder where the Lexicon got that? We aren't told much in canon, > but > > that doesn't fit with what we know. Doesn't Lockhart have an Order of > > Merlin? Seems like the wizard who invented the Self-Stirring Cauldron > > has one too. Wasn't it hinted that Snape would get one for capturing > > Black? What does any of that have to do with Muggle Relations? > > bridge13219: > I'm assuming the information came from the Famous Wizard cards, which > JKR wrote, so they're as good as canon, right? She wrote _some_ FW cards... did she write the ones in the CoS game? >From elsewhere on the Lexicon, "There has been some confusion about this since Rowling stated on her website that she wrote the "original famous wizard cards." " -- Random832 From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 24 18:16:51 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:16:51 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155923 > > > Pippin: > > No character has been revealed to be innocent in a plot twist > > whose character was not previously vouched for. (Hagrid vouched > > for Snape in PS/SS, Madame Rosmerta vouched for Sirius in PoA.) > > > > Neri: > Hmm. Who vouched for Dobby in CoS? Well, you certainly can say that > he vouched for himself, but that's kind of stretching it, isn't it? > Neri: > Who challenged Ginny in CoS? wynnleaf While I'm not *certain* what Pippin meant, based on the way I understand this argument, I don't think we'd expect to see a character vouching for Dobby or Ginny to prove this argument. The reader is not first presented with ESEDobby with whom we later have to reconcile with a surprise of good-Dobby. Dobby claims he's on Harry's side right from the start and is pretty up-front that he's a house-elf for someone who wishes Harry ill. He's trying to keep Harry from Hogwarts, but we're never really led to believe he's evil. Ginny is always presented as good-Ginny, and we are never surprised into an ESEGinny situation. Yes, we find out she was used by Tom to carry out his plans, but her character is never really in question. We never think her evil or are surprised to find her good, or think her good only to be surprised she's evil. The only surprise is that she was used by Tom -- the good/evil aspect of her character really isn't in question. As I understand it, the idea is that we don't have any examples of a character who we thought good, but turns out to be evil, or vice versa, without another character challenging that perspective first. So we are always presented with the notion that the character *might* not be good, or evil (depending), before we find out that *surprise!* they aren't the good or evil person we originally thought. So since we've never seen these reversals for Ron, Hermione, most of the regular teachers, or many other characters, we wouldn't expect to see another character having made these sorts of character challenges or comments of support. Further, since we're talking about characters for whom other characters have spoken in support or challenge, it couldn't possibly apply to the narrator specifically. However, an unreliable narrator may be leading the reader to believe a particular character is good or evil when in fact they turn out later to be the opposite -- but not without first another character giving either comments of challenge or support. This makes the event of another character challenging the loyalty of a presumed good character, or supporting the loyalty of a presumed bad character, as a *possible* tip-off that we are elsewhere being lead by an unreliable narrator to believe something that will turn out to not be true. Of course, in the case of Snape, you've got dueling character challenges and support -- but whichever way that turns out there's no real surprise. Everyone knows that his loyalties are up for revelations in Book 7. The real question to me is *who else*??? JKR has had so many character refersals, I am very suspicious that she'll do at least one more, and that it will be a *real* surprise, not one for which we're already waiting to see the answer. Are there any characters who we currently mostly *all* assume are evil who have gotten character support?? I can't think of any. Are there any characters who we mostly *all* assume to be good, who's loyalties have received character challenges? I can only think of two -- Lupin and possibly Percy. And I really like Lupin, in spite of thinking he's weak and really disliking his choices in POA. If Percy were more of a shock, I'd guess it could be him -- but we're being lead to believe he's a prat and betraying his family. I'm almost wondering if he turns out to be good in the end, just to surprise us. wynnleaf From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 18:21:48 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:21:48 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155924 > Neri: > Yes, that is right. Note that we and Harry would be fooled in > different ways. Harry would be fooled because he was stupid enough > not to find out who did curse Greyback. We would be fooled because we > didn't even get the information Harry got, so we didn't have a fair > chance to prove ourselves smarter than Harry. zgirnius: I would disagree that this is stupid. Harry would naturally assume it was an Order member (well, if it was Snape, he would even be right to so assume...) or DA student who saw he was in trouble. Just as he, himself, had just helped out a couple of people who may or may not have noticed who it was that helped them. > Neri: > Hmm. Who vouched for Dobby in CoS? Well, you certainly can say that > he vouched for himself, but that's kind of stretching it, isn't it? zgirnius: My, you have a nasty suspicious mind. (I mean this in the best possible way...I would love ESE!Dobby!) It never occured to me to suspect him of anything in nay of my reads of CoS. > Neri: > Who challenged Ginny in CoS? zgirnius: I believe that Pippin does not consider her a guilty party in CoS. It was Riddle, controlling her mind through the Diary. And memory Tom was challenged by memory Dumbledore. From harryp at stararcher.com Mon Jul 24 18:42:12 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:42:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155925 Many people said: > If Harry dies I'm done with it. Eddie: Harry's fate would have no impact on whether or not I would re-read the series. I'm not only reading to "find out what happens," but because I enjoy the characters, enjoy the creation that is the Wizarding World, and enjoy observing Rowling's writing and cleverness. There was a thread a week or two ago asking if the series is Character-Based or Plot-Based. Since the series, for me, is both C-B and P-B, I'd probably reread the 7 books (again). Besides which, I think Harry's gonna choose to die 'cuz: (1) He will decide it is necessary to bring down Voldemort and (2) Most of the people he loves the most are already there -- his parents, Sirius, Dumbledore, and Ginny (who will proceed him in death in book 7) ;-) Eddie From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 24 19:19:17 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:19:17 -0000 Subject: Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155926 Potioncat: > Has anyone ordered the book to be delivered? Does it come > quickly on release day? houyhnhnm: I ordered HBP in advance. Not only was it delivered on release day, my letter carrier rang the doorbell rather than just leaving it in the box. He said, "Here. These seem to be worth more than gold dust, so I thought I'd better put it directly in your hands." From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 19:35:09 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:35:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155927 > Many people said: > > If Harry dies I'm done with it. > > Eddie: > Harry's fate would have no impact on whether or not I would re-read > the series. I'm not only reading to "find out what happens," but > because I enjoy the characters, enjoy the creation that is the > Wizarding World, and enjoy observing Rowling's writing and cleverness. > > There was a thread a week or two ago asking if the series is > Character-Based or Plot-Based. Since the series, for me, is both C-B > and P-B, I'd probably reread the 7 books (again). Alla: Heeee, this is precisely because I will not reread the series if Harry is dead. I also read for characters primarily and if there is no hope for Harry lies ahead, the series will give me no more joy, unfortunately. These are just the books, where I as Sherry would like to see hope at the end. And to me hope means that trials and tribulations in Harry's life will at least lead to something.... hopeful, here on Earth. :) That is of course IMO. > Sherry now: Yet still I reread, just for the fun, for the magic, for > the laughs, for the relationships. Because the characters have become > friends, and because I like Harry and want to visit with him again. That's > why I am an avid rereader of books, for the fun, for the characters. I > reread anything I enjoy. I even reread mysteries. I reread LOTR at least > once every two years. Alla: Yes, I reread my favorite books all my life. Absolutely, some of the books that I read as a teen or even a child had became my friends ever since. But besides saying *me too* to almost everything in your post I just wanted to comment on rereading mysteries. The only mysteries I am able to reread are Rex Stout stories about Niro Wolfe and Archi Goodwin (spelling?), because they are such wonderful characters, the interactions between them are so hilarious and the food descriptions are sooo yummy too. :) Every other mystery book I am done with after one time, that is why I so hope that HP ends being so much more than just "Who dun it?", even though JKR indeed likes mysteries. Alla, who also thinks that books are plot driven and that characters sometimes become unrecognisable to serve the needs of the plot. From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jul 24 16:39:24 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:39:24 -0000 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155928 Dung: So if Morfin didn't hex Tom *because* he was a Muggle, does that make it ok? Gerry: No, but it is not Muggle-baiting either. Tinktonks - I agree that just because something isn't muggle-baiting it is ok! Just that it is wrong for a different set of reasons. Morfin however WAS muggle baiting. He hated Tom just for being a muggle. (Which is a shame because if he wasn't such a biggot he could have had a justified anger at Riddle. For being a snob and a biggot and generally unsatisfactory person really. Shame!) From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jul 24 16:55:02 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:55:02 -0000 Subject: House Pride (wasRe: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...)/Arthur is right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155929 Sydney- >> Something to bear in mind is the so-called "Pygmalion Effect", the phenomenon of self-fullfilling expectations. There was a famous experiment where teachers were randomly told one class was 'gifted' and one class of similar students were 'slow'. Huge differences in performance were of course what resulted. It's a very well-known experiment and I'd be surprised if JKR, who was a teacher after all, would be unaware of it. It's hard to think of a more classic scenario that would produce such an effect than to put a hat on an 11-year-old, tell them it's a magic hat that knows who they really are inside, and then tell some of them that they are brave and good and some of them that they are cunning and selfish. << Tinktonks - The sorting hat does not give bad opinions of other houses. It says Slytherins are cunning, it does not say negative words like selfish. Members of other houses do but that is to be expected for any competitive opponent. I think you are missing JKR's intent. I think that the Slytherins are power hungry cunning people. That does not make them bad, it just puts them in the path of temptation. To steal a spiderman quote "with great power comes great responsibility". That is very true but how many of us always do the right thing when put in the way of temptation? I don't think the Slytherins are bad, I think this is a Harryism because they are Gryffindor's fiercest oposition. I hope in time Harry will realise this and there will be reconciliation and Slytherin will have a great redemption. As I always think, those who are capable of great good are capable of great evil, but thank the lord it works in reverse! Tinktonks - Who believes in redemption and feels JKR as always (damn her!) has things right!!! From random832 at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 17:58:09 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:58:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607241058s69186715yc8ac38308d7d7be0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155930 > > Random832: > > I think it's a lot more fair if we're fooled because Harry is fooled > > (it's not a "non-description" if it really is a misconception Harry > > has for one reason or another) than if we have a false impression > that > > anyone who was actually there never could have gotten. > > Neri: > Er... sorry, I've lost you. Could you clarify that? Random832: Nevermind. I think I probably misunderstood you to begin with. > Neri: > Hmm. Who vouched for Dobby in CoS? Well, you certainly can say that > he vouched for himself, but that's kind of stretching it, isn't it? > ... > Who challenged Ginny in CoS? Random832: It's not clear to me either what Dobby was innocent of or what Ginny was guilty of. It's not clear, though, who vouched for Harry, but as the protagonist he's above suspicion (by the readers) anyway. But who challenged Quirrel? > Neri: > I am very interested in your rule that no magic has ever been used in > a plot twist before it was explained to the reader. It needs > reformulating, but here I feel we are approaching something a bit > more accurate. Random832: I see it as a back-formation of the rule of Chekhov's gun. From random832 at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 19:10:25 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:10:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607241210r425ef11ft6bbd3539202d4190@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155931 > > Neri: > > Hmm. Who vouched for Dobby in CoS? Well, you certainly can say that > > he vouched for himself, but that's kind of stretching it, isn't it? > > zgirnius: > My, you have a nasty suspicious mind. (I mean this in the best > possible way...I would love ESE!Dobby!) It never occured to me to > suspect him of anything in nay of my reads of CoS. Not even A: intercepting mails intended for someone else B: interfering with platform 9 3/4 C: assault with a deadly bludger? (that his motives weren't "evil" doesn't mean he's not guilty of the action) I never, however, suspected him of anything of which he was not guilty. -- Random832 From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 24 20:18:27 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:18:27 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...)/Arthur is right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155932 Alla: > I agree - the story **is** very likely to end with all > four houses beating Voldemort together, but that does not > IMO change the fact that Gryffindor **is** JKR's favorite > house, that she values courage per her words more than any > **other** virtue, therefore she put the most of **good** > guys (as I see it) in Gryffindor. houyhnhnm: I don't doubt that it is her favorite House, probably because it represents the type of personality she relates to the best. That is not the same as ending the books with the message that there is only one way to be a good person or that All Houses are Equal, but Some are More Equal Than Others. I hope that is not where she is going. There is a kind of transitive property of traits going on here, it seems to me. Gryffindors are brave and daring. Being brave and daring is the same thing as having courage. Rowling has said she values courage above all other virtues. Therefore Gryffindor is better than the other Houses. Where this breaks down for me is the equation of daring with courage. The Sorting Hat never actually uses the word "courage." You might belong in Gryffindor, Where dwell the brave at heart, Their daring, nerve and chivalry Set Gryffindors apart; By Gryffindor, the bravest were Prized far beyond the rest; Said Gryffindor, "We'll teach all those With brave deeds to their name," While the bravest and the boldest Went to daring Gryffindor, Boldness, nerve, and daring are not necessarily synonymous with courage. There are many definitions of courage. It can be physical or moral. For some it is lack of fear. For others, courage requires one to have fear and to overcome it. This is the way I would define courage, myself. Among the Gryffindors, Neville and Harry show the latter kind. Harry's acts of courage are proceeded by visceral descriptions of his physical state: His dry throat, his shaking hands, his fingers tingling with fear, his lurching stomach. Yet he does not give in to his fear. This is courage in the highest sense. I don't see that in all the Gryffindor characters, who may show *fearlessness* but not necessarily courage. It seems to me that the Gryffindor common denominator is an action-oriented (as opposed to, say, emotional or analytical) approach to life. It may demonstrate real courage and it may not. It is not the only way to be courageous. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 20:24:49 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:24:49 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607241210r425ef11ft6bbd3539202d4190@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155933 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > Not even A: intercepting mails intended for someone else B: > interfering with platform 9 3/4 C: assault with a deadly bludger? > (that his motives weren't "evil" doesn't mean he's not guilty of the > action) > > I never, however, suspected him of anything of which he was not guilty. zgirnius: Gee, I did sound oh-so-trusting. I meant that I never suspected him of having anything to do with the threats against Mudbloods and petrifications that were going on in the school. From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 24 20:55:28 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:55:28 -0000 Subject: House Pride (wasRe: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...)/Arthur is right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155935 Potioncat: > I agree with Alla, but with a twist. I think the four > Houses "should" be valued equally. All of them have virtues > and qualities that are important. It could be hoped that > every student has qualities of each house. > But even though McGonagall says, "Each house has its own > noble history and each has produced outstanding witches and > wizards." I don't think she means it. I'm pretty sure that > JKR doesn't mean it. Or rather, she silently adds, "but > Gryffindor has the best and the most." > This is a case where I disagree with the author. Not so > much that I don't enjoy the story, and that I don't cheer > for courage. I think every student must think his house is > the best one of the four. I think every student must cherish > her own house qualities. houyhnhnm: Rowling does seem to contradict herself. The question is, is it unintentional or intentional? It is possible that she pays lip service to the ideal that "All of them have virtues and qualities that are important" because she thinks that is a good ideal to have, but in the writing, her own prejudices betray themselves. On the other hand, she may be intentionally luring readers into identifying with the main characters, the better to show up the fact that prejudice in favor of one's own group is wrong. After all, the arguments that have taken place on this list over the way the twins push the envelope, over Hermione's hexing of Marietta, etc., could not be taking place if Rowling had not written those details into the story. It would have been easy to have written the main characters as unambiguously good, if she had wanted to. For example, when I first read PS/SS I saw the Dursleys as deliciously evil ogres who were a pleasure to hate. When I read it again, in spite the fact that they clearly are inadequate human beings, I found myself pitying them a little because behind their nastiness there was so much fear. How did I know the Dursleys were afraid? Because Rowling told me so. Marion: > I cannot help but thinking that JKR is pulling a same stunt on > us. The books handle such concepts as racism and prejudice, > and I think we'll see that in book 7, in order to become the > hero he wants to be, Harry must face his *own* prejudices and > not just him, the *readers* who have followed Harry on his > journey will be forced to adjust their views as well. The > Unreliable Narrator is just the device to show us how easy > it is to think in terms of black and white and how easy it > is to be mistaken about those colours. houyhnhnm: I haven't read _The Secret History_, but from your description it sound exactly like what I think Rowling is doing with the Harry Potter books. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 24 21:20:25 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:20:25 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155936 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: KJ: > I wouldn't re-read the books because of disappointment with the ending, > or dissatisfaction with the ending, at least I am trusting that JKR will > ensure that doesn't happen. It is more likely to be a case of a book or > series of books that are so complete in themselves, tell the story so well, > and end the story with such finality, that there is no need to re-live it. I > also read LoTR, once in my high school days, with little understanding of > it. When I read it thirty years later, it was with greater understanding. > It had the perfect ending, and no questions unanswered. I can safely say > that I will not read it again. It has nothing more to tell me. If JKR does > her job correctly, regardless, of the ending, the story will be finished. We > can not go back to the innocence of PS/SS because we have a much more > educated view of the WW. > We all re-read the books now looking for clues, and looking for > answers.Once we have those answers, I think most of us will keep the books > as an enjoyable journey, without having to make the same journey over and > over. I certainly would not burn, shred, slice or dice them as has been > threatened by some. Regardless of the ending, it has been a great ride. Sherry: > But I do reread for the fun, for the innocence and all the rest. I actually > do not try to find clues or try too hard to figure out the plot. I would be > horrified to guess it before the last book, though I always try to beat the > author to figuring it out before the end. I guessed very early that Sirius > Black was not trying to kill Harry and guessed part way through that moody > was the person who put Harry's name in the goblet of fire. However, where > she shocked me was Scabbers in POA, and the true identity of moody in GOF. > I expected Dumbledore to die in HBP, but was utterly struck speechless by > the how he died. Yet still I reread, just for the fun, for the magic, for > the laughs, for the relationships. Because the characters have become > friends, and because I like Harry and want to visit with him again. That's > why I am an avid rereader of books, for the fun, for the characters. I > reread anything I enjoy. I even reread mysteries. I reread LOTR at least > once every two years. > > However, if Harry dies, I won't be able to ever read them again, because no > matter how it is done, it will be too painful to know that this poor kid, > who had so much unhappiness in his life never got to be happy. After all, > at the end of the action, he will still only be 17, not like Frodo in LOTR > who was an adult after all. And Frodo wasn't necessarily the main > character, though he was one of the main characters. For example, I can't > read OOTP, because knowing that Sirius is going to die is too upsetting for > me. Not only do I love the character of Sirius, but his fate is so > dreadful, being in prison, at the mercy of dementors for a crime he never > committed, then dying before his name was cleared and before he could do > anything for his godson. no, I don't mean like give him anything, but > before he could fulfill the parental role. So, even when I do try to read > that book, I have to stop well before the ending. I can't bear to think of > Harry's pain in those moments. So, if Harry dies in the end, no matter how > well written the ending is--and I expect it will be well written--I will > never be able to read the books again, because I can't handle endings > without hope. A book's ending doesn't always have to be happy, but there > has to be hope. So, for me, an avid and constant rereader, to the point > that I can read my favorite mysteries many times, I just couldn't do it. > That doesn't in any way mean that it hasn't been a great ride, going through > these books, and I'll always love books 1 through 3, but just couldn't read > them again if we lose Harry. Geoff: I'm coming in late on this thread because I have been away on holiday ? suffering slight HPFGU withdrawal symptoms - and have only just skimmed through 400 messages since yesterday evening to get up to speed. Mark you, the Isles of Scilly are the place to go to drop out of the group for a while, walking on white sand and just going into the sea with my ordinary shorts on and no towel (we're having a heatwave in the UK if you didn't know). Bliss. However, back to the topic. First to the references to LOTR. Some of the group members will know that I have been an LOTR fan since about 1955 when I fist discovered the books. Until I got married and the demands of family got in the way, I used to read the book once a year and have certainly ploughed through it between 25-30 times and strangely enough, I still seem to find some little nugget I have overlooked each time I re-read it. But, I view it in a very different light to the Harry Potter saga. I do not see Frodo as dying. In Middle-Earth, we see three main species of intelligent beings, Men, Elves and Dwarves, "The Silmarillion" fills in much of the back story about their creation by Il?vatar. The important fact is that Elves are immortal; other races are not. Unless they die in battle and go to the Hallsof Mandos, they choose the time when they decide to leave Middle-Earth andgo to the Blessed Realm to live for ever. Frodo is granted the right to leave Middle-Earth and board a ship at Mithlond by the gift of Arwen. He takes the decision because his wounds have troubled him and he feels that the time has come to go. He has not been killed in battle; or by the use of something equivalent to Avada Kedavra; or in any other way. But, when we come to Harry, I view the story in a different light. Despite the machinations of Voldemort, there are no immortal races. we have only Men ? Muggle or Wizard. Hence, the ultimate departure of any character is through death, pure and simple ? or in some of JKR's cases, impure and complicated. :-) As I said back in June, I am an unashamed and unbowed life member of the IWLHTLC (I want Harry to live club). Harry for me is a character in whom I have invested more time and energy since I first read LOTR. Selfish maybe, but I want to be able to read the booksagain knowing that, for our hero, there is life after Voldemort. I want to be able to let my imagination run on after the last sentence trying to visualise what happens to all the characters once we read the last sentence. But above all, Harry has been an icon to many different people: those who wear glasses; those who feel that life has been unfair to them; those who are not the stunningly handsome and athletic superheroes of adverts for after-shave or command the sports arenas but are "small and skinny with jet-black hair that was always untidy" (COS Chapter 1 p.9 UK edition); those who read on girls' toes or become incapable of coherent thought when going to their first dance; those who like to dream of something marvellous happening to them out of the blue. And even many of us who are adults will identify with at least some of those categories. If Harry's story goes pear-shaped and he does not survive, what will this say to people in those categories? "Don't bother to try, guys. The world is against you. Just give up and roll over." The tale of Harry Potter so far has been an encouragement to many, a motivation to aim high (even if only improving reading skills for example) and suggests that we can win through life's buffeting and achieve some of our dreams. Back to the Isles of Scilly. :-) From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 17:25:17 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: <579.1e035ed.31f5b8c2@aol.com> Message-ID: <20060724172517.59518.qmail@web52713.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155937 juli17 at aol.com wrote: >> I DO however care about the Weasley twins, about Harry, Hermione, and all the other "good guys." I've invested emotion in them, it matters to me how their behavior reflects on them. That's why I've sometimes criticized their actions; not because they're comparable to DEs or to Umbridge, but because they're NOT. Thus I want their behavior to rise above, even when I know they too are only human << ***Katie replies: Well, of course there's shades of grey in everyone's personality. And I'm not saying that being a good person means every single action you make is the right one...nor am I saying that bad people always do bad things. And the shades of grey kind of makes my point, actually. Everyone's been debating whether what the twins did was right or wrong...well, of course it is never good to bully people...unless they have it coming. As I see it, that was KARMA. Pure and simple. As was Hagrid giving Dudley the pig's tail in PS/SS, and all the other bad things that happen to bad people. I don't think that the twins' behavior is at all abnormal for teenage boys, and who says good people have to be perfect all the time? Harry certainly does his share of rule-breaking and not-so-nice things...and I think he's a good person. Look, my point is this, I guess. Whose side are we all on? I mean, we've been debating the twins' behavior, Hermione's behavior(in other threads), and even Dumbledore's behavior! I personally don't want to shred my protagonists to death. I love Harry, Hermione, DD, the Weasleys, Lupin, and all the others on *my* side. I do not always *approve* of their behavior...especially when Hermione attacked Ron with the birds in HBP...but I always approve of their overall mission and I believe their hearts and souls are deeply good. Katie, who loves everyone in HP except the Slytherins, the DE's, and the Dursleys...and sometimes the MoM. From cass_da_sweet at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 20:40:18 2006 From: cass_da_sweet at yahoo.com (cass_da_sweet) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:40:18 -0000 Subject: Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155938 > Potioncat: > > Has anyone ordered the book to be delivered? Does it come > > quickly on release day? > > houyhnhnm: > I ordered HBP in advance. Not only was it delivered on > release day, my letter carrier rang the doorbell rather > than just leaving it in the box. He said, "Here. These > seem to be worth more than gold dust, so I thought I'd > better put it directly in your hands." Cass_da_sweet: I also ordered it in advance but had quite a different experience. It was in my mailbox on the release date but the postman shoved it into my apartment-sized mailbox and we couldn't get it out. Then when we had him open the whole thing the next day the book was all torn and messed up and it wasn't from us trying to get it out. So I guess it depends on the postman. I personally am going to buy mine at the midnight release. From random832 at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 20:28:25 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:28:25 -0400 Subject: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle tortur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607241328t796420f6y8b8248ae3891bf9d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155939 On 7/24/06, Tinktonks wrote: > I agree that just because something isn't muggle-baiting it is ok! > Just that it is wrong for a different set of reasons. Morfin however > WAS muggle baiting. He hated Tom just for being a muggle. But is it "baiting" to outright hex someone? -- Random832 From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jul 24 21:56:11 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:56:11 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607241058s69186715yc8ac38308d7d7be0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155940 Neri: > > Hmm. Who vouched for Dobby in CoS? Well, you certainly can say that > > he vouched for himself, but that's kind of stretching it, isn't it? > > ... > > Who challenged Ginny in CoS? Random832: > It's not clear to me either what Dobby was innocent of or what Ginny > was guilty of. > > It's not clear, though, who vouched for Harry, but as the protagonist > he's above suspicion (by the readers) anyway. But who challenged > Quirrel? Ceridwen: Didn't Snape challenge Quirrel? > > Neri: > > I am very interested in your rule that no magic has ever been used in > > a plot twist before it was explained to the reader. It needs > > reformulating, but here I feel we are approaching something a bit > > more accurate. > > Random832: > I see it as a back-formation of the rule of Chekhov's gun. Ceridwen: I'm interested in this rule, too. Could you explain what you mean by a 'back-formation of the rule of Chekhov's gun'? Is it perhaps the characters, or at least one of them, noticing the gun's presence and drawing audience attention to it before the denouement (sp?)? Ceridwen. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 22:25:34 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:25:34 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155941 > Renee: > Which to me raises the question: is it Muggle baiting when the Muggles > both 1) know they're dealing with wizards and magic; > and 2) have the chance to avoid the object and remain unaffected? a_svirn: You know how it is with the fish? It can also avoid the baited hook and remain unaffected. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 22:40:02 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:40:02 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: <20060724172517.59518.qmail@web52713.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155942 > >>Katie: > Well, of course there's shades of grey in everyone's personality. > And I'm not saying that being a good person means every single > action you make is the right one...nor am I saying that bad people > always do bad things. And the shades of grey kind of makes my > point, actually. Everyone's been debating whether what the twins > did was right or wrong...well, of course it is never good to bully > people...unless they have it coming. As I see it, that was KARMA. > Pure and simple. As was Hagrid giving Dudley the pig's tail in > PS/SS, and all the other bad things that happen to bad people. Betsy Hp: That's a pretty popular view point. But for me, it doesn't work. As this is a work of fiction it was *incredibly* possible for JKR to write her characters *without* the shades of grey. Like Roald Dahl does in his childrens books where the good guys are unquestionably the ones you're cheering for, and the bad guys are despicably bad. But JKR doesn't do this. She puts in enough for readers to feel a twinge of sympathy for her "bad guys". (Or at least *some* readers. Though even JKR has expressed a bit of pity for Dudley in her interviews.) And then she has her good guys do things that aren't really all that good. Hagrid attacking a child because he's angry at the child'd father for example. And see, I personally have problems with the statement, "well, of course it is never good to bully people...unless they have it coming." How do we define if someone "has it coming" or not? Who gets to make that call? Umbridge certainly thought Harry had the blood quill coming. Filch could probably write *books* on why the twins deserved to get whipped. (Some of the little Slytherin first years would probably have a word or two to say on that subject as well.) Sometimes in fiction the call is incredibly easy. In Dahl's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" the children all seem to deserve the fate Dahl writes for them. But JKR is not that clear, and I think that lack of clarity has a purpose. For example, in GoF her first clue that Fake!Moody might not be good is when he abuses Draco. A clue that is beautifully missed because readers tended to think Draco got what he deserved. > >>Katie: > I don't think that the twins' behavior is at all abnormal for > teenage boys, and who says good people have to be perfect all the > time? > Betsy Hp: I don't think anyone is suggesting the good guys have to be good all the time. However, IMO, when a good guy does a bad thing, he or she should get called on it. Especially since we're dealing with teenagers who are supposed to be learning from their mistakes. > >>Katie: > Look, my point is this, I guess. Whose side are we all on? I mean, > we've been debating the twins' behavior, Hermione's behavior(in > other threads), and even Dumbledore's behavior! Betsy Hp: For me the question is: *Why* are we on this side? Especially when it comes to Harry and company's *private* grudges. Did Zacherias really *deserve* Ginny's attacks? Did the first year Slytherins deserve to be hissed by the twins? Did Dudley deserve to be hexed by Hagrid and fed magic potions by the twins? Did Marietta deserve to be disfigured for so long? Are those good actions? Would I stand with someone who did those sort of things? Since, in most cases, my answer is "no", my next question is: Well is this accepted as good behavior? Are the good guys praised for it or is this something they need to learn not to do? I await book 7. > >>Katie: > I personally don't want to shred my protagonists to death. Betsy Hp: My feeling is, if the protagonists are really good, they'll survive it. And if they're not, better for me to figure it out now. > >>Katie: > I love Harry, Hermione, DD, the Weasleys, Lupin, and all the > others on *my* side. I do not always *approve* of their > behavior...especially when Hermione attacked Ron with the birds in > HBP...but I always approve of their overall mission and I believe > their hearts and souls are deeply good. Betsy Hp: Hmm, see I agree with you about the overall mission. However I don't see that this gives the Order folks a free pass. And especially when we have a character telling Harry (and therefore, the reader) that the world isn't divided up between good guys and Death Eaters, I'm fairly confident JKR writes in the questionable behavior to be questioned. So I question. Betsy Hp From sugaranddixie1 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 23:01:21 2006 From: sugaranddixie1 at yahoo.com (sugaranddixie1) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:01:21 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr's motivation..... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155943 ...in teaching Harry's class about the unforgivable curses? The only conclusion I can come to is that he thought that was what the "real" Moody would do & so did it to make his masquerade more convincing. Maybe he never heard the saying , "Forewarned is forearmed". Did Voldmort order Barty Jr. to show Harry the curses so he (Barty Jr.) could report back to LV with Harry's reactions? Did he think Harry's advance knowledge would somehow cause him to freeze up with fear when the showdown took place? Any thoughts? From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Jul 24 23:14:29 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:14:29 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: <20060724172517.59518.qmail@web52713.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155944 Katie: > Look, my point is this, I guess. Whose side are we all on? > I mean, we've been debating the twins' behavior, Hermione's > behavior(in other threads), and even Dumbledore's behavior! I > personally don't want to shred my protagonists to death. houyhnhnm: I don't think that the discussions of the twins', Hermione's, or Dumbledore's has as its purpose "to shred [the] protagonists to death", but rather to look at the way in which the petty sins of commission and omission of "good" people contribute to the presence of evil in the world. The banality of evil-- that's what I think the Potter books are about. Does your partisanship for "your" side go so far that you would still be defending their mistakes should their mistakes enable the triumph of Voldemort? The defeat of Voldemort-- that's what we all want, isn't it? From carodave92 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 23:14:53 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:14:53 -0000 Subject: Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155945 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Potioncat: > snip> > Has anyone ordered the book to be delivered? Does it come quickly on > release day? > Carodave replies: In the States (depending where you live, I imagine) UPS delivers the book on the first day before 11am. That's a special delivery policy. My UPS deliveries normally arrive in the evening. So if the book is released on Friday at midnite, you will have it in hand on Saturday morning - no spoilers! From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jul 24 23:29:42 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:29:42 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr's motivation..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155946 sugaranddixie > ...in teaching Harry's class about the unforgivable curses? *(snip)* Any thoughts? Ceridwen: I think Barty Jr. was out to get something of his own, payback. In this particular class, we have a student whose parents were driven insane by the Cruciatus curse, a student whose parents were killed by the Avada Kedavra... And, maybe, a student whose father was in some way affected by the Imperius curse? Ceridwen. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 00:30:12 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:30:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The UV References: Message-ID: <012601c6af81$7e8d76c0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 155947 > "colebiancardi"wrote: > >> If you read anything in the spy genre, >> those double agents do the same things >> as Snape(even worse things, quite frankly) >> and they are not moronic characters, >> but deeply conflicted characters. > Eggplant: > Have you ever read a spy novel where the loyal spy tells the President > of the United stated that he's going to assassinate him, and the > President said it's a brilliant idea and still trusts him 100%, and > then the spy actually does it and kills the President? I haven't. > > And if Snape and Dumbledore behaved in the way you suggest then they > are not deeply conflicted, they are deeply brain damaged. Rebecca, True, however I can think of a few other situations which would leave them not brain dead under this premise, but at least morally suspect to some. Hear me out for a second - I'm not a Snape-is-a-knight-in-shining-armor advocate, and I am only speculating. I'm not "married" to what I am about to say. I haven't read a spy novel with the plot suggested here, but I have read real-life accounts of men who served in World Wars I & II, even Vietnam, who made pacts with their comrades and friends about how they wished to die in certain situations like paralyzing injuries, capture and the like. In some cases those pacts were carried out, and in some others they were not. Allow me to explain. It's possible that Draco's efforts on behalf of Voldemort and Snape's killing of Dumbledore are separate events (althought intertwined as JKR writes them) which might deserve their own independent scrutiny. The whole obvious and repeated HBP descriptions about Dumbledore's tiredness and his dead hand do make me wonder if Snape really saved him permanently in the first place; perhaps Snape slowed the progression of whatever curse Dumbledore suffered from the ring Horcrux. Maybe the only thing he *could* do to was save Dumbledore *at the time* - we just don't know because alas, we don't have all the pieces to this maddening puzzle. Dumbledore also does remark to Harry that Voldemort would want to keep someone who found his Horcruxes alive long enough to question them because he didn't think anyone else knew about them - if you're dying slowly, you're not dead right away. Specifically conflicting is the following passage: 'As a matter of fact, I did,' said Dumbledore. 'I was sure it was you.' 'Why didn't you stop me, then?' Malfoy demanded. 'I tried, Draco. Professor Snape has been keeping watch over you on my orders -' 'He hasn't been doing your orders, he promised my mother -' 'Of course that is what he would tell you, Draco, but -' 'He's a double-agent, you stupid old man, he isn't working for you, you just think he is! Snape did promise via UV to Narcissa - but did Snape ever tell Dumbledore that? Personally, I'd lean to "no" based on Dumbledore's reply to Draco. However, if Snape and Dumbledore knew Dumbledore were dying in the first place (albeit slowly), Snape might not see any reason to tell Dumbledore that he'd made the promise. However, Snape might really know in Spinner's End what Voldemort wants to have happen and as he says, "He means me to do it in the end, I think." It's plausible that Snape and Dumbledore both knew that Snape would have to make some sort of choice at some time, and with Dumbledore's admitted acceptance of death (well-organized mind and all that), I can easily see Dumbledore saying or alluding "if it's a choice between you and me, take me out." Perhaps the convergence of Dumbledore, Snape, and Draco on the Tower only acelerated what Hargrid heard Snape and Dumbledore arguing about earlier. Again, merely speculation with some liberal use of canon. Note that I am not saying that what Snape did or did not do to Dumbledore was right, wrong, moral or just, as I am only presenting some food for thought the UV may not be the only reason Snape killed Dumbledore. Rebecca From kjones at telus.net Tue Jul 25 00:42:20 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:42:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C568EC.5090308@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 155948 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" > wrote: >> >> Potioncat: >> snip> >> Has anyone ordered the book to be delivered? Does it come quickly on >> release day? >> > Carodave replies: > In the States (depending where you live, I imagine) UPS delivers the > book on the first day before 11am. That's a special delivery policy. > My UPS deliveries normally arrive in the evening. So if the book is > released on Friday at midnite, you will have it in hand on Saturday > morning - no spoilers! KJ writes: For the last book, I went to my friendly neighborhood bookstore, and ordered it. It came in within a day or two of the release, it was in perfect condition, there were no line-ups, and I could go to pick it up at my convenience. I will do the same thing this time. It takes some of the excitement out of it, and the thrill of having some idiot spill the beans before you read it, but it certainly is a reliable, relaxed method of obtaining the book in reasonable time. Plus, it supports your local book store. KJ From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 00:56:12 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:56:12 -0000 Subject: Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155949 > >>Mike: > > BTW, on July 16, 2005 at 1:30 am I was walking out of Barnes and > > Noble with my copy of HBP when I overheard a couple of teenagers, > > talking loudly, say,"Dumbledore dies... around page 600". Boy > > was I miffed. I don't know how they knew, heard from someone in > > England? I don't want this to happen again for book 7. Anybody > > got any suggestions can email me off list. Thanks :-) Betsy Hp: I'm pretty hard core "no-spoiler", so I take the extreme measure of cutting myself totally off of Harry Potter stuff when a new book is due. I stay away from computer sites, tv spots, radio spots, etc. I disconnected for HBP about a week to two weeks before the release. I avoided news-type sites pretty much from the time JKR announced that HBP was done. I'd managed to read OotP without knowing that anyone was going to die, so Sirius was a shock. And I liked that. So I wanted to be similarly ignorant for HBP. And I was. > >>Potioncat > > I don't know how you can protect yourself from idiots and jerks. > But I had prepared several things to say at the bookstore if > anyone was talking too much. Of course, once you hear something, > that's it. > Has anyone ordered the book to be delivered? Does it come quickly > on release day? Betsy Hp: I live ages away from the nearest bookstore, so I did Amazon.com. It arrived in my Post Office box on the day of release at the time that mail is supposed to be delivered to your box (10am for us). I'll probably do the same for book 7, though we're getting mail at our house now, so I'll be haunting my front door. :) As to avoiding spoiler-sports actually *inside* the bookstore... I'd send in a patsy . Get a friend who could care less, but is decent enough not to report any rumors they might hear, to walk in and pick up the book for you. They'll enjoy a peek inside the frenzy. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jul 25 01:24:06 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:24:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v References: <20060724172517.59518.qmail@web52713.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004801c6af89$06a40270$5bb4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 155950 > ***Katie replies: Everyone's been debating whether what the twins did was right or wrong...well, of course it is never good to bully people...unless they have it coming. Magpie: So you're saying it's good to bully people. "Unless they have it coming" is a pretty popular saying amongst bullies. Kathryn: Look, my point is this, I guess. Whose side are we all on? Magpie: I'm not on a side, I'm somebody reading a work of fiction. And even if I wasn't reading a work of fiction analyzing what people are doing honestly is not incompatible with being on their side. If you'd rather just stop at Dursleys=bad, Twins=good that's fine, but why would that be a bad thing to discuss on a list for actually analyzing the books? I think my view of the books covers more of what the author is writing, which is why I talk about them that way. It seems like what you consider "shredding the protagonists to death" I consider "talking about the protagonists" or "talking about the story the author has written." I don't feel the Twins or Hermione's position are threatened by talking about what they do. -m From bridge13219 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 24 22:52:47 2006 From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:52:47 -0000 Subject: 2wayMirror In-Reply-To: <20060724141229.44070.qmail@web38310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155951 > Cassy: > Isn't it a bit cruel on the part of the author to do this to a character? To lay on a child a burden of knowing that not only he was a cause of his godfather's death, but that that death could be so easily prevented? bridge13219: Honestly, I think that was the point. It was a life lesson, however cruelly presented. Harry had to learn to be less impetuous and hot headed. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 03:11:14 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 03:11:14 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155952 > zgirnius: > My, you have a nasty suspicious mind. (I mean this in the best > possible way...I would love ESE!Dobby!) It never occured to me to > suspect him of anything in nay of my reads of CoS. > Neri: It's not me who suspected Dobby. It's Fred: *************************************************** CoS, Ch. 3, p. 28: "What, you think he was lying to me?" said Harry. "Well," said Fred, "put it this way ? house-elves have got powerful magic of their own, but they can't usually use it without their master's permission. I reckon old Dobby was sent to stop you coming back to Hogwarts. Someone's idea of a joke. Can you think of anyone at school with a grudge against you?" *************************************************** So Dobby was challenged by Fred, but he wasn't vouched for be anybody AFAIK, and in the end he turned out innocent. I think this doesn't fit with the rule Pippin suggested. > > Neri: > > Who challenged Ginny in CoS? > > zgirnius: > I believe that Pippin does not consider her a guilty party in CoS. It > was Riddle, controlling her mind through the Diary. And memory Tom > was challenged by memory Dumbledore. > Neri: Ginny was at the very least guilty of breaking into Harry's room and stealing the Diary back. That was her idea and not Tom's, and she also could tell Harry and Ron about it but didn't. In any case, even if you don't consider her guilty, she certainly deceived Harry and the reader here, and yet IIRC she had not appeared as unreliable before that. So this breaks at least one of Pippin's rules ("no character has been revealed to have deceived the hero or the reader in a plot twist who had not previously appeared to be unreliable") if not two of them. Naughty Ginny... Neri From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 03:30:07 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 03:30:07 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr's motivation..../ uglybaby!LV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155953 > Sugaranddixie: > << What is Barty Jr's motivation>> in teaching Harry's class > about the unforgivable curses? The only conclusion I can come to is > that he thought that was what the "real" Moody would do & so did it to > make his masquerade more convincing. > Maybe he never heard the saying , "Forewarned is forearmed". Did > Voldmort order Barty Jr. to show Harry the curses so he (Barty Jr.) > could report back to LV with Harry's reactions? Did he think Harry's > advance knowledge would somehow cause him to freeze up with fear when > the showdown took place? Any thoughts? > > zanooda: This is one of the many, many questions that I had concerning GoF. Fake Moody had to act convincingly, of course, but he definitely overdoes it in certain respects. One thing is to teach kids about UCs in general, but to teach Harry, of all people, how to resist the Imperius curse? The only conclusion I was able to come to was this: Barty Jr.'s main goal is to help Harry to get to the Cup before the other champions, so he arms Harry against the UCs in case someone tries to use them to eliminate him from the competition. For example, Karkaroff could Imperius Harry to make him fail at one of the tasks, or something like that. In this case the Fake Moody's reason to teach Harry to resist the Imperius curse was not to arm him against LV, but to guide him through the tasks safely. > Catlady wrote: > Voldemort's speech certainly doesn't say that Bertha Jorkins > provided him with more than information, but I believe her poor > moribund body was a necessary ingredient for making his uglybaby > body. Either by using pieces of it to make like a Frankenbaby, or by > using her womb to grow one. zanooda: I was thinking about this and here is what I cannot understand: if, as you say, LV's babybody was created only after Bertha Jorkins was dead, then it was not him who interrogated her and tortured her and killed her, but Wormtail on his orders. However, from LV's graveyard speech I have an impression that he did it all himself. He says things like "the means I used to break the Memory Charm upon her...", "when I had extracted all useful information from her...", "I disposed of her" etc. This is one of the many things that I don't understand about this particular book. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 03:55:47 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 03:55:47 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155954 > Neri: > It's not me who suspected Dobby. It's Fred: > > *************************************************** > CoS, Ch. 3, p. 28: > "What, you think he was lying to me?" said Harry. > "Well," said Fred, "put it this way ? house-elves have got powerful > magic of their own, but they can't usually use it without their > master's permission. I reckon old Dobby was sent to stop you coming > back to Hogwarts. Someone's idea of a joke. Can you think of anyone at > school with a grudge against you?" > *************************************************** > > So Dobby was challenged by Fred, but he wasn't vouched for be anybody > AFAIK, and in the end he turned out innocent. I think this doesn't fit > with the rule Pippin suggested. zgirnius: He was guilty of precisely what Fred suggested, though. He *WAS* trying to keep Harry from coming to school. All that Fred got wrong was that Dobby was actually acting on his own initiative, and not on his master's orders, not at all against Pippin's rules, and a fine example of misdirection, putting such a reasonable-sounding explanation of Dobby's motives out there to confuse the unwary reader. > Neri: > Ginny was at the very least guilty of breaking into Harry's room and > stealing the Diary back. That was her idea and not Tom's, and she also > could tell Harry and Ron about it but didn't. zgirnius: I considered her to be acting, in the case of the theft, to protect Harry from the frightening powers of the diary. This motive was established by her confrontation with Malfoy in the bookstore early in the book. And she did try to tell Harry. Then Percy came by, interrupted her, and convinced Harry it had nothing to do with the Chamber of Secrets. Though the narrator's choice of imagery (comparing her to Dobby) was a hint of sorts that something was wrong, since under normal circumstances she is not under the same sorts of constraints, being a free witch and not an enslaved Hosue Elf. Anyway, while she was technically 'unreliable', since I find her to have acted consistently with trying to be a friend to Harry, I don't agree that he was 'deceived' by her. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 06:45:49 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 06:45:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155955 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ecaplan_52556" wrote: > > Many people said: > > If Harry dies I'm done with it. > > Eddie: > Harry's fate would have no impact on whether or not I would re-read > the series. ...edited... > > Besides which, I think Harry's gonna choose to die 'cuz: (1) He will > decide it is necessary to bring down Voldemort and (2) Most of the > people he loves the most are already there -- his parents, Sirius, > Dumbledore, and Ginny (who will proceed him in death in book 7) ;-) > > Eddie > bboyminn: Well, I can see some potential for Harry to die a noble death. While everyone is saying they will abondon the series if Harry dies, let us remember that there are some things that are worth dying for. Naturally, we don't want anyone to die; we don't want soldiers to die, but they do. We don't want firemen and police to die, but they do. We don't want our loved ones to die, but inevitably they do. So, I can live with Harry dying. I won't like it. It will break my heart. But I can live with it. I can live with it because it will certainly be a noble and selfless death. Although, I can't help worry that not every reader will see it that way. Some may see it as the way out of a miserable life, but Harry never sought a way out of his own miserable life. He struggled constantly against the odds and against overwhelming forces, and endured beyond endurance, and certainly will stuggle for life even with his last dying breath. That would be a far better lesson of people to take away from this series. Though, I could live much better with Harry both dying and living. I have predicted various scenarios for this happening in the past, but lately I have been leaning toward a trip behind The Veil, and a return. I won't go into details since I've posted on this several times. But The Veil and general mythology seem to lean in this direction. Harry wouldn't be the first person to go behind The Veil and return while on a Hero's Quest. Still, if you don't like the Veil idea, there are other ways. Perhaps, he takes a potions that mimics death. Perhaps, Harry has to die in order for Voldemort to die. But that brings up the question of exactly what constitutes death. People die all the time by some definition and are brought back to life. Perhaps in a brief instant of technical death, Neville will finish Voldemort off, and Harry will come back to life. For this to work though, we must make a distinction between technical death and absolute death. JKR has said no spell can truly re-awaken the dead, but she is certainly referring to the absolutely dead, not just the technically dead. As I said, the technically dead come back to life all the time in real life. We could and have speculate other methods along the same lines, and if well written, death and resurrection could be a solution that satisfies everyone. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jul 25 10:18:21 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:18:21 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: <20060724172517.59518.qmail@web52713.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155956 Ceridwen: I can't believe I'm getting mired in this morass. Katie: *(snip)* > Everyone's been debating whether what the twins did was right or wrong...well, of course it is never good to bully people...unless they have it coming. Ceridwen: So, if someone evilly rats out my kids, for doing drugs, say, or stealing, it's all right for my kids to go and beat them up because they have it coming? Is this the ultimate message of the books? Katie: As I see it, that was KARMA. Pure and simple. Ceridwen: So, the twins are the agents of Karma? People get touchy about the possibilities that Harry might have to kill LV, or sacrifice himself, in the next book. What sort of message will this send to children? is the usual question. Kids know that Harry is the Hero, the Superman of the series. He's 'faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive...', he's above our level since he's had a Destiny ever since LV killed his parents, failed to kill him, and 'marked him as his equal'. While he is the protagonist and the main POV character, he is not Like Us. Kids know they can't tie a towel to their necks and fly; kids know they don't have a Fated Destiny like Harry. Kids aren't dumb. The twins, Hermione, Ron, etc. are Like Us. What they do is what Everyman does, and can do. Should they be allowed to swell the tongues of unsuspecting weaker kids because they 'have it coming'? And, who decides who 'has it coming'? Isn't that the reason we all think the MoM was wrong when it incarcerated Sirius without a trial? Is this the ultimate message of the books? Katie: As was Hagrid giving Dudley the pig's tail in PS/SS, and all the other bad things that happen to bad people. I don't think that the twins' behavior is at all abnormal for teenage boys, and who says good people have to be perfect all the time? Harry certainly does his share of rule-breaking and not-so-nice things...and I think he's a good person. Ceridwen: So it is all right to harm the child or younger sib of the person we're mad at? It's all right for my kids to hurt the younger brother of the guy who offended them? Sure, the twins act like normal teenage boys. That's why normal teenage boys die in car accidents for going too fast, or get beat up by their peers - because they deserve it, right? In fact, the car accident would be more Karmic than a bunch of other teens, tired of someone imposing their own ideas of morality, grabbing that person into an alley, because the car accident would be willed by The (Impartial) Universe, not through flawed human agent. And, yes, Harry does his share of rule-breaking. At times, it seems as if he's the Doomed Child. A friend's younger sister had Juvenile Diabetes at a time when the life expectancy for a child with that condition was no older than 18. Their parents allowed the ailing child to get away with murder, almost literally. After all, allowances should be made for a child who will not live past the age of 18, right? And, what does it matter that the child won't learn how to live in polite society, the ultimate goal of instructing children? That child will never make a place for itself in society, will it? Medical advances are amazing. My friend's sister is still around, and nearing 50. She's a bitter, crotchety old thing, not fit for human company when she throws a pout. Pouts are heartbreaking on a child slated to die; on a forty-something woman, they're contemptable. Katie: Look, my point is this, I guess. Whose side are we all on? Ceridwen: The Hero's. Of course. Which is why a lot of us want to see Heroic Deeds, not petty sniping, from Our Hero. We want to see him win, we want to see the Triumph of Good Over Evil, we want to see the end of the Hero's Journey, which means making mistakes and learning from them - not learning that the Hero can get away with things, but that the Hero learns from his mistakes and becomes worthy of the label 'Hero'. The last thing I want to find out is that I was rooting for just another petty, spiteful whelp who Vanquishes Teh Eeevil, then curls up into a ball and complains until someone coaxes him into a good mood. Katie: I mean, we've been debating the twins' behavior, Hermione's behavior (in other threads), and even Dumbledore's behavior! I personally don't want to shred my protagonists to death. I love Harry, Hermione, DD, the Weasleys, Lupin, and all the others on *my* side. I do not always *approve* of their behavior...especially when Hermione attacked Ron with the birds in HBP...but I always approve of their overall mission and I believe their hearts and souls are deeply good. Ceridwen: I do want to 'shred my protagonists to death' if that means holding them to a Higher Standard. Superman 'came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of Mortal Man...' and I expect Superman to use those powers wisely. I also expect the twins, Hermione, Ron, Harry, Dumbledore, etc., to use their powers wisely as well. And to that end, I would rather see them making minor mistakes which leave them alive but learning from their lessons - a ticket for speeding, perhaps - rather than making much larger mistakes and ending up dead - from being killed in an accident due to speeding, for instance. I am desperate for Our Hero to learn the lessons he needs to learn, not because of the outcome for the Wizarding World, but for the outcome for Our Hero. I am desperate for my children to learn their life lessons, not because I insist that they learn them, but because learning them is the heart of living in society with other people. Katie, who loves everyone in HP except the Slytherins, the DE's, and the Dursleys...and sometimes the MoM. Ceridwen, who hates a few people for Doing Her Wrong, but still hasn't taken them into the woods and shot their kneecaps off. From rkdas at charter.net Tue Jul 25 11:46:38 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:46:38 -0000 Subject: Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155957 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Mike: > > > BTW, on July 16, 2005 at 1:30 am I was walking out of Barnes and > > > Noble with my copy of HBP when I overheard a couple of teenagers, > > > talking loudly, say,"Dumbledore dies... around page 600". Boy > > > was I miffed. I don't know how they knew, heard from someone in > > > England? I don't want this to happen again for book 7. Anybody > > > got any suggestions can email me off list. Thanks :-) > > Betsy Hp: > I'm pretty hard core "no-spoiler", so I take the extreme measure of > cutting myself totally off of Harry Potter stuff when a new book is > due. I stay away from computer sites, tv spots, radio spots, etc. > I disconnected for HBP about a week to two weeks before the > release. I avoided news-type sites pretty much from the time JKR > announced that HBP was done. > > I'd managed to read OotP without knowing that anyone was going to > die, so Sirius was a shock. And I liked that. So I wanted to be > similarly ignorant for HBP. And I was. > > SNIP > Betsy Hp > Hi Guys, I take the opposite tack. I read what serious writers about Harry have to say about the series. I have been following John Granger for a couple of books. He's been charting JKR's literary path and she's using some very identifiable devices. He knew according to this thing called "The Alchemical Path" that she'd need to get rid of all Harry's mentors so that he could face his quest alone so the fact that DD bought it was not a surprise to me. How it transpired was a shocker and truly inspired. I think this points out that we are all reading Harry for a variety of reasons. Some want him vindicated, a guaranteed happy life at the end of this, some are wrapped up in an amazing "whodunit" and some of us are looking at patterns and literary aspects. I do love Harry and I am sure that's what unites all our various reasons and needs. And by the way, it's no fun to be the spoiler for someone. I was casually talking with a friend months after HPB came out, her son was reading it, she talked so knowledgeably about Harry I just assumed she'd read it. I innocently asked her how she thought her little boy would react to DD's death. Her face blanched and I aplologized profusely. What's the time limit on spoiling? Jen D. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Jul 25 04:54:46 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:54:46 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happene... In-Reply-To: <000d01c6aef9$8bc597b0$63fe54d5@Marion> References: <473.31a5880.31f58c53@aol.com> <000d01c6aef9$8bc597b0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <2795713f0607242154h1711314oc0cb237ba050f7e7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155958 wynnleaf >Does this mean, Lynda, that if I am not surprised if Harry turns out not to have PT'd Fennir, that JKR wasn't cheating? I mean, I didn't really think Harry did that PT. So if *I* don't feel cheated, is JKR in the clear? Lynda: If you want to see it that way, you can say that she is. I won't feel cheated, because I don't think it was Harry that cast that spell, but even if I did think so, and was wrong, is that not part of the joy of reading, to find some surprises from situations we 'think' we know about? And at the same time to be right in what we think is going on (as in the Felix situation that brought this up) and to find out, we were right, that our author carried through as usual? Nikkalmati: I guess that the Fennir PT situation is a potential clear-cut non-description. If Harry did the PT, he knows it and we don't. No non-description cheat. If Harry did not do the PT, he does not know who did it and we don't either. If the PT turns out to be important in Book 7, we both have been fooled? Is this right? Lynda: I guess so. There's a strong possibility that the PT will be important in the next book (the identity of the caster at least--it could be a key factor). When using the narrator as she does, it gives JKR some leeway in these situations and adds a bit of mystery to the story. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 00:28:28 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060725002828.16387.qmail@web52711.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155959 > >>Katie: > Look, my point is this, I guess. Whose side are we all on? I mean, > we've been debating the twins' behavior, Hermione's behavior(in > other threads), and even Dumbledore's behavior! Betsy Hp: For me the question is: *Why* are we on this side? Especially when it comes to Harry and company's *private* grudges. Did Zacherias really *deserve* Ginny's attacks? Did the first year Slytherins deserve to be hissed by the twins? Did Dudley deserve to be hexed by Hagrid and fed magic potions by the twins? Did Marietta deserve to be disfigured for so long? Are those good actions? Would I stand with someone who did those sort of things? Since, in most cases, my answer is "no", my next question is: Well is this accepted as good behavior? Are the good guys praised for it or is this something they need to learn not to do? I await book 7. ****Katie replies:**** Ok...trying to remain coherent...Why are we picking apart things like practical jokes and such when LV has killed god knows how many people, his DE's torment and endanger people every day...I mean, the bad guys' actions are so obviously much worse than anything anyone on *our* side has done...why is it even debatable? Fred and George's antics hardly compare to Barty Crouch Jr.'s! Hermione may have gone a little far with the *disfigurement* of Marietta(though I certainly enjoyed a snicker at Marietta's expense), but she certainly would never murder someone! Even when Harry TRIED to do Unforgivable Curses, he COULDN'T! Why?? Because he's a good guy. Anything that *our* side has done that is questionable morality-wise, doesn't even compare for one eensy second to what LV and his DEs have done. Not for one second. Katie, excusing herself from this thread now, and agreeing to disagree. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 13:29:18 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:29:18 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Though, I could live much better with Harry both dying and living. I have predicted various scenarios for this happening in the past, but lately I have been leaning toward a trip behind The Veil, and a > return. I won't go into details since I've posted on this several > times. But The Veil and general mythology seem to lean in this > direction. Harry wouldn't be the first person to go behind The Veil > and return while on a Hero's Quest. > Tonks: I have been pondering this also, but in my version it is Ginny that goes. It is connected somehow to the tiara. This fits the alchemy symbols. And she meets Sirius, DD and Fawlks. Now I guess Harry could go with her and they both come back. I really don't have a clear theory on this yet. It is a bit off the wall, so I am probably total wrong. I am still working in out. Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 25 14:20:55 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:20:55 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155961 > > Pippin: > > No magic has ever been used in a plot twist before it was explained > > to the reader. (animagi, polyjuice potion, portkeys) > > > > Neri: > I generally agree but there seems to be some notable exceptions. > First, Voldemort coming out of the back of Quirrell's head when the > possibility of possession wasn't mentioned (let alone explained) > before. Second, Hermione's time turner when the possibility of time > travel wasn't mentioned before. However, both possession and time > travel are known plot devices outside the Potterverse, and in both > cases there were additional clues (Quirrell's turban and Hermione > going to more than one lesson at the same time) so I tend to agree. Pippin: Voldemort appearing, time-travel and the priori incantatem weren't twists in the sense that they took the story in an unexpected direction. Voldemort bursting out of Quirrell's head was startling (and also a non-description, since the "bursting" isn't revealed until OOP) but we already expected that Harry would confront Voldemort. To me there's a difference between, 'We're expecting Voldemort and Yipes! there he is' and 'We're expecting Snape and Yipes! it's Quirrell.' The time-turner doesn't change the direction of the story -- Harry still has to save Sirius-- it just gives him a chance to do it. Buckbeak's survival is a twist -- but by then the time turner has been explained. The fact that wands store images of prior spells was revealed when Harry's wand disgorged the ghostly Dark Mark. The appearance of Voldemort's victims was a surprise but didn't change the direction of the story. Harry still had avoid being killed and escape from the graveyard. > > > Pippin: > > No character has been revealed to be innocent in a plot twist > > whose character was not previously vouched for. (Hagrid vouched > > for Snape in PS/SS, Madame Rosmerta vouched for Sirius in PoA.) > > > > Neri: > Hmm. Who vouched for Dobby in CoS? Well, you certainly can say that > he vouched for himself, but that's kind of stretching it, isn't it? > Pippin: Dobby was accused of lying and did in fact equivocate about whether Voldemort was involved. He was never accused of opening the chamber. > > Pippin: > > No character has ever been revealed as guilty in a plot twist who > was not previously challenged. (Snape challenged Quirrell, Dumbledore challenged Riddle, Crookshanks challenged Scabbers, McGonagall challenged Fake!Moody.) > > > > Neri: > Who challenged Ginny in CoS? Pippin: Harry himself, on the morning of the day she was taken. He asked her if she knew anything about opening the chamber. > > > Pippin: > > No character (including the narrator) has been revealed to have > deceived the hero or the reader in a plot twist who had not previously > appeared to be unreliable. > > Pippin: Okay, this was muddy. (I blame the heat.) Let me try again. Characters that Harry gets wrong always seem to have a bit of fishy business in the background that's never explained until the twist. Of course the face value characters can act fishy too, but when they're hiding something important, we always know. We know that Hermione is keeping a secret about how she's getting to all those classes, and we know that Ron is probably practicing Quidditch on the sly. OTOH, we never got a chance to guess that Ginny was practicing Quidditch, but we did learn that she can be sneaky because she pretended she never knew the diary was dangerous. Other examples: Quirrell tells an unconvincing story about his turban. Scabbers inexplicably falls asleep after the fight with Goyle. Fake!Moody says Crouch disappeared from the map. Kreacher tells an unconvincing story about where he was over Christmas. These sneaky bits are never followed up on, and seem to have no purpose, in retrospect, except to warn us that the character was not to be taken at face value. The narrator pulls a similar trick, telling us that Harry's parents died in a car crash. It's fishy because we already know that they seem to have been killed in a place called Godric's Hollow by someone called Voldemort. Sure enough, it turns out we can't take the narrator at face value either. The narration shuttles seamlessly between one character's seeming reality and another's, and does not always let us know when a character's seeming reality has strayed from the objective reality of the books. However, by using the other rules to look for hints, IMO we can try to guess when it has done so. Pippin melting in California From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 25 14:39:57 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:39:57 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr's motivation..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155962 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sugaranddixie1" wrote: > > ...in teaching Harry's class about the unforgivable curses? The only > conclusion I can come to is that he thought that was what the "real" > Moody would do & so did it to make his masquerade more convincing. > Maybe he never heard the saying , "Forewarned is forearmed". Did > Voldmort order Barty Jr. to show Harry the curses so he (Barty Jr.) > could report back to LV with Harry's reactions? Did he think Harry's > advance knowledge would somehow cause him to freeze up with fear when > the showdown took place? Any thoughts? > Pippin: Did Crouch really teach Harry to throw off the curse? It would be easy enough for Crouch to lift the curse non-verbally and pretend that Harry had thrown it off. That way he could seem to fulfill Dumbledore's wishes but still leave Harry vulnerable. It could be that Harry never really did it on his own until the graveyard. Even if Harry only believed he had successfully resisted imperius, before, he might still have done it 'again', as with the patronus spell. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jul 25 15:00:36 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:00:36 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: <20060724172517.59518.qmail@web52713.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155963 Katie: > Look, my point is this, I guess. Whose side are we all on? I mean, we've been debating the twins' behavior, Hermione's behavior (in other threads), and even Dumbledore's behavior! I personally don't want to shred my protagonists to death. I love Harry, Hermione, DD, the Weasleys, Lupin, and all the others on *my* side. I do not always *approve* of their behavior...especially when Hermione attacked Ron with the birds in HBP...but I always approve of their overall mission and I believe their hearts and souls are deeply good. Pippin: I'm on the twins' side and Hermione's side. I want them to grow up to be responsible, caring adults, and that's why, while I don't want them shredded to death, I think they may need a correction or two to put them on the right path. I don't want them to suffer because they've got it coming, I want them to suffer so that they *learn.* The alternative, it seems to me, is to grow up like Dudley, never learning that their choices matter to anybody but themselves and their own little group of friends because no one has ever forced them to consider any larger consequences. The right path is not a given for anybody in the Potterverse, IMO. It's a *choice*, and one bad choice can lead to another, and another, until the soul is torn, the mission has been set aside and the chooser becomes a threat to those he loves as much as to his enemies. I would be very surprised if there is not one character who has fallen from grace in that fashion before the end. I selfishly don't want it to be Hermione or the Twins. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jul 25 15:10:38 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:10:38 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: <20060725002828.16387.qmail@web52711.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155964 > ****Katie replies:**** > Ok...trying to remain coherent...Why are we picking apart things like practical jokes and such when LV has killed god knows how many people, his DE's torment and endanger people every day...I mean, the bad guys' actions are so obviously much worse than anything anyone on *our* side has done...why is it even debatable? Magpie: Because it's very important, imo, that ethics don't begin and end with finding somebody worse and leaving it at that. One doesn't have to only ever praise the good side or take a vow of silence on anything questionable in order to keep onesself from forgetting that mass murder and genocide are bad. Besides which, the good side is the side we're mostly reading about so of course we're going to talk more about their actions. We tend to talk about the more interestingly presented characters, which means usually little talk about Voldemort and more talk about Harry and his friends, and Snape and Draco. And also--this seems to be a big part of the story. I honestly don't understand how you can talk about the last few books especially while sticking to the idea that everything the Trio and their friends do is good and Slytherins are bad so we hate them. It seems like ignoring everything interesting about all these characters and the way JKR keeps lulling us into an easy sense of how people are and then throwing in a curve ball to shake us up. Maybe it's just a personal thing, but to me it seems to suggest more insecurity about the heroes if their flaws can't be examined. If the Twins don't come out totally angelic upon closer inspection, maybe it's because they were never written that way to begin with. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 15:38:46 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:38:46 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155965 > > ****Katie replies:**** > > Ok...trying to remain coherent...Why are we picking apart things > like practical jokes and such when LV has killed god knows how many > people, his DE's torment and endanger people every day...I mean, the > bad guys' actions are so obviously much worse than anything anyone > on *our* side has done...why is it even debatable? > > Magpie: > Because it's very important, imo, that ethics don't begin and end > with finding somebody worse and leaving it at that. One doesn't > have to only ever praise the good side or take a vow of silence on > anything questionable in order to keep onesself from forgetting that > mass murder and genocide are bad. Besides which, the good side is > the side we're mostly reading about so of course we're going to talk > more about their actions. We tend to talk about the more > interestingly presented characters, which means usually little talk > about Voldemort and more talk about Harry and his friends, and Snape > and Draco. > Alla: To me, Katie hit on something very important here and something I do confess to finding amusing. Now, let me put a disclaimer, I fully accept everybody's right to shred any character to death and yes, I know that this is a work of fiction, etc, etc. I am looking at discussing characters from within the story angle for this post. Yes, questioning **good guys** behavior is understandable and interesting, etc. What I find amusing is that while **good guys** are held to the highest ethical standards of behavior, Snape and Draco's behavior gets excused pretty much for everything IMO. And I am not replying to your argument exactly, more like in general, so bear with me. So, Ron is very bad when he says Get away from me werewolf, for example, but Draco just does not know any better than to call Hermione "mudblood" for example, he could not help himself when he was so excited to start serving Voldemort. He just does not know any better. Oh, and of course Snape. I am not going to start the long rant, been there, done that and will probably do it again, just the most recent one I glanced at. If Snape loved Lily, then of course he will be hating Harry, after all it is so hard on poor Severus to look at Harry, who does not appreciate his mother's sacrifice. Um, get over it Snape, get over it now and think about how hard it is for a child to grew up an orphan. Yes, sure books are about petty evil too, not just evil on the grand scale such as Voldemort, but for some reason what Snape does to Neville and Harry does not count as such. So, what am I trying to say? I am not really sure, except of course it is fun to analyze and question bad and good guys behavior, but, in comparison any mistakes good guys make really paled to me in comparison to Snape and Darco's behavior. Now, of course one can argue that Snape and Draco are really the good guys and should be sympathized with, I guess, then my whole post does not really make much sense. Am I making any sense to you? JMO, Alla From katbofaye at aol.com Tue Jul 25 04:07:34 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:07:34 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155966 Magpie: I'm not on a side, I'm somebody reading a work of fiction. And even if I wasn't reading a work of fiction analyzing what people are doing honestly is not incompatible with being on their side. If you'd rather just stop at Dursleys=bad, Twins=good that's fine, but why would that be a bad thing to discuss on a list for actually analyzing the books? I think my view of the books covers more of what the author is writing, which is why I talk about them that way. It seems like what you consider "shredding the protagonists to death" I consider "talking about the protagonists" or "talking about the story the author has written." I don't feel the Twins or Hermione's position are threatened by talking about what they do. Katssirius: Hurrah for Magpie for putting it so well. I too have found analysis of the characters that shows them in less than a positive light often leads to hostile responses. I understand that children cannot separate "I am suspicious of Hermione's motivation from my feelings for the series", however we are adults. Aren't we? The books would not be as good if the characters did not have weaknesses. All of the characters, not just the bad guys. In fact I think a weakness of the series is JKR's lack of development of Voldemort as just a psychopath. Only psychopaths can relate to psychopaths. I should be in bed, instead I am discussing HP. So of course I love the books, but JKR has flaws and the characters, thank goodness, have flaws, blind sides, prejudices, and are just sometimes wrong while they are trying to do the right thing. Just like the rest of us. Discussing it is part of the fun of the books and I would wager more important than whether or not Snape's hairbrush is a horcrux. Sadly we live in a world right now where everything is "You is either with me or agin' me". There is a huge and much more interesting middle ground especially reserved for heroes. I will meet you there. Katssirius From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Jul 25 16:10:15 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:10:15 -0700 Subject: Will Harry be mentioned in Dumbledore's will? In-Reply-To: References: <503.45279e00.31f58f61@aol.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0607250910n23b8d378o6d442add8ed93864@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155967 Nikkalmati: This comment made me wonder: Why did DD wear the cracked Gaunt heirloom ring on his hand in the first part of HBP? Lynda: Given the openness with which DD wears the ring, I'd say he wants Thingy (LV) to know that he's onto him. Lynda From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 15:10:19 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:10:19 -0000 Subject: The UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155968 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > > Have you ever read a spy novel where the loyal spy tells the President > of the United stated that he's going to assassinate him, and the > President said it's a brilliant idea and still trusts him 100%, and > then the spy actually does it and kills the President? I haven't. > > And if Snape and Dumbledore behaved in the way you suggest then they > are not deeply conflicted, they are deeply brain damaged. > > Eggplant > I agree that the whole "Dumbledore had this planned with Snape" angle would be unbelievable, contrived, and bad writing to the point of inducing projectile vomiting. I also agree that it would make DD and Snape out to be morons of a particularly contemptible stripe, since they leave Harry to clean up the results of their ridiculous plot. There are other possibilities with regard to the UV, however. We do not know how much Snape actually understood about Draco's mission before he took the UV. We also are not at all sure that he was completely honest with DD about all the "clauses" involved in his vow. For instance, did Snape realize that Dumbledore, and not Harry, was the target of Draco's mission? Did he know that said mission involved murder? If Snape had been completely honest with DD about the vow, why did Dumbledore tell him to "start searching with your own house," after the necklace episode -- both of them would have known exactly where to search. Did DD realize the full import of the UV at any point before Snape appeared on the tower? Was there a last minute communication between Snape and DD -- which I think would be cheesy, contrived, and unbelievable, and still leave them both being morons -- but not quite so contemptible of a moron in DD's case. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 14:57:05 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:57:05 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155969 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Katie: > As I see it, that was KARMA. Pure and simple. > > Ceridwen: > So, the twins are the agents of Karma? Sure, why not? Karma has many agents, and often they are quite unlikely. The whole Dudley-tongue episode was hilarious Karmic justice, pure and simple. > > Ceridwen: > The Hero's. Of course. Which is why a lot of us want to see Heroic > Deeds, not petty sniping, from Our Hero. We want to see him win, we > want to see the Triumph of Good Over Evil, we want to see the end of > the Hero's Journey, which means making mistakes and learning from > them - not learning that the Hero can get away with things, but that > the Hero learns from his mistakes and becomes worthy of the > label 'Hero'. Well, that depends if you believe in and get into all this "hero's journey" stuff. For me, it's hackneyed and annoying beyond belief. The type of thing described above, I think, is quite ok for Sunday School. I don't particularly want to see it in popular literature, nor would I find it good writing if I did see it. Rather I see it as slavish following of outworn formulas. The last thing I want to find out is that I was > rooting for just another petty, spiteful whelp who Vanquishes Teh > Eeevil, then curls up into a ball and complains until someone coaxes > him into a good mood. > Why on Earth not? If anyone deserves to be indulged in a little spitefulness, it's Harry -- especially after he destroys Voldemort. I would say its time for the people around him -- who so far, at least with regard to the adults, have been models of incompetence, stupidity, and contemptible emotional and moral deafness, to get off their duffs and start coaxing. > > Ceridwen, who hates a few people for Doing Her Wrong, but still > hasn't taken them into the woods and shot their kneecaps off. > Probably a good policy as the RW, unlike the WW, has semi-competent law enforcement. Verbal blistering, on the other hand, works pretty well, and if applied effectively allows you to watch with great amusement and satisfaction as people turn lovely shades of purple and splutter like defective pressure cookers. Lupinlore From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Jul 25 16:20:06 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:20:06 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr's motivation..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155970 > "sugaranddixie1" wrote: > > > > ...in teaching Harry's class about the unforgivable curses? > > The only conclusion I can come to is that he thought that was > > what the "real" Moody would do & so did it to make his > > masquerade more convincing.Maybe he never heard the > > saying , "Forewarned is forearmed". Did Voldmort order Barty Jr. > > to show Harry the curses so he (Barty Jr.) could report back to LV > > with Harry's reactions? Did he think Harry's advance knowledge > > would somehow cause him to freeze up with fear when the showdown > > took place? Any thoughts? > > Pippin: > Even if Harry only believed he had successfully resisted imperius, > before, he might still have done it 'again', as with the patronus > spell. aussie: Three reasons I can think of: - It had been some time since Barty got the chance to have a wand in his hand. Apart from the imperius on his dad, Barty hasn't been able to use any unforgiveables since entering Azkaban. Now where better than a Dark Arts class. - Tom wanted to teach Dark Arts himself. Any dark wizard getting into that role would want to include Unforgiveables to the curriculum. Once LV takes over, Hogwarts would get a very different teaching mentality. ("Class, put your Horcrux text books away. Parsel tongue lessons starting now.") - Another thing a dark wizard would want, is to look out for new recruits. Who shows a natural talent for Unforgivables? Who has a higher tollerance of pain? Who can torture a spider and not feel remorse? The twins saw it in their class too. I don't think Barty Jr was teaching Unforgivables exclusively to Harry's class. From CliffVDY at juno.com Mon Jul 24 23:58:07 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:58:07 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr's motivation..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155971 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sugaranddixie1" wrote: > > Did he think Harry's > advance knowledge would somehow cause him to freeze up with fear when > the showdown took place? Any thoughts? > Barty, Jr. had his instructions to deliver Harry to the portkey. Barty Jr. has to do a pretty fair job of teaching to avoid detection sooner. CliffVDV. From catwomanlg_50 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 04:50:51 2006 From: catwomanlg_50 at yahoo.com (catwomanlg_50) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:50:51 -0000 Subject: About the "Who Else Is Going to Die" Poll..... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155972 aussie wrote: > catwoman, join in the opinion poll and see the what everyone else > has voted > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280239 OK, I admit there's a lot to choose from but, I still think it may be the Weasley parents. If not them then definitely Snape (if not by Harry but someone else). I do think that Dumbledore & Snape may have planned DD's "demise" all along in order for DD to set Harry up for Headmaster of Hogwarts (though he'd be the youngest yet). Snape may NOT be entirely the bad guy & Draco Malfoy is a coward. He's too weak to kill anyone. FORGET KILLING OFF HAGRID! He's Harry's best friend at the school and so is McGonagal. Not too sure about Lupin---I think he'll kill Petigrew before he dies. There's just so many directions this story could go. JK may surprise us all with a totally "twisted" ending! As for the Weasley twins, well, they have their shop to run and I don't think they'll be a target. Harry did give them the money to have the shop & it sure would be a waste to kill them now. I could see Percy getting killed---he seems to enjoy persecuting Harry & co. It's almost as if he became a "deatheater" himself. He's gotten so cruel. I would be surprised if Ron and/or Hermione die. I see them joining Harry as possible teachers at Hogwarts. Well, these are just some thoughts---thought I'd pass them along. Keep posting your thoughts--this is getting interesting!!! Till next time! Catwoman From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jul 25 16:56:03 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:56:03 -0000 Subject: Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155974 I'm not quite sure what to make of our poll results so far... if anything. But I'm finding it *interesting* that in both polls -- 1) What 2 people are gonna die who JKR didn't originally intend to kill off? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280239 2) Who gets a reprieve at the end of Book 7? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280244 -- that Hermione is getting surprisingly little action. Whereas Ron and Neville both, for instance, have received quite a few votes as people likely to be offed now, Hermione has only 3 votes (1%). Not that she's the only character to receive very few votes, but given that she's typically seen as one of The Big Three, an equal part of the trio, I do find it a little surprising that Ron is a more "popular" choice to die than is Hermione. And similarly, in the "Who gets a reprieve?" poll, both Ron & Harry are fairly "popular" choices... but Hermione has nary a vote. Even Voldy has a vote, for goodness' sake! ;-) Does this mean anything? Does it simply mean that HPfGUers think Hermione's part to play has been set and won't be tweaked by JKR? Does it mean that HPfGUers don't pay much attention to Hermione? Does it mean it's a "boy's story" and the chief girl still isn't as important to the action & the outcome as the boys? (Eeek! Don't throw tomatoes -- I'm just asking!) Anyway, it may mean nothing at all, but seeing such low numbers "for" Hermione in either poll got me wondering if people just don't see her as being all that important? Just wondering... Siriusly Snapey Susan From estesrandy at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 17:13:34 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:13:34 -0000 Subject: About the "Who Else Is Going to Die" Poll..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155975 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "catwomanlg_50" wrote: > > aussie wrote: > > catwoman, join in the opinion poll and see the what everyone else > > has voted > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280239 > > > OK, I admit there's a lot to choose from but, I still think it may be > the Weasley parents. If not them then definitely Snape (if not by > Harry but someone else). I do think that Dumbledore & Snape may have > planned DD's "demise" all along in order for DD to set Harry up for > Headmaster of Hogwarts (though he'd be the youngest yet). Snape may > NOT be entirely the bad guy & Draco Malfoy is a coward. He's too > weak to kill anyone. > > FORGET KILLING OFF HAGRID! He's Harry's best friend at the school and so is McGonagal. Not too sure about Lupin---I think he'll kill Petigrew before he dies. There's just so many directions this story could go. JK may surprise us all with a totally "twisted" ending! > > As for the Weasley twins, well, they have their shop to run and I don't think they'll be a target. Harry did give them the money to have the shop & it sure would be a waste to kill them now. > > I could see Percy getting killed---he seems to enjoy persecuting Harry & co. It's almost as if he became a "deatheater" himself. He's gotten so cruel. > > I would be surprised if Ron and/or Hermione die. I see them joining Harry as possible teachers at Hogwarts. Well, these are just some thoughts---thought I'd pass them along. Keep posting your thoughts--this is getting interesting!!! > > Till next time! > > Catwoman > Randy adds a thought or two. In reference to Tonks posts regarding the connections of HP to Alchemy, the three stages are the Nigredo (or Blackening), the Albedo (or Whitening), and the Rubedo (or Reddening). In this order Black, White, Red. 1. Sirius Black dies in Book Five 2. Albus Dumbledore dies in Book Six 3. Rubeus Hagrid dies in Book Seven (makes sense to me) She may also kill off one, two or even all of those Red Headed Weasleys! (Although, I would hate to see any of them die.) These are not things that I wish to happen, but seem to connect with Alchemy which is what the Philosopher's Stone is all about. Randy. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jul 25 17:20:03 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:20:03 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155976 > Alla: > What I find amusing is that while **good guys** are held to the > highest ethical standards of behavior, Snape and Draco's behavior > gets excused pretty much for everything IMO. > > And I am not replying to your argument exactly, more like in general, > so bear with me. > > So, Ron is very bad when he says Get away from me werewolf, for > example, but Draco just does not know any better than to call > Hermione "mudblood" for example, he could not help himself when he > was so excited to start serving Voldemort. He just does not know any > better. Magpie: Yes, I think that type of thing is the same kind of thing. Not that nobody should be allowed to say those things about characters, but there's no reason not to go beyond that. It's not that Draco doesn't know any better than to join Voldemort, or that Snape couldn't help but be a DE or pick on Harry. If you cut those characters off from their choices you're not analyzing the character. I think JKR is giving us more specific things to understand about their actions--and they're not always particularly flattering. For instance, I love the scene in B&B in CoS for the way it sets up Draco's later use of the word Mudblood to Hermione. But I like it because it helps me understand Draco's motivation in choosing himself to use that word. It doesn't take the choice out of it. It's the opposite of "he doesn't know any better," imo. It to me suggests the kind of personal satisfaction the word gives him. Understanding his own problems doesn't make the word any better. Ultimately these characters too are either going to learn or not learn--and a lot of the problems inherited from the last generation seem to be about not learning. It's maybe important for us to remember that the last generation was *losing* the fight against the Dark Lord and got a reprieve when this miracle happened at Godric's Hollow. This generation is imo going to have to grow beyond them if they're going to beat Voldemort for real, and having the older generation around for examples might help them do that. As likeable as some people from the last generation are, I wouldn't want Harry to grow up to be Sirius. I don't think it would be a triumph for Draco to grow into his father. Even if one has sympathy for Draco's position...what does that mean for the character? I think most people understandably have more sympathy for Draco in HBP because he seems like he might be facing the bad consequences of his own actions and having to learn. Even if he was obviously born with a higher risk for being a DE, only he can make the choice to not be that. One of the things I love about the MWPP generation is that when they teach they almost always do it by accident. They're not these wise sages leading by example, most of the time. The kids I think often can't help but see their flaws. Snape's especially fun this way because he's the one that's right at the school and he's the one that's the most stuck, making him a potentially especially dangerous example for Harry and Draco. Luckily JKR's kids never just follow the pattern of the people who came before. -m From estesrandy at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 17:31:48 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:31:48 -0000 Subject: HP, Alchemy and 4 directions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155977 I have enjoyed Tonks posts about Alchemy and HP connections. I once read something about Alchemy that seems to fit HP in some respects. There are alot of vague symbols in Alchemy that have deeper meanings to others that are more knowledgeable. One discussion that I read used more understandable language and connects alchemy to consciousness (in the same manner as Carl Jung). There are 4 directions (like the four elements) that could also apply to the 4 houses of Hogwarts. The person who focuses on only one direction gets lost and travels in circles. The trick is to try to focus on all 4 directions at all times which is what the Sorting Hat implies by uniting the 4 houses. To focus on all 4 directions (Inner, Outer, Above, Below) "If we serve inner only, we cut ourselves off from life and we become lonely, loveless hermits. " A perfect description of Professor Lupin. "If we serve only the outer, we become bitter, soulless phantoms." I think Professor Snape could fit this description. He heals others, but seems bitter and somewhat soulless. "If we serve only the below, the flesh and the earth, we become moribund matter." Perhaps Professor Slughorn fits this since he is consumed with earthly pleasures! "If we serve only the above, the Spirit and God consciousness, we become disembodied spirits adrift in an unreal world." Not sure who I would pick here, except for maybe Luna Lovegood who is somewhat lost in an unreal world of imagination. Any other ideas about the 4 directions and people in HP? Also, Which House fits which direction best? Another Alchemical idea is that Love must unite with Spirit and Soul to form the perfect being (or philosopher's stone). I read a story that had a stag and a unicorn walking in the woods representing Spirit and Soul wandering through consciousness. I forget what represented love. These symbols are found throughout HP books. I am starting to see the connections with HP and Alchemy that others have mentioned before. Randy (who used to be Red Eye Randy, but wishes not to be killed off in Book Seven by JKR) From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 17:35:29 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:35:29 -0000 Subject: House Pride (wasRe: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...)/Arthur is right or not? In-Reply-To: <20060724155431.56880.qmail@web61321.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155978 > Sydney wrote: > > Something to bear in mind is the so-called "Pygmalion Effect", the > phenomenon of self-fullfilling expectations. > It's hard to think of a more classic scenario that would produce such > an effect than to put a hat on an 11-year-old, tell them it's a magic > hat that knows who they really are inside, and then tell some of them > that they are brave and good and some of them that they are cunning > and selfish. Of course it's going to result in different behaviours. > > > > Joe: > Of course in a world with magic it could have nothing to do with real world issues. The Sorting Hat could "just know" what the kids are like and be right about it. > > I think we always want for their to be a real world reason for everything in the HP universe and as such we tend to read more into a lot of things in the book that are meant to be taken at face value. Ah, the old "reading too much into it"... I thought this was, like, a discussion group? Are we all here really to squeal about how perfect Harry and Ginny are for each other? The Sorting Hat is a bit more than a cute throwaway gimmick, isn't it? Doesn't it go into that whole unity and choices and who we really are and how kids grow up and are influenced by their environment and stuff? The effect the Sorting has on the kids is basic psychology, if you're going to exclude it as a "real world reason", it seems to me you should also be hunting around for magic spells to explain pretty much everyone's behaviour in the series. Anyhow, I'm not just pulling all this out of a hat... there is plenty of stuff in the text that suggests the whole Sorting thing is going to get a complication: 1. The discrepancy in the story of the Founder's split between Binns and the Sorting Hat. 2. The Hat's assertion that Sorting the students is wrong, describing itself as "condemned" to do it: "But this year I'll go further, listen closely to my song: though condemned I am to split you still I worry that it's wrong, though I must fulfill my duty and must quarter every year still I wonder whether sorting may not bring the end I fear." So, should I take THAT at face value? Or should I say, silly hat, it's really useful to be able tell which 11-year-olds are power-hungry and which are noble! 3. The fact that we have now been given a literal example of a self-fullfilling prophecy, in, uh, the Prophecy. A device of which JKR says she is particularily fond, hence how much she likes "Macbeth". 4. To get into extra-textual things, Rowling has still vivid and unpleasant memories of being "sorted": "Mrs Morgan positioned everyone in the class according to how clever she thought they were; the brightest sat on her left, and everyone she thought was dim sat on the right. I was as far right as you could get without sitting in the playground. By the end of the year, I had been promoted to second left ??" but at a cost. Mrs Morgan made me swap seats with my best friend, so that in one short walk across the room I became clever but unpopular. " She tells the same story again to Stephen Fry in the BBC interview: "Her name was Mrs. Morgan. And she used to sit us all in class according to how clever she thought we were. And my first day at school, she had a 2-minute chat with me, and she put me in the "stupid row". Which is about the nastiest thing I can think of a teacher doing." Does it sound plausible that JKR would have been perfectly fine with it if the teacher had had a magic hat so it would be able to determine which kids were really clever, so JKR need never have even had to sit to close to the 'dim' girl who was her best friend? It seems like the memory of deciding something so huge about a child as their basic potential on the basis of a 2-minute interview followed by a walk across the classroom is a very unpleasant one. And that is the memory she is using to write the Sorting scenes. 5. Something extra-textual again, but I think important, is (to get on my hobbyhorse again) "Little White Horse", JKR's avowed favorite children's book. (it's very short, and you can get it second-hand for less than two bucks: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0142300276/sr=8-1/qid=1153846973/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4429167-3508764?ie=UTF8) Like Harry Potter, the heroine is an orphan from the normal world who inherits a place in a hidden, magical kingdom, where she is taken in by a benevolent family from the 'Sun' branch of the Kingdom, whose emblem is a lion and is associated with warm colours and courage. She is told that the 'Moon' branch went bad hundreds of years ago due to the treachery of their king, and had to be driven out, where their descendants theive on the edges of a dark forest. As the story continues she discovers that actually the split that led to the war between the kingdoms was a complicated one that could have been avoided, that the Sun branch was just as culpable of selfishness and deceit, and that... well, much further and I'll have to go into spoilers! Anyways, as in HP there is vague talk about something needing to be done about reunifying the kingdoms, but it takes the heroine solving the mystery of what really happened in the past to make anything happen. 6. Which brings me back to the text-- the Horcruxes are emblems of each Founder that Harry has to hunt down. Surely this will wind up involving some insight into the history, and about who the Founders really were? -- Sydney, realizing that checking this site once a day is clearly not going to cut it... From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jul 25 18:09:01 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:09:01 -0000 Subject: Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155979 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > I'm not quite sure what to make of our poll results so far... if > anything. But I'm finding it *interesting* that in both polls -- > > 1) What 2 people are gonna die who JKR didn't originally intend to > kill off? > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280239 > > 2) Who gets a reprieve at the end of Book 7? > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280244 > > -- that Hermione is getting surprisingly little action. > > Whereas Ron and Neville both, for instance, have received quite a few > votes as people likely to be offed now, Hermione has only 3 votes > (1%). Not that she's the only character to receive very few votes, > but given that she's typically seen as one of The Big Three, an equal > part of the trio, I do find it a little surprising that Ron is a > more "popular" choice to die than is Hermione. > > And similarly, in the "Who gets a reprieve?" poll, both Ron & Harry > are fairly "popular" choices... but Hermione has nary a vote. Even > Voldy has a vote, for goodness' sake! ;-) > > Does this mean anything? Does it simply mean that HPfGUers think > Hermione's part to play has been set and won't be tweaked by JKR? > Does it mean that HPfGUers don't pay much attention to Hermione? > Does it mean it's a "boy's story" and the chief girl still isn't as > important to the action & the outcome as the boys? (Eeek! Don't throw > tomatoes -- I'm just asking!) > > Anyway, it may mean nothing at all, but seeing such low numbers "for" > Hermione in either poll got me wondering if people just don't see her > as being all that important? > > Just wondering... > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > Hickengruendler: Well, I can only tell you why I didn't vote for her. IMO, she's a major character and JKR has decided her fate from the beginning. I just do not see her changing her mind about either one of the Trio. To be honest, I can not understand at all why so many people voted for Ron, and even less why they voted for Harry. As if JKR would randomly change their fate. Of course this doesn't explain at all, why the boys have so many votes and Hermione doesn't, but I just wanted to say that the reason I didn't vote for her, was *because* I consider her major. From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 18:14:13 2006 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hmmm.... Will Hermione's roll be insignificant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060725181413.98397.qmail@web55107.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155980 cubfanbudwoman pondered: I'm not quite sure what to make of our poll results so far... if anything. But I'm finding it *interesting* that in both polls -- [snip,cut,delete!] -- that Hermione is getting surprisingly little action. [more prunage] Does this mean anything? Does it simply mean that HPfGUers think Hermione's part to play has been set and won't be tweaked by JKR? Does it mean that HPfGUers don't pay much attention to Hermione? Does it mean it's a "boy's story" and the chief girl still isn't as important to the action & the outcome as the boys? (Eeek! Don't throw tomatoes -- I'm just asking!) Anyway, it may mean nothing at all, but seeing such low numbers "for" Hermione in either poll got me wondering if people just don't see her as being all that important? akh responds (while still kind of on her lunch break): I didn't pick Hermione because I presumed JKR didn't change her mind about Hermione's fate. I think because she has professed seeing herself and her sister in the character, she would have given considerable thought to Hermione's fate from the beginning, and a change in that would be a MAJOR change in the final chapter, not the "slight" change to which she confesses in the Richard and Judy Show interview (did I get the name of the show right?) I see Hermione as a vital key in Harry's success, either through her magical skill or her gift for logic as demonstrated in PS/SS. Of course, this means I'll be completely wrong and Hermione will be swept away in Chapter 2. akh, who realizes you were posing all the options, not suggesting JKR has decided "girls don't count" in the HP stories... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 25 17:38:45 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:38:45 +0200 Subject: Mugglebaiting, bullbaiting and bloodsports (was Re: Hate Crimes) References: Message-ID: <002a01c6b011$2e0f11f0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155981 > Renee: > Which to me raises the question: is it Muggle baiting when the > Muggles both 1) know they're dealing with wizards and magic; > and 2) have the chance to avoid the object and remain unaffected? a_svirn: > You know how it is with the fish? It can also avoid the baited hook > and remain unaffected. Marion: The discussion so far has been whether 'Muggle-baiting' simply meant 'being nasty to a muggle because we hate muggles' or 'intimidating muggles with wizard powers to show their inferiority' or even 'any action to or with muggles which uses magic'. The one thing that is overlooked in this - mostly semantic - discussion is the actual meaning of the word 'baiting'. 'Baiting' is not so much luring a victim (as in putting bait on a hook) but subduing and hurting another living being for entertainment & gambling. It is known as a 'bloodsport'. This is not my personal opinion, this is what the dictionary tells me. >From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baiting_%28animals%29 : >>>"Bait or Baiting is the act to worry or torment a chained or confined animal by setting game dogs upon it for sport. The dogs attack with endeavour, bite and tear, with an objective to subdue the opposing animal by incapacitating or killing it. Baiting is a blood sport utilized for entertainment and gambling. It is illegal in most countries with laws being enforced with varying degrees of effort and enthusiasm.<<< >>>Bull-baiting is a blood sport involving the baiting of bulls.In Queen Anne's time it was performed in London at Hockley Hole, regularly twice a week, and there was scarce a provincial town to which it did not extend. At Stamford and at Tutbury, from a very early period, a maddened bull was annually hunted through the streets.Before the event started, the bull's nose was usually blown full of pepper to enrage the animal before the baiting. A variant of bull-baiting was "pinning the bull"; specially-trained dogs would be set upon the bull one at a time, a successful attack resulting in the dog fastening his teeth strongly in the bull's snout.Together with other animal blood sports such as bear-baiting, cockfighting, and dogfighting, this amusement was prohibited in Britain by an act of Parliament in 1835."<<< As an aside to this, the 'act to worry' might confuse readers, so I also include the definition and synomyms (Miriam-Webster dictionary) of 'worry': transitive verb 1 dialect British : CHOKE, STRANGLE 2 a : to harass by tearing, biting, or snapping especially at the throat b : to shake or pull at with the teeth c : to touch or disturb something repeatedly d : to change the position of or adjust by repeated pushing or hauling 3 a : to assail with rough or aggressive attack or treatment : TORMENT b : to subject to persistent or nagging attention or effort 4 : to afflict with mental distress or agitation : make anxious intransitive verb synonyms WORRY, ANNOY, HARASS, HARRY, PLAGUE, PESTER, TEASE mean to disturb or irritate by persistent acts. WORRY implies an incessant goading or attacking that drives one to desperation. ANNOY implies disturbing one's composure or peace of mind by intrusion, interference, or petty attacks HARASS implies petty persecutions or burdensome demands that exhaust one's nervous or mental power. HARRY may imply heavy oppression or maltreatment PLAGUE implies a painful and persistent affliction . PESTER stresses the repetition of petty attacks TEASE suggests an attempt to break down one's resistance or rouse to wrath. And from the online Miriam-Webster dictionary: 'to bait': 1 a : to persecute or exasperate with unjust, malicious, or persistent attacks b : TEASE 2 a : to harass (as a chained animal) with dogs usually for sport b : to attack by biting and tearing 3 a : to furnish with bait b : ENTICE, LURE 4 : to give food and drink to (an animal) especially on the road Marion again: The term 'Muggle-baiting' therefore has rather sinister connotations to me. If 'rat-baiting' means setting a terrier dog on a pen full of terrified, scurrying rats to bet how much your dog can kill in a minute (not in order to exterminate the vermin or in vengeance because rats would or might spread disease but simply because it was seen as exciting and *fun* to watch the scurrying rats try to escape their fate and be torn to pieces) and if bull-baiting means penning a bull, tormenting it until it's maddened and then hunting it down and setting dogs on it (not to 'punish' the bull for any misdeed or because bulls are heinous creatures but because it's *fun* to hear a dumb creature mooeing in distress and fear) then 'muggle-baiting' must surely have similar reasons and attractions. It follows logically that 'muggle-baiting' must be similar to bull-baiting or rat-baiting, if only in spirit if not in actual action, otherwise JKR would not have used the term 'baiting' at all. The 'baiting' of muggles must therefore, in my opinion and that of the dictionary, include the harming, tormenting and frightening of muggles for sheer entertainment. But what of the hiding of keys and the hexing of toasters that muggle-baiting seems to include? Is that in concordance of a 'bloodsport'? Muggles are not physically harmed by that, surely? Well, it looks to me that the object of 'baiting' is not necessarily the killing or physically harming of the animals in question at all. It's, again according to the dictionary, the 'act to worry or torment a chained or confined animal for sport'. Muggles might not be physically confined by chains, but they are 'confined' by the limitations of their power. The 'fun' element must largely be in the anomynous pestering, driving the victim wild with frustration or pain, the idea that you, the baiter, have power over the victim. It is, in other words, a form of bullying, but the term 'baiting' is expressely used in the 'bullying' of animals. Which tells you something about the WW's attitude towards Muggles.This is not really so very strange since we know that Arminta Meliflua (a cousin to the Sirius' mother) was 'was lobbying the Wizengamot to legalize Muggle hunting' and hunting is a bloodsport (although hunting is not about the tormenting of animals for sport - which is why it was not prohibited and bear-baiting, cockfighting and dogfighting *was*)We might find it strange now that people could derive pleasure from seeing an animal suffer, in pain and in panic, but according to the responses to the Twins 'toffee-prank' it is still hilarious when a stupid, defenseless and annoying muggle boy is being made to suffer panic and near-suffocation. In my opinion Muggle-baiting is also a 'bloodsport', in the same way rat-baiting and bull-baiting was. It might not always be 'bloody', but it is about harrassing, tormenting and frightening for entertainment. I do think that there is an element of powerplay in the whole muggle-baiting busisness, and Betsy, SisterMagpie and houyhnhnm certainly have a point here (and a very good point it is indeed) Whether or not Dudley could have avoided being baited is not the point. Notice that with bull-baiting, the bull is stronger than any man. The bull can 'defend itself' and it does against the dogs that are set against it, but you cannot blame the bull for being a bull, you cannot blame it for playing the game and not ignoring the dogs and just running away. The whole idea of bull-baiting is putting the bull in a position where it can be tormented (a pen or an arena) and then tormenting it so it will amusingly struggle and moo. The discussion so far asked wether the term 'Muggle-baiting' was appropriate for the Twins' 'prank' since they said they did not do it *because* Dudley is a muggle or if it is because Dudley *is* a muggle and the twins, by being wizards, abuse their power which would *make* it baiting.The following question, if the last was true, was wether Dumbledore's intimidation of the Dursleys and Harry's blowing up of Aunt Marge could be seen as Muggle-baiting because in both cases the wizards are, by definition, more powerful than the muggles. Well, my two cents on the matter is this: the Twins toffee 'prank' is *definitely* muggle-baiting, imo. They tormented, harrassed him and literally choked a muggle so they could have a good laugh. Usually Muggle-baiting is done anomynously because it adds to the fun to see a muggle run around frustratedly because he doesn't know what hit him, but since Dudley and his parents don't know what the heck just happened when Dudley's tongue just grew to ten times it's size, I think this element can be ignored. As for the fact that the twins also regularly do the same kind of things to wizard children, well, that is called 'bullying'. It's just as nasty, but it misses the element of total panic that a muggle can so amusingly produce. The wizard children understand about magic after all. This does not mean however that I find their bullying of the firsties of their brothers in any way excusable. Oblivating the Muggles at the World Championship is not muggle-baiting, imo. It's detestable that the WW finds it okay to mindwipe other humans, but the obliviating is not done for amusement but out of convenience. Detestable, but not baiting. Dumbledore's intimidation of the Dursleys imo is just that: intimidation. That in itself is not particularly nice or even ethical, but isn't muggle-baiting. And as for Harry's blowing up of Aunt Marge, this was a surge of 'wild magic', neither planned or conciously cast. That, imo, was an accident. Marion (who's melting in The Hague - the heatwave is international!) From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Jul 25 18:34:28 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:34:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607251134w6eaecd28u5c2d85709988aa26@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155982 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > I'm not quite sure what to make of our poll results so far... if > anything. But I'm finding it *interesting* that in both polls -- > > ... snip ... > > -- that Hermione is getting surprisingly little action. > > Whereas Ron and Neville both, for instance, have received quite a few > votes as people likely to be offed now, Hermione has only 3 votes > (1%). Not that she's the only character to receive very few votes, > but given that she's typically seen as one of The Big Three, an equal > part of the trio, I do find it a little surprising that Ron is a > more "popular" choice to die than is Hermione. > > And similarly, in the "Who gets a reprieve?" poll, both Ron & Harry > are fairly "popular" choices... but Hermione has nary a vote. Even > Voldy has a vote, for goodness' sake! ;-) > > Does this mean anything? Does it simply mean that HPfGUers think > Hermione's part to play has been set and won't be tweaked by JKR? > Does it mean that HPfGUers don't pay much attention to Hermione? > Does it mean it's a "boy's story" and the chief girl still isn't as > important to the action & the outcome as the boys? (Eeek! Don't throw > tomatoes -- I'm just asking!) > > Anyway, it may mean nothing at all, but seeing such low numbers "for" > Hermione in either poll got me wondering if people just don't see her > as being all that important? > > Just wondering... > Kemper now: Those are interesting numbers. As I reflect on why I haven't considered Hermione as being reprieved or dieing, I've come up with only one reason: Hermione is JKR. And to have Hermione out of the equation would mean JKR has to separate herself from the story metaphorically and, I imagine, emotionally. Given JKRs time, energy, and the secrecy she holds for her story, it is unlikely that she has ever seriously considered killing off Hermione Of course, I could be way off and maybe JKR will cut the cord, cut the apron strings, and cut Hermione from the story. The death of Hermione for a new life of writing. Kemper, who can see almost any other character dieing but who thinks there's something wrong with the death of Hermione [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Jul 25 18:37:41 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:37:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hmmm.... Will Hermione's roll be insignificant? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607251137p532fefbctbe5ade090991a750@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155983 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > I'm not quite sure what to make of our poll results so far... if > anything. But I'm finding it *interesting* that in both polls -- > > ... snip ... > > -- that Hermione is getting surprisingly little action. > > Whereas Ron and Neville both, for instance, have received quite a few > votes as people likely to be offed now, Hermione has only 3 votes > (1%). Not that she's the only character to receive very few votes, > but given that she's typically seen as one of The Big Three, an equal > part of the trio, I do find it a little surprising that Ron is a > more "popular" choice to die than is Hermione. > > And similarly, in the "Who gets a reprieve?" poll, both Ron & Harry > are fairly "popular" choices... but Hermione has nary a vote. Even > Voldy has a vote, for goodness' sake! ;-) > > Does this mean anything? Does it simply mean that HPfGUers think > Hermione's part to play has been set and won't be tweaked by JKR? > Does it mean that HPfGUers don't pay much attention to Hermione? > Does it mean it's a "boy's story" and the chief girl still isn't as > important to the action & the outcome as the boys? (Eeek! Don't throw > tomatoes -- I'm just asking!) > > Anyway, it may mean nothing at all, but seeing such low numbers "for" > Hermione in either poll got me wondering if people just don't see her > as being all that important? > > Just wondering... > Kemper now: Those are interesting numbers. As I reflect on why I haven't considered Hermione as being reprieved or dieing, I've come up with only one reason: Hermione is JKR. And to have Hermione out of the equation would mean JKR has to separate herself from the story metaphorically and, I imagine, emotionally. Given JKRs time, energy, and the secrecy she holds for her story, it is unlikely that she has ever seriously considered killing off Hermione Of course, I could be way off and maybe JKR will cut the cord, cut the apron strings, and cut Hermione from the story. The death of Hermione for a new life of writing. Kemper, who can see almost any other character dieing but who thinks there's something wrong with the death of Hermione and who's replying to both posts From srhchttrsn at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 17:27:11 2006 From: srhchttrsn at yahoo.com (Emilynne) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:27:11 -0000 Subject: Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155984 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > I'm not quite sure what to make of our poll results so far... if > anything. But I'm finding it *interesting* that in both polls -- > -- that Hermione is getting surprisingly little action. > > Whereas Ron and Neville both, for instance, have received quite a > few votes as people likely to be offed now, Hermione has only 3 > votes (1%). > And similarly, in the "Who gets a reprieve?" poll, both Ron & > Harry are fairly "popular" choices... but Hermione has nary a > vote. > Does this mean anything? > Anyway, it may mean nothing at all, but seeing such low > numbers "for" Hermione in either poll got me wondering if people > just don't see her as being all that important? Emmy: I don't think that the lack of votes for Hermione means that she is unimportant, because IMO she is definitely an integral part of the story. I think it means that the readers are unsure of where JKR is going to take the story and a drastic plot twist isn't going to involve killing off Hermione. Hermione needs to live so she can tell the story of the famous Harry Potter...errr... if something should happen to him... I don't think the readers feel Hermione is in any great danger because the boys are more likely to risk their necks in the heat of the battle and do something fatally stupid. Emmilynne, who feels that Hermione is going to live to be a wise old woman From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Jul 25 17:20:00 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:20:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0607251020w5c08618g7a9e4f0e31e6bf3e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155985 Lynda: Oh, as soon as I got my hands on a copy, I started skimming so that I would "know" who died without having the manner or the ending of the book revealed to me. So I knew before climbing into bed that morning who died. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foodiedb at optonline.net Tue Jul 25 17:41:29 2006 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:41:29 -0000 Subject: Harry getting Unfrozen on the Tower... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155986 > Cyril: > > The only reason that I could think of for the spell to > > be released would be if Snape did it (nvbl of course). > > > > houyhnhnm: > I agree that there is no certainty that a freezing charm > is cancelled when the caster dies. David says: Could it also have been Dumbledore released Harry in someway? From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 19:30:43 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:30:43 -0000 Subject: Mugglebaiting, bullbaiting and bloodsports (was Re: Hate Crimes) In-Reply-To: <002a01c6b011$2e0f11f0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155987 > Marion: > Well, it looks to me that the object of 'baiting' is not necessarily the killing or physically harming of the animals in question at all. It's, again according to the dictionary, the 'act to worry or torment a chained or confined animal for sport'. Muggles might not be physically confined by chains, but they are 'confined' by the limitations of their power. The 'fun' element must largely be in the anomynous pestering, driving the victim wild with frustration or pain, the idea that you, the baiter, have power over the victim. It is, in other words, a form of bullying, but the term 'baiting' is expressely used in the 'bullying' of animals. Which tells you something about the WW's attitude towards Muggles.This is not really so very strange since we know that Arminta Meliflua (a cousin to the Sirius' mother) was 'was lobbying the Wizengamot to legalize Muggle hunting' and hunting is a bloodsport (although hunting is not about the tormenting of animals for sport - which is why it was not prohibited and bear-baiting, cockfighting and dogfighting *was*) a_svirn: Depends on hunting. Fox-hunting, for instance is, exactly that ? tormenting and killing animals for sport. And I am pretty sure that's what Rowling had in mind when she invented this muggle- hunting bill. And I absolutely agree with you ? the choice of words is pretty telling. From oppen at mycns.net Tue Jul 25 19:59:16 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:59:16 -0500 Subject: Other uses for toffees... Message-ID: <006601c6b021$24a0b8c0$b1560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 155988 You know, it's probably a really good thing that the Twins are usually forbidden to hawk their wares to Muggles. I just waded through a ton of spam about how these various quacks can improve and expand my naughty bits, and it hit me: If the Twins can make toffees that expand tongues... You know, that idea alone would probably make them so rich that they could buy JKR out and write the books themselves. Or buy the whole UK and evict all the Muggles. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 25 19:51:21 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:51:21 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155989 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Other examples: > Quirrell tells an unconvincing story about his turban. > Scabbers inexplicably falls asleep after the fight with Goyle. > Fake!Moody says Crouch disappeared from the map. > Kreacher tells an unconvincing story about where he was over Christmas. > > These sneaky bits are never followed up on, and seem to have no > purpose, in retrospect, except to warn us that the character was not > to be taken at face value. > > The narrator pulls a similar trick, telling us that Harry's parents died > in a car crash. It's fishy because we already know that they seem > to have been killed in a place called Godric's Hollow by someone > called Voldemort. Sure enough, it turns out we can't take the > narrator at face value either. The narration shuttles seamlessly > between one character's seeming reality and another's, and does > not always let us know when a character's seeming reality has > strayed from the objective reality of the books. However, by using > the other rules to look for hints, IMO we can try to guess when it has > done so. > > Pippin > melting in California Geoff: I'm not quite sure this "similar trick" is the same. It may be fishy because /we/ already know about Godric's Hollow but this is not an unconvincing story from Harry's perspective. 'The only thing Harry liked about his own appearance was a very thin scar on his forehead which was shaped like a bolt of lightning. He had had it as long as he could remember and the first question he could ever remember 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."' (PS "The Vanishing Glass" p.20 UK edition) This was sufficient to keep Harry satisfied until Hagrid appeared on the scene and hence was not liable to raise doubts in Harry's mind as the instances cited above might well have done. Geoff (also melting in the West of England at 32 Centigrade today) From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Jul 25 19:03:07 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:03:07 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v References: <20060725002828.16387.qmail@web52711.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003a01c6b01c$f6dadff0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 155990 > >>Katie: > Look, my point is this, I guess. Whose side are we all on? I mean, > we've been debating the twins' behavior, Hermione's behavior(in > other threads), and even Dumbledore's behavior! Betsy Hp: For me the question is: *Why* are we on this side? Especially when it comes to Harry and company's *private* grudges. Did Zacherias really *deserve* Ginny's attacks? Did the first year Slytherins deserve to be hissed by the twins? Did Dudley deserve to be hexed by Hagrid and fed magic potions by the twins? Did Marietta deserve to be disfigured for so long? Are those good actions? Would I stand with someone who did those sort of things? Since, in most cases, my answer is "no", my next question is: Well is this accepted as good behavior? Are the good guys praised for it or is this something they need to learn not to do? I await book 7. ****Katie replies:**** Ok...trying to remain coherent...Why are we picking apart things like practical jokes and such when LV has killed god knows how many people, his DE's torment and endanger people every day...I mean, the bad guys' actions are so obviously much worse than anything anyone on *our* side has done...why is it even debatable? Fred and George's antics hardly compare to Barty Crouch Jr.'s! Hermione may have gone a little far with the *disfigurement* of Marietta(though I certainly enjoyed a snicker at Marietta's expense), but she certainly would never murder someone! Even when Harry TRIED to do Unforgivable Curses, he COULDN'T! Why?? Because he's a good guy. Anything that *our* side has done that is questionable morality-wise, doesn't even compare for one eensy second to what LV and his DEs have done. Not for one second. Marion: Why are we picking apart lil' bad things the Good Guys do while the Bad Guys do such big bad things? Why should we care about disfigurement whilst They Over There are killing people? Why should we care that one of Our Heroes tries to kill too, if it turns out he's just not bloody good at it after all and nobody actually dies (though not through fault of trying)? Why *should* we care? Well, um, because it's *wrong* to hurt anybody for vengeance or fun, no matter that the Bad Guys hurting for vengeance or fun is bigger? Because the difference between Right and Wrong and Good and Evil should be about do's and don'ts and not about 'how much'? Because it's *hypocritical* to declare an other party to be Evil and yourself good whilst you yourself commit gleefully similar acts - and still call yourself Good - if only in a lesser degree? And yes, dear moderator, this is my opinion. The definition of 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary:"Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action while carrying out the same action oneself." It is my opinion that any Good Guy who pretends to have morals or virtues that he does not truly possess or practice, as proven by his actions (be it that those actions are less heinous than murder but still consists of attempted murder, disfigurement and harassment), then that Good Guy is a hypocrite. I leave you to ponder: If Lockhart was a fraud and an imposter for taking credit of other wizard's deeds, what does that make Harry for taking credit of the HBP's innovations and winning Slughorns praise and even a potionmaking contest with it? Umbridge was convinced she was doing the WW a service by trying to shut up that mouthy Potter who blabbed to the press about Voldemort when it was clearly (in her opinion) for the good of the WW that things were kept quite. She had no problems in using a scarring bloodquill to achieve this. Hermione was convinced she was doing the WW a service by trying to shut up Marietta who blabbed to the government representative about the DA when it was clearly (in her opinion) for the good of the WW that the government representative didn't know about it's existence. She had no problems in using a scarring hex to achieve this. We don't know if Lockhart had any morals or values. Clearly he thought it quite okay to cheat and steal other people's achievement and present them as his own. We do know that Harry was quite disgusted with Lockhard's fraudulent behaviour. He seems to profess with his disgust that he *has* morals. Yet, a few years later he does exactly which he professes to be morally wrong in Lockhart and yet nowhere during that whole book does Harry admit to himself that what he himself is doing to be wrong. This is hypocrisy at it's best. Likewise Hermione (and Harry) condemn Umbridge's use of a bloodquill, but see no reason why using the hex on Marietta should be wrong. Of course I could be wrong. Maybe Harry and Hermione have no morals at all. Perhaps their anger at Umbridge was not a "how dare you use a bloodquill on a living being, that's barbaric!", but a "how dare you use a bloodquill on Harry Potter! Go use it on Draco Malfoy and I will applaud you for it! Draco deserved to be carved up. Use it on Marietta, give us all a good laugh, but don't use it on Harry Potter!" If this was the case they would not be hypocrites. They would also not be heroes because the least one might expect from heroes is morals and virtues, but at least they would not be hypocrites. There are people who are of the opinion that Umbridge's use of the bloodquill is Bad because Harry did not deserve to be scarred and that Hermione's use of the hex was good (or at least excusable) because Marietta deserved to be scarred. Those who are of this opinion merely look at the 'side' which the perpetrator is on and not at their morals and virtues. Those on the 'wrong' side are condemned for scarring the 'good guy' and those on the 'right side' are applauded for scarring the 'bad girl'. In that case it no longer matters wether the next time Harry tries a Avada Kadavra it works, because the person who will die will probably deserve it too. Since Harry is the Hero of the story, whatever he does is automatically good. How easy! How convenient! No longer do we have to think about stodgy old morals, no longer do we have to ponder between good and bad behaviour: whatever Harry does is Good because Harry is Good, even if what he does is considered Bad when DE's do it. Why bother with all this talk about 'morals' and 'virtues' in this day and age. Just boo and hiss whenever the Black Hat scars a child and laugh and be smug whenever a White Hat scars a child. Why should it matter that the only way to distinguish a villain from a hero is the colour of his hat? Um... Yes, it matters to me if the Good Guys fail their 'morality test'. It matters to me if the Good Guys are hypocritical enough to condemn others for actions they commit themselves. And no, it doesn't matter to me if the Bad Guys' Bad Deeds are bigger than the Good Guys' Bad Deeds. I'm not saying that you can win a war by putting flowers in your hair and sing songs about the age of Aquarius. I'm not against Harry having to AK Voldemort or DE's when it comes to a confrontation. What I'm saying is that, if it ever gets to a point where Harry has to kill, that Harry will understand that killing is an evil thing to do. A necessary evil perhaps, in a war, but an evil thing. And that he will accept that responsiblity. What I'm against is the notion that Harry and friends can condemn people whilst pulling the same sh*t, but still believe that their *own* excrement smells of roses. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jul 25 20:14:38 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:14:38 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155991 > > Ceridwen: > > So, the twins are the agents of Karma? Lupinlore: > > Sure, why not? Karma has many agents, and often they are quite > unlikely. The whole Dudley-tongue episode was hilarious Karmic > justice, pure and simple. > Hickengruendler: I am curious, do you think Fenrir Greyback was one of those unlikely agents of Karma as well? Because, no matter how much JKR may like the Twins, (and I have no doubt, that she likes them very much), it was her, who wrote the scene with the villains using (among other things) the twins pranks and products to invade Hogwarts, leading to Bill's difiguration by Greyback. And since she even has Ron comment on it in the last chapter, I hardly think it was a coincidence. It was the Twins' shoving of Montague into the Vanishing Cabinet, that set a chain into motion, which led to the Death Eater attack. I do agree with you that she has fun torturung the Dursleys, just as she self-admittingly has fun torturing Umbridge. And I also agree that the scene is written as comic relief. But the one does not exclude the other. She can use the Twins in a way to use her authorial sadism on unpleasant characters and still not condone what they were doing. Hickengruendler, who was always bothered by the Vanishing Cabinet scene, simply because all Montague, Imperial Squad or not, wanted to do was drawing pint From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 20:27:00 2006 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:27:00 -0000 Subject: Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155992 On a side-note to this, thinking about the changes that JKR made, does any one else not like that she made changes in the outcomes, or at least that she told us about it? I feel like, she's always told us that she knew exactly what was going to happen and so I trusted her to tell me the "true" story as she saw it and now all of a sudden she's gone and changed things, so I feel kinda like the story wont be entirely accurate or something like that. I guess it'll depend on what the changes were. What do you guys think? Janelle From jelly92784 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 20:36:02 2006 From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:36:02 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr's motivation..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155993 sugaranddixie1 wrote: ...in teaching Harry's class about the unforgivable curses? The only conclusion I can come to is that he thought that was what the "real" Moody would do & so did it to make his masquerade more convincing. Maybe he never heard the saying , "Forewarned is forearmed". Did Voldmort order Barty Jr. to show Harry the curses so he (Barty Jr.) could report back to LV with Harry's reactions? Did he think Harry's advance knowledge would somehow cause him to freeze up with fear when the showdown took place? Any thoughts? Janelle: Didn't Fake Moody say at the beginning of that class that although the ministry wouldn't like it if they knew he was showing the class the curses, he and Dumbledore had discussed it and thought that they ought to know about them? Maybe Dumbledore actually told Moody to do it and therefore he had to or risk exposing himself to Dumbledore, who would know right away that it wasn't Moody if he refused? I see this as the most likely explanation. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 20:59:13 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:59:13 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155995 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" wrote: > I'm not saying that you can win a war by putting flowers in your hair and sing songs about the age of Aquarius. I'm not against Harry having to AK Voldemort or DE's when it comes to a confrontation. What I'm saying is that, if it ever gets to a point where Harry has to kill, that Harry will understand that killing is an evil thing to do. A necessary evil perhaps, in a war, but an evil thing. And that he will accept that responsiblity. What I'm against is the notion that Harry and friends can condemn people whilst pulling the same sh*t, but still believe that their *own* excrement smells of roses. Alla: I agree with you - killing is an **evil** thing to do, no matter what circumstances, no matter what reasons are behind it, at the most killing can be called a **necessary evil**. (Personally, I consider killing in self-defense to be excusable, but I am willing to put it aside for a second) Does this definition of killing as evil or at its most favorable definition as "necessary evil" applies to all characters or only to Harry? Thanks. JMO of course, Alla, who for this very reason is willing to predict that Harry will not kill Voldemort. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 25 21:10:25 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:10:25 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155996 > >>Ceridwen: > > So, the twins are the agents of Karma? > >>Lupinlore: > Sure, why not? Karma has many agents, and often they are quite > unlikely. The whole Dudley-tongue episode was hilarious Karmic > justice, pure and simple. Betsy Hp: But JKR doesn't keep it simple. It's JKR who chose to have Arthur *raging* against his sons' actions. And it's JKR who quickly follows the twins's scene up with Death Eaters taking their prank a few steps further. Not so simple anymore. JKR doesn't keep it pure either. Dudley isn't fresh from attacking Harry. In fact he's spent the entire day terrified of an upcoming Wizard visit, his attack from the last visit (which again, Dudley had done nothing to bring upon himself) obviously fresh in his mind. So if this was *supposed* to be pure and simple karmic justice, why does JKR put so much effort into muddying the waters? Myself, I have enough faith in JKR's ability to emotionally tweak a scene I get a bit suspicious when such gapping holes are left in the "deserved justice" argument. [For an example of pure and simple karmic justice, check out Roald Dahl's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory".] > >>Alla: > > What I find amusing is that while **good guys** are held to the > highest ethical standards of behavior, Snape and Draco's behavior > gets excused pretty much for everything IMO. > Betsy Hp: Hmm, I'm a pretty big Snape fan and a pretty big Draco fan. And sure, they both have fangirls and fanboys who think they can do no wrong. I haven't seen them on this list, though. People argue that Snape and Draco aren't *evil*, but there's usually an ability to recognize when they've behaved badly. That I've seen anyway. For myself I haven't said that Hermione is evil. Heck, I've even tried to be rational about the twins and not call *them* evil in the discussion about their pranking Dudley. I'm just saying that in those cases they behaved badly. But for Hermione and the twins the argument seems to be: they can do no wrong. Frankly, in this series, I don't think *any* character can expect such an easy way of it. Honestly, I think there's much more of a middle ground going on here than is usually expected of this sort of story. Betsy Hp From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Tue Jul 25 22:37:54 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:37:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia Message-ID: <46b.3c1745f.31f7f742@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 155997 In a message dated 7/24/06 5:33:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, juli17 at aol.com writes: > I am curious though that you intend never to read anything else JKR > writes, Sandy. I know you don't like her as a person, but if I didn't read > books by authors I probably wouldn't much like as people, that might > be somewhat limiting! What if JKR writes another book as fascinating > and inspired as the Harry Potter saga? You really won't read it? > > Just trying to understand your position, > > Sandy: If JKR should write something else as fascinating as the HP saga, and it were a topic I am interested in, then yes, I would probably read it. But I just don't see that happening. To begin with, I think the quality of her writing has dropped off exponentially in the last two books as opposed to the first four. Also, I think anything she would write after she completes Harry Potter would be a footnote. I'm just not sure she is capable of writing anything else, much less anything that could come close to Harry Potter. It is her niche and if she tries to go beyond it it could be disastrous. Of course her fan base, who thinks she walks on water, will gobble up anything she writes and, I believe, not be fairly critical of it. If JKR wrote it it has to be good mentality. It is the best explanation I can give. I believe her celebrity status has undercut her writing ability, and for that matter her writing desire. I try to be cautious about what I say about JKR as I take such a bashing for it, but I think any future writing she does will just be riding her celebrity coat tails. I have learned to never say never, so it is always possible she will prove me wrong, and if that happens I will be the first to eat crow and read whatever literary gem she comes up with. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Jul 25 23:02:16 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 01:02:16 +0200 Subject: JKR's future as a writer WAS Harry's fate References: <46b.3c1745f.31f7f742@aol.com> Message-ID: <012801c6b03e$62f608b0$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen> No: HPFGUIDX 155998 OctobersChild48 at aol.com wrote: > I believe her celebrity status > has undercut > her writing ability, and for that matter her writing desire. I try to > be > cautious about what I say about JKR as I take such a bashing for it, > but I think > any future writing she does will just be riding her celebrity coat > tails. I > have learned to never say never, so it is always possible she will > prove me > wrong, and if that happens I will be the first to eat crow and read > whatever > literary gem she comes up with. Miles: I disagree. I cannot foresee whether JKR will ever write a book that fascinating again. It is possible she won't ever do, but I think her future as a writer is not written yet (so to say). First, I don't agree that books 5 and 6 show her skills in decline. Both have new positive aspects concerning her writing (e.g. the development of Harry's emotional relationships EXcluding romantic ones), and some weak points (especially 5), but I think her problems with the books arise from the complexity of the story. I do not see her writing skills eroded, and I really don't see any signs that she lost her writing desire. Second, her decision NOT to continue writing Harry Potter, and NOT to stick with the fantasy genre is a signal that she still wants to write and be read, not because of her name, but because of what she wants to tell her readers. If she would really been corrupted by celebrity status and money, why should she kill the cow? Miles From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Jul 25 23:06:29 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:06:29 -0000 Subject: Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 155999 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > I'm not quite sure what to make of our poll results so far... if > anything. But I'm finding it *interesting* that in both polls [ ] > Hermione is getting surprisingly little action. > Does this mean anything? Does it simply mean that HPfGUers think > Hermione's part to play has been set and won't be tweaked by JKR? > Does it mean that HPfGUers don't pay much attention to Hermione? > Does it mean it's a "boy's story" and the chief girl still isn't > as important to the action & the outcome as the boys? (Eeek! Don't > throw tomatoes -- I'm just asking!) Jen: The real block for me is there's little rationale for Hermione's death the way JKR has written her so far. Neville has an old and personal score to settle; Ginny is now the best way for Voldemort or a minion to get to Harry; Ron is ripe to prove himself and overcome the shadow of his brothers and Harry...there are so many other young characters who have better reasons to be in danger than Hermione. Her role has typically been protecting Harry with information and admonishment rather than providing physical protection. Maybe she'll die in the library looking at a book in the restricted section . Plus with Dumbledore gone she's the main character left who can provide narrative information so her death would likely have to happen at the end after giving Harry some piece of information to solve a final puzzle. But she just seems an unlikely and somewhat undramatic death to me given her storyline, and JKR will need to come up with some major drama if she plans to top the tower scene in HBP! Jen R., who voted for Draco as the one winning the reprieve. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Jul 26 00:41:11 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:41:11 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156000 Alla: > What I find amusing is that while **good guys** are held to the highest ethical standards of behavior, Snape and Draco's behavior gets excused pretty much for everything IMO. So, Ron is very bad when he says Get away from me werewolf, for example, but Draco just does not know any better than to call Hermione "mudblood" for example, he could not help himself when he was so excited to start serving Voldemort. He just does not know any better. Ceridwen: I hold the Good Guys to a higher standard because, in these fictional books, the Good Guys are the ones kids who read the books should be looking toward as role models. No kid wants to be a teacher everyone calls a 'greasy git', and no kid wants to be the stuck-up student who does not like the hero and who is also known as The Incredible Bouncing Ferret to some fans. Kids want to be heroes, to be proven right, to have some worth and some value and something they can pull out of their back pockets and say, 'Now I'll show *them*!' Draco and Snape are not the Good Guys on the primary level of the school story. Snape is the teacher who picks on Our Hero, Draco is the well-connected student who has it out for Our Guy. We're adults, and most of us here are reading much deeper than the surface story, looking for clues, admiring the way JKR has crafted her characters and her plots. Kids don't do that too often, even with tons and tons of book reports ordered from them in school. What they see is Our Hero and Goat Who Hates Our Hero. I think my thoughts about this gelled during the debates about whether JKR intends for Harry to sacrifice himself because he is a horcrux (for the self-sacrifice line to work, he would have to be a horcrux), or take the plunge and kill Voldemort. It was asked what sort of message JKR would be sending out to kids if the hero in effect killed himself or killed someone else. So of course I went through all the usual mental arguments - other childhood heroes die at the end, or kill the villain because there is no other way, and this hasn't affected kids... But, heroes getting away with breaking rules and not learning from their mistakes? Sure, the Bad Guys do bad things, we expect it. It sets their characters in the beginning, and reinforces our views of them through the story. Our Heroes are never wrong as many times as the Evil Teacher says they are, and they're innocently egged into bad behavior by the Bad Kid. But, when they're egged into bad behavior, they're caught, and given the stern yet loving lecture (or the punishment), and they reflect and realize what it is they did wrong. They go through the mental processes for the (child) readers, so both can learn from the characters' mistakes. Parents can talk to their kids about what Fred and George did, that it was wrong, and why it was wrong. But as long as Fred and George don't get called on it except for a stern word or two from their father and continue to do it, all of the dire potential for such behavior that parents have seen and then tell their kids about, falls flat. Fred and George didn't get hit by a car running into the street after a ball, for an instance not in the books. The books 'prove' that dire consequences do not follow even mildly bad behavior. I don't particularly like 'for the children' arguments, so I feel very compromised posting this. But as a parent and grandparent, I am worried about the message that these things send to kids. Show the Bad Guys in all their horrible glory! Show the kids that they don't want to be like them, see the comeuppance the bad guys get! But don't show the Good Guys, the guys who should be the role models for juvenile readers, *getting away with* questionable behavior. Ceridwen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Jul 26 00:58:11 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:58:11 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? (was: Arthur right or not? ( was Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting v In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156001 > Ceridwen: > So, the twins are the agents of Karma? Lupinlore: Sure, why not? Karma has many agents, and often they are quite unlikely. The whole Dudley-tongue episode was hilarious Karmic justice, pure and simple. Ceridwen: The ton-tongue toffee incident was funny, true. But it put the twins in a very bad light to me. I like the twins, I was very disappointed with this. > > Ceridwen: > Heroic Deeds... Triumph of Good Over Evil... Hero's Journey... etc. Lupinlore: Well, that depends if you believe in and get into all this "hero's journey" stuff. For me, it's hackneyed and annoying beyond belief. The type of thing described above, I think, is quite ok for Sunday School. I don't particularly want to see it in popular literature, nor would I find it good writing if I did see it. Rather I see it as slavish following of outworn formulas. Ceridwen: Apparently, I like the idea of a Hero's Journey. And part of that journey, at least the decent ones I've read, seems to be the inner journey as much as the outer journey as the Hero learns about life as well as his task. It's like Dumbledore on the Tower insisting that Draco not use the term 'Mudblood', even in such a dire situation. It seems so petty considering that Draco is contemplating killing him, yet it's important to Dumbledore, and I got the idea that he thought it was important for Draco to learn this fact. Ceridwen: > ...Vanquishes Teh Eeevil, then curls up into a ball and complains until someone coaxes him into a good mood. Lupinlore: Why on Earth not? If anyone deserves to be indulged in a little spitefulness, it's Harry -- especially after he destroys Voldemort. I would say its time for the people around him -- who so far, at least with regard to the adults, have been models of incompetence, stupidity, and contemptible emotional and moral deafness, to get off their duffs and start coaxing. Ceridwen: You and I seem to differ on the incompetence of the Potterverse adults. I think they're trying to do their best, but are impeded by human failings. Now, the adults who really came off as incompetent to me, completely in denial, were the Nightmare on Elm Street parents. There they killed old Freddie, then their kids are dying off in their sleep and yelping about nightmares and guys with wicked fingernails, and they just say, 'Yes, honey, whatever, let the dog in on your way out'. I can see Harry wanting to retire from life as he's known it for a while after the defeat, and who can begrudge him? A little R&R never did any harm. Going fetal and sticking his thumb in his mouth and wanting his friends to coax and cajole him into a better mood would only mean, to me, that the battle wasn't that serious to him, all it was was an excuse to get people to cater to him. Help, rest, privacy, being available to talk when he needs it, is far different than humoring him like he was some incompetent, imbecilic child, in my opinion, and very lacking in respect to Our Hero. > Ceridwen, who hates a few people for Doing Her Wrong, but still hasn't taken them into the woods and shot their kneecaps off. Lupinlore: Probably a good policy as the RW, unlike the WW, has semi-competent law enforcement. Verbal blistering, on the other hand, works pretty well, and if applied effectively allows you to watch with great amusement and satisfaction as people turn lovely shades of purple and splutter like defective pressure cookers. Ceridwen: I wish I could command words like that, I really do! Instead, I'm reduced to nodding along with Mad Magazine's lines that we all think of later, instead of when we need them! Ceridwen. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 01:18:03 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 01:18:03 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156002 Carol earlier: > > You're misunderstanding the concept. It isn't Harry who's fooled, at least not in this case (though he's certainly mistaken in the case of Draco listening behind the shelves in the library). It's the reader who's left up in the air. > > wynnleaf responded: > > Another important thing to keep in mind is that often the author is > *not* incorporating these bits (like Tonks and Harry discussing the > words shouted), in order to leave clues so the reader can suspect > something. The purpose is so that when the truth comes out in the > end, the reader can't feel that it came totally out of the blue. The > reader has to be able to re-read and think "oh yeah, I see it there, > and there, and there." Like I said in another post, the narrator is > not directly lying to the reader. The author must make sure that a > re-read makes sense with the final revelations. > > It may be that the petrificus totalus example doesn't turn out to be > one of these instances. But if it *does,* then we'll be able to > re-read and think, "oh yeah, I see that now." > Carol earlier: > > The unreliable narrator is not an invention of Snape fans. > > wynnleaf: > That's right. Hopefully the essay I posted on "A 'Seeming' Reality," > (about Austen's books) makes it clear that we're talking about a > commonly used device in writing. Carol adds: For the record, the term "unreliable narrator" was invented by the rhetorician Wayne Booth and was first used in his "Rhetoric of Fiction" (1961). It is emphatically *not* an invention of Harry Potter fans but an established term used by respected literary critics. The device allows the reader to draw conclusions that are different from those of the narrator (or the pov character)--and not only with regard to the plot (elements of a mystery) but with regard to character development. What's important here (IMO) is how much Harry understands and doesn't understand about the other characters and their motivations and loyalties and about the WW itself. The full extent of the narrator's reliability or unreliability and the reasons for it will only be clear after we've read the seventh book and then reread all the others in its light. Even then, I doubt that every reader will arrive at the same conclusions. The text will still be subject to interpretation because the narrator is not giving us the straight-out objective facts but bits and pieces of information usually but not always filtered through Harry's point of view. Carol, whose new computer is finally set up just the way she wants it but still has to relocate about a hundred bookmarks From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 02:00:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:00:49 -0000 Subject: Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156003 Tinktonks wrote: - If i were to play a practical joke on a friend of a > friend and unknown to me he was gay, would that mean I was gay > baiting? > > Ok so how about if I knew he was gay but I did it because he had > told nasty lies about my best friend? Would I be gay baiting then? > > By your reasoning the twins aren't alowed to dislike Dudley, because > he is a muggle but if he was a wizard they could hate him as much as > they like! Do Harry and Draco wizard bait? No. They do what they do > because of a clash of personality. > > The idea of being racist is not hating someone who is black, it is > hating someone BECAUSE they are black. By the same definition the > twins are not biggots, they play a trick on Dudley who happens to be > a muggle, not BECAUSE he is a muggle. > > I think people are being utterly unfair to Fred and George. They > have shown no malicious intent towards any muggle because they are a > muggle, just played a trick, (which granted was dangerous, selfish > and badly thought through) but was NOT muggle baiting! > > Tinktonks ? Who says give Fred and George a break! > Carol responds: I think you're overlooking one key point--being gay or black doesn't make a person weaker or stronger. In your examples, you wouldn't be using your heterosexuality or whiteness (or whatever) against the person you were baiting. But the twins *are* using their "wizardness"--their magical abilities--against a nonmagical person. It's like beating an unarmed person with a crowbar--the victim, whatever his sins or crimes may be, has no way of defending himself. The Twins know full well that Dudley and his parents are Muggles but they have no reservations about using their magic as a weapon against them. Or, if the crowbar example is too strong, let's imagine Mark Evans, age ten, taking a knife to Dudley's bike tires and Dudley, sixteen-year-old champion boxer, getting revenge against the little brat by beating him up because he deserved it. Would slashed tires be better than "cheek" as an excuse for beating up a much smaller boy? Not in my book. The strong have a duty to protect the weak, or at least a moral obligation not to use their strength against the defenseless. Remember Harry saving Dudley from the Dementors and contrast that with the Twins nearly choking him on his own tongue. BTW, no one is talking about the Twins' right to dislike Dudley. The question is whether they, or any witch or wizard, have the right to use magic against a Muggle who is not in the process of attacking them. Carol, who says that Fred and George should think before they act and not use their strength against another's weakness whatever the victim may have done to "deserve" it From kjones at telus.net Wed Jul 26 02:02:59 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:02:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C6CD53.3000001@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 156004 cubfanbudwoman wrote: > Whereas Ron and Neville both, for instance, have received quite a few > votes as people likely to be offed now, Hermione has only 3 votes > (1%). Not that she's the only character to receive very few votes, > but given that she's typically seen as one of The Big Three, an equal > part of the trio, I do find it a little surprising that Ron is a > more "popular" choice to die than is Hermione. > > And similarly, in the "Who gets a reprieve?" poll, both Ron & Harry > are fairly "popular" choices... but Hermione has nary a vote. Even > Voldy has a vote, for goodness' sake! ;-) snip > Anyway, it may mean nothing at all, but seeing such low numbers "for" > Hermione in either poll got me wondering if people just don't see her > as being all that important? > Just wondering... > Siriusly Snapey Susan KJ writes: Speaking for myself, I don't feel that JKR ever intended to snuff Hermione. Harry has already offered himself up for the cause, as has Ron. Sacrifice plays such a large part of the story that I could see both of these characters in that position. Hermione has always been in a support position, but does not seem to have the same willingness to give her life. I see her more in the position of explaining how it all went down at the end. I can see Lupin and Pettigrew both getting done in which would put a finish to the Marauders, and I can see Snape getting killed for much the same reason, as well as redemption. I can also see why she might be fence-sitting on killing Lupin, Snape, Harry, and even Voldemorte, so my votes would be more on two of them to survive as the result of plot changes. KJ From estesrandy at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 02:58:09 2006 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:58:09 -0000 Subject: Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? In-Reply-To: <44C6CD53.3000001@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156005 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: > > cubfanbudwoman wrote: > > > Whereas Ron and Neville both, for instance, have received quite a few > > votes as people likely to be offed now, Hermione has only 3 votes > > (1%). Not that she's the only character to receive very few votes, > > but given that she's typically seen as one of The Big Three, an equal > > part of the trio, I do find it a little surprising that Ron is a > > more "popular" choice to die than is Hermione. > > > > And similarly, in the "Who gets a reprieve?" poll, both Ron & Harry > > are fairly "popular" choices... but Hermione has nary a vote. Even > > Voldy has a vote, for goodness' sake! ;-) > snip > > Anyway, it may mean nothing at all, but seeing such low numbers "for" > > Hermione in either poll got me wondering if people just don't see her > > as being all that important? > > Just wondering... > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > > KJ writes: > > Speaking for myself, I don't feel that JKR ever intended to snuff > Hermione. Harry has already offered himself up for the cause, as has > Ron. Sacrifice plays such a large part of the story that I could see > both of these characters in that position. Hermione has always been in > a support position, but does not seem to have the same willingness to > give her life. I see her more in the position of explaining how it all > went down at the end. I can see Lupin and Pettigrew both getting done in > which would put a finish to the Marauders, and I can see Snape getting > killed for much the same reason, as well as redemption. > > I can also see why she might be fence-sitting on killing Lupin, > Snape, Harry, and even Voldemorte, so my votes would be more on two of > them to survive as the result of plot changes. > > KJ > Randy's opinion: I don't see Hermione getting the axe either. If you look at the three characters as representatives of one person's psyche, Hermione is the Superego, Harry is the Ego, and Ron is the Id. (IMO) Ron pushes Harry to worry about himself first. Hermione makes Harry worry about how others will perceive things. Harry is learning how to act in the Wizard world just like an individual learns how to act in the real world. His internal voices tell him to watch what he is doing in various circumstances. I think that the three of them went down the trap door entry to deal with the obstacles below as a metaphor for a person internally dealing with their subconscious and the dark secrets and obstacles/monsters that lurk within. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 02:56:41 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 02:56:41 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156006 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > > I don't particularly like 'for the children' arguments, so I feel > very compromised posting this. But as a parent and grandparent, I am > worried about the message that these things send to kids. Show the > Bad Guys in all their horrible glory! Show the kids that they don't > want to be like them, see the comeuppance the bad guys get! But > don't show the Good Guys, the guys who should be the role models for > juvenile readers, *getting away with* questionable behavior. > > And who is supposed to provide the bad guys with their comeuppance if not the heroes? And how are they supposed to do so without engaging in questionable behavior? Rely on the adults around them? That's a rip, snort, and laugh in the Potterverse, populated as it is by contemptible and morally deaf adults, most of whom aren't competent to run a lemonade stand. Note for instance that Harry is physically tortured by Umbridge, a fact that seems to be common knowledge and that he even deliberately exhibits at the Weasleys in his confrontation with Scrimgeour, but not one of the adults can be bothered to say so much as a word to him about it. Why? Are their tongues tied? Are they really that incompetent and morally deaf (I'd say the answer is yes). So that means the heroes have to take matters in their own hands, and the adults around them would be contemptible hypocrites to suddenly try to exert whatever vestige of pseudo-parental authority they have left considering their manifest failures over the last few years. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 03:57:24 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 03:57:24 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156008 - > Neri: > Yes, you found the example I mentioned as a special exception in the > post were I first suggested the term "non-description": > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148445 > > As I wrote there, it is indeed a non-description used to fool the > reader, but it is not used to fool *Harry*. In fact it is Harry here > who is fooling the reader. Carol responds: Harry doesn't know that the reader exists, nor is Harry the narrator. The narrator (or JKR, if you prefer, since she controls the narrator) is keeping information from us that Harry knows precisely in order to trick us and make us think that Harry did give Ron the Felix Felicis. It's an exception that in a sense only > strengthen my suggestion, that JKR considers it unfair to fool both > Harry and the reader with non-descriptions. This example shows that > she is quite able to employ a non-description in a very purposeful > way. She certainly has that tool in her arsenal. She just never uses > it to spring a surprise on both Harry and us. Carol responds: Earlier in HBP, information is withheld from both Harry and the reader so that we're led to believe, as he does, that Slughorn is the DADA teacher, not the Potions master. He even tells Ron and Hermione that Slughorn is the DADA teacher, based on his interpretation of that withheld information. So, yes, both Harry and the reader can be fooled together and quite often we are, especially with regard to Snape but also with regard to the Thestrals, the so-called weapon in OoP and countless other examples. And how about Ron's rat, who for nearly three books is just a rat? Carol, again noting that "non-description" (your invented term) is just one of many tactics that JKR uses to misdirect the reader From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Jul 26 04:00:00 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:00:00 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156009 Lupinlore: > And who is supposed to provide the bad guys with their comeuppance if not the heroes? And how are they supposed to do so without engaging in questionable behavior? Rely on the adults around them? That's a rip, snort, and laugh in the Potterverse, populated as it is by contemptible and morally deaf adults, most of whom aren't competent to run a lemonade stand. Note for instance that Harry is physically tortured by Umbridge, a fact that seems to be common knowledge and that he even deliberately exhibits at the Weasleys in his confrontation with Scrimgeour, but not one of the adults can be bothered to say so much as a word to him about it. Why? Are their tongues tied? Are they really that incompetent and morally deaf (I'd say the answer is yes). So that means the heroes have to take matters in their own hands, and the adults around them would be contemptible hypocrites to suddenly try to exert whatever vestige of pseudo-parental authority they have left considering their manifest failures over the last few years. Ceridwen: I'm seeing the WW as more complacent with things, and even perhaps as having outmoded, by our standards, laws and practices which, while deploring Umbridge's methods, provide no recourse for dealing with her excesses. But that's an argument between adults, like we do here on the list. My point in the quote I snipped is that kids see things in black and white rather than in varying shades as adults do. And, kids see punishments meted out to them in the Real World as sometimes being unfair to them, and overly excessive, where adults do not. Detention used to be a big thing for that when I was back in school, it was 'mean' to deprive kids of their after-school time. And, for what? Just playing hookey? Once? Horrid, nasty teachers! Certainly little to no difference between Mrs Smith's detentions and Umbridge's blood quill! I'm concerned about the message kids are getting from the Good Guys doing bad things and not learning a Valuable Life Lesson from them. If it's valid for people to be concerned over the message which might be sent out if Harry kills himself to deliver the WW, or kills Voldemort, then it's just as valid to be worried over the message being sent out to kids when the twins or Hermione mete out justice arbitrarily, without any sort of trial by peers or anything other than their own opinion. This is not good Real Life behavior, IMO. We can certainly disagree on the topic. We've disagreed on other things before. I think the comeuppance will occur in book 7, for everyone who needs it, through a more impartial universal agent, and will be obvious for being what it is. That's just me, but since no comeuppance has happened for several characters yet, the only place where it will happen now is in book 7. And I'm waiting almost rabidly for Umbridge to get hers! Ceridwen. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jul 26 04:04:58 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:04:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? References: <44C6CD53.3000001@telus.net> Message-ID: <003b01c6b068$aa53bde0$3f66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 156010 > KJ writes: > > Speaking for myself, I don't feel that JKR ever intended to snuff > Hermione. Harry has already offered himself up for the cause, as has > Ron. Magpie: The main reason I see Hermione living--her parents. Killing her off would, imo, throw a spotlight on a relationship best not thinking about too hard. Cedric's father's introduction at the beginning of GoF sets up how devestated the guy is going to be when Cedric dies. When Hermione's parents are mentioned at all it's usually that she's cutting short (or cancelling) vacations with them to stay with the Weasleys. The last time I remember seeing them onstage they met Hermione at the station after not seeing her all year and she was quickly peeling them off her to stand by Harry. I think if Hermione was going to die her parents ought to have been a constant presence in her life and know what she's mixed up in, more like the Weasleys are. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 04:38:23 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:38:23 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156011 Ceridwen: > > Show the > > Bad Guys in all their horrible glory! Show the kids that they don't > > want to be like them, see the comeuppance the bad guys get! But > > don't show the Good Guys, the guys who should be the role models for > > juvenile readers, *getting away with* questionable behavior. Lupinlore: > And who is supposed to provide the bad guys with their comeuppance if > not the heroes? zgirnius: Rowling often lets the bad guys do it to themselves. Voldemort being the prime example. In choosing to act on the Prophecy by murdering people, he has created in Harry the weapon which will bring him down in the end (I do not doubt). And I would be surprised if in the end this requires questionable actions by Harry. (Though I expect to see some questionable actions by Harry in Book 7 before he finishes with the learning and gets on with the defeating.) Other examples: Lucius Malfoy, Draco Malfoy, Dolores Umbridge, Gilderoy Lockhart From sherlocksridhar at fastmail.fm Wed Jul 26 07:24:27 2006 From: sherlocksridhar at fastmail.fm (sridharj_ap) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:24:27 -0000 Subject: Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156012 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > I'm not quite sure what to make of our poll results so far... if > anything. But I'm finding it *interesting* that in both polls -- > > 1) What 2 people are gonna die who JKR didn't originally intend to > kill off? > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280239 > > 2) Who gets a reprieve at the end of Book 7? > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280244 > > -- that Hermione is getting surprisingly little action. This is the mid of the week and I am probably dense, but what does question 2 actually mean? Who is the person that JKR originally intended to kill, but may not get killed becos 2 other people not originally to be killed will get killed? (See I told you its mid- week!) Regards Sridhar From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Wed Jul 26 08:23:48 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:23:48 -0000 Subject: Other uses for toffees... In-Reply-To: <006601c6b021$24a0b8c0$b1560043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156013 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eric Oppen" wrote: > > You know, it's probably a really good thing that the Twins are usually > forbidden to hawk their wares to Muggles. > > I just waded through a ton of spam about how these various quacks can > improve and expand my naughty bits, and it hit me: > > If the Twins can make toffees that expand tongues... > > You know, that idea alone would probably make them so rich that they could > buy JKR out and write the books themselves. Or buy the whole UK and evict > all the Muggles. > AmanitaMuscaria now: LOL! Buy the whole UK? The whole world, more like! And what about the Peruvian Darkness Powder? Global warming? Cool it down - switch off the sun for a while. Once you start thinking about it, the possibilities are endless, and endlessly frightening. Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria, who also gets a mailboxfull every morning. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 26 10:26:56 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:26:56 -0000 Subject: Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156014 Siriusly Snapey Susan: > > 2) Who gets a reprieve at the end of Book 7? > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=2280244 Sridhar asked: > This is the mid of the week and I am probably dense, but what does > question 2 actually mean? Who is the person that JKR originally > intended to kill, but may not get killed becos 2 other people not > originally to be killed will get killed? (See I told you its mid- > week!) SSSusan: LOL, Sridhar. Good question! Truthfully, I don't think JKR said anything which would *necessarily* have inserted that "because" between the two parts. Not that she might not have been thinking it! But I know that when I read about and then watched the interview, I didn't get the sense that the reprieve was because two others will die, but rather that it's a separate thing. Per BBC News, June 27: >>> She told the Richard and Judy show that she had long known how the series would end, because she had written the last chapter "in something like 1990". "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die," she said. <<< SSSusan again: So, does that help, Sridhar? Or just muddy the waters? :-) Did others have the same impression I did, or do you think it is a "This and so then this" kind of situation? Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jul 26 11:22:04 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:22:04 -0000 Subject: Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156015 > SSSusan again: > So, does that help, Sridhar? Or just muddy the waters? :-) Did > others have the same impression I did, or do you think it is a "This > and so then this" kind of situation? Potioncat: It seems to me that JKR had planned the story out, all those years ago. When she got to the actual writing of this part, as the plot developed, two (or actually three) changes worked out better. Maybe it was along the line of "The impact would be stronger if A dies rather than just walks away," or "Y's conflict will be greater if he's killed B." or "Having C die will detract from this part of the plot." After the series is done and read and talked over, I'd like to hear from JKR about the evolution of HP books. I'm sure there have been many decisions made and carried out and the actual working out of it forgotten---but it would be interesting to know how some things came about. From greatraven at hotmail.com Wed Jul 26 11:33:21 2006 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:33:21 -0000 Subject: Other uses for toffees... In-Reply-To: <006601c6b021$24a0b8c0$b1560043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156016 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eric Oppen" wrote: > > You know, it's probably a really good thing that the Twins are usually > forbidden to hawk their wares to Muggles. > > I just waded through a ton of spam about how these various quacks can > improve and expand my naughty bits, and it hit me: > > If the Twins can make toffees that expand tongues... > > You know, that idea alone would probably make them so rich that they could > buy JKR out and write the books themselves. Or buy the whole UK and evict > all the Muggles. > Sue here: Chuckle! Aren't we lucky the wizarding community is living more or less permanently in the 1940s? The twins and the Internet ... Urgh, nightmare! Imagine what they could do - a Trojan horse virus would probably throw a real wooden horse out of your computer... And yes, they would be natural spammers. From greatraven at hotmail.com Wed Jul 26 11:45:02 2006 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:45:02 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: <46b.3c1745f.31f7f742@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156017 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: > > In a message dated 7/24/06 5:33:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, juli17 at ... > writes: > > > > I am curious though that you intend never to read anything else JKR > > writes, Sandy. I know you don't like her as a person, but if I didn't read > > books by authors I probably wouldn't much like as people, that might > > be somewhat limiting! What if JKR writes another book as fascinating > > and inspired as the Harry Potter saga? You really won't read it? > > > > Just trying to understand your position, > > > > > > Sandy: > > If JKR should write something else as fascinating as the HP saga, and it were > a topic I am interested in, then yes, I would probably read it. But I just > don't see that happening. To begin with, I think the quality of her writing has > dropped off exponentially in the last two books as opposed to the first four. > Also, I think anything she would write after she completes Harry Potter would > be a footnote. I'm just not sure she is capable of writing anything else, much > less anything that could come close to Harry Potter. It is her niche and if > she tries to go beyond it it could be disastrous. Of course her fan base, who > thinks she walks on water, will gobble up anything she writes and, I believe, > not be fairly critical of it. If JKR wrote it it has to be good mentality. It > is the best explanation I can give. I believe her celebrity status has undercut > her writing ability, and for that matter her writing desire. I try to be > cautious about what I say about JKR as I take such a bashing for it, but I think > any future writing she does will just be riding her celebrity coat tails. I > have learned to never say never, so it is always possible she will prove me > wrong, and if that happens I will be the first to eat crow and read whatever > literary gem she comes up with. > > Sandy > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Sue: Sorry, I've missed most of this thread. I do understand your viewpoint, Sandy. My thought is that she will probably have a nice long rest before trying anything else and then she will have to be very sure it's going to be good, because there will always be those who will say, "It's not as good as HP." I read Susan Cooper's THE DARK IS RISING series, which I still think is her masterpiece, but I am very glad that I have read the books she wrote many years later. They're smaller in scale, but they're also wonderful. Sp perhaps after a few years you will at least consider borrowing a new JKR novel from the library. I know I will. From bgrugin at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 05:21:06 2006 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:21:06 -0000 Subject: Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: <2795713f0607251020w5c08618g7a9e4f0e31e6bf3e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156018 First of all, I have been a "lurker" for quite awhile, so this is my first post. As for the spoiler problem, I have two stories. The first involves my oldest daughter, who is 11. She began reading the sixth book after I had finished with it, and while reading it, one of her best friends let it "slip" that Draco had killed Dumbledore! I of course assured her that it wasn't true (okay, I conveniently didn't mention that it was someone else who kills DD). Later, I discovered that this friend didn't read the book, but had listened to it on tape, and apparently didn't listen closely enough. Needless to say, my daughter was really annoyed with her friend. My second spoiler story is that as soon as I got the book (through Amazon, BTW, which worked great for me), I looked at the chapter titles and immediately knew who would die - it was the "The Phoenix Lament" and "The White Tomb" titles that gave it away (how could it not mean DD's death?) - and then I was so sorry that I had looked at the chapter titles. So I've learned my lesson and I will NOT read the chapter titles ahead of time for Book 7! In fact, I think there should not be a table of contents!! I think one of the reasons I've lurked for so long without posting is because I don't know what to call myself, as I, too, am a Betsy, so I guess I'll just sign myself... MusicalBetsy From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jul 26 13:32:29 2006 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:32:29 -0000 Subject: Killing Re: About the "Who Else Is Going to Die" Poll..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156019 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "catwomanlg_50" wrote: > > Snape may > NOT be entirely the bad guy & Draco Malfoy is a coward. He's too > weak to kill anyone. > I sinderely hope Draco's inability to kill DD had nothing to do with cowardess, but with finally realizing killing someone is evil. Gerry From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 13:39:31 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:39:31 -0000 Subject: Hmmmm... Will Hermione's role be insignificant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156020 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" wrote:> > I don't see Hermione getting the axe either. > If you look at the three characters as representatives of one > person's psyche, Hermione is the Superego, Harry is the Ego, and Ron is the Id. (IMO) Ron pushes Harry to worry about himself first. > Hermione makes Harry worry about how others will perceive things. > Harry is learning how to act in the Wizard world just like an > individual learns how to act in the real world. His internal voices > tell him to watch what he is doing in various circumstances. > > I think that the three of them went down the trap door entry to deal > with the obstacles below as a metaphor for a person internally > dealing with their subconscious and the dark secrets and > obstacles/monsters that lurk within. > Tonks: Yes, I agree. I have thought all along that HRH represent one person. ID, Superego, Ego, as you say. At the same time they can represent the body, mind and soul. But either way, they must all sink or swin together. This is why I think Hermione will not die. And if a virgin sacrifice is necessary for some reason, it will be (sad to say) Ginny. I don't know it will be a necessary part of the formular to distroy LV, but if it is, McGonagall might also fit the bill. (I think this because her name means "wisdom". Long reason, won't go into it now.) I like the idea of decending into the subconscious. I need to keep reading this, ever so strange, book of the lecture notes of Carl Jung. I am sure the answer to HP is in there somewhere. Tonks_op off to Lumos!! From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 26 15:13:49 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:13:49 -0000 Subject: The UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156021 Lupinlore: > For instance, did Snape realize that Dumbledore, and not Harry, was > the target of Draco's mission? Did he know that said mission > involved murder? If Snape had been completely honest with DD about > the vow, why did Dumbledore tell him to "start searching with your > own house," after the necklace episode -- both of them would have > known exactly where to search. Pippin: A slight correction: Dumbledore is reported to have said "summat abou' Snape makin' investigations in his House, in Slytherin." We are told that is not strange since all the Heads of Houses were told to investigate after the necklace business. Hagrid thinks Dumbledore doesn't know who is behind the necklace and poison, but Dumbledore later claims that it was obvious to him all along that it was Draco. If this is true, then the investigations were a ruse "because I [Dumbledore] knew that you would be murdered if Lord Voldemort realized that I suspected you." On first reading, we think that LVM!Snape is trying to avoid an investigation of Slytherin. On later readings, it's possible that DDM!Snape wanted Dumbledore to roll up the operation to make sure another of Draco's witless attempts at murder didn't succeed. But Draco revealed at the Christmas party that his plan included backup. Dumbledore then had a further reason not to roll up the operation: Hogwarts was safer with one known incompetent would-be murderer inside it than it would be if hardened DE's could enter at will. In other words, it wouldn't be much use to catch the kitten and leave the door open for the cat. If there really was a way for DE's to enter the castle, it would be imperative to discover what it was and Draco would be key. OTOH, maybe there wasn't a way for DE's to get in and Voldemort was just amusing himself by giving Draco a hopeless task. That's what Dumbledore seems to have thought, but he knew he might be mistaken so he arranged for the Order to guard the castle while he wasn't there. Possibly Voldemort told Snape there was a plan with Draco at Hogwarts but didn't tell Snape what it was. Snape then offered his help to Narcissa, as he later did with Draco, in order to find out. Harry himself realizes that this is what DDM!Snape would be expected to do, so if that's a stupid idea, then Harry is stupid. Pippin From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 15:35:04 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:35:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's fate - Best of Both In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607260835ucac6076t2dae9a63e97b6c1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156022 > bboyminn: > ... > Though, I could live much better with Harry both dying and living. I > have predicted various scenarios for this happening in the past, but > lately I have been leaning toward a trip behind The Veil, and a > return. I won't go into details since I've posted on this several > times. But The Veil and general mythology seem to lean in this > direction. Harry wouldn't be the first person to go behind The Veil > and return while on a Hero's Quest. > ... > Kemper now: I don't mind the idea of using the Veil, but have a sense of disappointment if it were used in the Final Battle sequense as we've already had a battle in the Dept of Mysteries. The Veil used somewhere in the middle at the DoM would be ok. Or if The Veil was stolen (Voldemort tries to coax some of his soul pieces back to the land of the living) and taken somewhere else would be ok, too. But part of the excitement of most of the climatic battles is the new scenery. The obstacles for the Stone The Chamber The Shack/The Lake (two because of time turner) The Graveyard The DoM (yes we've seen the Lobby, but most of that battle is twix DD and LV) Hogwarts (ok, not really) To go back a couple of books would feel... blah. I'm hoping for some place new. So what are your thoughts on the where and when? Kemper From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 16:40:39 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:40:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and Petunia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607260940t3afd3e1al50b77077f0b22e2e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156023 > Potioncat: > Oh, I think we should keep this discussion on list. (Unless the Elves > tell us to take it to OT Chatter.) > > I've had two Spoiler situations--both involving Snape, oddly enough. > Someone let it slip that Snape wasn't the bad guy in SS/PS. That > particular person is an idiot anyway. I'm not sure he even realized > he'd revealed anything. > > Just before HBP came out, I visited a HP site--one that was had very > strict spoiler policies. Someone had logged on as "Snape-kills- > Dumbledore." I was shocked. Then I thought, "They're just guessing." > I was really mad later when I understood that person had done it on > purpose and was simply a jerk. > > I don't know how you can protect yourself from idiots and jerks. But > I had prepared several things to say at the bookstore if anyone was > talking too much. Of course, once you hear something, that's it. > > Has anyone ordered the book to be delivered? Does it come quickly on > release day? > > Kemper now: I got a spoiler story... My brother was working with some juvenile offenders (older teens) in a residential setting. One of the kids was a big HP fan and before HBP came out, my brother and he would have HP discussions. They built a strong rapport. A week or so after HBP came out the kid got a copy and started the read. At a down time in the kids read, he becomes mildly verbally abusive toward my brother. My brother redirects his behavior but the kid won't let up. My brother tells him, "Dumbledore dies." The kid stops. And then in wave of frustration continues . "Yeah, Snape kills him." Sometimes it's the other person being the idiot or jerk, and spoiling it for them... aww... delicious! Don't worry, they still have a great rapport. Kemper, first in line for the last two books and first in line for the last (fingers crossed) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Jul 26 16:51:50 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:51:50 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both In-Reply-To: <700201d40607260835ucac6076t2dae9a63e97b6c1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156024 > > bboyminn: > > ...I have been leaning toward a trip behind The Veil, and a > > return. I won't go into details since I've posted on this several > > times. But The Veil and general mythology seem to lean in this > > direction. > > Kemper now: > I don't mind the idea of using the Veil, but have a sense of > disappointment if it were used in the Final Battle sequense as > we've already had a battle in the Dept of Mysteries. > > But part of the excitement of most of the climatic battles is the new scenery. > The obstacles for the Stone > The Chamber > The Shack/The Lake (two because of time turner) > The Graveyard > The DoM (yes we've seen the Lobby, but most of that battle is twix DD and LV) > Hogwarts (ok, not really) > > To go back a couple of books would feel... blah. I'm hoping for > some place new. So what are your thoughts on the where and when? > > Aussie: A flying armada ! OOTP side vs DE OOTP team: Krum on a broom I'd love to see Norbert again. Thestrals were not put away completely Hagrid on Sirius's bike Mundungus piloting a flying carpet with two or three riding shot gun Buckbeak and Fawkes lend a hand Arthur's car? Beaubaton carriage DE team: Dementors jinxed bludgers (twins keep them back) several brooms (inc Ludo) If this is done over the Forbidden Forest, Gwamp and the centaurs arrows may join in. Even house elves would have a day in the woods. Aragog's clan would be neutral, but still create casualties that fly between trees into webs. From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Jul 26 16:37:25 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:37:25 -0000 Subject: The UV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156025 Pippin: Dumbledore later claims that it was obvious to him all along that it was Draco. Eddie: I keep remembering Dumbledore saying he didn't need an Invisibility Cloak to become invisible. How hard would it have been for him to follow Draco around to find out what he (Draco) was up to? Why didn't Dumbledore? Or did he? From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Jul 26 16:46:49 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:46:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both In-Reply-To: <700201d40607260835ucac6076t2dae9a63e97b6c1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156026 Kemper wrote: > But part of the excitement of most of the climatic battles is the > new scenery. > [... snip ...] > So what are your thoughts on the where and when? Godrick's Hollow, where it all began. or The "Room of Love" in the Ministry of Magic. Eddie From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Wed Jul 26 16:39:37 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:39:37 -0000 Subject: Could 2nd Task be Replayed in Book 7? Was DD testing something? (LONG) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156027 I am rereading GOF for the first time after being exposed to RedHen, Mugglenet editorials and this group, and having just read D'Aulaires' Book of Greek Myths to my boys. So ideas are jumping out of the pages here. Bear with me. Many have spoken of the hero journey as a possible part of book 7. In your minds, is that based on Orpheus, Heracles or Jason? Or all of them? Orpheus is at his own wedding and his bride is bitten by a SNAKE. He goes down to the underworld and, with his beautiful singing, subdues Fluffy/Cerberus. He is allowed to lead Euridice back, but blows it by looking back. Now to GOF. (all citations are from the American paperback edition) p486 : "Harry, just go down to the lake tomorrow, right, stick your head in, yell at the merpeople to give back whatever they've nicked, and see if they chuck it out." says Ron. Some have proposed that this would be a way to get rid of a scar horcrux. Have them chunk it out of his head for him. Or maybe someone else has stumbled through the veil, or maybe he is looking for DD by sticking his head in. Then R and H would be planning to pull him back through. But what if there is a redo of the battle in that room and they let him slip in? Harry could emerge from the veil to this: "The crowd in the stands was making a great deal of noise; shouting and screaming, they all seemed to be on their feet; Harry had the impression they thought that Ron and the little girl might be dead, but they were wrong...both of them had opened their eyes." p. 502 Am.pb GOF -There are stands in the veil room, Harry would be scanning to see if anyone was down, and the people Harry is bringing out maybe were dead, or everyone thought so. Some thoughts from the actual task: -Ron, Hermione, Cho and Gabrielle are put into a bewitched sleep. They don't seem to really be breathing. "All four of them appeared to be in a very deep sleep. Their heads were lolling onto their shoulders, and fine streams of bubbles kept issuing from their mouths." p. 498 Note that a fine stream coming out in the air would be hard to detect. Or is the fine stream like the trickle of blood? DD appeared to be just in deep sleep except for his limbs looking akimbo or broken when Harry sees him after his fall. He could have been testing this bewitched sleep effect at the task to see if people thought they looked dead, or he could have just noticed the effect and used it later. (Yes, I really think DD and Snape faked the whole DD death thing) -Harry takes something that makes him half fish (adapting to the new place and breathing a new way) and half human (still able to reason and do magic). Moaning Myrtle makes a big to do about breathing: "Tactless [snip] Talking about breathing in front of me!... . When I can't...when I haven't...not for ages..." p. 465 So, just like gillyweed that makes you breathe a different way, but still be ok, Draught of the Living Death (DoLD) would make you not breathe, but still be alive. This Draught could be what Harry takes to get him through the veil and back again without dieing. In the movie Neville is uncertain how well the gillyweed will work. The trio could be similarly doubtful of the DoLD. Neville also says in the movie, "I killed Harry Potter!!" and does not see him come out and flip. This could be replayed. (((((Can anyone but LV even kill Harry?))))) -The people seem to be sleeping, but others think they look dead. Again: "Harry had the impression they thought that Ron and the little girl might be dead, but they were wrong...both of them had opened their eyes." p. 502 Am.pb GOF If he wanted to be more like Orpheus, let's have him take the flute Hagrid gave him and tame Cerberus with it. He could be treated to a maze/labyrinth as a task inside the veil, thus replaying the 3rd task. He emerges from the lake with someone he did not go in to get whose name begins with a G. Does he come out of the veil with Ginny as an extra prize? Or even Sirius? But JKR said he was dead and gone, right? -Harry is mistaken in the 2nd task that the people will be lost to the lake. The merpeople laugh at him because they know the truth. Let's say Harry still thinks DD is dead at this point (but DD is just still hiding), and tries the veil trip to seek some knowledge from DD. The dead are like the merpeople (grayish skin, broken yellow teeth, leering at Harry) and they know more than let on about DD. Like that he is not there. But they are not communicating well enough for him to know this. They think Harry's seriousness is funny. -Harry threatens the merpeople with his superior powers and gets to free more than his fair share but it is obvious to all that it is a mark of great "moral fiber" and love. The merpeople are proud. Being alive would give him some authority with the dead, as would his noble intentions. But, also, Orpheus does not have to be tough, he just has to sway them with the beauty of his music and love. Could Pheonix song help? Fawkes can die and go into the veil and come out again. Harry going to the MoM to rescue DD from death could cause Fawkes to send for DD to come out of hiding, just like Sirius in OotP. So that is my mixed up idea: there will be a trip through the veil which mirrors the 2nd task in a great many ways, and pulls all sorts of myth into it. Laurawkids who has a hard time doing anything when the toddler is getting into things and being mad at big Sis. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 17:58:14 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:58:14 -0000 Subject: HBP paperback Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156028 So, I bought it today. I was talking to somebody off list about "He cannot kill you if you are already dead" that is in American edition, but as we know it is not in the British one. It is not in the paperback edition either. Dumbledore now jumps right into "come back to the right side..." Hmmm, looks like JKR really does not want this sentence to be here. Alla. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 26 18:44:17 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:44:17 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156029 Alla: > So, I bought it today. > > I was talking to somebody off list about "He cannot kill you if you > are already dead" that is in American edition, but as we know it is > not in the British one. > > It is not in the paperback edition either. Dumbledore now jumps right > into "come back to the right side..." > > Hmmm, looks like JKR really does not want this sentence to be here. SSSusan: I find that fascinating. So, when given the chance to make changes or not, she/the editors chose *to* make the change and take the line out, to match the UK edition. I think you're right, then, Alla, that this means JKR would have preferred that the first US edition didn't contain the line. (How 'bout others from around the world whose HBPs are in languages other than English? Is the line in there or not?) Huh. So, since I chatted with Alla about this, I know that she thinks this may mean that JKR is planning to have someone escape from death and come back... and that Alla hopes it will be Regulus. (I'm kind of speaking for you here, Alla, so feel free to correct me!) You know, I like that thought! IIRC, we really have only Sirius' belief that his brother was murdered, right? As he tells Harry the story in OoP? No actual evidence. And Sirius wasn't there, obviously... must never have seen a body. Has anyone else ever talked about Regulus' death? Just think what could be learned from a living Regulus if he is R.A.B.! He could perhaps be a big help to Harry in the horcrux hunt! Yep, I like it very much. I've always been one who argued that Sirius is truly dead, because I think the "message" of that death was really that death just really sucks. There isn't always a rhyme or reason to death; we don't always get the chance to say good-bye or to have the time with a person that we wanted. It's another cruel blow to Harry, but I think JKR wouldn't toy with that death, just as she wouldn't have had James and/or Lily actually be alive all these years (the ol' Remus-James Switch theory). I also don't think DD is still alive. I know the symbolism was there at the funeral, but I think his time truly had come and that Harry needed to move on without him. But Regulus? Regulus never played a significant role in Harry's Story, and we don't have the kind of evidence for his death that we had with Sirius or DD, nor JKR's comments about it, as she has commented about killing off Sirius & DD. Regulus coming back or not actually being dead... yep, that one I could see her doing and not having it feel like a "cheat" or a mixed message about death. Siriusly Snapey Susan From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 18:52:54 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:52:54 -0000 Subject: The Romm of Requirement ( was Re: The UV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156030 > Eddie: > I keep remembering Dumbledore saying he didn't need an Invisibility > Cloak to become invisible. How hard would it have been for him to > follow Draco around to find out what he (Draco) was up to? Why didn't > Dumbledore? Or did he? zgirnius: Harry, of course, does have an Invisibility Cloak, and used it to follow Draco around. As did two House Elves Harry commands, who can also be invisible, or at least magically unobtrusive... And Harry still did not figure it out. I do not think that this is because Harry is stupid, but because of the magical powers of the Room of Requirement. The only way Harry (or a House Elf, or Snape, or Dumbledore, to name all the other interested parties) could get into the Room was to know the purpose of that version of the room which Draco is using. For example, Draco can get in in OotP, because he thinks to himelf, he wants to get into the classroom of a secret DADA club. And presto, he's in, because he is 'requiring' the right thing. But Harry tries all sorts of variations of 'the room Draco is using', and that does not work because Harry does not specify the purpose of the room. He finally stumbles into the right version unknowingly, when he runs there to hide the HBP textbook. Because at that moment, he wants the right version of the room-a secret place to store something. Since Draco's not in there at the time (he is of course in the infirmary), he does not even know it. Trelawney happens to need the same version of the room (to hide her bottles of sherry) at a time when Draco IS in there, so she gets in too. But of course she knows none of the context, so it does not mean much to her either. I don't see why Dumbledore would have had any better luck. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Jul 26 18:52:45 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:52:45 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's fate - Best of Both Message-ID: <304.95fc39d.31f913fd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156031 In a message dated 7/26/06 11:36:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, iam.kemper at gmail.com writes: > > But part of the excitement of most of the climatic battles is the new > scenery. > The obstacles for the Stone > The Chamber > The Shack/The Lake (two because of time turner) > The Graveyard > The DoM (yes we've seen the Lobby, but most of that battle is twix DD and > LV) > Hogwarts (ok, not really) > > To go back a couple of books would feel... blah. I'm hoping for some > place new. > > So what are your thoughts on the where and when? > > Sandy: Since it is the ultimate climax of the series it will occur towards the end of the book, although where that will fall within the school year I haven't a clue. I'm actually leaning strongly towards it happening over the summer break so that Hogwarts can open as it regularly would on Monday September 1. I phrased that wrong, I should say *hoping*. Wishful thinking for the sooner the better. Of course that would be a lot of action in a very short time frame. As to where, I think it will be either at Hogwarts or at Godric's Hollow. I hope it is at Godric's Hollow because that's where it all began so it would be fitting that it end there. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 19:13:42 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:13:42 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156032 Siriusly Snapey Susan: > But Regulus? Regulus never played a significant role in Harry's Story, > and we don't have the kind of evidence for his death that we had with > Sirius or DD, nor JKR's comments about it, as she has commented about > killing off Sirius & DD. Regulus coming back or not actually being > dead... yep, that one I could see her doing and not having it feel like > a "cheat" or a mixed message about death. Alla: Hehe, oh yes, I would love it to be Regulus. As I mentioned before this interview just stops me from letting go of this thought. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm "* Cathedral: Will we be hearing anything from Sirius Black's brother, Regulus, in future books? JK Rowling replies -> Well, he's dead, so he's pretty quiet these days." So, yeah, he is quiet these days, to me means that maybe he will be more loud soon :) I would love to get to know Regulus more - the Slytherin who chose to risk his neck and maybe at the same time found a way to save it at the last minute. Hehe. Here is another reason why I think it can happen. If this line is indeed foreshadowing, then it makes total sense that Dumbledore tells it to Darco, who just as Regulus got in too deep and has a choice to make, IMO. On the related note, another Q and A in this Interview made me think that maybe when JKR does not guard whether Harry lives or dies too much, she sort of slips that he lives? ( wishful thinking of course on my part) "Jangles: Are you going to write books about harry after school? JK Rowling replies -> Probably not, but I'll never say never because every time I do I immediately break the vow!" Alla: It seems to me that for her to break the vow in the first place Harry has to survive :) JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jul 26 19:11:43 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:11:43 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156033 > SSSusan: > You know, I like that thought! IIRC, we really have only Sirius' > belief that his brother was murdered, right? As he tells Harry the > story in OoP? No actual evidence. And Sirius wasn't there, > obviously... must never have seen a body. Has anyone else ever talked > about Regulus' death? > > Just think what could be learned from a living Regulus if he is > R.A.B.! He could perhaps be a big help to Harry in the horcrux hunt! > Yep, I like it very much. Pippin: The most likely person to have escaped death is Emmeline Vance, IMO. Dumbledore never confirms that she is dead, and her death on Snape's information would cement Snape's position with Voldemort. The Muggle prime minister thinks she is dead, but we've seen that wizards can easily put together a fake crime scene. Besides, JKR confirmed that Regulus is dead. Pippin who is sure we'll hear more about Regulus but not in the present From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Jul 26 19:25:00 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:25:00 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Avoiding Spoilers (was Harry's fate WAS: Re: RE Snape and... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156034 I knew Dumbledore was dead before I even paid for my book, not because someone spoiled it for me but because I had already read it. No, I'm not a speed reader, even though it took me over 20 minutes to get to the cashier. While everyone else was standing there reading the first chapter, I was reading the last chapter. I always do that, no matter what I am reading, because I just can't stand suspense. I will do it with book 7 too. I don't mind spoilers at all, they keep me from being as stressed as I would be if I didn't know. Right now I would be very happy to know who will die and who won't in book 7. As it stands, I am going to be angsting about this for a year. It's going to be a long, hard wait. Even though I knew DD had died I didn't know how so I had to find that and read it next. Actually, I did a very poor job of reading HBP. I did not read it from cover to cover, rather I jumped back and forth all through the book. I have only read it once, and because of the way I read it it is the one I have the least knowledge of. It is also the only HP book I read that way. I have been waiting for the paperback to come out to read it again so I don't have to tote 10 pounds of book around with me, and this time I am going to read it cover to cover. We sell it where I work, but, go figure, I was off yesterday and today. I sure hope there are some left when I go back to work tomorrow. We're selling them for $5.99 so I'm a little nervous about it. Someone asked how much spoiler time should be allowed. That's a good question. My daughter-in-law is a big HP fan, but she *still* hasn't finished HBP, so I have to make sure I don't spoil it for her. It's getting maddening. Also, I have found out that some people wait for the paperback to come out to buy the book. So a year seems a good time frame, although how any true HP fan can wait a year to read the book is beyond me. Someone said they cut themselves off from the media a couple of weeks in advance of the books release. I saved everything that was printed about it. I will be at the midnight release next year, reading the last chapter as I'm waiting in line. I am hoping we will learn the release date by the end of this year. I have to pick my vacation time in January and I would really like to take one week when the book is released so I can go to one of the really big bashes out of state. This will be the last time we can do this, and I'd like to do it big. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 19:35:18 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:35:18 -0000 Subject: The Romm of Requirement ( was Re: The UV) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > Harry, of course, does have an Invisibility Cloak, and used it to > follow Draco around. As did two House Elves Harry commands, who can also be invisible, or at least magically unobtrusive... And Harry still did not figure it out. > > I do not think that this is because Harry is stupid, but because of the magical powers of the Room of Requirement. The only way Harry (or a House Elf, or Snape, or Dumbledore, to name all the other interested parties) could get into the Room was to know the purpose of that version of the room which Draco is using. > Steven1965aaa: I never thought of this before, but couldn't an invisible Harry have just followed Draco around until Draco enters the ROR and then slip in the door as Draco goes in? Certainly not easy to do (remember Draco saw (nearly) invisible Harry on the train), but possible. I guess this would have required Harry to devote a lot of time to trailing Draco which he said or thought somewhere he could not do without being missed etc. However, I would bet that Dobby could have pulled this off if Harry had lent him the invisibility cloak. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 26 19:38:08 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:38:08 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156036 SSSusan earlier: > > You know, I like that thought! IIRC, we really have only Sirius' > > belief that his brother was murdered, right? As he tells Harry > > the story in OoP? No actual evidence. > > Just think what could be learned from a living Regulus if he is > > R.A.B.! He could perhaps be a big help to Harry in the horcrux > > hunt! Pippin: > The most likely person to have escaped death is Emmeline Vance, IMO. > Besides, JKR confirmed that Regulus is dead. > > Pippin > who is sure we'll hear more about Regulus but not in the present SSSusan: Bah. There is that interview confirmation that I'd spaced, yes. So, unless Alla is right in her take on that, here -- Alla: > Hehe, oh yes, I would love it to be Regulus. As I mentioned before > this interview just stops me from letting go of this thought. > JK Rowling replies -> Well, he's dead, so he's pretty quiet these > days." > > So, yeah, he is quiet these days, to me means that maybe he will be > more loud soon :) -- then I guess I'd have to be consistent and class Regulus along with Sirius & DD as "truly dead." Bother. OTOH, perhaps I could be satisfied if you're correct, Pippin, and we hear more from Regulus, from something(s) he left behind. If there could be a way that he could help Harry in the hx hunt via documents or writings left behind, that would be cool, too. There was just something about that conversation between Harry & Sirius in Grimauld Place... the way Sirius was so sure that Regulus had left Voldy only out of fear or cowardice and not because of a true change of heart, that bugged me, made me think we were going to learn that Sirius was *wrong* about that. If Regulus is R.A.B., then we do have evidence that Sirius was wrong about that, but I'd definitely like not only confirmation that Regulus was R.A.B. but also additional information, additional "communication," if not from a live Regulus, then through documents of his, that show more detail about that. Siriusly Snapey Susan, wondering if Pippin has a theory about how Emmeline Vance might be "brought back" and be useful to the cause? From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Jul 26 19:05:33 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:05:33 -0000 Subject: HBP paperback In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156037 Alla/Dumbledore11214: > I was talking to somebody off list about "He cannot kill you if you are > already dead" that is in American edition, but as we know it is not in > the British one. Eddie: Sorry, could you provide a page number or chapter? I'm not sure what your context is. Thanks. From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Jul 26 19:18:16 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:18:16 -0000 Subject: Summer School (WAS: Harry's fate - Best of Both) In-Reply-To: <304.95fc39d.31f913fd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156038 Sandy: > Since it is the ultimate climax of the series it will occur towards > the end of the book, although where that will fall within the school > year I haven't a clue. I'm actually leaning strongly towards it > happening over the summer break Eddie: I've been bemused by the thought of a special summer school session for Harry w/ private tutoring from the OotP people: McGonagall, Lupin, the Aurors, Flitwick, etc. When Harry finishes this intense training he'll be buff (magically) and ready for Voldie. Or not. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Jul 26 19:46:20 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:46:20 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156039 > SSSusan: IIRC, we really have only Sirius' > belief that his brother was murdered, right? As he tells Harry the > story in OoP? No actual evidence. And Sirius wasn't there, > obviously... must never have seen a body. Has anyone else ever talked about Regulus' death? > Dung: The only mention I remember is at the beginning of HBP ch6 (p103 UK) when Lupin says: "And they've found Igor Karkaroff's body in a shack up north. The Dark Mark had been set over it - well, frankly, I'm surprised he stayed alive for even a year after deserting the Death Eaters; Sirius's brother Regulus only managed a few days as far as I can remember." From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Wed Jul 26 19:48:56 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:48:56 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Romm of Requirement ( was Re: The UV) Message-ID: <24d.f355fb8.31f92128@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156040 In a message dated 7/26/06 3:38:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, steven1965aaa at yahoo.com writes: > However, I would bet that Dobby could > have pulled this off if Harry had lent him the invisibility cloak Sandy: Except Dumbledore instructed Harry to keep his invisibility (lot of i's in that word) cloak with him at all times. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 26 19:58:15 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:58:15 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156041 SSSusan: > > IIRC, we really have only Sirius' belief that his brother was > > murdered, right? As he tells Harry the story in OoP? No actual > > evidence. And Sirius wasn't there, obviously... must never have > > seen a body. Has anyone else ever talked about Regulus' death? Dung: > The only mention I remember is at the beginning of HBP ch6 (p103 > UK) when Lupin says: > "And they've found Igor Karkaroff's body in a shack up north. The > Dark Mark had been set over it - well, frankly, I'm surprised he > stayed alive for even a year after deserting the Death Eaters; > Sirius's brother Regulus only managed a few days as far as I can > remember." SSSusan: Hi, Dung. :-) Right, I recall that remark of Lupin's. And I wondered what Lupin's source for that story was. Sirius? Dumbledore? Somehow I admit that I dismissed that as a "Sirius Tainted" view. (As I mentioned just a sec ago, upthread, I think Sirius' belief that his brother left Voldy only out of fear or cowardice colored his perception of & portrayal of events.) And again, from the comments of Lupin's, there's no evidence that Lupin saw anything himself; it sounds more as if he was recalling what he was told. Pippin reminded me that JKR had confirmed Regulus' death in an interview, and while Alla thinks that interview left things open, I admitted [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156036 ] that I may be "defeated" in the likelihood that Regulus isn't actually dead or can come back. So, if I'm wrong and Lupin is certain of this story, I guess I could live with discovery of Regulus artifacts. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jul 26 20:06:00 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:06:00 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156042 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > > SSSusan: > > But Regulus? Regulus never played a significant role in Harry's Story, > and we don't have the kind of evidence for his death that we had with > Sirius or DD, nor JKR's comments about it, as she has commented about > killing off Sirius & DD. Regulus coming back or not actually being > dead... yep, that one I could see her doing and not having it feel like > a "cheat" or a mixed message about death. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan colebiancardi here: ahhh, my favorite obscure character, Regulus :) I wrote this huge theory on Regulus(if he is R.A.B) about a year ago. I believe that Regulus is the reason why Snape turned his back on the DE's and when to DD. Afterall, Regulus and Snape were in the same House(which is your family....) and both DE's. Also, Regulus's "death" is too close to the timeframe when Snape turned doubleagent. If you are interested (or maybe you have read it, with all four possible endings), here is the thread..... I love this theory - it is mine all mine :) and I still nurse it like a baby today. I could be totally off-base, but since I know hear that the PB edition don't have that infamous line in it, I wonder..... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135111 also, follow the thread line for the few that discussed this theory with me - and added their wonderful insight to it. colebiancardi (Regulus Lives!!) From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 20:13:42 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:13:42 -0000 Subject: The Romm of Requirement ( was Re: The UV) In-Reply-To: <24d.f355fb8.31f92128@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156043 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: > > In a message dated 7/26/06 3:38:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > steven1965aaa at ... writes: > > > > However, I would bet that Dobby could > > have pulled this off if Harry had lent him the invisibility cloak > > Sandy: > > Except Dumbledore instructed Harry to keep his invisibility (lot of i's in that word) cloak with him at all times. > > Steven1965aaa: Good point. But I think that Harry was so bent on catching Malfoy in the act that he would have done it anyway if he'd thought of it. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 20:11:10 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:11:10 -0000 Subject: The Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156044 In HBP Dumbledore tells Harry, in the broom closet, that the only 2 people alive who know the full contents of the prophesy are in this spidery broom closet (not an exact quote, don't have the books with me). In OOP, in the scene in Dumbledore's office at the end, Dumbledore tells Harry that the Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies inserted Harry's name (with a (?)) on the prophesy after Voldmort's attack on the Potter family, because that attack made it clear which boy Voldemort believed to be the one named in the prophesy. It seems to me that for the Keeper to have come to that conclusion, and even for the Keeper to have known that there was a question about which boy was "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord", the Keeper must have know about the contents of the prophesy. I guess he could have known just about the first half, being told about it by Dumbledore, but his decision to put Harry's name on it after the attack ("mark him") would make a lot more sense if he knew the full contents. If the Keeper potentially knows the contents, why wouldn't Voldemort go after the Keeper? Maybe Voldemort doesn't know. Maybe the keeper who knew the contents of the prophesy is dead and the current Keeper doesn't know the contents, which would make Dubmledore's statement to Harry true. Maybe as an unspeakable there would be something to magicallly prevent the Keeper from blabbing. Sorry I'm rambling. Any thoughts? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jul 26 20:18:54 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:18:54 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156045 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > The most likely person to have escaped death is Emmeline Vance, IMO. > Dumbledore never confirms that she is dead, and her death on > Snape's information would cement Snape's position with Voldemort. > > The Muggle prime minister thinks she is dead, but we've seen that > wizards can easily put together a fake crime scene. Geoff: But why should we be interested in Emmeline Vance? What do we know about her? About enough to write on a postage stamp: ' (Lupin) "Emmeline Vance." A stately-looking witch in an emerald green shawl inclined her head.' (OOTP "The Advance Guard" p.49 UK edition) 'Fudge sighed. ".....And then there was Emmeline Vance, maybe you didn't hear about that one -" "Oh. yes I did!" said the Prime Minister. "It happened just round the corner from here, as a matter of fact..."' (HBP "The Other Minister" p.19 UK edition) '(Snape) "...The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him on the Order. It led, as perhaps you have guessed, to the recent capture and murder of Emmeline Vance..."' (HBP "Spinner's End" p.35 UK edition) That's not much information on which to build a character important enough to be brought back from the dead. I see her as a version of the red shirt wearers in the original Start Trek series. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 20:20:51 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:20:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's fate - Best of Both In-Reply-To: <700201d40607260835ucac6076t2dae9a63e97b6c1@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40607260835ucac6076t2dae9a63e97b6c1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40607261320l23e6e4a9w5f18a9a218b3d3b3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156046 > Kemper (earlier): > I don't mind the idea of using the Veil, but have a sense of > disappointment if it were used in the Final Battle sequense as we've > already had a battle in the Dept of Mysteries. > > The Veil used somewhere in the middle at the DoM would be ok. Or if > The Veil was stolen (Voldemort tries to coax some of his soul pieces > back to the land of the living) and taken somewhere else would be ok, > too. > > But part of the excitement of most of the climatic battles is the new scenery. > The obstacles for the Stone > The Chamber > The Shack/The Lake (two because of time turner) > The Graveyard > The DoM (yes we've seen the Lobby, but most of that battle is twix DD and LV) > Hogwarts (ok, not really) > > To go back a couple of books would feel... blah. I'm hoping for some > place new. > > So what are your thoughts on the where and when? > > Eddie responded: Godrick's Hollow, where it all began. or The "Room of Love" in the Ministry of Magic. Sandy responded similarly: Since it is the ultimate climax of the series it will occur towards the end of the book, although where that will fall within the school year I haven't a clue. ...snip... As to where, I think it will be either at Hogwarts or at Godric's Hollow. I hope it is at Godric's Hollow because that's where it all began so it would be fitting that it end there. Kemper now: My question was unclear. I was responding to Steve's suggestion of using the Veil to have Harry go to the land of the Dead and return after meeting up with family and friends. The question I asked of Steve (or anyone) was /where/ and /when/ use of the Veil would be used as I argued against seeing it in the Death Chamber (or whatever the name of the Veil room) as we've seen a climatic battle there. Steve may be suggesting that the Veil be used earlier in the story, that has nothing to do with the story climax; I don't know. Kemper, who agrees with Eddie and Sandy that the final battle would be fitting at Godric's Hollow. Don't journeys end where they begin? From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jul 26 20:24:30 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:24:30 -0000 Subject: HBP paperback In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156047 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ecaplan_52556" wrote: > > Alla/Dumbledore11214: > > I was talking to somebody off list about "He cannot kill you if you are > > already dead" that is in American edition, but as we know it is not in > > the British one. > > Eddie: > Sorry, could you provide a page number or chapter? I'm not sure what > your context is. Thanks. > American hard backed edition - The Lightning Struck Tower. Pages 591(at the bottom) continued onto next page of 592. This is Dumbledore's speech to Draco where Draco states that nobaby can help him & LV will kill him if he doesn't complete his task... colebiancardi. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Jul 26 20:24:45 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:24:45 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156048 > SSSusan: > Hi, Dung. :-) > > Right, I recall that remark of Lupin's. And I wondered what Lupin's source for that story was. Sirius? Dumbledore? And again, from the comments of Lupin's, > there's no evidence that Lupin saw anything himself; it sounds more as if he was recalling what he was told. > Dung: Hi SSSusan; I expect Lupin read about it in the Daily Prophet, don't you? But here's a question: do you think Sirius went to the funeral? SSSusan: > Pippin reminded me that JKR had confirmed Regulus' death in an > interview, Dung: Bah! The only good thing about the interviews is that you can ignore them with a contemptuous "Well she was hardly going to say 'Yes! We will see more of Regulus in book 7! It's going to be a big surprise to you all to discover he *didn't really die*, isn't it?'" RAB is alive and well, and being kept hidden by Aberforth. And I bet Snape knows, and is pals with him. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jul 26 21:39:34 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:39:34 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156049 SSSusan earlier: > > Right, I recall that remark of Lupin's. And I wondered what > > Lupin's source for that story was. Sirius? Dumbledore? > > > And again, from the comments of Lupin's, there's no evidence > > that Lupin saw anything himself; it sounds more as if he was > > recalling what he was told. Dung: > Hi SSSusan; I expect Lupin read about it in the Daily Prophet, > don't you? But here's a question: do you think Sirius went to the > funeral? SSSusan: Heh. Truthfully, I had the same thought about where Lupin heard it. Earlier, I was trying to place this on the timeline of who would've been hanging around with whom at this point, but I was too lazy to figure it out.... But, yeah, either he heard it from Sirius, or he read about it in the DP, or DD mentioned it sometime to the Order, methinks. You know, I think Sirius did *not* attend Regulus' funeral. It just sounded to me, when Sirius told the story to Harry, like all that stuff about Regulus was assumption & hearsay, whereas if he'd gone to the funeral, I think there would've been more discussion (with...??? DD? Did DD go?), talk about what might have happened, etc. No, I think Sirius made up his own mind about what Regulus did, and why he did it, and washed his hands of his brother, same as he washed his hands of his whole family. What do you think? Did he go or no? And did Slughorn go? (Not sure why I care, but I'm just curious.) SSSusan earlier: > > Pippin reminded me that JKR had confirmed Regulus' death in an > > interview, Dung: > Bah! The only good thing about the interviews is that you can > ignore them with a contemptuous "Well she was hardly going to > say 'Yes! We will see more of Regulus in book 7! It's going to be > a big surprise to you all to discover he *didn't really die*, > isn't it?'" > > RAB is alive and well, and being kept hidden by Aberforth. And I > bet Snape knows, and is pals with him. SSSusan: Hee. You've got a point there. What *could* Herself have said otherwise? Maybe Alla's got a point that her "he's not saying much these days" remark, which seemed so "Haha -- I'm saying this off the cuff to be funny," might've been a way of avoiding the truth but also dropping a hint? But, yep, I'm betting Aberforth will be active in Book 7 somehow -- whether that's bearing news from brother Albus or having knowledge of Regulus' history or -- heck yeah! -- harboring Regulus, we shall see. SSSusan, who'd like to thank Colebiancardi for the link to the theory on Regulus; I'm sure I read it when it was posted, but we (heh) "older members" of HPfGU can always use reminders of just what we read that long ago and promptly forgot.... From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Jul 26 22:15:38 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:15:38 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156050 SSSusan: > What do you think? Did he go or no? Dung: Nope. For exactly the same reasons as you. SSSusan: > But, yep, I'm betting Aberforth will be active in Book 7 somehow -- > whether that's bearing news from brother Albus or having knowledge > of Regulus' history or -- heck yeah! -- harboring Regulus, we shall > see. Dung: Except... no it can't be Regulus. If Regulus were being hidden by the Order, or by DD, DD wouldn't have gone chasing off after a fake Horcrux. You don't stab the Dark Lord in the back, fake your own death with the help of his mortal enemies, go into hiding, and *not* tell Albus Dumbledore about the Horcrux. Do you? It can't be Regulus. From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jul 26 22:28:38 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:28:38 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156051 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > > Dung: > Except... no it can't be Regulus. If Regulus were being hidden by the > Order, or by DD, DD wouldn't have gone chasing off after a fake > Horcrux. You don't stab the Dark Lord in the back, fake your own death > with the help of his mortal enemies, go into hiding, and *not* tell > Albus Dumbledore about the Horcrux. Do you? > > It can't be Regulus. > unless, unless, Regulus was so "insane in the membrane" from drinking the vile liquid, he could not really tell anyone much of anything. I like to think that Regulus is now one of those characters that, for the most part, babbles a lot of stuff that most would think is crazy-talk. However, I also like to think he has his more lucid momemts, which could be very helpful to Harry in book 7. Or perhaps he is "cured" now. However, I also think he is still alive :) So, I could be wrong on everything!! colebiancardi (hoping that SSSusan enjoyed that Regulus theory :) ) From peckham at cyberramp.net Wed Jul 26 23:54:32 2006 From: peckham at cyberramp.net (luna_loco) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:54:32 -0000 Subject: The Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156052 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "steven1965aaa" wrote: > > In HBP Dumbledore tells Harry, in the broom closet, that the only 2 > people alive who know the full contents of the prophesy are in this > spidery broom closet (not an exact quote, don't have the books with > me). > > In OOP, in the scene in Dumbledore's office at the end, Dumbledore > tells Harry that the Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies inserted > Harry's name (with a (?)) on the prophesy after Voldmort's attack on > the Potter family, because that attack made it clear which boy > Voldemort believed to be the one named in the prophesy. > > It seems to me that for the Keeper to have come to that conclusion, > and even for the Keeper to have known that there was a question > about which boy was "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark > Lord", the Keeper must have know about the contents of the prophesy. > > I guess he could have known just about the first half, being told > about it by Dumbledore, but his decision to put Harry's name on it > after the attack ("mark him") would make a lot more sense if he knew > the full contents. > > If the Keeper potentially knows the contents, why wouldn't Voldemort > go after the Keeper? Maybe Voldemort doesn't know. Maybe the > keeper who knew the contents of the prophesy is dead and the current > Keeper doesn't know the contents, which would make Dubmledore's > statement to Harry true. Maybe as an unspeakable there would be > something to magicallly prevent the Keeper from blabbing. > > Sorry I'm rambling. Any thoughts? There are several possible explanations that jump to mind for this: 1) The Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies at the time of the update is no longer in a position to talk. If this option is the correct one then hopefully it is due to death from old age or some similar reason, but we know that there were spies working in the Ministry of Magic that were sent to Azkaban and at least one innocent wizard was sent there in addition. 2) The change was made upon the recommendation of Dumbledore. At the time the update was presumably made (in the days immediately after Voldemort's fall) we know that Dumbledore was held in very high regard by the Ministry, having been offered the position of Minister and serving as Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, so his recommendations should have carried great weight. It is thus reasonable to assume that if Dumbledore had recommended that Harry be added to the prophesy then it would have been very likely that the Keeper would have made the update based on Dumbledore's known knowledge of the prophesy details and his position within the political hierarchy. 3) The update was performed by magic. It is possible that the Keeper might periodically perform some type of divination spell as part of the day-to-day maintenance of the Hall of Prophesies. We know from JKR that the Hogwart's invitation letters are generated by a magical pen that somehow detects qualified students living within the appropriate geographical area. With this knowledge it is not too far fetched to then assume the existence of another pen that is enchanted to determine who meets the Ministry guidelines for access to each prophesy. Each of these options is obviously pure speculation but should help show that the update of the name tag can be explained through more than one means. Allen From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jul 27 00:40:21 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:40:21 -0000 Subject: The Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156053 steven1965aaa wrote: > In OOP, in the scene in Dumbledore's office at the > end, Dumbledore tells Harry that the Keeper of the Hall > of Prophesies inserted Harry's name (with a (?)) on the > prophesy after Voldmort's attack on the Potter family, > because that attack made it clear which boy Voldemort > believed to be the one named in the prophesy. > It seems to me that for the Keeper to have come to > that conclusion, and even for the Keeper to have known > that there was a question about which boy was "the one > with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord", the Keeper > must have know about the contents of the prophesy. houyhnhnm: S.P.T to A.P.W.B.D Dark Lord and (?) Harry Potter I'm assuming that everything up to "Harry Potter" was on the original label. What your question has got me wondering is how does a prophecy get into the Department of Mysteries? It can't happen automatically every time someone makes a prediction or the Hall would be full "Gryffindor (Slytherin/Hufflepuff/Ravenclaw) is going to win the House Cups This Year"s. Does the person who hears it (and believes s/he has heard a true prophecy) request that it be added? It must be so. Obviously, there is some kind of spell involved that puts not only the contents but an image of the seer into the ball. Who casts it? I am thinking that it was probably Dumbledore who cast the spell that created the prophecy globe, and he also either wrote the label or dictated what was to be written. In that case, the label only read "Dark Lord and (?) until the WW shattering event of LV's defeat by the Boy Who Lived. The Keeper then added "Harry Potter". He would not have needed to know anthing at all about the contents of the prophecy, let alone the fact that there were two possible identities for (?), only that the prophecy involved a Dark Lord and an unknown, and then take it for granted after LV's defeat that the Dark Lord was Voldemort and the unknown person was Harry Potter. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 00:55:21 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:55:21 -0000 Subject: The Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156054 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "luna_loco" wrote: >> There are several possible explanations that jump to mind for this: >[snip] > 2) The change was made upon the recommendation of Dumbledore. [snip] > > 3) The update was performed by magic. [snip] Steven1965aaa: That doesn't jibe with the text, I think: "The official record was relabeled after Voldemort's attack on you as a child," said Dumbledore. "It seemed plain to the keeper of the Hall of Prophesy that Voldemort could only have tried to kill you because he knew you to be the one to whom Sibyll was referr From dougsamu at golden.net Wed Jul 26 20:43:54 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:43:54 -0400 Subject: Could 2nd Task be Replayed in Book 7? Was DD testing something? Message-ID: <6DDBC420-328F-4F1C-905D-DA55A79A4511@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 156055 laurawkids: Orpheus is at his own wedding and his bride is bitten by a SNAKE. He goes down to the underworld and, with his beautiful singing, subdues Fluffy/Cerberus. He is allowed to lead Euridice back, but blows it by looking back. Doug: If a trip through the veil is in the works ,- and we all suspect it is - Harry will have more help that just Serius, I suspect, and he'll also get Orpheus's warning, likely from his own parents. "Harry, don't look back!", and he will return to the real world. No one, no one is here. We stand in the Atlantic. We become panoramic. ____________________ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 01:03:36 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:03:36 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156056 > > Dung: > > Except... no it can't be Regulus. If Regulus were being hidden by the > > Order, or by DD, DD wouldn't have gone chasing off after a fake > > Horcrux. You don't stab the Dark Lord in the back, fake your own death > > with the help of his mortal enemies, go into hiding, and *not* tell > > Albus Dumbledore about the Horcrux. Do you? > > > > It can't be Regulus. > > Colebiancardi: > unless, unless, Regulus was so "insane in the membrane" from drinking > the vile liquid, he could not really tell anyone much of anything. I > like to think that Regulus is now one of those characters that, for > the most part, babbles a lot of stuff that most would think is > crazy-talk. However, I also like to think he has his more lucid > momemts, which could be very helpful to Harry in book 7. Or perhaps > he is "cured" now. > > However, I also think he is still alive :) So, I could be wrong on > everything!! Alla: Hehe, he does not even have to be insane, he just have to **not** come to Dumbledore for whatever reasons, you know? Regulus may have gotten a wake up call about Voldemort, but who says that it means that he automatically felt love and respect for Dumbledore? Maybe he just escaped on his own, maybe he felt it was too dangerous to involve anybody else, including DD? Speculating here of course, but I do agree with Dung, that DD would not have gone after fake Horcrux, if Regulus came to him, so I speculate that if Regulus alive, DD did not know. > SSSusan: > Hee. You've got a point there. What *could* Herself have said > otherwise? Maybe Alla's got a point that her "he's not saying much > these days" remark, which seemed so "Haha -- I'm saying this off the > cuff to be funny," might've been a way of avoiding the truth but > also dropping a hint? Alla: Yes, that is precisely my line of thought. You see, if she would have just said - he is dead, that would have been end of story to me, since I do believe the interviews. But while I am convinced that she does not lie in interviews, she sure is being evasive about plot points, so why add **these days**, why? JMO, Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 01:51:05 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:51:05 -0000 Subject: House Pride (wasRe: Sorting Hat (was: muggle baiting...)/Arthur is right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156057 > Potioncat: > I agree with Alla, but with a twist. I think the four Houses "should" be valued equally. All of them have virtues and qualities that are important. It could be hoped that every student has qualities of each house. > > But even though McGonagall says, "Each house has its own noble > history and each has produced outstanding witches and wizards." I > don't think she means it. I'm pretty sure that JKR doesn't mean it. > Or rather, she silently adds, "but Gryffindor has the best and the > most." > > This is a case where I disagree with the author. Not so much that I > don't enjoy the story, and that I don't cheer for courage. I think > every student must think his house is the best one of the four. I > think every student must cherish her own house qualities. > Carol responds: There's no question that JKR favors Gryffindor given her interview comments, but I do think she tries to show its imperfections, especially through Sirius Black, who represents (IMO) an unthinking, reckless sort of courage (which he also attributes, rightly or wrongly, to James Potter: "The risk would have made it fun for him"). Oliver Wood is a variation on the same type; for him, Quidditch is everything, and he takes great risks to insure that his team wins. And Peter Pettigrew was a Gryffindor, the only DE Gryff so far, but proof in himself that not all DEs are Slytherins and not all Gryffindors are good. Personally, I was glad to see Romilda Vane and Cormac McLaggen in HBP--not because I like them (I don't), but because they were unattractive people--both of them pushy, self-centered, and not exactly ethical--yet they were placed in Gryffindor (as was Percy, whom I have more affection for because of the affection he displayed for Ron after the Second Task). And the person who seems to me the ideal Hogwarts student--intelligent, brave, loyal, hard-working, capable of leading or following with equal grace, was Cedric Diggory, a Hufflepuff. So, yes, JKR places her favorites (or most of them) in Gryffindor, but I think that, like the Sorting Hat which is forced to "quarter" the students every year, she believes in unity for Hogwarts, a concept that she highlighted by giving "The Sorting Hat's New Song" its own chapter in OoP. I hope and expect to see the four Houses, or at least their representatives, working together in Book 7--HRH, Draco, Luna, and Zacharias Smith all contributing in some important way either to the Horcrux hunt or to the fight against LV. And, I confidently expect, a certain Slytherin former professor will make an indispensable contribution that will cause Harry to reassess their whole shared history. Carol, who wanted Theo Nott to be the Slytherin who helps Harry but has almost given up hope for him From elmstreetschool at cox.net Wed Jul 26 21:11:26 2006 From: elmstreetschool at cox.net (dana) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:11:26 -0000 Subject: Union of Opposites - Gryffindor/Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156058 > Tonks: > > > Fire and water are opposites. Jung goes on to say: > > "Where fire and water become one, there is a unio > > oppositorum, which is really an image of God, for > > god is the union of opposites. Fire is in itself a > > uniter of opposites and it is a very ancient image for God." > > > houyhnhnm: > > The third should be a Ravenclaw because Air is the mediator > between Fire and Water. Perhaps it will be Luna who has > already shown such an inclination in her attitude towards > Ron and Hermione in HBP15. In Tarot symbolism: Fire = bold action and growth. Symbolized by a wand or staff. Air = truth and ideas, the North. Symbolized by a sword. Earth = material goods and practical concerns. Symbolized by a pentacle or disk. Water = emotions and beauty. Symbolized by a cup. The cup of Hufflepuff could be water, and the sword of Gryffindor could be air. Just based on their characters, I would place Fire with Griffyndor, Air with Ravenclaw, and Earth with Hufflepuff. But Slytherin doesn't really seem to fit, do they? Whether any of this is relevant to the HP books, I don't know. But it makes the most sense to me if the alliance is between all four houses. Slytherin and Gryffindor alone won't be enough. Dana. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jul 27 02:41:22 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:41:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Union of Opposites - Gryffindor/Slytherin References: Message-ID: <013501c6b126$261aec10$2c98400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 156059 Dana: > In Tarot symbolism: > Fire = bold action and growth. Symbolized by a wand or staff. > Air = truth and ideas, the North. Symbolized by a sword. > Earth = material goods and practical concerns. Symbolized by a pentacle or > disk. > Water = emotions and beauty. Symbolized by a cup. > > The cup of Hufflepuff could be water, and the sword of Gryffindor could be > air. Just based > on their characters, I would place Fire with Griffyndor, Air with > Ravenclaw, and Earth with > Hufflepuff. But Slytherin doesn't really seem to fit, do they? Magpie: JKR has acknowledged the elements connection in interviews. Gryffindor=Fire, Ravenclaw=air, Hufflepuff=earth and Slytherin=water. Personally, I think Slytherin is one of the most clearly connected, if not by the description the hat gives for the house (they live under the lake and have a common room with a certain "spooky beauty"). In HBP and CoS especially, the two Slytherin-centered books, liquid symbolism is everywhere. HBP really takes it over the top: Blood, tears, wine, mead, love potions, poison, liquid luck, polyjuice, pensieve liquid memories, lakes, boats, bathrooms, more potions. Plus the Slytherins themselves, for all they may hide them through Occlumency, actually do strike me as having a dramatic, emotional nature all their own. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 03:19:38 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:19:38 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156060 Neri wrote: > > Also, I think the narrator is a case for herself, she is not like any other character out there. Are you saying that, since the narrator > had deceived the hero and the reader several times in the past, she is now allowed to do *anything*, because she gave us "fair warning" that she's unreliable? This would contradict the rules you are trying to formulate here, which suggest that the narrator did accept certain limitations upon herself. > Carol responds: First, a technicality: a third-person narrator (unlike a first-person narrator) is not a character, only the voice or persona that tells the story, in this case usually but not always from Harry's pov. Second, and more important, the narrator does not deceive the hero. The hero has no clue that he's in a story and has no way of knowing what the narrator says about him. The narrator doesn't impose limitations upon himself or herself. The limitations are imposed by the author, who decides whether to use a third-person limited narrator (limited to a particular character's pov), a third-person dramatic narrator (who sees the characters from the outside), or what amounts to a first-person narrator (detailed exposition delivered by one character to another, notably Crouch!Moody in GoF or Dumbledore's expository near-monologues in most of the other books). (BTW, the expository *dialogue* at the end of HBP, with Harry answering most of the questions, is as unreliable as any commentary presented directly by the narrator in any of the books.) But to focus on the narration as opposed to the dialogue, in the HBP books we have instances of straightforward narration, where the narrator merely reports what is happening (for example, an owl lands on the table and knocks over the sugar bowl). We have other instances where this reporting is colored by Harry's (or some other character's) misconceptions. Sometimes these misconceptions are cleared up immediately (e.g., Harry thinking that Snape is Crucioing him) or we already know that they're misconceptions (Frank Bryce not believing in wizards); in other cases, the misconceptions are cleared up much later (Harry thinking that Snape is lying about James Potter's arrogance, an idea introduced in Book 1 and finally shown to be a misconception in book 5). In cases like the second one, the reader is deceived along with Harry, but the narrator is not deceiving *Harry.* In such cases, Harry is misinformed or lacks information or has misinterpreted the evidence, and the narrator, seeing from Harry's pov, is deceived along with him. In a few instances, we have the narrator rather sneakily hiding from the reader things that Harry knows perfectly well, for example that Harry isn't giving Ron Felix Felicis. And we also have a few instances of dramatic irony (another technical term, not something I made up), in which the reader knows things that Harry doesn't (e.g., Voldemort's plot at the beginning of GoF or Snape's UV in HBP). Very frequently, the narrator withholds information, such as the color of particular spells or the identity of a speaker or what a speaker would have said if he hadn't been interrupted. In these instances, the narrator either chooses to withhold the information because it's crucial to the plot and the reader can't know it yet or because it's unimportant or the narrator doesn't reveal it because he, like Harry, doesn't know the information. The second Petrificus Totalus in "The Flight of the Prince" could be any of the above. (I think it's the first, but I could be wrong.) But in *no instance* does the narrator withhold information from *Harry.* Harry is a character in the books. He sees most of the action that's depicted on-page and hears (or overhears) most of the conversations reported on-page, but there are whole chaters when he's absent and moments when he's distracted, and, of course, he misses all the off-page exchanges between, say, Snape and Dumbledore or LV and the DEs. But what Harry does see and hear is not necessarily fact since it's subject to interpretation' just as the Hufflepuffs saw and heard him talking to the snake in Parseltongue in CoS and concluded that he was the Heir of Slytherin. Here's just one example of Harry (mis)interpreting what he sees and hears: Harry overhears Mad-Eye Moody suggesting that LV may be possessing him. He pulls out the Extendable Ears before Moody has finished his sentence (naturally) and looks around, heart hammering and blood rushing to his face. "[The others] were all staring at him, the strings still trailing from their ears, looking suddenly fearful" )OoP Am. ed. 491). Harry thinks they're afraid of *him*. He thinks of Quirrell and feels dirty and contaminated. Then he remembers Sirius Black talking about a weapon and concludes that *he* is the weapon. The narrator, going along with Harry, misleads the reader into thinking that Harry is right, that he's being possessed (but the alert reader will suspect that the others are afraid *for* him rather than *of* him). The narrator is *not* misdirecting Harry. He (or she) is using Harry to misdirect *us.* The narrator sometimes knows things that Harry doesn't know (Harry's forgotten dreams or Snape's conversation at Spinner's End or what Hermione is doing in the stands in SS/PS), and Harry obviously does, thinks, feels, believes, and knows things that the narrator doesn't report. (We don't see the majority of Harry's classes, for example--only those in which something significant [or misleading] happens.) Usually, what Harry knows--or thinks he knows--controls what the narrator reports and how he reports it. But never, ever, does the narrator report anything *to Harry*, distorted or otherwise. If Harry is fooled, it's by another character (Crouch!Moody, for example) or by his own preconceptions (the vision of Sirius Black in the MoM "must" be real because the vision of Mr. Weasley was real). Harry is *never* deceived by the narrator. He doesn't know that the narrator exists. Carol, hoping that the concept of unreliable narrator is finally clear and giving up in despair if it isn't From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Jul 27 03:59:07 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:59:07 -0000 Subject: Union of Opposites - Gryffindor/Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156061 Dana: > Water = emotions and beauty. Symbolized by a cup. [snip} > But Slytherin doesn't really seem to fit, do they? houyhnhnm: If you want to know what people are really up to, look at their taboos. Dumbledore, presumably a Gryffindor and probably onetime HoH, cautions his young Gryffindor protegee against "that flighty temptress, adventure". What do the last two Slytherin Heads warn about? Slughorn: "When you have seen as much of life as I have, you will not underestimate the power of obsessive love." Snape: "Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked this easily--weak people in other words--they stand no chance against his powers" I think this shows that Slytherin is the emotional House. I think we see additional proof in Draco with his *quivering* smirk (and all the other examples that I know have been detailed here before). There are two reasons that it is not more evident. One is that emotional natures are under more pressure to learn to control their emotions. The other is that Slytherin House has been corrupted by the influence of Voldemort. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 05:07:10 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:07:10 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr's motivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156062 Sugaranddixie wrote: > > > << What is Barty Jr's motivation>> in teaching Harry's class about the unforgivable curses? The only conclusion I can come to is that he thought that was what the "real" Moody would do & so did it to make his masquerade more convincing. > > zanooda replied: > This is one of the many, many questions that I had concerning GoF. > Fake Moody had to act convincingly, of course, but he definitely > overdoes it in certain respects. One thing is to teach kids about UCs in general, but to teach Harry, of all people, how to resist the > Imperius curse? > > The only conclusion I was able to come to was this: Barty Jr.'s main > goal is to help Harry to get to the Cup before the other champions, so he arms Harry against the UCs in case someone tries to use them to > eliminate him from the competition. For example, Karkaroff could > Imperius Harry to make him fail at one of the tasks, or something like that. > > In this case the Fake Moody's reason to teach Harry to resist the > Imperius curse was not to arm him against LV, but to guide him through the tasks safely. Carol responds: Essentially I agree with zanooda, but I think Crouch!Moody had additional motivations. First, I doubt that the real Moody would have demonstrated Unforgiveable Curses in front of the students, much less *on* them. IMO, Crouch!Moody enjoyed the opportunity to use the Imperius Curse to control the students, to use Avada Kedavra in front of Harry, and especially to use a prolonged Cruciatus Curse in front of the boy whose parents he had helped to Crucio into insanity--with, of course, the added motive of "comforting" Neville by giving the book he hoped Neville would use to help Harry. I don't think he anticipated Harry's ability to resist the Imperius Curse, but no doubt he enjoyed making Harry bump into furniture and bruise himself while he practiced resisting it. Another part of Barty Jr. probably admired Harry's ability and enjoyed teaching him to resist the curse, all the while "knowing" that Harry was going to die. But also he would have realized, as Zanooda pointed out, that Karkaroff badly wanted Krum to win and would have no scruples against using the Imperius Curse on Harry, any more than barty scrupled to use it on Krum, so why not teach Harry to resist it? The better to win the tournament and take the portkey to the graveyard. One thing Barty wasn't doing, and that's helping the kids to fight against Voldemort. He didn't teach anyone to resist the Imperius Curse; he just allowed Harry to teach himself and the others to get a taste of what it felt like without giving them any idea how to resist any of the Unforgiveables. The only practical DADA lessons those kids ever got from a teacher (aside from escaping from minor Dark creatures) were from Snape in HBP. Carol, who thinks that Crouch!Moody took advantage of every opportunity for sadism and revenge, whether it was punishing the son of a Death Eater who walked free or murdering his own father From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 07:10:25 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:10:25 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both-Details In-Reply-To: <700201d40607261320l23e6e4a9w5f18a9a218b3d3b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156063 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > > Kemper (earlier): > > I don't mind the idea of using the Veil, but have a sense of > > disappointment if it were used in the Final Battle sequense > > as we've already had a battle in the Dept of Mysteries. > > > > ... if The Veil was stolen ... and taken somewhere else > > would be ok, > > too. > > > > But part of the excitement of most of the climatic battles > > is the new scenery. ...edited... > > > > So what are your thoughts on the where and when? > > > > > > Eddie responded: > > Godrick's Hollow, where it all began. > or > The "Room of Love" in the Ministry of Magic. > > > > Sandy responded similarly: > > Since it is the ultimate climax of the series it will occur > towards the end of the book, .... As to where, I think it > will be either at Hogwarts or at Godric's Hollow. ... > > > Kemper now: > My question was unclear. > I was responding to Steve's suggestion of using the Veil > .... The question I asked of Steve ... was /where/ and > /when/ use of the Veil would be used as I argued against > seeing it in the Death Chamber ... as we've seen a climatic > battle there. > > Steve may be suggesting that the Veil be used earlier in > the story, that has nothing to do with the story climax; > I don't know. > > Kemper, ... bboyminn: Just a couple of random comments. First, while we did have a battle of sorts in the Death Chamber, the 'climatic' battle of that book occurred in the Atrium of the Ministry of Magic. So, I contend that the Death Chamber and the Veil were the set up for their re-appearance in a later book. Further, this was the set up to get Sirius behind the Veil. I have this whole elaborate and very far-fetched theory that Sirius is indeed trapped behind the Veil in the world of spirits, but he is not necessarily dead back there. Most people who enter the Spirit World are dead when they arrive. Sirius was still alive when he went though to the other side. Also, most people who 'go beyond the Veil' do so without their bodies; only the spirit goes to the realm of spirits. So Sirus is trapped behind the Veil making him effectively dead, but not truly dead. He went through the Veil under special circumstances. So that is the whole set up. Now, I add one more very unlikely but very necessary twist to make my theory work. Harry has the ability to possess, he just doesn't know it yet. Through a long drawn out set of circumstances Voldemort will possess Harry again, but in the process of fighting the possession, Harry will reverse it. Harry will now possess Voldemort. Seeing his chance, Harry, in control, will drag Voldemort through the Veil. Thus fullfilling the belief that for Voldemort to die, Harry must die. Behind the Veil while still possessing Voldemort, Sirius will give Harry a way to defeat Voldemort and get back. As long as two souls are united neither can die, so Harry will transfer his Possession to Sirius, and thereby leave Voldemort unpossessed, a single mutilated soul in a single mutilated body, and therefore, unable to leave the realm of the spirits; functionally dead. But since Harry is still in possession of an alternate body, and since Sirius is not really dead, both he and Harry can return. Also, while we have been TO the Veil in a previous book, we have NOT been behind it. That is certainly new territory. As long as that was, trust me, I left out a lot of details. Just one problem, I can't for the life of me imagine how or why they would ever go back to the Chamber of Death. I also don't believe that Voldemort or anyone else will move the Veil to a new location. So, fun as my theory might be, I can't imagine any circumstance under which it could occur. I do believe the trip to Godrics Hollow will be significant, but I don't see any reason for the final battle to take place there. The events at Godrics Hollow are going to appear early in the book, so I really can't imagine any circumstances that would draw the various characters to that location at that later time. I have a similar feeling about the 'Room of Love'. I can't see any reason for Harry or anyone else to go to it, and I can't see anyway or any reason why they would go inside it. Yes, it's there and it seem significant, but I can't really see any likely way that it can be applied. Perhaps after my wild and unlikely scenario plays out, and after Sirius and Harry part bodies, they will both be weak, and will have to be moved to the 'Room of Love' for an infusion of 'life force'. I do believe there will be some kind of battle, or at least an altercation ,at the Dursleys. I also believe their will be further trouble at Hogwarts. Now that Dumbledore is gone, Hogwarts is a prime target. If you control the students (hostages), you control the school, and if you contorl the school, you control the parents and by extension the government. So, while the final battle could take place at or near Hogwarts, my instinct is leaning away from that at the moment. Perhaps Voldemort captures the school and holds the students hostage, and the people surrender and give Voldemort control of the government to protect their children. That could put everyone at the Ministry of Magic where a battle could take place. For the most part what I am saying is that there are alternative way of interpreting what we know or suspect. Some speculate that for Voldemort to die, Harry must die. I have given potential scenarios in which Harry /sort of/ dies and that is enough to finsh Voldemort off, but Harry being /sort of/ dead is not enough for Harry to be absolutely dead. In a sense, I am looking for twisted plot lines rather than straight forward interpretations. JKR is the master of the plot twist and is not likely to follow any standard predictable patterns in the writing of the final book. Like I said, just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 27 07:50:44 2006 From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:50:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Barty Jr's motivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156064 zanooda: > This is one of the many, many questions that I had concerning GoF. > Fake Moody had to act convincingly, of course, but he definitely > overdoes it in certain respects. One thing is to teach kids about >UCs in general, but to teach Harry, of all people, how to resist the > Imperius curse? > > The only conclusion I was able to come to was this: Barty Jr.'s main > goal is to help Harry to get to the Cup before the other champions, so he arms Harry against the UCs in case someone tries to use them to > eliminate him from the competition. For example, Karkaroff could > Imperius Harry to make him fail at one of the tasks, or something like that. > > In this case the Fake Moody's reason to teach Harry to resist the > Imperius curse was not to arm him against LV, but to guide him through the tasks safely. PJ: My son had a thought about this. He figures Crouch Jr wanted to see just how formidable Harry actually was since he knew he was sending him to LV and LV wasn't in top form yet. Also, Crouch Jr. may have had plans to imperious Harry to go to LV on his own power at first and, finding out Harry could fight the curse, changed to plan B... the maze. I think these are as good as any reason we've come up with here since it's never truly explained (at least not to my satisfaction) but I do agree with Carol that Crouch Jr. wanted to enjoy Neville's reaction to the crucio'd spider. What a sicko he was!! PJ From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 08:14:05 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:14:05 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's fate - Best of Both-Details In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40607261320l23e6e4a9w5f18a9a218b3d3b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40607270114h77a8b647xaa3e0a6fc8839beb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156065 > > Kemper earlier: > > > > I was responding to Steve's suggestion of using the Veil > > .... The question I asked of Steve ... was /where/ and > > /when/ use of the Veil would be used as I argued against > > seeing it in the Death Chamber ... as we've seen a climatic > > battle there. > > > > Steve may be suggesting that the Veil be used earlier in > > the story, that has nothing to do with the story climax; > > I don't know. > > > > bboyminn responded: > > Just a couple of random comments. > > First, while we did have a battle of sorts in the Death Chamber, the > 'climatic' battle of that book occurred in the Atrium of the Ministry > of Magic. So, I contend that the Death Chamber and the Veil were the > set up for their re-appearance in a later book. Further, this was the > set up to get Sirius behind the Veil. > Kemper now: That's right. As I said earlier that battle was between LV and DD. > Steve cont.: I have this whole elaborate and very far-fetched theory that Sirius is > indeed trapped behind the Veil in the world of spirits, but he is not > necessarily dead back there. ... SNIP cool theory ... > > Also, while we have been TO the Veil in a previous book, we have NOT > been behind it. That is certainly new territory. Kemper now: Yes, you're right. Beyond the Veil would be new territory, and I would enjoy seeing her interpretation of the other side. I also think your theory has potential as it includes prophecy lines. Nice. > Steve cont.: As long as that was, trust me, I left out a lot of details. Just one > problem, I can't for the life of me imagine how or why they would ever > go back to the Chamber of Death. I also don't believe that Voldemort > or anyone else will move the Veil to a new location. So, fun as my > theory might be, I can't imagine any circumstance under which it could > occur. Kemper now: I can see Voldemort wanting to steal such a powerful tool. With as much Death as he's witnessed (caused), I'm sure the murmuring beyond the Veil must be thunderous. Or it might be a cacophony of dead and he would fear it. I don't know. The more I write about this possibility the more I think Voldy would be scared of what he heard and would avoid the veil as much as possible. But what if Snape persuaded him that it would be a great idea... ? ... That Snape is a tricky devil. > Steve cont.: I do believe the trip to Godrics Hollow will be significant, but I > don't see any reason for the final battle to take place there. The > events at Godrics Hollow are going to appear early in the book, so I > really can't imagine any circumstances that would draw the various > characters to that location at that later time. Kemper now: Steve, for someone who is looking for twisted plot lines, you sure allow yourself to be set up on Godric's Hollow being early in the book just because Harry says that's his intent. JKR could be setting up the reader to /expect/ GH early in the book 7, but when we start reading something may happen that throws us in another direction. > Steve cont.: I have a similar feeling about the 'Room of Love'. I can't see any > reason for Harry or anyone else to go to it, and I can't see anyway or > any reason why they would go inside it. Yes, it's there and it seem > significant, but I can't really see any likely way that it can be > applied. Perhaps after my wild and unlikely scenario plays out, and > after Sirius and Harry part bodies, they will both be weak, and will > have to be moved to the 'Room of Love' for an infusion of 'life force'. Kemper now: I agree. I rather the Room of Love remain an unknown; it's more powerful shrouded in mystery than exposed for us to dissect. But if it is used as you reasonably suggest, I hope the reader is left in the dark. > Steve cont.: I do believe there will be some kind of battle, or at least an > altercation ,at the Dursleys. I also believe their will be further > trouble at Hogwarts. Now that Dumbledore is gone, Hogwarts is a prime > target. ... snip... > > Perhaps Voldemort captures the school and holds the students hostage, > and the people surrender and give Voldemort control of the government > to protect their children. That could put everyone at the Ministry of > Magic where a battle could take place. Kemper now: I don't like this line of thought. If Voldemort were interested in controlling the MoM, he would have gotten a job with them earlier on. Besides Harry's Death and his extended life, he seems more interested in instilling terror in others. If LV is truly evil and vile, than he would take over Hogwarts to kill/torture the students so that he could revel in the parents suffering and grief. And not to change public policy. Kemper, interested in the more details... have you posted it? If so what's the subject line? (It works better for me than post number unless its before july 31, 05) From jamess at climaxgroup.com Thu Jul 27 08:57:53 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:57:53 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Other uses for toffees... Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B6F@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 156066 Ahh yes, a simple engorgement charm would suffice. -----Original Message----- From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Oppen Sent: 25 July 2006 20:59 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Cc: Jean Lamb; Azalais Malfoy Subject: [HPforGrownups] Other uses for toffees... You know, it's probably a really good thing that the Twins are usually forbidden to hawk their wares to Muggles. I just waded through a ton of spam about how these various quacks can improve and expand my naughty bits, and it hit me: If the Twins can make toffees that expand tongues... You know, that idea alone would probably make them so rich that they could buy JKR out and write the books themselves. Or buy the whole UK and evict all the Muggles. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From graverobber23 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 21:39:17 2006 From: graverobber23 at yahoo.com (graverobber23) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:39:17 -0000 Subject: About the "Who Else Is Going to Die" Poll..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156067 I can forsee Snape dying due to guilt for his actions on Harry. Also I can see Lupin dying because his is a mentor to Harry. Harry has lost all of his mentors so far except Lupin and McGonnagal. So I can see one of them going. It would be more logical for Lupin to die, because McGonnagal is Headmistress. Here is a cool theory that someone touched on that I agree with. He said that Harry, Ron, and Hermione will come back as teachers. I think it makes sense. Harry teaching Defense Against The Dark Arts, Hermione teaching Ancient Runes, and Ron teaching as sports. Since that is one of Ron's strong points is Quidditch, he would know how to handle it. Just a theory, that's all. graverobber23 From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 09:02:19 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:02:19 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156068 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > > SSSusan: > Hee. You've got a point there. What *could* Herself have said > otherwise? Maybe Alla's got a point that her "he's not saying much > these days" remark, which seemed so "Haha -- I'm saying this off the > cuff to be funny," might've been a way of avoiding the truth but > also dropping a hint? > > But, yep, I'm betting Aberforth will be active in Book 7 somehow -- > whether that's bearing news from brother Albus or having knowledge > of Regulus' history or -- heck yeah! -- harboring Regulus, we shall > see. > Regulus alive? Well, I guess it's a possibility, although it would make JKR, IMO, into an out and out liar (I'm talking her interviews -- sorry, but if she says he's dead and he comes up alive, I will regard it as nothing but a bald-faced lie). More to the question, what on earth purpose would that serve? JKR already has more than enough plot elements and loose ends to tie up, she scarcely needs to create more clutter, trouble, and confusion by introducing new major characters (back from the dead, yet!) at the eleventh hour. We already know, almost for a fact, that one such character (Aberforth) is on his way. We really don't need any more when JKR has more than enough to do with rounding off the character arcs she already has in place, thank you very much. Lupinlore From chrissilein at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 05:42:13 2006 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (chrissilein) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:42:13 -0000 Subject: HBP paperback In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156069 Alla wrote: > > So, I bought it today. > > I was talking to somebody off list about "He cannot kill you if you are > already dead" that is in American edition, but as we know it is not in > the British one. > > It is not in the paperback edition either. Dumbledore now jumps right > into "come back to the right side..." > > Hmmm, looks like JKR really does not want this sentence to be here. > > Hi Alla, even the sentence is deleted now from the paperback edition it still exists in the harcover copies. Whatever the intention could have been for deleting it, it was a meaningless job because it?s known by every HP books reader since one year. >From my point of view it makes the sentence more interesting and myterious instead and the take away of it will only force a deeper discussion instead of accepting the fact it?s gone now. Bye Chrissilein From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 08:49:33 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:49:33 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156070 > Ceridwen: > I'm seeing the WW as more complacent with things, and even perhaps as > having outmoded, by our standards, laws and practices which, while > deploring Umbridge's methods, provide no recourse for dealing with > her excesses. > Oh, certainly the WW seems backward in a lot of ways. But for none of the adults to even *acknowledge* what happened to Harry? That's... well, for a lack of a better word, contemptible. You say the WW deplores Umbridge, but I certainly see no sign of them deploring what happened to Harry. Even McGonnagall, who has special responsibilities in this instance, lets it go without so much as a "Sorry about that, Potter." Once again, I don't think contemptible is too strong a word. Lupinlore From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 27 11:56:04 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:56:04 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156071 Lupinlore: > Regulus alive? Well, I guess it's a possibility, although it > would make JKR, IMO, into an out and out liar (I'm talking her > interviews -- sorry, but if she says he's dead and he comes up > alive, I will regard it as nothing but a bald-faced lie). SSSusan: Well, the point I'd been trying to make here was concerning the way Alla interpreted that very interview response -- that it left room for a return from the dead. That's all. If it would still seem like a bald-faced lie to you, that's your prerogative. I was just pointing out one list member's view that JKR could perhaps have been leaving room for a return from the dead, even if it's not the most common interpretation of what JKR was saying. Lupinlore: > More to the question, what on earth purpose would that serve? JKR > already has more than enough plot elements and loose ends to tie > up, she scarcely needs to create more clutter, trouble, and > confusion by introducing new major characters (back from the dead, > yet!) at the eleventh hour. We already know, almost for a fact, > that one such character (Aberforth) is on his way. We really > don't need any more when JKR has more than enough to do with > rounding off the character arcs she already has in place, thank > you very much. SSSusan: Again, your opinion is your own. However, I thought I had made the point a couple of times earlier in the thread just what I was thinking of re: Regulus' return. That is, *if* he came back (or even if some of his artifacts/papers were discovered), that I could see it making Harry's journey/task EASIER, not more cluttered or chaotic. If Regulus is R.A.B., then he's the one who removed the locket horcrux. If he -- or his words -- became available to Harry in Book 7, it could help Harry with *that* particular horcrux, and he might possibly have had information from his time as a DE regarding other horcruxes, which could help Harry tracking them down. Just one view, obviously. You don't want to see a character come back from the dead. That's fine. It's not high on my list of "Want to sees" either. I was simply going along with the "What if" of Alla's post -- what if DD's comment which was removed from the new US paperback edition was significant in the sense that someone *might* be making a return from the "dead"? and what if JKR was toying with people a bit regarding Regulus' status in that interview? I **doubt** that she was, but if she was, what's the harm in considering how that character might play into things? I, for one, think it would be fun to have Regulus guide Harry a bit in the hx hunt (which seems *awfully* daunting a task with just one year left!). Whether it would be Regulus in person or discovered Regulus artifacts/documents which did the guiding wouldn't much matter to me. Just trying to have a little fun, I was. Siriusly Snapey Susan From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 12:07:13 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:07:13 -0000 Subject: The Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156072 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "steven1965aaa" wrote: > In OOP, in the scene in Dumbledore's office at the end, Dumbledore > tells Harry that the Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies inserted > Harry's name (with a (?)) on the prophesy after Voldmort's attack > on the Potter family, because that attack made it clear which boy > Voldemort believed to be the one named in the prophesy. > > It seems to me that for the Keeper to have come to that > conclusion, and even for the Keeper to have known that there was a > question about which boy was "the one with the power to vanquish > the Dark Lord", the Keeper must have know about the contents of the > prophesy. > > If the Keeper potentially knows the contents, why wouldn't > Voldemort go after the Keeper? Maybe Voldemort doesn't know. > Maybe the keeper who knew the contents of the prophesy is dead and > the current Keeper doesn't know the contents, which would make > Dubmledore's statement to Harry true. Maybe as an unspeakable > there would be something to magicallly prevent the Keeper from > blabbing. maria8162001: I've been thinking a lot about the keeper of the Hall of Prophesies and the only 2 people that knows the full contents of the prophesy for a long time every time I'm re-reading the OotP and the HBP and it always come to my mind that maybe the keeper of the HOP is DD? I know it sounds off but it does connect with your question on why Voldemort doesn't go after the keeper? Is it maybe because he knows who the keeper of HOP is and he's afraid of him? And who's the only person Voldy's afraid, is it not DD? So that is my take on this, maybe DD is the keeper of HOP. maria8162001: who is happy she able to post this thought finally, :-) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jul 27 12:25:21 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:25:21 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156073 Geoff: > That's not much information on which to build a character important > enough to be brought back from the dead. I see her as a version of > the red shirt wearers in the original Start Trek series. Potioncat: Oh, yeah. Crewman #4. Actually, that's a lot for such an umimportant character. It could be important if, say, Harry goes to a meeting and we see her there. We would know--but Harry wouldn't--that Snape had lied to the Black sisters. Funny, this line is taking on much more importance than it did the first time we found out there was a discrepancy. Am I the only one who thinks it's less important now? Do we know if there has ever been a change that turned out to be important to the plot before? (other than wand order?) Potioncat, having a sudden urge to watch "Galaxy Quest." From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 12:17:10 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:17:10 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156074 Geoff wrote: > But why should we be interested in Emmeline Vance? What do we know > about her? That's not much information on which to build a > character important enough to be brought back from the dead. I see > her as a version of the red shirt wearers in the original Start Trek > series. maria8162001: I'm thinking that maybe Emmeline Vance is the one we are going to meet in book 7 who is OOP member that we haven't properly met yet. JKR said somthing like that in one of her interviews, that we are going to meet an OOP member in book 7 that we haven't properly met yet. We only met Emmeline Vance in the book5 but not so significant as she was one of the OOP member to get Harry from the Dursleys. So, yeah, she might be coming back. Regulus is not an OOP member so I am not counting on him. I'm basing my opinion on JKR's interview about an Order member we are going to meet properly. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 27 12:43:08 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:43:08 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156075 Lupinlore: > Oh, certainly the WW seems backward in a lot of ways. But for none of > the adults to even *acknowledge* what happened to Harry? That's... > well, for a lack of a better word, contemptible. You say the WW > deplores Umbridge, but I certainly see no sign of them deploring what > happened to Harry. Even McGonnagall, who has special > responsibilities in this instance, lets it go without so much as > a "Sorry about that, Potter." Pippin: IIRC, McGonagall fed Harry two biscuits and told him that defying Umbridge was going to cost him a lot more than House Points and dententions. She warned him to keep his head down and keep his temper. What do you want her to do now, give him another biscuit and say, "I told you so"? Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 27 12:51:59 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:51:59 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156076 Dung earlier: >>> RAB is alive and well, and being kept hidden by Aberforth. And I bet Snape knows, and is pals with him. <<< SSSusan replied, earlier: >> But, yep, I'm betting Aberforth will be active in Book 7 somehow -- whether that's bearing news from brother Albus or having knowledge of Regulus' history or -- heck yeah! -- harboring Regulus, we shall see. << Dung then responded: > > Except... no it can't be Regulus. If Regulus were being hidden by > > the Order, or by DD, DD wouldn't have gone chasing off after a > > fake Horcrux. SSSusan: AH! So I get what you're saying now. Erm... maybe I do. That you think Aberforth is harboring R.A.B., but that R.A.B. is *not* Regulus? That's what you're getting at? I'll come back to that. At the moment, still assuming R.A.B. *is* Regulus... Colebiancardi: > unless, unless, Regulus was so "insane in the membrane" from > drinking the vile liquid, he could not really tell anyone much of > anything. SSSusan: Hee. Well, I'm not sure about the "insane in the membrane" possibility, colebiancardi, but I had to include that because it cracked me up. Dung, again assuming R.A.B. could be Regulus and going with your "R.A.B. is being kept hidden by Aberforth," what about the possibility that DD didn't even *know* that Regulus is alive? What do we really know about Albus' and Aberforth's relationship? Precious little! That Albus *said* he wasn't sure Aberforth could read. (Was he joshing? Or was this indicative of a not-especially- close sibling relationship.) We do have confirmation that heis a member of the Order, yet Moody claims he only met him once, and we don't see much of him. He's the barkeeper at the Hog's Head, but we can only guess how often (or not) Albus visited him there. He was seen conversing with Dung. He appeared at Albus' funeral. That's about it! To quote a question from the Lexicon, "Is Aberforth an undercover operative, or mostly working for himself?" The answer for now is, "Who knows?" But if he's doing a lot of undercover work or working mostly by or for himself, is it possible he might keep information from his brother? Nyeh, I know, it's doubtful. I'm really not at all convinced Regulus is alive. But I do think it's possible that he could be alive without Albus Dumbledore's knowledge, even if Aberforth were the one hosting him. So, back to what you were saying (I think). You're postulating that R.A.B. is not Regulus, and that Aberforth is keeping R.A.B. in hiding. Then who's R.A.B.?? Siriusly Snapey Susan, who knows this post is all chopped up and confusing, but it reflects the state of her brain this morning (blasted DECAF coffee) From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 27 13:01:14 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:01:14 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156077 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > That's not much information on which to build a character important > enough to be brought back from the dead. I see her as a version of > the red shirt wearers in the original Start Trek series. > Pippin: That's just it. JKR doesn't go in for red shirts very much. Cedric started out to be a perfect red shirt character, and then Harry had to spend the whole next book being devastated. Now we're starting to see that even a Death Eater's death might matter to someone. We're not supposed to see death as inconsequential. A named Order member who dies unmourned and apparently unmissed sticks out a little too much to be a nobody, IMO. Anyway, it's very odd that no Order member, other than Snape, ever mentions that Emmeline is dead. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jul 27 13:11:52 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:11:52 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156078 > Alla: > > Hehe, he does not even have to be insane, he just have to **not** > come to Dumbledore for whatever reasons, you know? > > Regulus may have gotten a wake up call about Voldemort, but who says > that it means that he automatically felt love and respect for > Dumbledore? Pippin: But, um, I thought we got here by supposing the deleted line was a clue that the Order had been hiding people by faking their deaths. Are you saying the Order hid Regulus without Dumbledore knowing?? ::boggles::: > > Alla: > > Yes, that is precisely my line of thought. You see, if she would > have just said - he is dead, that would have been end of story to > me, since I do believe the interviews. But while I am convinced that > she does not lie in interviews, she sure is being evasive about plot > points, so why add **these days**, why? Pippin: Given that Regulus is RAB, that's simple. The question was, will we be hearing from Regulus, and the answer, which could be decoded with the HBP release, was yes, but he'll be speaking to us from the past, as he's dead. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 13:35:19 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:35:19 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156080 Geoff Bannister wrote: > > > > > > That's not much information on which to build a character important > > enough to be brought back from the dead. I see her as a version of > > the red shirt wearers in the original Start Trek series. > > > > Pippin: > That's just it. JKR doesn't go in for red shirts very much. > > Cedric started out to be a perfect red shirt character, and then Harry had to > spend the whole next book being devastated. Now we're starting to see that > even a Death Eater's death might matter to someone. > > We're not supposed to see death as inconsequential. A named Order > member who dies unmourned and apparently unmissed sticks out a > little too much to be a nobody, IMO. > > Anyway, it's very odd that no Order member, other than Snape, ever mentions > that Emmeline is dead. Alla: Well, if JKR would make us care about Emmeline the way she did about Cedric, then sure. Right now I am with Geoff, because I think that if JKR will bring character from the dead, well no, scratch that, if JKR will tell us that somebody was not really dead, I would think she would do it for larger purpose than exonerating Snape ( it is irrelevant to me for this argument if Snape is innocent or not, by the way). I am just saying that the character whom we thought dead turning out alive in book 7 should IMO serve somehow helping Harry. If the argument is that Emmeline would be able somehow help Harry with Horcruxes quest or something else, then sure, I can see this possibility to be as good as any. If she would just show up for no other reason than to tell us that Snape did not kill her, I just don't see it, but I could be wrong of course. > > Alla: > > > > Hehe, he does not even have to be insane, he just have to **not** > > come to Dumbledore for whatever reasons, you know? > Pippin: > > But, um, I thought we got here by supposing the deleted line was a clue > that the Order had been hiding people by faking their deaths. Are you > saying the Order hid Regulus without Dumbledore knowing?? > ::boggles::: Alla: Hehe, not quite, I was supposing that this was a clue for people going in hiding by faking their deaths, not necessarily Order doing so. You know, foreshadowing, but not so direct? Like there are similarities between what happened with older generation and what is happening with younger, but not exact. SO, the whole order involvement is not necessary in this speculation. > > Alla: But while I am convinced that > > she does not lie in interviews, she sure is being evasive about plot > > points, so why add **these days**, why? > > Pippin: > Given that Regulus is RAB, that's simple. > The question was, will we be hearing from Regulus, and > the answer, which could be decoded with the HBP release, was yes, > but he'll be speaking to us from the past, as he's dead. Alla: That is certainly a possibility. JMO, Alla From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jul 27 14:31:23 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:31:23 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156081 Lupinlore: > Oh, certainly the WW seems backward in a lot of ways. But for none of > the adults to even *acknowledge* what happened to Harry? That's... > well, for a lack of a better word, contemptible. You say the WW > deplores Umbridge, but I certainly see no sign of them deploring what > happened to Harry. Even McGonnagall, who has special > responsibilities in this instance, lets it go without so much as > a "Sorry about that, Potter." Once again, I don't think contemptible > is too strong a word. Ceridwen: What I didn't get was that they all passed over what happened to Ginny in CoS, with barely more than a warning not to trust objects that have their own minds. I think this was a set-up for the later reactions to Umbridge. No one liked what happened to Ginny, no one liked what happened to Harry. But, stiff upper lip, pip-pip, all that, nothing more to see here, move along... Snape's 'heart on the sleeve' speech might not only be as personal as we all seem to think - what if it's the way the WW actually looks at things? "Don't wallow, don't live in the past, it's time to soldier on." The only incident I can think of offhand, excluding Dumbledore's funeral, where there was more than an explanation was the memorial for Cedric Diggory - not that my memory is all that good. Once that was over, everyone moved on. For 'contemptible', try ignoble, despicable, abject, base, miserable, ignominious, mean, vile or beggardly. I'd go for 'ignominious' here: *Marked by shame or disgrace Deserving disgrace or shame; despicable. Degrading; debasing* http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignominious I'd choose that one because it *is* disgraceful. You might go for 'vile': *adj 1: morally reprehensible; "would do something as despicable as murder"; "ugly crimes"; "the vile development of slavery appalled them" [syn: despicable, ugly, unworthy] 2: thoroughly unpleasant; "filthy (or foul or nasty or vile) weather we're having" [syn: filthy, foul, nasty] 3: causing or able to cause nausea; "a nauseating smell"; "nauseous offal"; "a sickening stench" [syn: nauseating, nauseous, noisome, loathsome, offensive, sickening]* http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vile Ceridwen. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Jul 27 14:54:07 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:54:07 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156082 > Dung then responded: > > > Except... no it can't be Regulus. If Regulus were being hidden by the Order, or by DD, DD wouldn't have gone chasing off after a > > > fake Horcrux. > > > SSSusan: > AH! So I get what you're saying now. Erm... maybe I do. That you > think Aberforth is harboring R.A.B., but that R.A.B. is *not* Regulus? > That's what you're getting at? I'll come back to that. Dung: No, I meant what Pippin said. Nobody can be sheltering R.A.B. with DD's knowledge, or DD wouldn't have gone haring off to the cave. *If* someone has been hidden and their death been faked then I think it's ... Um. I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue. It could be that she wanted the line taken out to stop this kind of speculation altogether because it's confusing, rather than too big a tip-off. I *do* think RAB is Regulus, boring though it is. I suspect the realisation will come at Grimmauld Place when they finally get that tapestry off the wall, and it will be the first inkling Harry has that Sirius might have been wrong about something. Or someone. It could be, as Alla suggested that Regulus is alive anyway, being hidden by someone else (Snape! Snape! Snape!) but ... I remember thinking my way through all of this last time, when we first discovered there was a discrepancy between editions, and I'm not sure much has changed. So I'm going back to my original Regulus is dead hypothesis, and ironing my hands in an attempt to teach myself not to click 'send' before engaging brain. Dung. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 27 15:39:32 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:39:32 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156083 SSSusan: >>> AH! So I get what you're saying now. Erm... maybe I do. That you think Aberforth is harboring R.A.B., but that R.A.B. is *not* Regulus? That's what you're getting at? <<< Dung: > No, I meant what Pippin said. Nobody can be sheltering R.A.B. with > DD's knowledge, or DD wouldn't have gone haring off to the cave. > *If* someone has been hidden and their death been faked then I > think it's ... Um. I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue. It could be that she > wanted the line taken out to stop this kind of speculation > altogether because it's confusing, rather than too big a tip-off. SSSusan: Ah, I'm *finally* with you! It was that "RAB is alive and well, and being kept hidden by Aberforth. And I bet Snape knows, and is pals with him" line from earlier that had me going. (Like I said, a little slow on the uptake I am today.) And so now I'm just forced to say, "Spoilsport!!" ::sticks out tongue:: Just kidding of course. You're right, though. It's very possible that that's precisely the reason JKR might have had the line removed from the paperback release. 'Tis one of the things I've heard rumblings (and oftentimes grumblings) about before when it comes to JKR & her website or interview responses. That she seems to be doing a bit more directing of the fandom in its investigation and hypothesizing than she did in days of old. Some days I don't mind that; on others I find it spoils the fun. Dung: > I *do* think RAB is Regulus, boring though it is. I suspect the > realisation will come at Grimmauld Place when they finally get that > tapestry off the wall, and it will be the first inkling Harry has > that Sirius might have been wrong about something. Or someone. SSSusan: Well, now *that* would be interesting, at least. Like I've said, I don't really care if Regulus is Good 'n' Gone to the Afterworld; I only think it could be cool to have what he knew be discovered by Harry & crew somehow. Getting that pesky tapestry down would be a fun scene to read. Dung: > It could be, as Alla suggested that Regulus is alive anyway, being > hidden by someone else (Snape! Snape! Snape!) but ... I remember > thinking my way through all of this last time, when we first > discovered there was a discrepancy between editions, and I'm not > sure much has changed. So I'm going back to my original Regulus is > dead hypothesis, and ironing my hands in an attempt to teach myself > not to click 'send' before engaging brain. SSSusan: Well, witness my misunderstanding from before. I think there's been a bigger disengagement of brain before 'send' on my end than on yours! Siriusly Snapey Susan, now trying to think of something else to keep me intrigued 'til we finally get our answers From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jul 27 15:46:09 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:46:09 -0000 Subject: Barty Jr's motivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156084 > zanooda: > > Fake Moody had to act convincingly, but he definitely > > overdoes it teach(ing) kids about > >UCs in general, but to teach Harry, how to resist the > > Imperius curse? > > > > The only conclusion I was able to come to was: Barty Jr.'s main > > goal is to help Harry to get to the Cup so he arms Harry > > against the UCs in case someone tries to use them to > > eliminate him from the competition. > > PJ: > > My son had a thought about this. Crouch Jr wanted to see just > how formidable Harry actually was > Also, Crouch Jr. may have had plans to > imperious Harry to go to LV on his own power at first and, > changed to plan B... the maze. > > I think these are as good as any reason we've come up with > I do agree with > Carol that Crouch Jr. wanted to enjoy Neville's reaction > What a sicko he was!! > > PJ > aussie: Barty had UC stored in his wand that could have been hard to explain otherwise. When his father turned up, Jr AK-ed Snr. Then he got Krum to follow his lead. But the MOM would be hard pressed to prove it with his wand being used in DODA classes, and Spiders getting UCs. "You want to test my hand for gunpowder residue? Of course you will find residue. I was at the firing range the morning before the murder." From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 16:30:53 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:30:53 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156085 > Pippin: > Voldemort appearing, time-travel and the priori > incantatem weren't twists in the sense that they took the story in an > unexpected direction. Neri: The time-turner didn't take the story in an unexpected direction??? That's an interesting opinion. I suspect that some readers might disagree with you on that. > Pippin: > Voldemort bursting out of Quirrell's head > was startling (and also a non-description, since the "bursting" isn't > revealed until OOP) but we already expected that Harry would > confront Voldemort. To me there's a difference between, 'We're > expecting Voldemort and Yipes! there he is' and 'We're expecting > Snape and Yipes! it's Quirrell.' > > The time-turner doesn't change the direction of the story -- > Harry still has to save Sirius-- it just gives him a chance to do it. > Buckbeak's survival is a twist -- but by then the time turner has > been explained. > > The fact that wands store images of prior spells was revealed when > Harry's wand disgorged the ghostly Dark Mark. The appearance of > Voldemort's victims was a surprise but didn't change the direction > of the story. Harry still had avoid being killed and escape from the > graveyard. > Neri: I think you have a vague and rather limiting definition of a plot twist. The time-turner wasn't but Buckbeak's survival was? Hmmm. I think our whole Unreliable Narrator discussion centers around its use for tricking or fooling the reader, especially if some sneaky clues were supplied before. We had classic sneaky clues for Voldy hiding underneath Quirrell's turban (including Quirrell adjusting the turban when he goes out of the empty class where Harry thinks he was talking to Snape!) and classic sneaky clues about Hermione time traveling, and its obvious that both these events were designed to catch us by surprise. Taking cases like this altogether out of the discussion would make it very limited. > Pippin: > Dobby was accused of lying and did in fact equivocate about whether > Voldemort was involved. He was never accused of opening the chamber. > Neri: He was not accused of opening the chamber himself because he obviously wasn't the Heir of Slytherin, but he was certainly accused of doing what the Malfoys (which were suspects) sent him to do, and nobody vouched for him that he didn't. > > Neri: > > Who challenged Ginny in CoS? > > Pippin: > Harry himself, on the morning of the day she was taken. He asked her > if she knew anything about opening the chamber. > Neri: That was awfully late in the game, and besides "asking her if she knew something" is a not exactly "challenging". BTW, McGonagall telling Crouch!Moody that transfiguration isn't used as punishment at Hogwarts isn't much of a challenge either. So your standard of challenging is quite permissive. By this standard it would be difficult to find a character who was *not* challenged. > > > > > > Pippin: > > > No character (including the narrator) has been revealed to have > > deceived the hero or the reader in a plot twist who had not previously > > appeared to be unreliable. > > > > > Pippin: > Okay, this was muddy. (I blame the heat.) Let me try again. > > Characters that Harry gets wrong always seem to have a bit of > fishy business in the background that's never explained until the > twist. Of course the face value characters can > act fishy too, but when they're hiding something important, we > always know. > > We know that Hermione is keeping a secret about how she's getting > to all those classes, and we know that Ron is probably > practicing Quidditch on the sly. OTOH, we never got a chance to guess > that Ginny was practicing Quidditch, but we did learn that she can be > sneaky because she pretended she never knew the diary was dangerous. > Neri: OK, so going by this *any* character, not precluding Ron, Hermione and Ginny, might turn out to be ESE in Book 7. So the only "rule" I see here is "anything goes". Also, here you seem to change your mind here and agree that Hermione keeping the time-turner secret *was* part of a plot twist. > Pippin: > Other examples: > Quirrell tells an unconvincing story about his turban. > Scabbers inexplicably falls asleep after the fight with Goyle. > Fake!Moody says Crouch disappeared from the map. > Kreacher tells an unconvincing story about where he was over Christmas. > Neri: Again, your standard for "a bit of fishy business in the background" is very inclusive. So in fact no character is free from suspicion, and therefore there are no rules and in practice the JKR can do anything. > Pippin: > The narrator pulls a similar trick, telling us that Harry's parents died > in a car crash. It's fishy because we already know that they seem > to have been killed in a place called Godric's Hollow by someone > called Voldemort. Sure enough, it turns out we can't take the > narrator at face value either. The narration shuttles seamlessly > between one character's seeming reality and another's, and does > not always let us know when a character's seeming reality has > strayed from the objective reality of the books. However, by using > the other rules to look for hints, IMO we can try to guess when it has > done so. > Geoff: > I'm not quite sure this "similar trick" is the same. It may be fishy because /we/ already > know about Godric's Hollow but this is not an unconvincing story from Harry's perspective. > > 'The only thing Harry liked about his own appearance was a very thin scar on his forehead > which was shaped like a bolt of lightning. He had had it as long as he could remember and > the first question he could ever remember 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."' > (PS "The Vanishing Glass" p.20 UK edition) Neri: I think Pippin might be meaning the last section of this chapter when Harry's parents dying in accident is brought up as if by the narrator. However, immediately before and after that we are told that Harry is thinking these things. And by that point we already know he got this information from Petunia and that his parents didn't die in a car accident. Therefore I don't think there's anything fishy here at all. It's obvious to the reader that the narrator is only representing Harry's beliefs and that Harry was deceived. This is an example of unreliable narrator but it *isn't* an example of JKR using the unreliable narrator to fool the reader. > Carol responds: > First, a technicality: a third-person narrator (unlike a first- person > narrator) is not a character, only the voice or persona that tells the > story, in this case usually but not always from Harry's pov. > > Second, and more important, the narrator does not deceive the hero. > The hero has no clue that he's in a story and has no way of knowing > what the narrator says about him. The narrator doesn't impose > limitations upon himself or herself. The limitations are imposed by > the author, who decides whether to use a third-person limited narrator > (limited to a particular character's pov), a third-person dramatic > narrator (who sees the characters from the outside), or what amounts > to a first-person narrator (detailed exposition delivered by one > character to another, notably Crouch!Moody in GoF or Dumbledore's > expository near-monologues in most of the other books). Neri: I acknowledge the distinction between the author and the narrator. I was aware of it all the time but didn't want to complicate this discussion even further. > Carol: > > In a few instances, we have the narrator rather sneakily > hiding from the reader things that Harry knows perfectly well, for > example that Harry isn't giving Ron Felix Felicis. Neri: No, we don't have *few* instances. That was my whole point in this thread. We have exactly *one* known case throughout the whole series where the author fools the reader by hiding from him things that Harry knows perfectly well (BTW, weren't you mixing author and narrator yourself here?). We also have exactly *one* case throughout the whole series in which it is Harry himself who fools the reader. Very interestingly these cases turn out to be the same ? the Felix Felicis incident. I don't think this is any coincidence. > Carol: > But in *no instance* does the narrator withhold information from > *Harry.* > The narrator sometimes knows things that Harry doesn't know Neri: I'm afraid that after the above two statements I'm more mixed than ever . OK, regardless of any technical issues, I think you and Pippin still manage to avoid the main point of my thread. The Author obviously can't allow the narrator to be *too* unreliable, because in that case the reader simply would never believe a word the narrator is saying. My question is: What is JKR's personal limit in using the unreliability of her narrator to fool the readers? I'm interested in definitions of this limit backed up by examples in the book (examples in which we already know whether we were fooled or not, not hypotheticals like the PT case). Pippin came up with a list of rules, but I think that they basically boil down to "wherever the author raises some doubt ? anything goes", and since JKR almost always raises *some* doubt, in practice it's "anything goes". So where is the limit between tricking and conning? What *wouldn't* JKR do to fool the reader? Neri From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Jul 27 16:46:52 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:46:52 -0000 Subject: RAB's artifacts (was: Significance of missing line) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156086 > Lupinlore: > > Regulus alive? Well, I guess it's a possibility, although it > > would make JKR, IMO, into an out and out liar (sorry, but if she > > says he's dead and he comes up alive, I will regard it as > > nothing but a bald-faced lie). > > SSSusan: > Well, the point I'd been trying to make here was concerning the way > Alla interpreted that very interview response -- that it left room > for a return from the dead. That's all. aussie: Remember Dobby justifying his logic in COS (Chap 18)? Harry speaking, "You told me all this had nothing to do with He-Who- Must-Not-Be-Named, remember? Well --" "It was a clue, sir," said Dobby, his eyes widening, as though this was obvious. "Was giving you a clue. The Dark Lord, before he changed his name, could be freely named, you see?" That was not a bald face lie for JKR. (and from other postings with the same heading) > SSSusan: > Well, now *that* would be interesting, at least. Like I've said, I > don't really care if Regulus is Good 'n' Gone to the Afterworld; I > only think it could be cool to have what he knew be discovered by > Harry & crew somehow. ... > I guess I could live with discovery of Regulus artifacts. :-) > Alla: > Hehe, he does not even have to be insane, he just have to **not** > come to Dumbledore for whatever reasons, you know? > > Regulus may have gotten a wake up call about Voldemort, but who > says that it means that he automatically felt love and respect for > Dumbledore? aussie: We assume RAB stands for Regulus Alphard Black, Alphard being the Uncle removed from the tapestry. So if Regulus didn't go to DD, why not to Uncle Alphard? He had enough gold to set Sirius up when Sirius turned 17. Alphard may still be around, and even if he is off the Black's Christmas card list. (Reading over what I've written, I start talking to much from now on ... aussie) Alphard may be obscure enough so that DD didn't go to him for extra memories to find the Horcrux information. Shunned by his sisters, yet not embrassing DD's side. He may a regular in Nocturn Alley. He may have had raids from Arthur. He may hate muggles and mudbloods. - But he also loved his nephews, and that may be the key for Harry to get a hard lined Slytherin to help solve the common problem. This meeting of extremely different characters is what JKR loves. She loved the Hermione / Luna / Rita scene. She would love getting traditional enemies to, if not trust, at least tolerate each other, to stop the suffering for both sides. aussie (I'll stop talking now) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 27 17:43:04 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:43:04 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156087 "lupinlore" wrote: > Regulus alive? Well, I guess it's a > possibility, although it would make > JKR, IMO, into an out and out liar I think that is far too harsh a judgment, interviews are not cannon and JKR certainly has the right to change her mind about the fate of minor or even most major characters. I believe the only character's ultimate fate JKR was certain of from book 1 page 1 was Harry's. Eggplant From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 13:35:14 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060727133514.94219.qmail@web52708.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156088 Alla: > What I find amusing is that while **good guys** are held to the >highest ethical standards of behavior, Snape and Draco's behavior >gets excused pretty much for everything IMO. >So, Ron is very bad when he says Get away from me werewolf, for >example, but Draco just does not know any better than to call >Hermione "mudblood" for example, he could not help himself when he >was so excited to start serving Voldemort. He just does not know any >better. Ceridwen: >I hold the Good Guys to a higher standard because, in these >fictional >books, the Good Guys are the ones kids who read the books should be >looking toward as role models. >But, heroes getting away with breaking rules and not learning from >their mistakes? The >books 'prove' that dire consequences do not follow even mildly bad >behavior. >I don't particularly like 'for the children' arguments, so I feel >very compromised posting this. But as a parent and grandparent, I am >worried about the message that these things send to kids. Show the >Bad Guys in all their horrible glory! Show the kids that they don't >want to be like them, see the comeuppance the bad guys get! But >don't show the Good Guys, the guys who should be the role models for >juvenile readers, *getting away with* questionable behavior. Katie replies(being the mother of two young children herself): I personally do not want to show my sons that you have to be perfect all the time to be a good person. Good people make mistakes, have poor behavior, feel vengeful, and are still good people. I absolutely cannot stand it when people act like being perfectly behaved and never having a vice or a bad thought is the only way to be a good person. I have absolutely no problem with a little well-deserved vengeance now and then...maybe not in the RW, but definately in literature... I'm sorry, but I think the twins' behavior is perfectly ok. I disagree with Arthur. I would probably be angry at my kids if they did that to someone in the RW, but maybe not, if they were doing it to a complete prat like Dudley Dursley. I don't buy it that heroes are held to some unattainable moral standard...by default, they are better people because they are deemed heroes. Someone else in this thread wrote about "Why?" are we on this side? Why?? Because people like Voldemort, who intimidate, threaten, murder, and manipulate in order to increase their own power and prestige are the reason the RW is so effed up. People like Harry and the gang, who accept differences, try and overcome their own personal prejudices, work for change, are kind to the less fortunate, and believe in equality and freedom, are the people who are currently being marginalized in this society. I see a big (probably slightly unintentional) allegory between the fight in the WW and the struggles in the RW. But getting to peace and equality is not always a pretty process. It's frustrating, exhausting, and miserable sometimes, as we have seen through Harry's struggles. So, if one of these good guys goes off and does something a little rotten once in a while, I'm willing to forgive them. Are they not human? Are they not allowed to have foibles? Wouldn't we all be pretty frickin bored by a bunch of characters who never did ANYTHING wrong? Who doesn't get excited by Harry and the gang sneaking out of the Common Room at midnight, by Fred and George yelling "Give her hell, peeves!" as they steal back their own brooms and leave scool, by Dumbledore stunning a few Aurors and escaping on the tail of Fawkes...these are some of the best moments in the series! Katie, who occasionally drinks, smokes, and gives somebody the finger in traffic, and STILL thinks of herself as a good person From oppen at mycns.net Thu Jul 27 18:49:08 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:49:08 -0000 Subject: The dead returning... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156089 You know, reading all this stuff about how Sirius is not only dead, butis most sincerely dead, it occurred to me that it's a good thing that JKR is unlikely to be a big fan of the old EC horror comics. (_Tales from the Crypt_ is the best-known, but there were several.) Otherwise... "Bellatrix stared in horror as her cousin lurched toward her. 'No! Stay away!' she shrieked. 'You're dead! I killed you!' "Closer and closer Sirius came. His mouth opened, and he said, in a hollow voice: 'I know. And I'm coming for you, Bella. It's just that I have to come slowly...because pieces of me...keep falling off...'" Seriously, though, there have to be enough dead people with a mad-on at the DEs that if they could make it back, all of a sudden it would be sort of like _Harry Potter and the Return of the Living Dead._ From oppen at mycns.net Thu Jul 27 18:54:11 2006 From: oppen at mycns.net (ericoppen) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:54:11 -0000 Subject: IS Karkaroff dead? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156090 They say that they found Karkaroff's body. How do they know for sure that it is his body? We know (via the Tale of Barty Crouch) that Polyjuice'd people retain their new form if they die while Polyjuice'd. What would prevent him from Imperio-ing someone to take Polyjuice and assume his form, AKing the poor fool, sending the Dark Mark into the skies (as a trained DE he'd know how) and splittin'? His corpse is found and reported as dead, and in hiding, he breathes a big sigh of relief---Voldemort can't kill him if he's already dead, now can he? Particularly if he left his own wand with the corpse, and bugged out with another wand entirely. Seriously, we have already had several people who were "reliably" reported dead who turned up, alive and well. --Eric, who feels _real_ sorry for whatever the WW has for CSI. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jul 27 19:12:10 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:12:10 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: <20060727133514.94219.qmail@web52708.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156091 Katie: > I would probably be angry at my kids if they did that to someone in the RW, but maybe not, if they were doing it to a complete prat like Dudley Dursley. Ceridwen: The prat's mother may disagree with your or your children's assessment. She may even think your children are complete prats and approve a little like for like on her own offspring's part. Is that all right? If your kids are prats, should they be subject to the vengeance of their peers? Whose definition of 'complete prat' should be used? What if you don't agree with it? Katie: I don't buy it that heroes are held to some unattainable moral standard... Ceridwen: Not pranking Muggles and not passing judgement on someone is not an unattainable standard. Luna has no problem in holding back, even when people outright steal her things. We have never heard that Lavender Brown has done any such thing to a Muggle, or anyone else. Nor has Neville, and we haven't heard of any such thing from Dean. No one is advocating the Wise Twins Sitting At The Right Hand here. We're advocating that they get called on bad behavior, period, before the consequences become prohibitive. Katie: by default, they are better people because they are deemed heroes. Ceridwen: Then perhaps they should act like heroes? Show me how they're better than Dudley, their opponent in this particular scene. Dudley hurts children younger than himself, Dudley takes action with others to hurt children younger than himself. The twins hurt a child younger than themselves, the twins took action together to hurt a child younger than themselves. Katie: Someone else in this thread wrote about "Why?" are we on this side? Why?? Because people like Voldemort, who intimidate, threaten, murder, and manipulate in order to increase their own power and prestige are the reason the RW is so effed up... Ceridwen: Um, no. I'm an escapist reader. I have enough Real World problems on a personal level to go hunting up Real World allegories in fiction. I read the books because I like the stories. Some may read for the reason you suggest, but not all. *(snip)* Katie: > Are they not human? Are they not allowed to have foibles? Wouldn't we all be pretty frickin bored by a bunch of characters who never did ANYTHING wrong? Ceridwen: I don't recall mentioning anything about wanting characters who don't do anything wrong. I mentioned that I think the good guys, or Good Guys (TM), should be held to a higher standard because they're the Good Guys and not allowed to rut in the mud like the Bad Guys. They should be called on their actions and not allowed to become the Bad Guys, nor allowed to become indistinguishable from the Bad Guys. I do think it's a message issue here, the message to my kids and grandkids about what is right and proper for Good Guys. So they mess up. Everyone does. Should they be given a complete pass, without anyone saying word one? Even a brief chat with the parental figure about something being wrong, with a smile and pat on the shoulder at the end, would be better than just turning a blind eye, in my opinion. You know, like one of Dumbledore's chats. Even good kids can be hurt or killed by wrong actions, particularly wrong actions which are never addressed and so are repeated. People who fly more frequently have a higher chance of ending up in a plane crash; children who continually break rules have a higher chance of being caught by authority or by an impersonal cosmic force like centrifugal force than children who do not break rules all that often. Katie: Who doesn't get excited by Harry and the gang sneaking out of the Common Room at midnight, by Fred and George yelling "Give her hell, peeves!" as they steal back their own brooms and leave scool, by Dumbledore stunning a few Aurors and escaping on the tail of Fawkes...these are some of the best moments in the series! Ceridwen: And as such, are completely fictitious. We all like these sorts of moments, and a good many people who think the twins should have a serious sit-down with their dad also thought these moments, as well as the ton-tongue toffee incident and others, were fun, exciting, or funny on a superficial level. The point of the discussion on my part is that good people who do wrong should be informed that they did wrong, told why it is wrong, and should be shown trying to improve themselves as part of a story for children. Kids know that the bad kids are bad. Kids know that in some cases, the parents of the bad kids encourage bad behavior or are too busy/tired/uncaring to deal with it. But the good kids are the kids who are reading (of course, we all throw ourselves into the Good Guy shoes) as well as the protagonists. Good kids are told the right way to act, sometimes bad kids are unfortunate enough not to be informed. > Katie, who occasionally drinks, smokes, and gives somebody the finger in traffic, and STILL thinks of herself as a good person Ceridwen, who will smoke with you and, on occasion, drink with you. But if you flip me off in traffic, expect to be stiffly and agressively ignored. *g* From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jul 27 19:23:18 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:23:18 -0000 Subject: The Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156092 > houyhnhnm: > Obviously, there is some kind of spell involved that puts not only the > contents but an image of the seer into the ball. Who casts it? Eddie: The prophesy image reminds me of the images that hover above the pensieve. Possibly the prophesy balls are enclosed pensieves? This would explain why the image and voice of the prophet appear... just as the receiver of the prophesy (in Harry's case, Dumbledore) saw it. From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Jul 27 19:39:17 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:39:17 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both-Details In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156093 Steve/bboyminn: > Most people who enter the Spirit World > are dead when they arrive. Eddie: Makes me wonder what would happen to an already-dead spirit, for example Nearly-Headless Nick, if it passed through the veil. N-HN already mentioned to Harry that he thought there were wizards at the Ministry doing research on what happens after death... well, the non-ghost kind of death. (I don't have my books w/me, but it was in the final chapters of PoA, when Harry seeks out N-HN to find out about Sirius). Anyway, could N-HN go through the veil and come back? From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 20:10:20 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060727201020.47122.qmail@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156094 Ceridwen: >>> Not pranking Muggles and not passing judgement on someone is not an unattainable standard. Luna has no problem in holding back, even when people outright steal her things. We have never heard that Lavender Brown has done any such thing to a Muggle, or anyone else. Nor has Neville, and we haven't heard of any such thing from Dean. No one is advocating the Wise Twins Sitting At The Right Hand here. We're advocating that they get called on bad behavior, period, before the consequences become prohibitive. <<< Katie replies: Ok, I agree with many things you wrote in your reply - especially about the whole escapist reader thing, however, I really would not want my kids to be like Luna. I love Luna, but she allows herself to be bullied. I don't think it's a positive attribute that she allows people to steal things from her and ridicule her to her face and she doesn't speak up for herself. The reason bullies remain bullies is because they are allowed to be. In order to not get too off-topic...Lavender and Dean are not on the front lines of this fight. Lavender and Dean are not burdened daily with the knowledge of what is really going on. The extent of the LV problem only came out to the whole wizarding world in HBP. Harry, Hermione, DD, the Weasleys...they have all been burdened with this knowledge for years. They have been ridiculed, frustrated, threatened, bullied...and in no way am I saying that they are entitled to bully people back just because they are on the front lines. However, what I AM saying is that it is HARD to continually fight for right and have little support. And I guess my whole bottom line of this whole thread is...let's give them a break. They deserve to make mistakes, to be rotten once in a while, and to still be heroes. My favorite heroes are the flawed ones...Indiana Jones, Aragorn, Robin Hood...and Harry. And Fred and George. Warts and all. Katie, who would be happy to drink and smoke with Ceridwen, as long as we don't talk about this anymore! ; ) --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ikhendley at comcast.net Thu Jul 27 21:09:42 2006 From: ikhendley at comcast.net (hendlei) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:09:42 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156095 > Carol responds: > Earlier in HBP, information is withheld from both Harry and the reader > so that we're led to believe, as he does, that Slughorn is the DADA > teacher, not the Potions master. He even tells Ron and Hermione that > Slughorn is the DADA teacher, based on his interpretation of that > withheld information. So, yes, both Harry and the reader can be fooled > together and quite often we are, especially with regard to Snape but > also with regard to the Thestrals, the so-called weapon in OoP and > countless other examples. And how about Ron's rat, who for nearly > three books is just a rat? > > Carol, again noting that "non-description" (your invented term) is > just one of many tactics that JKR uses to misdirect the reader > I went back and very carefully read the part of HBP where the discussion of Slughorn occurs between HRH. Harry does NOT, in fact, tell anyone that Slughorn is the DADA teacher. It is Ron who mentions that he probably is and they all just accept it. hendlei From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jul 27 21:30:52 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:30:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both In-Reply-To: <304.95fc39d.31f913fd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156096 > > Sandy: > > Since it is the ultimate climax of the series it will occur towards the end > of the book, although where that will fall within the school year I haven't a > clue. I'm actually leaning strongly towards it happening over the summer break > so that Hogwarts can open as it regularly would on Monday September 1. I > phrased that wrong, I should say *hoping*. Wishful thinking for the sooner the > better. Of course that would be a lot of action in a very short time frame. As to > where, I think it will be either at Hogwarts or at Godric's Hollow. I hope it > is at Godric's Hollow because that's where it all began so it would be > fitting that it end there. > Julie: I'm hoping it's at Hogwarts, which in a sense is also where it began, for Tom Riddle/Voldemort. It's also where most of the series has taken place, and if a uniting of the Houses is to take place in Book 7, I have to suspect that uniting will at least partly happen as a united defense against Voldemort. Also Voldemort has put a lot of his focus on Hogwarts, trying to get a position there when he was still Tom Riddle, putting a curse of the DADA position, and placing Snape there as his spy. One would think he cares more about controlling Hogwarts than the WW at large... Julie From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jul 27 21:43:57 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:43:57 -0000 Subject: HBP paperback In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156097 > > Alla wrote: > > > > So, I bought it today. > > > > I was talking to somebody off list about "He cannot kill you if you are > > already dead" that is in American edition, but as we know it is not in > > the British one. > > > > It is not in the paperback edition either. Dumbledore now jumps right > > into "come back to the right side..." > > > > Hmmm, looks like JKR really does not want this sentence to be here. Chrissilein > even the sentence is deleted now from the paperback edition it still > exists in the harcover copies. Whatever the intention could have been > for deleting it, it was a meaningless job because it?s known by every > HP books reader since one year. > From my point of view it makes the sentence more interesting and > myterious instead and the take away of it will only force a deeper > discussion instead of accepting the fact it?s gone now. > Julie: (writing this a second time, since Yahoo keeps kicking my email) It is the *reason* JKR deleted this line that most interests me. After all, it's a great line. "He cannot kill you if you are already dead." It directly addresses Draco's fear for his life (and those of his parents). The Order will hide you by making it look as if you're dead. What can be more complete protection from Voldemort's vengeance than that? Come to our side, Draco, and you can truly start a new life. So why did JKR delete this great line? Was it because it was insignificant? Or because it was *too* significant? Did it give away too much, indicating that this is a method the Order has successfully used before? Or because it is insignificant to the story and won't be visited again (a la Mark Evans), thus she wanted to prevent her more rabid fans from endlessly formulating theories around said insignificant sentence (as if that would stop us ;-) I tend to go with the too significant theory, but we'll only know for sure in Book 7. But I am convinced there had to be a good reason for JKR to remove this line, beyond the simple standard editing out of excess. Julie Julie From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 22:12:56 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:12:56 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156098 > >>Alla: > > Right now I am with Geoff, because I think that if JKR will bring > character from the dead, well no, scratch that, if JKR will tell us > that somebody was not really dead, I would think she would do it > for larger purpose than exonerating Snape ( it is irrelevant to me > for this argument if Snape is innocent or not, by the way). > I am just saying that the character whom we thought dead turning > out alive in book 7 should IMO serve somehow helping Harry. > Betsy Hp: But wouldn't you say that Snape's true allegiance is a rather *huge* issue for the next book? Isn't that why this group is often dominated by Snape threads? And if Emmeline (who Snape claims to have a key part in killing) is not really dead it may mean she's alive *because* of Snape. Which means she may well vouch for Snape, which means Harry might be more open to receiving help from Snape. Honestly, I believe Snape is the best source of support Harry could hope for in his effort to defeat Voldemort. Ain't that irony? Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 22:48:37 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:48:37 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: <20060727133514.94219.qmail@web52708.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156099 > >>Katie: > > Someone else in this thread wrote about "Why?" are we on this > side? Why?? Because people like Voldemort, who intimidate, > threaten, murder, and manipulate in order to increase their own > power and prestige are the reason the RW is so effed up. Betsy Hp: That was me. And yeah, I get why we're supposed to stand against Voldemort. JKR has done a good enough job, IMO, demonstrating that Voldemort is all about destruction and death. Heck, she even torpedoed the old "pity me as I'm a tiny little ragged orphan" bit when she showed us in HBP that Tom was the big bad at the orphanage, with his own room and an overworked, but basically decent, staff. And I get why the Ministry isn't all that great to stand with either. They're very quick to judge, eager to avoid any sort of confrontation, and very willing to do just about anything to maintain the status quo. Including jailing innocents. I wouldn't call the Ministry evil but they're not anyone I'd call on in an emergency either. But once we get into Hogwarts itself I have a harder time of it. I quite like Harry, though he's still got some issues to work out. And I think Ron is basically good (though cruel at times). But Hermione *really* worries me. Ginny seems a massive ball of temper. The twins are bullies. Sure, compared to Voldemort our good guys are pretty shiny, but within Hogwarts hallowed halls they're not all that. If I were a random student there I really doubt I'd *like* the good guys. There are just common rules of basic decency that some of Harry's friends don't seem to want to follow. I think that can change. I expect, given the things JKR has set up, that much of it will. (I have a feeling Ginny is pretty much as she is, and it's just unfortunate that JKR created a character that is too "spirited" to work for me.) But until those changes occur, I just can't rubber stamp Hermione's or Harry's or even Ron's point of views. There's too much that is questionable there, so I question. Honestly, I'm betting that we're supposed to question. I think JKR is being very sneaky and Harry and company are quite wrong in some of their assumptions and prejudices. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 23:59:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:59:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both-Details In-Reply-To: <700201d40607270114h77a8b647xaa3e0a6fc8839beb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156100 bboyminn wrote: > > I have this whole elaborate and very far-fetched theory that Sirius is indeed trapped behind the Veil in the world of spirits, but he is not necessarily dead back there. Kemper responded: > I can see Voldemort wanting to steal such a powerful tool. With as > much Death as he's witnessed (caused), I'm sure the murmuring beyond > the Veil must be thunderous. Or it might be a cacophony of dead and > he would fear it. I don't know. The more I write about this > possibility the more I think Voldy would be scared of what he heard > and would avoid the veil as much as possible. But what if Snape > persuaded him that it would be a great idea... ? ... That Snape is a tricky devil. Steve: > > Perhaps after my wild and unlikely scenario plays out, and after Sirius and Harry part bodies, they will both be weak, and will have to be moved to the 'Room of Love' for an infusion of 'life force'. > > Kemper: > I agree. I rather the Room of Love remain an unknown; it's more > powerful shrouded in mystery than exposed for us to dissect. But if > it is used as you reasonably suggest, I hope the reader is left in the dark. > Kemper, interested in the more details... have you posted it? If so > what's the subject line? (It works better for me than post number > unless its before july 31, 05) > Carol adds: I don't know if you're interested, Kemper, but I posted a posssession theory similar to Steve's back in message 148697 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148697 and mentioned it again in 151863 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151863 and several other posts. I think I first proposed the possession idea back in November and Steve added the Veil element, but I'm not sure. At any rate, you can follow some of the threads by going here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/msearch?query=Carol+possession+Veil&pos=20&cnt=10 or just using the search terms "possession" and "Veil" (I added "Carol" because I was looking for my own posts and because I wanted to narrow the results to that particular discussion). My version of the theory doesn't involve the Chamber of Love (I think the power of Love is in Harry himself, or will be there once he forgives Snape), but it does involve the Veil. The chief difference is that in my theory, Harry would possess Voldemort, forcing him behind the Veil (or LV would commit suicide, diving behind the Veil because of the unendurable pain of being possessed by Harry). Sirius Black, who is irrevocably dead, would ask Harry to take his body back to the world (foreshadowed by the return of Cedric's body in GoF) by temporarily possessing it. So Harry, who is not truly dead because he's only possessing LV, transfers his spirit (not the same as his soul???) to Black's body, which is now available for burial, and returns to his own body, alive, well, and victorious. I like this theory because it resolves the mystery of the Veil and Sirius Black's fate (and allows him to have a belated funeral), it involves the defeat of LV through Love and through a power that Harry acquired from LV at Godric's Hollow and consequently fits the Prophecy, but it doesn't require Harry to be a Horcrux or to commit murder or to die (though, like Ron in the chess game in SS/PS, Harry would be *willing* to sacrifice himself without actually having to die--more foreshadowing). It also fits with the journey to the Underworld motif, which we've seen in some form in at least three books (SS/PS, CoS, HBP, and possibly OoP since the DoM is deep underground). Carol, who agrees with Kemper that Snape is tricky and thinks that he'll somehow be involved in this scenario if it pans out From carodave92 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 00:41:55 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:41:55 -0000 Subject: The Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156101 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "steven1965aaa" wrote: > > In HBP Dumbledore tells Harry, in the broom closet, that the only 2 > people alive who know the full contents of the prophesy are in this > spidery broom closet (not an exact quote, don't have the books with > me). > > In OOP, in the scene in Dumbledore's office at the end, Dumbledore > tells Harry that the Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies inserted > Harry's name (with a (?)) on the prophesy after Voldmort's attack on > the Potter family, because that attack made it clear which boy > Voldemort believed to be the one named in the prophesy. > > It seems to me that for the Keeper to have come to that conclusion, > and even for the Keeper to have known that there was a question > about which boy was "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark > Lord", the Keeper must have know about the contents of the prophesy. > > I guess he could have known just about the first half, being told > about it by Dumbledore, but his decision to put Harry's name on it > after the attack ("mark him") would make a lot more sense if he knew > the full contents. > > If the Keeper potentially knows the contents, why wouldn't Voldemort > go after the Keeper? Maybe Voldemort doesn't know. Maybe the > keeper who knew the contents of the prophesy is dead and the current > Keeper doesn't know the contents, which would make Dubmledore's > statement to Harry true. Maybe as an unspeakable there would be > something to magicallly prevent the Keeper from blabbing. > > Sorry I'm rambling. Any thoughts? Carodave: Maybe at that point in time Dumbledore was the Keeper, in addition to his Hogwarts duties? > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 00:46:11 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:46:11 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156102 SSSusan wrote: > I thought I had made the > point a couple of times earlier in the thread just what I was > thinking of re: Regulus' return. That is, *if* he came back (or > even if some of his artifacts/papers were discovered), that I could > see it making Harry's journey/task EASIER, not more cluttered or > chaotic. If Regulus is R.A.B., then he's the one who removed the > locket horcrux. If he -- or his words -- became available to Harry > in Book 7, it could help Harry with *that* particular horcrux, and > he might possibly have had information from his time as a DE > regarding other horcruxes, which could help Harry tracking them down. > > Just one view, obviously. You don't want to see a character come > back from the dead. That's fine. It's not high on my list of "Want > to sees" either. I was simply going along with the "What if" of > Alla's post -- what if DD's comment which was removed from the new > US paperback edition was significant in the sense that someone > *might* be making a return from the "dead"? and what if JKR was > toying with people a bit regarding Regulus' status in that > interview? I **doubt** that she was, but if she was, what's the > harm in considering how that character might play into things? > > I, for one, think it would be fun to have Regulus guide Harry a bit > in the hx hunt (which seems *awfully* daunting a task with just one > year left!). Whether it would be Regulus in person or discovered > Regulus artifacts/documents which did the guiding wouldn't much > matter to me. > > Just trying to have a little fun, I was. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > Carol responds: While I agree with Lupinlore that JKR has made it clear that Regulus is indeed dead (if she had said "Well, he's dead these days" rather than "Well, he's dead, so he's pretty quiet these days," I would share Alla's view that he could be alive (JKR as "unreliable interviewee"!), but the comment seems uncharacteristically unequivocal), I agree with you that Harry needs an easy way to solve the mystery of this particular Horcrux. I think the key is Kreacher, who once belonged to the Black family and now belongs to Harry. If Kreacher went along with Regulus to retrieve the Horcrux, we won't need any artifacts (except the locket itself) or documents to get the full story. (I do think there's a connection between young Snape's defection from the DEs and Regulus's death, but I don't think that Snape and DD hid him and faked his death.) As for the character who comes back from the dead (foreshadowed by Peter Pettigrew, Barty Jr., and all those references to the Draught of Living Death), my bet is Emmeline Vance. Why? Because if her survival is linked to Snape, who faked her death using the Draught of Living Death and some spell disguised as an AK, she could provide the first hint that he's on the side of Good. (I'm not suggesting here that DD's death was also faked, but I'm not ruling it out, either.) BTW, in case this hasn't been posted yet, and I apologize if I've overlooked it, here's the Lexicon's version of the differences between the American and British editions of DD's speech to Draco (the so-called missing line that began this thread): British edition, 552-553: '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. 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...' American edition, 591-592: "He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine. What is more, I can send members of the Order to your mother tonight to hide her likewise. Nobody would be surprised that you had died in your attempt to kill me -- forgive me, but Lord Voldemort probably expects it. Nor would the Death Eaters be surprised that we had captured and killed your mother -- it is what they would do themselves, after all. Your father is safe at the moment in Azkaban...when the time comes, we can protect him too. Come over to the right side, Draco...you are not a killer..." The ellipses are from the Lexicon site; I don't know whether any of them are in the actual text. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/differences-hbp.html Carol, agreeing with SSS that all this speculation is in the spirit of fun and thinking that perhaps not everything in the books is as "pure and simple" as it appears to some posters From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 23:02:17 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:02:17 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback)/Barty Jr's motivations Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156103 > Alla wrote: >: > I was talking to somebody off list about "He cannot kill you if you > are already dead" that is in American edition, but as we know it is > not in the British one. >> Siriusly Snapey Susan: >>I think you're right, then, Alla, that this means JKR would have >>preferred that the first US edition didn't contain the line. >>(How 'bout others from around the world whose HBPs are in languages >>other than English? Is the line in there or not?) zanooda: I have at home Russian and Spanish translations, but Spanish is still packed somewhere, because we've just moved. I was able to find Russian though, and this sentence is not there. I've read HP books in translation only once (the Russian translations are just so bad, I couldn't bring myself to suffer through another reading), but I think they translate from the British version. First of all, it's logical to translate a text directly from the source, and second of all, there are some things in translations that definitely come from Bloomsbury edition, like Philosopher's Stone instead of Sorcerer's, Sirius' vault number 711 instead of not mentioning the number, etc. Also, in OotP Harry sees at St.Mungo's a witch with a satsuma jammed up her nose, which they changed to "walnut" in Scholastic ed, but Russian translator most definitely tried to translate "satsuma". I'm saying "tried" because somehow he/she came up with "Japanese teacup", but never mind, it's not the worst thing they did to these books. Anyway, back to your question, I can't be sure, but I think that all the translations are made from the British ed., therefore there shouldn't be "he cannot kill you " in any of them. > aussie wrote: > Barty had UC stored in his wand that could have been hard to explain > otherwise. > When his father turned up, Jr AK-ed Snr. > Then he got Krum to follow his lead. > But the MOM would be hard pressed to prove it with his wand being > used in DODA classes, and Spiders getting UCs. zanooda: Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that Barty Jr. could disguise his Cruciatus curses this way, but not AKs, because Priori Incantatem would show the victims, like Cedric, Harry's parents, etc. So MoM would see the spiders coming out of the wand, but also Crouch Sr. As for the Imperius curse, I have no idea how Priori Incantatem shows it. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 01:04:13 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:04:13 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156104 > > >>Alla: > > > > Right now I am with Geoff, because I think that if JKR will bring > > character from the dead, well no, scratch that, if JKR will tell us > > that somebody was not really dead, I would think she would do it > > for larger purpose than exonerating Snape ( it is irrelevant to me > > for this argument if Snape is innocent or not, by the way). > > I am just saying that the character whom we thought dead turning > > out alive in book 7 should IMO serve somehow helping Harry. > > > > Betsy Hp: > But wouldn't you say that Snape's true allegiance is a rather *huge* > issue for the next book? Isn't that why this group is often > dominated by Snape threads? And if Emmeline (who Snape claims to > have a key part in killing) is not really dead it may mean she's > alive *because* of Snape. Which means she may well vouch for Snape, > which means Harry might be more open to receiving help from Snape. > > Honestly, I believe Snape is the best source of support Harry could > hope for in his effort to defeat Voldemort. Ain't that irony? Alla: Well, sure the issue of Snape's allegiance **is** big, no argument from me here, but that is not quite what I meant. I mean, sort of but not quite. What I am trying to say that revealing that character comes back from the **supposed** death ( as I mentioned, I don't think that anybody will come back from real death, we IMO will just learn that the character never died in the first place), **if** it happens of course, should be very dramatic issue to deal with by itself, IMO. I am not sure that JKR will waste the drama on Evelyn Vance, if it makes sense. As I said this is all just speculation obviously, so feel free to disregard. It sort of does not feel dramatic enough to me if the return from dead and in book 7, no less, will only be circumstantially tied to Harry. Am I making sense at all? Harry only saw her once, would he even care if she is back? I mean, besides her vouching for Snape, who cares? I know I don't. :) Oh, and again this reason does not have much to do with Snape's loyalties. Let's say we will learn that somebody else killed Emmelyne, if Snape is DD!M (groans ;), so that can be dealt with, but I think that return from **dead** if that happens will be character with direct ties to Harry. See, I am pretty sure that one way or another Snape will be there at the end, but I still think that Harry is **more** important character than Snape ever will be. :-) But of course you can be right, since this is just speculation based on the **missing line**, hehe. JMO, Alla From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 01:21:13 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:21:13 -0000 Subject: IS Karkaroff dead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156105 > Eric wrote: > They say that they found Karkaroff's body. How do they know for sure that it is his body? We know (via the Tale of Barty Crouch) that Polyjuice'd people retain their new form if they die while > Polyjuice'd. Goddlefrood adds and enquires: This is rather interesting and not something I had previously considered, despite formulating some rather bizarre speculations of my own over the years. The only difficulty with this is that, while it is a possible scenario, what would it add if Karkaroff had survived. Would he then seek revenge - the cowering turncoat would be unlikely to show his face until Voldemort and many others were safely dead or off the scene. Karkaroof has served his purpose (a red herring in GOF) and IMHO he will not return, even if others who are purportedly dead do. Goddlefrood, who thanks Eric for finally coming up with something he had never thought about. From celizwh at intergate.com Fri Jul 28 01:33:54 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:33:54 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback)/Barty Jr's motivations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156106 Carol responds: > American edition, 591-592: ***"He cannot kill you if > you are already dead.*** Come over to the right side, > Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can > possibly imagine. What is more, I can send members of > the Order to your mother tonight to hide her likewise. > ***Nobody would be surprised that you had died in your > attempt to kill me-- forgive me, but Lord Voldemort > probably expects it. Nor would the Death Eaters be > surprised that we had captured and killed your mother-- > it is what they would do themselves, after all.*** Your > father is safe at the moment in Azkaban...when the time > comes, we can protect him too. Come over to the right > side, Draco...you are not a killer..." zanooda: > I have at home Russian and Spanish translations, but > Spanish is still packed somewhere, because we've just > moved. I was able to find Russian though, and this > sentence is not there. houyhnhnm: Not that I see the extent of the difference and learn that it appears (based on only one example, I know) that the American edition may be the only version containing the lines about faking the Malfoys' deaths, the question becomes, "Why did the editors of the American edition put them in?", not "Why were they taken out?" Did they simply feel they had to explain something that would be self-evident to other readers or did they take it upon themselves to interpret the text in a way that was contrary to Rowling's intent? From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 01:50:15 2006 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:50:15 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback)/Barty Jr's motivations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156107 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > houyhnhnm wrote : > > Not that I see the extent of the difference and learn that > it appears (based on only one example, I know) that the American > edition may be the only version containing the lines about > faking the Malfoys' deaths, the question becomes, "Why did > the editors of the American edition put them in?", not "Why > were they taken out?" > > Did they simply feel they had to explain something that would > be self-evident to other readers or did they take it upon > themselves to interpret the text in a way that was contrary > to Rowling's intent? Lyra: Speaking as an editor, I can assure you that no editor would add that much to a work (especially to a major work that has made that editor's employer a bundle of cash and will be scrutinized by millions of readers) without running it by the original author. So, my guess is it was in the original manuscript. If not, JKR must have approved the addition at some point. (Is it Carol who is the book editor? Can you back me up on this?) From ikhendley at comcast.net Thu Jul 27 21:16:19 2006 From: ikhendley at comcast.net (hendlei) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:16:19 -0000 Subject: Dementors and souls Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156108 I haven't seen this topic discussed, or even mentioned, anywhere, either on this discussion board or any other. It is, in fact, a new idea to me, and it nearly stopped me in my tracks when it hit me. I am in the process of reading PoA for the umptyumpth time and, in the chapter where Lupin and Harry discuss the various powers of Dementors (chapter The Patronus) the subject of "the soul" comes up. We learn that Dementors feed on human emotion and prize the human soul above all else. In GoF, Crouch, Jr., tells us that Dementors are blind and "feel" their way to their prey by sensing the soul (chapter Veritaserum). Dementors appear again in OoP (chapter Dudley Demented) and yet another discussion of their powers takes place, including the sucking out of souls, this time with Harry giving information to the Dursleys. Why are we being given so much information about Dementors? Throughout the series, topics that occur over and over usually lead to something important. Then, in HBP, there are long discussions about the soul, about splitting it and hiding parts of it inside a horcrux (hereinafter called HCX). Since the soul contains what Lupin in PoA refers to as the "sense of self," each piece of soul embedded in an HCX must contain a piece of humanity with human emotions and with a human inclination to protect itself. In CoS the piece of soul took the image of a youthful Tom Riddle and tried to destroy Harry. He only failed because he underestimated Harry. Could it be that DD is injured not by spells put around the HCX he found (spells he probably could have handled), but by the piece of soul trying to protect itself? Also, could Harry, in his quest to destroy the remaining HCXs trick the Dementors into helping him by throwing one or more HCX in their path? If they can't see, but do sense souls, can they destroy the bit of soul in an HCX by "sucking it out"? The basic question that occurred to me while reading PoA was: Can the Dementors actually help stop LV while he believes they are his allies? DD believes that LV doesn't know when or if an HCX has been destroyed and, if that is true, it is possible to destroy several before he realizes it. As I said at the beginning, I've not seen this idea explored before, yet it does tickle the imagination and brings together threads that are currently lying around loosely. hendlei From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 02:10:26 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:10:26 -0000 Subject: The Keeper of the Hall of Prophesies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156109 houyhnhnm wrote: > > S.P.T to A.P.W.B.D > Dark Lord and (?) Harry Potter > > I'm assuming that everything up to "Harry Potter" was on the original label. > > What your question has got me wondering is how does a prophecy get > into the Department of Mysteries? It can't happen automatically every time someone makes a prediction or the Hall would be full "Gryffindor (Slytherin/Hufflepuff/Ravenclaw) is going to win the House Cups This Year"s. Does the person who hears it (and believes s/he has heard a true prophecy) request that it be added? It must be so. > > Obviously, there is some kind of spell involved that puts not only the contents but an image of the seer into the ball. Who casts it? > > I am thinking that it was probably Dumbledore who cast the spell that created the prophecy globe, and he also either wrote the label or > dictated what was to be written. In that case, the label only read > "Dark Lord and (?) until the WW shattering event of LV's defeat by the Boy Who Lived. The Keeper then added "Harry Potter". He would not have needed to know anthing at all about the contents of the prophecy, let alone the fact that there were two possible identities for (?), only that the prophecy involved a Dark Lord and an unknown, and then take it for granted after LV's defeat that the Dark Lord was Voldemort and the unknown person was Harry Potter. > Carol responds: My view is similar but not identical. Obviously, there's a difference between a prediction made by an ordinary witch or wizard and a Prophecy made by a Seer (for one thing, the Seer goes into a trance; for another, the Prophecy seems to be spoken in an impersonal, unnatural voice, as if the Seer is some sort of medium, and the Prophecy has a kind of formal structure involving repetition and possibly other identifiable elements and equally formal diction, e.g., "the Dark Lord" and "the one" rather than the real or assumed name of the person(s) involved). Somehow, the Keeper would be able to detect a real Prophecy without necessarily hearing it. I think that a Prophecy would be brought to the DoM by the person who overheard the Prophecy in the form of a partial memory--that is, just the form of the Seer and his or her words, much like Sibyll Trelawney rising out of DD's Pensieve in OoP--perhaps enclosed in a crystal vial. The Keeper would then magically transfer the memory of the speaking figure from the vial to a small crystal orb (or transfigure the vial into an orb, which might be easier) and label it with the initials of the hearer and the Seer (who, of course, would not know what he or she said, but perhaps could be magically identified by the Keeper), with only a note on the contents or the persons concerned. I think DD would at least have needed to say that it involved the Dark Lord and a male child who would be born at the end of July, or perhaps "the one with the power to defeat him." Either way, once the events at GH had occurred, the Keeper would be fairly certain, but not 100 percent certain, that the other person was Harry Potter. Hence, the question mark and the name. Unless the Keeper had *some* idea of the contents of the Prophecy, I don't think he would have filled in the blank following the question mark. It would be too great an assumption, even with Harry's scar and unexpected survival. After all, DD didn't tell Harry that no one else knew *anything* about the Prophecy, only that he and Harry were the only two who knew the whole thing. Anyway, and this is pure speculation, I imagine the Keeper to be another wise old wizard, perhaps white bearded like DD, certainly very powerful, gifted in Legilimency so he knows that those who supply the Prophecies are telling the truth, very powerful and gifted (rather like Ollivander, who must be exceptionally powerful to create his wands and exceptionally intelligent to remember every wand he ever sold). (BTW, I think that only a Legilimens can remove memories from his own head, which would mean that Slughorn must be a Legilimens along with DD, Snape, and LV, and which presents a problem if Harry is to examine his own memories in a Pensieve.) Carol, who feels rather sad about all the shattered prophecy orbs and hopes there's some other record of them in a file drawer or the WW equivalent of a Rolodex From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jul 28 02:11:50 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:11:50 EDT Subject: Whose side are we on?? Message-ID: <323.8fd56a8.31facc66@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156110 >Katie: >Ok, I agree with many things you wrote in your reply - especially about the whole escapist reader thing, however, I really would not want my kids to be like Luna. I love Luna, but she allows herself to be bullied. I don't think it's a positive attribute that she allows people to steal things from her and ridicule her to her face and she doesn't speak up for herself. The reason bullies remain bullies is because they are allowed to be. >Betsy hp >But until those changes occur, I just can't rubber stamp Hermione's or Harry's or even Ron's point of views. There's too much that is questionable there, so I question. Honestly, I'm betting that we're supposed to question. I think JKR is being very sneaky and Harry and company are quite wrong in some of their assumptions and prejudices. Nikkalmati: I have been following with amazement this very long thread and I think the discussion exposes some very different ideas we have of proper human behavior. Yes, the Twins are a bit over the top (and I don't like pranksters in RL, it's just not funny to me), but IMO neither the twins nor Hermione are on the slippery slope to LV-dom. I have been looking for a comment that embodies for me what I think JKR is going for here and I think Katie has it right. She wants to show kids, good and bad, that you just can't get away with everything. Someday some one is going to call you on it - personally. Just as the DA members hexed Draco and friends into slugs and Dursley got his comeuppance. I really don't think JKR is going to show us that the "good guys" were out of line (more than she has with Arthur instructing the Twins that they were behaving badly). Of course, it helps that the WW is does not have competent adult authority, either parental or political, to deal with the "bad guys.' That's the world she made. I also think she wants to show that her heroes are human that human emotions happen and part of maturing is learning how to deal with them. Failing to behave in a mature manner is not "evil." Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dossett at lds.net Fri Jul 28 02:14:52 2006 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:14:52 -0000 Subject: Who's the Good Slytherin? (was: Significance of missing line) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156111 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Honestly, I believe Snape is the best source of support Harry could > hope for in his effort to defeat Voldemort. Ain't that irony? > > Betsy Hp > now Pat: Which, to my mind, brings up the issue of the Good Slytherin. Could it be Snape?? This of course assumes ESG!Snape. I have always thought that, particularly at this point, since introduction of new characters would be so very awkward, the best candidates for the Good Slytherin are Draco, Slughorn, or Snape. Any of the other Slytherins who are currently students at Hogwarts have not been major enough characters at this point to qualify, IMO. In my own mind, I'm not sure enough of Slughorn to think that he qualifies. Of course, it's possible that in giving Harry the real memory, JRK has already put Sluggy in that position. But I have always felt less-than-satisfied with that solution. Draco certainly seems poised to at least question all those things he has stood for, and he gets the #2 most likely place in my mind. But since Snape, in my mind, has the most possibilities for quick plot resolutions, he's got the top slot for me. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this topic? Thanks, Pat From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jul 28 02:38:53 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:38:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Whose side are we on?? References: <323.8fd56a8.31facc66@aol.com> Message-ID: <007401c6b1ee$f7c5b560$6478400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 156112 > Nikkalmati: She > wants to show kids, good and bad, that you just can't get away with > everything. Someday some one is going to call you on it - personally. > Just as the DA > members hexed Draco and friends into slugs and Dursley got his > comeuppance. Magpie: So if that's what she's showing us, and if it's okay for the good guys to not be good sometimes, then why is it bad for someone to say that these characters can't get away with everything and someday someone is going to call them on it and they weren't good here or there? Because it's one thing to say "why can't they be forgiven for doing somethng wrong?" and another to say that while defending them against any charge that they've done anything wrong, or suggest those incidents shouldn't be spoken of. Draco and his friends got hexed into slugs, Harry got his nose broken, Dudley got the toffee, the twins indirectly contributed to three of their brothers being put in serious danger. The idea applies to everyone, even the good guys whose immature behavior (is that what we'd call it if it was Dudley?) is the exception to their otherwise good intentions. It' is, imo, the difference between an artificial world where those bad characters only exist to be punished by us and a real world where even bad people are people. When I read the book I think JKR is writing the latter. I can't imagine Snape existing in his present form in the former. The whole Pensieve scene seemed to be showing this sort of point. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 03:01:07 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:01:07 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? In-Reply-To: <323.8fd56a8.31facc66@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156113 > >>Betsy hp: > > > > But until those changes occur, I just can't rubber stamp > > Hermione's or Harry's or even Ron's point of views. There's too > > much that is questionable there, so I question. Honestly, > > I'm betting that we're supposed to question. I think JKR is > > being very sneaky and Harry and company are quite wrong in some > > of their assumptions and prejudices. > >>Nikkalmati: > I have been following with amazement this very long thread and I > think the discussion exposes some very different ideas we have of > proper human behavior. Betsy Hp: Oh, I *totally* agree. Actually, I've seen this in a multitude of posts. And I do agree that I probably see things in a different light than JKR does. I do think I'm harder on the twins (for example) than JKR is generally. (Though I *still* think JKR was up to something when she had the prank on Dudley reflected back in techno-color by the Death Eaters toying with Muggles themselves.) > >>Nikkalmati: > Yes, the Twins are a bit over the top (and I don't like > pranksters in RL, it's just not funny to me), but IMO neither the > twins nor Hermione are on the slippery slope to LV-dom. Betsy Hp: I don't think *any* of the characters are in danger of becoming a second Voldemort. Voldemort is far too much a monster, and has been since birth, apparently. But I can see the twins getting involved in something bad -- getting in too far over their heads before they know it because of money, "fun", etc. Frankly, Harry and friends have too easy a time of labeling someone as "other" and deciding that they are therefore unworthy of common human decency. That's an incredibly dangerous place to be, IMO. > >>Nikkalmati: > I have been looking for a comment that embodies for me what I > think JKR is going for here and I think Katie has it right. She > wants to show kids, good and bad, that you just can't get away > with everything. Someday some one is going to call you on it - > personally. Just as the DA members hexed Draco and friends into > slugs and Dursley got his comeuppance. Betsy Hp: Isn't that a double standard though? Shouldn't the twins get *their* comeuppance for what they did to Dudley or Montague? Shouldn't the DA kids get their comeuppance for turning Draco and Crabbe and Goyle into slugs? Or have we decided that some of the children in these books aren't quite as human as the DA kids or the twins? *That's* the sort of thinking that I find uncomfortable. And, since JKR makes sure that those being "punished" aren't blatently deserving of their fate (at least in my opinion) I think she's thinking the same thing. > >>Nikkalmati: > > I also think she wants to show that her heroes are human that > human emotions happen and part of maturing is learning how to > deal with them. Failing to behave in a mature manner is > not "evil." Betsy Hp: But you don't want the good guys to be called on it when they fail to "behave in a mature manner", right? That's what I don't get. This idea that because we don't want our heroes to be perfect we want them to be praised when they behave badly. Why? How is it helpful to train the twins and Harry that bullying is a good thing as long as you're the bully? Why is it good for Hermione to feel that vengence is good as long she's the one handing out the vengence? Behaving badly isn't evil, and I don't think anyone has said that the "good guys" are actually evil. However, if they don't ever get called on their bad behavior, they could become evil in a Ministry sort of way. So certain of their own goodness they feel anything that causes their side to win is okay. Fortunately, I don't think JKR is heading in that particular direction. Betsy Hp From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 28 03:10:03 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:10:03 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156114 Carol: > As for the character who comes back from the dead ... my bet is > Emmeline Vance. Why? Because if her survival is linked to Snape, > who faked her death using the Draught of Living Death and some > spell disguised as an AK, she could provide the first hint that > he's on the side of Good. SSSusan: *That* is the one thing that could make her candidacy a solid one, imo. Otherwise, she doesn't seem important enough to what remains to be done. Carol: > ...here's the Lexicon's version of the differences between > the American and British editions of DD's speech to Draco (the > so-called missing line that began this thread): > > British edition, 552-553: '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. > American edition, 591-592: "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. > SSSusan: Good gravy. Reading this again, I'm surprised it wasn't the "Come over to the right side, Draco" portion that she had removed, or at least changed, from the paperback edition. That's just so incredibly Star Wars-sounding! What I find intriguing is this other *extra* portion in the American edition that is missing from the British (if I'm reading the Lexicon summaries correctly): > 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. SSSusan: I wonder why, that? > Carol, agreeing with SSS that all this speculation is in the > spirit of fun.... SSSusan: Goodie. Thanks! Siriusly Snapey Susan, off to watch the Cubs at Wrigley tomorrow! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 03:17:52 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:17:52 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? In-Reply-To: <007401c6b1ee$f7c5b560$6478400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156115 > Magpie: > The idea applies to everyone, even the > good guys whose immature behavior (is that what we'd call it if it was > Dudley?) is the exception to their otherwise good intentions. Alla: Oh, but that is just what you said it - good guys' mistakes are **exceptions** of their good intentions IMO. And I am not talking about not talking about those mistakes of course. And I am really not sure how Dudley example works here, because if Dudley's behaviour would be exception of his otherwise good intentions, sure, that's what I call it. The problem is - I don't see Dudley showing **any** good intentions, whatsoever, to me he exhibits only **bad** behavior, period. I have nothing to sympathise with Dudley, zero. That is of course plays a role in me not having any sympathy for him in Toffey accident, pig accident or anything else. I am sure if JKR wanted to, she would have shown **some** sympathetic sides of Dudley' nature to make me feel anything for him. The fact that he is a Muggle just does not cut it for me, because Muggles like Dursleys IMO bring shame to the name of Muggle. :) Hmmmm, does it all at the end comes down to justifying characters we like? I hope not, because certainly if for example Harry stood in the Great Hall and started screaming Avada, I would certainly started hating him, and he is my very favorite character. Nevertheless, to me who the character is , plays a very big part. I did not consider **good guys** to be good guys just because I felt like it. I based it on their actions. I am going to go off tangent and try to explain how **good guys** become good guys for me. Before I could consider Ron and Harry stealing the car and getting to school in CoS nothing more than minor indiscretion, I saw them in PS/SS courageously going after Stone, Ron being ready to sacrifice himself, etc. So, yeah, **after** that, stealing the car was nothing but minor indiscretion to me. I knew that when it matters, Harry will do the right thing and Ron will give up his life to save a friend. Before Harry wondered to Hogsmead in PoA, he and Ron go to Chamber to save Ginny. After that brush with death, can I seriously think that Harry is a rotten person for going to Hogsmeade? Um, no. It was the reckless behaviour, sure, but does it change to me on the big scale of things who Harry is? What I am trying to say that after seeing him commiting acts of heroism, his indiscretions are so **less significant** to me. And what do we see of Draco? Making fun of Hagrid status in school, person whom he **never** met before. I found it quite disgusting, personally. Oh, and of course talking about wrong kind of the wizards did not make good first impression either. Magpie: > It' is, imo, the difference between an artificial world where those bad > characters only exist to be punished by us and a real world where even bad > people are people. When I read the book I think JKR is writing the latter. > I can't imagine Snape existing in his present form in the former. The whole > Pensieve scene seemed to be showing this sort of point. Alla: Well, there is certainly a question of the degree. I don't want bad guys to be caricatures, but I sure prefer them to **not** get away from their punishment. There are books in which it is inevitable and maybe people want to see it in Potterverse too. I don't. I want evil punished in the books whether JKR will do it or not, it is surely her call, but I think I am entitled to hope for it. I want Dudley to pay for ten years of Harry hunting, I want killer of Dumbledore to pay for what he did. I want Umbridge to pay ( and JKR's it is fun to torture her gives me hope that she will be). I do **not** want Voldemort to win or even to get away from Harry at the end. Those are of course my personal preferences, but I believe that I see hints in the books that some of them may have a chance to come true. Prepared to eat crow as always. And that is why yes, I am tolerant to good guys issuing punishment, especially since I strongly suspect that JKR would not want Harry to dirty his hands with issuing punishment, but let other **good guys** do it. That is again IMO very big factor why JKR makes Twins so ruthless sometimes, because Harry is more fleshed out character and if he decided to get after Dudley, that may not be so funny. Ugh, babbling again. > Betsy Hp: > Isn't that a double standard though? Shouldn't the twins get > *their* comeuppance for what they did to Dudley or Montague? > Shouldn't the DA kids get their comeuppance for turning Draco and > Crabbe and Goyle into slugs? Alla: No, I don't think it is a double standard, if one thinks that what was done to bad guys was punishment. Good guys are not supposed to get anything for punishing bad guys, IMO. Betsy Hp: > Or have we decided that some of the children in these books aren't > quite as human as the DA kids or the twins? *That's* the sort of > thinking that I find uncomfortable. And, since JKR makes sure that > those being "punished" aren't blatently deserving of their fate (at > least in my opinion) I think she's thinking the same thing. Alla: Sure, I do think that some of the children in the books are worse than others, absolutely I do. Stressing the word **in the books** here. JMO, Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 03:42:55 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:42:55 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback)/Barty Jr's motivations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156116 houyhnhnm wrote : > > > > Not that I see the extent of the difference and learn that > > it appears (based on only one example, I know) that the American > > edition may be the only version containing the lines about > > faking the Malfoys' deaths, the question becomes, "Why did > > the editors of the American edition put them in?", not "Why > > were they taken out?" > > > > Did they simply feel they had to explain something that would > > be self-evident to other readers or did they take it upon > > themselves to interpret the text in a way that was contrary > > to Rowling's intent? > > Lyra: > Speaking as an editor, I can assure you that no editor would add > that much to a work (especially to a major work that has made that > editor's employer a bundle of cash and will be scrutinized by > millions of readers) without running it by the > original author. So, my guess is it was in the original manuscript. > If not, JKR must have approved the addition at some point. > > (Is it Carol who is the book editor? Can you back me up on this?) > Carol responds: Yes, I'm a copyeditor who works mostly with book manuscripts (both fiction and nonfiction). For those who don't know, a copyeditor corrects grammar, punctuation, and spelling, makes sure that the manuscript matches the publisher's "house style" in matters like capitalization, spelling out numbers, and comma use, tightens sentence structure and changes the diction (word choice) to make it more precise, and queries inconsistencies and unclear sentences. But any copyeditor who added extensive dialogue to the manuscript of an established author would be in serious trouble. A copyeditor who deleted such a large amount of dialogue, unless he or she had permission to do what's called substantive editing, would be in almost as much trouble. It's too great a liberty even though the author (theoretically) reviews and approves or rejects such changes or suggested changes. I think the passage *must* have been in the original manuscript and that the British project editor (as opposed to the copyeditor) suggested that JKR herself tighten it. The American editor(s) apparently had no problem with it and let it go. Carol, who noticed a typo ("though" for "through") in the American edition of CoS today and wonders whether she overlooked it earlier or just forgot it was there From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jul 28 04:16:52 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:16:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Whose side are we on?? References: Message-ID: <009201c6b1fc$a8330a30$6478400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 156117 > Alla: > And I am really not sure how Dudley example works here, because if > Dudley's behaviour would be exception of his otherwise good > intentions, sure, that's what I call it. The problem is - I don't > see Dudley showing **any** good intentions, whatsoever, to me he > exhibits only **bad** behavior, period. I have nothing to sympathise > with Dudley, zero. That is of course plays a role in me not having > any sympathy for him in Toffey accident, pig accident or anything > else. Magpie: I don't think we have to feel sympathy for him, exactly. I mean, beyond the basic empathy of another person feeling something negative. But one should be able--as I think you've done in the thread--to say, "I don't like Dudley. The fact that he's been such a bully to Harry and others makes it satisfying to me to see him have this prank played on him. Still, what the Twins are doing there isn't right and they need to be more responsible with their power..." or something like that, whatever you think. The toffee prank isn't particularly funny to me, but that's my taste. There are things in the books that I do find funny, even if they're also cruel. For example: Alla: > And what do we see of Draco? Making fun of Hagrid status in school, > person whom he **never** met before. I found it quite disgusting, > personally. Magpie: I thought that was a funny scene and didn't find it disgusting. He was sharing gossip about a servant at the school as it was reported to him--and the truth in it made it painful. It was also even worse because Harry happened to consider Hagrid his only friend in the world. There's nothing particularly good in what Draco says there, but I find it funny. It's not OOC for him to be speaking that way, but it doesn't make me lose sympathy for him--that's probably the moment I started liking him as a character. For some people it does. Either way it's still something Draco's done that's part of his characterization. > Alla: > > Well, there is certainly a question of the degree. I don't want bad > guys to be caricatures, but I sure prefer them to **not** get away > from their punishment. There are books in which it is inevitable and > maybe people want to see it in Potterverse too. I don't. Magpie: I don't think they will get away from their punishment--I think JKR will love punishing them. But hopefully it will be more rehabilitating than just continuing vengeance--I'm speaking about the younger characters there, as I don't think rehabilitating the baddie adults (or the Dursleys) is in the cards. But I think the good guys will also have to go through some learning experiences where they question their own behavior, maybe just because that seems to obviously be the most dramatic thing. Often fandom's ideas for what should happen completely sheild Harry et al. from that sort of thing, but I feel like JKR would instinctively go more for the jugular there, and try to heal the split. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 05:42:58 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 05:42:58 -0000 Subject: The Too Unreliable Narrator (was: What really happened on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156118 Carol earlier: > > First, a technicality: a third-person narrator (unlike a first- person narrator) is not a character, only the voice or persona that tells the story, in this case usually but not always from Harry's pov. > > > > Second, and more important, the narrator does not deceive the hero. The hero has no clue that he's in a story and has no way of knowing what the narrator says about him. The narrator doesn't impose limitations upon himself or herself. The limitations are imposed by the author, who decides whether to use a third-person limited narrator (limited to a particular character's pov), a third-person dramatic narrator (who sees the characters from the outside), or what amounts to a first-person narrator (detailed exposition delivered by one character to another, notably Crouch!Moody in GoF or Dumbledore's expository near-monologues in most of the other books). > > Neri responded: > I acknowledge the distinction between the author and the narrator. I > was aware of it all the time but didn't want to complicate this > discussion even further. > Carol: Good. I was chiefly concerned with the idea that Harry could be aware of the narrator. He's not aware that he's a fictional creation, either. And I was attempting to show, perhaps not very clearly, that JKR varies her narrative technique depending on the needs of the plot (more on that below) and that a third-person limited narrator has the same limitations as a first-person narrator--he can't know anything outside the pov character's frame of reference and, unlike the dramatic narrator of some scenes, he can't be objective because he reports the scene as the character sees it, including the character's feelings and misconceptions. > > > Carol earlier: > > > > In a few instances, we have the narrator rather sneakily hiding from the reader things that Harry knows perfectly well, for example that Harry isn't giving Ron Felix Felicis. > > Neri: > No, we don't have *few* instances. That was my whole point in this > thread. We have exactly *one* known case throughout the whole series > where the author fools the reader by hiding from him things that > Harry knows perfectly well (BTW, weren't you mixing author and > narrator yourself here?). We also have exactly *one* case throughout > the whole series in which it is Harry himself who fools the reader. > Very interestingly these cases turn out to be the same ? the Felix > Felicis incident. I don't think this is any coincidence. Carol: You could be right here, but that doesn't undo the basic argument that JKR uses the narrator to manipulate the reader in a variety of ways, this being only one means of doing so. (But, yes, it was JKR who was being sneaky by having the narrator conceal rather than report information.) However, I think if we looked, we could find other instances of concealed information, the caster of the Petrificus Totalus spell possibly being one of them. Also, just being inside Harry's head keeps us from knowing that Tonks is moping about Lupin, to take one example. An omniscient narrator could get inside Tonks's head and tell us what was wrong with her. Of course, he could get inside Snape's head, too, and that would spoil half our fun. ;-) > > > > Carol: > > But in *no instance* does the narrator withhold information from > > *Harry.* > > The narrator sometimes knows things that Harry doesn't know > > Neri: > I'm afraid that after the above two statements I'm more mixed than > ever . > Carol responds: Sorry about that. I agree that my explanation wasn't quite clear. Let me repeat that Harry has no idea of the existence of the narrator and so the narrator can't withhold information from Harry, only from the readers. Harry isn't reading the books. He's *in* them. And the narrator *usually* knows only what Harry knows because he's *usually* inside Harry's head. But JKR's narrative strategy isn't perfectly consistent because she sometimes needs to reveal information that Harry isn't--and can't be--aware of. The only way to reveal this information *to the reader* but not to Harry is to get into someone else's head or choose a different type of narrator altogether. (Occasionally, another character, say Crouch!Moody or Dumbledore, can serve as a first-person narrator within the third-person narrative to provide exposition disguised as dialogue to Harry and the reader at the same time, but that's not what I'm talking about here.) Most of the time, as I said before, JKR uses a third-person limited omniscient narrator who sees from Harry's pov. At times, however, this narrative strategy won't work. In the first chapter of CoS, for example, Harry is fifteen months old, so his pov wouldn't work even if he were present for the events she wants to depict (Mr. Dursley's day at the office, McGonagall waiting for Dumbledore, etc.). Her third-person narrator first uses Vernon Dursley's (highly limited and prejudiced) pov, then becomes a third-person dramatic narrator seeing events and characters (McGonagall, Dumbledore, Hagrid) from the outside. In the next chapter, we see ten-year-old Harry asleep (and the house as it appears while he's sleeping--note that this strategy is repeated in HBP, chapter 3) with a shift to Harry's pov as he wakes up. With a few exceptions, most notably Hermione setting fire to Snape's robes, the pov in SS/PS stays with Harry, and the third-person narrator's "omniscience" is limited to what Harry knows or thinks he knows (though, of course, the narrator doesn't report everything that Harry says, does, thinks, sees, hears, or feels, or the books would be impossible to read--or write). The narrator must be *selective*--or rather, JKR must select what the narrator reports--and, of course, control the *way* he reports it, including the completeness or incompleteness of the information and the degree of objectivity and accuracy with which it's reported. I can't remember any significant deviations from the usual third-person limited Harrycentric pov in Cos or PoA, but in the first chapter of GoF we get Frank Bryce's pov followed by a third-person dramatic (objective) flashback of the events surrounding the Riddle murders. The dreams in Go f and OoP provide a narrative device that allows us to see from LV's pov (or Nagini's) with an overlay of Harry's. HBP starts out with the third-person limited narrator in the Muggle Prime Minister's mind, then a third-person dramatic narrator in "Spinner's End" (and the beginning of "Will and Won't," while Harry is asleep), and then a return to the usual Harrycentric pov, compounded by an increasing hatred of Snape. In the (very few) chapters where we see the characters from the outside, we have nothing but our own preconceptions to color our view of the characters' words and actions (but we can still sense that information is being concealed from us because the characters conceal it from each other). In the third-person limited chapters, we also have the pov character's preconceptions and limitations to influence our interpretation. When the narrator is inside Harry's mind, he (the narrator) can't know anything that Harry doesn't know (the events in "Spinner's End," for example, even though those events were reported earlier in the book) because Harry doesn't. (If that's confusing, you can think of those chapters as being told by a different narrator than the one who sees through Harry's eyes, one who can see what's happening to Snape and Narcissa and Bellatrix, but can't get into their minds. Neither, of course, can we.) The reporting of events in "Spinner's End" is straightforward, though of course we're still confused by the withheld information and don't know how much of what snape says is true or what his motives are; the reporting of many other events and conversations includes paraphrases of Harry's thoughts and his emotional reactions. His fear becomes our fear, his mistrust our mistrust--the ubiquitous "Harry filter." But JKR doesn't *just* control the pov (which may or may not be reliable, depending on what's being reported or described). She also makes sure that conversations are interrupted at key points, that certain events occur almost simultaneously so that one seems to cause the other (Harry's scar hurting "because" Snape looks at him) or one is mistaken for the other (Madam Pince appears from behind the shelves, disguising the fact that Draco is hiding there and eavesdropping). The argument in the forest is reported by Hagrid, not even overheard directly by Harry, distancing the reader still farther from the action and increasing the likelihood of unreliable reporting. And, of course, the characters themselves frequently provide seemingly reasonable explanations for events and other characters' actions that turn out to be incorrect (case in point, Hermione's idea that Tonks is suffering from survivor's guilt). Sometimes they're right; sometimes they're wrong. (If they were always wrong, there would be no point in listening to anything they say. But even Hagrid can be right; even Hermione can be wrong.) JKR is manipulating us in various ways, just as she is in her interviews. She doesn't want us to figure out exactly where the story is going, or exactly where Snape's loyalties lie. Just as some clues are real clues and some are red herrings, the narrator (and the characters' version of events) is sometimes reliable and sometimes not. We just have to know what to look for and interpret it for ourselves--at least until she gives us the answers in Book 7. And even then, we (the group members, not just you and I) still won't agree on Snape or the Weasley Twins or Dumbledore or Merope. Neri: > OK, regardless of any technical issues, I think you and Pippin still > manage to avoid the main point of my thread. The Author obviously > can't allow the narrator to be *too* unreliable, because in that case the reader simply would never believe a word the narrator is saying. Carol: True. Rather like Snape in "Spinner's End," the misdirection has to appear plausible and must be mixed with truth. The question is which is which. Neri: > My question is: What is JKR's personal limit in using the > unreliability of her narrator to fool the readers? Carol: I'm not sure that even JKR herself can answer that. But I'm inclined to agree with those posters who think that she puts the needs of the plot above consistency in other matters, whether it's narrative technique or the number of years it's been since Gryffindor won the Quidditch Cup. Neri: I'm interested in > definitions of this limit backed up by examples in the book (examples in which we already know whether we were fooled or not, not > hypotheticals like the PT case). Carol: I've given numerous examples. Please see upthread. Look at the whole presentation of Tonks in HBP if you want examples of misdirecting the reader regarding a character's motives or feelings. Neri: Pippin came up with a list of rules, > but I think that they basically boil down to "wherever the author > raises some doubt ? anything goes", and since JKR almost always > raises *some* doubt, in practice it's "anything goes". So where is > the limit between tricking and conning? What *wouldn't* JKR do to > fool the reader? Carol: I'm not about to give a list of rules because you'd immediately find an exception--and so would I. I think, however, that JKR wants to keep us in doubt on certain key points, chiefly (IMO) whether Dumbledore was right about Snape and where Snape's loyalties lie (possibly also whether DD is really dead, but I'm not convinced about that one, or about ESE!Lupin). Carol, who can't believe she's still writing on this topic and hopes she isn't boring anyone From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 06:36:33 2006 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:36:33 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback)/Barty Jr's motivations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156119 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I think the passage *must* have been in the original manuscript and > that the British project editor... > suggested that JKR herself tighten it. The American editor(s) > apparently had no problem with it and let it go. Earlier, houyhnhnm wondered: >No[w] that I see the extent of the difference and learn >that it appears...that the American edition >may be the only version >containing the lines about faking the Malfoys' deaths, >the question becomes ... >Did they simply feel they had to explain something >that would be self-evident to other readers... No doubt Rowling went the extra mile to "play fair" with us clueless (but adorable) Yankee rabble. It seems she secretly likes us better, huh? I mean, the experts have safely ruled out miscommunication and human error. Yet the variant information involves a magnitude of novelty and significance incompatible with the concept of mere "tightening." Surely, once alerted that her fly was down, Rowling would have zipped it more than half-way up--even if the Colonists didn't "mind"--unless Yep. Simpletons or not, she obviously just likes us better. Talisman, basking in the love. (Some jealous Bloomsbury whiner must have spoiled it for our paperback edition. Don't hate us. We can't help it if we're beautiful.) From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri Jul 28 06:43:30 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:43:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The dead returning... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <767403347.20060727234330@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156120 (NOTE: This post is just for fun, and if you haven't read Douglas Adams' novel, _Life, the Universe, and Everything_, it will be meaningless to you.) EricOppen: e> "Bellatrix stared in horror as her cousin lurched toward her. 'No! e> Stay away!' she shrieked. 'You're dead! I killed you!' e> e> "Closer and closer Sirius came. His mouth opened, and he said, in a e> hollow voice: 'I know. And I'm coming for you, Bella. It's just that e> I have to come slowly...because pieces of me...keep falling off...'" This scenario put me in mind of Douglas Adams... I'm imagining that Sirius Black is Agrajag, who finally realizes that that it's not Arthur Dent, but Bellatrix Lestrange who keeps getting him killed... And so he is reincarnated to exact revenge at last... :) -- Dave, who wonders if Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged is so because he has a horcrux (which he made after he insulted someone to death) :) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Jul 28 07:37:48 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:37:48 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156121 Am just re-reading the Half Blood Prince to my 6 year old son (really don't know how I'm going to deal with DD dying!!!!) and something occurred to me. Even before he has come of age, Snape is capable (a) of improving potions that are laid down in a text book and (b) of creating his own curses. If I compare Snape to the current group of students, he seems like an enhanced version of Hermione i.e. knows his stuff but can even improve upon what he has been taught. It seems to me that James and Sirius would need DD-like magical talent to deal with Snape - and Sirius couldn't even deal with Bella. One other point. I also just read the bit where Harry is motionless in the Hogwarts express and for a moment hopes that his fame will cause people to wonder where he is and then instantly despises himself for having such a thought. It's at times like that when you realise what a fine human being Harry is!! Brothergib From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 08:54:52 2006 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:54:52 -0000 Subject: Regarding Hag/Max journey to the giants? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156122 I think this may be one of the one of the more significant plot points...(must be...one can edit this entire piece of the story out and not change the outcome of oop)... The things that make me wonder... 1. Hagrid states that they couldn't do magic because they were being followed.....he never stated that he could not make a portkey when Ron suggested....nor did he mention who did the magic after they lost their "tail".. 2. This leads me to believe that DD may well have continued giving Hagrid lessons post expulsion.(would be DD's style...DD would have been confident enough in Hagrids magical abilities to appoint him to teach the care of magical creatures class) 3. DD's ideas/hopes are very often what we don't expect...(the protection given the sorcer's stone for ex...did DD set harry up?; the sorting hat/griffindors sword...did DD set Harry up? etc.. Irregardless, we learn a great deal regarding Hagrid's journey...JKR could have had fierenze show up and made a narrow enough escape for Harry and Hermione in the forrest....even if he couldn't ...Ron, Ginny, Luna, Neville etc. would/could have showed up and got them out of there...Grawp didn't NEED to be there (although I loved it when he kept calling, "Hagger!"...."HAAGGERR" ) That's a great deal of content for comic relief or character development......so I'd garner that there must be some greater purpose... Doddiemoemoe, Who doesn't have many bright ideas..the brightest yet..... Voldy may have sent a horcrux to be guarded by the giants--disguised as a gift?(a nice way to place Hagrid in book seven) From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Fri Jul 28 09:36:15 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:36:15 -0000 Subject: Regarding Hag/Max journey to the giants? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doddiemoemoe" wrote: > > I think this may be one of the one of the more significant plot > points...(must be...one can edit this entire piece of the story out > and not change the outcome of oop)... snippittysnip > ...Grawp didn't NEED to be there (although I loved it > when he kept calling, "Hagger!"...."HAAGGERR" ) That's a great deal > of content for comic relief or character development......so I'd > garner that there must be some greater purpose... > > Doddiemoemoe, > Who doesn't have many bright ideas..the brightest yet..... Voldy > may have sent a horcrux to be guarded by the giants--disguised as a > gift?(a nice way to place Hagrid in book seven) > AmanitaMuscaria now: Giants? or giant(Grawp) perhaps? The way Hagrid just shrugs off curses makes me think he and Grawp are going to be a pretty formidable combination in The Battle. I can't see Hagrid being left out of the Battle, though - he's Keeper of Hogwarts Grounds and Keys, as well as Harry's intro into the wizarding world - oh, no - I don't like the way that sentence came out! I like your idea, too, of a gift to the Giants being one of V's horcruxes - might just get destroyed in one of their battles - that would be great if Voldy were watching! Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria Doddiemoemoe does TOO have bright ideas, see? From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 10:21:10 2006 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:21:10 -0000 Subject: Quite the Fine Fellow (was: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156126 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > One other point. I also just read the bit where Harry is motionless in > the Hogwarts express and for a moment hopes that his fame will cause > people to wonder where he is and then instantly despises himself for > having such a thought. It's at times like that when you realise what a > fine human being Harry is!! Yeah, he was so ashamed of himself that he spent the rest of the year milking phony fame from Snape's work. A regular Lockhart, I calls him. Talisman, back later to shove the blade in deeper. From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 28 02:53:39 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:53:39 -0000 Subject: Dementors and souls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hendlei" wrote: > > Also, could Harry, in his quest to destroy the remaining HCXs trick > the Dementors into helping him by throwing one or more HCX in their > path? If they can't see, but do sense souls, can they destroy the bit > of soul in an HCX by "sucking it out"? > > The basic question that occurred to me while reading PoA was: Can the > Dementors actually help stop LV while he believes they are his > allies? DD believes that LV doesn't know when or if an HCX has been > destroyed and, if that is true, it is possible to destroy several > before he realizes it. > Joe: After reading PoA years ago about how dementors suck the soul out of a person I wondered if Harry would trick LV into getting too close to one and getting kissed in the seventh book. When I read HBP about how Voldy's soul is in bits and pieces I put that thought aside. I hadn't thought of the dementors sucking the succulent soul marrow out of a horcrux bone, but it's worth considering. Even if HP does manage to destroy all of the horcruxes the dementors still could smooch the last soul segment out of LV's new body in the climax. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 13:44:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:44:37 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? In-Reply-To: <009201c6b1fc$a8330a30$6478400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156128 > Magpie: > I don't think we have to feel sympathy for him, exactly. I mean, beyond the > basic empathy of another person feeling something negative. But one should > be able--as I think you've done in the thread--to say, "I don't like Dudley. > The fact that he's been such a bully to Harry and others makes it satisfying > to me to see him have this prank played on him. Still, what the Twins are > doing there isn't right and they need to be more responsible with their > power..." or something like that, whatever you think. Alla: Absolutely, OR one should be able to say "I have no sympathy for Dudley and that is why the question whether Twins are responsible with their power or not in **this** particular instance bears no significance to me whatsoever" Magpie: The toffee prank > isn't particularly funny to me, but that's my taste. There are things in > the books that I do find funny, even if they're also cruel. For example: > > Alla: > > And what do we see of Draco? Making fun of Hagrid status in school, > > person whom he **never** met before. I found it quite disgusting, > > personally. > > Magpie: > I thought that was a funny scene and didn't find it disgusting. He was > sharing gossip about a servant at the school as it was reported to him--and > the truth in it made it painful. It was also even worse because Harry > happened to consider Hagrid his only friend in the world. There's nothing > particularly good in what Draco says there, but I find it funny. characterization. Alla: This is a great example. I cannot find what Draco says funny, no matter how many times I would reread this scene. Little shmack considers it possible to degrate the person he never met. Oh, and I am not sure that Hagrid is exactly servant in Hogwarts. Isn't he an employee just as any Hogwarts teacher? And that is why we evaluate those scenes so differently, heeeee. Just as you don't find the Toffee prank funny and I find it hysterical and the fact that they pranked the character I utterly despise, makes it just so much more satisfying to me. I find what Draco says much much worse and it is not like I am a big fan of Hagrid's character. I mean, I sure like and respect him more than Draco, hehe, but if I were to rank my favorite adult characters, Hagrid would not be on the top of my list. > > > Alla: > > > > Well, there is certainly a question of the degree. I don't want bad > > guys to be caricatures, but I sure prefer them to **not** get away > > from their punishment. There are books in which it is inevitable and > > maybe people want to see it in Potterverse too. I don't. > > Magpie: > I don't think they will get away from their punishment--I think JKR will > love punishing them. But hopefully it will be more rehabilitating than just > continuing vengeance--I'm speaking about the younger characters there, as I > don't think rehabilitating the baddie adults (or the Dursleys) is in the > cards. Alla: Oh, yes, yes, true. I don't think that Draco's redemption is an absolute guarantee, but I totally think that he is the most likely candidate for it, since younger characters are taking central scene. Not that I wish to see it, but I am pretty sure JKR can write it well and hopefully make Draco suffer some more for the haos he wreaked upon Hogwarts before she redeems him. Magpie: But I think the good guys will also have to go through some learning > experiences where they question their own behavior, maybe just because that > seems to obviously be the most dramatic thing. Often fandom's ideas for > what should happen completely sheild Harry et al. from that sort of thing, > but I feel like JKR would instinctively go more for the jugular there, and > try to heal the split. Alla: I guess this is again the question of degree for me and that depends again on how big JKR considers good guys trasngressions are. I do **not** think that they will go through major questionings, frankly, but we shall see. I think the only learning experience for Harry left would be Snape. I want to think that it would not be the "Oh how wrong I was, dear Snape, please forgive me", but just Harry learning to forgive the man, who indeed wronged him greatly. But of course we shall see when book 7 comes :) JMO, Alla. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jul 28 15:46:06 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:46:06 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156129 > Alla: > > Absolutely, OR one should be able to say "I have no sympathy for > Dudley and that is why the question whether Twins are responsible > with their power or not in **this** particular instance bears no > significance to me whatsoever" Magpie: Right--it's good to be able to separate our personal reactions to things from describing them accurately. Whether the Twins' actions in this scene is significant in a certain way for the story is also different than whether a particular reader has to find it significant for themselves. Some people do automatically and some people don't. > Alla: > > This is a great example. I cannot find what Draco says funny, no > matter how many times I would reread this scene. Little shmack > considers it possible to degrate the person he never met. Oh, and I > am not sure that Hagrid is exactly servant in Hogwarts. Isn't he an > employee just as any Hogwarts teacher? Magpie: That's the joke. To Draco, a groundskeeper is a servant--whether that's accurate or not might be a matter of opinion. So Draco says, "I've heard of him, he's some sort of servant..." and Harry indignantly corrects him by saying he's the head groundskeeper, and Draco says, "Exactly." He thinks Harry's just helped him out with the specifics but to Draco, who may very well have a groundskeeper at home, he's one of the servants. It's the classic clueless snobbery joke, making Harry all the more irritated. With the Twins, I almost always find their verbal wit far funnier than their practical jokes too. > Alla: > > I guess this is again the question of degree for me and that depends > again on how big JKR considers good guys trasngressions are. Magpie: Oh, I doubt it will be a huge thing either. I don't think the realization about himself would be Harry realizing he'd been a completely horrible person--he hasn't been. To go back to Jane Austen, Lizzie was upset for herself for making a mistake, not realizing she was so horrible. Draco's realization, if he's to make one, would involve a much more fundamental shift. I don't know what JKR will do with him but she's certainly brought him to the edge of a personal earthquake if she wants him to have one. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 17:37:54 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:37:54 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on??/Story analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156130 > > Alla: > > > > Absolutely, OR one should be able to say "I have no sympathy for > > Dudley and that is why the question whether Twins are responsible > > with their power or not in **this** particular instance bears no > > significance to me whatsoever" > > Magpie: > Right--it's good to be able to separate our personal reactions to > things from describing them accurately. Whether the Twins' actions > in this scene is significant in a certain way for the story is also > different than whether a particular reader has to find it > significant for themselves. Some people do automatically and some > people don't. Alla: Yes, sure this is again just different levels of analysing the story. For myself I call it analysing on "feelings"" level and "intellectual" level. This is strictly how I classify it. I found long time ago that for myself to be able to argue effectively turning off my emotions completely never works. :) I certainly have to care about what I am arguing or for the character I am defending, but of course turning off the intellectual part is also not good, so for me mix works the best, when I am analysing developed characters. I remember some time ago I tried to turn my emotions off completely and try to defend Pettigrew. Oh, boy, I think that was a pretty pathetic defense, when I think about it. Now I think I would probably have done much better by acknowledging how much I hate him and tried to find some emotional justifications for him Some people argue by completely turning off their emotions and that works for them. Not me. Sometimes though I don't feel a need to go any further than trusting my emotions and the Toffee incident is probably one of them. > > Alla: > > > > I guess this is again the question of degree for me and that > depends > > again on how big JKR considers good guys trasngressions are. > > Magpie: > Oh, I doubt it will be a huge thing either. I don't think the > realization about himself would be Harry realizing he'd been a > completely horrible person--he hasn't been. To go back to Jane > Austen, Lizzie was upset for herself for making a mistake, not > realizing she was so horrible. Alla: Heee, yes, sure as long as we agree that Harry will not be having a major crisis of faith in book 7. Mistakes are possible. And of course not saying that Harry's development as a person should stop at seventeen ( if he survives of course, please JKR), just saying that for the purposes of the books, Harry IMO already learned all major life lessons, the one remains is forgiving Snape IMO ( and I do think that Harry will forgive Snape no matter what kind of Snape we will get :)) If only we could have a bit of Snape's suffering before Harry forgives him, I will be completely happy camper. Magpie: Draco's realization, if he's to make > one, would involve a much more fundamental shift. I don't know what > JKR will do with him but she's certainly brought him to the edge of > a personal earthquake if she wants him to have one. Alla: Well, IMO as it should be, because Draco started his road from much different point than Harry. Although who knows, maybe we will learn that Draco is dead at the beginning of book 7 and that's it, one never knows. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 17:42:43 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:42:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156131 Sandy: > > > > As to where, I think it [the final battle] will be either at Hogwarts or at Godric's Hollow. > I hope it is at Godric's Hollow because that's where it all began so it would be fitting that it end there. > > > > Julie: > I'm hoping it's at Hogwarts, which in a sense is also where it > began, for Tom Riddle/Voldemort. It's also where most of the > series has taken place, and if a uniting of the Houses is to > take place in Book 7, I have to suspect that uniting will at > least partly happen as a united defense against Voldemort. > Also Voldemort has put a lot of his focus on Hogwarts, trying > to get a position there when he was still Tom Riddle, putting > a curse of the DADA position, and placing Snape there as his > spy. One would think he cares more about controlling Hogwarts > than the WW at large... Carol responds: As you may know, I think the final confrontation will occur in the DoM and involve the Veil. But I like Julie's idea that "it all began" for Harry and for Tom Riddle at Hogwarts, which became a home for both of them, the one place TR cared about and one to which Voldemort connected himself through his Horcruxes. If Hogwarts reopens, DD will certainly try to reenter it and I think there will be a huge battle there involving all the creatures in the Forbidden Forest, the ghosts, the house-elves, even the suits of armor and Peeves. The students can put Snape's DADA lessons to use (and the remaining DA members can apply what Harry taught them). I think that Wormtail will reveal some secret passages as a new way to enter the school. (Maybe Harry will hand over the Marauder's Map to Ginny and she'll communicate to HRH via Sirius Black's mirror that the school is being attacked?) I also think there will be a smaller battle involving HRH, the helpless Dursleys, Mrs. Figg, and some belatedly summoned Order members against LV and the DEs at 4 Privet Drive early in the morning of Harry's seventeenth birthday. (I predict that Mrs. Figg will perform magic "in desperate circumstances quite late in life.") As for Godric's Hollow, though I can't argue with Sandy's logic that the story begins at GH and would come full circle if it ended there, I can't see Voldemort returning to the scene of his humiliating and painful defeat. I'd like to see Harry have a peaceful and revealing visit to the site, to see his parents' graves and maybe be stimulated by the wreckage of the house to recall the full memory of what happened there. I don't expect a battle there, and I certainly don't expect him to find a Horcrux in the ruins, as Voldemort didn't have time to create one and would not (IMO) have been foolish enough to bring a valuable object with him. (In any case, Wormtail would have found it and run off with it as he must have done with the wand.) So I vote for a great battle of Hogwarts in which someone JKR expects the readers to care about (Hagrid?) gets killed, a smaller battle at Privet Drive in which no one important is killed but with luck, some DEs are Stunned or "Incarcerused" (tied up with ropes) and arrested, and a final confrontation at the DoM which Harry survives and LV doesn't. Carol, who can't decide whether she wants the suspense to end or not but will carefully avoid the TOC (table of contents in editorialese) when she gets the last book in her hands From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 15:24:04 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:24:04 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156132 > > Pippin: > IIRC, McGonagall fed Harry two biscuits and told him that > defying Umbridge was going to cost him a lot more than House > Points and dententions. She warned him to keep his head down and > keep his temper. What do you want her to do now, give him > another biscuit and say, "I told you so"? > > No, I want her to say "That was a horrible and unforgivable thing that was done to you, Harry. I'm truly sorry I didn't handle the situation better." In other words, I want her to act in a responsible matter befitting a human being, not a vile and ignoble manner (to use words Ceridwen suggested) that befits only someone who seemingly has no sorrow or feeling of shame for one of her students being physically abused. Yet another example where authority figures seem to approve of Harry being abused. Or where at the very least their silence and failure to denounce the abuse tacitly signal that they do not take it seriously. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 15:17:01 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:17:01 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156133 > Ceridwen: > What I didn't get was that they all passed over what happened to > Ginny in CoS, with barely more than a warning not to trust objects > that have their own minds. I think this was a set-up for the later > reactions to Umbridge. No one liked what happened to Ginny, no one > liked what happened to Harry. But, stiff upper lip, pip-pip, all > that, nothing more to see here, move along... > You might be on to something here. I would agree that "vile" is a rather good word for it, or at the very least "ignoble." I often really wonder why anyone -- meaning Harry -- really cares what happens to these ignoble morons. Of course, Harry does have a personal stake in it. Which gets us back to the revenge theme. Lupinlore From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jul 28 13:37:44 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:37:44 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156134 snipping from Susan's post: > > American edition, 591-592: "He cannot kill you if you are already > > dead. << > What I find intriguing is this other *extra* portion in the American > edition that is missing from the British (if I'm reading the Lexicon > summaries correctly): > Nor > > would the Death Eaters be surprised that we had captured and > > killed your mother -- it is what they would do themselves, after > > all. << > Potioncat: It is such a big difference! I thought it was only the first part that was different. That JKR allowed the change for any reason---and didn't make sure it was done in both---makes no sense. The other very interesting line that appears in both, is that Lucius is **safe** in Azkaban. Anyone think Mundungas went to Azkaban for a reason? Impersonating an Inferi---Really! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 19:02:06 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:02:06 -0000 Subject: Story analysis (Was: Whose side are we on?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156135 Alla wrote: > > Yes, sure this is again just different levels of analysing the story. > For myself I call it analysing on "feelings"" level and "intellectual" level. This is strictly how I classify it. I found long time ago that for myself to be able to argue effectively turning> off my emotions completely never works. :) > > I certainly have to care about what I am arguing or for the character I am defending, but of course turning off the intellectual part is also not good, so for me mix works the best, when I am analysing developed characters. > > Some people argue by completely turning off their emotions and that > works for them. Not me. > > Sometimes though I don't feel a need to go any further than trusting > my emotions and the Toffee incident is probably one of them. Carol responds: Although I respect your feelings here, I can't agree that there's such a thing as "emotional analysis." Analysis is a purely intellectual exercise and emotions get in the way of it (just as they get in the way of Occlumency for Harry). I realize that none of us can completely set aside our feelings about a particular character (unless it's someone we don't care one way or the other about like, say, Rufus Scrimgeour), but I think it's important to at least make the effort to examine the canon evidence objectively. (I wonder, for example, how differently we would see Snape if the entire series were written using a third-person dramatic narrator like the one in "Spinner's End"--then again, it probably wouldn't engage the reader's emotions as effectively because he or she wouldn't empathize so extensively with Harry.) But the point I'm trying to make is that one person's emotions have no influence on the way another person reads a particular scene. I can't laugh at the toffee scene (though I confess to laughing at the movie version of Aunt Marge being "blown up"--a diffferent matter altogether since it's accidental magic resulting from Harry's anger at insults to his dead parents, not a deliberate prank played for laughs against a helpless if unlikeable Muggle by two older wizards) and no one else's emotional reaction can convince me that they're right and I'm wrong. Only logical arguments backed by canon evidence can convince me to rethink my position. Let me reverse the equation for a moment. My emotional reaction to the Twins' actions is sympathy for Dudley and for Petunia, who thinks her son is dying, combined with a kind of horror/disgust/embarrassed amusement at the irony of poor Petunia trying to yank out Dudley's tongue and increasing her son's agony as she tries to save him. I can't convince anyone else to feel that way because our emotional reactions, like our tastes and prejudices, are our own. I would argue, however, that just as it doesn't matter what Severus has done to James and Sirius in the past--it's bullying to attack him two-on-one when he's preoccupied by his DADA exam--it's wrong for the Twins to tempt a Muggle, regardless of what he's done to Harry or anyone else in the past, with a candy that they know he'll eat and that they know will cause his tongue to expand in a terrifying way that he'll be helpless to undo. Look at Bob Ogden's reasoning when Morfin hexes Tom Riddle. He doesn't care about Morfin's motivation (Morfin is punishing the Muggle for being attractive to his sister, apparently); he only cares that the Muggle is defenseless against Morfin's magic. "'. . . Morfin gave a Muggle a bit of what was coming to him' [snapped Gaunt]. What about it, then?' "'Morfin has broken Wizarding law,' said Ogden sternly. "'"Morfin has broken Wizarding law."' Gaunt imitated Ogden's voice, making it pompous and singsong. 'He taught a filthy Muggle a lesson, that's illegal now, is it?' "'Yes,' said Ogden. 'I'm afraid it is'" (HBP Am. ed. 206). Later, Ogden makes the point more explicitly: "this was an unprovoked attack on a defenseless Muggle" (208). Morfin goes to Azkaban for using magic on a Muggle, a particular Muggle whom he's taken it upon himself to punish. And, as Ogden points out, it's illegal to do so regardless of Morfin's motive. The Twins, though they don't directly perform an Engorgement Charm and so avoid the letter of the law (both the restriction of underage magic and the Statute of Secrecy), they are still, like Morfin, using magic on a defenseless Muggle to punish him, with no authority to do so. (Surely if anyone has the right to carry out revenge against Dudley, it's Harry, yet Harry saves Dudley from the Dementors in the next book.) It doesn't matter what Dudley has done in the past; he has done nothing to the Twins, or to Harry at that moment, to provoke the Twins' attack. None of this has anything to do with my personal feelings about the Twins. I rather like them, particularly George, who seems to be a bit more sensitive and a bit less the instigator than Fred (though he claims equal credit for the toffee prank and seems to have been in on the planning of it). I will be sad if the Twins are killed in Book 7, and will cry for Mrs. Weasley's loss if they are, just as I cried for Mrs. Diggory's loss of Cedric. But that doesn't mean that I have to interpret canon to see them as being in the right because they're Harry's friends and on the side of good. They make mistakes and so does Harry (and Ron and Hermione and Dumbledore and Lupin and Hagrid and even Ernie Macmillan, who thinks that Harry is the Heir of Slytherin in CoS). It seems to me that the Morfin/Gaunt/Ogden scene is intended to illustrate the view of the situation that JKR wants the reader to take. Yes, even the good Wizards like Mr. Weasley and Mr. Ogden are condescending toward Muggles, and, yes, it's disturbing that they would resort to Obliviating Muggles to maintain the WW's secrecy. But nevertheless, Ogden is pointing out to Gaunt (and Morfin) that it's wrong to use magic on a defenseless Muggle regardless of what the Muggle has done to deserve it. IMO, the Twins, like Harry, must learn that actions have consequences and that it is not their place to punish wrongdoers. They didn't learn from the toffee incident, but perhaps they'll learn from the Vanishing Cabinet. The good guys can't mistake vengeance for justice and remain good guys. Carol, who wants the Twins to become *responsible* adults, not just pranksters who consider themselves adults because they're of age From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 19:27:01 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:27:01 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156137 Lupinlore wrote: > You might be on to something here. I would agree that "vile" is a > rather good word for it, or at the very least "ignoble." I often > really wonder why anyone -- meaning Harry -- really cares what > happens to these ignoble morons. Of course, Harry does have a > personal stake in it. Which gets us back to the revenge theme. Carol responds: I doubt that JKR wants us to think of Dumbledore, McGonagall, et al. as "ignoble morons," but I won't attempt to convince you otherwise because emotional judgments are impervious to logic. Instead, I'll just ask a question: Do we have any canon evidence that the adults know what Umbridge did to Harry in her detentions? Harry specifically avoided going to either the headmaster or his HOH because he wanted to deal with the matter himself (and because DD, for reasons unknown to Harry, was refusing to meet Harry's eyes and Harry resented this treatment). He didn't even tell Ron and Hermione what Umbridge was doing until he had no choice. Harry later holds up his scarred hand to Rufus Scrimgeour, who up to that point seems to have no idea of the animosity between Harry and Umbridge, but I doubt that Scrimgeour made the connection between Harry's hand (fist) and Umbridge's detentions, especially since Umbridge is mentioned several paragraphs before Harry raises his fist. (I can cite canon here if need be.) Do we have any evidence that Scrimgeour or anyone else (except HRH and Lee Jordan) knows about Umbridge's evil quill? And if they don't know about it, how can they take action against it? Carol, curious as to what Lupinlore thinks the adults ought to have done about Umbridge (and whatever else is prompting his dismissal of the adult characters as "ignoble morons") From inky_quill at hotmail.com Fri Jul 28 19:44:43 2006 From: inky_quill at hotmail.com (Julie) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:44:43 -0000 Subject: Fear as a Crime --Long (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156138 Among the many, many posts discusing wizard/muggle interaction and abuse of power over the last two weeks: {large large snips) > "sistermagpie" wrote: Wizards have super powers that Muggles do not have. That is the *definition* of what they are. Taking advantage of those super powers is an abuse of power against a Muggle in a way it is not against a Wizard>>>>> > "Gerry" wrote in two seperate posts: [snip]...Harry used his superior powers on Aunt Marge. Aunt Marge in the past> has used her superior powers over Harry ...> > Gerry: [snip] What about Dumbledore's behaviour at the Dursley's. Forcing entry, forcing them to sit on the couch, having the glasses of mead float around their heads. Was that teaching them a lesson? Was that Muggle baiting? Because the Dursleys are Muggles and Dumbledore has superiour powers. > "Magpie" snip...[Ton-Tongue Toffee]...introduces many of the forms of cruelty that become more important later on. Cruelty that...is not really as meaningless as the incident is laid out to be. We've seen in canon pranks that go awry, that have consequences, that aren't so funny in retrospect. > >"JustCarol":[snip]....The strong have a duty to protect the weak, or at least a moral obligation not to use their strength against the defenseless. Remember Harry saving Dudley from the Dementors and contrast that with the Twins nearly choking him on his own tongue.... Fred and George should think before they act and not use their strength against another's weakness whatever the victim may have done to "deserve" it>>> >>"horridporrid03" [snip]....It does bother me that *everyone* in the Weasley family laughed about the Prank. (Especially Bill. Et tu, Bill? etc. ) I think it's indicitive of the entire WW, however. Muggles are all a tiny bit lesser-than. Poor Arthur is really fighting an unhill battle, without even family support.>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Inky/Julie writes: "It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, and then its just fun.." I like this thought of consequences: How will Dudley's/Marietta's experience shape future choices/actions. Its very easy to get caught up in the story and "hiss" our favorite characters' enemies. To rejoice in thier downfall. But we've seen these characters come back year after year. Harry's relationship with Draco is an example. It doesn't really matter that Draco was friendly or a snobby stuck up brat at Madame Malkins--Harry and he are doomed by the storyline to be enemies. But would Draco have become such an early enemy/rival if Harry had not rejected his ofter of friendship in the way he did? By choosing to strike out at another using "power," whether that be magic or the power of one's personality or popularity, how are (in this case)the Twins and Hermione affected by their choices to act and in possible reactions by victims who will not necessarily forgive and forget. Like Marietta, Dudley is a minor character; his fate matters little at this point in cannon. He's there to show both the Dursley's abuse of Harry and the dangers of the wrong type of love. Do I like Dudley? No. Is he a sympathetic character? No, he's a demanding, whining bully and an utterly horrible little monster towards Harry. But I sympathize with his fear. Every time he has a run in with magic, its something scary, something hurtful. Harry delights in magic, but for Dudley it's a closed world that terrorizes him, that he will always be forced to interact with from a subservient, powerless postion. This to my mind is the key point: Fear and Terror. There have been comments about Petunia's abuse of Harry?that she's driven by jealousy of Lily, pettiness, or is just a mean and nasty person. All these might be true. But the fact remains that Petunia and her family are terrorized by magic's existence in their lives, They are forced to accept it in the form of Harry, and are therefore driven to acts of cruelty to try to retain power in their own home. Don't forget about the one moment of almost-sympathy Petunia displays towards Harry (in Oof P)?when she reveals her knowledge of the Dementors and recognizes a worse threat than Harry. Regardless of how much of a little monster (ok, gigantic `small killer whale sized' monster) Dudley is towards Harry, Dudley is still younger than the twins are (intelligent 16 or 17 year olds) and afraid of magic. Someone pointed out in the Evil Hermione/Marietta thread (in defense of Hermione) that 15-year-olds make dumb choices at times without thinking of the consequences. While true, it's also an overgeneralization, implying 15 year olds can't think ahead. These are not ordinary children, nor particularly ignorant children. They go away to boarding school specifically to learn to control and use this dangerous power, to learn how to exist in the wizarding world and to avoid the notice of muggles. They are told that muggles fear magic--one example is the stories of executions of witches. That it didn't work on "real" witches wasn't the point, the lesson was on the fear/hate muggles have for magic. JKR spends quite a bit of time at the start of the passage in Chapter 4 (GoF) describing Dudley's terror. All the Dursley's are huddled together, cowering back from the wizards. Its hard to miss. What are George and Fred's intent toward Dudley? They didn't attack him because he's a muggle, they didn't intend to kill him, so why use the Toffee? Because they know it will frighten him, and that's payback for harming/bullying Harry (although by this time since it's not in response to a specific incident of bullying, it's more a punishment for Dudley being Dudley and existing). They treat Dudley like an animal by tempting him with food, forbidden toffee that's actually a "bait" that lures Dudley into a "trap". They have no empathy for the terror they create in him. Dudley has good reason to fear wizards and magic in the first 4 books, magic has not been Dudley's friend. I don't see JKR hinting anywhere, that Muggles can attack a wizard physically, when the wizard is alert and ready with spells like "Stupefy" or "Petrificus Totalus" or even the first spell leaned at Hogwarts "Wingardium Leviosa." Can you see Dudley thinking clearly while cowering behind his parents or the sofa? We've been told repeatedly that muggles can't do magic, but that magic affects muggles. Dudley's been taught all his life to both deny magic's existence, and to fear it and what it will do to his family. Dudley learns that one can't hide from magic in the very first book! No matter where a crazed Vernon took them, magic tracked them down. Dementors aside, when Dudley actually meets magical people, are they pleasant? No. Hagrid "magics" a pigtail on Dudley in revenge--not for Dudley's actions--but for Vernon's insult towards Dumbledore. "I am not paying for some crackpot old fool to teach him magic tricks!"(SS, pg. 59) Dudley is already afraid of magic when the Toffee Incident occurs? its put him with snakes, damaged the house, inflated Aunt Marge, annoyed/angered/frightened his parents and physically disfigured his own body. The whole scene in Goblet of Fire screams of fear as the three Dursleys wait for Arthur Weasley. Dudley is clearly stressed-- "diminished" as JKR wrote. He's quiet, fidgety, and afraid the pigtail will reappear. When the Weasleys do arrive, they arrive with a "bang" -- exploding a hole through the wall. It's not a visit, it's an invasion. Arthur reveals the twins know Dudley's on a diet. Harry wrote to complain and beg for alternative food, which Molly sent (pg. 28 & 53). So what do the Twins do? Scatter a whole bag, "big, fat toffees in brightly colored wrappers," before Dudley's eyes (no chance of ignoring them). And greedy, temporarily deprived Dudley falls for the trick, surreptitiously downing a seemingly abandoned toffee. From the Muggle point of view, Dudley's then "poisoned" by tainted candy (add in deception to the twin's sins). OK the twins didn't intend permanent harm?but Dudley doesn't know that, and while he's trying amidst his shock and terror to figure out what's happening to him, he hears his mother in hysterics and the adult wizard keeps trying to do something else to him. Thank goodness, Arthur stuck around a while trying to force civility out of the Dursley adults!! Who knows how long the Ton-Tongue effect would have lasted, or if Dudley would have choked to death before it wore off. Fred and George can't know for sure that the Toffee is harmless since they told Harry they'd been "looking for someone to test them [Ton-Tongue Toffee] all summer." I've read several arguments that seem to imply that unpleasant characters like the Dursleys, Aunt Marge, Slytherins in general, and Marietta "deserve" the bad things that happen to them. Maybe, although Lord preserve us all if that's the case. I've been increasingly concerned in the later books how often supposedly "good" characters chose to ignore the rules that supposedly apply to everyone, and receive "rewards" for doing so in the form of points, knowledge, the embarrassment of enemies. I keep waiting for consequences. Unless the ministry is going to obliviate the Dursley's on Harry's 18th birthday, I fear Dudley will take what he's learned about wizards and become a viable agent against wizardry, if the muggle world wanted to strike aback at wizards. Similarly, I fear that Marietta with strike out in resentment and hatred, becoming a prime target for recruitment?if not to support Lord Voldemort (and that doesn't have to mean a Deatheater persay) than at least to the anti-Harry Potter/Dumbledore faction within the ministry. Fear too often becomes hatred and then justification. Thank goodness its just a story, only a story . . . . From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 19:55:46 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:55:46 -0000 Subject: Story analysis (Was: Whose side are we on?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156139 Carol responds: > Although I respect your feelings here, I can't agree that there's such > a thing as "emotional analysis." Analysis is a purely intellectual > exercise and emotions get in the way of it (just as they get in the > way of Occlumency for Harry). I realize that none of us can completely > set aside our feelings about a particular character (unless it's > someone we don't care one way or the other about like, say, Rufus > Scrimgeour), but I think it's important to at least make the effort to > examine the canon evidence objectively. Alla: I disagree completely. I don't think that analysis of the fictional story if done with the emotions not **turned off** completely means that objectivity is lost. I am not talking about analyzing technical elements of the story, I am talking about analyzing the characters as a reader. The non ? fiction book can be analyzed on purely technical level, fictional book IMO does not have to be analyzed that way, unless we are talking about technical aspects of it. I mean, it can, but it does not have to. Moreover, I think JKR does not mean for us to shut off emotional acceptance of the story, IMO of course. I think the story where emotions play such a big part and one of them is bound to play major role in the end, is meant to be analyzed with all your senses. I think it only enhances the pleasure of doing it. Again, JMO. As to examining canon evidence objectively, Hmmmm. IMO unless canon evidence is an absolute fact (Snape is the Head of Slytherin, for example), our emotions play the huge part into how we interpret ambiguous evidence, as it should be, otherwise half of the fun is lost IMO. For example, you view Snape a teacher as being sarcastic to his students and you think that you are being objective, right? I view Snape as teacher who **so** abuses his authority. Do I think that I am being objective? I absolutely do, but I analyse the same evidence you do, just come to the different conclusions. Do my emotions play a part in it? Sure as in I care for the characters Snape mistreats, but regardless of that fact do I think that Snape's actions can be interpreted differently? No, I don't. I mean, they can be of course, it is just I don't see it. Actually, I do see how different degrees of Snape's **jerkiness** can be seen, hehe. But after certain point, emotions or not, I just don't see how his actions can be viewed other than **teacher who abuses his authority**. I mean, I personally view him as abuser. I do see how this interpretation could be too much for others, what I don't see how Snape becomes just **sarcastic** teacher. Do I think that I view the evidence objectively? Yes, I do. Carol: > But the point I'm trying to make is that one person's emotions have no > influence on the way another person reads a particular scene. Alla: Of course, the point I am trying to make though is when I feel something for the character or the event, it makes me work harder to find canon support for it. Carol: > Let me reverse the equation for a moment. My emotional reaction to the > Twins' actions is sympathy for Dudley and for Petunia, who thinks her > son is dying, combined with a kind of horror/disgust/embarrassed > amusement at the irony of poor Petunia trying to yank out Dudley's > tongue and increasing her son's agony as she tries to save him. I > can't convince anyone else to feel that way because our emotional > reactions, like our tastes and prejudices, are our own. Alla: Well, yes, but based on that if you could show **why** you feel sympathy for Dursleys, then you could convince somebody ( not me obviously), but somebody? Carol: > Look at Bob Ogden's reasoning when Morfin hexes Tom Riddle. < HUGE SNIP, including quote> It seems to me that the Morfin/Gaunt/Ogden scene is intended to > illustrate the view of the situation that JKR wants the reader to > take. Yes, even the good Wizards like Mr. Weasley and Mr. Ogden are > condescending toward Muggles, and, yes, it's disturbing that they > would resort to Obliviating Muggles to maintain the WW's secrecy. But > nevertheless, Ogden is pointing out to Gaunt (and Morfin) that it's > wrong to use magic on a defenseless Muggle regardless of what the > Muggle has done to deserve it. Alla: And it seems to me that this scene is completely different from situation with twins, because it seemed to me that no matter how much Morfin claims that he did it because his sister loved Riddle, he is clearly IMO shown to have contempt for Muggles in general. Carol: > IMO, the Twins, like Harry, must learn that actions have consequences > and that it is not their place to punish wrongdoers. They didn't learn > from the toffee incident, but perhaps they'll learn from the Vanishing > Cabinet. The good guys can't mistake vengeance for justice and remain > good guys. Alla: And I don't think that anybody else can punish bad guys but good guys and then they can forgive them, hehe. :) I mean, if you don't think that bad guys should be punished at all, that is your right, as I mentioned earlier, I want them to suffer **Big time**, before any forgiveness will occur. I think we want different things from the ending, heee. I suspect that JKR will find a way in that aspect to satisfy us both - as in bad guys or formerly bad guys will suffer a little and be forgiven. But as I mentioned before I am pretty optimistic that Karma will find Umbridge and Dursleys and Ssssssss. :) JMO, Alla. From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 28 18:21:50 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:21:50 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156140 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > No, I want her to say "That was a horrible and unforgivable thing > that was done to you, Harry. I'm truly sorry I didn't handle the > situation better." In other words, I want her to act in a > responsible matter befitting a human being, not a vile and ignoble > manner (to use words Ceridwen suggested) that befits only someone > who seemingly has no sorrow or feeling of shame for one of her > students being physically abused. > > Yet another example where authority figures seem to approve of Harry > being abused. Or where at the very least their silence and failure > to denounce the abuse tacitly signal that they do not take it > seriously. > Joe: Given JKR's work for Amnesty International might this be a metaphor for authority figures in leading nations ignoring and therefore giving tacit support for abuse of the powerless in many parts of the world? Joe who thinks that Jo may be salting the cannon with topics that could lead to real debate of issues long ignored by the economically well off (SPEW/immigrant workers' rights, etc.) From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Jul 28 19:42:18 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:42:18 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156141 Carol: > As for Godric's Hollow, [...] I > can't see Voldemort returning to the scene of his humiliating and > painful defeat. I dunno. I think Voldemort will go wherever he thinks Harry is, whenever he thinks Harry is vulnerable. Some people have argued in other threads that the final battle won't be at the MoM (because we've already seen a battle there), but Voldemort would go to the MoM if Harry is the lure. That, to me, is a key element: Harry will lure Voldemort to the place of Harry's choosing. Eddie. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 20:45:43 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:45:43 -0000 Subject: Fear as a Crime --Long (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156142 > >>Inky/Julie: > > I've read several arguments that seem to imply that unpleasant > characters like the Dursleys, Aunt Marge, Slytherins in general, > and Marietta "deserve" the bad things that happen to them. Maybe, > although Lord preserve us all if that's the case. I've been > increasingly concerned in the later books how often > supposedly "good" characters chose to ignore the rules that > supposedly apply to everyone, and receive "rewards" for doing so > in the form of points, knowledge, the embarrassment of enemies. > I keep waiting for consequences. Betsy Hp: Amen, and amen. Honestly if there *aren't* consequences for the good guys' bad behavior, not only will the series lose most of it's magic for me, I'll be *very* careful about sharing it with children. Talk about a wrong message! However, I'm quite positive that the reason I find the bad behavior so distasteful is because JKR *means* for me to. If she wanted us to simply cheer the twins terrorizing the Dursleys she wouldn't have shown how utterly terrified Dudley already was at having wizards visit, as you pointed out. If JKR thought scarring a fellow classmate was a good thing, I really doubt she'd have pointed out Marietta at the start of HBP. (Actually JKR did an excellent job of showing how completely the DA collapsed, with former members attacking each other before the school year even got started.) I *do* think there are some things that are just true to JKR's personality that will never sit well with me. I'm betting she was happy with Dumbledore's petty bait and switch with the House Cup at the end of PS/SS, for example. And that's fine. We differ. But on the more aggressively cruel actions, I think there's still another shoe waiting to drop. > >>Inky/Julie: > Unless the ministry is going to obliviate the Dursley's on > Harry's 18th birthday, I fear Dudley will take what he's learned > about wizards and become a viable agent against wizardry, if the > muggle world wanted to strike aback at wizards. > Betsy Hp: You know, I've become more and more sympathetic towards Dudley, drip that he is. I was glad that he took up boxing since he's in desperate need of a good father figure and the boxing coach might go towards that. I enjoyed Dudley snapping back at Harry in OotP in almost the same manner I enjoyed Harry snapping back at Dudley in PS/SS. And weirdly enough, I *loved* that Dudley punched Harry when the Dementors attacked. Sure, he'd picked the wrong wizard, but having the hutzpah to take on Harry after all he's suffered at wizards' hands... It was enough bravery to prove that he and Harry really are family, IMO. (And I love the idea of Dudley becoming a specialized wizard-hunter in a dystopian future where the WW takes over the world. Someone needs to write that! ) Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 21:05:12 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:05:12 -0000 Subject: Fear as a Crime --Long (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156143 > Betsy Hp: > Amen, and amen. Honestly if there *aren't* consequences for the > good guys' bad behavior, not only will the series lose most of it's > magic for me, I'll be *very* careful about sharing it with > children. Talk about a wrong message! Alla: Would the series lose its magic for you if there would be no consequences to what Draco did in HBP? Would the series lose its magic for you if Snape turns out to be the traitor after all and JKR decides to just let Snape go, dissappear somewhere without making him pay for Dumbledore's murder? Or would the series only lose its magic for you if there would be no consequences for twins giving Toffee to Dudley and Hermione putting **SNEAK** on Marietta's face? Because if the answer to first two questions is yes, Okay, I cannot quite agree, but I understand where you are coming from, but if the answer to first two questions is No, I don't understand where you are coming from. > Betsy Hp: And weirdly enough, I *loved* that Dudley punched Harry when > the Dementors attacked. Sure, he'd picked the wrong wizard, but > having the hutzpah to take on Harry after all he's suffered at > wizards' hands... It was enough bravery to prove that he and Harry > really are family, IMO. Alla: Of course Dudley run an awfully big risk that Harry would just left him there and not bring his dear "brave" cousin home, despite all the things Dudley did to him. I apologise for putting it in quotations, I just don't see Dudley as anybody else but pathetic coward. Alla, counts to five and dissappears. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Jul 28 21:37:07 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:37:07 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156144 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > No, I want her to say "That was a horrible and unforgivable thing > that was done to you, Harry. I'm truly sorry I didn't handle the > situation better." In other words, I want her to act in a > responsible matter befitting a human being, not a vile and ignoble > manner (to use words Ceridwen suggested) that befits only someone > who seemingly has no sorrow or feeling of shame for one of her > students being physically abused. > > Yet another example where authority figures seem to approve of Harry > being abused. Or where at the very least their silence and failure > to denounce the abuse tacitly signal that they do not take it > seriously. > > > Lupinlore > Hickengruendler: But wasn't it emphasized in the text, that she didn't know? Both Ron and Hermione wanted Harry to tell her and she refused. In fact, Ron and Hermione even said, that McGonagall would be furious, if she knew. Harry's stubborness is to blame here. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 21:42:06 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:42:06 -0000 Subject: Story analysis (Was: Whose side are we on?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156145 Carol earlier: > > Although I respect your feelings here, I can't agree that there's > such > > a thing as "emotional analysis." Analysis is a purely intellectual > > exercise and emotions get in the way of it (just as they get in the > > way of Occlumency for Harry). I realize that none of us can > completely > > set aside our feelings about a particular character (unless it's > > someone we don't care one way or the other about like, say, Rufus > > Scrimgeour), but I think it's important to at least make the effort > to > > examine the canon evidence objectively. > > Alla responded: > > I disagree completely. I don't think that analysis of the fictional > story if done with the emotions not **turned off** completely means > that objectivity is lost. > Carol again: Oh, dear. I'm afraid I'll have to resort to dictionary definitions again. The primary definition of "analysis" in Merriam-webster Onlineis "separation of a whole into its component parts." In literary analysis, we look at the component parts of a work a literary work to figure out its meaning or significance. I.e., we use inductive reasoning, drawing inferences about the whole work based on its component parts, or about a character from specific scenes in which he appears. (In theory, we then reverse the process and support our conclusions, our generalizations, with deductive reasoning, that is, backing them up with specific canon evidence). These are intellectual processes, in theory (if not in fact) divorced from emotions and preferences. (Now, granted, we try to support the conclusions we've arrived at using canon evidence favorable to those conclusions, but other readers will know that we've cheated if we ignore evidence to the contrary, and they will not be persuaded by our emotions.) As for objectivity, it's antithetical to emotional reactions: "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" (Merriam-Webster Online, definition 3. For the others, go to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/objectivity ) Granted, we can't be completely objective, or we couldn't interpret the text at all, but we can at least *try* not to let our emotions distort our perceptions. Otherwise, we're going to have a difficult time persuading anyone to agree with us, or even to take our arguments seriously. I could argue, for example, that Sirius Black is just a jerk and nobody should care that he died because he was a bad influence on Harry, but I'm defeated before I start because so many people like black as a character and because I'm obviously not looking at him fairly and objectively. If, in contrast, I argue that he's reckless and that his recklessness contributes to his stint in Azkaban and to his death, I think I can persuade a number of people to agree with me, even those who like him, because analysis of the text leads to that conclusion. I can't, however, make anyone who likes him dislike him, nor do I think there's any point in attempting to do so. by the same token, I can't make anyone who hates Snape like him. All I want them to do is examine the evidence without their emotions getting in the way--which is hard to do since the narrator's commentary is colored by Harry's emotions. Alla: > I am not talking about analyzing technical elements of the story, I > am talking about analyzing the characters as a reader. > The non ? fiction book can be analyzed on purely technical level, > fictional book > IMO does not have to be analyzed that way, unless we are talking > about technical aspects of it. I mean, it can, but it does not have > to. > > Moreover, I think JKR does not mean for us to shut off emotional > acceptance of the story, IMO of course. > Carol responds: Of course she wants us to respond emotionally to the book and to care about at least some of the characters. But I don't think that should interfere with our ability to see their faults and mistakes--or to see good qualities in the bad characters. Draco Malfoy loves his mother and she loves him. Even Bellatrix has sisterly feelings (though in her case, they're subordinate to her loyalty to the Dark Lord). But who knew? IMO, JKR has presented evidence that even the bad guys (LV excepted) are human and have feelings. We can have compassion even for Barty Crouch if we think about what he became as opposed to what he would have become. And I think we're meant to have compassion for the young Severus Snape as well. The point is that we shouldn't let our hatred or love for a character keep us from seeing what that character actually is or says or does, insofar as we can actually determine that given the third-person limited narration of most of the book. Alla: > I think the story where emotions play such a big part and one of them is bound to play major role in the end, is meant to be analyzed with all your senses. I think it only enhances the pleasure of doing it. > Again, JMO. Carol responds: I think you're confusing the experience of reading, feeling the emotions that stem from the situations depicted on the page (crying for Cedric or laughing at Luna or fearing for Harry or raging at Umbridge) with analysis of the book--looking at it after reading it and trying to put the pieces together. It's like building a puzzle except that the pieces don't appear the same to every reader, in part because so much is still missing. Setting aside whether we like or hate Snape, did he or didn't he know about Draco's task, at least the part of it that didn't involve the Vanishing Cabinet? Did he or didn't he know that Quirrell was loyal to Voldemort? Is he telling the truth, or is he lying? Thinking that he's an "abusive b*****d" won't get us anywhere. We have to look at what's on the page, preferably divorced from Harry's perspective, and see where the evidence leads. > Alla: > As to examining canon evidence objectively, Hmmmm. IMO unless canon > evidence is an absolute fact (Snape is the Head of Slytherin, for > example), our emotions play the huge part into how we interpret > ambiguous evidence, as it should be, otherwise half of the fun is > lost IMO. > For example, you view Snape a teacher as being sarcastic to his > students and you think that you are being objective, right? Carol responds: Yes and no. You hate what you call "abuse" and IMO you impose that hatred onto your reading of Snape. I admit to liking Snape and wanting him to be on the side of good, but I try not to let those feelings influence my reading of the evidence. I know I can't convince anyone who hates him to like him, so I avoid emotion-based arguments. > > I view Snape as teacher who **so** abuses his authority. Do I think > that I am being objective? I absolutely do, but I analyse the same > evidence you do, just come to the different conclusions. Do my > emotions play a part in it? Sure as in I care for the characters > Snape mistreats, but regardless of that fact do I think that Snape's > actions can be interpreted differently? No, I don't. I mean, they can be of course, it is just I don't see it. Carol responds: But you're denying other people's interpretations because they conflict with your emotional reactions, and you're conflicting your feelings with facts. *Of course* Snape's actions can be interpreted differently, whether you agree with those interpretations or not. All you need to do is read the posts on this board to see that. Your feelings about him are as valid as anyone else's, but they can't be used to persuade anyone who doesn't feel that way about him, any more than I can persuade you to like licorice or Herman Melville because I like them. My feelings and tastes can't influence yours and yours can't influence mine. And feeling-based opinions won't persuade anyone, either. Snape can be shown to be sarcastic ("Our new celebrity" establishes that trait from our first contact with him), but whether that sarcasm constitutes abuse is a feeling-based opinion that no argument is going to alter. It's an area on which we have to agree to disagree. Where Snape's loyalties lie, in contrast, can be discussed objectively. Whether he's telling the truth or lying in "Spinner's End" can be discussed objectively (though not proven conclusively at this point because the evidence isn't all in--IMO, the scene is a combination of truths, half-truths, and lies). His motives can to some degree be discussed objectively, though we're on rather shaky ground there because of our limited knowledge (we have yet to see inside his mind except for one trip into the Pensieve and three fragmentary childhood memories). But all of these things can be discussed using canon to back us up without resorting to name-calling or emotional appeals that won't work for most readers. Carol earlier: > > But the point I'm trying to make is that one person's emotions > have no influence on the way another person reads a particular scene. > > > Alla: > > Of course, the point I am trying to make though is when I feel > something for the character or the event, it makes me work harder to > find canon support for it. > Carol responds: Yes, I understand that, and I do the same thing. No doubt we all do. But I'm concerned with the effectiveness of the argument we present and whether it will influence other posters to change their minds. Of course, we'll work harder to support an argument we care about (e.g., Harry is not a Horcrux!!!) than to support one we're indifferent about (say, Luna will be the next Divination teacher if she survives). But we have to use canon evidence, not our own feelings about the character or situation, to support our position, and it has to be a position that *can* be supported by canon evidence, if we're going to persuade other posters to agree with us. "I like the Twins and Dudley deserves what he got" is a feeling-based opinion that only people who already like the Twins and who approve of revenge in the hands of "good" characters will agree with. You can't persuade someone who dislikes the Twins or someone who disapproves of revenge to agree with that position. The question is, can you present a reading of the toffee prank which examines the Twins and their actions *without reference to your own likes and dislikes*? What, exactly, have they done and how does it compare to other actions, such as Morfin's, that we're clearly supposed to disapprove of? Or is there evidence to indicate that Morfin is right and Ogden is wrong in JKR's view? If so, please show it to me. I'd be interested in seeing it. > Carol earlier: > > > Let me reverse the equation for a moment. My emotional reaction to the Twins' actions is sympathy for Dudley and for Petunia, who thinks her son is dying, combined with a kind of horror/disgust/embarrassed amusement at the irony of poor Petunia trying to yank out Dudley's tongue and increasing her son's agony as she tries to save him. I can't convince anyone else to feel that way because our emotional reactions, like our tastes and prejudices, are our own. > > Alla: > Well, yes, but based on that if you could show **why** you feel > sympathy for Dursleys, then you could convince somebody ( not me > obviously), but somebody? Carol: Well, I'll take a stab at it, but I think it's futile. Even though I don't particularly like the Dursleys, I can identify with Petunia as a mother seeing her child in distress and with the Dursleys as Muggles who are afraid of magic (with good reason). I disapprove of bullying in any form, and I disapprove of revenge. I don't like physical humor that depends on someone's pain, either. I never laughed at "Roadrunner" cartoons or old Three Stooges movies. they're just not funny to me. Convinced? I didn't think so, because all I'm doing is explaining (or trying to explain) why I feel as I do. I seriously doubt that a description of my feelings will convince anyone to share them. That's why I prefer logical, canon-based arguments. There's at least a chance that I'll convince someone that what I'm saying is worth considering. > Carol earlier: > > Look at Bob Ogden's reasoning when Morfin hexes Tom Riddle. < HUGE SNIP, including quote> It seems to me that the Morfin/Gaunt/Ogden scene is intended to illustrate the view of the situation that JKR wants the reader to take. Yes, even the good Wizards like Mr. Weasley and Mr. Ogden are condescending toward Muggles, and, yes, it's disturbing that they would resort to Obliviating Muggles to maintain the WW's secrecy. > But nevertheless, Ogden is pointing out to Gaunt (and Morfin) that it's wrong to use magic on a defenseless Muggle regardless of what the Muggle has done to deserve it. > > Alla: > > And it seems to me that this scene is completely different from > situation with twins, because it seemed to me that no matter how much Morfin claims that he did it because his sister loved Riddle, he is clearly IMO shown to have contempt for Muggles in general. Carol responds: But that doesn't matter to Ogden, does it? First, Morfin chose that particular Muggle to punish, and second, what makes the act despicable in Ogden's view is the defenselessness of the Muggle. The same applies to Dudley. He's defenseless against the Twins' magic, just as Tom Sr. is defenseless against Morfin, regardless of whether either of them "deserves" it. (Suppose that Harry had really been lying about Voldemort's return. Would he have "deserved" to be punished with Umbridge's quill? She's using a superior power that he's defenseless against, just as Morfin and the Twins are using a superior power that their victims are defenseless against. Whether Morfin or the Twins hate all Muggles is no more relevant than whether Umbridge hates all students. It's what is done by the powerful to the powerless that matters here. Or so it seems to me.) Carol, who has spent much too long answering this post when she ought to be writing a query letter for a client and hopes that no bad Karma will result from her bad behavior! From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Jul 28 21:50:11 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:50:11 -0000 Subject: Fear as a Crime --Long (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156146 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > Amen, and amen. Honestly if there *aren't* consequences for the > > good guys' bad behavior, not only will the series lose most of it's > > magic for me, I'll be *very* careful about sharing it with > > children. Talk about a wrong message! > > Alla: > > > Would the series lose its magic for you if there would be no > consequences to what Draco did in HBP? > > Would the series lose its magic for you if Snape turns out to be the > traitor after all and JKR decides to just let Snape go, dissappear > somewhere without making him pay for Dumbledore's murder? > > Or would the series only lose its magic for you if there would be no > consequences for twins giving Toffee to Dudley and Hermione putting > **SNEAK** on Marietta's face? > > Because if the answer to first two questions is yes, Okay, I cannot > quite agree, but I understand where you are coming from, but if the > answer to first two questions is No, I don't understand where you are > coming from. a_svirn: Can I circle both A and B? I'd say that letting the twins and Hermione to get away with this sort of thing means conveying a very dubious sort of message. Certainly not the one any responsible adult would want their children to learn. Naturally, the same goes for Dudley and Marietta. Except that it's hardly the issue, is it? Although they have already come to their just deserts, something tells me that for the *good guys* comeuppance is not imminent. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 01:04:04 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:04:04 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!/Significance of missing line Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156147 > Brothergib wrote: > Even before he has come of age, Snape is capable (a) of > improving potions that are laid down in a text book and (b) of > creating his own curses. If I compare Snape to the current group of > students, he seems like an enhanced version of Hermione i.e. knows > his stuff but can even improve upon what he has been taught. It > seems to me that James and Sirius would need DD-like magical talent > to deal with Snape - and Sirius couldn't even deal with Bella. zanooda: First of all, they were two against one. Next, they were also brilliant, talented etc., not only Snape. Third, James probably just could move faster, don't forget he was a Quidditch player! As for Sirius not being able to defeat Bella, I don't think it proves that he was bad at duelling. Both Sirius and Bella were out of practice after years in Azkaban, but she probably took the fight more seriously, that's all. Sirius was probably so excited to get out of 12 GP that he wasn't cautious enough. > Alla: > Hehe, was pretty sure that you know Russian language based on your > name, but did not want to pry. > Yes, agreed book 1 -4 - horrible translations, horrible. > I think OOP and HBP became better though, won't you agree? :) zanooda: Well, in a way you are right, Alla, at least in HBP, when Arthur Weasly peels this same satsuma, they translated it correctly this time around :) Books 5 and 6's translations left a better general impression, sure. However, while reading translations 1-4, I could see at once how bad they were and I was prepared for all kinds of ridiculous mistakes that I met there. Not so with translations 5-6. You read and read, and everything seems allright. But then, just when you are lulled into a false sense of security, they suddenly hit you on the head with a phrase like "Last year you (Harry) were the only one who was able to perform (?) the Imperius curse" or something like that. Then, Hagrid's "Aaargh, the good die young" somehow becomes "it's so good to die young" and you are left wondering if the translators even read what they are writing. Anyway, I agree that the latest translations are better, especially compared to the previous ones, which were done by incompetent and indifferent people, IMO. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 01:41:30 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:41:30 -0000 Subject: Fear as a Crime --Long (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156148 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Honestly if there *aren't* consequences for the good guys' bad > > behavior, not only will the series lose most of it's magic for > > me, I'll be *very* careful about sharing it with children. Talk > > about a wrong message! > >>Alla: > Would the series lose its magic for you if there would be no > consequences to what Draco did in HBP? > Would the series lose its magic for you if Snape turns out to be > the traitor after all and JKR decides to just let Snape go, > dissappear somewhere without making him pay for Dumbledore's > murder? > Or would the series only lose its magic for you if there would be > no consequences for twins giving Toffee to Dudley and Hermione > putting **SNEAK** on Marietta's face? > Betsy Hp: Yeah, if Draco is suddenly celebrated for bringing Death Eaters into Hogwarts, if Snape is held up as a wonderful guy because he betrayed and murdered Dumbledore, the books would lose some magic. (Though the surreal, crack-pipe smoking, flip about that JKR would need to negotiate to have the above happen would have it's own type of fascination, I think. ) But do you really think that's going to happen? Not hardly. Draco suffers throughout HBP, and things don't look bright as Snape drags him from the tower. And Snape is just a boiling pot of self- recriminating angst ::Tries to resist hugging Snape. Fails.:: I'm not really worried about the bad guys being faced with the consequences of their bad behavior. When do they ever *not* face consequences? > >>a_svirn: > Can I circle both A and B? I'd say that letting the twins and > Hermione to get away with this sort of thing means conveying a very > dubious sort of message. Certainly not the one any responsible > adult would want their children to learn. Naturally, the same goes > for Dudley and Marietta. Except that it's hardly the issue, is it? > Although they have already come to their just deserts, something > tells me that for the *good guys* comeuppance is not imminent. Betsy Hp: I'm still hopeful. Why else would JKR remind the readers that Hermione disfigured a classmate, and show us that some of the Ravenclaws are still pissed about that? Why else have the twins' near murder of Montague directly lead to Draco figuring out how to get Death Eaters into Hogwarts? For that matter, why does JKR have the DA fracture so badly that only two members not in Harry's inner- circle respond to a distress call? And all while stressing the importance of unity. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > And weirdly enough, I *loved* that Dudley punched Harry when > > the Dementors attacked. Sure, he'd picked the wrong wizard, but > > having the hutzpah to take on Harry after all he's suffered at > > wizards' hands... It was enough bravery to prove that he and > > Harry really are family, IMO. > > > >>Alla: > Of course Dudley run an awfully big risk that Harry would just > left him there and not bring his dear "brave" cousin home, despite > all the things Dudley did to him. > Betsy Hp: Dudley thought *Harry* was attacking him. He was striking out at what he thought was the source of the problem. Which, considering how badly Dudley has been treated by wizards, is pretty ballsy of him, IMO. That he's wrong about the source of the danger is... well, gosh, it's yet another way that he and Harry are alike! Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 03:46:28 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 03:46:28 -0000 Subject: Story analysis/a bit of Russian translations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156149 Alla: Ok 24 hours start a new, so may as well post it. > Carol responds: > But you're denying other people's interpretations because they > conflict with your emotional reactions, and you're conflicting your > feelings with facts. *Of course* Snape's actions can be interpreted > differently, whether you agree with those interpretations or not. All > you need to do is read the posts on this board to see that. Alla: Um, **No** I do not deny other people's interpretations. I said that they can be interpreted differently, just that I don't see it, meaning that I do not understand where those interpetations coming from, not that they cannot happen. Just as I am pretty sure that on such huge list very many people do not see where I am coming from and that does not mean to me that they deny my interpretations. Respecting difference of opinions does not mean to me that I am obligated to be convinced by other interpretations. I always think that the majority of us ( including me) does not move on major topics anyways, so if I see the reasonableness of the opposing theory, **that** to me pretty much means the same as being convinced for the purposes of the discussions, but I don't even have to do that. Moreover I said that I can see where some interpretations coming from ,which is not so drastically different from mine, but different nevertheless. As in I see Snape as abuser, but I can also see him simply as jerk, mean teacher (lesser than abuser, but higher than sarcastic, somewhere in the middle) But this is not my point. Carol: Your > feelings about him are as valid as anyone else's, but they can't be > used to persuade anyone who doesn't feel that way about him, any more > than I can persuade you to like licorice or Herman Melville because I > like them. My feelings and tastes can't influence yours and yours > can't influence mine. And feeling-based opinions won't persuade > anyone, either. Alla: Of course **only** feeling based opinions will not persuade anybody, moreover I am not **looking** to persuade anybody when I present opinion piece, but my point is that **mix** of canon supported argument and how I feel about it does help me to argue. I suspect we have to agree to disagree about it. Carol: Snape can be shown to be sarcastic ("Our new > celebrity" establishes that trait from our first contact with him), > but whether that sarcasm constitutes abuse is a feeling-based opinion > that no argument is going to alter. Alla: Yes, just as he can be shown to be so much more than sarcastic when he threatens to poison Neville's toad or when he jumps at Harry who just arrived to WW, or when he jumps at Harry who is looking for help with Barty Sr. Those are all events on the page. If in addition to interpreting them, I express how I feel about it, I think it makes my argument at least not weaker. Carol: It's an area on which we have to > agree to disagree. Alla: Yes, but my point is that IMO complete detachment in analysing characters is rarely happens and as a reader not in the academic setting, I don't know if I want to try. I mean, it is also question of degree of course. Let's take someone whom I consider to be one of the most brilliant list members of HPFGU of all time and I think many people will agree with me - Elkins. I am a very big fan of her posts and hope that one day I will be able to write quarter as well as she does. But one day somebody brought up Elkins' posts as the example of detachment, which I don't think I agree with at all. I mean, sure in some of the posts she seems to be, but take her post about "Draco Malfoy, who is so lame and dead * ( paraphrasing, too lasy to look up exact subject heading, but I am sure you know which one I am talking about). I think this is post is *very* coloured by her love for Draco, or at least that is the impression I get from it ( um, I don't know Elkins personally,never talked to her, so maybe I am completely wrong) and IMO that is causing the interpretation which so very radically different from mine, because no matter how hard I look I don't see Draco's angst, Draco's stoic sufferings anywhere in canon in books 1 through 5. I see the wimperings of the coward, who starts his misfortune and brings his troubles upon himself, where Elkins sees "hurt-comfort". There is some or a lot of **Draco angst** in HBP, sure ( which he still brought upon himself IMO), but before that? I find this post, which is of course brilliant and of course analyses canon evidence to be **very** coloured by emotions, which makes it only more beatiful. Um, yes, back to Snape then. I am arguing that just as my dislike of Snape's canon based actions colours my perceptions and pours into my argument, your liking of Snape colours yours and makes you interpret his actions as "sarcastic teacher". When I read it, I usually blink and stare at the page, just as I am guessing you do when you read mine interpretations of Snape actions as abuse and that is fine, I am just saying that this does happen. I am just saying that our dislike or like of the character colours the **canon** interpretation, unless it is hard canon facts, IMO. Of course, IMO it is easier to be objective if one does not read story for characters, but mainly for plot. This is not how I read Potterverse, so I try to embrace characters emotional appeal, positive or negative and run with it to help me interpret canon, that is all. And I refuse to accept that this way of arguing is somehow wrong in the setting like this, that is all. Snipping everything else. > zanooda: >> Books 5 and 6's translations left a better general impression, sure. > However, while reading translations 1-4, I could see at once how bad > they were and I was prepared for all kinds of ridiculous mistakes that > I met there. Alla: I threw book 3 away when they translated **brilliant** as "brilliant", you get the drift. That for some reasons overpowered my patience. zanooda: > Anyway, I agree that the latest translations are better, especially > compared to the previous ones, which were done by incompetent and > indifferent people, IMO. > Alla: Yes, word to that. JMO, Alla. From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sat Jul 29 03:08:14 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 03:08:14 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156150 Tinktonks, great topic. I'm new so I hope I follow the proper protocol. > Potioncat: > Well, Tinktonks, I'm very interested in Eileen, but not many others > are. Here's what I worked out for her. Keep in mind I'm using JKR's > clues and we know how precise she is and, I'm no better! Potioncat, I support your timeline and suspect that Eileen Prince was in Hagrid's year or one year behind (a 2nd or 3rd year to Tom Riddle's 6th). I also suspect that she was involved in clearing Hagrid's name to the point that he could stay on at Hogwarts. Was she the first to speak to Moaning Myrtle? Did a bookish Eileen (the books at Spinner's End are old and leather bound...that is a collection made by generations)recognize that the eyes that Myrtle described were not those of an archnid, Hagrid's pet? And did Myrtle run off to haunt Olivia Hornsby before Eileen could get her to talk to Dumbledore? I always thought that piece of Myrtle information was odd. What makes me suspicious about all this is Hagrid. Snape treats Hagrid with respect. And even more importantly Hagrid has ALWAYS defended Snape - and NEVER states his belief in Snape's trustworthiness stems from Dumbledore's trust. Hagrid even goes as far as to call Harry stupid for his continued efforts to view Snape's actions in the worst light (HBP when Harry says Snape killed Dumbledore). Stupid is a strong word from a mild man like Hagrid. Who loves Harry. I thought it showed frustration with Harry's attitude towards Snape although it could be argued Hagrid just didn't want to believe what Harry was saying. I got carried away. My point is that if Hagrid owed Eileen a favor because of her support Hagrid would have befriended young Snape. Hagrid may know Snape VERY well indeed. And Snape IS one if the few professors we know of that will search the forest (end of OoP - even with the Grawp there and the angry centaurs). Snape may well have spent time in those woods...with Hagrid. Book seven may have Hagrid on another journey to open a world to Harry - the world of Eileen Prince, Severus Snape and Lily Evans. "abergoat" From shanhut at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 13:51:13 2006 From: shanhut at yahoo.com (shanhut) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:51:13 -0000 Subject: Killing Re: About the "Who Else Is Going to Die" Poll..... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156151 In response to the poll on who else is going to die, Draco always acted cowardly when things didn't go his way or his buddies weren't around. But I do believe he really didn't want to kill DD, that he realized how wrong it is to take another life. I hope it's not Lupin, I would like to see him and Tonks together. He deserves some happiness! I would like to see him kill Greyback though and Neville not off Bella. I don't think it will be Hagrid, but Gwarp could die protecing him. It could be Arthur Weasley or Bill, but I don't think it will be Ginny, Ron or the twins. I think it may be Snape while tring to save Harry from Voldemort. Then Harry will kill him. I like the idea of Harry, Ron and Hermione coming back to be teachers. Shan From ccaracciolo at nyc.rr.com Sat Jul 29 14:39:40 2006 From: ccaracciolo at nyc.rr.com (carolcaracciolo) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:39:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156152 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > (Big Snip) If Hogwarts reopens, DD will > certainly try to reenter it and I think there will be a huge battle > there involving all the creatures in the Forbidden Forest, the ghosts, the house-elves, even the suits of armor and Peeves. > > Carol, who can't decide whether she wants the suspense to end or not > but will carefully avoid the TOC (table of contents in editorialese) > when she gets the last book in her hands > Carol C. adds: I enthusiastically agree with you, Carol, about a huge battle involving all of the above. I believe it was foreshadowed in the DD vs. LV battle at the MoM when the statue of...magical bretheren, was it?...comes to life to protect Harry. I will have to re-read that section and flesh this idea out...thanks for the lightbulb! Carol C. Who has already got the countdown clock ticking... From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Jul 29 17:01:19 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:01:19 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156153 "esmith222002" wrote: >It seems to me that James and Sirius would >need DD-like magical talent to deal with Snape James and Sirius became animagus when they were only 15, something Snape apparently never accomplished and only a few dozen adult wizards had managed in the entire century. Also, in the only documented physical confrontation we have between James and Snape James seemed to beat the hell out him without even working up a sweat. > Sirius couldn't even deal with Bella. Yes, but Bella is no pushover, she also beat Tonks and Mad Eye and Kingsley Shacklebolt. Eggplant From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Jul 29 17:06:14 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 13:06:14 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killing Re: About the "Who Else Is Going to Die" Poll..... Message-ID: <454.33d8262.31fcef86@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156154 In a message dated 7/29/2006 12:46:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, shanhut at yahoo.com writes: I like the idea of Harry, Ron and Hermione coming back to be teachers. ---------------- Sherrie here: Sorry - JKR has shot down the idea of Harry having an academic career (IIRC, it was in the World Book Day chat, but it's been a while since I looked at it, so I could be wrong) - she said (paraphrasing) that an academic career would be a bit tame for Harry, after what he's been through. Sherrie "Accept no one's definition of your life. Define yourself." - Harvey Fierstein [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 18:19:24 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:19:24 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156155 > > >>Eggplant: > James and Sirius became animagus when they were only 15, something > Snape apparently never accomplished and only a few dozen adult > wizards had managed in the entire century. Betsy Hp: I've always assumed, with the introduction of Rita Skeeter that only a few dozen wizards in a century *registered* that they were animagus. Not that it doesn't show a certain amount of talent to become animagus, especially at age fifteen. (And let's not forget that Peter became an animagus as well.) > >>Eggplant: > Also, in the only documented physical confrontation we have > between James and Snape James seemed to beat the hell out him > without even working up a sweat. Betsy Hp: Are you talking about the Pensieve memory? Because if James hadn't ambushed Snape, and had the backup of Sirius, I have a feeling sweat would have been the least of James's worries. That's the only documented confrontation *I* remember anyway. Were you refering to another one? Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 18:51:51 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:51:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's fate - Best of Both In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156156 Carol (justcarol) earlier: > (Big Snip) > If Hogwarts reopens, DD will certainly try to reenter it and I think there will be a huge battle there involving all the creatures in the Forbidden Forest, the ghosts, the house-elves, even the suits of armor and Peeves. > > Carol C. adds: > > I enthusiastically agree with you, Carol, about a huge battle > involving all of the above. I believe it was foreshadowed in the DD > vs. LV battle at the MoM when the statue of...magical bretheren, was > it?...comes to life to protect Harry. I will have to re-read that > section and flesh this idea out...thanks for the lightbulb! Carol (justcarol) again: Yikes! Thank you for understanding what I meant despite my egregious typo! I meant that *LV* will certainly try to reenter Hogwarts and start a battle there. DD won't do anything of the sort, being (presumably) dead, and if he did, it wouldn't start a battle. It's the Fountain of Magical Brethren, FWIW. Carol, regretting the necessity to correct the error since it wastes a post, but I couldn't let it go From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 19:19:15 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:19:15 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156157 Eggplant wrote: > James and Sirius became animagus when they were only 15, something > Snape apparently never accomplished and only a few dozen adult wizards had managed in the entire century. Also, in the only documented physical confrontation we have between James and Snape James seemed to beat the hell out him without even working up a sweat. Carol responds: Which is not to say that Severus couldn't have become an Animagus if he had chosen to do so. We don't know whether he could or not, but if Peter could, I think it's safe to say that Severus could. James and Sirius were motivated by their desire to join Remus on his monthly excursions. I doubt that they would have become (illegal) Animagi otherwise. However, if we look at James's wand, which was particularly suitable for Transfiguration, perhaps that was his forte, while Severus's double strength was Potions and DADA, shown by his knowing more hexes than most seventh years when he entered Hogwarts, the spells he invented (we don't know that James invented any spells), his detailed responses to the DADA exam, and his Potions improvements (Slughorn says nothing about James's performance in Potions, suggesting that he was no better at it than Remus). Ron calls the HBP a genius, and I'm sure he's right. Later, Snape mastered Legilimency and Occlumency, skills that we don't know that James ever attempted. James took part in designing the Marauder's Map, which perhaps also involved skill in Transfiguration, and of course he was good at Quidditch (he shows off his fast reflexes catching the Snitch), but Severus also apparently had quick reflexes, considering how quickly he drops his bag and draws his wand. Unfortunately for him, he was outnumbered two to one and it appears that Sirius and James had already drawn their wands or he wouldn't have drawn his. And either Lupin or Black says that Severus "gave as good as he got" in other confrontations--it's only this one, his worst memory, in which he's bested (and publicly humiliated in a bvery unfair fight). In HBP, we see that the adult Snape has extremely quick reflexes, plus the advantage of Legilimency. I'd say that in terms of power, James and Severus were roughly equal, with different strengths that would have been nicely complementary if they'd been friends instead of enemies. In terms of intelligence, it's hard to say since James eventually became Head Boy and was (according to McGonagall, who is not exactly an unbiased witness) the best at everything he did, whereas Snape is inventing spells at an early age and shows othe evidence of being extremely bright (but perhaps unrecognized by anyone but the Slytherins and their HoH, Slughorn). It's pretty easy, BTW, to "beat the hell out of" an opponent whose wand you've knocked out of his hand when you've caught him offguard and when it's two to one. James was good at hexing people in the hallways because they annoyed him (not exactly admirable, but that's beside the point), but AFAWK he didn't invent hexes (or charms like Muffliato) or come to school knowing more hexes than most seventh years. What we have here is, IMO, two gifted boys, one a Transfiguration specialist and the other a Potions and DADA specialist. In a fair fight, one on one with neither taken offguard, I'm pretty sure they'd have been a match for each other. Carol, who thinks that HBP pretty clearly shows that Snape really is an expert in DADA From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sat Jul 29 20:13:59 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:13:59 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156158 I hope you don't mind if a newbie joins in. You brought up a bunch of great points. > Eggplant wrote: > Also, in the only > documented physical confrontation we have between James and Snape > James seemed to beat the hell out him without even working up a sweat. But we do have the puzzle that Snape seems to have used his Sectumsempra spell but seems to have been able to control it to only cut James' face. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Later, Snape mastered Legilimency > and Occlumency, skills that we don't know that James ever attempted. And this is another puzzle. These skills take two people to learn and it seems you need to trust the person you are working with. Perhaps Harry could have learned it if Snape wasn't his 'partner'. Who did Snape trust enough? He is a loner. > And either > Lupin or Black says that Severus "gave as good as he got" in other > confrontations--it's only this one, his worst memory, in which he's > bested (and publicly humiliated in a bvery unfair fight). And I'm curious about Lily's 'smile' when Snape is strung upside down. We know that is Snape's spell. Had Snape tortured others with it on a regular basis? Until this NON-VERBAL spell slipped out of his possession and became widely used? Lily would see a moment of justice there. And just how did this non-verbal spell become widely known? Could it be that THIS is the reason that Snape doesn't speak to Lily directly in that memory? Does he blame his potions partner for giving his worst enemy his very own non-verbal Levicorpus spell? A spell that had been in such wide use for several months that we are told you couldn't move from class to class? > But AFAWK he > didn't invent hexes (or charms like Muffliato) Another fascinating little hint. Snape had someone to talk to that he needed muffliato for. Did he perchance invent it after Petunia overheard him (as an excellent candidate for that 'awful boy') speaking to Lily about Voldemort? > or come to school > knowing more hexes than most seventh years. And this is another gem. Sirius (and the black family tapestry) tells us Bellatrix was must likely one of those seventh years. And as Sirius's vindictive cousin, would she want to make Sirius 'pay' for joining the 'wrong' house? Was it a family betrayal to become a Gryffindor? Did Bella use Snape to make Sirius regret this choice? Snape was probably flattered...at first. So the Marauders might have had an excuse for treating Snape poorly even if it isn't a good one. For all we know perhaps Bella and friends (with Snape in tow, perhaps telling them were they could find Sirius) would gang up on the Marauders that first year...until Bella graduated. James and Sirius should have risen above revenge, but it is human not to and I see James and Sirius as having plenty of flaws to go along with their virtues. abergoat From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 21:34:03 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:34:03 -0000 Subject: Fear as a Crime --Long (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156159 > > >>a_svirn: > > Although they have already come to their just deserts, something > > tells me that for the *good guys* comeuppance is not imminent. > > Betsy Hp: > I'm still hopeful. Why else would JKR remind the readers that > Hermione disfigured a classmate, and show us that some of the > Ravenclaws are still pissed about that? Why else have the twins' > near murder of Montague directly lead to Draco figuring out how to > get Death Eaters into Hogwarts? For that matter, why does JKR have > the DA fracture so badly that only two members not in Harry's inner- > circle respond to a distress call? And all while stressing the > importance of unity. a_svirn: I don't wish to disappoint you, but I think we are reminded of Mariette for the same reason that we are shown Dudley clutching his backside. So that we could gloat. As for DA it wasn't fractured at all. It had served its purpose in the year five as far as Harry was concerned, and that all there was to it. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 01:25:36 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 01:25:36 -0000 Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156160 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > For that matter, why does JKR have the DA fracture so badly that > > only two members not in Harry's inner-circle respond to a > > distress call? And all while stressing the importance of > > unity. > a_svirn: > > As for DA it wasn't fractured at all. It had served its purpose in > the year five as far as Harry was concerned, and that all there > was to it. Betsy Hp: I think Harry's indifference is the reason the DA *remained* fractured. But you had members fighting in the corridors during the ride to Hogwarts. Obviously something went wrong. If, of course, the DA was supposed to be a step towards the Houses uniting. I think that's what Hermione was hoping for, IIRC. But I think especially when you've got the Hat's song in OotP, that Harry didn't take the uniting of the Houses seriously is something still to be delt with. That the DA failed and why it failed I think (hope) will have to be faced in book 7. Betsy Hp From shanhut at yahoo.com Sat Jul 29 21:38:48 2006 From: shanhut at yahoo.com (shanhut) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 21:38:48 -0000 Subject: Killing Re: About the "Who Else Is Going to Die" Poll..... In-Reply-To: <454.33d8262.31fcef86@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156161 Sherrie: > ---------------- > JKR has shot down the idea of Harry having an academic career (IIRC, > it was in the World Book Day chat - she said (paraphrasing) that an academic career > would be a bit tame for Harry, after what he's been through. Sorry, I didn't read about that. You're probably right about teaching being too tame! But Harry would definitely make a good auror. I don't believe Hermione or Ron would though, still think they could come back as teachers. Shan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 02:07:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 02:07:22 -0000 Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156162 - > Betsy Hp: > I think Harry's indifference is the reason the DA *remained* > fractured. But you had members fighting in the corridors during the > ride to Hogwarts. Obviously something went wrong. If, of course, > the DA was supposed to be a step towards the Houses uniting. I > think that's what Hermione was hoping for, IIRC. > > But I think especially when you've got the Hat's song in OotP, that > Harry didn't take the uniting of the Houses seriously is something > still to be delt with. That the DA failed and why it failed I think > (hope) will have to be faced in book 7. > > Betsy Hp > Carol responds: I think you've raised an interesting question: did the DA fail or not? It depends, doesn't it, on what the objective was? For Harry and Hermione, it was partly opposing Umbridge and partly preparing to fight Voldemort. But it doesn't seem to me that anyone else saw it exactly that way. It seems pretty clear that only Ernie Macmillan, Luna, and some of the Gryffindors really believed that he was back. For Fred and George, it was "The Ministry of Magic Are Morons" group--IOW, an anti-Umbridge league. (Dumbleodre's Army suggests a similar objective--support the headmaster against the intruder who already seemed to be usurping his authority and granting herself unheard of powers.) For the others, it was a way of making up for Umbridge's spectacularly inadequate DADA lessons and of passing their DADA OWLs. (For Marietta, presumably a sixth-year, it wasn't even that.) Once the students in Harry's year had passed their OWLs and made it into NEWT DADA (for which they may have needed only an A--Snape seems to have had diffeent standards for DADA than for Potions) and once they had a real DADA teacher (Snape), they didn't need Harry's DADA lessons any longer. For them, at least, the DA had served its purpose. And even Hermione didn't seem to think they needed to hold meetings during sixth year. (as for Harry, he was a wee bit distracted by Draco Malfoy.) Only Neville and Luna seemed to see the DA as something more important than OWLs, and even for them it was as much a social club as a defense league--in Luna's words, "almost like having friends." I don't think that the DA's purpose was ever to unify the school houses (all except Slytherin) though it temporarily brought students from three of the four Houses together. It may have served as a first step in that direction--the antithesis of Quidditch, which pits the Houses against each other in a less than friendly rivalry--but it certainly didn't make Zacharias Smith into a Gryffindor ally. Carol, wishing that there was no jinx on the DADA position and Snape could have taught it all along From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 02:17:47 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 02:17:47 -0000 Subject: Story analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156163 > >>Alla: > > Yes, but my point is that IMO complete detachment in analysing > characters is rarely happens and as a reader not in the academic > setting, I don't know if I want to try. I mean, it is also > question of degree of course. > Let's take someone whom I consider to be one of the most brilliant > list members of HPFGU of all time and I think many people will > agree with me - Elkins. I am a very big fan of her posts and hope > that one day I will be able to write quarter as well as she does. > But one day somebody brought up Elkins' posts as the example of > detachment, which I don't think I agree with at all. > I mean, sure in some of the posts she seems to be, but take her > post about "Draco Malfoy, who is so lame and dead * (paraphrasing, > too lasy to look up exact subject heading, but I am sure you know > which one I am talking about). > I think this is post is *very* coloured by her love for Draco, or > at least that is the impression I get from it ( um, I don't know > Elkins personally,never talked to her, so maybe I am completely > wrong) and IMO that is causing the interpretation which so very > radically different from mine, because no matter how hard I look I > don't see Draco's angst, Draco's stoic sufferings anywhere in > canon in books 1 through 5. I see the wimperings of the coward, > who starts his misfortune and brings his troubles upon himself, > where Elkins sees "hurt-comfort". There is some or a lot of > **Draco angst** in HBP, sure ( which he still brought upon himself > IMO), but before that? I find this post, which is of course > brilliant and of course analyses canon evidence to be **very** > coloured by emotions, which makes it only more beatiful. > Betsy Hp: Hee! That's the post that brought me to HPfGU's. Here's a link for any who are interested: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39083 But actually, I disagree with you here, Alla. Not that emotions effect a reading, but that it all boils down to emotions. Because Elkins shows, rather definitively I thought, that JKR *does* use hurt/comfort with Draco. Hurt/comfort is a specific sort of technique, one that writers can choose to use, and one JKR uses often. Elkins showed all that with examples from the texts. She also showed that hurt/comfort can be undercut, that JKR has undercut it with certain characters (Pettigrew, for example) but chooses not to do so with Draco. None of that is emotion. It's all right there in the text. Where emotion comes in is if it actually *works* for you. JKR uses the same technique with Sirius, and it obviously works like gang busters for some, but not so well for others (as with just about every single character in Potterverse ). Of course, if you emotionally connect with a character that can be what sends you looking for textual support for your feelings. However, if it's there in the text, it's intellectual support you're giving, not emotional. Especially if you're trying to figure out the characters place within the story, emotional analysis won't take you too far. Because you and the author may well disagree. It's the intellectual anaysis, where you look to see where the author is trying to take you, that gives you the proper hints, IMO. Of course, Potterverse brings its own issues to the table, because JKR is very coy about who we're supposed to like or dislike. She'll give with one hand and take away with another, and until the story is completely done it's hard to decide who she wants us to like or not. It's hard to decide if she's being crazy with her technique or crazy like a fox. So I guess my point is that intellectual analysis *does* exist. And while a certain technique might not work for you emotionally (as hurt/comfort, while popular, doesn't work for everyone) it doesn't mean that that particular technique isn't in play. Betsy Hp From greatraven at hotmail.com Sun Jul 30 02:47:06 2006 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 02:47:06 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156164 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > snipping from Susan's post: > > > American edition, 591-592: "He cannot kill you if you are already > > > dead. << > > > What I find intriguing is this other *extra* portion in the > American > > edition that is missing from the British (if I'm reading the > Lexicon > > summaries correctly): > > > Nor > > > would the Death Eaters be surprised that we had captured and > > > killed your mother -- it is what they would do themselves, after > > > all. << > > > > > Potioncat: > It is such a big difference! I thought it was only the first part > that was different. That JKR allowed the change for any reason---and > didn't make sure it was done in both---makes no sense. > Sue here: It's not impossible that the change was made for the US edition on the demand of the US publisher. This happens often with books from overseas, because publishers in the US seem to think their readers won't get certain subtle implications (though I must admit I will need to re-read before I decide if there is any implication here.I have only read the novel once, just after it came out). Sorry to say this to US readers, but your publishers don't have a lot of respect for you. :-( A well-known Australian writer, John Marsden, for excample, wrote a novel in which it was made fairly clear, through implication, that the heroine had had acid thrown at her face in a family quarrel. The US publishers decided this wasn't good enough and he had to *write* the scene in which it happened, especially for the US edition. You won't find it in any other edition. Even in HP, the title Sorcerer's Stone is meaningless in the context of the story, but the publishers didn't think US readers would understand what a Philosopher's Stone was, even though it was explained in the book. You need to get on to them and let them know you don't appreciate being thought dumb. :-) From greatraven at hotmail.com Sun Jul 30 02:55:12 2006 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 02:55:12 -0000 Subject: Quite the Fine Fellow (was: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156166 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > > > One other point. I also just read the bit where Harry is motionless in > > the Hogwarts express and for a moment hopes that his fame will cause > > people to wonder where he is and then instantly despises himself for > > having such a thought. It's at times like that when you realise what a > > fine human being Harry is!! > > > > Yeah, he was so ashamed of himself that he spent the rest of the year > milking phony fame from Snape's work. > > A regular Lockhart, I calls him. > > Talisman, back later to shove the blade in deeper. Sue here: This brings up an interesting point - would he have used all that stuff if he had known that was Snape's old textbook? There is great irony when Harry thinks he has learned more from the HBP than he ever did from Snape, when, all the time, he IS learning from Snape, without the personal confrontation. (Maybe Snape should have made his living from writing textbooks? Actually, half the time, Snape's complaint is that the kids didn't bother to read their spells carefully from the board. When I did cookery at high school, the teacher always insisted that the absolute first thing you do is "read your recipe!") > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 03:19:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 03:19:37 -0000 Subject: Story analysis/Hurt/comfort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156167 Betsy Hp: > Hee! That's the post that brought me to HPfGU's. Here's a link for > any who are interested: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39083 > > But actually, I disagree with you here, Alla. Not that emotions > effect a reading, but that it all boils down to emotions. Because > Elkins shows, rather definitively I thought, that JKR *does* use > hurt/comfort with Draco. Hurt/comfort is a specific sort of > technique, one that writers can choose to use, and one JKR uses > often. Elkins showed all that with examples from the texts. She > also showed that hurt/comfort can be undercut, that JKR has undercut > it with certain characters (Pettigrew, for example) but chooses not > to do so with Draco. None of that is emotion. It's all right there > in the text. Alla: Well, yes, of course she analyses the text and brilliantly she does, but the interpretations she makes I thought and still do very colored by emotions ( as I said, it only make it more beautiful for me, but that is what I think) For example - when she sees Draco's suffering as sympathetic, I don't. I think that this is all very deserved, because the reasons for Draco's sufferings are all in the text too and I see them as Draco's own behavior. Hurt/comfort as far as I know is not a literary technique, although I can be very wrong on this. I think this is just the name that readers and mostly female readers IMO came up with to name the phenomena of wanting to **comfort** the characters they sympathize with, because they suffer so stoically. If you can reference the "hurt/comfort" as being a literary technique, I will actually be very grateful. Now, author of course can do it, making us sympathize with character or not, but I would argue that our emotions come out very strongly in deciding whether it indeed works for us or not, as you said. :) Am I making sense? In the textual examples Elkins brings I see nothing heroic, or sympathetic. I don't see a sympathetic underdog, I see rich, spoiled bastard, who deserves every suffering and I maintain ( and I can be very wrong, as I said, I never talked to Elkins in person or even on line, I just read her posts) that Elkins' emotions helped her to interpret text this way. Basically I think that the emotions helped Elkins decide that hurt/comfort was used there in the first place. Am I making sense? Of course she does not use emotions to say that she likes or dislikes the character, but in much more sophisticated way, because IMO to say that hurt/comfort is used, character's sufferings must make us sympathize, sort of as I call it to make us "hug him and make it all better", hehe. I don't think that Draco deserves to feel better when he comes to suffer for what he did in books 1 through 5, his deeds are just so **unsympathetic** to me and IMO Elkins downplays the maliciousness of what Draco did and this is also IMO in the text. Betsy Hp: > Where emotion comes in is if it actually *works* for you. JKR uses > the same technique with Sirius, and it obviously works like gang > busters for some, but not so well for others (as with just about > every single character in Potterverse ). Alla: Yes, but to me it comes even earlier, I don't see **hurt/comfort** with Draco at all. Yes, good example about Sirius. It works for me, because the most obvious example is him being in Azkaban reads to me as unfair sufferings, for something he did not do. For some readers it does not work, since they read Sirius' sufferings as justifiable, or result of his own choices, etc, etc. Draco's sufferings I just see as very **fair**, so I see nothing to comfort Draco with, and for me I see no hurt-comfort there. I think that hurt comfort is actually a very good example of us interpreting text with the help of our emotions (not in a purely emotional way, but just using them) And I can totally **see** it, even when it does not work for me, you know? Sorry to go back to Snape, but I **totally** see hurt/comfort in his character appearances and it even worked for me partially some time ago. :) I see it on the page, so I would think that I would be able to see it with Draco. Moreover, I see it with Draco in HBP, although again it does not work for me. So, yeah, I think it is not there in books 1 through 5 Betsy Hp: Of course, if you > emotionally connect with a character that can be what sends you > looking for textual support for your feelings. However, if it's > there in the text, it's intellectual support you're giving, not > emotional. Alla: Don't really feel like talking about my writing style anymore :), but briefly - yes, of course, textual support **is** intellectual support. My feelings appear after I read what is in the text and I just like to express them together with intellectual support. Betsy Hp: > So I guess my point is that intellectual analysis *does* exist. Alla: Sure it does. :) Betsy Hp: And > while a certain technique might not work for you emotionally (as > hurt/comfort, while popular, doesn't work for everyone) it doesn't > mean that that particular technique isn't in play. Alla: Again, could you reference it for me as **literary technique**? I am honestly very curious. Thanks. JMO, Alla. From random832 at gmail.com Sun Jul 30 02:16:30 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:16:30 -0400 Subject: Morfin's attitudes towards non-purebloods WAS: Re: Story analysis (Was: Whose side are we on?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607291916q74152e4dt37acb58eca0e0283@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156168 > Alla: > > And it seems to me that this scene is completely different from > situation with twins, because it seemed to me that no matter how much > Morfin claims that he did it because his sister loved Riddle, he is > clearly IMO shown to have contempt for Muggles in general. I think his contempt is not for muggles so much as non-purebloods. You don't think he'd have done the same to "that (hypothetical) filthy mudblood" if she'd fallen in love with one instead of a muggle? -- Random832 From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jul 30 03:57:27 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 23:57:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Story analysis/Hurt/comfort References: Message-ID: <007201c6b38c$4689d7f0$0472400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 156169 > Alla: > Draco's sufferings I just see as very **fair**, so I see nothing to > comfort Draco with, and for me I see no hurt-comfort there. Magpie: But that's a different issue than what Elkins is talking about in that post, if I recall the post correctly. She is talking about the word choice the author uses to write a scene--a technique which not all writers might refer to as "hurt/comfort" but one which fits that description. You're talking about whether Draco is sympathetic based on whether or not he deserves to be punished, but Elkins is not, imo, claiming that he's sympathetic because he doesn't deserve it. She sees the maliciousness of his actions and I think acknowledges that the scene is meant to be satisfying as punishment for him on one level. What she's trying to do is figure out Draco's role in the story (writing pre-OotP), and that's where the "underdog" thing comes in. Not to claim that Draco's really a poor put-upon creature, but to show that he's not powerful enough to carry the role of even a school-age antagonist (he's just lame). So maybe that's not his role. Throughout canon he's always punished or hurt more soundly than what he gives out, while he himself never causes any real long-term damage to anyone. It's not that she's made him sympathetic, but she hasn't killed the possibility for sympathy as efficiently as she could have. Elkins then looks at the language JKR uses to describe his scenes where he's in pain, the hurt/comfort factor, showing not that Draco inspires sympathy in everyone but that JKR intentionally allows sympathy to be possible by giving him scenes of real pain rather than just making all his pain scenes repulsive. Lots of people feel no sympathy for him because of his own actions and personality--but lots of people do. In every fandom I've ever been in there's been certain characters, often one character in particular, who gets the lion's share of torture fic, and it's always been the character most given to tortured scenes in canon. In my experience Draco tops the torture-fic stakes in HP. In the ferret scene, for instance, JKR chooses to write Draco suffering fairly stoically whether you want to grant him that or not. Eyes watering with pain and humiliation is not wimpering coward, it's suffering but defiant. Elkins didn't make specific predictions of what was going to happen with Draco, but I think HBP absolutely validated a lot of the things she was pointing out about the character. What Elkins calls the hurt/comfort factor, Draco the conflicted nutter--that's exactly the stuff that was used in his story. (She even had Myrtle as the hurt/comfort fan!;-) Lots of moments in HBP were like deja vu to H/D hurt/comfort readers. JKR, of course, always knew where the character was going and has been writing him the same all along. He hadn't had his feet held to the fire pre-HBP, but she was always preparing him for the sympathetic (to her at least) story of HBP and beyond--and I think completely understanding how some readers were going to react with too much sympathy. -m From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Jul 30 10:19:20 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:19:20 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156170 > "abergoat" wrote: > > Potioncat, I support your timeline and suspect that Eileen Prince was > in Hagrid's year or one year behind (a 2nd or 3rd year to Tom Riddle's > 6th). I also suspect that she was involved in clearing Hagrid's name > to the point that he could stay on at Hogwarts. > > What makes me suspicious about all this is Hagrid. Snape treats Hagrid > with respect. And even more importantly Hagrid has ALWAYS defended > Snape - and NEVER states his belief in Snape's trustworthiness stems > from Dumbledore's trust. Hagrid even goes as far as to call Harry > stupid > > Hagrid may know Snape VERY well indeed. And Snape IS one if the few > professors we know of that will search the forest (end of OoP - even > with the Grawp there and the angry centaurs). Snape may well have > spent time in those woods...with Hagrid. aussie: Could that be a reason Snape and Neville have problems? McGonagall knew Neville's gran failed Charms, so was probably in Hogwarts around Tom Riddle's time too. Was Neville's gran Eileen's bully? It would add greater insult to Snape hearing of Neville's boggart wearing gran's dress. I don't think it is important, but within a closed community that spans generations, every witch knows every other family. (eg, In Tonga, one of the Royal Guards was insulted. After work, he walked to that coastal town and knocked down the 1st 3 grass huts he came to. No body was hurt and the huts were put back up in less than 2 hours. -but the "Coconuts in the Sea" was 2 generations ago, and my friend is still remembered as the son of that guard. - An example of a closed community holding importance to things aver 45 years old) From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jul 30 12:47:03 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:47:03 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on??/Story analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156172 > Alla: > > Yes, sure this is again just different levels of analysing the story. > > For myself I call it analysing on "feelings"" level > > and "intellectual" level. This is strictly how I classify it. I found > > long time ago that for myself to be able to argue effectively turning > > off my emotions completely never works. :) Potioncat: I've been following this thread with great interest, but came back to the earliest post I could find to comment. I'll nitpick at words, if you don't mind. I agree with those who've said you can't have an emotional analysis. You can have an emotional discussion---as we often do at this site, or you can have a fact based analysis. We actually do different levels here. We have lots of emotional discussions. Usually these sound as if the characters are people we happen to know very, very well. You can see the writers' emotions pouring off the page. These are valid discussions, but are mainly opion pieces. Sometimes we discuss a portion of the book, expressing our opinions about the author's intent, or her success at her intent or whether we agree with her philosophy. Sometimes we do that using literary words and a degree of form. Other time we talk about the characters or events on a more personal basis, but still with an analytical approach. I don't dare use Snape as an example, do I? Take Pettigrew. From my standpoint, he's a disgusting little man. There is nothing redeeming about him, he is loathsome. He's a rat and in my opinion rats are horrible, dirty, disgusting creatures. The only good thing I can say about Peter Pettigrew is that he is portrayed by Timothy Spall. We could run a long involved thread about all the bad things Pettigrew has done, peppered with posts defending rats as good pets, etc, etc... All emotional. However, if I step away from my personal reaction to Pettigrew, I could ask why the canon description of him does not fit with the things he's done. For a mediocre Wizard, he's performed some advanced magic. Where does that ability come from? What is really going on here? Or I could ask, what did JKR have in mind when she created the dynamics behind the Marauders. What is she saying about friendship? I might ask why she placed Pettigrew and Snape in the same house. I might be forced to look at the comparisons between the two men. (I wouldn't like it, but I could do it.) An analysis can come from an emotional reaction, but one has to remove the emotions. Dumbledore's death caused a strong emotional reaction for me. But to discuss that chapter, I have to set aside the emotions. To discuss my reaction to the death, I can include the emotions.The closest RL example I can come with is from parenthood. If your kids are fighting about something, you have to stay detached while you sort out who did what to whom and why. So, we have both sorts of discussions, emotional and analytical. Both are valid, both are fun---sometimes they happen in the same thread which can cause a bit of a miscommunication, or a great deal of fun if you're the observer. Sorry for the odd formatting. I deleted this post and then took it to Word Pad to cut and paste---I wasn't any good at cutting and pasting in Kindergarten either. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Jul 30 14:16:40 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 07:16:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40607300716i4cb6013ek1033c58d59cfc71c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156173 > > Potioncat: > > It is such a big difference! I thought it was only the first part > > that was different. That JKR allowed the change for any reason---and > > didn't make sure it was done in both---makes no sense. > > > Sue here: > > It's not impossible that the change was made for the US edition on the demand of the US > publisher. This happens often with books from overseas, because publishers in the US > seem to think their readers won't get certain subtle implications (... snip ...). Sorry to say this to US readers, but your publishers don't have > a lot of respect for you. :-( ... snip ... > > Even in HP, the title Sorcerer's Stone is meaningless in the context of the story, but the > publishers didn't think US readers would understand what a Philosopher's Stone was, even > though it was explained in the book. > Kemper now: I can understand if they don't think US readers pick up on nuances of a plot/dialog, but the why edit out from the US softback what was left in for the US hardback? As far as Philosopher's Stone becoming Sorcerer's Stone, it wasn't because the US publisher thought their (child) readers were dumb, per se. It was because the US publisher thought their (child) readers would be more likely to buy a book with an easy magical reference (sorcerer) than with an obscure magical reference (Philosopher's Stone). It had to do more with profit and much less to do with the concern of their reader's understanding. Kemper [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jul 30 14:53:03 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:53:03 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156174 Sue: > It's not impossible that the change was made for the US edition on the demand of the US > publisher. This happens often with books from overseas, because publishers in the US > seem to think their readers won't get certain subtle implications (though I must admit I will > need to re-read before I decide if there is any implication here.I have only read the novel > once, just after it came out). Ceridwen: Someone (justcarol?) posted the two different quotes above, and provided a link to the Lexicon's page of differences between the UK HBP and the US HBP. There are two changes in the US edition - the first, Dumbledore suggesting that no one's going to hunt someone who is already dead; the second, suggesting that the Death Eaters wouldn't think it odd for the Order to kill Narcissa since it is the sort of thing the Death Eaters would do themselves. Reading the two phrasings, I don't see how someone could extrapolate everything Dumbledore said in the US version from what is in the UK version. Maybe I'm one of those dumb US readers who need it spelled out for them, but maybe there is too much in what he says for the average reader to pick up on such subtle clues? Sue: Sorry to say this to US readers, but your publishers don't have > a lot of respect for you. :-( A well-known Australian writer, John Marsden, for excample, > wrote a novel in which it was made fairly clear, through implication, that the heroine had > had acid thrown at her face in a family quarrel. The US publishers decided this wasn't good > enough and he had to *write* the scene in which it happened, especially for the US > edition. You won't find it in any other edition. Ceridwen: Sounds like someone thinks US readers of that genre like more gratuitious violence than Australian readers of the same genre do, not that US readers are more clueless. Just my own impression, of course. Sue: > Even in HP, the title Sorcerer's Stone is meaningless in the context of the story, but the > publishers didn't think US readers would understand what a Philosopher's Stone was, even > though it was explained in the book. Ceridwen: It could also have been that, in the US, the same device, a stone achieved through alchemical means which will give eternal life, is called a Sorcerer's Stone, and not a Philosopher's Stone as it apparently is in Britain. Cultural context here, I believe. Ceridwen. From carodave92 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 15:36:41 2006 From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:36:41 -0000 Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > > > For that matter, why does JKR have the DA fracture so badly that > > > only two members not in Harry's inner-circle respond to a > > > distress call? And all while stressing the importance of > > > unity. > > > a_svirn: > > > > As for DA it wasn't fractured at all. It had served its purpose in > > the year five as far as Harry was concerned, and that all there > > was to it. > > Betsy Hp: > I think Harry's indifference is the reason the DA *remained* > fractured. But you had members fighting in the corridors during the > ride to Hogwarts. Obviously something went wrong. If, of course, > the DA was supposed to be a step towards the Houses uniting. I > think that's what Hermione was hoping for, IIRC. > > But I think especially when you've got the Hat's song in OotP, that > Harry didn't take the uniting of the Houses seriously is something > still to be delt with. That the DA failed and why it failed I think > (hope) will have to be faced in book 7. > > Betsy Hp > Carodave: The DA didn't actually fail. It's purpose was to provide a forum for learning defense against the dark arts while Dolores Umbridge was their DADA professor. The DA's success can be measured against the number of OWLs received by those members whose only practical experience came under Harry's tutelage. As to the group being fractured...they hadn't held a meeting in months, and there was no real reason for members to check their coins on a regular basis. I agree with the other poster who(sorry! I can't remember who or find the post) noted that Neville and Luna probably checked regularly since the DA was their circle of friends...but for other members, who presumably had good social connections, there was no need to check the coins once meetings were suspended. All IMHO, of course. Carodave From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jul 30 15:37:10 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:37:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) References: Message-ID: <003301c6b3ee$06d33090$1466400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 156176 > Ceridwen: > It could also have been that, in the US, the same device, a stone > achieved through alchemical means which will give eternal life, is > called a Sorcerer's Stone, and not a Philosopher's Stone as it > apparently is in Britain. Cultural context here, I believe. Magpie: In that case it is called the same thing in the US. It was just they thought Sorcerer was a better word than Philosopher in the title. I don't have the US version, but I would guess it's called the Philosopher's Stone within the actual story and not changed throughout to "Sorcerer's Stone." Just as the movie calls it a Philosopher's Stone even while the title is Sorcerer's. I could be wrong, but that's what I've always assumed. -m From aceworker at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 15:56:20 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 08:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: State of the DA /Did Ron and Hermione use the coins? Message-ID: <20060730155620.51017.qmail@web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156177 Betsy HP said: > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > For that matter, why does JKR have the DA fracture so badly that > > only two members not in Harry's inner-circle respond to a > > distress call? And all while stressing the importance of > > unity. DA Jones Here: I think Betsy you stumbled onto my favorite topic. But here is my question: Do we know for sure that only Neville or Luna responded to Hermione's call or that she even used the coins? This is what Harry says about Neville and Luna and Luna responding to the call for the DA. "The crowd continued to swell; with a great rush of affection for both of them, Harry saw Neville being helped into a seat by Luna. Neville and Luna alone of the D.A. had responded to Hermione's summons the night that Dumbledore had died, and Harry knew why: They were the ones who had missed the D.A. the most....probably the ones who checked their coins regularly in the hope that there would be another meeting. (HBP, pg 642 Schoastic)" This seems to me that this may be a case of unreliable narrator. Because for one thing there is no scene in which Ron or Hermione tell him that they did in fact summon the entire D.A. This is what Ron and Hermione state in chapter 29 during their "after-battle report". Ron: "I messed up, Harry," said Ron bleakly. We did like you told us: we checked the Marauder's Map and we couldn't see Malfoy on it, so we thought he must be in the room of requirement, so me Ginny and Neville went to keep watch on it..." (HBP pg. 617 Scholastic) Notice that Ron does not make mention at all an attempt to summon the DA. Only that they did what he told them and studied the Marauders Map. Harry never gived Hermione a chance to mention the D.A. He jumps right at her with: "So if Ron was watching the Room of Requirements with Ginny and Neville, said Harry turning to Hermione, "were you--?" "Outside Snapes office, yes" whispered Hermione, her eyes sparkling with tears, with Luna...." (HBP, pg. 619 Scholastic) During the next 2 or 3 days as shown during the White Tomb chapter, there is no evidence that they discuss this with Harry at all.in fact everyone seems to want to avoid the topic. Now on to the coin. There is no evidence that Hermione used it to summon anyone other then Harry's comment and he might just be assuming that they used it. Here are some problems with using the coin. 1) It has been compromised. Draco knows about the coins and they may have been confiscated from some of the d.a. members by the inquistorial squad in OOP. "Enchanted coins," said Malfoy ......"Yeah, I got the idea from them..." (HBP, pg. 589 Scholastic) 2) Even if Hermione did summon the D.A. members, where would they meet? Not the room of requirements or anywhere near, that is where they suspect Draco is. 3) If the meeting was in Gryffindor tower, how would the other D.A members meet them there? Do they even know where the entrance to the Gryffindor common room is? Luna apparently does, but she is almost an honorary Gryff, since her only friends seem to be Gryffs. 4) Since about 1/4 to 1/2 of the D.A. members are Gryffindors why even use the coins? Why not just go up to the dorms and summon them? 5) Where the coins even working? Harry tells Hermione to use the coins before he retrieves his invisibility cloak and runs off with Dumbledore, but in this quick encounter in which he almost shouts his orders quickly at her without pause. Hermione keeps trying to tell Harry something and Harry continues to interupt her. (HBP pg. 552 Scholastic) Why does Ron even talk to Seamus the next day about his mother, wouldn't Ron and Hermione by angry at the other Gryff DA members if they didn't respond? The evidence seems to be that Hermione and Ron did not make a large effort to summon other D.A. member to their needs but just found those in their inner circle who they had worked with before. It is possible that Dean and Seamus and Lavender and Parvati at least were also told as Dean and Seamus are sitting in the common room when Harry returns (with practically the whole House, prob because of Dumbledore, but they might have been there already.) We haven't really been told the extent of the battle and perhaps Harry hasn't either. For one weren't there aurors other then Tonks at the school? Were where they this night? We really have no idea how big or far ranging the battle was. There could have been other DE/DA battles elsewhere in the castle (but not likely). Harry does pass other students in his pursuit of Snape, including Ernies large group of Hufflepuffs. "...he burst through a tapestry at the bottom and out into a corridor where a number of bewildered and pajama-clad Hufflepuffs stood. "Harry we heard a noise and someone said something about the Dark Mark--"began Ernie MacMillan. "Out of my way!" yelled Harry knocking 2 boys aside as...." (HBP pg. 600, Scholastic) This actually suggests that the Hufflepuffs responded to some degree. If not to the coins, then to at least the noise and distrubance in the castle. Harry had a chance to get their help but ignored them. My guess is that Ron and Hermione made no attempt to contact them. There is a strong possiblilty that Ron and Hermione never used the coins. How did Luna know? She might have just been there visiting or they went and got her in some way other then the coin. Could they have sent her an owl and told her to tell noone? Anyway, this is my crazy theory. I'm sure everyone has there's. DA Jones --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jul 30 15:56:26 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:56:26 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: <003301c6b3ee$06d33090$1466400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156178 Magpie: > In that case it is called the same thing in the US. It was just they > thought Sorcerer was a better word than Philosopher in the title. I don't > have the US version, but I would guess it's called the Philosopher's Stone > within the actual story and not changed throughout to "Sorcerer's Stone." > Just as the movie calls it a Philosopher's Stone even while the title is > Sorcerer's. I could be wrong, but that's what I've always assumed. > > -m Ceridwen: I'm US. I'd never heard of a 'philosopher's stone' except as an interesting side-note that this is what a 'sorcerer's stone' was called in Britain. Might be the age of the material I read that from - long before public internet - or it could be my age. In the US version, the Stone is either called 'the Stone' or the 'Sorcerer's Stone' as in: ""Get out of the way!" he (Quirrel) said. As Harry moved aside, he felt the Sorcerer's Stone against his leg. Dare he make a break for it?" (SS page 293, ch.17, The Man With Two Faces, paperback edition) On another note, when I first started looking into the Harry Potter phenomenon, I read some discussion about US fans writing to the US publisher to leave in more of the original British wording rather than translating things from British to US English. 'Skirting' for 'Baseboard' for instance. Ceridwen. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jul 30 16:12:05 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:12:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) References: Message-ID: <004e01c6b3f2$e7290300$1466400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 156179 > Ceridwen: > I'm US. I'd never heard of a 'philosopher's stone' except as an > interesting side-note that this is what a 'sorcerer's stone' was called > in Britain. Might be the age of the material I read that from - long > before public internet - or it could be my age. Magpie: Really? Learn something new everyday! Because the Philosopher's Stone is what the actual thing is called both in the US and in the UK--it's a standard thing in the study of alchemy, and what Nicholas Flamel allegedly did succeed in making. I'd heard of the Philosopher's Stone as a real object long before Harry Potter came out, which is why the change seemed so odd. It was like if the original title had been "Harry Potter and the Holy Grail" and they changed it to "Harry Potter and the Holy Goblet" because grail was an unfamiliar word. I can't remember--do they change the name of the stone in the movie? -m From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jul 30 16:35:36 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:35:36 -0000 Subject: Fear as a Crime --Long (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156180 Betsy Hp: ::Tries to resist hugging Snape. Fails.:: houyhnhnm: I think you stop worrying about Snape. I *saw* him in the supermarket checkout line last week! (He was right behind Elvis :-}) There has been a lot of speculation that Snape might wind up in New Jersey or northern Ontario after the war, but who would have guessed Kansas City-Cowtown!!! (He must be working for MRI or Hoechst Marion Roussel.) He was wearing running shorts and a tee shirt (Sydney was right). His hair's gone a little gray--it's still long and a little greasy. He looked ... content. From asjanzen at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 16:08:26 2006 From: asjanzen at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:08:26 -0000 Subject: Fear as a Crime --Long (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156181 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: >>>Honestly if there *aren't* consequences for the good guys' bad behavior, not only will the series lose most of it's magic for me . . .<<< "If there aren't consequences for the good guys?" Most of book five deals with Harry and his friends being punished even when they haven't done anything wrong. Harry's forced to cut "I will not tell lies" into his hand so often that the words are scarred into his flesh. His bad behavior was telling the truth. Hermione lost points for her house by being a "mudblood," and daring to try to explain why she disagreed with the DAtDA textbook author. One of the twins lost his spot on the house team for doing nothing but being the twin of the one who attempted to teach Malfoy manners. Granted, striking Malfoy wasn't the best choice, but I think it was an understandable impulse. >>>. . . If she wanted us to simply cheer the twins terrorizing the Dursleys she wouldn't have shown how utterly terrified Dudley already was at having wizards visit, as you pointed out. If JKR thought scarring a fellow classmate was a good thing, I really doubt she'd have pointed out Marietta at the start of HBP. (Actually JKR did an excellent job of showing how completely the DA collapsed, with former members attacking each other before the school year even got started.) . . .<<< I've never had the impression that I should feel horrified, or concerned, on Dudley's behalf, with the single exception of the Dementor attack. I've always felt that JKR's shown that what happens to Dudley (and his miserable parents) is cause/effect related. What goes around comes around. That family has used every despicable means to crush Harry, from lying to him about how his parents died to keeping him in a closet for 10 years to locking him in a bedroom and nearly starving him--it just seems fitting that they've gotten some of their own back! >>>. . . I'm betting she was happy with Dumbledore's petty bait and switch with the House Cup at the end of PS/SS, for example . . . on the more aggressively cruel actions, I think there's still another shoe waiting to drop . . .<<< I thought it was entirely appropriate that Harry's house should reap the rewards of putting evil down--at least for one more year. I haven't seen any behaviors, from the "good guys," which I have thought of as "aggressively cruel." Different strokes? >>>. . . I *loved* that Dudley punched Harry when the Dementors attacked. Sure, he'd picked the wrong wizard, but having the hutzpah to take on Harry after all he's suffered at wizards' hands... It was enough bravery to prove that he and Harry really are family . . .<<< The only sympathy I've ever felt for Dudley was when the Dementor was having a go at his soul (if the cretin even has one). I was appalled by how twisted Dudley had become in just one year. Dudley, if you recall, was beating up on 8-10 year olds (with the help of his gang). I don't see his needling Harry as a display of "hutspah." If Dudley had not known Harry was forbidden to do magic, or if Harry were allowed to do magic, and Dudley still stood up to him, then I'd agree. I find needling someone you think cannot defend themselves is one of the most base forms of cowardice. Andrea From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jul 30 16:57:40 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 30 Jul 2006 16:57:40 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 7/30/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1154278660.477.14031.m21@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156182 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday July 30, 2006 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Event Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK Set up birthday reminders! http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13 Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/ Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jul 30 18:03:53 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:03:53 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: <004e01c6b3f2$e7290300$1466400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156183 Ceridwen: > > I'm US. I'd never heard of a 'philosopher's stone' except as an > > interesting side-note that this is what a 'sorcerer's stone' was > > called in Britain. Might be the age of the material I read that > > from - long before public internet - or it could be my age. Magpie: > Really? Learn something new everyday! Because the Philosopher's > Stone is what the actual thing is called both in the US and in the > UK--it's a standard thing in the study of alchemy, and what > Nicholas Flamel allegedly did succeed in making. I'd heard of the > Philosopher's Stone as a real object long before Harry Potter came > out, which is why the change seemed so odd. It was like if the > original title had been "Harry Potter and the Holy Grail" and they > changed it to "Harry Potter and the Holy Goblet" because grail was > an unfamiliar word. SSSusan: I have a feeling (and it's just a feeling, mind you) that the change was made both because few Americans were familiar with the term "Philosopher's Stone" and especially because even fewer American CHILDREN would have heard of it. I mean, Scholastic was definitely marketing these books to children here in the U.S., at least books one through three, right? I think they were concerned about 8- or 10-year-olds in America knowing what a Philosopher's Stone was. Yeah, it might make us Americans sound "stupider," but I think it's true that if your average American (ha! what's that?) -- pre-HP era, anyway -- were presented with the term "philosopher's stone," s/he would most likely just think of names of some philosophers, such as Descartes, Kant, Plato or Kierkegaard, and wonder where a stone fit in. :-) I'm sure some would know of the alchemical reference, but I don't think the majority would. Maybe that's NOT true and my fellow Americans on the list will rise up to say, "You're nuts!! I knew, and everyone I know knew, what a 'philosopher's stone' was!" But I am going on an assumption here that there is perhaps more discussion of/education about alchemy in the UK than in the US. Am I wrong? In the end, man, do I ever wish they'd stuck with "Philosopher's Stone" for the title in the US. Partly because it's the accurate term in the UK & as JKR wrote it, and we Americans can *learn* new terminology (sheesh), but also because the truth is, if the US release had had the title "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," the right-wing, fundamentalist Christians would have probably IGNORED the whole thing! It was the use of the word "Sorcerer's" -- thereby bringing in the concept of sorcery and (in some people's minds) the occult -- that raised red flags for those groups. IMHO, of course. Magpie: > I can't remember--do they change the name of the stone in the > movie? SSSusan: Indeed, they did. It's "sorcerer's stone" throughout the movie. For those of you in the UK or Canada or elsewhere that there was an English-language release, did the actors have an alternate track or dub in which they said "philosopher's stone," or was it "sorcerer's stone" no matter where the movie was released? (I mean, I know the *title* was "philosopher's" elsewhere, but within the actual dialogue?) Heh, the Shorty Elf side of me knows this is bordering on needing to go to the Movie list , so if anyone wants to reply only about the movie dialogue... you might want to take it on over to HPfGU-Movie [ http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/ ] Siriusly Snapey Susan From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jul 30 18:40:48 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:40:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fear as a Crime --Long (Re: muggle baiting ) References: Message-ID: <002401c6b407$ad8f2c90$fd66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 156184 Andrea: > "If there aren't consequences for the good guys?" Most of book five > deals with Harry and his friends being punished even when they haven't > done anything wrong. Magpie: Which is exactly why that isn't "consequences for the good guys." Those are examples of the good guys being wrongly oppressed, so it doesn't teach them anything about their own actions. Herimone's just the victim of racism (in fact, in the scene you mentioned Umbridge's response not only shows her as unwilling to listen to reason, but makes Hermione's non-sequitor response sound like a logical refutation of the quoted bit from the textbook), Harry's the victim of a smear campaign. With the Quidditch banning, as with Snape's detentions in HBP, the villain doing the punishing completely obscures any impulse for the good guy to think about his own actions and feels even more self-righteous (which is how you're describing it). Andrea: If Dudley > had not known Harry was forbidden to do magic, or if Harry were > allowed to do magic, and Dudley still stood up to him, then I'd agree. > I find needling someone you think cannot defend themselves is one of > the most base forms of cowardice. Magpie: I think Betsy is referring to the way Dudley snarks back at Harry when Harry is needling him, which she likes just as she liked Harry snarking back when Dudley needled him in the past. Dudley knows about the no-magic rule, but also knows not to trust that means he won't ever catch it, magically speaking. He and Harry are both dancing around that in the beginning of OotP--it's why Harry's wishing Dudley would come over and "have a go." -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 18:48:22 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:48:22 -0000 Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156185 > > a_svirn: > > > > As for DA it wasn't fractured at all. It had served its purpose in > > the year five as far as Harry was concerned, and that all there > > was to it. > > Betsy Hp: > I think Harry's indifference is the reason the DA *remained* > fractured. But you had members fighting in the corridors during the > ride to Hogwarts. Obviously something went wrong. If, of course, > the DA was supposed to be a step towards the Houses uniting. I > think that's what Hermione was hoping for, IIRC. > a_svirn: I don't see it. Hermione stated her intentions quite clearly. She wanted to study the real stuff "not the rubbish that Umbridge is doing with us" because a) she wanted to pass her DADA OWL and b) because she wanted to "be properly trained in defence" on account of Lord Voldemort being back. She never said anything about uniting the Houses neither in the Hog's Head, nor later. And not a single Slytherin was invited. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 30 19:19:29 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:19:29 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156186 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Sue: > > Even in HP, the title Sorcerer's Stone is meaningless in the > context of the story, but the > > publishers didn't think US readers would understand what a > Philosopher's Stone was, even > > though it was explained in the book. > > Ceridwen: > It could also have been that, in the US, the same device, a stone > achieved through alchemical means which will give eternal life, is > called a Sorcerer's Stone, and not a Philosopher's Stone as it > apparently is in Britain. Cultural context here, I believe. Geoff: I believe not. I put "sorcerers stone" into Google and it reported 4.9 million hits. I looked through the first 100 - not having time for the remaining 4.4899 million or so today - and they were all linked to Harry Potter. Putting "philosophers stone" into Google gave several references to the alchemical stone in the first couple of pages. Also, if you enter "sorcerers stone" into Wikipedia for example, it diverts you to "philosophers stone". I think Sue may have hit the nail on the head. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 30 19:27:33 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:27:33 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156187 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Magpie: > > I can't remember--do they change the name of the stone in the > > movie? > > SSSusan: > Indeed, they did. It's "sorcerer's stone" throughout the movie. > For those of you in the UK or Canada or elsewhere that there was an > English-language release, did the actors have an alternate track or > dub in which they said "philosopher's stone," or was it "sorcerer's > stone" no matter where the movie was released? (I mean, I know the > *title* was "philosopher's" elsewhere, but within the actual > dialogue?) > > Heh, the Shorty Elf side of me knows this is bordering on needing to > go to the Movie list , so if anyone wants to reply only about the > movie dialogue... you might want to take it on over to HPfGU-Movie [ > http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/ ] Geoff: I think this is a matter which covers the entire spectrum of the US/UK changes so I shall stick my neck out and say that in my DVD of the first film, the word "Philosopher's Stone" is most certainly used. I must admit that I get very British here and always refer in book attributions to PS. none of this PS/SS rubbish. Gad sir, it's just not British. :-))) Please note the large smiley //before// you start sticking pins in wax inmages. From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Sun Jul 30 20:20:41 2006 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (ivogun) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:20:41 -0000 Subject: The Houses (was Sorting hat) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156188 Dung: >... I suggested that if the sorting hat sort people according to what traits they *prize*, >rather than which traits they *have*, it makes more sense. So you can have Gryffindors >not always behaving with their stereotypical courage (Pettigrew) or Slytherins who appear >to have zero guile (Crabbe & Goyle), but you can also have ambitious cunning people in >Gryffindor, because they prize having the courage to actually *do* stupid things like >feeding magic sweets to Muggles right under their campaigning father's nose. Ivogun: I think each of the houses loosely represent one of the basic personality types of Myer- Briggs or Keirsey Temperment Sorter. My understanding is that the philosophical roots of this theory originate from Jung--someone whom Rowling has mentioned. Two of the houses (Ravenclaw and Griffindor) reside in towers and correspond to the two theoretical or intuitive, "heads in the cloud" personality types. The other two (Slytherin and Hufflepuff) reside on/in the ground and correspond to the two practical, sensing, or "down to earth" types. According to the theory, students in Ravenclaws would be intuitives with thinking (NT) and would tend toward the wizarding equivalent of the sciences, math and engineering. Griffindors with be intuitives with feeling (NF) and would tend to be drawn to the liberal arts. Some of the subtypes of NF personality types are crusaders. Both Hermione, despite her love of books, and Arthur, despite his love of tinkering, aren't Ravenclaws. The drive that made Hermione start SPEW and the drive that caused Arthur to campaign for his Muggle Protection Act are typically Griffindorish. Following the theory, Hufflepuffs wound be sensing with Judging (SJ) This type is practical with a high need to get things done properly and on time. The Sorting Hat mentions the hard work ethic that is typically a SJ and Hufflepuff trait. Finally the Slytherins would be Sensing with Perceiving (SP) and would be practical types not worried about deadlines...the great lovers of freedom...the entertainers and promoters. Rowling really hasn't been fair to this type. SPs may be seen freedom lovers, but Rowling has them portrayed as having "a certain disregard for the rules." Likewise the SP type is known for having an appreciation for the finer things of life; well Rowling portrays Slughorn as a glutton, not an epicure. Oh well. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Jul 30 20:53:20 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:53:20 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156189 "justcarol67" wrote: > Ron calls the HBP a genius, and I'm > sure he's right Yes, I'd be a fool to deny that. Snape is a formidable wizard! > we don't know that James invented any spells As you pointed out James helped invent the Marauder's Map, and even very powerful adult wizards like Mad Eye thought that was a remarkable object. And James managed to keep the Marauder's activities secret from Dumbledore, something that great wizard thought was even more extraordinary than making the map. > Severus also apparently had quick reflexes, But not as quick as James apparently. > Unfortunately for him, he was outnumbered two to one I don't recall that Sirius (or Lupin or Peter) did ANYTHING to Snape on that occasion, just James; and it was not a close contest, James mopped the floor with him. At the very least you must admit that James never showed the smallest tiniest most microscopic bit of fear toward Snape, he just treated him as a joke. And I must admit that James somewhat underestimated Snape's abilities. Snape is no joke, Snape is about as far from a joke as it's Possible to be. > I'd say that in terms of power, James > and Severus were roughly equal All in all that may not be too far off the mark; the annotations Snape made in that potions book were impressive, very impressive indeed! > HBP pretty clearly shows that Snape really is > an expert in DADA I don't think there is any doubt about that, but forget defense he's even better AT the dark arts. Eggplant From harryp at stararcher.com Sun Jul 30 18:49:12 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:49:12 -0000 Subject: Unanswered Questions in Book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156190 In HPfGU-Chatter I posted whimsical lament: > Eddie: > I just had the most horrible thought of all > about Book 7: we may not get all of our questions > answered. But let me ask the question in a way that is On-Topic for this forum: What questions will NOT be answered in Book 7? Why? Can you support your theory in canon? You have 30 minutes. Turn your papers over. Begin. Eddie From bobhawkins at rcn.com Sun Jul 30 20:23:16 2006 From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:23:16 -0000 Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156191 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carodave92" wrote: > ... > The DA didn't actually fail. It's purpose was to provide a forum > for learning defense against the dark arts while Dolores Umbridge > was their DADA professor. The DA's success can be measured against > the number of OWLs received by those members whose only practical > experience came under Harry's tutelage. > ... The most remarkable achievement of the DA was so many students learning to cast corporeal Patronuses. The fact that one could -- Harry -- was so remarkable, it was apparently a topic of gossip at the Ministry of Magic. The fact that a substantial number can, would probably be considered impossible. If DA members repel a mass Dementor attack in Book 7, we could look back on the DA as vital. zeroirregardless From celizwh at intergate.com Sun Jul 30 21:17:25 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:17:25 -0000 Subject: The Houses (was Sorting hat) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156192 Ivogun: > Rowling really hasn't been fair to this type. houyhnhnm: I'm partial to the notion of the four Hogwarts Houses as the four elements myself, which is just a little hard to fit into the Procrustean bed of the MBTI. But fire, air, earth, water, Jung's typology, or Myers-Briggs--the idea is the same. Unity in diversity. By meditating on the four, we come to appreciate both the multiplicity and the unity of creation. Rowling has *not* been fair to the fourth principle. I just have to believe it's intentional. Slytherin is the House that is not integrated into the rest of the WW because the unity of the four founders was ruptured by Salazar Slytherin (though I will not be surprised if in book 7 we find out there was more to it than that). Slytherin is the House that has been corrrupted by Voldemort. Maybe that's why we haven't seen its good side. Perhaps the debilitation of the Slytherin principle is the reason there is "no place for the numinous" in the WW, the reason that, in spite of all the magical paintings on the walls at Hogwarts, the fine arts seem to play so little part in the lives of witches and wizards. These would all be part of the expression of the Slytherin temperament if the Wizarding World were healthy and whole. From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sun Jul 30 16:50:05 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:50:05 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156193 > aussie: > Could that be a reason Snape and Neville have problems? McGonagall > knew Neville's gran failed Charms, so was probably in Hogwarts around > Tom Riddle's time too. Was Neville's gran Eileen's bully? It would add > greater insult to Snape hearing of Neville's boggart wearing gran's > dress. There is a thought I have NEVER heard before! Very interesting! Snape has already proven that he is ready to assume the child has the same faults as the parents (or in this case grandparent). Neville's gran IS a bully with Neville and seems quick to remind everyone what her own child achieved (braggart) so it seems reasonable that she had these same traits in school. If I believe that Eileen Prince will be significant there is no reason to believe that Neville's Gran will not figure into the story too. Do we have a time line that definitely places Gran at Hogwarts with Eileen and Tom? We can explain some of Neville without that though if Snape lost his mother early, and lost her to the same ward that Neville's parents are in. If true, Snape has another (unjustified) reason to treat Neville poorly. He has lived Neville's life. I speculate the relatives in Snape's memory expected little of him magically - because he was the son of a non-magical man. Snape sees himself as having made the CHOICE to prove those expectations wrong...and I think Snape sees Neville as having given into low expectations in stead of fighting them. abergoat From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Jul 30 21:16:20 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:16:20 -0700 Subject: Killing Re: About the "Who Else Is Going to Die" Poll..... In-Reply-To: References: <454.33d8262.31fcef86@aol.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0607301416l1de67ab7xfe9f4bd9593521b5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156194 Sherrie: > JKR has shot down the idea of Harry having an academic career (IIRC, > it was in the World Book Day chat - she said (paraphrasing) that an academic career > would be a bit tame for Harry, after what he's been through. Shan: Sorry, I didn't read about that. You're probably right about teaching being too tame! But Harry would definitely make a good auror. I don't believe Hermione or Ron would though, still think they could come back as teachers. Lynda: I know that I'm in the minority here and probably not in sync with JKR but I don't necessarly see Harry as an auror. I think he would be a marvelous addition to the staff in the DOM, however. Lynda From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Jul 30 21:59:17 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:59:17 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156195 eggplant: > I don't recall that Sirius (or Lupin or Peter) did ANYTHING to Snape > on that occasion, just James; and it was not a close contest, James > mopped the floor with him. At the very least you must admit that James > never showed the smallest tiniest most microscopic bit of fear toward > Snape, he just treated him as a joke. wynnleaf I had to jump into the fray, as it were... First, when James first called out to Snape, he obviously had the advantage of knowing that not only was an attack imminent, but exactly *when* it would take place. It appears -- since Snape's drawing his wand is mentioned, but not James -- that James already had his wand out. Therefore it was simple for him to get in an "Expelliarmus" before Snape got his wand out. After that, with Snape's wand 10 feet away, James bravely put unarmed Snape in "Impedementa" which is like being bound by magical ropes. Following having couragously bound his unarmed opponent (isn't it amazing that he didn't need Sirius' help for this?), James then decided Snape's verbal retaliation was objectionable and put "Scourgify" on a *bound,* *unarmed* dare-I-say opponent. Wow, doesn't this show what how "powerful" James was?? Lily intervenes. Okay, next... we are told the Impedementa jinx was "wearing off," meaning that it hadn't totally worn off, but Snape was able to crawl toward his wand. He obviously wasn't completely in control of himself physically. But he gets his wand, but is still lying on the ground, and throws what appears to be a very controlled limited version of Sectumsempra at James and cuts his cheek. James whirls around and uses the Leviocorpus on him, turning him upside down. Snape may or may not still have a grip on his wand, but he's upside down. At this point, neither does anything as Lily interjects more comments and tells James to let him down. James drops him. But here we have the part eggplant must have missed because Sirius immediately hits Snape with a Petrificus Totalus and Snape falls over again. Lily insists they let him alone, so James does the countercurse, releasing Snape from being petrified, but keeping him under wand point. Notice that from this point on until the end of the memory, James is holding Snape under wand point. Then there are the parts about Snape using "mudblood," James trying to get him to apologize, Lily saying stuff to James, James and Sirius talking, Sirius saying that Lily must think James is conceited -- all of this is while James is holding Snape at wand point. Then suddenly -- there's been nothing else from Snape after his mudblood comment -- James turns him upside down in the air and asks who wants him to take off Snape's pants. End Of Memory. I don't see *anywhere* in there where James defeated Snape in any kind of fair or even fight. James' first curse was made in a surprise attack while his wand was out and Snape's wand was not out. His next curse was on a wandless Snape. His next curse was on a bound, wandless Snape. His next curse (following Snape's Sectumsempra) was on a person partly coming out of the Impedimenta jinx. Then Sirius curses Snape immediately after James releases him from up in the air. Then James releases Sirius' curse, but continues to hold Snape under wand point, from which he makes his final hex/jinx on someone he already had at his mercy. I do not see one, single "fair fight" curse from James in the incident. The only one where Snape had any chance at all was the one after he fired off the Sectumsempra, but was only partly recovered from the Impedimenta. James acted the part of a bully and coward. On top of everything else, James knew he had backup in Sirius, who *did* put in one hex. It's so easy to be "brave" when everything is stacked in your favor. eggplant > I don't think there is any doubt about that, but forget defense he's > even better AT the dark arts. > wynnleaf As far as I know, the only specific incidences of Dark Magic from Snape that we *know* of is the Sectumsempra and the AK at the end of HBP. The only reason we know the Sectumsempra is "dark" is because Snape identified it as such himself. We don't for sure know about any other Dark Magic that Snape actually *does.* We know he knows a great deal about dark magic. Not only does DD finally allow him to teach DADA, Snape is the person who helps DD when he almost dies from the dark magic in the ring horcrux, and he saved Katie Bell's life from the dark magic associated with the necklace. What we *know* about Snape's abilities with *defence* against DA, is greater than what he *know* he has done with the Dark Arts. wynnleaf From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Sun Jul 30 22:04:25 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:04:25 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156196 Just to tie this all up, maybe we are just talking about one of the most talented years that ever passed through Hogwarts! With regard to Snape, I guess he was always up against the 'Marauders' as one unit, even when he was only fighting James. Psychologically, he would have to keep half an eye on the others and that might have diluted his power, whereas James' magic may have been enhanced knowing he had the support of his friends behind him. Brothergib From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 22:14:48 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:14:48 -0000 Subject: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco In-Reply-To: <007201c6b38c$4689d7f0$0472400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156197 > > Alla: > > Draco's sufferings I just see as very **fair**, so I see nothing to > > comfort Draco with, and for me I see no hurt-comfort there. > > Magpie: > But that's a different issue than what Elkins is talking about in that post, > if I recall the post correctly. She is talking about the word choice the > author uses to write a scene--a technique which not all writers might refer > to as "hurt/comfort" but one which fits that description. Alla: Well, yes and no, IMHO. Now, I am sort of feeling nervous to even start analysing Elkins post in depth, since I worship her writing ability and feel that I cannot come even close to her, so I may babble more than usual and please ask if something is not clear. What I was trying to say to Betsy is that I don't see **hurt/comfort** as a technique ( but again, I am ready to stay corrected on it). It **may** match the description as you said, but I am not sure that writer consciously uses it, but more like us fans see the **choice of words** where we want to see it,where we want to accept the character as sympathetic. That is where IMO our emotions may come in too, to make us **look** for something in the text to justify us seeing the character as sympathetic, where the author may or may not intend it. IMO, this is a strong, justifiable interpretation, but also made on both intellectual and emotional level. (Right now, I am only talking about emotions and hurt/comfort). And actually this is what Elkins herself says in her post. Elkins: "There are two reasons that Draco doesn't really work very well for me as a character in his current state. One of them is more emotional and meta-textual, while the other is more purely literary." Alla: All that I am trying to say that her post is not the example of absence of emotions. Analysis of the text is done on intellectual level, but the metathinking is done on more emotional one IMO, although of course with the canon support too. For example, speaking about word choices Elkins describes. One of the examples she gives is that Draco "yells" when Buckbeak strikes him and that is supposedly makes his sufferings more macho. Elkins: >so why can't she do the same for Draco? She doesn't even have >him "scream" when he gets attacked by Buckbeak. He's certainly >acting like a great big baby, but at the same time, the verb that >she >actually chooses to use for his line there is "yell," which is a lot >more macho then her usual "shrieking," to be sure. Alla: I don't see how this choice of word by JKR is supposed to make Draco more sympathetic, more stoic, etc. For all I know maybe JKR just got temporarily tired from using **shrieking** and used **yell** instead. Maybe it was not anywhere near on her mind to elicit sympathy for Draco in this instance? I know it did not for me. Magpie: > You're talking about whether Draco is sympathetic based on whether or not he > deserves to be punished, but Elkins is not, imo, claiming that he's > sympathetic because he doesn't deserve it. She sees the maliciousness of > his actions and I think acknowledges that the scene is meant to be > satisfying as punishment for him on one level. What she's trying to do is > figure out Draco's role in the story (writing pre-OotP), and that's where > the "underdog" thing comes in. Alla: Yes, she indeed tries to figure out Draco's place in the story, but I maintain that the **underdog** thing is not necessarily coming from there. Yes, the **weak protagonist** part of her post deals with Draco's place in the story, but **redeemable Draco** is done more on metathinking level IMO. And yes, Elkins acknowledges maliciousness of Draco's actions, but I do think that she downplays them too in a sense that Draco's intent seemed to not matter to her much ( that is the impression I got). As long as Draco was not able to carry the action out, that means that he is lame , pathetic loser. Again, that is my impression from her post. For example here is another part of her post. Elkins: "In the Harry Potter books, the more immediate and sensory information about both Draco and House Slytherin often seems designed to undercut the more overtly stated narrative message. In the first book, for example, JKR tells us that the Slytherins have won the House Cup for years and years running. The Gryffindors, we are informed, are therefore the Underdogs. Really, they are. But what we actually see *happening* over the course of the books is Gryffindor taking the cup again and again and again, and Harry always winning every Quiddich match in which he is pitted directly against Draco, and all of the other houses uniting behind Gryffindor, and Dumbledore's infamous "dissing the Slyths" scene at the end of PS/SS. This is the reason, I think, for the prevailing notion that there is a strong bias against House Slytherin. The narrative voice tells us that this is absolutely not in fact the case. But everything that we actually see happening before our very eyes conveys a slightly different message." Alla: Let's look at Slytherin winning the Cup for seven years example. I am not sure what in the text gives Elkins the impression that despite Slytherins winning the Cup for seven years in a row, they are the underdogs of the series. I know it sends no such message to me. In fact, every time I read about Dumbledore **bias** against Slytherins, the only thing I need to do is to remember that they indeed won the Cup for seven years in a row and talk about **bias** makes me amused. So, I make the conclusion (which can be wrong of course) that Elkins sees bias again Slytherins ( or maybe she does not, since she talks in general), where she **wants** to see bias against Slytherins, because she likes them and since it is IMO not supported by the text,she brings in metathinking. I mean, don't get me wrong I love metathinking arguments, but I think this one **is** more emotions based than text based and she IMO acknowledges it too. Am I making sense? Magpie: Not to claim that Draco's really a poor > put-upon creature, but to show that he's not powerful enough to carry the > role of even a school-age antagonist (he's just lame). So maybe that's not > his role. Alla: I get this part. Draco as a weak protagonist is indeed very textually based. I disagree with it, but it is more **textually based** as I see it. Magpie: Throughout canon he's always punished or hurt more soundly than > what he gives out, while he himself never causes any real long- term damage > to anyone. It's not that she's made him sympathetic, but she hasn't killed > the possibility for sympathy as efficiently as she could have. Alla: But that is the thing - for me she did kill the possibility of sympathy for him and now, when I acknowledge that he can be sympathised with in book 6, I really cannot, because what happened before was too repulsive for me, if I look at his actions in context. Magpie: > Elkins then looks at the language JKR uses to describe his scenes where he's > in pain, the hurt/comfort factor, showing not that Draco inspires sympathy > in everyone but that JKR intentionally allows sympathy to be possible by > giving him scenes of real pain rather than just making all his pain scenes > repulsive. Alla: Oh, but how do we know that this is intentional on JKR's part? Maybe she would prefer to discourage sympathy? Magpie: Lots of people feel no sympathy for him because of his own > actions and personality--but lots of people do. Alla: Yes, of course. Magpie: > Elkins didn't make specific predictions of what was going to happen with > Draco, but I think HBP absolutely validated a lot of the things she was > pointing out about the character. What Elkins calls the hurt/comfort factor, > Draco the conflicted nutter--that's exactly the stuff that was used in his > story. (She even had Myrtle as the hurt/comfort fan!;-) Lots of moments in > HBP were like deja vu to H/D hurt/comfort readers. Alla: Was it though? Of course as I said, I myself see where sympathy for Draco could come from in HBP? But does JKR describe Draco conflicted nutter or Draco's murderer in making? Is his tale supposed to elicit sympathy for him or caution? As in - be careful, if you want to start getting involved in the gang of murderers and torturers, you can be in deeper than you know and very very fasr. Magpie: > JKR, of course, always knew where the character was going and has been > writing him the same all along. He hadn't had his feet held to the fire > pre-HBP, but she was always preparing him for the sympathetic (to her at > least) story of HBP and beyond--and I think completely understanding how > some readers were going to react with too much sympathy. Alla: I am just not sure how much sympathy JKR wanted for Draco. JMO, Alla, who quoted small parts of Elkins' post and recommends to everyone to read the whole post and in fact any post of hers. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 22:40:58 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:40:58 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156198 eggplant: > I don't recall that Sirius (or Lupin or Peter) did ANYTHING to Snape > on that occasion, just James; and it was not a close contest, James > mopped the floor with him. At the very least you must admit that James > never showed the smallest tiniest most microscopic bit of fear toward > Snape, he just treated him as a joke. zgirnius: Wynnleaf, it was not James that cast the Impedimenta. I'm responding to Eggplant, as he raised the question. OotP, Snape's Worst Memory" > Snape's wand flew twelve feet in the air and fell with a little > thud in the grass behind him. Sirius let out a bark of laughter. > Impedimenta!" he said, pointing his wand at Snape, who was > knocked off his feet, halfway through a dive towards his own fallen > wand. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Jul 30 22:17:08 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:17:08 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: State of the DA /Did Ron and Hermione use the coins? In-Reply-To: <20060730155620.51017.qmail@web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060730155620.51017.qmail@web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0607301517q1e1e598cp6e2b80bc01f02e93@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156199 DA Jones: There is a strong possiblilty that Ron and Hermione never used the coins. How did Luna know? She might have just been there visiting or they went and got her in some way other then the coin. Could they have sent her an owl and told her to tell noone? Anyway, this is my crazy theory. I'm sure everyone has there's. Lynda: In the pandomonium and hubbub of the DE attack on Hogwarts, Hermione might not have had a chance to use the coins. Stranger things than that have been known to happen in non-fictional crises. As for this not being mentioned due to unreliable narrator, I don't think that's necessarily so. It's simply that if she used the coins, it wasn't mentioned in the text. That's not unreliable narrator. That's writer's prerogative in storytelling. JMHO, of course. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Jul 30 22:45:34 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:45:34 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156200 > zgirnius: > Wynnleaf, it was not James that cast the Impedimenta. I'm responding to > Eggplant, as he raised the question. > > OotP, Snape's Worst Memory" > > > Snape's wand flew twelve feet in the air and fell with a little > > thud in the grass behind him. Sirius let out a bark of laughter. > > Impedimenta!" he said, pointing his wand at Snape, who was > > knocked off his feet, halfway through a dive towards his own fallen > > wand. > wynnleaf You're quite right. Sirius was responsible for two of the hexes. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jul 30 23:29:44 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:29:44 EDT Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156201 carodave92 wrote: > ... > The DA didn't actually fail. It's purpose was to provide a forum > for learning defense against the dark arts while Dolores Umbridge > was their DADA professor. The DA's success can be measured against > the number of OWLs received by those members whose only practical > experience came under Harry's tutelage. > ... zeroirregardless: The most remarkable achievement of the DA was so many students learning to cast corporeal Patronuses. The fact that one could -- Harry -- was so remarkable, it was apparently a topic of gossip at the Ministry of Magic. The fact that a substantial number can, would probably be considered impossible. If DA members repel a mass Dementor attack in Book 7, we could look back on the DA as vital. Julie: I'm not sure about that. We know that Snape was teaching his 6th year DADA class about repelling Dementors (since Harry was writing an essay on the subject, disagreeing with Snape's method as opposed to his own method of conjuring a Patronus). So it is something that is taught in actual DADA classes, even if the DA did focus on the subject first. Though if the DA members specifically use Patronuses to repel Dementors, you may be right. Especially if this turns out to be the most effective method of dealing with those soul-sucking monsters. Julie, who really, *really* wants to know Snape's method of repelling Dementors, and is hoping to find out in Book 7. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jul 30 23:52:48 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:52:48 EDT Subject: Sectumsempra (was Re: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!.) Message-ID: <535.4f44a32.31fea050@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156202 wynnleaf: Okay, next... we are told the Impedementa jinx was "wearing off," meaning that it hadn't totally worn off, but Snape was able to crawl toward his wand. He obviously wasn't completely in control of himself physically. But he gets his wand, but is still lying on the ground, and throws what appears to be a very controlled limited version of Sectumsempra at James and cuts his cheek. James whirls around and uses the Leviocorpus on him, turning him upside down. Snape may or may not still have a grip on his wand, but he's upside down. Julie: Asyou know I'm an vowed Snape fan, and I'm quite convinced he's DDM. But I don't believe Snape was throwing a controlled/limited version of the Sectumsempra. I'm not even sure it was a Sectumsempra (after all, he didn't write those notes in his Potions book until his 6th year, and the incident we saw in the Pensieve took place in his 5th year). It could be that it was some other spell, and if so, perhaps it was a precursor of the Sectumsempra, and Snape had modified or improved upon it (if you can consider what Harry did to Draco an "improvement") by the time he jotted it down in his Potions book. And if it *was* a Sectumsempra, then I think the reason it did so little damage to James is because Snape was still recovering and not yet in complete control of himself (as noted above), or of his powers--not because Snape *chose* to limit the damage to James. Snape had just been humiliated by James, his hated enemy, and laughed at by bystanders. He's not a friendly sort, and he's not one to take an insult well. And, most importantly of all, he's FIFTEEN! No fifteen year old boy is going to exert such rational thought and self-control in that situation ("Hmm, perhaps I'll just use a limited version of this potentially deadly spell to teach the prat a mild lesson, even though I HATE him and he just totally humiliated me"). Especially not a boy as sensitive to insult and mockery as Snape. He'd go for the jugular instinctively, without any forethought or consideration of the potential consequences. Much as Harry did with Draco in HBP. IMO, Julie, who is willing to give Snape credit for many good things, but not for holding back on his teenage enemy out of magnaminity. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 31 00:20:38 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:20:38 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) Message-ID: <472.3c3403c.31fea6d6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156203 >Ceridwen: >I'm US. I'd never heard of a 'philosopher'I'm US. I'd never heard interesting side-note that this is what a 'sorcerer's stone' was called in Britain. Might be the age of the material I read that from - long before public internet - or it could be my age. On another note, when I first started looking into the Harry Potter phenomenon, I read some discussion about US fans writing to the US publisher to leave in more of the original British wording rather than translating things from British to US English. 'Skirting' for 'Baseboard' for instance. Nikkalmati: I'm US too and consider myself educated . I had never heard of Philosopher's Stone and probably would have been thinking Aristotle, Kant, etc. I suspect the change was pretty much on the order of changing skirting to baseboard (where does that occur?) or biscuit to cookie. I would have been just as happy to have all the original terms kept. I am sure I could have gotten used to it . I do agree that the use of the work sorcerer inadvertently gave the wrong impression to those who had not read HP and attracted some negative attention from religious groups. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jul 31 00:52:23 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:52:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sectumsempra (was Re: Snape should have kicked James/Siri... Message-ID: <51f.458f790.31feae47@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156204 >Julie >And if it *was* a Sectumsempra, then I think the reason it did so little damage to James is because Snape was still recovering and not yet in complete control of himself (as noted above), or of his powers--not because Snape *chose* to limit the damage to James. Snape had just been humiliated by James, his hated enemy, and laughed at by bystanders. He's not a friendly sort, and he's not one to take an insult well. And, most importantly of all, he's FIFTEEN! No fifteen year old boy is going to exert such rational thought and self-control in that situation ("Hmm, perhaps I'll just use a limited version of this potentially deadly spell to teach the prat a mild lesson, even though I HATE him and he just totally humiliated me"). Especially not a boy as sensitive to insult and mockery as Snape. He'd go for the jugular instinctively, without any forethought or consideration of the potential consequences. Much as Harry did with Draco in HBP. Nikkalmati: Interesting thought, but I don't agree. First, I don't see any reason why the S-curse could not have been invented before it was written in the Potions book. It was "for enemies" and James/Sirius and Snape have been enemies since first year. Now, of course Snape could have been too disoriented to cut deeply or the curse may have been weaker for some reason, but I would suspect Snape had no desire to be suspended or expelled, which would have happened if he had done real damage. I believe we are meant to see his control was very good even at this age. I also believe we are meant to see this incident in contrast to Harry's use of the curse in an uncontrolled fashion, because JKR likes to set up these little contrasts for us to find. (Example the Twins pranking Dudley and the DEs harassing the muggles at the World Cup). It also fits with the perception we have of Snape being a very controlled calculating individual while Harry is impulsive. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 01:18:47 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:18:47 -0000 Subject: Sectumsempra (was Re: Snape should have kicked James/Siri... In-Reply-To: <51f.458f790.31feae47@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156205 > >Julie > And, most > importantly of all, he's FIFTEEN! No fifteen year old boy is going to exert > such rational thought and self-control in that situation ("Hmm, perhaps I'll > just use a limited version of this potentially deadly spell to teach the prat > a mild lesson, even though I HATE him and he just totally humiliated me"). > Especially not a boy as sensitive to insult and mockery as Snape. > Nikkalmati: > Interesting thought, but I don't agree. Now, of course Snape could have been too disoriented to cut > deeply or the curse may have been weaker for some reason, but I would suspect > Snape had no desire to be suspended or expelled, which would have happened if > he had done real damage. I believe we are meant to see his control was very > good even at this age. Alla: I agree with Julie. I get the precise opposite impression of Snape - that he is ** not** very controlled emotions type individual - around people he hates, IMHO. I think that "fools who wear ther emotions on their sleeves" is Snape talking about himself. I think he tried to control his emotions since then, but still fails IMHO when faced with people whose last name Potter. I would say that fifteen year old Snape would have hit with all his might :) JMO, Alla From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jul 31 01:44:33 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:44:33 -0000 Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156206 > Alla: > > Let's look at Slytherin winning the Cup for seven years example. I > am not sure what in the text gives Elkins the impression that > despite Slytherins winning the Cup for seven years in a row, they > are the underdogs of the series. > > I know it sends no such message to me. In fact, every time I read > about Dumbledore **bias** against Slytherins, the only thing I need > to do is to remember that they indeed won the Cup for seven years in > a row and talk about **bias** makes me amused. Julie: It wasn't that Dumbledore awarded Gryffindor the cup, it was the way in which he did it, at the very last minute--after the winner has supposedly already been decided. Let's also not forget the strong implication that Slytherin won the cup during those seven years because they cheated. Something Dumbledore seems to accept as fact--and what else would you expect of Slytherins anyway? Alla: > > So, I make the conclusion (which can be wrong of course) that Elkins > sees bias again Slytherins ( or maybe she does not, since she talks > in general), where she **wants** to see bias against Slytherins, > because she likes them and since it is IMO not supported by the > text,she brings in metathinking. I mean, don't get me wrong I love > metathinking arguments, but I think this one **is** more emotions > based than text based and she IMO acknowledges it too. > > Am I making sense? Julie: I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree that the bias against Slytherins *isn't* supported in the text. Note the example above, the popular belief that they cheated to win all those House cups (and, yes, maybe they did). Note Dumbledore's deliberately humiliating method of awarding the House cup to Gryffindor, above. Note Hagrid's assertion that all DEs come from Slytherin (NOT true, but hardly surprising that so many of them do, when they're told from the moment they enter Hogwarts that that is their future). Note the clear impression given by the narrator and Harry that Sirius's split with rest of his loser Slytherin family and place in Gryffindor gives him automatic a "good" guy status. Note in the later books how the other three houses gang up against Slytherin, booing the brand new 11 year olds who are sorted into Slytherin (and letting them know right away that they are outcasts from the rest of the school, and the only friends they will find will be their fellow outcasts within Slytherin house). I know you're saying Slytherin students brought this upon themselves, and perhaps they did. At least the 5th, 6th, 7th years. But the 1st years just got there and they are already tarred with the image of their predecessors, on a set course straight to becoming the next "upperclassmen" who will eventually deserve the contempt and derision of the rest of the school heaps upon them. And this is exactly way JKR wants it, because that is the way she's written it. She is definitely painting Slytherin house as morally set apart from the rest of the houses, even having the Sorting Hat using words like "cunning" instead of something with more neutral connotations like "shrewd," "ambitious" (which can be neutral but when paired with the other terms used by the Sorting Hat comes off as power/money ambition rather than proving oneself/ making the most of one's talents/making parents proud ambition), and "Willing to do what it takes to succeed" rather than "willing to overcome any obstacle" or "willing to make sacrifices to achieve their dreams." The Sorting Hat's words don't *have* to be taken negatively, but put together they come out that way. And of course, Slytherins always look out for themselves first at the expense of others. Now, don't they just have the same potential to be decent, upstanding members of Wizard society as those from any other house? Not. And no Gryffindor (or Hufflepuff, or Ravenclaw) has any doubt of the innate lack of decency and goodness of Slytherins. Just ask them if you don't believe me ;-) Whether JKR writes Slytherins as appearing more morally and ethically deficient in relation to the rest of the Hogwarts houses because that is really how she sees them, or if she is setting up this so easy interpretation as something to seriously questioned in Book 7, is debatable. (I think it is the latter.) The other houses insist on seeing and treating Slytherins as cruel and evil, certain that their judgment is correct. What does that really accomplish, except setting them deeper into their path, ensuring that they choose evil as it's the only option offered? I think that is JKR's message. You want someone to be hateful, mean, evil? Just stick them in the appropriate slot, making sure to force out all their possible potential for horrible behavior, and you will be rewarded by those persons becoming exactly what you expect them to be! On the other hand, befriend them, encourage them to act on their better natures (and reward them for it), rather than beating into their psyches over and over "You're bad, you're bad!", and you might just see their better natures emerge! At the very least, they certainly can't behave worse than they already do, while you can actually behave in a manner befitting your "good" house. I think I rambled a bit ;-) But I will be disappointed if Book 7 ends and this issue of bad Slytherin/good everybody else isn't addressed. No, not enough to throw away the books, but in my view this two way prejudice eating away at Hogwarts is one of the main themes of the books. Julie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 02:13:21 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:13:21 -0000 Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco AND Philosopher stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156207 > Alla: > > > > So, I make the conclusion (which can be wrong of course) that > Elkins > > sees bias again Slytherins ( or maybe she does not, since she talks > > in general), where she **wants** to see bias against Slytherins, > > because she likes them and since it is IMO not supported by the > > text,she brings in metathinking. I mean, don't get me wrong I love > > metathinking arguments, but I think this one **is** more emotions > > based than text based and she IMO acknowledges it too. > > > > Am I making sense? > > Julie: > I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree that the > bias against Slytherins *isn't* supported in the text. > I know you're saying Slytherin students brought this upon > themselves, and perhaps they did. At least the 5th, 6th, > 7th years. But the 1st years just got there and they are > already tarred with the image of their predecessors, on a > set course straight to becoming the next "upperclassmen" who > will eventually deserve the contempt and derision of the rest > of the school heaps upon them. And this is exactly way JKR > wants it, because that is the way she's written it. Alla: I have to clarify - **dislike** of the House Slytherin by all other Houses is definitely supported by the text, I just don't think it constitutes bias as in **prejudice**, unfair dislike. If House Slytherin is the House,where each and every member supports the ideology of **purebloods is better than anybody else and muggleborns and half bloods must die**, then I think that dislike of House Slytherin is very fair thing to do and does not constitute bias. So, brought upon themselves, yes, IMO. Now the issue of the first years,which arrive every year is a different story of course. No, the evil eleven years old is absurd, of course. But eleven years olds, which minds are already poisoned by such ideology - why not? It is again very simplistic to say that their minds cannot be changed, after all they had been brought up that way, but that brings me always to question that Emmerson asked JKR - why put eleven years old in the House of Slytherin, why make them be with those who share this ideology? So, what I am trying to say is that is the main reason why I think House System will dissappear at the end of book 7 OR we indeed learn something about Salasar that he was not really into purebloods superiority and that make cause Slytherins to abandon this part of their views. Right, so no I don't think bias is supported in the text, IMO. I especially don't see bias by teaching faculty, you know? Dumbledore awarded points at the feast? Well, it is not all about Slytherins, IMO. Harry was in the Hospital wing after all, wasn't Ron too probably? Maybe DD did not have time to do it before? I mean, if the points were undeserved, I could entertain the notion of some sort of bias, but just because of timing, while we know that for seven years Slyths held the Cup AND Dumbledore was the Headmaster? I don't buy it, sorry. > SSSusan: >> Maybe that's NOT true and my fellow Americans on the list will rise > up to say, "You're nuts!! I knew, and everyone I know knew, what > a 'philosopher's stone' was!" But I am going on an assumption here > that there is perhaps more discussion of/education about alchemy in > the UK than in the US. Am I wrong? Alla: Hehe, I guess I cannot count myself, since I was not educated in the US, except law school, but I learned the term **philosopher stone** ( the first word sounds very similar in Russian, I guess the word philosophy is the same or similar in many languages) when I was quite young, probably ten or eleven years old, heeee. Maybe a bit earlier. Obviously I did not learn it from any alchemy books - when I was a preteen, many books were not openly available yet in Soviet Union ( by the time I was a teen and adult, they were though), I think I first read the term in the book which talked about development of the medicine in the middle ages and it mentioned Paracelcius ( spel.?) and what philosopher stone meant among other things. So, um, no I would never associate the term **philosopher stone** with any philosophers, but I am not a valid statistics :) SSSusan: > In the end, man, do I ever wish they'd stuck with "Philosopher's > Stone" for the title in the US. Partly because it's the accurate > term in the UK & as JKR wrote it, and we Americans can *learn* new > terminology (sheesh), but also because the truth is, if the US > release had had the title "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's > Stone," the right-wing, fundamentalist Christians would have > probably IGNORED the whole thing! It was the use of the > word "Sorcerer's" -- thereby bringing in the concept of sorcery and > (in some people's minds) the occult -- that raised red flags for > those groups. > Alla: One thing they did right in russian translation was to stuck with "philosopher stone". :) Why does Sorcerer stone sets negative connotations? You mean occult as in witchcraft? JMO, Alla From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Mon Jul 31 01:24:57 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:24:57 -0000 Subject: Neville's Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156208 Does anyone else want those gum wrappers that Neville's Mom gives him to be a clue to helping them get well? Or give some other Order members a message? I know gum wrappers are all over JKR's desk, but the sheer volume of them in the book makes me want to think they are important. Laurawkids From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 30 21:04:56 2006 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060730210456.54352.qmail@web61324.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156210 eggplant107 wrote: >Yes, I'd be a fool to deny that. Snape is a formidable wizard! >As you pointed out James helped invent the Marauder's Map, and even >very powerful adult wizards like Mad Eye thought that was a >remarkable >object. And James managed to keep the Marauder's activities secret >from Dumbledore, something that great wizard thought was even more >extraordinary than making the map. >But not as quick as James apparently. >All in all that may not be too far off the mark; the annotations >Snape >made in that potions book were impressive, very impressive indeed! >I don't think there is any doubt about that, but forget defense he's even better AT the dark arts. Joe: Didn't McGonagall say that James and Sirius were the two "cleverest wizards" of their year/time in POA? That would include Snape right? Now even assuming McGonagall has a good case of Gryffindor bias she's still pretty straightforward. I also wonder if everything in the HBP Potions book was invented by Snape. Because it was written in his hand is no guarantee that he invented all of it. No doubt Snape was pretty smart and inventive. I just think that sometimes people like to make more of it than there is to play up the whole Anti-Hero line some people think is going to be revealed in book 7. Joe From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jul 31 02:54:11 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:54:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) References: <472.3c3403c.31fea6d6@aol.com> Message-ID: <00c701c6b44c$9a384150$fd66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 156211 Nikkalmati: > I'm US too and consider myself educated . I had never heard of > Philosopher's Stone and probably would have been thinking Aristotle, Kant, > etc. I > suspect the change was pretty much on the order of changing skirting to > baseboard > (where does that occur?) or biscuit to cookie. Magpie: I don't mean to be anal about this, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the comparison, but the point is it's *not* like changing biscuit to cookie because "Sorcerer's Stone" is not the American word for Philosopher's Stone. There's only one name for it: Philosopher's Stone. Sorcerer's Stone was made up for this book. So rather than biscuit to cookie it's like changing telephone to ringy-ding. The same term is used in the UK and the US, and I'm sure there were people in the UK who thought of Kant etc. when they read Philosopher's as well. But either way it's defined within the story as what it really is. Not having heard of the Philosopher's Stone doesn't make one uneducated--alchemical terms aren't exactly central to a 21st century education. It was familiar to me, but that was probably just chance. I must have come across is somewhere. Alla: It **may** match the description as you said, but I am not sure that writer consciously uses it, but more like us fans see the **choice of words** where we want to see it,where we want to accept the character as sympathetic. Magpie: The fans may or may not react a certain way to certain words, but the author is always choosing the words she wants to choose. It's true that we all are going to lean towards our own instinctive reaction to a character, but whether the words are there are not is objective. At the time of writing the essay Elkins couldn't have known where Draco was going really, so was analyzing what was on the page to try to get away from just the emotional reaction and analyze where the emotions might come from. Elkins: >so why can't she do the same for Draco? She doesn't even have >him "scream" when he gets attacked by Buckbeak. He's certainly >acting like a great big baby, but at the same time, the verb that >she >actually chooses to use for his line there is "yell," which is a lot >more macho then her usual "shrieking," to be sure. Alla: I don't see how this choice of word by JKR is supposed to make Draco more sympathetic, more stoic, etc. For all I know maybe JKR just got temporarily tired from using **shrieking** and used **yell** instead. Magpie: It could have been that, as I think Elkins suggests in the post. But yell and shriek are two different words that describe a different kind of shout. She uses it very carefully when Pansy shrieks, and chooses again to make Malfoy yell rather than shriek on the Quidditch Pitch in OotP. In retrospect I think the pattern Elkins pointed out in the text was validated. JKR loves giving Draco real pain, and having him sometimes handle it, even while also making him personally repulsive. Alla: Yes, she indeed tries to figure out Draco's place in the story, but I maintain that the **underdog** thing is not necessarily coming from there. Yes, the **weak protagonist** part of her post deals with Draco's place in the story, but **redeemable Draco** is done more on metathinking level IMO. Magpie: I read it that she was thinking of the possible roles he could be slated for, and redeemable was an obvious one in this genre. She was trying to guess which way the author was going based on her making one choice over another, and I think she was proved far more right than wrong. I don't think she was saying that the author was primarily trying to win sympathy for the character, but rather that the author knew where she was eventually going with the character and so would always be writing to that ending. Looking at Draco post-GoF she was already seeing signs of Draco going one way rather than another, she just couldn't be sure which way that was yet. Underdog is of course a positive word, so yes you could say she chose a positive word to describe the way Draco's constant losing comes across to her--a reaction that a lot of people in fandom had. (I personally remember calling him the Wile E. Coyote of HP.) Is that what the author was going for? Could be. But if she didn't want that possibility open it would have been easy enough. Just make Draco win more in significant ways. Alla: Let's look at Slytherin winning the Cup for seven years example. I am not sure what in the text gives Elkins the impression that despite Slytherins winning the Cup for seven years in a row, they are the underdogs of the series. Magpie: I don't think she did say that. She said that the Slytherins never win the House Cup or the Quidditch Cup during the time we are reading about, and that this undercuts the impression that the *Gryffindors* are the underdogs of the series. That's where some people in fandom get their notion that there's an actual bias against Slytherin at the school, but does not say there actually is a bias against them. Whether she wants to see or does see a bias against Slytherin doesn't change the facts of canon she's analyzing. We can argue that there's a bias against Slytherin. We can't argue that Slytherin has won a House Cup during the time Harry's been at Hogwarts. Alla: But that is the thing - for me she did kill the possibility of sympathy for him and now, when I acknowledge that he can be sympathised with in book 6, I really cannot, because what happened before was too repulsive for me, if I look at his actions in context. Magpie: You don't feel sympathy for him, and many other people don't either. But I think that's why Elkins is looking at the word choices the author uses rather than just her own emotional reaction. She has her own reaction like anyone else, but the fun part is her trying to analyze what's happening and where that emotional reaction might come from. Can you build a case based on what's actually there? For me, for instance, I can't stand Ginny in books 5 and 6. I can analyze why I don't like her personally. But really looking objectively at the text is a different story. I see her described with word choices that are positive. There are things I can deduce about Ginny as written that are very different from the way I react to her. Shipping is a similar thing, actually--many people claim that certain shippers just got lucky in Book VI that things went their way, and not everyone who predicted R/Hr and H/G really did so based on what was written rather than just wishing for the couple they liked. But still, it's untrue to say that these pairings weren't foreshadowed in the text. I don't like H/G, but heard it coming loud and clear in OotP. It's not like there was no foreshadowing and then it suddenly appeared in HBP, just as the Draco we see in HBP didn't only appear there. (Unfortunately I do think that Ginny throughout canon is the exception to this, but there that's a gimmick that's commented on within canon.) With Slytherin I think the conflicting opinions are built right into the text, as Elkins says with the bit about what we're told and what happens. The Slytherins are described negatively very consistently. But they're also given the ability to hurt. Draco does, imo, get moments where his pain is real--the red spots on his cheeks, his pale face before a Quidditch game, etc. JKR didn't have to give him those things. She writes Dudley with less dignity when he's under fire. I like Draco a lot so obviously I can't claim to be neutral about the character. I've often seen him as sympathetic when other people don't--though also often the unsympathetic reading was less accurate (I mean in terms of incorporating more stuff in canon). Whether people see Slytherin as victims or monsters is probably going to be a personal preference. But seeing signs that the view of them as demonized rather than demons...I don't think that's just emotional. Things like the Sorting Hat singing twice in a row about how there has to be a healing of this rift...I don't think that means Slytherins are really sympathetic or not, but that it's correct to pick up on the discrepancies between what we hear and what's really going on. It seems like the real question is whether or not the books are leading towards a new view of Slytherin and I think that's more what she's really picking up on. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 31 02:57:53 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:57:53 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156212 > > > aussie: > > Could that be a reason Snape and Neville have problems? McGonagall > > knew Neville's gran failed Charms, so was probably in Hogwarts around > > Tom Riddle's time too. Was Neville's gran Eileen's bully? It would add > > greater insult to Snape hearing of Neville's boggart wearing gran's > > dress. Potioncat: Well, if my timeline is correct, Eileen was born in 1931 or 32. The Lexicon places McGonagall at 1925 and Riddle at 1926 or 27.. So I think that would mean McGonagall and Eileen would only have one year at Hogwarts. Eileen and Riddle would have one or two. It sounds like McGonagall and Mrs. Longbottom may have been classmates. If that's the case, Mrs. Longbottom would only share one year with Eileen. I'll go so far as to say, that there might be a connection between Mrs. Longbottom and Snape. That's as far as I'm willing to go. > Abergoat: Very interesting! Snape > has already proven that he is ready to assume the child has the same > faults as the parents (or in this case grandparent). snip Snape sees himself as having made the CHOICE > to prove those expectations wrong...and I think Snape sees Neville as > having given into low expectations in stead of fighting them. > Potioncat: Welcome to the list, Abergoat. You've made some intersting speculations here. (You too, Aussie.) I suspect any opinion about Neville would be connected to Alice and Frank, rather than to Gran. As to Snape expecting Harry to be just like James. Well, both Dumbledore and Snape say that Harry is extraordinarily like James. I've forgotten if Lupin and Black say it as well. So we can hardly expect Snape not to expect Harry to be like his father. We also have Slughorn expecting Harry to be like Lily. Wow, lots of expecting going on. Happy birthday Neville and Harry---just because it's close enough to both. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 31 03:09:18 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 03:09:18 -0000 Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156213 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juli17ptf" wrote: Julie said:> > The other houses insist on seeing and treating Slytherins > as cruel and evil, certain that their judgment is correct. > What does that really accomplish, except setting them deeper > into their path, ensuring that they choose evil as it's the > only option offered? I think that is JKR's message. You want > someone to be hateful, mean, evil? Just stick them in the > appropriate slot, making sure to force out all their possible > potential for horrible behavior, and you will be rewarded > by those persons becoming exactly what you expect them to be! > > On the other hand, befriend them, encourage them to act on > their better natures (and reward them for it), rather than > beating into their psyches over and over "You're bad, you're > bad!", and you might just see their better natures emerge! > At the very least, they certainly can't behave worse than > they already do, while you can actually behave in a manner > befitting your "good" house. > > I think I rambled a bit ;-) But I will be disappointed if > Book 7 ends and this issue of bad Slytherin/good everybody > else isn't addressed. No, not enough to throw away the > books, but in my view this two way prejudice eating away > at Hogwarts is one of the main themes of the books. > wynnleaf I agree completely. Further, note that the Slytherins are almost entirely described in negative physical terms. Most people can't help their degree of physical beauty. Since that's mostly true, why are the Slytherins generally described as ugly or very plain, if not to basically say, "being Slytherin is bad?" Further, remember when DD told Harry that it was his choices that were important? But he said that about Harry begging the Sorting Hat not to put him in Slytherin. Yet most kids probably weren't up there on the stool begging to avoid particular houses. DD made it sound, at least on the surface, as though being in Slytherin as a bad "choice," rather than simply the decision of the Hat. The implication was that all those in Slytherins had made a bad choice to even be there. But most of the kids had no choice. After all, in terms of personality and characterstics, Harry *did* fit in Slytherin. It was only because he had heard (falsely) that all the wizards that went bad were from Slytherin, and because he met Draco, that he asked to be somewhere else. If Hagrid had instead said, "All the wizards that went bad were from Slytherin and Gryffindor," would Harry have insisted that he not be in either one? (Um, not that there weren't maybe some from other houses as well.) But then we look at JKR having the Sorting Hat insisting that all of the houses need to work together in unity. We see in interviews where she says that the 4 houses are like the 4 "elements" of air, fire, water, and earth. But if those are both true, then what she's really saying is that the 4 houses are equal -- that the characterstics of Slytherins are just as important as the characteristics of other houses. I think this is what JKR wants to to believe in the end. However, to reach that point, JKR will have to do something about having already convinced most of her readers that Slytherin = bad. She did that intentionally. Yet she has also indicated that she wants us to see Slytherin as equally important for the good. Well, she'll have to reform our beliefs about Slytherin if she's going to do that. I am very hopeful that is exactly what JKR will do. If she ends Book 7 without having made an attempt to convince the readers, and the characters, that Slytherin characteristics are not bad, and that Slytherins can be just as good as anyone else, then I'll be quite disappointed. wynnleaf From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 31 03:12:23 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 03:12:23 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: <20060730210456.54352.qmail@web61324.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156214 > Joe: > Didn't McGonagall say that James and Sirius were the two "cleverest wizards" of their year/time in POA? That would include Snape right? Now even assuming McGonagall has a good case of Gryffindor bias she's still pretty straightforward. wynnleaf, Since it seems pretty clear that she didn't know who were the top students in potions, I'd say that McGonagall was biased. Maybe her bias was more for transfiguration, which I think James must have been pretty good at. Joe > I also wonder if everything in the HBP Potions book was invented by Snape. Because it was written in his hand is no guarantee that he invented all of it. > > No doubt Snape was pretty smart and inventive. I just think that sometimes people like to make more of it than there is to play up the whole Anti-Hero line some people think is going to be revealed in book wynnleaf Well, at this point all we have to go on is what JKR has revealed. According to what she's written so far, Snape made up the spells in the potions book. There's no evidence that anyone else did at this point. From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Mon Jul 31 01:19:41 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:19:41 -0000 Subject: Sectumsempra (was Re: Snape should have kicked James/Siri... In-Reply-To: <51f.458f790.31feae47@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156215 > >Julie > >And, most > importantly of all, he's FIFTEEN! No fifteen year old boy is going to exert > such rational thought and self-control in that situation ("Hmm, perhaps I'll > just use a limited version of this potentially deadly spell to teach the prat > a mild lesson, even though I HATE him and he just totally humiliated me"). > Especially not a boy as sensitive to insult and mockery as Snape. He'd go > for the jugular instinctively, without any forethought or consideration of > the > potential consequences. Much as Harry did with Draco in HBP. Laura: So did Snape have to go to help Poppy fix James, it being his spell? Would that not make the whole encounter even worse than we can see in the memory we are seeing? Laurawkids From sharonheater at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 03:28:20 2006 From: sharonheater at yahoo.com (sharon heater) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Philosopher Stone WAS:: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) Message-ID: <20060731032820.68949.qmail@web56910.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156216 This is such an interesting thread I had to reply. My DVD (purchased at my local Walmart) only uses the phrase Sorcerer's Stone. I had assumed the difference was simply akin to "apartment" vs "flat". I admit my education did not include much in the way of reference to alchemy save that it was a precursor to modern chemistry and involved the search for a process to produce gold. I hate to admit it but I suspect the publishers may have been correct. Few public school children would have known the reference. As was, the most likely only assumed it simply referred to a stone which belonged to a sorcerer. sharonheater From scarrie5 at verizon.net Sun Jul 30 17:53:30 2006 From: scarrie5 at verizon.net (Carrie) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:53:30 -0000 Subject: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: <004e01c6b3f2$e7290300$1466400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156217 > Ceridwen: > > I'm US. I'd never heard of a 'philosopher's stone' except as an > > interesting side-note that this is what a 'sorcerer's stone' was > > called in Britain. > > Magpie: > Really? Learn something new everyday! Because the Philosopher's > Stone is what the actual thing is called both in the US and in the > UK--it's a standard thing in the study of alchemy, and what > Nicholas Flamel allegedly did succeed in making. I'd heard of the > Philosopher's Stone as a real object long before Harry Potter came > out, which is why the change seemed so odd. > > I can't remember--do they change the name of the stone in the > movie? Carrie: I also had heard of the Philosopher's Stone before Harry Potter but it had been about 10-12 years. When I read SS I didn't even connect the Phil stone and Sorc stone until I read that the UK version was called Phil stone. But as alchemy wasn't as big in US, more people in UK would know about the PS, than American children. If you had never heard of the phil stone, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone sounds like the Rosetta Stone for Sartre and Kierkegaard. Yes, they did change the name of the stone in the movie. Carrie From mail at mark4christmas.co.uk Mon Jul 31 02:36:43 2006 From: mail at mark4christmas.co.uk (mail at mark4christmas.co.uk) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 03:36:43 +0100 Subject: Philosopher's stone (was:Significance of missing line/Hurt/Comfort References: <472.3c3403c.31fea6d6@aol.com> <00b001c6b449$6fb54200$fd66400c@Spot> Message-ID: <006401c6b44a$29678eb0$916e8156@FAMILY> No: HPFGUIDX 156218 Nikkalmati: > I had never heard of Philosopher's Stone and probably would have > been thinking Aristotle, Kant, etc. I suspect the change was > pretty much on the order of changing skirting to baseboard (where > does that occur?) or biscuit to cookie. It just UK terms/names in the UK book and USA terms in the USA book. Some words that the UK would use, USA might not understand or mean something different. hyder_harry_potter From coverton at netscape.com Mon Jul 31 03:45:08 2006 From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 03:45:08 -0000 Subject: Other Snape spells? (was Re: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156219 > wynnleaf: > Well, at this point all we have to go on is what JKR has revealed. > According to what she's written so far, Snape made up the spells in > the potions book. Corey: Does anyone think Snape has any more spells that he's invented? He might. No one really knows. And happy birthday to both Harry and Neville! From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 31 07:15:45 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:15:45 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156220 "wynnleaf" wrote: > here we have the part eggplant must > have missed because Sirius immediately > hits Snape with a Petrificus Totalus > and Snape falls over again. You are quite right, I sand corrected. Nevertheless it doesn't seem to me that Sirius's participation was decisive. I still believe that in a one on one bare knuckles cage match between James and Snape James would be the easy victor, at least when they were both 15. The fact that James showed not the slightest hint of fear toward Snape fortifies my theory I believe. On the other hand it can not be denied that fighting ability is not all there is to magic, or to life. > I don't see *anywhere* in there where > James defeated Snape in any kind of > fair or even fight. Any General will tell you that the last thing in the world they want is a fair fight; they want all the advantages, every single one. They will also tell you that you should never pick on someone bigger than you, and should never kick an opponent UNLESS they are down. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 31 08:04:33 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:04:33 -0000 Subject: Philosopher's stone. In-Reply-To: <006401c6b44a$29678eb0$916e8156@FAMILY> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156221 Nikkalmati Wrote : > I had never heard of Philosopher's Stone I have, a Philosopher's Stone has deep historical associations, a Sorcerer's Stone has none, zero, zip. The idiot American editors thought Americas were stupider than Englishman and that's not true. I think. JKR agreed to the name change because at the time she was just an unemployed single mother. Things have changed, today she could call book 7 "Harry Potter And The Bucket Of Warm Spit" or "Harry Potter And The Provisional Feasibility Study" if she wanted and no editor would dare make a peep. JKR once said that after she finished book 7 she might rewrite some of the earlier books a bit because she thinks she is a better writer now than she was 10 years ago. If she does that rewrite I am confident she will call book 1 Philosopher's Stone even to those idiot Americans. Eggplant From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Jul 31 09:46:48 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:46:48 -0000 Subject: Snape's Rotten Character (was Re: Eileen Pince) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156222 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" wrote: > > > aussie: > > Could that be a reason Snape and Neville have problems? McGonagall > > knew Neville's gran failed Charms, so was probably in Hogwarts around > > Tom Riddle's time too. Was Neville's gran Eileen's bully? It would add > > greater insult to Snape hearing of Neville's boggart wearing gran's > > dress. > Great theory, but surely Snape's treatment of Neville is purely because of Neville's lack of confidence. Snape looks for weakness in everybody, and if he finds it he will attack that weakness mercilessly. Case 1 - Tonks in HBP (Her patronus has changed due to her unrequited love for Lupin) Case 2 - Bella in HBP (Her doubt that LV has lost confidence in her) IMO, Snape is a thoroughly miserable fellow. He can't stand the way his life has turned out, and therefore wants everyone to feel as miserable as he does. I'm sure we've all met people like that before. The only reason that (IMO) Snape is on the side for good is because he hates LV for some reason. We have seen with Snape's feelings for James and Sirius, that he is not a man who can let go of his hatred easliy. Brothergib From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 31 11:47:16 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:47:16 -0000 Subject: Sectumsempra (was Re: Snape should have kicked James/Siri... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156223 > > >Julie > > > >And, most > > importantly of all, he's FIFTEEN! No fifteen year old boy is going > to exert > > such rational thought and self-control in that situation Potioncat: But, it seems in other situations, lack of control have made spells more extreme--like in charms when Flitwick is knocked over, or pillows fly too wildly. Or in GoF when DD's spell breaks down a door and sends Crouch!Moody across the room. When Harry uses Sectumsempra, Draco is cut wide and deep in several places and blood pours. When Snape used a spell on James, the boy received a small cut. No one seemed to react and the cut appeared to be done with by the time the fight was over. No mention is made of James wiping away blood. It seems as unsurprising and insignificant as a slight nosebleed in a fight. It really is hard to tell if it was the same spell or not. But if it was, it was being controlled. IMO, of course. > Laura: > > So did Snape have to go to help Poppy fix James, it being his > spell? Would that not make the whole encounter even worse than we > can see in the memory we are seeing? Potioncat: It seems to me, the damage was limited and done with by the end of the fight. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 31 11:51:06 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:51:06 -0000 Subject: Other Snape spells? (was Re: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156224 > > Corey: > Does anyone think Snape has any more spells that he's invented? He > might. No one really knows. And happy birthday to both Harry and > Neville! Potioncat: Once upon a time, many list members thought that Snape had invented Wolfsbane Potion. We found out in HBP that he didn't. But it's interesting that he has invented spells and he does have a talent with either healing or countering dark arts. I like the way so many of us get so close, but not quite there. From jamess at climaxgroup.com Mon Jul 31 11:53:07 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:53:07 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B7C@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 156225 I do not believe that DD was necessarily supporting the opinion that Slytherin was inherently bad. He was making a point about Harrys choices being the significant factor, young harry had come to Hogwarts with a lot potential in various directions. We must accept that he had potential to go down a very dark road (above all else He has an unnatural connection to the Dark Lord). Harry having heard what he had about the house system made his choice. It was not about the actual house choice, it was about Harry deep down inside choosing the path of good. I believe it was this that DD was commenting on, not the houses. wynnleaf I agree completely. Further, note that the Slytherins are almost entirely described in negative physical terms. Most people can't help their degree of physical beauty. Since that's mostly true, why are the Slytherins generally described as ugly or very plain, if not to basically say, "being Slytherin is bad?" Further, remember when DD told Harry that it was his choices that were important? But he said that about Harry begging the Sorting Hat not to put him in Slytherin. Yet most kids probably weren't up there on the stool begging to avoid particular houses. DD made it sound, at least on the surface, as though being in Slytherin as a bad "choice," rather than simply the decision of the Hat. The implication was that all those in Slytherins had made a bad choice to even be there. But most of the kids had no choice. After all, in terms of personality and characterstics, Harry *did* fit in Slytherin. It was only because he had heard (falsely) that all the wizards that went bad were from Slytherin, and because he met Draco, that he asked to be somewhere else. If Hagrid had instead said, "All the wizards that went bad were from Slytherin and Gryffindor," would Harry have insisted that he not be in either one? (Um, not that there weren't maybe some from other houses as well.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 12:26:26 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:26:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco AND Philosopher stone In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607310526x11f4bfecga8f9b5395ffe7e4e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156226 Alla: > If House Slytherin is the House,where each and every member supports > the ideology of **purebloods is better than anybody else and > muggleborns and half bloods must die**, then I think that dislike of > House Slytherin is very fair thing to do and does not constitute bias. That is a pretty big "if" to be throwing around with no textual support, though. Certainly not _all_ slytherins support that. Millicent Bulstrode is a halfblood, surely she doesn't think she herself must die. We even have a textual counterexample, of sorts, in Horace Slughorn. Alla: > No, the evil eleven years old is absurd, of course. But eleven years > olds, which minds are already poisoned by such ideology - why not? Having never met them, judging them as such based on nothing but having been sorted into the house is the very _definition_ of prejudice. And why only the first years? We haven't so much as met, say, Daphne Greengrass. On the train Blaise Zabini could have just been "talking the talk", remember, Draco was his audience. IIRC pretty much all we know about Pansy Parkinson is that she is after Draco, and has a "gang of slytherin girls" (Harry's POV). Have we really met anyone in slytherin NOT in harry's year, in either direction? Really, pretty much the ONLY slytherin student we've seen in any depth is Draco. Are we to assume that over one hundred other students (based on even the most conservative population estimates, all slytherin students for six years in either direction) share his ideology and motivations? Alla: > Why does Sorcerer stone sets negative connotations? You mean occult > as in witchcraft? I think that this is the argument based on the theory (which I find _highly_ unlikely) that none of the fundamentalist christians who have been calling for the ban would have so much as opened any of them if not for the word "sorcerer" in the title of one. -- Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 12:31:42 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:31:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback) In-Reply-To: References: <004e01c6b3f2$e7290300$1466400c@Spot> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607310531q4d8a0430o24977a5fab4ebc4f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156227 Carrie: > If you had never heard of the phil stone, Harry Potter and the > Philosopher's Stone sounds like the Rosetta Stone for Sartre and > Kierkegaard. Well, except... how many American children have heard of those? It was just gratuitous marketing. If you subscribe to the theory that the controversy w/ christians calling for the books to be banned, etc, was caused in part by the use of the word "Sorcerer" in the name, it could very well have been deliberate - there is no such thing as bad publicity. -- Random832 From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 31 12:32:13 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:32:13 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156229 eggplant: > You are quite right, I sand corrected. Nevertheless it doesn't seem to > me that Sirius's participation was decisive. zgirnius: >Wynnleaf, it was not James that cast the Impedimenta. I'm responding >to >Eggplant, as he raised the question. wynnleaf Eggplant, notice from zgirnius' post that this shows that James first cast the Expelliarmus before Snape had time to withdraw his wand (James' wand was already out in preparation for attack), and then *Sirius* incapcitated Snape with the Impedimenta. So it's pretty clear that Sirius helped a lot. eggplant I still believe that in a > one on one bare knuckles cage match between James and Snape James > would be the easy victor, at least when they were both 15. wynnleaf There's not a shread of evidence as to which one would have one a fist fight. eggplant, The fact > that James showed not the slightest hint of fear toward Snape > fortifies my theory I believe. wynnleaf Why should he be afraid? We've now established that James had a partner in his attack who did help substantially. Most of the hexes he put on Snape were put on either a wandless incapacitated person, or when he already was holding Snape at wandpoint. What bravery did that take? eggplant > Any General will tell you that the last thing in the world they want > is a fair fight; they want all the advantages, every single one. They > will also tell you that you should never pick on someone bigger than > you, and should never kick an opponent UNLESS they are down. wynnleaf I'm hoping you're joking!!! If your not, this discussion will hardly be productive, as your comment supports bullying and cowardly behavior. In any case, what does what "any general will tell you" have to do with a school time rivalry? I believe that what's practiced on a field of battle, where lives are at stake, is completely different from attacking a person during school without provocation and then continuing to attack that person when he is unable to retaliate. wynnleaf From dark_ally8 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 05:56:14 2006 From: dark_ally8 at yahoo.com (Olia Lukoe) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 06:56:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: Philosopher's stone (was:Significance of missing line/Hurt/Comfort In-Reply-To: <006401c6b44a$29678eb0$916e8156@FAMILY> Message-ID: <20060731055614.83160.qmail@web55708.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156230 Hi. I am a Mongol. I?d never heard the term ?Sorcerer's Stone? before Harry Potter. I have known about Philosopher's Stone since my childhood because it was mentioned in chemistry textbook for 10-years. It was also in school-books for Middle Ages history (high-school) and a lot of children?s fiction books used that myth before JKR. Just read Dumas. And Philosopher's Stone has had nothing with Kant. In Middle Ages ?Philosopher's? meant ?scientific? or ?artificial?. Sorry for my English. D.Ally From lupinista_19 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 05:52:36 2006 From: lupinista_19 at yahoo.com (Febri Dellyawati) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:52:36 -0000 Subject: What does `J` stand For In Remus J. Lupin? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156231 I`m really curious for a very long time about the "J." in Remus J. Lupin. Thank you for answering! Febri From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Mon Jul 31 06:09:52 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 06:09:52 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156232 potioncat wrote: > I'll go so far as to say, that there might be a connection between > Mrs. Longbottom and Snape. That's as far as I'm willing to go. abergoat: Thanks for the welcome, Potioncat! I have to admit I believe the possible connection between Eileen and Hagrid will be of more importance. The connection is supported by JKR's detail that the potions book was 50 years old although we do have to assume the potions book was indeed hers. If Eileen was involved in 'clearing' Hagrid it might even suggest Dumbledore was using the voice of experience when he told Harry and Hermione that the word of 13 year olds is meaningless to the MoM. We have ample evidence that the MoM just likes to place the blame on someone and move on. An investigation isn't what they would have wanted. And an Eileen/Hagrid connection would tidy up Snape's relationship with Hagrid and even more important give Harry a vehicle to learn more about what drives Snape. Potioncat: > As to Snape expecting Harry to be just like James. Well, both > Dumbledore and Snape say that Harry is extraordinarily like James. > I've forgotten if Lupin and Black say it as well. So we can hardly > expect Snape not to expect Harry to be like his father. abergoat: I agree, and Harry IS like his father in many important ways although it was bad of Snape to make that assumption (if he did so) because I suspect that Harry does not have the James traits that Snape hated the most...namely the arrogance and the need to show off. I've seen a nice explanation for Snape and Harry getting off to a bad start because of 1) Harry's grimace of pain when he first sees Snape (if Snape is truly insecure than this would have set his back up) and 2) that Snape establishes control over a first year class by showing them how 'ignorant' they are. Of course Hermione Granger completely ruined Snape's standard demonstration...and he handled it VERY poorly. And of course Snape must blame someone else for any problems... abergoat From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 12:47:51 2006 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:47:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060731124751.18219.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156233 wynnleaf: > There's not a shread of evidence as to which one would have one a > fist fight. Joe: James was an accomplished athlete while Snape's description suits someone who does not get a significant amount of exercise and spends a great deal of time indoors. In general physical condition is everything in a fist fight unless there is a huge size/strength differential. I'm not sure why it is import at all but I have to agree in a physical contest James would have most like stomped Snape. wynnleaf: > Well, at this point all we have to go on is what JKR has revealed. > According to what she's written so far, Snape made up the spells in > the potions book. There's no evidence that anyone else did at this > point. Joe: But we do, well at least we have a hint. I highly doubt that Snape was the first person to use a beazor as a poison cure but it was written in the book. I'm not saying that Snape didn't invent them all. I'm just saying that reference points written in the magin in a textbook shouldn't automatically be assumed to have been invented by the person who's had writting its in. Also I can't remember, does it say for certain that it IS Snape's handwritting? Part of me thinks Hermione's Eileen Prince(his Mum) discovery is at play here. By that I mean that I think his Mum invented or wrote a lot of what is in the text. Just a feeling I suppose. Joe From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 12:53:30 2006 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060731125330.20222.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156234 abergoat wrote: I agree, and Harry IS like his father in many important ways although it was bad of Snape to make that assumption (if he did so) because I suspect that Harry does not have the James traits that Snape hated the most...namely the arrogance and the need to show off. Joe: Am I the only one who thinks that what Snape really disliked about James was how easy it was for James to become popular and well liked? The kind of anger Snape holds on to isn't just dislike, it's jealousy. I mean, i'ts crazy going to end up on Jerry Springer jealousy. I just find it hard to believe that Snape got so mad about a boy showing off when all boys show off. I feel fairly certain Snape did it in Potions classes. Joe From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 31 13:32:27 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:32:27 -0000 Subject: What does `J` stand For In Remus J. Lupin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156235 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Febri Dellyawati" wrote: > > I`m really curious for a very long time about the "J." in Remus J. Lupin. Thank you for answering! Geoff: In an interview on World Book Day 04/03/04, Jo Rowling was asked "What does the 'J' in Remus J Lupin stand for?" Her reply was "John. Boring but true!" The full interview can be accessed on Quick Quotes at the "Leaky Cauldron" website. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 31 13:55:52 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:55:52 -0000 Subject: Philosopher's Stone versus Sorcerer's Stone Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156236 I would like to add a few more thoughts on the Philosopher's Stone/Sorcerer's Stone discussion. I apologise to the House Elves that my thinking strays into the "medium which cannot be named" because I believe there is some useful cross-referencing there. Although, as a Christian, I have little time for alchemical theories especially where people are trying to integrate them with Christian belief, I have met the idea of the Philosopher's Stone many years ago. As various people on the group have remarked, it is not an unknown concept. On the other hand, as I pointed out yesterday, if you enter Sorcerer's Stone into Google, you get 4.9m references and most of them seem to point to Harry. Again, I would agree with some members that the change to `sorcerer' is one of the things which has roused the extreme Christian right. In passing, although I am an evangelical, I do not espouse some of their views. In UK English at least, although the dictionary definitions are the same, there is a subtle difference in the use of `sorcerer' and `wizard'. Had the book been renamed `Harry Potter and the Wizard's Stone', the furore might not have developed. `Sorcerer' carries a cachet of being evil, of being linked with dark magic whereas a wizard can be someone like Gandalf in LOTR or Cadellin in Alan Garner's `Weirdstone of Brisingamen' ? a person on the side of the light. We talk of someone being a `wizard at X' but never a `sorcerer at X'. On balance, I think that the name change was a silly idea anyway. Just with reference to the film, since someone reported that the characters use the term `Sorcerer's Stone' in the US release, it would seem that there must be two versions, at least of the DVDs. My PS DVD has the characters quite definitely using `Philosopher's Stone'. Does this mean that certain lines of dialogue were re-shot for the American version? If so, fhis is interesting, because in my version, I am still irritated by the fact that the sub-titles are in US English! From scarrie5 at verizon.net Mon Jul 31 06:28:30 2006 From: scarrie5 at verizon.net (Carrie) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 06:28:30 -0000 Subject: Birthdays (was: Other Snape spells?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156238 Corey: > ... And happy birthday to both Harry and Neville! Happy Birthday to JKR as well! Carrie From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 14:11:38 2006 From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:11:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Philosopher's stone. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060731141138.17725.qmail@web42205.mail.scd.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156239 Nikkalmati Wrote : > I had never heard of Philosopher's Stone Then eggplant wrote: >I have, a Philosopher's Stone has deep historical associations, a >Sorcerer's Stone has none, zero, zip. The idiot American editors >thought Americas were stupider than Englishman and that's not true. I >think. Peg now: My understanding has always been that the American editors simply thought the word "Philosopher" wouldn't intrigue American kids, and that the word "Sorcerer" was more exciting. Which also doesn't speak well to their opinion of American kids, but I think is a little less obnoxious than the idea that Americans wouldn't understand what a Philosopher's Stone is. I know that I knew of the *concept* of the Philosopher's Stone before HP, but I don't know that I could have put a *name* to it. (It's hard to remember at this point, it's been so long since HP has been a regular part of my everyday life!) My goal in life is to be as good of a person my dog already thinks I am. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 14:22:19 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:22:19 -0000 Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco AND Philosopher stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156240 Alla: > > If House Slytherin is the House,where each and every member supports > > the ideology of **purebloods is better than anybody else and > > muggleborns and half bloods must die**, then I think that dislike of > > House Slytherin is very fair thing to do and does not constitute bias. Random: > That is a pretty big "if" to be throwing around with no textual > support, though. Certainly not _all_ slytherins support that. > Millicent Bulstrode is a halfblood, surely she doesn't think she > herself must die. We even have a textual counterexample, of sorts, in > Horace Slughorn. Alla: Well, that is why it is **If**, you know. :) By the way, Slughorn surely counts as the one who does not think that muggleboms should die, but wasn??t he surprised when Harry says that Hermione is the best and Muggleborn? > Alla: > > No, the evil eleven years old is absurd, of course. But eleven years > > olds, which minds are already poisoned by such ideology - why not? Random: > Having never met them, judging them as such based on nothing but > having been sorted into the house is the very _definition_ of > prejudice. Alla: Eh? You mean I never met them? Well, of course not, but since we had been told that this is one of the criteria based on what they are getting sorted in Slytherin, I think it is a valid one. Random: > And why only the first years? We haven't so much as met, say, Daphne > Greengrass. On the train Blaise Zabini could have just been "talking > the talk", remember, Draco was his audience. IIRC pretty much all we > know about Pansy Parkinson is that she is after Draco, and has a "gang > of slytherin girls" (Harry's POV). Alla: Hehe, yes Daphne Greengrass. You know, I remember her name being thrown at me before HBP came out as the example of possibly good Slytherin. Well, HBP came out and we still did not see anything of hers. Which is not to say that she cannot be good Slytherin, but there is only one book left and I find it rather telling, IMO. How do you know that Blaise was just talking the talk? I think I can just easily say that he was expressing his sincere POV and Pantsy seemed really comfortable talking about service to Dark Lord, doesn' she? Random: > Have we really met anyone in slytherin NOT in harry's year, in either > direction? Really, pretty much the ONLY slytherin student we've seen > in any depth is Draco. Are we to assume that over one hundred other > students (based on even the most conservative population estimates, > all slytherin students for six years in either direction) share his > ideology and motivations? Alla: Well, honestly yes, I think so, we are to assume that. IMO of course. I mean, maybe not all of them, but great deal of them. I mean I understand the argument that since we did not meet many Slytherins, maybe not all of them support the ideology, but I just don't buy it. I can be wrong of course. I think Slytherins we met are meant to be the representatives of that House and we are meant to form an opinion based on them, not on the **name only** characters, whom we know nothing about. Embarassingly, I am drawing a blank early in the morning, but the Slytherin who substituted for Draco in Quidditch in HBP, appears very briefly and still says **mudblood**, didn't he? I think it is meant to show us that even episodic character is very much in favor of purebloodism, the random Slytherin, you know? We supposedly know that Regulus rejected Voldemort hoopsa and we know that Andromeda married a Muggle, but I think that is about it with Slytherins going against party lines so far, no? I mean, we have Snape of course, but I'd say we really cannot be sure what he stands for. But since younger generation is on the front lines now, I think it is very telling that we don't see anybody yet, whether such person or persons exist in Slytherin house. JMO, Alla From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 31 14:26:17 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:26:17 -0000 Subject: Philosopher's stone (was:Significance of missing line/Hurt/Comfort In-Reply-To: <006401c6b44a$29678eb0$916e8156@FAMILY> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156241 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Nikkalmati: > > I had never heard of Philosopher's Stone and probably would have > > been thinking Aristotle, Kant, etc. I suspect the change was > > pretty much on the order of changing skirting to baseboard (where > > does that occur?) or biscuit to cookie. > > > It just UK terms/names in the UK book and USA terms in the USA book. > > Some words that the UK would use, USA might not understand or mean > something different. > I am US born, bred, and educated. I lived in England for 6 months over the summer of 1988 and I can attest to the fact that there are hundreds of differences in our daily vocabularies. While I was there a young lady in the factory I was working at asked me for a "biro". I had to make her repeat herself several times to even figure out that it was "biro" she was saying since I was totally unfamiliar with the word. Then I told her I didn't have one, sorry. Much later I found out that she was asking to borrow the pen she could plainly see clipped to my shirt pocket! I felt very bad then, but I never saw her again to explain and apologise. However, I am very disappointed in the way this has been handled in the HP books. I read books by British authors all the time and in the main we are just expected to deal with vocabulary differences as readers and I have no problem with that. JKR seems to say otherwise but the entire rest of the world understands that the HP series is written for school children and why, oh why, would you spoon feed US children intellectual baby food instead of taking the opportunity to teach them the vocabulary differences? Isn't Scholastic supposed to be in the educational publishing business? What were they thinking? Wouldn't a better approach have been to leave the vocabulary intact and put an English to American glossary in the back of the books? Wouldn't that have been useful for English, Australian, and all other English speaking children around the world as well? I knew that a Philosopher's stone was associated with alchemy long before HP was written and before JKR was born. I am a product of the US educational system. If I could handle it certainly the US children of today could handle it. They seem perfectly bright and inquisitive. It is the editors at Scholastic who seem the dim bulbs to me. Ken From random832 at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 14:47:59 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:47:59 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco AND Philosopher stone In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50607310526x11f4bfecga8f9b5395ffe7e4e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50607310747y3dd494bj9cd61248a270ae5b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156242 Alla: > Eh? You mean I never met them? Well, of course not, but since we had > been told that this is one of the criteria based on what they are > getting sorted in Slytherin, I think it is a valid one. But it's not the _only_ criteria (criterium? *looks it up* ah. criterion.) and there's no reason to think it applies to everyone. And I think that from what we're actually told, the criterion is more one of _being_ pureblood (or at least halfblood, as we certainly have several examples) than believing any ideology. Alla: > I mean I understand the argument that since we did not meet many > Slytherins, maybe not all of them support the ideology, but I just > don't buy it. I can be wrong of course. I think Slytherins we met are > meant to be the representatives of that House They're representatives of those who are most visible to Harry - the "leader" types among his yearmates of that house. There are twelve other years of slytherins (counting next year's first-years) contemporaneous with Harry's time at Hogwarts, many of whom we don't even have names for. What do you mean "meant to be" - they appear so because they're the ones who end up in Harry's path. > and we are meant to form an opinion based on them, They're the ones who stick out - who Harry, and by extension our Narrator, sees. Remember he hasn't had a single harsh word for Blaise Zabini in five books. Don't you think that if he really bought into that pureblood crap (instead of putting on a show for Draco - It wouldn't, after all, be very Slytherin to pointlessly defend one's own beliefs at the cost of losing favor with someone who might well end up being on the winning side), we'd have heard him say "mudblood" once to Hermione's face? His pureblood supremacy ideology is conspicuous by its absence in the first five books, and only visible for one scene in the sixth. And Draco is a powerful figure. Maybe, even if Blaise _does_ agree with him, he only developed that ideology after several years at Hogwarts, rather than having come to hogwarts already indoctrinated. Alla: > not on the **name only** characters, whom we know nothing about. > Embarassingly, I am drawing a blank early in the morning, but the > Slytherin who substituted for Draco in Quidditch in HBP, appears very > briefly and still says **mudblood**, didn't he? Maybe not everyone knows how offensive the term is. It's certainly obvious that the targets themselves have to have it explained to them. If I accept the argument that every slytherin (or even, and i'll agree to this, some of them) have been raised into the ideology, how should they have heard of any _other_ term? -- Random832 From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Mon Jul 31 15:34:52 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:34:52 -0000 Subject: Eileen Prince In-Reply-To: <20060731125330.20222.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156243 > abergoat wrote: > I > suspect that Harry does not have the James traits that Snape hated the > most...namely the arrogance and the need to show off. > > > Joe: Am I the only one who thinks that what Snape really disliked >about James was how easy it was for James to become popular and well >liked? Hmm, do think that you can separate the two? In my opinion James was popular because he thought highly of himself - and since it was based on true talent he drew others to him (although Sirius appears to have been the true leader). So I don't disagree with you, people often hate the traits in others that they wish they had themselves. I'm sure that Lupin was right, at the root of Snape's hatred of the Marauders was jealousy. But popular people have their own form of cruelty so I think there is plenty of blame to go around. But back to Eileen. Have any of the rest of you been intrigued by the vast collection of 'old leather-bound books' at Spinner's End? Old books tend to be expensive and I seriously doubt a Hogwarts salary (even 15 years worth) could buy all those books. I think JKR gave a clue as to Eileen Prince's true house...a sullen expression in a Daily Prophet photograph might make us THINK she is a Slytherin but we'd be wrong. I fell into that trap myself. I'd lay odds that we will find Eileen Prince at the center of the Ravenclaw Horcrux hunt. abergoat From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 15:55:20 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:55:20 -0000 Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco AND Philosopher stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156244 > Alla: > > Eh? You mean I never met them? Well, of course not, but since we had > been told that this is one of the criteria based on what they are > getting sorted in Slytherin, I think it is a valid one. zgirnius: Prejudice of any kind is NOT a canon criterion for Sorting into Slytherin. Being pureblooded is. (Along with cunning, ambition, determination, etc.). A pureblood can no more help being the child of pureblood wizards than a Muggleborn can help being the child of Muggles. And purebloods can be found at all ends of the pureblood supremacy spectrum: extreme racists (the Malfoys, Bellatrix), people who probably have some prejudice they can and do overcome (Horace Slughorn, who seems to be quite fond of the Muggleborn Lily Evans, though he was probably initially surprised by her considerable talent for magic), and people who oppose pureblood prejudice (James Potter, the Weasley family, Sirius Black). Oh, and to the final list, I would add Andromeda Black, a pureblood and Slytherin who married a Muggleborn... From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Mon Jul 31 15:45:54 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:45:54 -0000 Subject: Snape's Rotten Character (was Re: Eileen Pince) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156245 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > The only reason that (IMO) Snape is on the side for good is because he > hates LV for some reason. We have seen with Snape's feelings for James > and Sirius, that he is not a man who can let go of his hatred easliy. I missed this one because of the title change - I hope I can respond to this too even though I just posted on the Eileen topic. What about the reason Snape hates LV so much is because Snape figured out that LV is responsible for something that has been done to Eileen? What if Dumbledore trusts Severus Snape 'completely' because he knows that Snape has been bent on revenge since he was a young man? Revenge for what happened to his mother? Snape doesn't seem like the 'help humanity' type. I bet he went into potions and healing because he was trying to heal his mother. And I bet his mother needs healing because, like Morfin Gaunt and Hepzibah Smith, Eileen Prince had a relic Voldemort wanted. And like Morfin and Hepzibah, Voldemort couldn't kill Eileen outright because he didn't want the trail to lead to him. Tom Riddle didn't kill Morfin at all...and if Eileen Prince IS in need of healing then I don't think that Voldemort has the SLIGHTEST idea that Snape figured out Voldemort was responsible. abergoat From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 31 16:03:28 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:03:28 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: <20060731125330.20222.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156246 > abergoat wrote: > I agree, and Harry IS like his father in many important ways although > it was bad of Snape to make that assumption (if he did so) because I > suspect that Harry does not have the James traits that Snape hated the > most...namely the arrogance and the need to show off. > > Joe: Am I the only one who thinks that what Snape really disliked about James was how easy it was for James to become popular and well liked? The kind of anger Snape holds on to isn't just dislike, it's jealousy. I mean, i'ts crazy going to end up on Jerry Springer jealousy. > > I just find it hard to believe that Snape got so mad about a boy showing off when all boys show off. I feel fairly certain Snape did it in Potions classes. wynnleaf We only have one scene where James and Snape are seen interacting -- only one scene where we see James as a teenager. In that scene, James uses bullying and cowardly actions toward Snape as a way of *showing off.* I think that's important to Snape's view of him. In the Snape's Worst Memory scene, James isn't just playing with the snitch to show off, or messing with his hair. We get to see him in the midst of hexing Snape and taking moments to look over at the girls and see their reaction. I was just reading over this numerous times yesterday, when I wrote up my post on the bullying behavior of James and Sirius in that scene. As I looked at it point by point, one thing that struck me was that James was *using* his treatment of Snape as a way of showing off to the girls, and in particularly Lily. I think this is really crucial to understanding why Snape hated James' "arrogance" so much. It's one thing to watch another boy showing off with the snitch or messing with his hair. Snape might look down on that, or think "how stupid," but I doubt if that would inspire hatred -- it's just not important enough. But if the other boy uses ridiculing you and bullying you in public as a means of showing off -- making you a public exhibition for his entertainment *and* to show the girls what a *cool* guy he is -- well, yeah, I can understand hating someone for that. I'm curious as to why JKR has given us just one big scene with James and that he's sooo awful in the scene. Sure we see a sort of shade of James at the end of GOF, but it's not really even him -- DD says it's not even his ghost. We don't actually get a scene with a likable James. wynnleaf From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 16:14:13 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:14:13 -0000 Subject: Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156247 wynnleaf: > I'm curious as to why JKR has given us just one big scene with James > and that he's sooo awful in the scene. Sure we see a sort of shade of > James at the end of GOF, but it's not really even him -- DD says it's > not even his ghost. We don't actually get a scene with a likable >James. Alla: We don't? I thought the scene of the man facing the Voldemort in hope to defend his wife and son was pretty likeable. But that is just me. And I thought James had several people to speak well of him. I think it means that he had a great deal of likable qualities, not just bad ones. But that is again JMO. Alla From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Jul 31 16:40:42 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:40:42 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060731164042.34334.qmail@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156248 --- dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > > We don't? I thought the scene of the man facing the > Voldemort in hope > to defend his wife and son was pretty likeable. But > that is just me. In and of itself, it does not prove anything. All sorts of really horrible people were known to raise to the defence of their family. Even uncle Vernon tries to protect his wife and son in the face of what he has every reason to belive is a mortal danger. No one has ever said that James (or Sirius) were unlikeable within their own circle, towards the people they have considered a part of their pack. Now, outside of the circle - I have yet to see a shred of evidence. Irene ___________________________________________________________ All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 16:56:48 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:56:48 -0000 Subject: Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: <20060731164042.34334.qmail@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156249 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > No one has ever said that James (or Sirius) were > unlikeable within their own circle, towards the people > they have considered a part of their pack. Now, > outside of the circle - I have yet to see a shred of > evidence. Alla: What is your definition of **their pack** though? If that means everybody but Snape, then sure I agree with you. :) ( and in Sirius case Kreacher and his dear old mom). Seems to me like James and Sirius' pack included a lot of people. Seriously, do people who are likeable to everybody even exist? I am thinking that as long as one tries to treat people nicely, that is all one can do. And not saying that they and Snape tried their best towards each other, but based on that I am not sure how the conclusion follows about their pack, the limited number of people, right? I mean, at least James and Sirius are likeable to **some people**. It seems to me that so far ( as far as we know) they managed to do better in that regard to Snape, who is liked by whom? As far as we know of course. I mean, Dumbledore trusts him, but I am not sure I remember that even Dumbledore ever said that he **likes** Snape ( could be wrong of course). JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 17:34:25 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:34:25 -0000 Subject: Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156250 > wynnleaf: > > > I'm curious as to why JKR has given us just one big scene with James > > and that he's sooo awful in the scene. Sure we see a sort of shade of > > James at the end of GOF, but it's not really even him -- DD says it's > > not even his ghost. We don't actually get a scene with a likable > >James. zgirnius: I would add...yet. (That whole what the narrator chooses to let us see and when discussion springs to mind.) > Alla: > We don't? I thought the scene of the man facing the Voldemort in hope > to defend his wife and son was pretty likeable. But that is just me. zgirnius: I would add rescuing Snape from Lupin to this list. On the other hand... we don't actually see this, or the scene to which you refer. The same can be said for various people who stated that he was likeable. *We* have not seen it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 18:38:24 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:38:24 -0000 Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156251 zeroirregardless wrote: > The most remarkable achievement of the DA was so many students > learning to cast corporeal Patronuses. The fact that one could -- > Harry -- was so remarkable, it was apparently a topic of gossip at the > Ministry of Magic. The fact that a substantial number can, would > probably be considered impossible. > > If DA members repel a mass Dementor attack in Book 7, we could > look back on the DA as vital. > Carol responds: But there was a huge difference. Harry learned to cast a Patronus using a Boggart that took the form of a Dementor, so he not only knew the spell but could cast it even while Dementors were sucking out his happiness (and, of course, he also saw his future self driving away Dementors and knew he could do it). The DA members can cast the spell in the RoR, but they've never used it against even a Boggart Dementor--and no one but Harry has a Dementor Boggart, as far as we know. It's one thing to concentrate on a happy thought to conjure a Patronus when you're in no danger; another matter entirely when you're facing cold and darkness and the terror of having your soul sucked out and the Dementors are feeding on the very happiness required to cast the spell. Maybe the other DA members, at least the core half dozen, will be able to use their Patronuses (Patroni?) to communicate with each other, but I think only Harry can actually use a Patronus to drive away a Dementor. I think they'll have to learn to do it from experience when thy're with him. Either that or Snape's alternate method of dealing with Dementors, which JKR hinted at in HBP but didn't reveal, will come into play. Carol, who thinks we'll hear more from some of the DA members but that they won't be fighting Dementors in book 7 From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 17:35:28 2006 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco AND Philosopher stone In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50607310747y3dd494bj9cd61248a270ae5b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060731173528.54661.qmail@web61315.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156252 Jordan Abel wrote: Jordan: And Draco is a powerful figure. Maybe, even if Blaise _does_ agree with him, he only developed that ideology after several years at Hogwarts, rather than having come to hogwarts already indoctrinated. Joe: How is Draco a powerful figure? I might not be remembering things right but hasn't he failed/been beaten at everything he ever tried except the Vanishing Cabinet? I thought by Book Six that Draco had become a bit of a joke. Sort of a progession of Harry's from silly childhood rivals to real enemies. Joe From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 31 19:14:26 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:14:26 -0000 Subject: Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156253 wynnleaf > > > I'm curious as to why JKR has given us just one big scene with James > > and that he's sooo awful in the scene. Sure we see a sort of shade of > > James at the end of GOF, but it's not really even him -- DD says it's > > not even his ghost. We don't actually get a scene with a likable > >James. > > Alla: > > We don't? I thought the scene of the man facing the Voldemort in hope > to defend his wife and son was pretty likeable. But that is just me. > > And I thought James had several people to speak well of him. I think it > means that he had a great deal of likable qualities, not just bad ones. > > But that is again JMO. > > Alla > wynnleaf Funny how everyone seemed to misunderstand what I meant here (not just you Alla). I didn't mean to say that we don't know anything likable about James, or that no one thought James was likable, or that we don't hear about some likable, or at least worthy, things that James did. What I meant was that it's curious that JKR has only given us this one scene that actually has James in it -- action, dialogue, etc. -- and it's a scene where he comes off as unambiguously a bully, acting in this very cowardly manner by hexing someone without provocation, then hexing and insulting a person already at his mercy. Lily, also in this scene, acts in a way that fits what we already know of her character -- she seems like the kind of person who might be eventually willing to die to save her child. James, on the other hand, really doesn't seem at all like the herioc brave Order member that we assume he was when married to Lily. What's interesting is that JKR chose to give us such a negative scene with James, but has, as yet, given us no positive scenes. -- Note: I'm saying "scenes" here with James actually in the scene, not scenes where other characters relate facts and opinions about James. -- If she wanted to, I'm sure she could have arranged a scene in DD's pensieve that would show James in a positive light. Or she could have possibly shown the Snape's Worst Memory scene with some positive actions or words from James included in it. But she did not do that. I'm just curious as to why. We learn that Hagrid liked James (a big plus for me!), although I'm not completely certain what DD thought of him. The most positive thing I recall DD saying were his comments to Harry at the end of POA when he said that Harry had responded to Pettigrew as James would have and that James wouldn't have killed Pettigrew either. But regardless what various other characters think of James, I'm just curious about what JKR wanted us to think of him. Back before OOTP, I just assumed James was this heroic, very admirable guy with lots of strength of character. That was really shot to pieces when I read the Snape's Worst Memory scene. The emotional impact, for me, was as though I was reading a "Harry At the Mercy of Draco" kind of scenario, with James in the Draco role (not that I thought of Snape like Harry). But the scene was so strong and with such clear bullying and cowardly behavior -- I really wondered what JKR wants us to feel about James? She *tells* us admirable things through the memories of other characters, but she *showed* us a bully. My sense is that she *wanted* us to have some conflicting information on James that would be very difficult to reconcile. Because Harry is the protagonist, we *want* to like his parents and think they were great, especially because I think she wants us to feel for Harry and his need for parents he can feel proud of. I guess what I'm saying is that I think JKR wanted to reader to feel what Harry felt -- so that *we* feel as conflicted about the character as Harry does. Anyway, just my thought... wynnleaf From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 17:51:00 2006 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: <20060731164042.34334.qmail@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060731175100.14330.qmail@web61320.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156254 Irene Mikhlin wrote: Irene: No one has ever said that James (or Sirius) were unlikeable within their own circle, towards the people they have considered a part of their pack. Now, outside of the circle - I have yet to see a shred of evidence. Joe: I might be wrong but in POA doesn't Rosmerta at least sound like she was very fond of both James and Sirius when she is talking to Fudge and McGonagall about when they were all students? Joe From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 17:46:32 2006 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060731174632.93220.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156255 wynnleaf wrote: wynnleaf: I think this is really crucial to understanding why Snape hated James' "arrogance" so much. It's one thing to watch another boy showing off with the snitch or messing with his hair. Snape might look down on that, or think "how stupid," but I doubt if that would inspire hatred -- it's just not important enough. But if the other boy uses ridiculing you and bullying you in public as a means of showing off -- making you a public exhibition for his entertainment *and* to show the girls what a *cool* guy he is -- well, yeah, I can understand hating someone for that. Joe: I know a lot of people aren't going to get this but James Potter was behaving like all most all boys do as they grow up. If you have a son, husband or boyfriend they almost certainly have done something similar in the past. It is classic pack behavior and like it or not teenage boys do behave like that. It is true that those that see themselves as stronger are more likely to do so than those who think of themselves as weak but regardless almost all of them will have done it at some point. It is interesting to note that no other boys interfere in what happens, only Lily Potter. Who doesn't understand that she is only making things worse. I think we see this memory because it shows Snape and James at a crucial juncture. We know that James grows up to be a good and brave man and we know Snape grows up to join the Death Eaters. Perhaps this is just another reinforcement of the whole "It is our choices that make us who we are" theme. Joe --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Mon Jul 31 19:13:10 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:13:10 -0000 Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156256 > Carol, who thinks we'll hear more from some of the DA members but that > they won't be fighting Dementors in book 7 Laura: I think the constant gloominess in HBP of Dementors breeding means quite a few people will have to deal with Dementors. : ( How many months does it take for a little baby evil to grow into big Daddy- sized evil? From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 19:37:21 2006 From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060731193721.59660.qmail@web61324.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156257 wynnleaf wrote: wynnleaf: My sense is that she *wanted* us to have some conflicting information on James that would be very difficult to reconcile. Because Harry is the protagonist, we *want* to like his parents and think they were great, especially because I think she wants us to feel for Harry and his need for parents he can feel proud of. I guess what I'm saying is that I think JKR wanted to reader to feel what Harry felt -- so that *we* feel as conflicted about the character as Harry does. Joe: I think she did it to show he was human. Because we do hear a lot of characters that most readers tend to like and believe say he was a great guy. Hagrid, as you mentioned, liked him and Lupin is still hurt by his death to this day. Most readers are more than likely willing to just take their word for it (as I am) so I don't really neeed to see it. I also think for the most part the reactions to "Snape's worst memory" are totally overblown. What we see happens in a one time vacuum and as I have said before it isn't that bad among boys. In fact it could have been a whole lot worse. Nobody gets through school without a little humiliation and if remember rightly neither James nor Sirius tried to hurt him in anyway. James Potter was just like most boys with the exception that he was a good bit more gifted than most. To me the scene makes him a more believable character than the "super James" Harry initially believed in. Even heroes are allowed a mistake or two. Joe From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Mon Jul 31 19:49:11 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:49:11 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: <20060731174632.93220.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156258 Dang, is anyone interested in Eileen? She's one of my favorite topics because JKR says she loved the title of HBP and that originally HBP was the working title for CoS. I do think this suggests that Eileen will tie into Hagrid's story. Book seven may mirror book 1 - with Hagrid returning as a central character. We seem to have strayed into Lily/James and Snape without dragging Eileen along with us. Any chance I can rekindle interest in her? What about this: In HBP, JKR told us Eileen was captain of a HOGWARTS team (delibrately avoiding her house) and this team was important enough to get in the Daily Prophet. The presence of a picture implies they were participating in an international competition (the Daily Prophet doesn't seem to be interested in Harry's quidditch captaincy - only his tri-wizard champion post). Doesn't this sound like a clue that the woman cowering in Snape's OoP memory was not Eileen? Why would a magical Eileen with the leadership skills to captain an international team cower in front of a MUGGLE husband? Seems unlikely. I bet JKR wanted us to question Harry's assumption that those people were Snape's parents rather than some other relatives. Abergoat From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 31 20:05:59 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:05:59 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: <20060731174632.93220.qmail@web61318.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156259 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin wrote: > > > wynnleaf wrote: > > wynnleaf: > > I think this is really crucial to understanding why Snape hated James' > "arrogance" so much. It's one thing to watch another boy showing off > with the snitch or messing with his hair. Snape might look down on > that, or think "how stupid," but I doubt if that would inspire hatred > -- it's just not important enough. But if the other boy uses > ridiculing you and bullying you in public as a means of showing off -- > making you a public exhibition for his entertainment *and* to show the > girls what a *cool* guy he is -- well, yeah, I can understand hating > someone for that. > > Joe: I know a lot of people aren't going to get this but James Potter was behaving like all most all boys do as they grow up. If you have a son, husband or boyfriend they almost certainly have done something similar in the past. > > It is classic pack behavior and like it or not teenage boys do behave like that. It is true that those that see themselves as stronger are more likely to do so than those who think of themselves > as weak but regardless almost all of them will have done it at some point. wynnleaf I'm not going to disagree with you on that Joe, since I can't speak from personal experience. But I'd like you to clarify your comment a bit. I see the actions of James as very similar to a real life situation where one boy attacks another without provocation, gets his friend to hold the kid down, and hits him repeatedly. That's the physical, real-world equivalent as I see it. Is that the kind of behavior that you meant when you said it was common behavior for boys? While I know that guys can act pretty rough to each other, and I am often amazed at the terrible things boys will *say* to each other, even their friends, I haven't got any evidence that the above degree of bullying behavior is common to all boys. Perhaps I, like Lily, have been kept in the dark as regards this kind of behavior among guys. But at least to date, I can't think of any time my brothers or my son have been involved in this kind of thing. I *have* heard of this kind of thing happening of course, but when my 3 teenagers tell me about this kind of behavior, the way they tell it, it's only certain types of guys that will go to this extreme. My son is in the room while I write this, so I asked him how common it was. According to him, the kind of guy who would actually accost another guy without provocation, have his friend hold him down, and attack him is almost always one of a few types of people (warning for teenage stereotypes) 1. athletic super-jock who thinks he's the greatest and is ticked off 2. unconscionable bully 3. agressive (bad word) who is, well, (edit) really angry. Plenty of guys might *talk* about doing it, but most would not. Plenty of guys will get in fights, but not like I outlined above. Thus proclaimed my teenage son. Of course, this is only the viewpoint of one mid- western US teenager. wynnleaf From muellem at bc.edu Mon Jul 31 20:16:43 2006 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:16:43 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156260 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" wrote: > > The presence of a picture implies they were > participating in an international competition (the Daily Prophet > doesn't seem to be interested in Harry's quidditch captaincy - only > his tri-wizard champion post). Doesn't this sound like a clue that the > woman cowering in Snape's OoP memory was not Eileen? Why would a > magical Eileen with the leadership skills to captain an international > team cower in front of a MUGGLE husband? Seems unlikely. I bet JKR > wanted us to question Harry's assumption that those people were > Snape's parents rather than some other relatives. > colebiancardi: I still think those people were Snape's parents. As far as why would a woman who has a strong character cower in front of her husband - ask any woman who was in an abusive marriage - ask her if her character changed when confronted by her husband and she reacted in a manner that her friends and family would say is out of character for her. I speak from experience. colebiancardi... (love & fear: a deadly combination that, at best, makes us fools) From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 31 20:22:57 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:22:57 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156261 Abergoat > Dang, is anyone interested in Eileen? She's one of my favorite topics > because JKR says she loved the title of HBP and that originally HBP > was the working title for CoS. I do think this suggests that Eileen > will tie into Hagrid's story. Book seven may mirror book 1 - with > Hagrid returning as a central character. wynnleaf I'm a firm believer in "Eileen Prince is Irma Pince (I'm a Prince)" and that Eileen came to Hogwarts at the time Snape became disloyal to LV and started to spy for DD. My theory is that Snape was definitely willing to spy for the Order, but wanted his mother in a safe place just in case he was discovered as a spy. So DD put her into his "wizard protection program" (like his comments to Draco), and hid her as the librarian at Hogwarts. There, she never sees any adults who would recognize her except for the older members of the Hogwarts staff, who are all sworn to secrecy. The one time she goes out in public (DD's funeral), she's covered in a long heavy veil. She's described with similar physical features as Snape and she hates to see someone write in a book (ha, ha, and Snape wrote in her book, but she doesn't know that). Spinners End practically has its own library, leather bound books no less. But most professors I know (and I work at colleges), are really insistent on carrying all their books with them where ever they teach, so I'd think Snape would keep most of his at Hogwarts. Okay, enough of that. I doubt if anyone agrees with me. :) Abergoat > What about this: > In HBP, JKR told us Eileen was captain of a HOGWARTS team (delibrately > avoiding her house) and this team was important enough to get in the > Daily Prophet. wynnleaf Maybe she's a Ravenclaw? Abergoat The presence of a picture implies they were > participating in an international competition (the Daily Prophet > doesn't seem to be interested in Harry's quidditch captaincy - only > his tri-wizard champion post). Doesn't this sound like a clue that the > woman cowering in Snape's OoP memory was not Eileen? Why would a > magical Eileen with the leadership skills to captain an international > team cower in front of a MUGGLE husband? Seems unlikely. I bet JKR > wanted us to question Harry's assumption that those people were > Snape's parents rather than some other relatives. wynnleaf Hm. I think *perhaps* you're assuming that a person who'd be abused by her husband would be an otherwise weak person. But that's not necessarily so. While I don't personally know such situations, I have read a lot about it. From what I understand, the psychological reasons behind why people allow others to abuse them don't necessarily mean that the person is otherwise weak. Harry, for instance, is a pretty strong kid. But he allows several adults to abuse him and doesn't even attempt to stop it. It's probably because of his own homelife, where adults were not people he could trust and he wasn't taught that you could stop adults from abusing you. But my point is that while he is a strong person, he is still abused. wynnleaf From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jul 31 20:25:09 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:25:09 -0000 Subject: Eileen Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156262 Abergoat wrote: > What about this: > In HBP, JKR told us Eileen was captain of a HOGWARTS team (delibrately > avoiding her house) and this team was important enough to get in the > Daily Prophet. Potioncat: Yes, it's clearly an international competition. It's between several un- named schools--the usual suspects, I assume. So, we have the captain of the team at a big competition and she looks sullen. That's strange. Why doesn't she look pleased? Did her team just lose? Did someone hex her? Who is there? What's going on that we don't see? Harry's too disinterested to say anything about the article itself. Gobstones isn't the most exciting of sports it seems. There was a ruckus about it not being covered once (I don't recall the source--a Wizards Card?) Yet everyone seems to play it and even Percy has a set of gobstones. Abergoat: Doesn't this sound like a clue that the > woman cowering in Snape's OoP memory was not Eileen? Why would a > magical Eileen with the leadership skills to captain an international > team cower in front of a MUGGLE husband? Seems unlikely. Potioncat: Well, from what little I know of RL, some of the most amazing people are victims of abuse. However, there is a large group of list members who think this shows it was not Eileen and Tobias in the memory. One strong theory is that it's Eileen and her father. Harry does not identify the girl in the picture as the woman in Snape's memory. But that doesn't mean anything. This is Harry after all and the woman was about 15-20 years older. Someone else has commented that all the books we saw in Spinner's End may have been Eileen's and she could have been a Ravenclaw. I think we see by the very fact that she still has her text books by the time Snape is 11 that she loves books. Snape wasn't born until she was in her mid/late 20s, so she had no real reason to keep them. There is so much we don't know and so much we assume or presume. I don't think it's a given that she was in Slytherin. In fact, I think it's unlikely she was. She had some reason to come into contact with Tobias and to get to know him well enough to fall in love--or to at least agree to marriage. I do wish Hermione had said clearly to us how she knew Tobias was a Muggle. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 20:29:37 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:29:37 -0000 Subject: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156263 > > Joe: I know a lot of people aren't going to get this but James > Potter was behaving like all most all boys do as they grow up. > wynnleaf > I'm not going to disagree with you on that Joe, since I can't speak > from personal experience. But I'd like you to clarify your comment > a bit. I see the actions of James as very similar to a real life > situation where one boy attacks another without provocation, gets > his friend to hold the kid down, and hits him repeatedly. That's > the physical, real-world equivalent as I see it. Is that the kind of > behavior that you meant when you said it was common behavior for > boys? zgirnius: I, too, am interested in Joe's answer here. Having read a lot of the Twins/Mugglebaiting thread, I tend to think that, in addition to the differences about what Dudley deserves, and liking/not liking the Twins, and what consititutes Mugglebaiting, another source of disagreement there was just how people conceptualize magic. (For example, people who think of the toffee as like a Muggle joke shop novelty, vs. people who refer to the toffee as 'poisoned'.) Based on Joe's original post, I don't think he agrees with you in how he views the scene. He refers to Snape as being 'humiliated', but also states that James did not try to 'hurt' him. I would point out that Snape was dropped on his head once, and thrown to the ground at least one other time, and had his mouth washed out with soap, which caused him to gag and choke. All of these are physical (and painful) effects of the magic that was used, so I tend to see it more your way than his. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 19:57:12 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:57:12 -0000 Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156264 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Joe" wrote: > > > Joe: > > Given JKR's work for Amnesty International might this be a metaphor > for authority figures in leading nations ignoring and therefore > giving tacit support for abuse of the powerless in many parts of the > world? > Possibly, and if so she has certainly succeeded, considering the abominable behavior of the adults around this issue. Actually, though, I suspect it's more in the line of she was pressing forward with her outline and just didn't really think of it. JKR seems to move the plot in spurts in the last couple of books. We get hundreds of pages of wheel spinning then relatively brief periods of acceleration where everything else gets dumped to the side so that Point A can connect up with Point B. Unfortunately, as in the case of DD and his speech at the end of OOTP, that kind of thing often ends up short-circuiting character, cutting across some very basic and important issues, and sending all kinds of unintended messages -- particularly if she wants us to take some of her interview remarks (most famously "epitome of goodness," and "very wise man") seriously. Lupinlore, who would be at least faintly amused if the adults didn't act like ignorant and uncaring morons in the last book From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 21:34:46 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:34:46 -0000 Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!. In-Reply-To: <20060731124751.18219.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156265 > >> Joe: > James was an accomplished athlete while Snape's description suits > someone who does not get a significant amount of exercise and > spends a great deal of time indoors. In general physical condition > is everything in a fist fight unless there is a huge size/strength > differential. I'm not sure why it is import at all but I have to > agree in a physical contest James would have most like stomped > Snape. Betsy Hp: Okay, this is sheer speculation, but what the heck, that's what makes it fun. Personally, I think Snape was/is farmer-skinny. You know, looks like he'll blow away in a stiff breeze but able to lift a tractor with one hand. Plus, I'm betting he's insanely scrappy. I think if you wanted to put him down you'd have to put him down *hard* or he'd just pop back up, fists blazing. Part of that is because I think he comes from a really tough neighborhood (based on Spinner's End). And especially as a wizard he'd have stood out as a bit of an oddball, so I think he'd have figured out how to handle himself in a fight. And I'm betting he'd have learned how to fight dirty. Whereas rich and coddled James probably only tussled with friends. And while James was in athletic shape, especially as a pure-blood, I'm not sure he'd really know how to handle himself in an all out, non-magical brawl. So yeah, in a bare-knuckles fight, my money's on the half-blood. Betsy Hp (who, let's not kid ourselves, *always* puts her money on Snape ) From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 22:10:38 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:10:38 -0000 Subject: Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: <20060731193721.59660.qmail@web61324.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156266 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin wrote: >> > wynnleaf wrote: > My sense is that she *wanted* us to have some conflicting > information on James that would be very difficult to reconcile. Joe: > I think she did it to show he was human. Steven1965aaa now: Also, a big part of part of growing up (forgive me please) is realizing and accepting that your parents are not perfect. Up till then Harry has had an idealized vision of his father, in part of course because he has not known his father. I think part of all this is JKR letting Harry grow up past that idealized view (and possibly identifying with Snape a bit). As to people's views on what James did, of course it was wrong, but I think Harry accepted what Lupin and Sirius told him -- a lot of people are jerks at 16, he grew out of it (or something like that, don't have the books here). From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 22:14:52 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:14:52 -0000 Subject: State of the DA / Using Coins as Call to Arms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156267 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Obviously something went wrong. If, of course, the DA was > > supposed to be a step towards the Houses uniting. I think > > that's what Hermione was hoping for, IIRC. > > > > That the DA failed and why it failed I think (hope) will have to > > be faced in book 7. > >>Carol: > I think you've raised an interesting question: did the DA fail or > not? > It depends, doesn't it, on what the objective was? > > I don't think that the DA's purpose was ever to unify the school > houses (all except Slytherin) though it temporarily brought > students from three of the four Houses together. > > >>Carodave: > The DA didn't actually fail. It's purpose was to provide a forum > for learning defense against the dark arts while Dolores Umbridge > was their DADA professor. > > >>zeroirregardless > The most remarkable achievement of the DA was so many students > learning to cast corporeal Patronuses. > > >>a_svirn: > I don't see it. Hermione stated her intentions quite clearly. She > wanted to study the real stuff "not the rubbish that Umbridge is > doing with us" because a) she wanted to pass her DADA OWL and b) > because she wanted to "be properly trained in defence" on account > of Lord Voldemort being back. She never said anything about > uniting the Houses neither in the Hog's Head, nor later. And not a > single Slytherin was invited. Betsy Hp: Oops! You all are right. The DA wasn't meant to unite the houses at all. It was just a DADA study group, meant to help the students learn how to defend themselves and also help them pass their OWLs. And Harry did a bang up job of it, I thought. I think I was thinking back to pre-HBP speculation about the future of the DA when it was thought that it was a baby step towards house unity. But yes, nothing in OotP actually stated that this was the case, and of course HBP shot any such idea to pieces. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156177 > >>DA Jones: > I think Betsy you stumbled onto my favorite topic. But here is my > question: > Do we know for sure that only Neville or Luna responded to > Hermione's call or that she even used the coins? > > There is a strong possiblilty that Ron and Hermione never used the > coins. > Betsy Hp: I think you raise an interesting idea, DA Jones. Because if Hermione was through with the DA (and why wouldn't she have been?), would she have even kept up with her coin? And would she have trusted *all* of the DA members? The train ride to Hogwarts showed us that the DA members weren't a tight group anymore. And it was the inner-circle that helped in the fight in the end. (All of those who fought at the DoM, IIRC.) And in the end it was probably good that it was just a small group fighting, what with the small supply of Felix juice. So yeah, I'll go with the coins not being used. At the moment anyway. Betsy Hp From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jul 31 22:39:52 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:39:52 EDT Subject: Sectumsempra (was Re: Snape should have kicked James/Siri... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156268 \ > > >Julie > > > >And, most > > importantly of all, he's FIFTEEN! No fifteen year old boy is going > to exert > > such rational thought and self-control in that situation Potioncat: But, it seems in other situations, lack of control have made spells more extreme--like in charms when Flitwick is knocked over, or pillows fly too wildly. Or in GoF when DD's spell breaks down a door and sends Crouch!Moody across the room. When Harry uses Sectumsempra, Draco is cut wide and deep in several places and blood pours. When Snape used a spell on James, the boy received a small cut. No one seemed to react and the cut appeared to be done with by the time the fight was over. No mention is made of James wiping away blood. It seems as unsurprising and insignificant as a slight nosebleed in a fight. It really is hard to tell if it was the same spell or not. But if it was, it was being controlled. IMO, of course. Julie: It's true that lack of control often seems to make spells more extreme. I said in my post that Snape may have still be weakened- not just physically but magically--by Sirius's impedimenta spell. In that case he wasn't *able* to cast a full force Sectumsempra, and the spell did nothing more than cut James on the cheek. I guess it boils down to these three possibilities: 1. The spell Snape used was not Sectumsempra but a lesser spell that wasn't capable of causing more than minor damage. 2. Snape cast a Sectumsempra, but deliberately controlled it to cause less damage, because he didn't want to get in trouble, because he's at heart a humanitarian, or for whatever other reason. 3. Snape cast a Sectumsempra but his magic was impaired by the Impedimenta spell, thus the resulting spell was very weak. Really, it could be any of the three, but to me #2 seems the least likely given Snape's disposition and inability to control his rage/hate once it surfaces, even as a nearly 40 year old adult. All IMO, Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 22:45:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:45:52 -0000 Subject: Eileen Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156269 abergoat wrote: > > Dang, is anyone interested in Eileen? She's one of my favorite topics because JKR says she loved the title of HBP and that originally HBP was the working title for CoS. I do think this suggests that Eileen > will tie into Hagrid's story. Book seven may mirror book 1 - with > Hagrid returning as a central character. > > > Why would a > magical Eileen with the leadership skills to captain an international team cower in front of a MUGGLE husband? Seems unlikely. I bet JKR wanted us to question Harry's assumption that those people were Snape's parents rather than some other relatives. Carol responds: While I agree that Eileen wouldn't cower in front of a Muggle husband and that we may be expected to question Harry's assumption that the people in the memory are Severus's parents (wouldn't Harry have noticed that the man was dressed as a Muggle if he were Tobias?), I've always believed that the hook-nosed man in the memory is more likely to be Eileen's father, Grandpa Prince, than Tobias. I can't see young Severus coming to school knowing more hexes than most seventh years if he had a forceful, even cruel, Muggle father dominating his mother and preventing hier from teaching the child magic (or him from learning it on his own). IMO, something happened early on to get Tobias out of the picture and that Eileen perhaps moved in with her parents. It seems that young Severus identified with that side of the family even if the "pureblood Princes" rejected the precocious little half-blood. (Why else give himself that name?) I think Eileen has essentially served her purpose as a red herring (Snape's talents in both Potions and DADA; his claiming both the nickname and the invention of the spells; and the handwriting clues in OoP and HBP all indicate to me that the book is indeed his, along with the bezoar comment, the Potions hints, and the invented spells. If any of the comments are someone else's, all the beautiful irony of Harry unwittingly learning from and identifying with the young Severus Snape is spoiled--along with the irony of his claiming credit for Sevvy's work in Potions class). Maybe the mutual love of Eileen and her son will prove important in Book 7, but I highly doubt that *she's* responsible for any of the potions hints or spells, all of which are in the same cramped handwriting as the notation "This book belongs to the Half-Blood Prince," which in turn matches the description of Teen!Snape's handwriting in the Pensieve memory in OoP (which otherwise need not have been described). But I have trouble understanding (even though I've read the interview in which JKR made the comment) how the plot of HBP could have been used for CoS. Was "Half-Blood Prince" originally a nickname for Voldemort, which she later assigned to Snape? surely she would have had twelve-year-old Harry finding out that much about Teen!Snape (finding Sectumsempra in his second-year Potions book and using it on Draco when both of them are twelve years old???) And obviously, Snape, regardless of his loyalties, would not have killed Dumbledore in Book 2, which would have meant closing down the school in Harry's third year and otherwise generally ruined the slowly unfolding main plot. And the encounter with the HBP's book would have worked rather oddly in connection with Ginny's interaction with the diary. I'm completely thrown by this particular piece of information, frankly. Does anyone have any ideas how the HBP plot could have been interwoven with the Chamber of Secrets/diary/Basilisk plot? Carol, wondering how many chapters of Book 2 JKR drafted before she realized that the HBP elements didn't belong there From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 23:03:20 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:03:20 -0000 Subject: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156270 > >>Alla: > > What I was trying to say to Betsy is that I don't see > **hurt/comfort** as a technique ( but again, I am ready to stay > corrected on it). > Betsy Hp: I don't think it's a specific *literary* technique (all you English teachers and editors out there, feel free to correct me ) but it's definitely a *story-telling* technique. And it's one that's as old as the hills. You show how macho and manly your hero is by showing his grace under pressure; his strength and endurance under tough physical strain or crushing psychological strain. (I believe the "hurt/comfort" moniker came around with fanfic, to help designate the sort of fiction that *really* turned the screws on the hero.) Here's Elkins defining "hurt/comfort", so we know exactly what she was referring to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39083 > > What "Hurt-Comfort" comes down to is the fact that women are just > plain Bent, and adolescent girls even more so. They *like* to see > male characters suffer, so long as they do so with some degree of > manly dignity, because it turns them on. Male vulnerability garners > their sympathy, and it also kind of excites them. They like > it. No one ever wants to 'fess up to this, but it's true. Just look > at the characters most often fixated upon as drool-worthy by JKR's > adult female readers, will you? Lupin. Sirius. Snape. > We all know what's *really* going on there, don't we? Are we all > grown-up enough to admit it? All three of those characters have > erotic appeal primarily because they all *suffer* so much. > Betsy Hp: Harking back to my Feminist Literature course in college, part of the requirement for the hero in Romance novels (which are *highly* formulaic) is that the hero suffer. For the above reason. It helped insure that the reader found him attractive. Whether JKR instinctually realizes it, or whether she intellectually realizes it, she *does* put her heroes through hurt/comfort type scenes. And if the person being tortured is *not* supposed to come across well, JKR (as Elkins pointed out) carefully undercuts them. She doesn't do that with Draco. And pointing that out is an intellectual form of analysis, since it comes down to word choice and character reaction. All of which an author has complete control over. > >>Alla: > It **may** match the description as you said, but I am not sure > that writer consciously uses it, but more like us fans see the > **choice of words** where we want to see it,where we want to > accept the character as sympathetic. > That is where IMO our emotions may come in too, to make us > **look** for something in the text to justify us seeing the > character as sympathetic, where the author may or may not intend > it. Betsy Hp: I concede that it's the emotional reading that can send someone looking for intellectual backup. i.e. "I like Draco. Am I supposed to like Draco? On the surface it seems like I shouldn't, but let's take a closer look." But it's an intellectual analysis that points out the places where JKR is ambiguous. i.e. "Ooh, *this* is interesting. Why doesn't JKR have Draco behaving like a big giant sissy when he's under extreme duress? Could she be playing a game with the reader, that clever little minx?" And then you post your findings to HPfGU's and massive discussions occur. > >>Magpie: > The fans may or may not react a certain way to certain words, but > the author is always choosing the words she wants to choose. It's > true that we all are going to lean towards our own instinctive > reaction to a character, but whether the words are there are not > is objective. > Betsy Hp: And honestly, I think it's *because* JKR chooses to take an ambiguous path that we have so much fodder for intellectual discussion. If, for example, Dudley shoved Harry into the wall and tore a package of ton-tongue toffees out of Harry's hand, it would be a lot harder to argue the muggle-baiting side. That we have Dudley slinking about in fear makes such discussions possible. (On the flip side, if Dudley had apologized to Harry and tried very hard to make Harry's life easier, it would be harder to argue the "he derserved it" line.) That JKR has been ambiguous with Draco (giving him hurt/comfort scenes usually reserved for the hero, for example) is right there in the text. So it's very possible to analyze it, intellectually. Betsy Hp From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 23:08:39 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:08:39 -0000 Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156271 > Carol wrote: > I'm completely thrown by this particular piece of information, > frankly. Does anyone have any ideas how the HBP plot could have been > interwoven with the Chamber of Secrets/diary/Basilisk plot? Goddlefrood suggests: When JKR informed us all that she had removed all traces of the HBP storyline from CoS it struck me that perhaps the plot of the series had changed around without actually being altered. That is the order of events was changed. I'm afraid I have to say that I do not think Dumbledore was ever intended to have been killed off in book 2 nor do I think the Advanced Potions book was to have made its entrance that early. The basic plot element that is discovered in HBP is the existence of LV's cache of Horcruxes. This is what I think JKR meant in that she would have introduced us to Horcruxes in Cos (wehich would have been called HBP but for the alteration of the sequence of events), and part of the revelation originally was to have come from the HBP himself (leaving us in less doubt as to his loyalties). After all, as we now know the diary was a Horcrux container. Had the Horcruxes been introduced so early it would have made no sense that a hunt for the others did not start earlier than it has. In fact four books later it would be quite plausible that all Horcruxes had been located and neutralised / destroyed. Perhaps it would have made for a far less interesting series and if I am anywhere near correct then the tension in the series would not have been so easily sustainable by Ms. Rowling as it has been. Goddlefrood who is glad Horcruxes were not introduced earlier and reminds list members that CoS was only her second published work. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Jul 31 23:13:38 2006 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:13:38 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44CE8EA2.10503@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 156272 dumbledore11214 wrote: > > Alla: > > What is your definition of **their pack** though? The Marauders, obviously. Plus maybe the Gryffindor, to a lesser degree. Maybe James confined his bullying to outside of his own house. That's at school. A "grown-up" Sirius cares for Harry and to a lesser degree, Harry's friends. > If that means > everybody but Snape, then sure I agree with you. :) ( and in Sirius > case Kreacher and his dear old mom). Oh, let's continue the list, why not? And Mrs. Weasley, and Ron (before he becomes a pack member), and anyone who stood between him and Peter, and even Harry himself, the moment he stopped playing by what Sirius considered the rules of the pack. > > Seems to me like James and Sirius' pack included a lot of people. > Seriously, do people who are likeable to everybody even exist? I didn't I measure them against the "likeable to everybody" standard, it's an impossible one, obviously. But against "would I like to be anywhere near them at school"? They fail miserably. They are exactly the sort of people to make a life of a quiet, introverted child into a hell. Aside here - lot's of people (not you) seem to bring the argument lately "all the teenagers do that". I can't accept it. It's a bully's argument. I'm very sorry, but I'm not going to mince my words. It's a former bully's way of justifying it to himself - "but everybody did it". Not true. > I am > thinking that as long as one tries to treat people nicely, that is > all one can do. And not saying that they and Snape tried their best > towards each other, but based on that I am not sure how the > conclusion follows about their pack, the limited number of people, > right? Yes, that's right. The limited number of people, not including those James apparently hexed at will. They couldn't have all been Snape. :-) > I mean, at least James and Sirius are likeable to **some people**. It > seems to me that so far ( as far as we know) they managed to do > better in that regard to Snape, who is liked by whom? As far as we > know of course. What's Snape's got to do with it? Sure, James and Sirius were both more popular at school than he was, no one is trying to argue otherwise. Irene From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 31 23:44:41 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:44:41 -0000 Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 156273 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > > zeroirregardless: > > > If DA members repel a mass Dementor attack in Book 7, we could > > look back on the DA as vital. > > Julie: > > Though if the DA members specifically use Patronuses to repel > Dementors, you may be right. Especially if this turns out to be > the most effective method of dealing with those soul-sucking > monsters. > > Julie, who really, *really* wants to know Snape's method of > repelling Dementors, and is hoping to find out in Book 7. > Mike now: Occlumency. I'll bet that's what Snape thinks works better against dementors. No need to conjure a *very* happy thought. Saves you from their draining your energy and allows you to keep your situational awareness. I'm sure that's what Voldemort does when he's around them, he doesn't want to drive them away, he wants to plot with them. If the dementors do become a big problem, and IMHO they will play a big role in book 7, then just learning how to cast a patronus charm should give the ex-DA kids a big head start. So I'm with you zeroirregardless. But I'm also not too sure how much face time the non-Gryff's are going to get (other than Luna, I hope, please Jo :>)